Dr. George Hruby: PART ONE What brain research really says: An Interview Conducted by Dr. Sam Bommarito

Some may remember when Dr. George Hruby first posted his video entitled What the Phonics is the Science of Reading? The video was an instant hit on YouTube, garnering over 12,000 views. In it, Dr. Hruby pushed back on the notion that the science around literacy instruction is settled. Instead, he makes a strong case for the existence of the Sciences of Reading (Sciences with an s). That way of looking at things counters much of the misinformation and misdirection being made by proponents of the so-called Science of Reading. As P.D. Pearson has said, the term settled science is an oxymoron. The claims by some SOR advocates that it’s all settled science are problematic at best. Here is the  LINK to that YouTube video.

What the Phonics is the Science of Reading?

The YouTube video was a warm-up piece for The Literacy Research Association Conference. Normally such introductions are done in person. However, in that particular year, 2020, we were in the midst of the COVID crisis, and most conferences had gone to a remote format. It is still worth watching.

Let’s fast forward. As you may recall, in July of 2023, I did a two-part interview with Dr. Hruby about his views LINK, LINK. This year, I’m adding a multi-part interview covering some new ground. This is Part One of that series, and it will focus on what Dr. Hruby has to say about brain research, and its implications for literacy.

Before we look at the interview, here is some information about Dr. George Hruby and his background:

LINKS FROM THE ABOVE SCREEN CAPTURE:

Published works LINK. Handbook of Reading Instruction LINK

Here is a link to the YouTube interview:

Here are the Talking Points and Questions from Part One of the interview:

Key slides from part one.

As you can tell, this picture of a brain lighting up is not really an actual photograph.

In fact, the picture of a brain lighting up shown below is also not an actual photograph. Pictures of the brain “lighting up” are generated from multiple observations. They are generated based on interpretations of the data collected. They are only as good and reliable as the processes used to generate and interpret those predictions.

“We can have sight word reading that does not involve sounding out.”  Listen to the video at 10:48 and 12:16 for the details supporting that view. This slide was taken from that section.

The brain as a pattern recognizer, listen to the video at 12:16 for details about the significance of that. The slide below was taken from that section.

My thoughts about Part One:

First, I’ll point out that Dr. Hruby has some very strong credentials in this area. At 04:06 on the video, he notes that he is an Associate Research Title Professor at the University of Kentucky. Dr Hruby has done a considerable amount of work in the area of brain research. He also has a very extensive background in literacy, as demonstrated by his extensive publications in refereed journals and his contribution to the latest edition of the Handbook of Research LINK. People writing on this topic must have a strong background in both fields. Those who don’t sometimes reach conclusions that are problematical at best because they are unfamiliar with and misunderstand or misrepresent the literacy world.

I have a number of important takeaways from part one of this interview and from my previous conversations with Dr. Hruby.

• I found out that the pictures of the brain often used in discussions about brain research are not pictures at all. Rather, they are often computer-generated and based on interpretations of the data collected. They are only as good and reliable as the process used to generate those predictions. In the future, we should all look more carefully at how particular images are generated and ask about the process used and especially any limits or limitations to that process.

• Currently a lot of the brain research being done has problems with replication. Have the studies cited been replicated or not? Too often, the answer is that the replication of the study has failed. In the future, we should examine brain research studies that are being cited carefully, especially if those studies are being used as a basis for laws and mandates. We don’t want to make decisions about mandates based on “not ready for prime time” research. Research championed in social media is often weak and poorly done. I am not alone in that thinking LINK.

• Dr. Hruby’s analysis of what happens in the brains of older readers indicates that older readers draw upon a different part of the brain when reading connected text. That seems to strongly indicate that older readers rely more on sight words than on sounding out every word every time. The idea that readers are always sounding out every word every time is an idea I’ve heard many times on social media. The brain research studies cited by Dr. Hruby simply do not support that view. Listen to the video at 10:48 and 12:16 for the details on that point.

