DOCSLIB.ORG

Reconsidering the Evidence That Systematic Phonics Is More Effective Than

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reconsidering the Evidence That Systematic Phonics Is More Effective Than Running head: SYSTEMATIC PHONICS 1 Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction Jeffrey S. Bowers University of Bristol Author Note: Jeffrey S. Bowers, School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol. I would like to thank Patricia Bowers, Peter Bowers, Danielle Colenbrander, Rebecca Marsh, Kathy Rastle, Robert Ross, and Gail Venable for comments on previous drafts and Abla Hatherell for help on compiling the data for Figures 2-3. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jeffrey S Bowers, School of Experimental Psychology, 12a Priory Road, Bristol, BS8-1TU. Email j.bow- [email protected] Personal website: https://jeffbowers.blogs.ilrt.org/research/ SYSTEMATIC PHONICS 2 Abstract There is a widespread consensus in the research community that reading instruction in Eng- lish should first systematically teach children letter (grapheme) to sound (phoneme) corre- spondences rather than meaning-based reading approaches such as whole language instruc- tion. That is, initial reading instruction should emphasize systematic phonics. In this system- atic review I show this conclusion is not justified. First, I review and critique experimental studies that have assessed the efficacy of systematic phonics as summarized in 12 meta-anal- yses and two government reports. Not only are the results and conclusions of these reports often mischaracterized in the literature, there are serious flaws in analyses that undermine the conclusions that are drawn. Second, I review non-experimental studies have been used to support the conclusion that systematic phonics is most effective. Again, I show the conclu- sions are not justified. These findings should not be taken as an argument in support of whole language and related methods, but rather, highlight the need for alternative approaches to reading instruction. Third, I consider why the scientific consensus in support of systematic phonics is so at odds with the data, and briefly outline an alternative approach to reading in- struction called Structured Word Inquiry (SWI). SWI takes key insights from both system- atic phonics and whole language, but goes beyond either approach by teaching children the logic of their writing system. SYSTEMATIC PHONICS 3 Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction There is a widespread consensus in the research community that early reading instruc- tion in English should emphasize systematic phonics. That is, initial reading instruction should explicitly and systematically teach letter (grapheme) to sound (phoneme) correspond- ences before focusing on the meaning of written words in isolation and in text. This contrasts with the main alternative method called whole language in which children are encouraged to focus on the meanings of words embedded in meaningful text, and where letter-sound corre- spondences are only taught incidentally when needed (Moats, 2000). Within the psychologi- cal research community, the “Reading Wars” (Pearson, 2004) that pitted whole language and phonics is largely settled – systematic phonics is claimed to be more effective. Indeed, it is widely claimed that systematic phonics is better than all alternative methods of reading in- struction. The evidence for this conclusion comes from various sources, including government panels that assessed the effectiveness of different approaches to reading instruction in English (e.g., the US National Reading Panel, 2000; a review commissioned by the English govern- ment, Rose, 2006), multiple systematic reviews of experimental research, as well as non-ex- perimental studies that have tracked progress of students in England since the requirement to teach systematic phonics in state schools. The results are claimed to be clear-cut. For exam- ple, in his review for the English government, Sir Jim Rose writes: Having considered a wide range of evidence, the review has concluded that the case for systematic phonic work is overwhelming …” (Rose, 2006, p. 20). Many of the most prominent researchers reach similarly strong conclusions. In his re- cent book on reading entitled “Reading at the Speed of Sight: How We Read, Why So Many Can’t, and What Can Be Done About It”, Mark Seidenberg (2017) writes: The phonological pathway requires knowing how print relates to sound, the focus on “phonics” instruction… For reading scientists the evidence that the phonological pathway is used in reading and especially important in beginning reading is about as close to conclusive as research on complex human behavior can get. (p. 124) Similarly, in his book entitled “Raising Kids Who Read: What Parents and Teachers Can Do”, Daniel Willingham (2017) writes: … there are few topics in educational psychology that have been more thor- oughly studied, and for which the data are clearer… it’s clear that virtually all kids benefit from explicit instruction in the [letter-sound] code, and that such instruction is crucial for children who come to school with weak oral language skills. The cognitive neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene, author of the best-selling book “Reading in the Brain: The New Science of How We Read”, writes: SYSTEMATIC PHONICS 4 It should be clear that I am advocating here a strong ‘phonics’ approach to teaching, and against a whole-word or whole-language approach… theoreti- cal and laboratory-based arguments converge with school-based studies that prove the inferiority of the whole-word approach in bringing about fast