Read All About It– Important things to look at online this week by Dr. Sam Bommarito
Each week, I search the internet and find important posts that you shouldn’t miss. The descriptions of these posts will be brief, hence the title Read All About It. Read All About It posts typically appear during the week. Read All About posts will allow you to link to the featured items.
ENJOY! 🙂
Sign up for ILA SmartBrief
Click here to go to the sign-up page pictured above. You’ll be directed to give information to set up your FREE account.
Once you’ve set up your FREE account, you’ll have links to stories like this one. New stories every week!
NEXT PAGE
This is a recording of George Hruby’s ILEC webinar. He predicts another pendulum swing is coming. He provides an excellent overview of the current SoR situation and provides a hopeful view for what comes next.
Next Page
Nora Chahbazi, founder of EBLI, leads a webinar about Linguistic Phonics.
I’ve known Nora for several years. I am especially impressed with her way of teaching phonics. It gets the job done just as well as other methods, but does so faster, leaving time for other important literacy instruction. This is a game-changer. Please see what she and her panel have to say. Dr. Sam
That’s all for this week! Be sure to check out my upcoming blog on Saturday as well!
Dr. Sam (the guy in the middle, taking flak from all sides)
Agree with Hruby on a lot of things: screens are bad, hedge-fund controlled publishers pushing expensive curriculum is bad, etc. etc. etc.
None of it seems to touch on the point the SoR camp is making: that phonics – clearly presented, explicitly taught is necessary (but not sufficient) for a strong early literacy curiculum.
Hrubry post touches quite directly on that fact that phonics must be taught SYSTEMATICALLY. That is what the NRP report said. As for structured phonics- “clearly presented explicitly taught, that is a term developed by proponents of synthentic phonics. It is a public relations terms NOT a research term.
I don’t know what you’re trying to say, and that’s because your grammar and usage are imprecise.
You wrote:
“As for structured phonics- ‘clearly presented explicitly taught, that is a term developed by proponents of synthentic phonics. It is a public relations terms NOT a research term.”
Several problems make this difficult to parse.
First, the antecedent of “that” is unclear. Does “that” refer to structured phonics, to “clearly presented, explicitly taught,” or to some other term?
Second, the antecedent of “it” is also unclear. When you write, “It is a public relations term NOT a research term,” what exactly is “it”?
Third, the sentence appears to conflate several distinct terms: structured phonics, explicit phonics instruction, systematic phonics instruction, synthetic phonics, and possibly structured literacy. Those terms are not interchangeable. They have different meanings and different histories.
Finally, there is a basic grammatical error: “It is a public relations terms” should be “It is a public relations term.”
As written, your comment is not clear enough to understand.
Attacking the person, pretending you don’t undertand the criticisms raised is and indication you may not have an adequate reply for the criticisms. In addition you only give a first name. Are you a teacher or a public relations person or ???. Inquirying minds want to know! For the moment I have to assume you are a public relations person trying to make me go down he rabbit hole, trying to get me off topic and get angrey. You’re avoding the the central issues I am bringing up. So once again whp are you? WHat is you teaching expericne? Awaiting your response.
I don’t think this response addresses the point that was raised.
I wasn’t arguing about terminology. I was arguing about instructional practice—whether beginning readers benefit from phonics that is taught explicitly and systematically.
Instead of engaging that question, you respond by saying that “structured” or “explicit” phonics is a “public relations term” developed by proponents of synthetic phonics. Even if that were true, it doesn’t answer the underlying question.
Whether “synthetic phonics” is a research term, a movement term, or a public relations term is largely beside the point. The real question is whether explicit instruction in grapheme-phoneme correspondences and blending produces better outcomes than approaches that rely more heavily on students inferring those relationships. That’s an empirical question.
Decades of reading research have generally found that systematic, explicit phonics instruction improves early decoding outcomes. If you believe analytic approaches achieve equivalent or better results, the burden is to present comparative evidence—not simply dismiss the terminology.
From a logical standpoint, your reply contains several problems:
* Red herring: The discussion shifts from the effectiveness of explicit phonics instruction to whether a particular label is a “research term.” That change of subject leaves the original claim unanswered.
