Episode Transcript

Announcer:

This podcast is produced by Benchmark Education.

Kevin Carlson:

When people talk about the Science of Reading, what are they actually talking about? And why are they talking so loudly? In this episode, a broader look at the Science of Reading and the search for some common ground in reading instruction. I'm Kevin Carlson and this is Teachers Talk Shop.

Dr. Peter Afflerbach:

In the last few decades, we've had a huge surge of research in what I would say are the Sciences of Reading. This research really serves as a bolster to what good teachers are already doing.

Kevin Carlson:

That is Dr. Peter Afflerbach. He is an author, an AERA research fellow and a Professor of Education at the University of Maryland. This is Dr. Rachael Gabriel, author, ILA board member, and Director of the Reading Language Arts Center at the University of Connecticut.

Dr. Rachael Gabriel:

I like to believe there's a lot of common ground here, but I think what we believe is important is often shared. How we think we can get there the best, the fastest, the most efficiently, the most equitably is where there's conversation. In some way, it's important that that never becomes settled science because we need to be constantly grappling with "Is what we're doing serving the children in front of us?"

Kevin Carlson:

Author and educator Patty McGee spoke with Peter and Rachael about understanding the Science of Reading. They start off with basics: a definition. Here's Rachael.

Dr. Rachael Gabriel:

It's really challenging to choose a single definition because it really varies. Even if you have two Facebook groups, both called the Science of Reading for this state or for that place or Science of Reading in these grades or in those grades. There are different kind of implied meanings across all the different communities that are using the term. But usually when you put a capital T in front of The and a capital S in front of Science, what you're trying to indicate is that you're selecting a specific slice. And I think that the specific slice that most people are connecting with when they're talking about the Science of Reading, is cognitive science research specifically informed by neuroscience, over the last 10 or 15 years, that is focused on how children learn to read words. And so it ends up being mostly a conversation about the importance of a specific approach to phonics instruction in early literacy instruction. It doesn't usually relate to anything beyond early literacy development, and it doesn't often relate to the components of reading that are outside of phonics and phonemic awareness, although it absolutely could, and in some groups and communities does. But I think the center of that Venn diagram is really focused on the sound system of English and how it connects with orthography spelling.

Patty McGee:

And obviously, while important, what can be happening then in classrooms where the Science of Reading becomes the one and only focus of reading instruction. Peter, what have you noticed about that?

Dr. Peter Afflerbach:

Well, just to, I think, to step back, you know, I think the idea behind the Science of Reading is that we want classroom practice to be based on our best evidence of what matters in kids' literacy and reading development. And the Science of Reading is based on this model where research is done and results of the research are analyzed. And when there are significant differences in approaches to a particular instructional approach, you might be tempted to say that science is stepping in and saying this is a superior or beneficial way to have kids learn how to read. As Rachael has noted, there's a tendency to have a very narrow slice of the big Science of Reading prominent in early literacy development, the narrow slice of the Science of Reading is essential. Kids do need to know phonics. They do need to know phonemic awareness, but that it's only a slice. There's a much more broad set of research results theory that that should be informing our best practice in the classroom

Kevin Carlson:

After the break. The Sciences of Reading. Stay with us.

Announcer:

"Let's strive for assessments done with students and by students." In their book Meaningful Reading Assessment, reading experts Peter Afflerbach and Adria Klein help teachers implement routines that ensure students grow and achieve as readers. The book serves as a practical guide for educators to evaluate different types of assessments and determine which ones best suit their needs. It describes how schools can create streamlined and strategic assessment systems, and it includes resources to help students self-assess. Sample lesson outlines and classroom scenarios provide guidance for accommodating and supporting English Learners and students with special learning needs. All this and much more in Meaningful Reading Assessment. Learn more at PDEssentials.com. Go teach brilliantly.

Patty McGee:

We know that both of you have been advocating for the Sciences as of Reading, so it's not just about that one slice. Just take a moment to share what you mean by this in terms of Sciences of Reading, and maybe also talk about what is most important at the school level to keep in mind.

Dr. Peter Afflerbach:

Well, you know, Rachael knows this as well as I do, or better, directing reading clinics and having taught, that any teacher who's accomplished in the classroom knows that being good at teaching reading strategies and skills is essential. But those teachers also understand that a child who is not motivated, a child is not engaged, a child who does not believe in self is going to have a tough time, however well-planned and however well-delivered a reading lesson is. It turns out that in the last few decades, we've had a huge surge of research in what I would say are the Sciences of Reading, and this research really serves as a, I would say, a bolster to what good teachers are already doing, which is they're paying attention to whether or not their students are motivated. And if not, they're working on that key to motivation and engagement. They're working with the students and I would say, especially struggling students who go through their reading lives, doubting themselves. They do not believe in themselves, and someone who doesn't believe in themself and doesn't believe that they can succeed at any particular task tends to withdraw and not give effort.