im- provements in reading acquisition. (Dehaene, 2011, p. 26). Countless quotes to this effect could have been included. Importantly, this strong consensus has resulted in important policy changes in Eng- land and US. Based on the Rose (2006) review, systematic phonics became a legal require- ment in state-funded primary schools in England since 2007, and in to ensure compliance, all children (ages 5-6) complete a national “phonics screen” since 2012 that measures how well they can sound out a set of words and meaningless pseudowords. Similarly, based on the rec- ommendations of the National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000), systematic phonics instruction was included in the Common Core State Standards Initiative in the US (http:// www.corestandards.org/). The Thomas Fordham Foundation concluded that the NRP docu- ment is the third most influential policy work in US education history (Swanson & Barlage, 2006). Nevertheless, despite this strong consensus, I will show that there is no evidence that systematic phonics is better than the main alternative method used in schools, namely, whole language and balanced literacy. Importantly, this should not be taken as an argument in sup- port of these alternative methods, but rather, it should be taken as evidence that all the current methods used in schools are far from idea. Once this is understood, my hope is that research- ers and politicians will be more motivated to consider alternative methods. Structure of Paper The remainder of the paper is organized in four main sections. First, I review the most common methods of reading instruction. There are some points of overlap between the alternative methods, but a commitment to systematic phonics entails some specific claims about what constitutes effective early reading instruction. Second, I explore the experimental evidence taken to support of systematic phonics. The majority of this section is devoted to a detailed review of the existing meta-analyses that assess the efficacy of systematic phonics under a range of conditions, including for beginning readers and children with reading diffi- culties. The conclusion from this review is simple: There is no evidence that systematic phon- ics is better than the most common alternative methods used in schools. I finish this section by briefly consider findings from educational neuroscience taken to support systematic phon- ics, and again, show the conclusions are unjustified. Third, I review non-experimental re- search that has assessed the impact of requiring systematic phonics in all English state schools since 2007. Again, the findings provide no evidence that systematic phonics has im- proved reading. Fourth, I briefly outline one reason why so many researchers have endorsed an unjustified conclusion, and outline an alternative approach that is consistent with the cur- rent experimental and non-experimental research. What is Systematic Phonics and What are the Main Alternatives? All forms of reading instruction are motivated by one or more of the following facts: (1) written words have pronunciations, (2) written words have a meaning, (3) words are com- SYSTEMATIC PHONICS 5 posed of parts, including letters and morphemes (4) written words tend to occur in meaning- ful text, and (5) the ultimate goal of reading is to extract meaning from text. Different forms of instruction emphasize some of these points and down-play or ignore others, but there is nevertheless some overlap between different methods, and this complicates the task of com- paring methods. For example, whole language instruction focuses on understanding words in the context of text, but it also includes some degree of phonics (e.g., Moats, 2000), and this has implications for how the meta-analyses described below can be interpreted. A further complication is that it is widely claimed that systematic phonics should be embedded in a broader literacy curriculum. For instance, the NRP (2000) emphasizes that systematic phon- ics should
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Local Literacy Plan Read Well by Third Grade
    April 2018 Bemidji Area Schools Local Literacy Plan Read Well by Third Grade Bemidji School District #0031-01 502 Minnesota Ave. NW Bemidji, MN 56601 Ph. 218-333-3100 Literacy Goals and Needs Assessment Kindergarten Goals: 1. Kindergarten students will improve their overall Mean RIT score from 140.3 in Fall 2017 to 158.1 in Spring 2018 as measured by NWEA MAP. 2. By May of 2018, 75 % of kindergarten students will correctly read at least 80 % of the words on the Kindergarten Sight Word Checklist (Houghton Mifflin high-frequency words) within 3 seconds when presented in isolation. Kindergarten Data 1. Letter Sound Fluency: In 2016–2017, the following percentages of kindergarten students met the AIMSweb benchmark target (Tier 1). Scores significantly discrepant (below 60% at Tier I) from the norm are shown in red: Student Group Fall 2016 Winter 2017 Spring 2017 All Students 57.0% 59.0% 64.0% American Indian Students 40.4% 45.4% 53.1% White Students 60.7% 62.4% 66.5% Students Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch 47.0% 49.0% 53.0% Students Not Receiving Free/Reduced Lunch 62.6% 66.1% 71.3% Special Education Students 59.2% 62.0% 55.5% General Education Students 56.3% 58.6% 64.6% ● If the curriculum and core instruction are effective, at least 80% of students should be meeting the target. Data over the past three years indicates that students are not achieving at expected levels in letter sound fluency. 2. 2017-2018 MAP Reading RIT Scores: The table below indicates the average MAP RIT Scores for Fall, Winter, and Spring 2017-2018 for all kindergarteners.
