Pushing Back Against the Systemic Ignorance that is the Science of Reading
knowledge is the only way to push back against ignorance.
The first part of this paper contains a variety of podcasts and YouTube videos related to the Science of Reading and educational research. Everyone in the world has my permission to use these in any way.
The second part of this paper contains a list of citations to relevant articles related to the Science of Reading.
PODCASTS AND YOUTUBE VIDEOS
Podcasts
Zealotry in the Guise of Reading Science
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/1372080/
The Dance and the Joy of Reading Instruction
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/1355702/
Science of Reading: Where’s the Joy?
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/1349937/
Reading, Religion, and Time
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/1336644/
LETRS, Orthographic Mapping, and Ignorance Mapping
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/1330150/
Emotions, Logic, Intuition, Knowledge, and the Science of Reading
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/1327908/
Killing Cows, Burning Witches, and Reading Instruction in Minnesota
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/1307995/
The Minnesota Lie
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/1305193/
Reading Instruction: Angels, Vampires, Lies, and the Educational Overlords
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/1171544/
Science of Reading – What are you Blocking Me? What are you Afraid of?
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/966222/
You Can’t be just a Little Science of Reading
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/918976/
The Basics of Science and Reading Science
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/896690/
Science of Reading or Ideology of Reading
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/892347/
How Science Words: Reading Science, Reading Research, and Reading Theories
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/890797/
The Science of Reading, Phonics, and the National Reading Panel Report
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/887221/
A Comprehensive Literacy Program and the Science of Reading
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/878895/
The Pseudo-“Science of Reading and Space Alien Gravity Theory
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/841430/
Science of Reading Advocates are Teaching Children to Guess at Words
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/827545/
We do Not Teach Children to Guess at Words
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/768452/
Ken Goodman, Emily Hanford, American Public Media, Penguins, and Reading Instruction
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/742832/
Making Sense out of Nonsense Statements:
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/763611/
The Educational Crisis is a Myth: Reading Test Scores are Not Plummeting
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/729244/
The Science of Reading Clown Club
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/693426/
Evidence and Science in Special Ed World and the Science of Reading Comedy Club
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/637904/
Evidence-Based Practices in education: Facts or Falderal
https://dashboard.rss.com/podcasts/drandy/
Collecting Data is NOT the Same as Research
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/564223/
Parents “Bill of rights”: Picking Lice off of the Educational Monkey
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/409557/
Beware of the Number Monkeys: They are Ruining Education
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/404101/
Using Educational Research to Make Sound Educational Decisions
https://rss.com/podcasts/drandy/385940/
YouTube
Zealotry in the Guise of Reading Instruction
What is Structure Literacy?
What’s the Deal with the Science of Reading
Theoretical Basis of the Science of Reading
7 Questionable Science of Reading Claims
Understanding the Science of Reading
Things Actually in the National Reading Panel Report
Louisa Moats: Prophet or Profiteer
Evaluating Educational Research
Some Basic of Educational Research
The Science of Reading and the Basic of Educational Research
The Science of Reading and the Great Un-Understanding
SOURCES AND CITATIONS
Science of Reading
• Aukerman, M., & Schuldt, L.C. (2021). What matters most? Toward a robust and socially just science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56, S85-S103.
• Eisenhart, M., & Towne, L. (2003). Contestation and change in national policy on “scientifically based” education research. Educational Research, 32, 5-14.
• Gabriel, R. (2020). The future of the science of reading. The Reading Teacher, 74, 11-18. Reading Research Quarterly, 56, S85-S103.
• Hoffman, J., Hikida, M., & Sailors, M. (2020). Contesting science that silences: Amplifying equity, agency, and design research in literacy teacher preparation. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, S255-S265.
• MacPhee, D., Handsfield, L., & Paugh, P. (2021). Conflict or conversations? Media portrayals of the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56, S145-S155.
• Reinking, D., Hruby. G., & Rasko, V. (2023). Legislating Phonics: Settled science or political polemics? Teachers College Record, 1-28.
• Terry, N. (2021). Delivering on the promise of the science of reading for all children. The Reading Teacher, 75, 83-90
• Yaden, D., Reinking, D., & Smagorinsky, P. (2021). The trouble with binaries: A perspective on the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56, S119-S129.
Dyslexia
• Elliott, J.G. (2020), It’s time to be scientific about dyslexia. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, 561-573.
