The Reading Instruction Show

The bible is quite clear on this point: To hell with you who support the Rich Man while Brother Lazarus is sick and starving. To hell with you. To hell with you who turn your back on the poor, the sick, and the strangers among us. To hell with those of you who protect the people who raped and trafficked young girls. To hell with you. The bible cannot be more clear on this point.https://substack.com/home/post/p-188718695

Videos, articles, and much more at my free Substack: Transpersonal Christianityhttps://dr731.substack.com/

The argumentation process is the foundation of academic discourse within the academy. It's worked well for centuries, enabling our various academic fields to continually evolve. These arguments usually take place in academic journals, academic conferences, and various other academic presentations.

This podcast describes simple, pragmatic, research-based tips for parents to help their child with reading at home and over the summer.

Videos, articles, and much more at my free Substack: Transpersonal Christianityhttps://dr731.substack.com/

Research-based strategies to addres phonics and word work.

This podcast reviews and applies the research related to Comprehension.

This is a good time to revist systemic racism. Trump posted a racist tweet, showing the heads of Barak and Michelle Obama on Monkeys. He won't apologize for this. Many Trump Republican supporters refused to call him out for this.

Somebody accused me of twisting scripture to fit my political perspective. I didn't know that wanting to stop the bullying, beating, imprisonment, and killing was a political perspective. I didn't know that wanting to feed the hungry, attend to the sick and poor was a political perspective. In this Sermon Short I will twist some more biblical scripture at you.Psalm 51:10 says, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me." Matthew 5:8 . “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Matthew 12:34. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Matthew 15:18-20. But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. Matthew 5:8. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. https://dr731.substack.com/p/twisted-biblicap-scripture

Jurnalists should not get a free pass on ignorance. This podcast describes the difference between journalists and literacy scholars.

Just because it says it's ‘research-based' or ‘scientifically based' doesn't mean that it is. Dr. Louisa Moats' website states that, “Moats developed the landmark professional development program LETRS for teachers and reading specialists and the scientifically based LANGUAGE!” This presentation will demonstrate (a) how Moats misrepresents the results of her own research, (b) how she falsifies and distorts the research of others in her 2021 paper, and (c) how the publishers of LETRS (Lexia Learning) misrepresent the 18 research studies describes in their LETRS Efficacy Research paper.

Evidence and research are at the heart of current SoR mandates. Yet little time and few resources are provided to enable teachers to understand exactly what these terms mean. Worse, it is assumed that teachers must allow the “experts” to read and explain “the research” for them. This patronizing paradigm serves to further chip away at teachers' autonomy in favor of dependence and subservience. This presentation will use the context of a study by Linnea Ehri (2007) to demonstrate how to read and evaluate a research article. It also demonstrates common tricks and buzzwords used to misinterpret and misrepresent research. This in turn enhances participants ability to be responsible consumers of educational research and research-based claims.

There are travelers who have been beaten, robbed, and left on the side of the road. Why are you walking by? Stop the abuse. Stop ICE.Psalm 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. Matthew 9:17 - Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.” Mark 2: 22 - And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins.” Luke 5:37-39 . And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine will burst the wineskins and be spilled, and the wineskins will be ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins, and both are preserved. And no one, having drunk old wine, immediately desires new; for he says, ‘The old is better.' ” “Ephesians 2: 3-5. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. Hebrews 4: 12. For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

James 1:19 says, “My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry, for a man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires.” Matthew 23: 27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.”

“There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: (a) haughty eyes, (b) a lying tongue, (c) hands that shed innocent blood, (d) a heart that devises wicked schemes, (e) feet that are quick to rush into evil, (f) a false witness who pours out lies, and (g) a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.”

Below are eight commonly misunderstood terms related to reading instruction.• Reading. • Word recognition. • Word identification• Decoding• Strategy. • Skill• Systematic phonics instruction. • A balanced approach.

This podcast explains eight commonly misunderstood terms related to reading instruction.• Reading. • Word recognition. • Word identification• Decoding• Strategy. • Skill• Systematic phonics instruction. • A balanced approach.

