The following is a compilation of responses to some of the claims made in Taylor (1998), Coles (1999), and other sources about our research. We have chosen to respond to the inaccuracies that involve our research and have chosen not to respond to components that involve attribution of motives, name calling, and other unprofessional modes of critique.
Most of the responses involve the study published in the Journal of Educational Psychology, 1998, 90, 37-55 by Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, and Mehta.
We have also responded to interpretations of this study that mistakenly emphasize support for isolated teaching of phonics and decodable texts, comparisons of phonics and whole language, and other simplifications of the study.
MYTH
Foorman has a "relationship" with the publishers of Open Court. She was therefore biased, leading to misrepresentation of the research.
REALITY
Foorman does not have a financial or any other relationship with the publishers providing curriculum materials. We always ask for such in-kind donations from publishers and feel they are obligated to support empirical investigations of their products. Open Court reading was recommended by the school district because they already used Open Court math. The results speak for themselves, appearing in an archival, peer reviewed journal.
MYTH
Instructional groups did not differ on measures of reading comprehension.
REALITY
There were no instructional group differences on the Formal Reading Inventory, on which none of the groups performed well (floor effect); the direct code group obtained higher scores on the Passage Comprehension subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson-Revised. Effect sizes were in the moderate to large range (.76 for direct code vs. implicit code-research).
MYTH
Group differences favoring the direct code group were restricted to measures of pseudoword decoding.
REALITY
Differences favoring the direct code group were found on multiple measures, including growth in real word reading and phonological awareness skills, and end-of-year assessments of pseudoword and real word reading, and reading comprehension.
MYTH
The direct code group had better spelling skills than the other groups.
REALITY
There were no group differences in spelling skills.
MYTH
The Foorman et al. study supports "phonics-first," the teaching of phonics in isolation, "skill and drill" phonics and decodable texts.
REALITY
The Houston study did not study programs that primarily involved isolated teaching or drilling of phonics -- all instruction occurred in literature-rich environments with an emphasis on application in real literature and decodable text. Decodable texts were part of the direct code condition, but the effect of decodable texts cannot be isolated from the overall efficacy of the direct code condition.
MYTH
The samples were biased in favor of direct code group.
REALITY
The unseen comparison group was restricted to one school that was clearly different from the three research conditions. There is no evidence of sample differences or bias among the three research conditions that form the basis for the conclusions drawn from the study.
MYTH
School effects are responsible for the instructional group differences. Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) scores show that schools receiving direct code instruction were higher performing.
REALITY
School effects were controlled by having more than one curriculum in several schools, so comparisons of TAAS data are not meaningful; there is no evidence of school effects based on teacher assessments of student behavior, sociodemographic characteristics, baseline reading and vocabulary levels, and school/teacher characteristics. The TAAS data have been misinterpreted, with most schools actually quite close in overall performance. The leap from Grade 3 TAAS data to performance of the Title I children in Grades 1 and 2 - the children in this study - is an overextrapolation.
MYTH
The direct code group received more intensive instruction.
REALITY
There were no differences in the amount of time spent on language arts instruction; second grade students in all instructional conditions received modifications because of poor reading skills, but the instructional effects were observed if the first grades were analyzed separately.
MYTH
The statistical methods were biased, unverifiable, false, uncertain, inappropriate, defective, simplistic, naïve, unsupportable, etc.
REALITY
These descriptions amount to wishful thinking - the statistical methods were sophisticated and well-executed, passing muster in the peer review process and through other independent reviews - even without model fitting, the pattern of results is apparent if the instructional group means are plotted over time, or if individual growth curves and outcomes are eyeballed.
MYTH
Foorman et al. assume that reading pseudowords is tantamount to reading, and that development of accurate word reading skills will enable children to read connected text.
REALITY
Reading is gaining meaning from print; children who cannot accurately recognize real words will not be able to gain meaning from text.
MYTH
Foorman et al. compared phonics and whole language; phonics won.
REALITY
Foorman et al. evaluated the degree of explicitness of alphabetic instruction required for at-risk children to develop word recognition skills; all programs provided literature, discussion of text, and other literacy-enhancing experiences - there was no "pure" phonics condition; on most outcomes, children who received explicit instruction had better reading skills; attitudes towards reading favored the implicit code group.
MYTH
The research design and execution was biased in favor of the direct code group.
REALITY
The assignment of curriculums to schools was made by the school district; there was no evidence of design/execution bias in this process. MYTH Teachers of the direct code condition were more interested in their curriculum; the district was "anti-whole language."
There were no differences across curriculums in teachers' investment/attitudes; the study took place in a district that viewed itself at the time as "whole language"; the implicit code condition had been standard in the district for some time - embedded code and direct code were new.
MYTH
There was no difference in end of first grade and beginning of second grade scores for children in the direct code condition.
REALITY
There was no difference in phonological processing scores at the end of grade one and beginning of grade 2.
Children in the three conditions other than the direct code group beginning the program in grade 2 scored higher on word reading than children at the end of grade 1, so the research was harmful.
The Foorman et al. study had a negative impact on word reading scores.
All instructional groups showed growth over the year on average; more children in direct code showed growth, so average growth was higher.
Coles' reanalysis of the data from the Houston Study shows an entirely different interpretation of the results.
Coles does not know how to analyze data.
The contention that phonemic awareness must be taught directly and that children need explicit instruction in phonics is less of a scientific fact than an exercise in political persuasion.
"The Houston study is not going to decide the issue for us. It is going to shift the consensus a little in one direction or the other. The current scientific consensus is that direct instruction in alphabetic coding facilitates early reading acquisition, especially among disadvantaged children. The Houston study, when finally integrated and interpreted - with the hundreds of other relevant studies (the hundreds of studies synthesized in the review papers published above) - will either strengthen the moderate-strong consensus in the direction of strong, or weaken it a bit in the direction of moderate. There has been decades of work preceding the Houston study with which it must be integrated. However, critics of this study are acting as if we are at some neutral balance point and that this study is going to tip things definitively in one direction or another. This is a mischaracterization of the literature - and of science. The flailing and uninformed critiques of this study by whole language advocates have badly missed the mark and are embarrassing in what they reveal about the critics grounding in the logic and evolution of scientific knowledge." -Stanovich, 1998
