This whole article leaves me at a loss. The only useful ongoing research of the USDOE is the NAEP report, which shows us that all the other research is pointless, since the reading & math scores of K-12 students remain unchanged no matter how much money we pump into the system. Possibly the most important pedagogical research ever done by the USDOE was "Project Follow-Through", released in 1977, showing that the highly prescriptive "Direct Instruction" curricula vastly outperformed all the others tested. But as you say, "Even when research is illuminating, it often has little impact on what happens in classrooms"; the K-12 community soundly rejected the PFT result and marched off in the totally opposite direction, adopting every failed idea imaginable.
Pedagogy is so far removed from reality that it's hard to even describe. When Rudolf Flesch published "Why Johnny Can't Read" in 1955, he sounded like a lunatic, but all he was doing was describing the totally-prevalent reading instruction of the day. Subsequently the elementary-ed community became ever-crazier, culminating in 20 years of "Whole Language" dominance in the late 20th century. Even today, I'd guess that the typical K-3 teacher has only a vague idea that alphabetic languages are based on the idea of using letters to encode sounds. If I were to suggest that she perform ability grouping in order to have children be taught at an appropriate level, she'd probably virulently denounce me as an "ableist" while insisting that she is delivering custom content to every child while insisting on lumping them all together by age. You yourself suggest that teachers are badly educated when you say, "Many teachers are already feeling overwhelmed by the 'science of reading,' trying to absorb a bunch of complex concepts that contradict their training." Really? Why does the well-established "science of reading" contradict their training? For more on all of this, visit "My Child Will Read" at http://mychildwillread.org/
Regarding the quaint notion that teachers, who themselves were mostly poorly educated and haven't the faintest notion of effective curriculum design, will somehow devise their own curricula on the fly through collaboration - is preposterous. Even if teachers could design working curricula, they could never get them adopted. The fatal flaw of government-run schools is that the customers don't control the funding, leaving a power vacuum that is filled by malevolent, self-serving interests. Who really controls school curricula and policies? For more, read "No, we are not going to fix the public schools": https://daveziffer.substack.com/p/no-we-are-not-going-to-fix-the-public
This whole comment leaves ME at a loss! It sounds like you're agreeing with at least some of my points, so I'm not sure why you feel "at a loss."
But just to clarify: you seem to imply that I'm advocating for teachers to "devise their own curricula." Absolutely not. I'm saying they should be PROVIDED with curricula grounded in cognitive science, plus training in how to implement those curricula well.
One note regarding this: "the usefulness of deliberate practice in mastering complex skills; and the value of explicit, interactive instruction over inquiry or discovery approaches when students are new to a topic." It's important to distinguish between inquiry and discovery; they're not the same thing, but are often conflated, and in fact, there is evidence that thoughtful use of inquiry for novice learners can be effective. That doesn't apply to learning to read, but it does apply in other contexts.
Excellent argument, Ms. Wexler. Factual and well reasoned. Maybe too heavy on the quite fashionable "cognitive" science and light emphasizing successes that are happening, but mostly quite true.
Fortunately, there is an effort underway that provides ready access for educators to the evidence about effective practices. I encourage you to review the work by Doug Carnine, Linda Diamond, and their colleagues at the Evidence Advocacy Center https://evidenceadvocacycenter.org.
I am currently reading Daniel Willingham's "Outsmart your Brain." I think this book, and his work in general, might provide the accessible, engaging introduction to cognitive science from a reliable source that you are calling for.
I would agree with you, and I've learned a lot from Dan myself. But Dan has been writing about this topic for many years now, and while I know he's reached many teachers, his efforts haven't had much direct impact on classroom practice. This is true even though he's had a long-running occasional column ("Ask the Cognitive Scientist") in the AFT's magazine, American Educator, which goes out to almost 900,000 teachers.
I hate to say this, but from what I've heard many teachers don't read books -- or maybe even magazine articles. They're busy. Many are more likely to listen to podcasts. If Emily Hanford had done "Sold a Story" as a book or a magazine piece, I'm not sure it would have had the same impact.
