tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post3203836918025664374..comments2024-03-28T20:36:01.373+11:00Comments on The Snow Report: Anti-science and the science of reading. Pamela Snow | The Snow Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17754222675609183221noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-88911351384365744572020-05-27T22:06:04.592+10:002020-05-27T22:06:04.592+10:00Are there ANY examples of ITT institutions that ar...Are there ANY examples of ITT institutions that are following the science of reading in their courses? Best practice would be a great way to start to see real change happening.Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13199391159860721500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-36461336495228050372020-04-10T12:45:47.352+10:002020-04-10T12:45:47.352+10:00it's a lot more complicated than that Shaun.Th...it's a lot more complicated than that Shaun.The Journal - Educational Research and Evaluation devoted a whole Volume (25) to this issue. https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/nere20/current. <br /><br />Others have written extensively on the problem, e.g. the highly respected European academic Gert Biesta- summarises the problem "...we have not yet conducted sufficient research in order to be able to encapsulate all factors, aspects and dimensions that make up the reality of education" <br /><br />Daniel Willingham also writes, there is "a big gap between research and practice" and influences "cannot be separated in the classroom" as "they often interact in difficult-to-predict ways." He provides the following example, <br />"... laboratory studies show that repetition helps learning, but any teacher knows that you can’t take that finding and pop it into a classroom by, for example, having students repeat long-division problems until they’ve mastered the process. <br />Repetition is good for learning but terrible for motivation. With too much repetition, motivation plummets, students stop trying, and no learning takes place. The classroom application would not duplicate the laboratory result."George Lilleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03981535542840463843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-36639010846838582532020-03-22T17:11:50.042+11:002020-03-22T17:11:50.042+11:00My question (to anyone and everyone) is why do so ...My question (to anyone and everyone) is why do so many teachers dismiss and even actively rally against evidence from research? <br /><br />From what I have seen:<br />1. Some see it as an ideological war (anti-progressive methods)<br />2. Others think only the experience of 'real teachers' matter (RT typically means practicing teacher in a public system). <br /><br />At a deeper level on point 1, progressive vs traditional is applied to teaching methods, rather than outcomes. Many teachers are progressive and see traditional methods as 'old school' and anti what they stand for. Yet, somewhat ironically, mastering reading leads to so many better outcomes for all, especially disadvantaged students (a progressive outcome)<br /><br />At a deeper level on point 2, I think many teachers have a professional identity. That is, being a teacher is a core part of who they are and is integral to their self-worth. Telling what they have been doing for ages is not the best way to teach therefore challenges who they are as a person. Furthermore, basing practice on research was not the approach they were taught at university, and has therefore not become part of their professional identity.<br /><br />Thoughts?<br />Shaun Killianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14179579096106781321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-44001139525137306202020-03-22T10:37:44.722+11:002020-03-22T10:37:44.722+11:00An interesting comment Cheri, thanks for contribut...An interesting comment Cheri, thanks for contributing to the discussion. I am aware of the idea (it is present here in Australia too) that teachers need to be empowered through autonomy, but ironically I think this thinking creates a severe backfire effect, because it denies teachers access to what I think is their "family china" - knowledge of the science of reading. So trying to foster professional autonomy has exactly the opposite impact for teachers and of course sustains poor outcomes for students, particularly those who start from behind. Medical practitioners and psychologists (as a couple of examples) are not autonomous practitioners. Their practice is driven by evidence-based guidelines and care pathways, and in many cases these are quite prescriptive. <br /><br />It is ironic indeed that Diane is a historian, because none of this will look better through the lens of historical perspective, unfortunately. Pamela Snow | The Snow Reporthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17754222675609183221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-18333091091007882182020-03-22T01:33:52.748+11:002020-03-22T01:33:52.748+11:00Diane Ravitch's texts and her point of view we...Diane Ravitch's texts and her point of view were prominently featured in my early doctoral course work just 5 years ago. She informed NCLB and nationwide testing then walked that back. She is currently battling the charter school movement. Her passion and ability to publicly admit the error of her ways was truly admirable. Her current public endorsement is influenced by her affiliation with Columbia University and Lucy Calkins. Her position in reading aligns with her battle for empowering teachers- which is at the cost of student outcomes- it appears she has lost the forest for the trees. My hope is that as a historian, which she is, she will recognize how her own history is repeating itself and she will reverse course as she did ten years ago. Her influence on education policy needs to be on the side of science and I am saddened and disappointed but not all that surprised that she is blinded by the voices in her ear. She is quick to call out Bill Gates and his for profit influence on education but she turns a blind eye to Lucy. Unfortunately, for Diane Ravitch- history is repeating itself. Cheri McManus, Ed.Dhttps://www.ltr-nh.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-74322628242793705902020-03-21T15:59:00.446+11:002020-03-21T15:59:00.446+11:00Thank you for this. I wonder how "a 2020 scie...Thank you for this. I wonder how "a 2020 science-informed position" is different from a 1955 position by the likes of Dr. Flesch? It seems it is not science but big money involved in printing of all these readers that prevent return of phonics to schools after a hundred years of oblivion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com