Shouldn’t we think before accepting anything we read?
Since 2016 when I read that reading is biologically unnatural, I have disagreed with that statement.
This post illustrates that when one researcher says something many follow suit and repeat what they read. Some insist that we should accept these research reports or statements researchers make.
Now proven:
i. Since 2010 I wrote extensively that phonological awareness deficit cannot be the cause of dyslexia. Many researchers disagreed with me and asked me for evidence. Many blocked me. I persisted because of my experience and not because of some book theory. That theory was debunked in 2017.
ii. In 2016 when I saw the quote by Pamela Snow, I disagreed with it. She said ‘‘Reading (and its corollary, writing) is a human contrivance that has existed for only approximately 6,000 years. This recency of reading as a human skill is important, because 6,000 years is a mere blink in evolutionary terms, and the human brain has not developed specialized neural pathways to support a skill that is widely agreed to be essential to successful living in first-world developed economies and to the social and economic trajectories of developing nations.”
Pamela Snow and teachers with similar dogmatic attitudes are the ones who perpetuate the reading wars. They do not know the impact they have on others who repeat what they say. Two of many such teachers, who repeat what she says are Emina McLean and Jennifer Buckingham. (All 3 of them are researchers from Australia).
The following is a ridiculous question Pamela Snow asked when I pointed out that many kids disengage from learning to read because of confusion.
(Sila lihat di bawah untuk terjemahan Bahasa Melayu)
Carlo M. Cipolla's "The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity" offers thought-provoking insights into human behaviour and its impact on society. Here are 10 wonderful lessons derived from the essay.
My friend, Harold Rozario, posted the above on Facebook and commented, ‘Read numbers 7 and 9 again. Do you recognize it in your environment?’
Let’s look at the remaining 8 while I think a little more on 7 and 9.
In a LinkedIn comment, David Chalk said: "Our brains have been wired hundreds of thousands of years to speak and interpret by hearing words, but there is no natural ability to read-attaching sounds to symbols-words."
This is making statements without thinking. He repeats what he has read from others such as Stanislas Dehaene and Pamela Snow. Dehaene does not answer questions asked, and Pamela Snow thinks she becomes invisible when she sticks her head in the sand. She blocked me when she could not answer the questions, I asked her. It is irresponsible to say something on social media and to not respond when relevant questions are asked.
The noted neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene (2018) argues that there is no place or mechanism in the brain to accommodate the learning-to-read process, seemingly adding credence to the reading-is-unnatural assumption. Dehaene and other researchers point out that oral language has been around for 50,000 years, whereas written systems developed much later—as recently as 5,000 years ago.
I recently shared some thoughts with Ethan Lynn regarding a pervasive issue in education: many educators struggle to understand why some children cannot read. They either don’t understand or refuse to accept that the reason is confusion caused by teaching consonants with extraneous sounds.
This brings to mind a response I received from some ‘experts’ in Australia in 2020 regarding phonics instruction. You can read more about it here. LINK
Here is an article on BBC written by one Sophie Hardach on 10th March 2023. This was a copy-paste article about which the author knows zilch about. LINK
Here are extracts from the article and my comments.
At the age of 13, however, Alex was diagnosed with dyslexia, a learning difficulty that affects reading and writing. According to test results, his English reading level was that of a six-year-old.
Read my post on this in 2010. LINK
Here is a post on LinkedIn by Jennifer Knopf from Orlando that included the above image.
Jennifer is the President and Founding Director @ REED Charitable Foundation
Her post was reposted by 13 LinkedIn members. I commented on one of the reposts and had a discussion/debate with someone. A day later all our (hers, another member and mine) comments has disappeared. Why members do this is beyond me.
This morning, 8.2.24, I read a post in Education HQ by Sarah Duggan. LINK
Here is an extract and my comments:
All Australian governments and school sector leaders should commit to a 10-year ‘Reading Guarantee’ strategy to reduce the dire number of instructional casualties slipping through the system and ensure best practice is not left to chance, experts have proposed.
One third of all students are below the basic level of reading proficiency, Amy Haywood, Grattan’s education deputy program director, tells Education HQ.
“And the sad thing is, that it’s a preventable tragedy because we do know what strong and effective reading instruction looks like – we just need to make sure that we’re getting it happening in every classroom…” Haywood says.
Here is the fourth and final part of Anna Stokke's podcast with Matther Burns.
Anna Stokke:
About some of the education thought leaders, sometimes you could even call them education celebrities, I think. And we see this in both reading and math. Do you think maybe they get caught up in the positive attention that they're receiving and that this may be why they don't step back on the claims they've made, even when it comes to light that there are problems with some of the ideas they promote?
Matthew Burns:
And I think because of that, people telling you that your stuff is so great and people tell you what you say is true, that you sort of start to believe it.
