Daphne Russell, a long-time teacher educator, talks about her transformative visceral approach to teaching reading & how it helps motivate disengaged readers. An Interview by Dr. Sam Bommarito

I try to interview various people from the literacy world, folks from various backgrounds and points of view. One of the things I like to do is to give teachers a chance to talk about their work and why they do it. Daphne Russell is a long-time teacher who found unique ways to help her students, especially students who had no use for reading and felt disengaged from the learning process. She found a way to reach them, a way that is rooted in her belief in the power of books. Please have a look and listen as Daphne shares her story with us about how she created her VICERAL approach. I think you will find it a compelling story.

Bio: 34 years in the classroom setting provided me the opportunity to observe human nature at its most raw. I spent those years introspectively, constantly questioning what I was teaching and how I was going about teaching, what were my results and asking myself what I could do better. I read from a variety of sources and honed my skills to the point that I realized the greatest teaching involved the least amount of teacher-work, which in turn provided the greatest experience for the learners. 

Program: Over the course of my career, I developed an introspective-reader approach to literacy called the VISCERAL Method which I’m able to teach to anyone (not limited to ‘teachers’) over a 15-minute to 4-hour period (whatever it takes).

YOUTUBE VIDEO https://youtu.be/yeCoCExsLWA

DAPHNE’S BOOK– LINK

DAPHNE’S WEBSITE: LINK

NEWLY LAUNCHED YOUTUBE CHANNEL- LINK

LINKED IN: LINK

FACEBOOK- LINK

FINAL THOUGHTS FOR THIS BLOG

In some of my latest presentations, I’ve been talking about the importance of using both qualitative and quantitative information as we make decisions about teaching. Quantitative information has the advantage of allowing you to draw conclusions beyond the immediate sample. Qualitative observation, as we find in this video, can give us deep, rich information that is very hard to come by in a quantitative study. Teachers listening to this interview will find that Daphne has given you some amazing teaching tips and teaching moves. They worked well for her in her setting. That is no guarantee they will work well in your setting. You would need additional quantitative studies to determine how likely it is that such methods would work well in other settings. Does that mean we should ignore Daphne’s advice? Of course not.

A few years back, P.D. Pearson pointed out how research works at an ILA session on research in reading. One of the things he pointed out is that qualitative work is often the first step in the research process. It informs us and gives us ideas about future quantitative studies to carry out. In that spirit, I offer Daphne’s wonderful advice. Her success makes it likely that you may want to try some of these teaching ideas out in your own setting. I assure you,  I will try them out in mine. I often quip that I’ve never seen a good teaching idea that I wasn’t willing to steal. I’m prepared to do that in this case.  If it turns out that it needs revising, I will. I’m blessed to be in a setting where I am allowed to make such choices.

In about two weeks, I’ll present at the Write to Learn Conference in Columbia, Missouri, LINK. It is an in-person conference. I’ll be talking about good teaching ideas for helping middle school students in reading. I’ll share some of Daphne’s ideas as part of the presentation. I am in the process of lining up future interviews. George Hruby and his ideas about brain research are at the top of my list. So lots is happening.

In the meantime- Happy Reading and Writing

Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the middle taking flak from all sides)

Copyright 2024 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.

A concerned parent speaks out about the problems inherent in an “all green” SOR program she feels is failing her son and many other children in his school. Blog post by Dr. Sam Bommarito

I found this compelling post on my Facebook page this week. Here is the full text of the post (used with permission):

The Steinhardt link from item 1) above LINK

My initial reaction is that this is exactly what one would expect to happen when folks move to one extreme or the other on the meaning-based vs. code-based approaches to reading. I’ve posited many times that the reason for the pendulum swings that have been a key characteristic of the reading world during the past half-century or so is that when one goes to either of the extremes, there are children for whom that extreme fails to work LINK, LINK, LINK. When we went through the period where meaning-based approaches, which often used analytic phonics, dominated the field- the system failed many children, especially dyslexic children. However, when one puts into place a code-based system with heavy reliance on synthetic phonics, those children who thrive on an inquiry-based, systematic program of analytic phonics are not helped. I wrote a blog post on that very point a while back entitled “A Tale of Two Readers” LINK. I’ve said many times that solving the problems of one set of children by creating problems for another is not the best way to proceed.