• Gabriel, R. (2018). Preparing literacy professionals: The case of dyslexia. Journal of Literacy Research, 50, 262-270.
• Johnston, P., & Scanlon, D. (2018). An examination of dyslexia research and instruction, with policy implications. Literacy Research Association: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/literacy-research-association-releases-dyslexia-research-report-301272942.html?tc=eml_cleartime
• Kershner, J.R. (2016). Network dynamics in dyslexia: Review and implications for remediation. Research in Developmental Disabilities (59), 24-34.
• Layton, K. (2015). Critical perspective: The new dyslexia laws. Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers, At Costa Mesa, CA
• Layton, K. (2017). Divided or different professional communities? The politics of dyslexia in higher education, state departments of education and public schools. Conference: Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers 61st Annual Conference: Engaging All Readers through Explorations of Literacy, Language and Culture At: St. Petersburg, FL
• Strauss, S.L. (2014). The political economy of dyslexia. Monthly Review 66(4), 35-47.
Eye Movement
• Paulson, E.J. (2002 ) Are oral reading word omissions and substitutions caused by careless eye movements? Reading Psychology, 23, 45–66.
• Paulson, E.J. (2005). Viewing eye movements during reading through the lens of chaos theory: How reading is like the weather. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(3), 338-358.
• Rayner, K., Liversedge, S. P., White, S. J., & Vergilino-Perez, D. (2003). Reading disappearing text: Cognitive control of eye movements. Psychological Science, 14, 385–388.
• Paulson, E., Flurkey, A., Goodman, Y., & Goodman, K. ( 2014). Eye Movements and Miscue Analysis: Reading from a Constructivist Perspective. The Fifty-Second Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, vol 52. 343-355
• Rayner, K. (1985). The Role of Eye Movements in Learning to Read and Reading Disability. RASE 6(6), 53-60.
• Rayner, K. (1997). Understanding eye movements in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, I, 317-339
Phonemic Awareness
• Krashen, S. (2002). Is phonemic awareness training necessary? Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 2-3.
Equity, Social Justice, and Inclusion
• Blanchette, W. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African American students in special education: Acknowledging the role of white privilege and racism. Educational Researcher, 35, 24-28.
• Hikida, M. (2018). Holding space for literate identity co-construction. Journal of Literacy Research, 50, 217-238.
• Johnson, A. (2022). In search for an understanding of culturally responsive teaching. In T. Flowers (Ed.). The Urban Education Sourcebook. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
• Shifrer, D., Muller, C., & Callahan, R. (2011). Disproportionality and learning disabilities: Parsing apart race, socioeconomic status, and language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 246-257.
Reading and the Brain
• Baars, B. J., & Gage, N. M. (2007). Cognition, brain, and consciousness: Introduction to cognitive neuroscience. New York, NY: Academic Press.
• Hogoort, P. (2003). Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP Effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(6), 883–899.
• Hruby, G. G. (2009). Grounding reading comprehension in the neuroscience literatures. In S. E. Israel & G. P. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 189–223). New York, NY: Routeledge.
• Hruby, G. G. & Goswami, U. (2013). Educational neuroscience for reading researchers. In D. Alverman, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and process of reading (pp. 558–588). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
• Kuperberg, G. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23–49.
• LeDoux, J. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
• Sherman, S. M., & Guillery, R. W. (2004). The visual relays in the thalamus. In L. M. Chalupa & J. S. Werner (Eds.), The Visual Neurosciences (pp. 565–591). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
• Strauss, S. L. (2011). Neuroscience and dyslexia. In A. McGill-Franzen & R. L. Allington (Eds.), Handbook of reading disability research (pp. 79–90). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Strauss, S. L., Goodman, K. S., & Paulson, E. J. (2009). Brain research and reading: How emerging concepts in neuroscience support a meaning construction view of the reading process. Education Research and Review, 4(2), 21–33.
• Strauss, S., Goodman, K., & Paulson, E. (2009). Brain research and reading: How emerging concepts in neuroscience support a meaning construction view of the reading process. Educational Research and Review, 4, 21-33
Reading Volume
• Krashen, S (2004). Free Voluntary Reading: New Research, Applications, and Controversies. RELC Conference Presentation
• ILA (2019). Creating passionate readers through independent reading.
