This, I think, sheds light on why people disagree so much on what works with reading instruction:
"Behaviorists would assume that students do not know or are not using information if they are not taught to do so. Constructivists would assume that students are always already literate (capable of making meaning), albeit in unconventional ways, and that a teacher's job is to understand how they already make sense of print to guide them toward more conventional and efficient strategies. It is a case of whether one views evidence of reading development as programming reading ability into a brain from scratch, or organizing and refining a student's emerging literacy processing system. Both perspectives could be considered brain-based, both could be considered evidence-based, and both are used to inform effective interventions. However, when those who have studied one try to make sense of the other without adequate background knowledge, assumptions lead to uninformed practices such as teaching students to use cues or assuming that cueing is damaging to reading development."
Gabriel, R. (2020) The future of the science of reading.
Johnston, P., & Scanlon, D. (2021). An Examination of Dyslexia Research and Instruction With Policy Implications. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 70(1), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/23813377211024625
Among other things, it concludes: "Evidence does not justify the use of a heavy and near-exclusive focus on phonics instruction, either in regular classrooms, or for children experiencing difficulty learning to read (including those classified as dyslexic)."
“Evidence does not justify the use of a heavy and near-exclusive focus on phonics instruction, either in regular classrooms, or for children experiencing difficulty learning to read (including those classified as dyslexic)." Whew! I’m so glad I don’t do this! I wonder who does (?)
This, I think, sheds light on why people disagree so much on what works with reading instruction:
"Behaviorists would assume that students do not know or are not using information if they are not taught to do so. Constructivists would assume that students are always already literate (capable of making meaning), albeit in unconventional ways, and that a teacher's job is to understand how they already make sense of print to guide them toward more conventional and efficient strategies. It is a case of whether one views evidence of reading development as programming reading ability into a brain from scratch, or organizing and refining a student's emerging literacy processing system. Both perspectives could be considered brain-based, both could be considered evidence-based, and both are used to inform effective interventions. However, when those who have studied one try to make sense of the other without adequate background knowledge, assumptions lead to uninformed practices such as teaching students to use cues or assuming that cueing is damaging to reading development."
Gabriel, R. (2020) The future of the science of reading.
https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/D9DSQVYQMJARIM6RHA5K?target=10.1002/trtr.1924
Can you please cite the most current research supporting your claims? Thank you.
Try this:
Johnston, P., & Scanlon, D. (2021). An Examination of Dyslexia Research and Instruction With Policy Implications. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 70(1), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/23813377211024625
Among other things, it concludes: "Evidence does not justify the use of a heavy and near-exclusive focus on phonics instruction, either in regular classrooms, or for children experiencing difficulty learning to read (including those classified as dyslexic)."
“Evidence does not justify the use of a heavy and near-exclusive focus on phonics instruction, either in regular classrooms, or for children experiencing difficulty learning to read (including those classified as dyslexic)." Whew! I’m so glad I don’t do this! I wonder who does (?)
There's also this:
Duke, N. Cartwright, K. (2021) "The Science of Reading Progresses: Communicating Advances Beyond the Simple View of Reading"
https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/YTU9I5X4H7SQNXDQ56E4?target=10.1002/rrq.411
For which part? You want him to cite research that says that reading is creating meaning with print? You don't agree with that?