• Dr. Hruby’s analysis of brain research does not support the deficit model often employed by many studying the Dyslexic child. Rather, it indicates that most of the issues experienced by Dyslexic children center around the kind of reading instruction they receive, not any inherent problems with the brain. That indicates that there is a need to revisit and revise currently used definitions of Dyslexia. Again, this is at odds with many of the pronouncements made on social media.  

I have long advocated for the notion that we should be using ALL the research to inform what we do in literacy. We need to take a long, hard look at what brain research is really showing. Too often, we are given selected, cherry-picked views around the research LINK, LINK. We use “not ready for prime time” research to justify creating laws that favor one set of publishers over another. We go so far as to ban practices even when they are working LINK. As a long-time teacher/educator, I’m glad that we have researchers like Dr. Hruby who have given us important insights about the research. The time has come for us to consider ALL the research as we continue our quest to help our children become readers. BTW, we need readers, thinkers and problem solvers to succeed in the 21^st century world.

Stay tuned-

Next week we will look into more about what Dr. Hruby had to say. Until then:

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.

Susan Vincent, a long-time educator, talks about what research really shows about different kinds of texts, including decodables and leveled texts: An interview with Dr. Sam Bommarito

I’ve been friends with Susan Vincent for a very long time. She is an amazing educator with an extensive background and experience. From her biography, you can see she is reading recovery trained, trained in OG, was a teacher leader, and eventually began teaching at a university. That is what she is doing currently. She is a teacher of teachers. This year at LitCon, I had the pleasure of attending her session. As soon as it was over, I knew I had to ask her if she would be willing to do an interview. Here’s why.

As a teacher and a teacher of teachers, Susan became interested in the whole issue of what books to use with students when teaching them how to read. Should we be using predictables, decodables, and trade books or? What does the research really say about that? What should classroom teachers be doing? In the interview, Susan did an expert job of answering those questions. Before turning to the interview, let’s have a look at Susan’s biography.

YouTube VIDEO

SCREEN CAPTURES FROM THE VIDEO:

(most existing research is on books used in intervention, so with students who need extra support)

Reading Research Quarterly: Text Types and Relation to Efficacy in EL

Birch, Ritchie, Sharp, Miller, Ledger: Literature Review on Decodable and Leveled Books

EdWeek: Decodables: Boring, Useful, or Both?

T. Shanahan: How Decodable do Decodables Need to Be? and Should We Teach with Decodables?

H.A. Mesmer on Heinemann’s blog: Fear Not the Decodable

Reading Rockets article: Using Decodable Books 

BOOKS:

Choosing and Using Decodable Texts, Wiley Blevins

Teaching Reading Sourcebook, CORE Learning, Honig, Diamond, Gutlohn

Also see my interview with Heidi Mesmer for more details about her work LINK.

Link to the Teaching Reading Sourcebook LINK.

FINAL THOUGHTS FOR THIS BLOG

As I listened to Susan’s presentation at LitCon, I realized she had some important insights into all the different text forms. She told us about the good, the bad and the ugly. She showed the text types at their weakest, using examples of texts that she had used early in her own work. She also shows us texts at their strongest, the exemplars of what that kind of text could be/should be. She shared criteria for evaluating text (all forms of text). She gleaned these criteria from several highly respected sources. She has her preservice teachers use these criteria to inform their decisions about what texts to use with their readers. Her criteria could constitute a powerful informal instrument teachers can use to inform their decisions about text selection. I think further research would be merited in the form of a study designed to fine-tune the instrument and evaluate its effectiveness.

Let’s also consider Susan’s overall conclusions about this topic:

As Susan points out, many of the new state laws surrounding what constitutes decodables are simply not based on what research has currently found. The state laws set unsupported criteria for what constitutes decodables and, in the process, limit book selection. In my opinion, that makes it highly likely that the books that pass their criteria will not be useful for comprehension instruction. Susan also points out that throwing away millions of dollars worth of books because they don’t meet the law’s criteria is problematic. That is especially true since research has not yet determined optimum decodability percentages. In addition, research has demonstrated that using various types of texts produces better results than limiting instruction to only one type of text. Susan is on the right track when she says educators need to contact state legislators and make them aware of what research actually demonstrates. One of my mantras has been to consider ALL the research before making decisions. No cherry-picking and no strawmen!!!