Recently, I’ve written about the need to match the child so they receive the kind of decoding instruction that fits them the best LINK. I pointed out there are different ways to teach phonics; see this informative ILA brief explaining approaches to phonics for the details about that. LINK. I’ve interviewed quite a few folks in the literacy field about different approaches to teaching decoding. Here is a small sampling of those, LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK. These interviews include folks from all sides of the spectrum in terms of how to best succeed in the business of teaching reading. In addition, I’ve pointed out the criticisms leveled at those who think providing background knowledge/vocabulary instruction is sufficient for students to make meaning from what they are reading. There’s much more to developing reading comprehension than simply providing background and vocabulary  LINK.  Background and vocabulary are necessary but not sufficient.

Unfortunately, the whole issue of teaching decoding in particular and reading/reading comprehension in general has become politicized LINK. Critics like Rachel Gabriel indicated that some folks in the reading world have weaponized the discussion LINK. Other critics point to the misinformation/disinformation being spread about the reasons behind the reading problem LINK, LINK. Sadly, the situation has degenerated to the point where programs that work and work well are being effectively banned. This recent newspaper article says it all LINK.

In the rush to replace all that has come before with “Science of Reading Based Instruction,” some problematic programs are being implemented. I think the program Kate calls into question is one example of that. In my previous blogs, I’ve pointed out that terms like the science of reading and balanced literacy are umbrella terms. Too often, this leads to things being called SOR or Balanced Literacy, which are, in truth, each of those things at their worst. Mark Seidenberg has raised serious questions about what the Science of Reading really means and what counts as the Science of Reading LINK. As I say that, I point out that,  to my knowledge,  he has said nothing about the particular program Kate criticizes.

I think Kate’s critique of the program is well done. Many programs being put in place in the name of the science of reading simply don’t pass muster. Classroom instructional time is a zero-sum game. Overdoing code instruction (e.g., 45-plus minutes looking at slides, no minutes of reading authentic text) or giving code instruction that won’t benefit the child can easily lead to underdoing (undoing!) the comprehension part of the reading program. How much phonics instruction is needed? What kind of instruction would best serve the children being taught? Is what is being read worth reading? It is self-evident that in her child’s case, Kate is providing the kind of instruction that is really needed. She is taking into account and building on what her child already knows. But what of the other children?

Kate- I think you have taken the important first step by pointing out the shortcomings of the adopted program. Demand information on outcomes and make sure all the relevant outcomes are measured. That means decoding, comprehension, and cultural responsiveness. Ask the powers that be to allow the lessons being given in this program to be given behind the glass so that those deciding on whether to keep the program get a firsthand look at what the program’s instruction actually looks like. I’ve had many reports that teachers and administrators alike are shocked at what they see when this is done. Make sure the tests used to evaluate the program involve full tests of comprehension and not just “reading” word lists or unconnected text. Ask what they will do if synthetic phonics fails to help some children (and that will certainly happen). What will be done next? Too often, the answer in places like England and Australia has been to do even more synthetic phonics.

The most important thing you can do, Kate- is to stay in the field and keep trying to help the children. Don’t let these circumstances drive you from the field. Follow people like P.L. Thomas LINK, Andy Johnson LINK and Rachel Gabriel on X (formerly Twitter) @RacheGabriel. Listen to their ongoing advice. Join Andy’s literacy group, the International Literacy Education Coalition (ILEC). Write me directly for details. They meet regularly, share information, and provide pushback on the misinformation often found in social media LINK.

This week, the Mid-Hudson Reading Council (a local chapter of the NYS Reading Association) invited me to speak at a virtual event they are planning next Thursday. Information about how to register can be found in this LINK. NYSRA members are free; there is a $15 fee for non-members. Hope to see you there. And thanks so much for having the courage to share your concerns.

Until next week- Happy Reading and Writing.

Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the middle taking flak from all sides)

Copyright 2024 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.

The registration deadline has been extended- there is still time to sign up.

Kate just created this loom message about this topic. Please have a look and listen- LINK.