Below are seven big ideas that you should take from this chapter.1. Having a body of knowledge is important in any field.2. Disagreement followed by academic discourse enables a field to evolve.3. Silencing opposing views results in cognitive inbreeding.4. Academic journals are essential for disseminating new knowledge and for academic discourse within a field.5. The process used to get scholarly articles published in an academic journal is much higher than that used to get an article published in a newspaper or magazine.6. Having a body of knowledge that is shallow and disjointed is not optimal for academic discussions or TV interviews.7. John Stossel does not know what an academic journal is.

Let's review. A couple of months ago, I recorded an online interview for a dyslexia summit. I also put together and recorded a short video presentation. These were both to be shown at a dyslexia summit. I was to then attend the online summit for a live question-and-answer session. On the day of the summit, I emailed to see what time I needed to be online. It was at this point that I was told that I had been disinvited. And my disinvitation had occurred without so much as a disinviting word. It was a gentle but wordless disinvitations.Can you imagine such a thing?The stated reason for my wordless disinvitation was that the writing tone used on some of my digital platforms “is fairly abrasive when speaking about those in other camps in the reading world”. In a previous excerpt, I examined how the abrasiveness of one's writing tone is determined largely by the cognitive framework held by the reader. I also said that the wordless disinvitation I received was a form of silencing. And any abrasiveness in my writing tone pales in comparison with the continued abrasion endured by teachers and professors as well as the constant attacks on Lucy Calkins, Ken Goodman, and Marie Clay.In this excerpt, we'll examine reading camps.

It is very hard to have a serious and substantive discussion about a topic like reading instruction with somebody whose knowledge base is shallow and disjointed. You end up in a teaching role.

The abrasiveness of a writing tone is determined largely by the cognitive framework held by the reader. A cognitive framework is the mentally constructed structures that guide individuals in interpreting the world. It becomes the lens through which the world is viewed. Much like a theory, a cognitive framework is used to explain facts and understand phenomena. Some see my writing as abrasive and ill-informed. Others see my writing as non-abrasive and insightful. Regardless, to silence, dismiss, or disinvite somebody based on their perceived tone … is … well, it's the Science of Reading.

This podcast describes the following:Words - sound groups that represent things in the real world.Buzzwords - are words used to elicit an emotional response rather than accurately transmitting information. Propagating lexiconic locution – an overuse of academic buzzwords.Weasel words - words are used to give the impression of something without really saying something. Strawman argument – Creating a cartoonish or distorted version of something then arguing against the cartoon.

This podcast defines the following:Words - sound groups that represent things in the real world.Buzzwords - are words used to elicit an emotional response rather than accurately transmitting information. Propagating lexiconic locution – an overuse of academic buzzwords.Weasel words - words are used to give the impression of something without really saying something. Strawman argument – Creating a cartoonish or distorted version of something then arguing against the cartoon.

In a recent show, I referred to Emily Hanford as the Alexa App of reading instruction. This was a metaphor, a common literary device in which one makes a comparison without using the words ‘like' or ‘as'. It creates an image. When we say America is a melting pot, we don't literally mean there's a big pot bubbling somewhere. Metaphors create images and communicate things that lists of words cannot. Recently, somebody took great umbrage of my use of metaphor. This was selective umbrage. If you want to take umbrage at something, take umbrage at the money wasted to pay for commercial products and services. Take umbrage at over-crowed classrooms and poor teaching conditions. Take umbrage at low teacher pay and lack of legitimate professional development opportunities. Take umbrage at tax cuts that make tuition costs rise. Take umbrage when the public cannot afford to go to our public colleges and universities. Take umbrage at the lack of health care, food insecurity, and mass shootings.

If somebody makes the claim that research says something, one has an obligation to have read a research article at least once in their life. And if somebody says, “Show me the research,” that person should know what research is and how to read and interpret it.

Legitimate professional development for teachers is necessary. I used the term ‘legitimate' to exclude programs and services that are profit-based. These are usually little more than infomercials disguised as professional development. Here, there is no check and balance. There is no blind peer review of the information provided. Only the information that supports their product or service is presented. Information that does not is not. The best example of this is LETRS professional development for teachers. As described in earlier chapters, there is no legitimate research provided to suggest that using LETRS (a) enhances students' reading achievement, (b) enhances teachers' ability to teach effectively, and (c) is more effective than other types of professional development. (Remember, having elements that are supported by research doesn't make the program research-based. Every program has some element that can be supported by research.)