I want to build further on Susan’s ideas by highlighting the importance of the gradual release model.

The heart of gradual release is the principle of skillful scaffolding. If you under-scaffold, you will likely create situations where the students simply won’t learn because they need more help than you provide. If you over-scaffold, then students learn to be helpless. They never internalize and use the strategies they need to learn. Providing years and years and years of decodables is a sure path to learned helplessness. That opinion is bolstered by the facts reported by Susan, who stated that research does not support the use of decodables for very long.

Beginning with the First Grade Studies and through decades of research by folks like Richard Allenton LINK, LINK, LINK, we have learned that when it comes to improving reading and reading scores, teachers make more of a difference than programs. Here is what Seidenberg, a well-known Science of Reading advocate, had to say about this issue:

“I’d rather see money spent on supporting in-service teachers, developing a cadre of well-trained coaches, providing high-quality PD, adding support personnel and so on.”  LINK

In another blog entry where he described the Science of Reading as a “work in progress,” Seidenberg indicates that when given the choice of several curricula being considered by a district he was helping,  he would pick “none of the above”  LINK.  

Yet now we have state laws being passed that give districts a “choice” of mandated curricula, effectively stripping away local control. In my opinion, this benefits no one except the publishers of those programs. I have written extensively criticizing both the practice of outlawing effective programs LINK and the social media version of SOR, which has successfully campaigned for legislation that strips local districts of their power and strips teachers of many of their most effective tools LINK.  

So where does that leave us? I think practicing teachers would do well to consider the criteria suggested by Susan as they make book choices. When you find that new state laws are stripping you of valuable tools, you need to go to your state legislators and make them aware of ALL the research in order to get those laws revised. In the interim, I think you will find Susan’s criteria will help you make the best choices for using the currently available materials.

I’ll further explore the current situation in the reading world with my upcoming three-part interview with Dr. Hruby. He created the video What the Phonics is the Science of Reading. LINK. He was another person I saw at LitCon who agreed to share what he had to say. So, it will be an interesting and informative few weeks.

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.

Dr. Mike Shoulders, a teacher-turned-children’s book author, talks about his transformation and the importance of motivation. He achieves that motivation using various materials, including Read Alouds and Alphabet books. An Interview by Dr. Sam Bommarito

My regular readers know that one of the conferences I always present at each year is the Write to Learn Conference held In Columbia, Missouri. The conference attracts a variety of educators, especially those who work with older students, middle school, and high school students. This year, I had a special surprise when I went to man the Missouri Literacy Association’s booth for the conference. Have a look at the picture below.

The picture is of Dr. Mike Shoulders and me. His booth was right next to ours. He is the author of a couple of dozen children’s books. The one that really caught my attention was the one he was featuring at his booth. The name of the book is The Legend of the Christmas Pickle.

Like many teachers attending conferences, I’m always on the lookout to add good trade books to my collection. Once I looked inside this one, I knew I had to buy it (and I did!!!). One of the advantages of buying a book directly from the author in person is that you can usually get them to sign it. And Micheal graciously agreed to do that.

Michael talks about this book during this interview. In a nutshell, there is a Christmas tradition of having Santa Claus add a small ornament to the tree after he’s finished dropping off the presents. Accompanied with this ornament is a present wrapped in green. The child who can find the very small, hidden pickle ornament gets to claim that present as their own. While looking for the ornament, the children can look at all the other ornaments on the tree. Both Michael and I have Christmas trees where the ornaments are keepsakes from vacations, baby’s first Christmas ornaments, ornaments made by special people in the family, ornaments made by our children when they were kids, etc. It is, in effect, a form of family history. Listen to Michael in the interview as he talks about his family’s Christmas tree. This year, there will definitely be a Christmas pickle ornament on the Bommarito Christmas tree.