    [Show full text]
  • Beginning Reading: Influences on Policy in the United
    BEGINNING READING: INFLUENCES ON POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND 1998-2010 A Dissertation Submitted to the College of Education of Aurora University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education by Elizabeth Robins April 2010 Beginning Reading: Influences on Policy in the United States and England 1998-2010 by Elizabeth Robins [email protected] Committee members: Ronald Banaszak, Chair Carla Brown, Member Deborah Brotcke, Member Abstract The study investigated the divergence in beginning reading methods between the United States (US) and England from 1998 to 2010. Researchers, policy makers, and publishers were interviewed to explore their knowledge and perceptions concerning how literacy policy was determined. The first three of twelve findings showed that despite the challenges inherent in the political sphere, both governments were driven by low literacy rates to seek greater involvement in literacy education. The intervention was determined by its structure: a central parliamentary system in England, and a federal system of state rights in the US. Three further research-related findings revealed the uneasy relationship existing between policy makers and researchers. Political expediency, the speed of decision making and ideology i also helped shape literacy policy. Secondly, research is viewed differently in each nation. Peer- reviewed, scientifically-based research supporting systematic phonics prevailed in the US, whereas in England additional and more eclectic sources were also included. Thirdly, research showed that educator training in beginning reading was more pervasive and effective in England than the US. English stakeholders proved more knowledgeable about research in the US, whereas little is known about the synthetic phonics approach currently used in England.
    [Show full text]
  • Janet and John: Here We Go Free Download
    JANET AND JOHN: HERE WE GO FREE DOWNLOAD Mabel O'Donnell,Rona Munro | 40 pages | 03 Sep 2007 | Summersdale Publishers | 9781840246131 | English | Chichester, United Kingdom Janet and John Series Toral Taank rated it it was amazing Nov 29, All of our paper waste is recycled and turned into corrugated cardboard. Doesn't post to Germany See details. Visit my eBay shop. Help Learn to edit Community portal Recent changes Upload file. Shelves: beginner-readersfemale-author-or- illustrator. Hardcover40 pages. Reminiscing Read these as a child, Janet and John: Here We Go use with my Grandbabies X Previous image. Books by Mabel O'Donnell. No doubt, Janet and John: Here We Go critics will carp at the daringly minimalist plot and character de In a recent threadsome people stated their objections to literature which fails in its duty to be gender-balanced. Please enter a number less than or equal to Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Watch this item Unwatch. Novels portal Children's literature portal. Janet and John: Here We Go O'Donnell and Rona Munro. Ronne Randall. Learning to read. Inas part of a trend in publishing nostalgic facsimiles of old favourites, Summersdale Publishers reissued two of the original Janet and John books, Here We Go and Off to Play. Analytical phonics Basal reader Guided reading Independent reading Literature circle Phonics Reciprocal teaching Structured word inquiry Synthetic phonics Whole language. We offer great value books on a wide range of subjects and we have grown steadily to become one of the UK's leading retailers of second-hand books.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    1 Introduction Phonics instruction has long been a controversial matter. Emans (1968) points out that the emphasis on phonics instruction has changed several times over the past two centuries. Instruction has shifted from one extreme—no phonics instruction— to the other—phonics instruction as the major method of word-recognition instruction—and back again. Emans also points out that “each time that phonics has been returned to the classroom, it usually has been revised into something quite different from what it was when it was discarded” (p. 607 ). Currently, most beginning reading programs include a significant component of phonics instruc- tion. This is especially true since the implementation of policies related to the No Child Left Behind Act and recommendations by the National Reading Panel (2000) for the use of both instruction and assessments related to explicit pho- nics instruction. It is also likely that the U.S. Department of Education’s initiative Race to the Top, funded as part of the Education Recovery Act of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (AARA), will continue to view phonics instruction as an integral component and focus of reading instruction. Phonics, however, is not the cure-all for reading ills that some believe it to be. Rudolph Flesch’s book Why Johnny Can’t Read (1955), although it did bring the phonics debate to the attention of the public, typifies the kind of literature that takes a naive approach to a complex problem. As Heilman (1981) points out, “Flesch’s suggestions for teaching were quite primitive, consisting pri- marily of lists of words each presenting different letter-sound patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • The End of Illiteracy?
