[Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: ILA on phonics

[P Pearson]

Three points and then I'll shut up for the rest of this month:
1.  Let me apologize for raising the level of rhetoric on this issue, BUT
my main concern was less with the content than with the process by which
this report became ILA policy. Especially problematic is the impression
that it is endorsed by the Literacy Research Panel when, as our colleague
Jim Hoffman says, it was not--or at least he was not involved in any
endorsement process.  I should have broached that issue with ILA and the
LRP.  I did not need to take up the time and energy of the RHF on the
matter. Never again!

2.  That said, I am rather enjoying the 'nuances' that are being shared by
RHF members on the finer points of phonics in both its orthographic and
policy aspects.  So I would disagree with my colleagues who suggest that we
don't need to spend time holding a public conversation about a "settled
issue."  Sometimes, perhaps often, it is useful to question the status quo
and established truths, especially when new and often nuanced perspectives
are involved.

3.  Finally, I want to build on the point made by David R about the
integrity of the report. And I want to assert that it is good to engage in
critique, even, perhaps especially, when something appears to be a *fait
accompli.* We can continue to critique something without engaging in
another WAR.  Just a few skirmishes perhaps. From where I sit, the report
makes at least two claims for which I see no research base, one about
decodable text and a second about a scope and sequence.  The vetting
process should have caught these, and would have if ILA had required a full
vetting by the LRP.

*Decodable text*:
*From the Ed Week piece*: The new brief also endorses having students use
"decodable texts," or stories featuring words that help students practice
and reinforce the sound-letter patterns they've recently learned.

*From the brief:*  Controlled, decodable text (also known as accountable
text) at the beginning level of reading instruction helps students develop
a sense of comfort in and control over their reading growth and should be a
key learning tool in early phonics instruction. The tight connection
between what students learn in phonics and what they read is essential for
building a faster foundation in early reading. This is especially critical
when students encounter less-controlled leveled readers during small-group
lessons. These accountable (phonics-based) texts need to be reread to build
fluency, dis- cussed to develop comprehension, and written about to provide
opportunities for students to apply their growing phonics skills in writing.

Even the NRP suggested that there was NO credible evidence to support
decodable over any other sort of text.  I am not aware of any recent
studies that would permit us to overturn that conclusion.  And have you
ever tried to hold a conversation about the deeper meanings of accountable
texts?
*Scope and Sequence:*
*From the brief*:  A strong scope and sequence builds from the simple to
the complex in a way that takes advantage of previous learning. The
sequence allows for many words to be formed as early as possible and
focuses on teaching high-utility skills. Although there is no “right” scope
and sequence, programs that strive to connect concepts and move through a
series of skills in a stair-step way offer the best chance at student
success.
As far as I know,  we have never done an RCT on the question of whether a
scope and sequence or a stair step approach is more effective than a random
or a convenient sequence (e.g., one driven by kids' choices). For example,
though people claim that there is a magic order for teaching letter sound
correspondences, I know of no research suggesting that any one order is any
better than any other.

It's OK to have policies on issues for which there is no definitive
research. But when we do so, are we not obliged to let folks know that we
are basing the policy on something else--that we are making a "best" (not
definitive) evidence claim, or a theoretically-based claim, or a claim
guided by the wisdom of experience?

Enough.
pdp



On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:41 PM Brian Cambourne <bcambrn at uow.edu.au> wrote:

> I think the profession has confused ( conflated?) “decoding to sound” with
> “ encoding to alphabetic script”.
>
> What is generically called “phonics instruction” is more necessary for
> learning to write and spell than it is for learning to read. I agree with
> Ken and Shirley—  “phonics” is less confusing for young learners if taught
> in the context of encoding for the purposes of learning to write and spell.
>
> Brian Cambourne
>
>
> On 23 Jul 2019, at 6:04 am, Shirley B Heath <sbheath at stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> Certainly, Ken is exactly right, for unless children have a visual or
> auditory problem and/or certain cognitive problems, simply being read to,
> talked with, and having books to read and learn with in plentiful supply
> will assure that children learn to read.  Dyslexia, of course, does happen,
> but that is another story, and though special training re
> phonemic/graphemic matters helps, so do many other recently examined
> features of interaction by reading therapists.
>
> I know that many of us must feel as Ken does:  why do we never ever learn
> from or trust long-established, multiply confirmed research studies?  And,
> moreover, most good teachers already know what Ken and Yetta have told us
> for years and years and confirmed with numerous other scholars doing
> research from different perspectives.
>
> Let's move on to other issues about which we need to know!
>
> Best,
>
> Shirley
> ------------------------------
> *From:* reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk <
> reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk> on behalf of Ken
> Goodman <kgoodman at u.arizona.edu>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 22, 2019 10:26 AM
> *To:* P Pearson <ppearson at berkeley.edu>
> *Cc:* Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk <
> Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>; Diane Lapp <lapp at sdsu.edu>
> *Subject:* [Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: ILA on phonics
>
> I wrote a book some years ago that I titled Phonics Phacts (Heineman) . In
> that I explored in some detail the nature of alphabetic language and the
> mistaken view that learning to read  requires being taught letter sound
> relationships. This assumes that (1) There is a simple one-to one
> relationship between letters and sounds (or more correctly graphemes and
> phonemes)
> (2) These realtionships can be learned by young children through "skill
> and drill" prior to reading meaningful texts (3) Once learned the young
> reader can use this simplistic phonics to read words and make sense of
> texts.
> In fact the relationships are far more abstract and complex. Whether an
> approach to instruction is Synthetic <c> <a> <t> or Analytic (cat/ rat /
> mat) they are undependable abstractions .  and abstractions are difficult
> for young children to learn. Furthermore the relationships are not
> one-to-one but pattern to pattern. Site, situate, situation for example
> shows three related words in which the <t> represents three different
> sounds. All unaccented vowels in English are reduced to schwa, a further
> complication.
> And all relationships vary from dialect to dialect in all languages.
> Printers standardized spellings to avoid the need for having to provide
> different editions for different dialect
>  communities.
>  But all this complexity is not a problem if young readers are reading
> authentic predicable texts. In fact research has dependably shown that
> readers invent spellings in their  writing that show their developing
> awareness of the relationships between how words are spelled in sound in
> context.  Grammar and meaning disambiguate phonics complexities.
>
> In  short phonics is developed in the context of reading and writing. In
> fact even the most behavioristic of researchers (Furman for example) have
> found that the only factor in instruction that predicts success in reading
> is- tada: "Time spent reading".
>
> It is sad that ILA has turned back to old phonics mythology and ignorance
> of what the profession has learned.
> Ken Goodman
>
>
>
> Galileo Lane
> Tucson, Az 85747
> 520-9909612
> Learning is not a Response to Instruction
> Effective Iinstruction is a  Response to Learning
> *READING THE GRAND iLLUSION*
> *HOW AND WHY PEOPLE MAKE SENSE OF PRINT*.
> https://www.routledge.com/Reading--The-Grand--
> <https://www.routledge.com/Reading--The-Grand-Illusion-How-and-Why-People-Make-Sense-of-Print/Goodman-Fries-Strauss/p/book/9781138999299>
> Illusion
> <https://www.routledge.com/Reading--The-Grand-Illusion-How-and-Why-People-Make-Sense-of-Print/Goodman-Fries-Strauss/p/book/9781138999299>
>
> How-and-Why-People-Make-Sense-of-Print/Goodman-Fries-Strauss/p/book/9781138999299
> <https://www.routledge.com/Reading--The-Grand-Illusion-How-and-Why-People-Make-Sense-of-Print/Goodman-Fries-Strauss/p/book/9781138999299>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 3:35 PM P Pearson <ppearson at berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> To be clear about where I think I stand:
> I am not objecting to the content.  In fact I agree with a lot of it (85%)
> in terms of the evidence base as I know it from NRP, BNR, the Adams BtoR
> book (which I liked at the time and continue to like) and the earlier
> European reports that Greg Brooks shared with us.  I just don't understand
> 2 things:
> 1.  How this becomes a policy document of the LRP/IRA without some
> official act of endorsement, and
> 2.  Who speaks on behalf of ILA and LRP (since it appears to be endorsed
> by them) on matters of polic--and especially who speaks to the press.
> In short, I worry about the process by which a position becomes policy and
> how it gets represented in the press.
>
> I will stop sharing this with RHF and move my complaint to ILA, which is
> the organization about which I hold these concerns.
> pdp
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 6:17 PM Diane Lapp <lapp at sdsu.edu> wrote:
>
> Hello,
> Let me clear up the process for being invited to write a Brief. As the
> chair of the LRP I survey the Board and the Panel asking for topics for
> Briefs and authors to write them. I also survey *What’s Hot* topics. I
> then compile a list of topics and possible authors and again submit the
> list to the Board and the Panel. They revise or change the topics and
> possible authors. Once finalized I send invitations.
>  Authors do not have to be members of the Panel. This is not a new
> process. I believe this process must have been established from the onset
> of the LRP because this is how it was suggested to me by the previous Panel
> chair.
>
> Wiley Blevins, who I believe studied with Linnea Ehri, has written and
> spoken quite a bit about phonics instruction and he was highly recommended
> by both groups to write this Brief.
>
> Please let me restate what Moody McKeown said regarding the Brief.
>
> “ Please consider:
>
>    - The report is not intended as a broad overview on developing reading
>    ability. It is a Brief (as per the title) and its purpose was to
>    communicate on phonics because the questions of whether and which phonics
>    instruction should occur have come to the fore (again).
>    - Second, the report does not ignore other aspects of reading,
>    including for example:
>       - “Of course, equal amounts of time need to be spent on teaching
>       the meanings of these words,”
>       - Citing the need for “application to authentic reading and writing
>       experiences.”
>       - “The goal of phonics instruction is to develop students’ ability
>       to read connected text independently.”
>
>
> I understand the frustration of not seeing a full representation of
> literacy portrayed, but that is not the purpose of this ILA communication."
>
> I hope this adds light to the process, intent,and author's qualification.
>
> Please send to me any topics and possible author names  for future ILA
> Briefs that you believe need to be written.  I will be happy to add them to
> a new list to share with the Board and the Panel.
>
> Best regards,
> Diane Lapp
>
>
>
> On Jul 20, 2019, at 3:46 PM, P Pearson <ppearson at berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> Different issue...
>
> Just so I know... the last page of this brief lists the members of the
> LRP.  Am I to conclude that the content of the brief has been reviewed and
> endorsed by the LRP?
>
> David
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 6:42 PM Shanahan, Timothy E <shanahan at uic.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Judith—
>
> I only skimmed your letter, but I noticed that you failed to mention
> morphology, epistemology, motivation, evolutionary language studies,
> neurology, phrenology, text structure, epidemiology, morality, or any of
> the dozens of other topics that could have been mentioned.
>
> Given this highly revealing failure, I don’t see how anyone could take
> this criticism seriously given its lack of proper contextualization.
> Obviously, there is no way that anyone can ever abstract a single idea and
> focus on it for a few pages profitably, so writing anything on literacy
> (including this kind of criticism) is reductionist and misleading.
>
> I don’t think your letter gave enough weight to the empirical research
> that has been done with beginning readers—and can’t imagine how teaching
> them to decode text will prevent them in any way from a lifetime of event
> learning within or across disciplines. Can’t wait to read your next
> ethnography on that.
>
> tim
>
> Timothy Shanahan.
> Distinguished Professor Emeritus
> University of Illinois at Chicago
> shanahan at uic.edu
>
> 208 W Washington St  #711
> Chicago, IL 60606
> (312) 933-2835
> www.shanahanonliteracy.com
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk> on behalf
> of Judith Green <judithlgreen at me.com>