As I talked to Michael that day, he told me about “his journey from Gradebook (teacher) to Picture book (author).”   I realized that this was someone I’d like my readers to meet. He agreed to do this interview. As you listen to the interview, you’ll discover how he transitioned from being a classroom teacher to being a children’s book author. I think you’ll especially like the part of the interview where he raps it out instead of reading his book The Dump Truck. He also shared some wonderful ideas about how to help children write books of their own. This reminded me of my own practice of using Language Experience to teach kids of all ages LINK. Michael put a new twist on this practice by giving an impromptu example of how he would help me create an alphabet storybook about Grandpa Bommarito. By the way, alphabet storybooks are for kids of all ages. I could easily imagine middle school/high school students becoming interested in things like the state alphabet books that Michael wrote. He contributed three books to an overall series about the states. What a wonderful resource for teaching social studies! The links to those books appear later in this blog.

Before we look at the interview, let’s have a look at Michael’s biography:

YOUTUBE INTERVIEW: https://youtu.be/nPJagcp__fI

MICHAEL’S WEBSITE: LINK

LINK TO MICHAEL’S MANY BOOKS, including The Legend of the Christmas Pickle, V is for Volunteer and the Dump Truck book – LINK

You can also find more of Michael’s books on Amazon LINK

FINAL THOUGHTS FOR THIS BLOG

Michael has worn many hats during his career in education. He knows about being a teacher and an administrator. He knows firsthand the ins and outs of how to best implement reading programs. I think teachers will find his ideas and methods valuable. His comment about read-alouds at the end of the interview tells a lot about the current state of the reading world. I’ll remind readers that there is plenty of research behind the idea of making read-alouds a part of your reading routines. See what Molly Ness had to say about that at a Write to Learn Conference in 2022 LINK. Especially notice her ILA leadership brief on that topic. Yet, despite all the research, Michael reports that an administrator in one district has effectively banned the practice in that district. Moving to extreme positions seems to have become a part of the current landscape in the reading world. I think my readers know I take the position that we need to move the center instead LINK and use all the research as we make our decisions around literacy issues LINK. No cherry-picking!

I have several exciting interviews in the works. I just completed a 3-part interview with Dr. George Hruby. There will be lots to unpack from those interviews. I am also scheduled to talk to Susan Vincent about her work and what she teaches her university students about using various texts, including decodables. So, lots going on in the upcoming weeks.

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.

Dr Sam is on spring break. Have a look at upcoming events.

Consider submitting an article to the Spring or Fall Missouri Reader. The Missouri Reader is a professional state journal.  Dr. Sam is the managing editor. We’re accepting articles for the spring Poetry Issue and for the Fall Issue (no theme- all literacy topics are welcome). See the current journal for details.

https://joom.ag/q5zd

I’m also lining up future interviews, including with Dr. Hruby, Susan Vincent, and children’s author Michael Shoulders. I hope your spring break goes well. The blog resumes next week.

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.

Don’t miss this upcoming free webinar LINK.

Let’s try using some common sense to find common ground in the reading wars: Reflections about the RRC Community Pushback on Senator Cassidy’s Literacy Report

Nobody’s right. If everybody’s wrong

Buffalo Springfield. Song from the 60’s  LINK

My career in reading education spans over five decades. I’ve taught every grade from kindergarten through graduate school. During that time, I’ve worked as a reading specialist, staff developer, and university professor. I’ve worked in several very successful Title 1 reading programs. I have a Doctorate in reading. During my career, I’ve watched the pendulum swing many times from meaning-based to code-based instruction and back again.   The simple fact is that when you move to either of those two extremes, you help some children and fail to help others. Isn’t it about time we move to a position where we help everyone? Isn’t it about time we try out what P.D. Pearson has dubbed “The Radical Middle”?  Isn’t it about time to stop bickering LINK and start using research-based practices drawn from all sides? Isn’t it time to become a centrist LINK? I think that it is.