* Genetic fallacy: By emphasizing the supposed origin of the phrase (“developed by proponents of synthetic phonics”), you imply the idea is suspect because of where the terminology came from. But the validity of an instructional practice depends on the evidence supporting it, not on who coined the label.
* Non sequitur: Even if “explicit phonics” were purely a public-relations phrase, it would not follow that explicit phonics instruction is ineffective or unsupported by research.
The terminology is ultimately a distraction. The substantive question is simple: what instructional approach produces the strongest reading outcomes for beginning readers?
You are apparently unaware of the large body of research indicating that analytic phonics does work for many students. Again see todays and tomorrow’s blog. Also see Shanahan take on this question “The point is that one of the major problems of synthetic phonics can be addressed successfully through instruction, but it is not clear that this adjustment is sufficient to make synthetic phonics better than analytic. Though folks have argued over this for over 50 years at this point, there is still not a direct experimental comparison. In other words, despite the new study, the advice given here still appears to be sound.” Taken from https://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/blog/which-is-best-analytic-or-synthetic-phonics. So at the end of the day your assertaion that structured literacy is the proven superior method does not hold up.
Teacher question:
Lots of hidden mines in the SOR bandwagon.
1. “Socio-economic status continues to be the most important single determinant of educational and social outcomes” – ‘plundering’ the public mind-space by filling it with SOR fanaticism harmed our education vision. Only so many causes one can take on, and taking on the shaky true-believer SOR cause has led us astray. I’ve watched a school division with 120 Teachers go mad for NO CONTEXT NO 3-CUEING NO READING TO THE CLASS NO TRADE BOOKS NO NO NO respect for the successful teachers who have been graduating capable readers at all grade levels for decades. The ‘cause’ disinforms us, ignores other massively important factors in reading success, and leaves our attention to poverty hanging fire. (SES and success: “Background Material for Parliamentarians and Staff Canadian Teacher Federation 2009”. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ806976.pdf
2. Psychology, Educational Psychology, Perceptual Psychology, has much to say about the SOR contention that ‘students ONLY LEARN UNITIZED WORDS PHONETICALLY/AUDITORILY. In my 4.5 decades as a School Psychologist I’ve seldom seen a higher grade of bullshit. The ‘unitized’ term came from an SOR researcher who struggled to find a non-visual term for ‘sight-words’. Unitized is his valiant effort to avoid speaking visual language. Last i ‘looked’ both eyes and ears contribute to Human perception; visual memory, visual association, and visual modelling all figure in children learning to read. Any educator willing to ignore the presence of visual memory in reading is a lost cause. Yes phonics is needed. Yes sight words are needed. And the rest of the Reading Rope. But hey when you can make a name for yourself selling fanaticism, selling the miracle cure……
3. The Phonics approaches of SOR appear to encourage autocratic delivery ‘repeat after me’ etc. The most successful classroom programs I’ve had the privilege to see are not autocratic. Directive as deemed appropriate to the issue, behaviour and content, but not dictatorial. Successful classroom programs include reading, writing, arithmetic, and happily they also designed to give learners power, choice (horrible word for the SOR groupies), by attending to cooperation, teaming, interpersonal skills and personal power. We can profitably call this ‘AUTHORITATIVE TEACHING’, a cognate of Democratic Leadership, a term from psychological research on parenting, grounded in Adlerian Psychology, Behavourial Psychology, and Group Facilitation Psychology. Authoritative Teaching is a hallmark of successful classrooms. I have seen Autocratic (Boss lead) classrooms with high achievement scores, but without the strong personality development possible with Authoritative Leadership.
(Diana Baumrind’s (1966) Prototypical Descriptions of 3 Parenting Styles
First Paper where prototypes are published:
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of Authoritative Parental Control on Child Behavior, Child Development, 37(4), 887-907.