    The End of Illiteracy? The Holy Grail of Clackmannanshire TOM BURKARD CENTRE FOR POLICY STUDIES 57 Tufton Street London SW1P 3QL 1999 THE AUTHOR Tom Burkard is the Secretary of the Promethean Trust and has published several articles on how children learn to read. He contributed to the 1997 Daily Telegraph Schools Guide, and is a member of the NASUWT. His main academic interest is the interface between reading theory and classroom practice. His own remedial programme, recently featured in the Dyslexia Review, achieved outstanding results at Costessey High School in Norwich. His last Centre for Policy Study pamphlet, Reading Fever: Why phonics must come first (written with Martin Turner in 1996) proved instrumental in determining important issues in the National Curriculum for teacher training colleges. Acknowledgements Support towards research for this Study was given by the Institute for Policy Research. The Centre for Policy Studies never expresses a corporate view in any of its publications. Contributions are chosen for their independence of thought and cogency of argument. ISBN No. 1 897969 87 2 Centre for Policy Studies, March 1999 Printed by The Chameleon Press, 5 - 25 Burr Road, London SW18 CONTENTS Summary 1. Introduction 1 2. A brief history of the ‘reading wars’ 4 3. A comparison of analytic and synthetic phonics 9 4. Problems with the National Literacy Strategy 12 5. The success of synthetic phonics 17 6. Introducing synthetic phonics into the classroom 20 7. Recommendations 22 Appendix A: Problems with SATs 25 Appendix B: A summary of recent research on analytic phonics 27 Appendix C: Research on the effectiveness of synthetic phonics 32 SUMMARY The Government’s recognition of the gravity of the problem of illiteracy in Britain is welcome.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Writing: an Exploration of Literacy Opportunities Billie J
    Early Writing Opportunities Early Writing: An Exploration of Literacy Opportunities Billie J. Askew, Texas Woman’s University Dianne Frasier, Harris County Department of Education and Texas Woman’s University Abstract Early writing experiences provide children with instances in which they may learn the processes and concepts involved in getting meaning- ful messages into print. This study examined the opportunities low- progress first-grade children had in learning to use strategies while writ- ing a brief message in daily interaction with a Reading Recovery teacher. Specifically, three strategies for writing words were investigat- ed: (a) writing known words, (b) analyzing new words by hearing and recording sounds in words, and (c) analyzing new words through analo- gy with known words. Eighty-two Reading Recovery children from eight states were the subjects for this study. Data were collected from the children’s writing books, writing vocabulary charts, records of text reading, and the teachers’daily lesson records. Analyses demonstrated that low-progress children acquire a considerable amount of knowledge about words, about letters/letter clusters and their sounds, and about the orthography of the language in a relatively short period of time. Limitations and implications of this study are discussed. Writing involves a complex series of actions. Children have to think of a message and hold it in the mind. Then they have to think of the first word and how to start it, remember each letter form and its features, and manually reproduce the word letter by letter. Having written that first word (or an approximation), the child must go back to the whole message, retrieve it, and think of the next word.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Issues in Phonics Instruction. Hempenstall, K
    Some Issues in Phonics Instruction. Hempenstall, K. (No date). Some issues in phonics instruction. Education News 26/2/2001. [On-line]. Available: http://www.educationnews.org/some_issues_in_phonics_instructi.htm There are essentially two approaches to teaching phonics that influence what is taught: implicit and explicit phonics instruction. What is the difference? In an explicit (synthetic) program, students will learn the associations between the letters and their sounds. This may comprise showing students the graphemes and teaching them the sounds that correspond to them, as in “This letter you are looking at makes the sound sssss”. Alternatively, some teachers prefer teaching students single sounds first, and then later introducing the visual cue (the grapheme) for the sound, as in “You know the mmmm sound we’ve been practising, well here’s the letter used in writing that tells us to make that sound”. In an explicit program, the processes of blending (What word do these sounds make when we put them together mmm-aaa-nnn?”), and segmenting (“Sound out this word for me”) are also taught. It is of little value knowing what are the building blocks of our language’s structure if one does not know how to put those blocks together appropriately to allow written communication, or to separate them to enable decoding of a letter grouping. After letter-sound correspondence has been taught, phonograms (such as: er, ir, ur, wor, ear, sh, ee, th) are introduced, and more complex words can be introduced into reading activities. In conjunction with this approach "controlled vocabulary" stories may be used - books using only words decodable using the students' current knowledge base.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. Diane L. Fine