Getting lost in all the research swirling around this issue is very easy. Some simple common-sense guideposts are in order as we dive into the research. Draw on all the research- both quantitative and qualitative. Ensure the testing instruments used in the research you use test reading using full passages. “reading” word lists may be somewhat predictive, but if that is all you do, you will be looking at incomplete results that may cause you to reach problematic conclusions. Give weight to both the decoding aspects and meaning aspects of reading. Make sure that the research you draw on fits the circumstances and population of your local district. Include all the stakeholders in the decision-making process around literacy issues. That includes parents, teachers, administrators, and folks living in the district, just to name a few. Let’s look at the latest pushback on the rush to judgment made by some in the SOR community: That pushback comes from the Reading Recovery Community.

The link to the “media reporting is biased piece”: LINK.

The link to the RRC  post on this and other topics is LINK.

MY REFLECTIONS:

I’m glad that the RRC included the observation about the NRP panel’s report. “The impact of phonics on comprehension is limited.” And that a phonics-centric curriculum does not improve reading instruction. I’ll add to that observation that the NRP report specifically used the word balance when describing how to proceed with reading instruction. It is not surprising that this pushback on the social media branch comes from the Reading Recovery Community. In her podcasts, Emily Hanford claimed Clay’s RR program was a failure and that Clay was wrong. She supported that claim using the “discount and discredit” tactic. She discounts or discredits research demonstrating that RR has worked to help many (not all) students. There is plenty of research indicating that RR is a viable approach (not the viable approach) LINK. Hanford is on record saying that she is not a teacher or researcher. She sees herself as a journalist. See her Oct 5 post from X (formerly Twitter):

I’ll leave the matter of whether what she does qualifies as journalism to others. I will point out that she is certainly a public relations expert, and many of her tactics are those from the PR world. She has embarked on a successful scorched earth campaign to promote structured literacy (the term itself is a public relations creation LINK) to eliminate all competition. Her handling of the RR issue is one example of how she uses strawman versions of the competition and fails to look at all the research supporting the competition. The effects of that very successful public relations campaign are beginning to be seen, and they should be of great concern to anyone interested in promoting good education.

We have moved into an era where research is being weaponized LINK, where SUCCESSFUL programs are being banned LINK, where choices left to districts are so narrow that even SOR supporters like Seidenberg choose “none of the above” when considering programs from the list of sanctioned basal programs  LINK. I must wonder aloud why we need such lists, given the fact that having them strips most power from the local districts. It also seems to result in a defacto national curriculum, which in turn strips most power from states. Teachers are leaving the field in droves, LINK. Could it be that at least some of those teachers leaving are good teachers who have for years gotten good results and now find the tools they used to get those results are being banned? I get e-mails from such teachers all the time. What can we do?

What we can do is recognize that, to some degree, everybody’s wrong. Major figures like Michael Pressley have been saying that for years. My own observation is that the insistence of some folks on using analytic, inquiry-based phonics (or no phonics at all) resulted in dyslexic children not getting the synthetic phonics they needed. That was wrong. But it doesn’t justify swinging to the other extreme and effectively banning the use of inquiry-based problem-solving approaches to phonics like those being promoted by Scanlon LINK, LINK. The fact is that the history of the swinging pendulum demonstrates that moving to extremes results in nothing more than very expensive pendulum swings. Our experience with Reading First demonstrates that point. Billions were spent with the final report about Reading First, indicating that spending those billions did not improve reading scores LINK.

That brings me back to my opening point. It’s time we stopped talking at each other and instead started listening to each other. It’s time for folks from all sides to stop using strawman versions of the other side. It’s time to find the best practices from all sides and allow districts to use them to help create local curriculum. Let’s be willing to admit that our side doesn’t have THE answer. It’s time to join Bruce Howett in his quest to find the common ground LINK. It’s time to take a centrist approach to the problem of how to best teach reading. 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.