• Hinton, C., Miyamota, K., & Dell-Chiese, B. (2008). Brain research, learning and emotions: Implications for education research, policy and practice. European Journal of Education, 43, 87–102
Word Reading Accuracy
• Goodman, K., & Gollasch, F. (1980). Word omissions: Deliberate and non-deliberate. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 6-31.
• Kucer, S. (2009). Examining the relationship between text processing and text comprehension in fourth grade readers. Reading Psychology, 30, 340-358.
• Kucer, S. (2011) Processing expository discourse: What factors predict comprehension?, Reading Psychology, 32, 567-583
• Kucer, S (2016) Accuracy, Miscues, and the Comprehension of Complex Literary and Scientific Texts, Reading Psychology, 37:7, 1076-1095, DOI: 10.1080/02702711.2016.1159632
• Kucer, S., Tuten, J., & Treacy, K. (2008). Examining the relationship between reader miscues and text recall in adult proficient readers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47, 38-53.
Word Recognition and Identification
• Alitto, H. J., & Usrey, W. M. (2003). Corticothalamic feedback and sensory processing. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13, 440–445.
• Binder, K. S., Duffy, S. A., & Rayner, K. (2001). The effects of thematic fit and discourse context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 297–324.
• Chernove, G. V. (1979). Semantic aspects of psycholinguistic research in simultaneous interpretation. Language and Speech, 22, 277–295.
• Destexhe, A. (2000). Modeling corticothalamic feedback and the gating of the thalamus by the cerebral corrects. Journal of Physiology, 94, 394–410.
• Engel, A. K., Fries, P, & Singer, W. (2001). Dynamic predictions: Oscillations and synchrony in top-down processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 704–716.
• Friederici, A. D., & Kotz, S. A. (2003). The brain basis of syntactic processes: Functional imaging and lesion studies. NeuroImage, 20, 8–17.
• Friederici, A. D., & Weissenborn, J. (2007). Mapping sentence form onto meaning: The syntax-semantic interface. Brain Research, 1146, 50–58.
• Gilbert, C. D., & Sigman, M. (2007). Brain states: Top-down influences in sensory processing. Neuron, 54, 677–696.
• Goodman, Y. M., & Goodman, K. S. (2013). To err is human: Learning about language processes by analyzing miscues. In D. Alverman, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds), Theoretical models and process of reading (pp. 523–543). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
• Isakson, R. L., & Miller, J. W. (1976). Sensitivity to syntactic and semantic cues in good and poor comprehenders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 787–792.
• Kennedy, D., & Weener, P. (1974). Visual and auditory training with the cloze procedure to improve reading and listening comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 8, 524–541.
• Lim, J., Reiser, R., & Z. Olina. (2009) The effects of part-task and whole-task instructional approaches on acquisition and transfer of a complex cognitive skill. Educational Technology Research & Development, 57, 61–77.
• Machazo, G. M., & Motz, L. L. (2005). Brain research: Implications to diverse learners. Science Educator, 14, 56–60.
• Münte, T., Heinze, H., & Mangun, G. (1993) Dissociation of brain activity related to syntactic and semantic aspects of language. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 335–344.
• Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785–806.
• Poldrack, R. A., Wagner, A. D., Prull, M. W., Desmond, J. E., Glover, G. H., & Gabrieli, D. E. (1999). Functional specialization for semantic and phonological processing in the left inferior prefrontal cortext. NeuroImage, 10, 15–35.
• Sakai, K. L., Noguchi, Y., Takeuchi, T., & Watanabe, E. (2002). Selective priming of syntactic processing by event-related transcranial magnetic stimulation of Broca’s areas. Neuron, 35, 1177–1182.
• Schulz, E., Maurer, U., van der Mark, S., Bucher, K., Brem, S., Martain, E., & Brandeis, D., (2008). Impaired semantic processing during sentence reading in children with dyslexia: Combined fMRI and ERP evidence. NeuroImage, 41, 153–168.
• Van Berkum, J., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. (1999) Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: Evidence from the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 657–671.
• Xu J., Kemeny, S., Park, G., Frattali, C., & Bran, A. (2005). Language in context: Emergent features of word, sentence, and narrative comprehension. Neuroimage, 25, 1002–1015.
• Zeelenberg, R., Pecher, D., Shiffrin, R. M., & Raaijmakers, J. (2003). Semantic context effects and priming in word association. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 653–660.
Books
Johnson, A. (2022). The human dimension in Education: Essential Learning theories and their impact on teaching and learning. Rowman and Littlefield.