Toadys sometimes call themselves “consultants”. They promote methods and say things that just happen to coincide with the products and services being sold by Big Publishing. Quite a coincidence, yes? Right and wrong are not determined based on what's right and wrong; rather, by what will sell.

Despite having the word “science” in their title, the proposals put forth by the SoR are not grounded in science at all, but in pseudo-science, I-think-isms, and anecdotal evidence. In fact, they are promoting an ideology. Real science. Real science puts forth conclusions and recommendations based on a wide body of research. Real science uses systematic methods to collect and analyze data. Real science draws conclusions only from data collected. And real science uses blind peer review for an objective system of checks and balances.Ideology. An ideology is a system of ideas and beliefs. An ideology puts forth a dogma based on a very narrow range of data that must be adhered to. What the SOR promotes is based far more on a reading belief system than reading science. Hence, the SOR would be more accurately named, the Ideology of Reading.

One of the reasons why the Science of Reading people have been so successful is that they've been writing to the people over there. They've used stories and radio documentaries that sound very much like the way people talk. They've enabled the people over there to see and hear real people while our quiet very reasoned third-person voice has been ignored

This is a conversation with another master teacher, Daphne Russell

There never was a reading war. A war assumes there are two armies meeting on a field of battle. This didn't happen. But there was a reading coup. There was a hostile takeover of the field of literacy instruction by profiteers who saw public education as their own private ATM machine. This group of profiteers is part of the educational industrial complex which includes Cambium-Lexia Learning, Pearson Education, Cengage Learning, Hough Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill Education, Voyager Sopris Learning, TAL Education Group, Bright Horizons, and KinderCare Learning. Their armies of well-paid toadies (consultants) promise schools simple solutions to complex problems. “Just buy our shiny new products,” they say. “Pay for our services,” they say. “Get trained by our experts,” they say, “and all your literacy problems will go away. All your students will be reading above grade level.”“Well, I don't know,” the school says. “That's a lot of money.” “Look,” they say, “look at all the colorful charts and graphs. Look at all the pretty, pretty numbers.”“Well,” the school says, “you do have numbers. That must mean it's real.” “Wouldn't you like to have colorful charts and graphs like this? Wouldn't you like to have pretty, pretty numbers?”“Yes,” the school says. “Yes, I would.”And that, my friends, is how education lost its soul.

Neuroscience is a study of the nervous system including the brain, spinal cord, and neurons (NIH, 2025). The neuroscience of reading looks at how the brain functions during reading using imaging techniques to detect blood flow and electrical energy (Gotlieb, et al., 2022). Cognitive science is based on the word ‘cognition' which means thinking. Cognitive science looks at human thinking (Robinson-Riegler & Robinson-Riegler, 2012). One studies the physical brain as it thinks and the other studies the thinking the brain does. But we can't observe thinking directly. We can only observe the effects of thinking. Thus, both fields look at the effects of thinking to make deductions about thinking itself.The first part of this podcast is designed to help you understand how reading works from a purely cognitive perspective. This provides an important context for the second part where I examine the theory of orthographic mapping (Ehri, 2014). Orthographic mapping is a theory based on logical deductions made from research. The questions we must ask are how robust is the theory, how valid are the data upon which it is based, and how logical are the deductions? My conclusions are, not very, not very, and not very.

In this podcast, I try to make sense of orthographic mapping, a term invented by Linnea Ehri and introduced in Chapter 15 (Ehri, 2014). We'll start with her definition: “Orthographic mapping occurs when, in the course of reading specific words, readers form connections between written unit, either single graphemes or larger spelling patterns, and spoken units, either phonemes, syllables, or morphemes. These connections are retained in memory along with meanings and enable readers to recognize words by sight. An important consequence of orthographic mapping is that the spellings of words enter memory and influence vocabulary learning, the processing of phonological constituents in words, and phonological memory” (Ehri, 2014, pp. 5-6) This is written with all the stunning clarity of a Rorschach inkblot. Let's do a bit of unpack-O-rating.