And you get to the point where you can say, “Well, I think it's true. Therefore, it must be.” So I think we researchers need to be more self-critical and self-reflective. We need to recognize “What I'm thinking based on evidence, or is it something I think is true because I think it's true?” So I really challenge other researchers to engage in that level of self-reflection because you can get caught up in it really easily.
My comment:
Wow! Matthew
has put it very well. Do read his excellent response above, again.
This is a follow up to my post yesterday.
Nora Marketos profile says:
Strategic Advisor, Board Member, Facilitator Education, EdTech, Refugees, Migration, Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships
She commented the following on a post on LinkedIn in response to my comment.
There is an extensive set of research showing that learning how to read is not naturally acquired like learning how to speak. This article explores the question of whether this learning process is better in the mother tongue, and there seems to be quite promising evidence for this claim.
Here is a tweet I commented on and was questioned and my replies:
Evan Robb @ERobbPrincipal Aug 15
To have a great team you must surround yourself with like-minded people!
@MichelLuqman
Where do I find people who can think?
Most of the educators on Twitter have a herd mentality and wear blinkers. They base everything on research reports and rarely think. Read what Daniel Kahneman said about research reports. LINK
Note:
Since 2010, I have been questioned on my credentials and asked for research reports when common sense should prevail. This over-reliance on research reports as if they are the gospel truth is one of the main problems facing education.
This morning I read an excellent must-read article written by W. Dorsey Hammond.
I don’t agree with him taking a few unnecessary punches at phonics but overall it is a must-read article.
The article says:
“The average child normally endowed and normally taught learns to read only with considerable difficulty.”
This statement is made by the white man who does not know how to read in any other language. A child taught to read in Malay will have no problem reading any word in less than 3 months of teaching.
My book, ‘Teach your child to Read’, can get any kid, with no acuity problem, to read in less than 4 months. The book is made up of 30 lessons with only about 5 to 8 sentences per lesson.
I saw the following image on LinkedIn and commented on it. I
then happened to see that that image was liked by 83 members and was re-posted by
42 of them. I then decided to post this on my blog hoping to get some comments from those who re-posted. Will any of the 42 educators have anything to say? It will be an interesting discussion.
The following are my comments on the LinkedIn post.
This is a continuation of my post yesterday found here.
Renee Harding asked the following question:
If the majority of kids were somehow figuring out how to read (i.e., stumbling upon, “discovering,” or activating that “innate” ability [that doesn’t exist]), then why are so few students reading proficiently?!
I have said in several of my blog that reading is an innate ability contrary to what the general opinion is. I based this on observation of my students whom I started teaching in 2004 to learn why kids were able to read in Malay but not in English.
I read the following tweets this morning which prompted me to write this post.
Regie Routman @regieroutman Mar 3
Explicit, systematic teaching of letters & sounds—decoding-- is necessary but insufficient for becoming a reader, one who chooses to read (mostly) books & who comprehends, self-monitors & finds joy in becoming a discerning reader. We have known this for decades.
suzy yates @bubbletroublex7 Replying to @regieroutman
I have been reading your books since I discovered Transitions
in the 90s. My district is now following the science of reading. I don’t see
kids reading books.
Heartbreaking. Decoding only is, imo, not going to develop
lifelong readers. Have you written any articles about this?
A retweet of the above with the following by: Regie Routman @regieroutman on 22.5.2022 (Malaysian time)
SoR is needlessly a fraught topic. Teaching kids to read is not either-or. Becoming a reader requires decoding AND fluency AND attention to comprehension AND lots of reading of self-chosen books.
Dr. Sam:
I’ll start by stating my position about using
research. We absolutely should use research to inform our decisions about
teaching. LINK
This is controversial, but as I said in the heading above I am thinking aloud.
I would define a natural process as a skill that is relatively easy to learn.
Educators on Twitter keep saying that learning to read is NOT a natural process. Pamela Snow copy pastes what others have said – ‘Reading is a human contrivance that has existed for only approximately 6,000 years (Snow, 2016)’.
The statement above ridicules the intelligence of humans. I called it an idiotic statement and a Twitter friend said, “I don't think it is productive to categorise opposing opinions as 'idiotic', especially when those positions are the generally accepted.”
Here are some extracts from an article by Five from five found here and my comments.
Five from five:
‘Word study will have limited success if the learner has weak letter-sound associations and/or weak phonemic awareness.’
This is a continuation of the Tweets by Alanna Maurin. I am posting this now as, yesterday, I listened to a short video by Mark Seidenberg where he says that there are no multiple ways that the brain can be structured to read.
“Educators have a pretty firm belief that every kid is different and that the challenge of reading is to be able to tailor your instruction for the needs of the child, and their learning style, the way that they happen to learn best. We don’t find that when we study the computational, and behavioral, and neural systems that underlie reading” (Mark Seidenberg) LINK.
As far as decoding is concerned, the above video should have put paid to the frequently quoted saying ‘One size doesn’t fit all’.