Johnson, A. (2021). Designing meaning-based interventions for reading. Guildford Press.
Johnson, A. (2019). Essential learning theories: Applications to authentic teaching situations. Rowman and Littlefield.
Johnson, A. (2017). Teaching strategies for all teachers. Rowman and Littlefield.
Johnson, A. (2016). 10 essential instructional elements for students with reading difficulties: A brain-friendly approach. Corwin
Many thanks for your post, Andy. This is a complicated debate, nevertheless, systematic phonics clearly has a very important role to play in the teaching of reading.
Interestingly, according to Prof. Pamela Snow , three national inquiries into the teaching of reading, in the US , the UK , and Australia have all “recommended an explicit focus on systematic phonics instruction as the starting point for novice readers - alongside development of all of the other skills essential for successful reading.”
Here are a few more readings on different facets of this issue:
Buckingham, J. (2020) Systematic phonics instruction belongs in
evidence-based reading programs: A response to Bowers, The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 37:2, 105-113,
https://doi.org/10.1017/edp.2020.12
Buckingham, J., Wheldall, R., & Wheldall, K. (2019). Systematic and explicit phonics instruction: A scientific evidence-based approach to teaching the alphabetic principle. In R. Cox, S. Feez, & L. Beveridge (Eds.), The alphabetic principle and beyond: Surveying the landscape (pp. 49–67). Primary English Teaching Association Australia.
Christensen, C.A., & Bowey J.A. (2005). The efficacy of orthographic rime,
grapheme–phoneme correspondence, and implicit phonics approaches to
teaching decoding skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 327–349.
Ehri, L.C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167–188.
Hatcher, P.J., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M.J. (2004). Explicit phoneme training
combined with phonic reading instruction helps young children at risk of
reading failure. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 338–358.
Johnston, R., McGeown, S., & Watson, J. (2011). Long-term effects of synthetic
versus analytic phonics teaching on the reading and spelling ability
of 10-year-old boys and girls. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 25, 1365–1384.
Joseph, B. (2019). Overcoming the odds: A study of Australia’s top performing
disadvantaged schools [Research Report 39]. The Centre for Independent
Studies.
Louden, B. (2015). High performing schools: What do they have in common?
Western Australia Department of Education.
Ricketts, J., Bishop, D. & Nation, K. (2009). Orthographic facilitation in oral vocabulary acquisition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1948–1966.
Rose, J. (2006). Independent review of the teaching of early reading final report. UK. Department for Education and Skills. Retrieved from: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5551/2/report.pdf
Rosenthal, J. & Ehri, L. (2008). The mnemonic value of orthography for vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 175–191.
Rowe, K. (2005). Teaching reading: National inquiry into the teaching of literacy. Department of Education, Science and Training, Australian Council of Educational Research. Retrieved from: https://research.acer.edu.au/tll_misc/5/
Snow, P. (2018). Who sank the (reading) boat? A sad tale of academic misrepresentation of the role of decodable texts for beginning readers. Retrieved from: www.pamelasnow.blogspot.com/2018/11/who-sank-reading-boat-sad-tale-of.html (accessed 1 November 2018).
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. (2026). Whole language lives on: The illusion of balanced reading instruction. https://www.ldonline.org/ld-topics/teaching-instruction/whole-language-lives-illusion-balanced-reading-instruction
UK Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills
(OFSTED). (2010). Reading by six: How the best schools do it. UK Office
for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills.
Torgerson, C., Brooks, G., Gascoine, L., & Higgins, S. (2018). Phonics:
Reading policy and the evidence of effectiveness from a systematic ‘tertiary’
review. Research Papers in Education, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02671522.2017.1420816
Wheldall, K., Snow, P. & Graham, L. (2016). Explainer: What does the term ‘synthetic phonics’ really mean? Nomanis, 2, 26–27.
More reading:
https://www.readingrockets.org/blogs/shanahan-on-literacy/which-best-analytic-or-synthetic-phonics
https://www.getreadingright.com.au/analytic-phonics-vs-synthetic-phonics/
Emily Hanford receives an honorary doctorate:
https://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2025/release/podcaster-receives-universitys-highest-honour
"Rather unsatisfactory" means that it was ironic that he could not see the correlation between the Rose report recommending phonics for reading being implemented and the subsequent improvement in reading literacy rates. Denying low SES kids phonics instruction is entrenching inequality and baking in low literacy rates.