The term “direct and explicit instruction” is often used to sell products or to persuade state legislators to make bad decisions. But everybody already uses direct instruction in some form. It's not the 'what' of direct instruction that is in question; it's the 'how' and 'how much' of direct instruction. T

Our big human brains have evolved to become very efficient predicting machines (Hawkins, 2004). They are constantly accessing multiple data sources in order to give us a sense of what will happen next. Most of this is done at levels below our conscious awareness. For example, baseball players are able to run to the right spot to catch balls in the outfield because they can predict where it's going to come down. Their big human brains instantly process a variety of information related to the sound of the bat hitting the ball as well as the height, speed, and angle of trajectory. The same prediction process is used in language comprehension and reading (Gavard & Ziegler, 2022; Lupyan & Clark). Here, our prediction machine uses semantic, syntactic, and phonological information to make micro-predictions about words and meaning during the process of reading (Goodman, 1967; Laroche & Decon, 2019). Very much like baseball players catching pop flies, this enables us to efficiently and effectively create meaning with the print before us.

The problem with Orton-Gillingham and similar for-profit products (Lindamood, Wilson Language Training, Barton System, etc.) is that they try to reduce teaching to an algorithm. An algorithm is a formula for solving problems in which you follow a step-by-step set of procedures (with fidelity) to achieve a specific outcome. In other words, by correctly following a prescribed set of steps in the specified order, you will be led to a predefined solution. Algorithms are useful in mathematics and computer science for calculation, data processing, and automatic reasoning. For teaching of any kind? Not so much.However, Orton-Gillingham would have you believe that if the teaching algorithm is followed explicitly, the teacher can be assured that students will learn to read. And if the algorithm does not work, you run them through the algorithm again … and again … and again. What these algorithmic programs offer is a false sense of certainty. Despite all the certainty thrown about, research to support the long-term effectiveness of these “direct, explicit, multi-sensory, structured, sequential, diagnostic, and prescriptive” instruction, it is simply not evident (Compton, et. al., 2014).

When somebody askes you, “What's the Science of Reading?” what do you say? Is it a process? Is it a set of strategies? An approach or method? A reading program? A group or organization? In this chapter, I will attempt to define the Science of Reading. And notice that I'm using capital letters. This enables us to differentiate between a science of reading as one of several sciences of reading and the Science of Reading as a proper noun or title,The Science of Reading seems to refer to a general consensus related to the strategies and practices that lead to improved reading outcomes. These strategies and practices have been determined to be effective using experimental or quasi-experimental research and conducted in authentic learning environments. Also, this research has established a causal link between strategies or practices and student outcomes (reading achievement). Thus, the Science of Reading can be thought of as a process that uses the standards in Figure 16.2 when making decisions related to reading instruction and policy. However, the SoR might best be described today as a self-defined movement that advocates these standards be used for making decisions related to reading policy and instruction.

The really big point is this: It's the semantic connections that are most important, not orthographic, graphemic, or phonemic connections. When you encounter the words ‘elephant' you don't connect with short /e/ words. You don't activate words containing the /ant/ letter pattern or words with silent ‘ph' blends. You connect with elephant things, regardless of the letter sounds or patterns.Just hearing the word ‘elephant' brought some of the elephant things in your elephant schemata to consciousness. Meaning that, if elephant were followed by the words sock, trunk, swallow, you'd be able to identify the word ‘trunk' microseconds faster than the other non-related words (Higgins, Rholes, & Jones,1977). This is called priming. Priming looks at how something that comes before primes or impacts what follows. The very word ‘elephant' primed the pump so that I would be able to identify elephant words quicker and more efficiently. We'll be looking at some of these research studies below.

The really big point is this: It's the semantic connections that are most important, not orthographic, graphemic, or phonemic connections. When you encounter the words ‘elephant' you don't connect with short /e/ words. You don't activate words containing the /ant/ letter pattern or words with silent ‘ph' blends. You connect with elephant things, regardless of the letter sounds or patterns.Just hearing the word ‘elephant' brought some of the elephant things in your elephant schemata to consciousness. Meaning that, if elephant were followed by the words sock, trunk, swallow, you'd be able to identify the word ‘trunk' microseconds faster than the other non-related words (Higgins, Rholes, & Jones,1977). This is called priming. Priming looks at how something that comes before primes or impacts what follows. The very word ‘elephant' primed the pump so that I would be able to identify elephant words quicker and more efficiently. We'll be looking at some of these research studies below.