A Message to the Teachers and Educators of Milwaukee (and beyond)- Congrats on a Job well done: My takeaways from the WSRA Conference

This has been an amazing week. It seems my professional life has come full circle. It was five years ago this month I began writing this blog. One of my first blog entries was made from a hotel room in Missouri. It was written during the Write to Learn conference, where I was making a presentation about literacy. A lot has happened since then. In addition to talking about literacy issues from all sides and op-eds, I’ve added a YouTube channel, LINK. The entries on that channel include the interviews done as part of the blog. Those interviews now include major figures from the literacy world.

Tonight, I am again sitting in a hotel room. This one is situated in Milwaukee. The hotel has a skywalk that connects to the Baird Center. That is the same convention center that will soon be hosting the Republican Convention.  I am again writing a blog entry. It will talk about what I learned at this conference. It’s Deja Vu all over again. As I said, professional life has come full circle.

Let me tell you a little about the Wisconsin State Reading Association (WSRA) conference. It attracted nearly 900 educators this year. The line-up of speakers at the conference was amazing. It included folks like Peter Afflerbach, George G Hruby, Jeffery D. Willingham, Frank Serafini, Ralph Fletcher, Carl Anderson, Kelly Gallagher, Patrick Harris II, and Dr Towanda Hariss, just to name a few. How did this state conference, one that rivals national conferences in its scope, come into being this year? The answer is that it is the creation of full-time teachers who still found the time to do the volunteer work necessary to create and carry out this amazing endeavor. It is volunteerism at its best. It is one of the many reasons for me to say congrats on a job well done to these hard-working, dedicated educators. Here is a picture of me with the Conference Chair, Norm Andrews, and the WSRA 2023-24 President, Ryanne Deshane.

As I’ve already indicated Bruce and Ryanne are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the volunteer teachers who put together this conference. Teachers matter, teachers care, and teachers need to be empowered.

For my part in the conference, I did several presentations where I talked about some tough literacy issues. Here are some pictures from my presentations.

My recurring themes during these talks included reminding folks that all sides of the great debate should avoid cherry-picking evidence and using strawman versions of the other sides.

I also reminded teachers that what many futurists say is right with American education is that our students come out as problem-solvers. BTW this is an idea I first heard at the Write to Learn Conference in Missouri. When I heard Dr. Zhao speak at the Write to Learn conference a few years ago, he made the point that one of the things other countries like about American education is that our students tend to come out as problem solvers and thinkers. There are a lot of valuable takeaways that can be made from his book. LINK

My takeaways from this conference require a book, not a blog entry. But the upshot of it all is this- that the teachers there were knowledgeable, often successful and they care deeply about the kids. My favorite part of the conference was listening to the teachers as they took part in the turn-and-talk activities in my sessions. They talked extensively about their successes. They know how to help students become problem solvers/meaning makers. They were hard-working, dedicated, and knowledgeable.

Unfortunately, they also had stories to tell about how current trends in education are stripping way power from teachers and local districts and are moving us back to ideas that have failed us in the past. By the way, I sensed most of the teachers I talked to were centrists, willing and able to use ideas from all sides. But unfortunately, we are once more shifting to one of the extremes.  In this current swing, we are shifting to a mainly code-emphasis approach to literacy. Reading First did that, cost billions and didn’t give the desired results. See Dr. Hruby’s entertaining video about that point LINK. In the history of reading, we have done this many times, shifting from meaning-making to code-breaking and back again. Every time we shift to one extreme or the other, we fail to reach some of the kids. I sense the teachers I talked to are worried that no one is really listening to them. No one cares that they are being forced to drop methods that work. From my perspective, the teachers at the conference were, first and foremost, centrists. They are part of Pearson’s Radical Middle. I wish all of you could have heard them talk about their successes and about the concern that current movements are going to strip them of the tools they need to make those successes happen. To be successful, they need to be able to draw from both meaning-based and code-based practices, but in the current climate, that is becoming impossible.

I’ll be busy with two other presentations in the next few weeks.  These include the MHRC Mid-Hudson Reading Conference  (virtual) and the Write to Learn Conference . I hope to see you at one of them. Stay Tuned!!! Great interviews coming up (I’ve made a lot of good contacts at the conferences I’ve attended lately.  Expect more op-eds about the topic of best practices in literacy and the current rush to legislate based on not ready for prime-time research and ideas.  

