I know of no one who understands the science of reading who believes in a "reading = phonics perspective" or is urging teacher educators, administrators or teachers to abandon the idea that reading is a complex meaning-making process. #ILA2019 @DeborahMacPhee @SherrySanden Thread
If the session at #ILA2019 is in response to reporting I've done, I'm curious to know where in my work you see this idea. I encourage people who attend this session to listen and read to review what I have reported. All of the stories are collected here: apmreports.org/reading
I also encourage attendees to read the @ILAToday's recent brief that lays out "where we stand" on phonics instruction. It lays out clearly why phonics instruction matters, and what kind of phonics instruction benefits all kids. literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-s…
.@ILAToday brief cites research from Bruce McCandliss @StanfordEd, for example. This work shows beginning readers who focus on letter-sound relationships (phonics) increase activity in the area of the brain best wired for reading. news.stanford.edu/2015/05/28/rea… blog.amplify.com/rewiring-the-b…
The @ILAToday brief also cites the "Matthew Effects" paper by Keith Stanovich. I know many #ILA2019 attendees care deeply about social justice and equity in education. This paper is essential reading if these are important to you: psychologytoday.com/files/u81/Stan…
If you are skeptical of "sound it out" instruction, I encourage you to check out the work of @StanDehaene. In this video, he explains the basics of neuroscience for teaching reading and why drawing attention to the sounds in words is so critical:
This article from @annecastles @Kathy_Rastle @ReadOxford is also really useful. They address the gap between scientific support for phonics instruction and current educational policies and practice. psychologicalscience.org/publications/e…
In my reporting, I've found that while there's increasing acceptance of the importance of (some) phonics instruction, reading instruction remains deeply rooted in whole language theories of how reading works. A crucial issue is the presence of the cueing system.
If you're teaching phonics AND cueing, your instruction doesn't line up with the cognitive science of reading. It's not "balanced," it's making it more difficult for kids to learn how to read. I encourage you to read the footnotes in At a Loss for Words: apmreports.org/story/2019/08/…
In terms of the problems with cueing, you might want to read these articles: lizditz.typepad.com/files/din_02_0… files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED467… foundationstutoring.org/wp-content/upl…
It's critical for everyone involved in reading instruction to understand the critical role of phonology. Also important in ongoing conversation to avoid misrepresentations of the research or the reporting on it. #ILA2019
The Simple of View of Reading makes it absolutely clear that decoding is only one part of reading instruction. To characterize the science any other way is either a misunderstanding of the research or deliberately misleading. 
For the sake of kids, it's time for everyone to fully embrace the mountain of cognitive science research on reading, and to adjust instruction and teacher prep and curriculum materials accordingly. My reporting shows this may not be a nip and tuck situation... #ILA2019
... lining up reading instruction with the science may require a big overhaul, an honest and difficult reckoning with what is off in reading instruction, and what needs to be done about it. It's important. It's for the kids.
End Thread.
End Thread.