Advocacy research enriches the providers and rarely impacts practice.. teachers trust colleagues and their union, who are rarely included in planning, in fact, are looked upon as enemies… do you ever hear how can WE improve practice? A key rule of personal and organizational change is participation reduces resistance.. the high priced expert only pisses off the underpaid and under appreciated classroom teachers
I love your focus on writing instruction as a bridge. When teachers see students thinking more clearly through structured writing, they experience cognitive science principles without needing to memorize retrieval practice terminology. It's evidence-based practice disguised as practical pedagogy...
You want an example of science applied to education. Look at Dysolve.com, an AI-driven diagnostic tool and treatment for Dyslexia. Google Dr. Coral Hoh and watch her on YouTube. She brings receipts. Dysolve is transparent, autonomous, cost-effective (1/8 th cost of O-G), and can be used by special ed or parents.
Lots of them are in favor of it, but that doesn't mean they find it easy to implement--especially if they get training that familiarizes them with the evidence but aren't provided with a curriculum that aligns with that evidence. They may be expected to figure out how to change their practice themselves, which is a tall order, or have to try to juggle several different programs instead of one coherent one.
From what I've seen and heard, I think what teachers really need is a curriculum grounded in scientific evidence and good training in how to use that specific curriculum.
I'm not sure why some of the concerns about the way pedagogy is being mandated at a lightning fast way in Australia must be considered 'political'. Pedagogy has never been mandated in Australia since schools were introduced here over a century ago. The critiques are not political, they are educational, philosophical and sociological.
I stand corrected, then. I did read some coverage that suggested political overtones -- and at least in the US, sometimes philosophical arguments bleed into political ones!
I agree that the science of reading and learning are not and should not be politically driven! Change is hard in education and it takes time and support! Please let’s not bring politics into every conversation, especially around educational practices! It’s upsetting that the current US administration doesn’t understand the challenges educators face and want to dismantle our current system, but they don’t know anything about the science so let’s keep the polarizing conversation out of these shifts in practice!
This whole article leaves me at a loss. The only useful ongoing research of the USDOE is the NAEP report, which shows us that all the other research is pointless, since the reading & math scores of K-12 students remain unchanged no matter how much money we pump into the system. Possibly the most important pedagogical research ever done by the USDOE was "Project Follow-Through", released in 1977, showing that the highly prescriptive "Direct Instruction" curricula vastly outperformed all the others tested. But as you say, "Even when research is illuminating, it often has little impact on what happens in classrooms"; the K-12 community soundly rejected the PFT result and marched off in the totally opposite direction, adopting every failed idea imaginable.
Pedagogy is so far removed from reality that it's hard to even describe. When Rudolf Flesch published "Why Johnny Can't Read" in 1955, he sounded like a lunatic, but all he was doing was describing the totally-prevalent reading instruction of the day. Subsequently the elementary-ed community became ever-crazier, culminating in 20 years of "Whole Language" dominance in the late 20th century. Even today, I'd guess that the typical K-3 teacher has only a vague idea that alphabetic languages are based on the idea of using letters to encode sounds. If I were to suggest that she perform ability grouping in order to have children be taught at an appropriate level, she'd probably virulently denounce me as an "ableist" while insisting that she is delivering custom content to every child while insisting on lumping them all together by age. You yourself suggest that teachers are badly educated when you say, "Many teachers are already feeling overwhelmed by the 'science of reading,' trying to absorb a bunch of complex concepts that contradict their training." Really? Why does the well-established "science of reading" contradict their training? For more on all of this, visit "My Child Will Read" at http://mychildwillread.org/
Regarding the quaint notion that teachers, who themselves were mostly poorly educated and haven't the faintest notion of effective curriculum design, will somehow devise their own curricula on the fly through collaboration - is preposterous. Even if teachers could design working curricula, they could never get them adopted. The fatal flaw of government-run schools is that the customers don't control the funding, leaving a power vacuum that is filled by malevolent, self-serving interests. Who really controls school curricula and policies? For more, read "No, we are not going to fix the public schools": https://daveziffer.substack.com/p/no-we-are-not-going-to-fix-the-public
This whole comment leaves ME at a loss! It sounds like you're agreeing with at least some of my points, so I'm not sure why you feel "at a loss."
