[LiteracyForAll] Re: [Reading-hall-of-fame] [Fwd: Bush's $6B Reading Program Failed]

[Brian Cambourne]

Ken
I have this concern that if we run comparison studies we're just  
repeating a  the " horse-race" comparisons of the perennial Method A  
vs Method B types of studies we accuse our opponents of  using to   
"prove" that their Methods constitute the one true pedagogy.

George Lakoff's warning about the fallacy of using the same frame as  
our opponents ( a form of  meta analyses) to counter their views is  
also running through my mind. I remember the example he used to  
illustrate this principle: " No matter how many times Nixon declared  
he was NOT a crook everytime he did it it reinforced the perception  
that he was" .I interpret this to mean that t by using their methods  
of "science" to deny their "truths'  we subconsciously reinforce  
their  version of the truth .

I think I remember reading that when asked what he did to change the  
existing Newtonian paradigm of science  Einstein responded ""I did it  
solely by challenging axioms."
Way back in the 60's my mentors in philosophy 101 taught me  that  an  
axiom or postulate is a proposition that is beyond proof or  
demonstration, because it is " self-evident", therefore, its truth is  
taken for granted. This self-evident truth then serves as a starting  
point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

An example springs to mind.  In our Australian version of your NRP  
report ( "Teaching Reading")  there are what I call a number of  
"concealed axioms" which are crucial to all the conclusions that are  
drawn about the best pedagogy  that Australian teachers should be  
forced to use. One of these is that " effective reading" is  being  
able to decode print to sound. Although "effective reading" is never  
explicitly defined or discussed anywhere in the document, a  close  
examination of all the conclusions drawn by the authors shows the  
"decoding print to sound" definition underpins everything they claim  
about effective pedagogy. This self evident  truth is then to used to  
infer another axiom, namely that the process of decoding to sound is  
basically "hearing yourself  blend these sounds in your head,  
identifying  the word's meaning, and moving on to the next word. This  
"second order" axiom is then used to justify another axiom, namely  
that  doing classic pre-test/post-test empirical research  which  
measures reading as  the ability to word-call is the only  
scientifically respectable  way to proceed. And they do.. They use  
this research to prove their "truth", which is based on one axiom  
that no-one challenged, and two others which can be inferred from the  
first, ( again which no -one challenged). My feeling is that if we  
could have challenged the first concealed axiom in ways that caught  
the attention of the media and the policy makers we might have  
stopped the Teaching Reading report being taken seriously by  
journalists, politicians and parents.

Is there a case for us attempting something along the same lines, i.e  
identifying and then "challenging the axioms" about reading,  
pedagogy, science etc that those who were responsible for the whole  
NCLB mess took as " self-evident truths" and built their whole flimsy  
( so-called "scientific") artifice called NCLB on? I think it's  
feasible to " challenge" these "concealed axioms" through using   
already established theories, and/or "thought experiments, ( or both)  
"to challenge ( and possible deny) these axioms.

  For example evolution theory/ archeological theory about the  
evolution of writing systems. conceptual blending theory about  
meaning-making, all indicate that humans are designed to go straight  
to meaning, not go through sound first. Simple thought experiments  
using homographs/homonyms show clearly we need to go to meaning first  
often before we know what sounds are represented.

Is the identification and challenge of axioms inherent in the work  
used by those responsible for the NCLB mess a possible way to go?
Just a thought.
Brian C

  Assoc. Prof. ( Dr) Brian Cambourne
Principal Fellow
  Faculty of Education
University of Wollongong
Northfields Rd Wollongong
AUSTRALIA
Phone: Overseas callers
Home 61-244-416182
email<brian_cambourne at uow.edu.au
  Mobile/Cell phone: 0408684368



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/private/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20080609/bfe6d3cd/attachment.html