Seeking Common Ground Using Common Sense: The Social Media Version of SOR: Myth vs. Reality PART ONE by Dr. Sam Bommarito
On April 27th, I presented to a group of New Jersey educational leaders on the topic of the Social Media Version of SOR. This is the first of a two-part series about what I said to them. I started by telling them that I was a centrist.
Here is the LINK from the screen capture above LINK
I explained that because I am a centrist, I believe we should be drawing from research-based practices from both sides (all sides) of the current debate about the best ways to teach reading. In the long run, we should use P.D. Pearson’s idea that the best course in this debate is to take positions, not sides. In the long run, there shouldn’t be sides.
In my five-plus decades as an educator, I’ve seen the pendulum swing between Code Emphasis and Meaning Emphasis approaches many times. As this happened, the advocates of each approach often said their approach should be the only approach. For instance, I talked to a special ed teacher who taught during the whole language era. He worked in a special education classroom with children he knew needed synthetic phonics. His principal came by one day and said that his building was now a whole language building. The principal had been told by the powers that be that he was to collect all synthetic phonics materials and put them into a storage closet. Dutifully, the teacher complied. A short time later, after the materials had been collected and stored, the principal came by and mentioned that the closet was not locked. The teacher took the hint, So his children got the kind of phonics that they needed.
Today, we are in a similar situation. Even though some children thrive on analytic phonics or other such constructivist-based, inquiry-based practices, children are being denied access to those approaches. Their teachers are being told such approaches are “failed practices.” They aren’t. In part two of this blog series, I’ll go into detail about the research that demonstrates that we need to draw on practices from both sides (all sides) of the current debate. Notice that in the next slide, I indicate that going to extremes can have negative effects. Using purely code-emphasis approaches runs the risk of creating word callers. Using purely meaning emphasis approaches runs the risk of creating word guessers. Going to extremes helps some children at the expense of others. That is why my position is that we need to allow teachers and districts to draw on research-based practices from all sides. The next screen capture summarizes that position.
I went on to say that the two extremes each have philosophical roots:
It is important to note that in the two thousand-plus years since these ideas first emerged, one has never replaced the other. We need to use both direct instruction and inquiry learning. For a centrist, the solution to the problem of what to do about the ever-swinging pendulum is that we should learn to use both the art and the sciences of reading to guide us into when and how to use each form of instruction. It is my position that teachers need to have both Direct Instruction and Inquiry Methods in their toolbox. They should know when and how to use them. Within each district’s curriculum, they should be allowed to use the tools that best fit their children. Districts need to design their overall curriculum so that the needs of all the children are met. That would likely include building some form of RTI into each district’s curriculum.
Before presenting my “MythBusters,” which challenges the current social media-based form of SOR, I made the participants aware of some of the most recent developments in the world of literacy. Here are the relevant slides I used:
Here is a link to the Literacy Research Commons site. Be sure to explore all the tabs on the site. You’ll find a lot of useful information. The site includes FREE access to two books. The one by Tierney and Pearson fact-checks the current claims of some SOR advocates. The one by Scanlon et al. gives great research-based advice to share with parents about how to help their children with reading. LINK
The screen capture above concerns a new open-access article in the Reading Recovery Journal. It provides research-based information demonstrating that the so-called “failed practices” haven’t failed at all. I’ll have more to say about that next week. Here is the LINK to the article.
ANNOUNCEMENT FROM P.D. PEARSON:
IN CONCLUSION-
I’m advocating for taking a centrist-based approach to reading. That means challenging folks from both sides (all sides) when they present inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading information. Next week, in part two of this blog entry, I will go into detail on that topic. I hope using common sense to find common ground will finally bring the swinging pendulum to a halt in the center. Dare to Dream! 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.