Dr. Peter Afflerbach:

And I, you know, sadly, that's part of the profile of the students that I've seen in the reading clinic at the University of Maryland and when I've been a elementary and middle school teacher. And, you know, I like to think about, I don't like to think about this, but I think it's a useful comparison. Adults often have the option of opting out of things that they don't feel secure with that they don't succeed at. But our struggling readers have to come to school every day and face this reality of, well, I didn't do so well this last day, or this last week, or this last year, or my entire school career. And yet here I am again being asked to bear down and try to succeed at something that I haven't had success with. And human nature is such that we we don't really want to be involved in things that continually send a message that we are failing. We're not successful. And there are broad sciences that support both the importance of these things in human development, including reading development, but also can inform our best classroom practice.

Patty McGee:

Absolutely. It sounds like what you're talking about is so human that we're not just looking at the reading skills that a child can show us, but we're looking at them as an entire human being around reading. And when we look at that entire human in front of us, we're just--there's no choice but to be better at reaching, reaching each student and helping them elevate their learning. It's such an important part. We can get so clinical in education and kids can become somebody that we see only one part of when we really are looking to see the whole human in order to help them continue to grow and learn. And to have that type of research behind it, too, to balance that out for us as educators is so important. So, Rachael, I'm sure you have some wonderfully insightful things to add to what Peter just shared.

Dr. Rachael Gabriel:

I am the student in this discussion, I think. It's worth pointing out that I still use I have always used textbooks written by Dr. Afflerbach in my courses. Until I switched textbooks to the other ones that he's written. So the whole thing. I think what Peter has outlined eloquently in this and in his other episode on this podcast, which everybody needs to check out, is the "Yes and" argument, which I think is an intellectually generous argument because a lot of folks have chosen to kind of nitpick at whether we want to say a full yes or no to that, and I agree it's a pretty full yes and there are other components, there are other considerations.

Dr. Rachael Gabriel:

What I've been thinking about recently is the how and why. So instead of "yes and," "yes, here's how," and "yes, here's why." And I think the research on motivation and kind of that affective domain, the experience of being in school, is a piece of how you can accomplish some of the cognitive work. But I think you know what's left out of the of the small slice that's captured well in the Science of Reading are all the social sciences that support how we know children learn. And notice that I'm saying how we know children learn because I think in the conversations about The Science of Reading, people are very interested in how The Reading Brain learns, how The Brain, as if it's something that we understand completely and as if they're all the same. Or there is this idea of like neurotypical and neurodiverse and brains are different. There's this idea, and I think it's a place where we have some common ground across other lines of differences that children are individuals and should be treated as such. But the same way that you wouldn't call somebody by their test score, you would call them by their name.

Dr. Rachael Gabriel:

We'd have to think about like who children are in terms of their culture and their language, in terms of their relationship to their teacher and their relationships to their peers in terms of their role models for reading and their understanding of its place in their lives. The ability to be motivated to read, there's evidence of its incredible importance, but I think the theory and science that help teachers understand how do we create motivation and how do we create motivating environments doesn't come from an fMRI scan. It does come from social science research. So we understand that those cognitive skills are important in the way that we develop them is we understand something about how children learn in classroom settings. We also know something about how children learn outside of classroom settings that we can connect with and steal from and draw from, especially for those children who seem to be growing and thriving everywhere but school. And I think that that's, you know, that same capital T capital letter B for The Brain. I often think about the incredible discipline of systematically and explicitly lining up things for students to learn in a particular order, no matter who they are or what they already know or what they bring linguistically, culturally, in terms of interest, or in terms of confidence or motivation. There is an elegance to that in its simplicity, but it makes sense to me in terms of programming a brain like a computer. And every time some science tries to think about the brain as an organ unto itself, it run into problems that that can't be explained.

Dr. Rachael Gabriel:

We have to think of the brain is fully integrated in the body, fully integrated in the senses, fully integrated with emotion that like every time we try and separate these things, we come back to sort of fundamental deep understandings of interconnectedness. And that's true of the skills, too, that if we are really focused in on phonics and phonemic awareness, they're only as good as their integration with every other skill.

Patty McGee:

Yeah.

Dr. Rachael Gabriel:

Having them by themselves is like a cool party trick, but it's not even reading. And so it's really our instruction around these topics is only as good as it is integrated with the things children care about with text that they can see themselves and others in, with teachers who can successfully communicate their value and the value of reading in their lives. Slicing allows us to bring our attention where maybe it wasn't for a while, but it's not a way to move forward in the long run.

Kevin Carlson:

After the break, the search for common ground. Stay with us.

Announcer:

Phonics instruction. It's key to every child's ability to read. For students in Grades K-5 who need extra support there is a new program for Tier 3 intervention. Benchmark Phonics Intervention. Developed with literacy expert Wiley Blevins Phonics Intervention is based on current Science of Reading research and aligns with the tenets of structured literacy. The print and digital materials include a wealth of decodable texts, teacher's guides that support English Learners and students with dyslexia. Point of use, professional development. And other explicit, systematic, multimodal tools to help accelerate students to literacy growth and mastery. Learn more at Benchmark Phonics.com.

Patty McGee:

I would love to take a moment as we wrap up our discussion to think about something that I think is important because when I look out into kind of the landscape out there of the Science of Reading and those capital letters, as you mentioned Rachael and then the whole child, we must have common ground. Like, we are all here for a particular purpose. I mean, there is a reason we are acting on our passions with such vigor. So maybe what we can do is name out just some common ground that we have perhaps between, say, one school of thought that might sometimes feel a little polarizing, but instead what's true for all of us?

