[Reading-hall-of-fame] Huey

[Jay Samuels]

 Dear Reading Hall of Fame members,

     Do you recall in our early formative years when reading was defined as
a process in which we got meaning from the printed page only to be
supplanted by a more cognitive definition as a process in which we construct
meaning using information from the printed page? I think that the personal
construction of meaning is what is happening as we respond to Tom's
suggestion that we recognize Huey's contributions on the 100th anniversary
of his book. Patrick Shannon who is very familiar with Huey's ideas raised a
number of concerns about Huey's role in promoting evidence based
decision-making in reading instruction and to quote Shannon "the beginning
of our present conditions in which we witness the discrediting of teachers,
the reduction of reading, deskilling and reskilling in the name of
rationalization?" While I can understand Shannon's concerns I do not
interpret Huey's' impact the same way the way Shannon does.

      To understand Huey one must go back to the pre-1900 time period in
which he lived. One of the most popular methods used in reading instruction
during that time period was the alphabetic-spelling method. Students were
supposed to spell the word in their text before saying the word. Obviously,
spelling the letters in the word before pronouncing the word interferred
with comprehension. The Massachusetts Superintendent of Schools, Horace
Mann, hated the spelling method and was an advocate of the word method. Look
at the word and then just say the word is what he wanted. The decision by
teachers as to which method to use was as Huey stated, by trial and error.
So, in those days the reading wars were were fought along the lines of the
spelling method vs. the look-say method.  The problem the teachers and
administrators faced in deciding which method to use was that there was no
empirical support for either method until Cattell (an American getting a
doctorate in psychology in Germany} developed the Cattell Fall Apparatus
while a grad student at Wilhelm Wundt's lab. Using a convenience sample of
grad students, Cattell found that in the same duration of exposure, a person
could recognize a word as easily as a letter, and from this he reasoned that
the unit of word recognition was word. Cattell's findinds became the grist
for changing the method of instruction in favor or the look-say method.
There was, however, a fatal error in Cattell's study and I do not want to go
into that because the point I want to make is that Huey was indeed in favor
of making educational decisions based on what was thought to be the best
scientific evidence available. Cattell's finding was the evidence used to
support the switch to the look-say method. The way I see it is that teachers
are in a unique position. As we know, they have tried many different
approaches and methods of reading instruction.  What works over time, they
keep, and what does not seem to work, they abandon. To embellish this idea,
when teachers abandon a method, they may retain just the components of the
total method that they like and they discard what seems to be ineffective.
Thus, they do not throw away the baby with the bath water.

     I recently appeared on a fluency panel with Jack Pikulski, and we
talked about the shelf life of reading methods. He thought the shelf life of
many innovations was short, often less than five years. As I look about at
what teaches are buying to guide their instructional decisions, I am
heartened to see that there are many good books available that tell teachers
what works, and why it works; it is this combination of theory and practice
that I think helps to professionalize teaching. 

     I want to thank Tom Sticht for suggesting that we look into Huey and to
Patrick Shannon for raising the concerns he raised. Just thinking about the
issues is important. Huey's book was first published in 1908, so we have an
opportunistic window of time in which to operate. I think Rob should appoint
a person, or panel, to get the planning under way. There has been enough
member support that I think Rob has been given a green light to move on
Tom's idea.  Jay Samuels  
-----Original Message-----
From: reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
[mailto:reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk] On Behalf Of
Patrick Shannon
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 8:00 AM
To: reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
Subject: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Huey

Tom is my favorite regular contributor to the Fameline.  I have a Tom file
for hard copies of many of his epistles to us.  I respond to his latest one
out of respect for his contributions and with a little fear that I will be
accused of blasphemy.

I understand Huey's contribution differently than Tom, and I see Huey's book
as directly connected to the Hall members' interest in discussing
reprofessionalization of the teaching of reading during the Toronto
convention.  On page two, Huey wrote"

"After all we have thus far been content with trial and error, too often
allowing publishers to be our jurors; a real rationalization of the process
of inducing the child with the practice of reading has not been made."

I understand the reference to "trial and error" to be a derogatory comment
directed at teachers.  I see the slight to publishers as well (I admit that
I like that backlash).  But who are "we," and what is meant by the "real
rationalization" of the process in Huey's statement?  Perhaps others would
agree that the "we" refers to educational psychologists (an emerging group
in Huey's day).  Is "rationalization" the use of scientific method (an
emerging force during his time) to discover the laws of the processes of
reading, learning, and teaching?  If so, then maybe we should rethink Huey
in our times.

Huey's sentence is clear (at least to me) on who should have legitimate
authority over reading instruction and what should make that authority
legitimate.  Could Huey's hierarchy be the beginning of our present
conditions in which we witness the discrediting of teachers, the reduction
of reading, deskilling and reskilling in the name of rationalization?  Have
we become implicated in this condition through our attempts to heed Huey's
call without careful understandings of the politics that surround schooling
and literacy? 
Do the paths to change lead through the disruption of that hierarchy and the
subversion of that method?  Seems like a lot to talk about to me.
_______________________________________________
Reading-hall-of-fame mailing list
Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/reading-hall-of-fame