    DR. DIANE L. FINE CALIFORNI A UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 250 UNIVERSITY A VENUE CALIFORNIA, P ENNSYLVANIA 15419 KEYS TONE 323 OFFICE PHONE (724) 938-4495 FINE@CALU .EDU EDUCATION Ed.D. Curriculum & Instruction, Literacy Studies, 2015 West Virginia University Morgantown, WV research interests include: young adolescent literacy development, word study, emergent literacy, adolescent literacy, teachers’ perceptions of literacy, reading comprehension, new literacies, digital literacies, metacognition, strategic comprehension instruction, balanced literacy, STEM education M.A. Reading, 2008 West Virginia University Morgantown, WV Reading Specialist Certification Graduate Certificate in Integration of Technology in Schools, 2001 George Mason University Fairfax, VA Certification in Technology Integration K – 12 M.Ed. Special Education, 2001 California University of Pennsylvania California, PA Certification in Mentally and/or Physically Handicapped B.A. Elementary Education, 1989 West Virginia Wesleyan College Buckhannon, WV Minor: Teaching of Reading Initial Teacher Certification K – 8 PROFESSIONAL LICENSES & CERTIFICATIONS Virginia Department of Education Early Education NK – 4 Gifted Education Middle Education Grades 4 – 8 Reading Specialist West Virginia Department of Education Early Childhood 0K – 04 Early Education PK – K September 2020 Diane Fine 1 of 10 Elementary Education 0K – 06 English 05 – 09 General Science 05 – 09 Gifted 01 – 12 Mathematics 05 – 09 Multi-Categorical (LD, BD, MI) 0K– 06 Multi-Categorical (LD,
    [Show full text]
  • Reading in the Twentieth Century. INSTITUTION Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, Ann Arbor, MI
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 479 530 CS 512 338 AUTHOR Pearson, P. David TITLE Reading in the Twentieth Century. INSTITUTION Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, Ann Arbor, MI. SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. PUB DATE 2000-08-00 NOTE 46p.; CIERA Archive #01-08. CONTRACT R305R70004 AVAILABLE FROM CIERA/University of Michigan, 610 E. University Ave., 1600 SEB, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1259. Tel: 734-647-6940; Fax: 734- 763 -1229. For full text: http://www.ciera.org/library/archive/ 2001-08/0108pdp.pdf. PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070). Reports Research (143) EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Educational History; *Educational Practices; Futures (of Society); Instructional Materials; *Reading Instruction; *Reading Processes; *Reading Research; Reading Skills; Teaching Methods IDENTIFIERS *Reading Theories ABSTRACT This paper discusses reading instruction in the 20th century. The paper begins with a tour of the historical pathways that have led people, at the century's end, to the "rocky and highly contested terrain educators currently occupy in reading pedagogy." After the author/educator unfolds his version of a map of that terrain in the paper, he speculates about pedagogical journeys that lie ahead in a new century and a new millennium. Although the focus is reading pedagogy, the paper seeks to connect the pedagogy to the broader scholarly ideas of each period. According to the paper, developments in reading pedagogy over the last century suggest that it is most useful to divide the century into thirds, roughly 1900-1935, 1935- 1970, and 1970-2000. The paper states that, as a guide in constructing a map of past and present, a legend is needed, a common set of criteria for examining ideas and practices in each period--several candidates suggest themselves, such as the dominant materials used by teachers in each period and the dominant pedagogical practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Balanced Literacy Framework for Wooster City Schools, Pre-K Through Fourth Grade
