Dr. Andy Johnson discusses various issues around the reading wars: An interview conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito
In this interview, Dr. Andy Johnson talks about various issues dealing with the reading wars. He focuses on dispelling misinformation and myths, which are currently being presented by the folks supporting the social media version of the science of reading. In addition, he tells us about his newest reading book- Designing Meaning-Based Interventions for Struggling Readers. That book is a treasure trove of information and practical ideas for teachers working with those readers. Here is Dr. Johnson’s biography LINK:
Here is a link to the YouTube interview:
Dr. Andy Johnson’s YouTube Channel LINK.
Dr. Andy Johnson’s Reading Instruction Show LINK.
Dr. Andy Johnson’s Newest Reading Book LINK
Dr. Andy Johnson Twitter – @axe_andrew
Link to Dr. Johnson’s next webinar LINK.
Final Thoughts About This Interview.
Dr. Johnson has long been an advocate of using research, all the research, to inform us on the best ways to teach reading. There has been a growing tide of voices like Dr. Johnson’s, voices that are pushing back on the misdirection and misinformation given by the social media version of SOR. In addition to attending Dr. Johnson’s webinar, also have a look at the upcoming webinar by P.D. Pearson Fact-Checking the “Science of Reading”: Claims, Assumptions, and Consequences LINK. I’ll also be sharing Richard Allenton’s ideas around that same subject. Be on the lookout for what I say about Allenton’s article published in the Tennessee Reading Journal. In sum, it’s time to try something new. That something new is using ideas from all sides to create a Reading Evolution LINK.
Happy Reading and Writing.
Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the middle taking flak from all sides)
Copyright 2023 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.
You know. . . . I’m pretty suspicious of anyone who implies it’s “normal” for 50% of readers to be below the mean because that’s the scientific bell curve. That feels like they are saying some kids just won’t succeed. I don’t know if that was Dr. Johnson’s intent but that’s how it comes across. Additionally, as a HS reading interventionist, I’m also going to go out on a limb and say that there is a literacy crisis in many schools/districts across the country. I know it’s not “scientific” but our student outputs suggest we have some serious issues to address. The quest to quantify every last thing in education has gotten in the way of providing the supports our kids need.
Readers- please look up Criterian Reference Tests vs Norm-Referenced test. Norm reference tests ALWAYS have 1/2 above and 1/2 below.
Look up the difference between a Norm Reference Test (WHICH BY DEFINITION ALWAYS USES A BELL CURVE) and a Criteria Referenced Tests. Norm tests reference ALWAYS have 1/2 above and 1/2 below. That is inherent it their design. There is nothing suspicious about it. BTW some SOR folks try to use results from that kind of test to “prove” things are bad. That is a spurious argument. Great for Public Relations, not so great for actual science. So IF and ONLY IF your state uses norm referenced tests there will ALWAYS be 1/2 about and 1/2 below. BTW that is why some prefer using CRT tests instead. The key in those is what are the criterian and do they really relate to reading.
If you can’t make an argument without relying on egregious logical fallacies, you don’t have much of an argument.
Let’s unpack five claims here that simply make no sense and collapse under their own weight.
A reminder as we go: if the logic fails, the conclusion hasn’t been established… no matter how confidently it’s stated.
1. “Below grade level” does not mean “below average.”
“60 percent of students are reading below grade level… well yes 50 are going to be below the mean.”
This confuses two completely different things. “Grade level” is a standard. “Mean” is an average. There is no mathematical reason 50% of students must be below grade level.
2. Being a journalist does not make Hanford wrong.
“Emily Hanford is not a literacy expert… why would you listen to her about anything other than radio journalism?”
That’s an ad hominem. Her job title tells us nothing about whether the evidence she presents is right or wrong. Address the evidence.
3. Someone making money from a problem does not mean the problem is fake.
“You always have to look at who’s making the money… Lexia Learning, Cambium, Pearson.”
That’s a genetic fallacy. Financial incentives are a reason to scrutinize a claim, not evidence that the claim is false.
4. Skipping letters or words with your eyes does not disprove phonics.
“Our eyes skip over anywhere from 20 to 30 percent of the words… so how is it possible that we look at every letter?”
It doesn’t follow. Your eyes do not have to fixate on every letter for your brain to process written words using letter-sound information. The conclusion simply does not follow from the premise.
5. A “balanced reading program” is not automatically “Balanced Literacy.”
“Systematic phonics instruction should be integrated with other reading instruction to create a… ‘balanced reading program’… This is what… everyone believes in balanced literacy.”
That swaps one meaning of “balanced” for another. Saying phonics should be combined with other reading instruction does not establish that the National Reading Panel endorsed the specific approach known as Balanced Literacy.