So, I’ll end by saying- Kudos to the teachers and educators in Milwaukee. Kudos for your volunteerism.  It has produced a conference normally only seen at a national level. Kudos for bringing together a set of speakers who represent ideas from many sides. Kudos for staying in our profession at a time when that is a very hard thing to do. Most of all, Kudos for the many successes you talked about at the conference. Sooner or later, it is my hope that folks will start including dedicated, successful teachers in the dialogue about what we need to be doing in education. My advice- let’s join these centrist teachers.  We need to use ideas from all sides. Let’s join P.D. Pearson in the radical middle. Dare to dream!

Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the middle taking flak from all sides)

Copyright 2024 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.

My Takeaways from LITCON: Insights into the current state of the Literacy World by Dr. Sam Bommarito.

LitCon was amazing this year.  I was pleasantly surprised by the reception I got from some of my followers- thanks to my friends from Chicago for the incredibly kind remarks at the elevator, and to all the folks who attended my session, I think my message was well received. Let’s start with some of the highlights of what I had to say at that session. The complete ppt and supporting handouts can be found in this shareholder LINK. The PDF of the PowerPoint will have live links for all the slides shown in this blog).

One clear message was that RR WORKS!!!! It gets results in weeks, not years.

Another insight is that the amazing results that RR gets in its first year (the only year!), do stick. I detailed Billy Malosso’s report on the misinformation that had been spread about that point and the information showing that the learning does stick.

I also included some Myth-busting slides. Expect to hear much more about those in the coming weeks. During this session, I talked about the need for DIRECTLY TEACHING comprehension strategies and the 30-plus years of research indicated that doing so does improve reading performance significantly :

I was also able to attend Susan Vincent’s session, where she talked about the kinds of student texts found in each of the eras of reading and the kind of decisions teachers can/should make in deciding which of these texts to use and why. She even shared how she guides students in her university classes to make good decisions around those issues. BTW- Susan has agreed to do an interview around that topic- be on the lookout for that!

I also had a chance to hear Dr. George Hruby’s presentation as he talked about various issues including the issue of what we can learn from current brain research. Here’s a teaser- did you know that the pictures of the brain lighting up aren’t direct pictures? Those images are computer-generated and based on the data being collected. Soooo, this picture of the brain lighting up is not an actual picture that was taken directly. It is a computer-generated statistical chart. It is only as valid as the application of the data being collected and the interpretation of that data.

As I watched his presentation, I was left with the impression that in terms of what we know about what the brain is doing during the reading process, indications are that the clinical definition of Dyslexia may be in need of revision.

He also pointed out the major limits and limitations of current research about the brain. “50% of all studies in cognitive neuroscience are reporting false positives.” My take: a lot of the brain research being used as a basis for new legislation around literacy falls into the “not ready for prime time” category.

I was especially intrigued by what he said about mature readers and what the brain does when we look at mature readers.  It’s usually not letter-by-letter sounding.  I concluded that the evidence he presented shows that the brains of mature readers do not “sound out” every word as some SOR advocates claim. Rather they seem to use an additional part of the brain as they read. In the old days, we used to call that using sight words. I don’t want to get this one wrong- so stay tuned- I’ve asked Dr. Hruby to also do an interview and dig deeper into some of the points he covered in his presentation.

So. there was a lot presented and a lot to take away at this year’s LitCon. I’ll be busy with other presentations in the next few weeks.  These include the WSRA Conference, the MHRC Mid-Hudson Reading Conference and the Write to Learn Conference. Each of these conferences has a wide range of speakers with many worthwhile ideas to consider. I hope to see you at one or more of these conferences. BTW I’m using the same share folder for each conference LINK and may be adding additional handouts to them. As I said- Stay Tuned!!! Great interviews coming up, and expect more op-eds about the topic of best practices in literacy and the current rush to legislate based on not being ready for prime-time ideas.  In the meantime, I hope many of you consider the centrist call to use common sense to seek common ground as we continue exploring the best way to teach reading and writing.

Happy Reading and Writing.

Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the middle taking flak from all sides)

Copyright 2024 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.