Second Paper, and most often cited, extensive discussion of parenting styles:
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75(1), 43-88)
4. N of 1 Studies – a final riff on SOR vs Good Teaching – psychological work with students is N of 1 work, you bring possible matching cases to each child/teen seen, but the job is to uncover this human’s strengths and needs. Back when PHONICS WAS GOD the last time, the 50s -70s, kids who needed visuals suffered. Then when WHOLE LANGUAGE BECAME GOD, auditorily capable but visually weak kids, suffered. Most good teachers I worked with, integrated the best of the two extremes, and ALL KIDS BENEFITTED. Why in the name of all that is holy are we messing with kids needs AGAIN???
Please contact me about your post. I’d like to use some of it in the blog, with your permission. My e-mail is bommaritosam@yahoo.com
It’s very difficult to engage in discussions about literacy when the discussion is built on reasoning like this. Before we even reach the empirical questions, the argument is riddled with logical fallacies. And, as is often the case in these discussions, the grammar and usage are imprecise enough that it’s sometimes difficult to determine exactly what claim the writer intends to make.
Several examples illustrate the problem.
1. Non sequitur (false cause).
The comment begins by observing that socioeconomic status is the strongest single predictor of educational outcomes. Even if that premise is accepted, the conclusion does not follow:
“Socio-economic status continues to be the most important single determinant…”
therefore,
“…taking on the SOR cause has led us astray.”
Those are different propositions. Socioeconomic status can be the strongest predictor of educational outcomes while instructional methods still have meaningful, measurable effects. One does not logically exclude the other.
2. Straw man.
The description
“NO CONTEXT NO 3-CUEING NO READING TO THE CLASS NO TRADE BOOKS…”
is presented as though it describes the Science of Reading. Yet no evidence is offered that this reflects the position of the research literature itself. It instead attacks an extreme implementation or caricature rather than the documented claims of reading science.
3. Hasty generalization.
The argument cites one school division and then repeatedly refers to “the SOR cause.”
One district’s implementation—even if accurately described—is not evidence about an entire body of research.
4. Appeal to personal authority.
“In my 4.5 decades as a School Psychologist…”
Professional experience deserves respect, but it is not a substitute for evidence. The number of years someone has practiced does not, by itself, overturn systematic reviews, randomized trials, or meta-analyses.
5. Unsupported attribution.
The comment claims:
“students ONLY LEARN UNITIZED WORDS PHONETICALLY/AUDITORILY.”
Who makes this claim?
Which paper?
Which researcher?
Which publication?
No citation is provided. A specific claim is attributed to an undefined group without documentary support.
6. Equivocation.
The discussion moves interchangeably among visual perception, visual memory, sight words, orthographic learning, and visual language as though they were synonymous.
They are not.
Those are distinct concepts with different meanings in cognitive psychology and reading research. Treating them as interchangeable obscures rather than clarifies the argument.
7. Poisoning the well.
Terms such as
“fanaticism”
“groupies”
“miracle cure”
are rhetorical labels, not evidence. They invite readers to dismiss opponents before examining their arguments.
8. Category error.
The discussion shifts from instructional content to classroom leadership style.
Whether classrooms should be authoritative rather than autocratic is a separate question from whether systematic phonics improves early decoding.
Evidence about one is not evidence about the other.
9. Appeal to moderation.
The conclusion suggests that the correct answer lies somewhere “between” phonics and whole language because successful teachers “integrated the best of the two extremes.”
That is a classic logical fallacy. The midpoint between two positions is not automatically the correct one. The evidence determines where the truth lies—not the desire for compromise.
10. Anecdotal reasoning replacing empirical evidence.
The discussion concludes with “N of 1” reasoning.
Of course teachers teach individual children. That does not invalidate population-level evidence. Educational research, like medical research, seeks to establish what generally works while leaving room for professional judgment with individual students.
Taken individually, any one of these flaws would weaken an argument. Taken together, they make it difficult to evaluate the substantive claim because the reasoning repeatedly substitutes anecdotes for evidence, rhetoric for definitions, and assertions for documented support.
Before debating reading instruction, it helps to establish a common standard: clear writing, clear definitions, valid logic, and evidence that directly supports the conclusions being drawn.
Sorry that my logic isn’t to your liking. The more important question is why are you talking about my logic rather than the key question I raise, espcially on point number 9. Readers are welcome to see my further explaination of this point in my next to blog.