    Balanced Literacy “Creating a Culture of Literacy” Introduction The Wooster City Schools Literacy Committee frst met on May 19, 2015 with the goal of developing a Balanced Literacy Framework for Wooster City Schools, Pre-K through fourth grade. Committee members met monthly to review and recommend research-based best practices and resources. The team enlisted the guidance of State Support Team 9 and sent committee members to the Dublin and National Literacy Conferences in Columbus. Throughout the year, committee members shared progress and research with colleagues through professional development meetings, grade level meetings and building leadership team meetings. At the March 29, 2016 Board of Education meeting, members of the committee presented a proposal for the creation of fve literacy coaches for the 2016-2017 school year. The role of the literacy coaches will be to facilitate the ongoing professional development and support of staf as they implement the balanced literacy framework and build a culture of literacy within Wooster City Schools. The following document is a result of our research and defnes the Balanced Literacy Framework for Wooster City Schools, detailing what reading and writing will look like in our classrooms. COMMITTEE MEMBERS: • Carrie Gordon, Grade 4 • Haley Black, Grade 3 • Erin Hofstetter, Kindergarten • Jerren Howard, Title 1 Reading • Suzie Parker, Gifted Specialist • Bonnie Brown, Intervention Specialist • Kaelee Hendershott, Grade 1 • Karen Koontz, Grade 1 • Molly Richard, Preschool • Caty Sypherd, Grade
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Teaching Phonics and Phonemic Awareness Training To
    The Effect of Teaching Phonics and Phonemic Awareness Training to Adolescent Struggling Readers by Stephanie Hardesty Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Education December 2013 Goucher College Graduate Programs in Education Table of Contents List of Tables i Abstract ii I. Introduction 1 Statement of the Problem 2 Hypothesis 3 Operational Definitions 3 II. Literature Review 6 Phonemic Awareness Training and Phonics 6 Reading Instruction in the High School Setting 7 Reading Remediation 10 Summary 13 III. Methods 14 Participants 14 Instrument 15 Procedure 16 IV. Results 19 V. Discussion 20 Implications 20 Threats to Validity 21 Comparison to Previous Studies 22 Suggestions for Future Research 24 References 25 List of Tables 1. Pre- and Post-SRI Test Results 19 i Abstract The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of teaching phonics and phonemic awareness training to adolescent struggling readers. The measurement tool was the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI). This study involved the use of a pretest/posttest design to compare data prior to the implementation of the reading intervention, System 44, to data after the intervention was complete (one to two years). Achievement gains were not significant, though results could be attributable to a number of intervening factors. Research in the area of high school reading remediation should continue given the continued disagreement over best practices and the new standards that must be met per the Common Core. ii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Advanced or proficient reading abilities are one of the primary yet essential skills that should be mastered by every student.
    [Show full text]
  • The Truth About Reading Recovery® Response to Cook, Rodes, & Lipsitz (2017) from the Reading Recovery Council of North America
    The Truth About Reading Recovery® Response to Cook, Rodes, & Lipsitz (2017) from the Reading Recovery Council of North America In an article appearing in Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, authors Cook, Rodes, and Lipsitz (2017) make multiple misleading, misguided, and blatantly false claims about Reading Recovery® in yet another attack to discredit the most widely researched early reading intervention in the world. When you’re recognized as a leader with proven success, you often become the target for those with limited knowledge who apply broad strokes and twist the truth to fit their own perceptions of reality. The unfortunate reality, in this case, is that this article, “The Reading Wars and Reading Recovery: What Educators, Families, and Taxpayers Should Know,” is an affront to researchers, scholars, educators, and others who know the facts and a disservice to parents of children with reading difficulties. The authors claim to provide information necessary to make evidence-based decisions in support of struggling beginning readers. Like evidence-based medicine, these decisions can have a critical impact on children’s lives. As in the medical context, objective professionals can differ in their interpretations of the available evidence. The authors’ perspective is far from objective. They invoke the “reading wars” in their title and advocate for their ideological perspective in their biased, selective, and fallacy-full analysis of Reading Recovery and the research related to this early intervention approach. Dr. Timothy Shanahan, past president of the International Reading Association (now International Literacy Association) and a distinguished professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Chicago, noted the effectiveness of Reading Recovery in a recent article examining the importance of replicability in reading research.
    [Show full text]