 In 1998, we published an article entitled "The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children," which was published in the Journal of Educational Psychology, 1998, 90, 37-55. The study reported in this paper attracted considerable attention, particularly from the media, where it was misinterpreted as a simple comparison of phonics and whole language, when in fact it was a study of four instructional programs varying in different instructional principles. The study showed benefits for balanced literacy programs in which the alphabetic principle was explicitly taught (see NICHD). The paper attracted both positive and negative commentary, and our group has attempted to respond to much of the negative commentary. In this section, the reader can find commentaries on the paper accompanied by our responses. These commentaries are provided in an effort to fully elucidate what the study actually showed and to encourage people to actually read the article itself and not interpretations of the article, most of which are erroneous and misleading. There are some additional commentaries by members of our group on other issues of import for reading development. Houston StudyMany commentaries have been written about the Houston Study. In this section, we identify the major points of concern and respond to each in turn. This is largely a composite response to Denny Taylor, Gerald Coles, and Dianne McGuiness. Since the same erroneous assumptions have been made repeatedly, this composite is a good general summary of the questions that have been raised in our response.
Response to D. TaylorIn two different posts, one prior to publication, and the other after publication, Denny Taylor provided extensive commentary on the study. Her commentary became the basis for part of her book, Beginning to Read and The Spin Doctors of Science. Although the responses posted here show that the assertions that she makes are erroneous, nothing in her book was modified on our responses.
D. Taylor: April 6,
1998
Response to D. McGuinessIn 1998, Dianne McGuiness published a commentary in ParenTeacher from Read America, Inc. The article made many erroneous ascertains about the study. We responded in a letter to Dianne McGuiness. In this section, the article by Dianne McGuiness can be read, followed by our response.
Foorman and ColesIn an unsolicited letter to Education Week, Gerald Coles made a number of assertions about Barbara Foorman's belief system that were erroneous. This section includes Coles' original letter, a response by Foorman, response by Coles, and Foorman's final response. Coles' letters can be found on the Education Week website, where archives older than 1 year are available only to paid subscribers.
Coles' Misreading ReadingIn 2000, Gerald Coles wrote a "critique" of NICHD research on reading and reading disabilities. In this section, we have posted a correction of several of the errors in Coles (2000) that involve our 1998 article published in the Journal of Educational Psychology.
In addition, this section includes a link to a review of Coles 2000 by Louise Spear-Sperling published in Education Week. Louise Spear-Sperling notes that Coles has little to say about what consitutes "good science," little about what educators should do to address reading problems, and largely slams other people's research, a recurrent pattern of behavior for Gerald Coles.
Response to B. Taylor et al.In an issue of Educational Researcher, Barbara Taylor and colleagues published a critique of the Foorman et al. (1998) study. As we noted in our reponse, this critique was published despite a detailed effort to respond to questions raised by the authors. Virtually nothing in our response was included in their critique, which was largely unchanged from the original version that we saw. Prior to publication, Taylor et al. posted their critique on the CIERA website.This section provides a link to the Taylor et al. critique on the CIERA website as well as our response to this particular version of the paper.
A slightly revised version of the Barbara Taylor et al. critique
was published in
Educational Researcher (Taylor, B.M., Anderson, R.C., Au, K.H.,
& Raphael, T.E. (2000). Discretion in the translation of research to
policy: A case from beginning reading.
Educational Researcher, 29, 16-26.) Our response is
included in the same issue (p. 27-37) A call for equity in reading instruction for all students: A response to Allington and Woodside-JironPatricia Mathes, a CARS researcher, and Joe Torgesen, a well-known reading researcher from Florida State University, published a rebuttal to a "critique" of NICHD research and its influence on policy published by R.L. Allington and M. Woodside-Jiron entitled "The politics of literacy teaching: How research shaped educational policy" that was published in Educational Researcher (1999), 28, 4-14. The response by Mathes and Torgesen was published in Educational Researcher, (2000), 29, 4-14.
Response to M. Dressman and R. AllingtonMark Dressman and Richard Allington each wrote critiques that supposedly addressed weaknesses in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) and the Texas Reading Initiative.Dressman's critique, entitled "On the use and misuse of research evidence: Decoding two states reading initiatives," was published in Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 258-285. Allington's response, "Crafting state educational policy: The slippery role of research and researchers," will be published in the Journal of Literacy Research, 31, 457–482. Both papers misrepresented many issues in the TEKS and Reading Initiative. Our response, written by the leaders of the three major research organizations that support the Texas Reading Initiative, and the president of the Texas Reading Association, along with a philosopher at the University of Houston who is an expert in the phonological basis for the Dressman article, is posted here. In reading this, it is important to note the context and circumstances underlying the development of Texas Reading Initiative as well as the passage of the TEKS. It will become apparent to the reader that many of the assertions in the two articles reflect a failure to adequately review the available evidence and to fully identify the context in which TEKS were adopted and Texas Reading Initiative developed.
Miscellaneous: Media Reports and ResponsesThis section contains various media reports and responses to each. -by Kathleen Kennedy Manzo
-by Joe Williams
-by David Booth, Curt Dudley-Marling, Sharon Murphy and Gordon Wells
-by Moustafa and Land This is a revised version of the paper, the original is no longer available online.
|
|
