Unmasking the Myths: My Decade-Long Clash with Professor Pamela Snow (Part 3 of 3)

Echoes, Evidence, and the PISA Wake-Up Call

Shouldn’t we think before accepting anything we read?

 

Since 2016, when I first read that “reading is biologically unnatural,” I’ve disagreed. This post shows what happens when one researcher makes a claim—and others repeat it without question. Stanislas Dehaene. Pamela Snow. David Chalk. Regie Routman. The myth spreads. The consequences deepen.

The important first step

 

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.