But just to clarify: you seem to imply that I'm advocating for teachers to "devise their own curricula." Absolutely not. I'm saying they should be PROVIDED with curricula grounded in cognitive science, plus training in how to implement those curricula well.
Thank you for making a complex subject (and a politically dividing one) very understandable.
Thank you for this excellent piece. Your recommendations with links are most helpful.
One note regarding this: "the usefulness of deliberate practice in mastering complex skills; and the value of explicit, interactive instruction over inquiry or discovery approaches when students are new to a topic." It's important to distinguish between inquiry and discovery; they're not the same thing, but are often conflated, and in fact, there is evidence that thoughtful use of inquiry for novice learners can be effective. That doesn't apply to learning to read, but it does apply in other contexts.
Ok, so I wasn’t the only one that found those guides somewhat vague. Absolutely rife for confirmation bias of different pedagogies
Excellent argument, Ms. Wexler. Factual and well reasoned. Maybe too heavy on the quite fashionable "cognitive" science and light emphasizing successes that are happening, but mostly quite true.
Fortunately, there is an effort underway that provides ready access for educators to the evidence about effective practices. I encourage you to review the work by Doug Carnine, Linda Diamond, and their colleagues at the Evidence Advocacy Center https://evidenceadvocacycenter.org.
I am currently reading Daniel Willingham's "Outsmart your Brain." I think this book, and his work in general, might provide the accessible, engaging introduction to cognitive science from a reliable source that you are calling for.
I would agree with you, and I've learned a lot from Dan myself. But Dan has been writing about this topic for many years now, and while I know he's reached many teachers, his efforts haven't had much direct impact on classroom practice. This is true even though he's had a long-running occasional column ("Ask the Cognitive Scientist") in the AFT's magazine, American Educator, which goes out to almost 900,000 teachers.
I hate to say this, but from what I've heard many teachers don't read books -- or maybe even magazine articles. They're busy. Many are more likely to listen to podcasts. If Emily Hanford had done "Sold a Story" as a book or a magazine piece, I'm not sure it would have had the same impact.
Advocacy research enriches the providers and rarely impacts practice.. teachers trust colleagues and their union, who are rarely included in planning, in fact, are looked upon as enemies… do you ever hear how can WE improve practice? A key rule of personal and organizational change is participation reduces resistance.. the high priced expert only pisses off the underpaid and under appreciated classroom teachers
I love your focus on writing instruction as a bridge. When teachers see students thinking more clearly through structured writing, they experience cognitive science principles without needing to memorize retrieval practice terminology. It's evidence-based practice disguised as practical pedagogy...
You want an example of science applied to education. Look at Dysolve.com, an AI-driven diagnostic tool and treatment for Dyslexia. Google Dr. Coral Hoh and watch her on YouTube. She brings receipts. Dysolve is transparent, autonomous, cost-effective (1/8 th cost of O-G), and can be used by special ed or parents.
I thought educators were generally in favor of the science of reading?
Lots of them are in favor of it, but that doesn't mean they find it easy to implement--especially if they get training that familiarizes them with the evidence but aren't provided with a curriculum that aligns with that evidence. They may be expected to figure out how to change their practice themselves, which is a tall order, or have to try to juggle several different programs instead of one coherent one.
From what I've seen and heard, I think what teachers really need is a curriculum grounded in scientific evidence and good training in how to use that specific curriculum.
That makes a lot of sense. So even though the science of reading might be the best practice, the actual practice of implanting it might be very hard.
I'm not sure why some of the concerns about the way pedagogy is being mandated at a lightning fast way in Australia must be considered 'political'. Pedagogy has never been mandated in Australia since schools were introduced here over a century ago. The critiques are not political, they are educational, philosophical and sociological.
I stand corrected, then. I did read some coverage that suggested political overtones -- and at least in the US, sometimes philosophical arguments bleed into political ones!
I agree that the science of reading and learning are not and should not be politically driven! Change is hard in education and it takes time and support! Please let’s not bring politics into every conversation, especially around educational practices! It’s upsetting that the current US administration doesn’t understand the challenges educators face and want to dismantle our current system, but they don’t know anything about the science so let’s keep the polarizing conversation out of these shifts in practice!