Dr. Rachael Gabriel:

I like to believe there's a lot of common ground here, but I think what we believe is important is often shared. How we think we can get there the best, the fastest, the most efficiently, the most equitably is where there's conversation. In some way, it's important that that never becomes settled science because we need to be constantly grappling with "Is what we're doing serving the children in front of us?" And that shouldn't we shouldn't just say, well, we know how to do this. So we're going to do it and stop paying attention to whether and how it's working. So part of that's OK, but I think folks care a lot about kids knowing words and knowing how to recognize them in print, and folks care a lot about kids understanding what they read. I think when pressed, folks also care a lot about kids being able to express themselves in writing, but I wish that were more part of the conversation.

Dr. Rachael Gabriel:

And I think when pressed folks care a lot about kids being able to think critically about what they've read. But I also wish that were more part of the conversation. So in some cases, the priority is a little bit different. But I think you put it really well when you were saying that the the robust vigor with which some of these conversations happen comes from a place of really wanting students to learn what they need to learn. But our understandings of what that is and what it's for in the world differ and and can and should. Communities can kind of set for themselves what's most important for their readers. But you know, it's interesting. There's tremendous anxiety about how do we teach vocabulary explicitly when I follow some of the groups on social media around the Science of Reading, and this is where I think social science gives us a lot of answers because we can't manually teach each of the words that kids need to know. We can't manually teach all of the background knowledge that kids need to know. We've got to find ways to first get them rolling on a cycle of reading success so that they can find it on their own, but also connect to their other, as Peter would say, and and others and Louis Malle would like originate, other funds of knowledge so that they can bring that. I think we want kids to be able to read well and to communicate using print. And we have a healthy diversity of ideas of how to get there.

Patty McGee:

And Peter, what are you thinking about?

Dr. Peter Afflerbach:

I love listening to Rachael talk. She's pretty sharp, pretty sharp mind.

Patty McGee:

Mm hmm.

Dr. Peter Afflerbach:

And I I would, you know, I go back to the idea that the National Reading Panel report on which a lot of current science, singular, of reading is still based, is over 20 years old. And you know, I would hope that in any science, we have the idea that our understandings evolve based on findings that come in every year or every decade. And in the last two decades since the National Reading Panel report was published, we've really benefited from an incredible amount of diverse research, as Rachael has said, from from really disparate fields that are actually unified in good instruction. And I would say, like a common ground would be something like this: when we look at--and I'm going to go back to the struggling reader idea because I know that most classroom teachers try their best to help the struggling reader because they're calling out for the the attention that they deserve and that they need--what do we do with skills and strategies that Rachael and I both would, you know, clearly state are essential for reading development, but how do we wrap those in motivation and engagement and how do we build self-efficacy? And how do we help kids create healthy mindsets where they're making the appropriate attributions for whether or not they succeed? And to me, that's, you know, that's a sort of elaboration of a pure skill and strategy approach to teaching where you take advantage of the research, that would be the Sciences of Reading, and you make a classroom that is you have a lot of symbiotic relationships.

Dr. Peter Afflerbach:

We know that if children start to experience success, they get a boost to their self-efficacy. And when your self-efficacy is rising, you tend to be more motivated and engaged in the tasks that your teacher asks of you or that you choose for yourself. And as your self-efficacy, motivation, and engagement increase, it's not too hard for a teacher to help point out to a student how what they're doing is contributing to their success. Then you can go after attribution development, good attribution development. So the idea of symbiosis across these different sciences to me is is very, very compelling. And if you study successful reading teachers, you see this happening, you know whether or not they name it as such, you see attention to all of these essential ingredients of becoming a better reader. And you know, they hark back to the Sciences of Reading, and they to me, they they really describe what I wish was like a lot more commonality than what I would say is like bipolar-ism in the debates that are out there. It's not arguing against skills and strategies. It's thinking about what's the environmental surround of strategy and skill development and instruction that's most beneficial to a teacher, which then, of course, is most beneficial to the students in the classroom.

Patty McGee:

I'm going to go back to what Rachael said earlier about this "Yes, and" approach to reading instruction inspired by you, Peter, and the way that you have been approaching this. So maybe we can just wrap up by keeping in mind that what we continue to learn about reading instruction we can think about in those words: "Yes, and..." And we can move ahead with that in mind, as we just are always refining our instruction and rethinking ways that we can best support readers as they grow.

Kevin Carlson:

Thank you, Dr. Peter Afflerbach and Dr. Rachael Gabriel. Thank you, Patty McGee. And thank you for listening to Teachers Talk Shop. If you want to learn more about the Science of Reading, visit TeachersTalkShop.com and visit our archive. Episode 20 is called Expanding the Science of Reading, and it features Peter Afflerbach. Episode 4 features Wiley Blevins and is called The Science of Reading: What Brain Research Says About How We Learn to Read. While you're on the site, please register to receive updates about the show. Thank you! For Benchmark Education. I'm Kevin Carlson.