> *Date: *Saturday, July 20, 2019 at 4:51 PM
> *To: *Thomas Sticht <tgsticht at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk" <
> Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
> *Subject: *[Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: ILA on phonics
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thank you for sharing this.  I skimmed it and it is scary and re-inforces
> my 6 decades of understanding that ILA (then IRA) did not understand how
> children learning language, how to analyze reading processes and practices,
> or how to trace developing literacy processes across time and opportunities
> for learning.  This does not situate phonics in the more complex
> understandings of meaning construction, prediction of meanings from text or
> how literary text shape us to be particular kids of readers.  This could
> lead those who seek phonics as the center to dismiss once again the complex
> nature of engaging authors in the text and learning to engage with texts.
>
> Really does not reflect what we know about what constitutes a reading
> process or language processes or event learning with and through texts
> within and across disciplines, educational contexts or social worlds.
> Scares me as it seems to ligitimize one approach as READING.
>
> Just sharing,
>
> Judith
>
>
> On Jul 20, 2019, at 2:33 PM, Thomas Sticht <tgsticht at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks: Regarding discussions on phonics, the ILA has put out a report
> calling for explicit and systematic phonics instruction:
>
>
> https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ila-meeting-challenges-early-literacy-phonics-instruction.pdf
>
>
> Tom Sticht
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
>
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
>
> attachment.
>
>
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
>
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
>
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
>
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
>
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
>
> attachment.
>
>
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
>
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
>
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
>
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> P. David Pearson
> Evelyn Lois Corey *Emeritus* Professor of Instructional Science
> and Professor of the Graduate School
> Graduate School of Education
> 4220 Berkeley Way West #1670
> University of California, Berkeley
> Berkeley CA 94720-1670
> GSE Office: 510 543 6508
> email:  ppearson at berkeley.edu
> other e-mail:  pdavidpearsondean at gmail.com
> website for presentations:  www.scienceandliteracy.org
> website for publications:  www.pdavidpearson.org
> *******************
> Home:  851 Euclid Ave
> Berkeley, CA  94708 -1305
> iPhone:  510 543 6508
> ****************************************
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> Diane Lapp,EdD
> Distinguished Professor of Education
> College of Education
> San Diego State University
> 619-405-8705
> http://go.sdsu.edu/education/ste/dr_lapp_bio.aspx
> @lappsdsu (twitter)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> P. David Pearson
> Evelyn Lois Corey *Emeritus* Professor of Instructional Science
> and Professor of the Graduate School
> Graduate School of Education
> 4220 Berkeley Way West #1670
> University of California, Berkeley
> Berkeley CA 94720-1670
> GSE Office: 510 543 6508
> email:  ppearson at berkeley.edu
> other e-mail:  pdavidpearsondean at gmail.com
> website for presentations:  www.scienceandliteracy.org
> website for publications:  www.pdavidpearson.org
> *******************
> Home:  851 Euclid Ave
> Berkeley, CA  94708 -1305
> iPhone:  510 543 6508
> ****************************************
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> Assoc. Prof. ( Dr) Brian Cambourne
> Principal Fellow
> School of Education
> Faculty of Socal Sciences
> Building 67, Level 3.  Visiting Fellows Room
> University of Wollongong NSW 2522
>  Mobile 0408684368
> socialsciences.uow.edu.au/education
>
>

-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
P. David Pearson
Evelyn Lois Corey *Emeritus* Professor of Instructional Science
and Professor of the Graduate School
Graduate School of Education
4220 Berkeley Way West #1670
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley CA 94720-1670
GSE Office: 510 543 6508
email:  ppearson at berkeley.edu
other e-mail:  pdavidpearsondean at gmail.com
website for presentations:  www.scienceandliteracy.org
website for publications:  www.pdavidpearson.org
*******************
Home:  851 Euclid Ave
Berkeley, CA  94708 -1305
iPhone:  510 543 6508
****************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/private/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20190722/51eca27c/attachment-0001.html>