Thread by @plthomasEdD

Thread on the problem with "science" in the "science of reading" (SoR) movement re: @NEPCtweet / EDJE policy statement nepc.colorado.edu/publication/fy…

1/x

SoR focuses heavily on research conducted by behavioral psychologists and often the use of the term "science" or "scientific" is code for experimental or quasi-experimental research: random sampling, control groups, causal generalizations writing.colostate.edu/guides/page.cf…

2/x

SoR advocates tend to argue the scientific research base on reading is "settled" and that this body of science supports systematic intensive phonics (SIP) for *all* students, with some elements of SIP necessary for *all* students with dyslexia

3/x

Two brief problems:

Bowers 2020 and others raise problems with "settled" link.springer.com/content/pdf/10…

And @ILAToday reject "one-size-fits-all" approaches to dyslexia literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-s…

4/x

Now back to "science"

SoR advocates demand a strict adherence to a very narrow type of "science," experimental/quasi-experimental; *however* those same advocates rely on anecdote and unscientific reports from think tanks repeatedly

5/x

The most common argument that the SoR is absent in classrooms is blaming teacher education and pointing to anecdotes in their own experiences, surveys conducted by media (surveys are weak data, and often fail to meet standards fo high-quality research), reports by think tanks 6/x

As well, SoR advocates seem to love the National Reading Panel report, which is now about two decades old; most social sciences seek evidence much more recent than that. Also, SoR advocates and MSM fail to disclose that the NRP report was politically skewed and incomplete 7/x

SoR advocates also discredit any reading program or instructional practice they deem not "scientific" but cannot provide research for every program and practice they use (no one can).

In short, SoR have higher demands for others than themselves

8/x

Possibly the worst case of this problem is that MSM pushing the SoR reading narrative often wink-wink-nod-nod through making claims that have *zero* research backing the implications; see MS reading gains on NAEP in 2019

9/x

There simply is *no scientific research* showing any relationships between instructional practices and NAEP scores in reading, and MS, for example, had another spike in scores a decade before adopting SoR in 2013 radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2019/12/06/mis…

10/x

The enormously complex matrix of how and why 4th or 8th grade students score as they do on NAEP *could* be examined by scientific research, but it hasn't, & to claim phonics is a major or sole causal aspect of that is beyond credulity (especially if no research is offered)

11/x

Here is the big picture problem for SoR advocates:

Hold yourself to higher standards than those you are debating. Otherwise you have *zero* credibility.

Most SoR advocates and MSM currently have zero credibility

12/x

I have stated repeatedly that narrow definitions of what counts as research (science) or evidence for teaching are deeply flawed since our students and classrooms are not random populations.

Behavioral psychologists are not literacy experts thus

13/x

Experimental/quasi-experimental research has *some* value, but qualitative research and teacher experience are also incredibly valuable in the day-to-day of teaching

14/x

SoR advocates want to demand "science!" for others and then use anecdote, surveys, and reports (none scientific) with impunity

Can't have it both ways ...

15/15

@threadreaderapp unroll