1. It's not a strategy to teach students.2. It's not a pedagogical strategy that teachers use.3. It doesn't exclude phonics instruction.4. It doesn't encourage children to use picture clues to figure out words.5. It's not an approach to teaching reading.6. It's not a method of “decoding” printed text.7. It's not a “staple of early reading instruction”.8. It's not whole language9. It doesn't exclude explicit and systematic instruction.

In his book, Global Mind Change (1989), Willis Harman describes three views of reality which he calls metaphysical perspectives. Metaphysical here refers to ontology or the question of the origins of the universe and the nature of reality. These perspectives are materialistic monism, dualism, and transcendental monism.

Why do we sometimes believe the unbelievable? Why is it our views are sometimes data-resistant? We like to think that reality determines our beliefs; however, at higher levels of belief systems, our beliefs determine reality. It's just the way of things.

There's a difference between (a) reading research related to reading instruction and (b) reading what others have said about research related to reading instruction. It's important to know the difference. When you read research articles, you get to evaluate the methodology and interpret that data. When you read what somebody else has written about research, you must trust that their evaluation is fair, and their interpretation of the data is accurate. You are reliant on the relative clarity of their lens.So, far too often you're left with people like me whose job it is to continually read and evaluate research. But this chapter is written so that you will be able to do this. It's written to make me obsolete.

This is what Ken Goodman wrote in 1967: “Reading is a psycholinguistic guessing game. It involves an interaction between thought and language. Efficient reading does not result from precise perception and identification of all elements, but from skill in selecting the fewest, most productive cues necessary to produce guesses which are right the first time. The ability to anticipate that which has not been seen, of course, is vital in reading, just as the ability to anticipate what has not yet been heard is vital in listening (Goodman, 1967, p. 127) The term, psycholinguistic guessing game” has been commonly taken out of context and misunderstood by those who would propose a skills-based approach to reading instruction. Remember, context matters. In the context in which it was used, this term refers to the process used by your brain to maximize efficiency during reading.

In 1967, Ken Goodman published an article in Reading Research Quarterly with the title` Reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game (Goodman, 1967). Here he applies Psycholinguistic Theory to the reading process. A pretty good article. I highly recommend reading it. However, two words have been pulled from the title ‘reading' and ‘guessing'. These two words have become a Rorschach inkblot test for those who would disagree with or who don't understand Dr. Goodman's ideas. All sorts of dark and scary images have been projected upon them. These Rorschach-ian projections have been used for the last 50 years to misrepresent whole language and to discredit the work of Ken Goodman.

This is a wonderful conversation that I had with Claude Goldenberg. He has different ideas about things but he is a delight to talk with.

This is an interview with Joe Lackavitch

As said throughout this book: if you are against something, you should at the very least know a little somebody about that which you are against. SoR enthusiasts are often against something that isn't. In this case, they are against what they call balanced literacy, but it certainly isn't balanced literacy. It turns out that they're against their un-understanding of balanced literacy. So let's begin by defining our terms: Balanced literacy is merely balancing skills instruction with opportunities to practice those skills in authentic reading contexts. And what that balance is depends on the student. Some students need more skills instruction and less practice, others need less skills instruction and more practice. But all students need lots of reading practice. Could you imagine getting better at anything without practice? Could you imagine being able to play the piano if you never practiced playing real music? How effective would your early learning be if you just did scales and fingering exercises without playing music? Which is a nice transition to the next section.

Structured literacy is based on the idea that people learn complex things best by mastering each little part separately and then putting the parts together to create the whole. This is called part-to-whole instruction or Humpty-Dumptianism. Applied to reading, you would pull apart each of the eight strands of Scarborough's reading rope, then teach all the little subparts related to each of the eight strands (one little subpart at a time) until all the eight strands and their corresponding subparts were mastered. The theory is that at some point, children would be able to put all the subparts back together again and engage in the act of reading. It just makes good sense, yes?There are 26 letters used to make the 44 phonemes found in the English language. These 44 phonemes are represented by over 280 letter-sound combinations. You teach children how to “decode” by first teaching them how to put together all the 280 letter-sound combinations so they can apply them to all the words they will ever encounter. It just makes good sense, yes?

The SoR is based on the simple view of reading (Cervettie, et. al, 2020; Duke & Cartwright, 2021; Hoffman, 2017). According to this theory, skilled reading is a result of decoding and language comprehension (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) (see Figure 9.1). In other words, you decode each word (sound it out) and then listen to the decoding occurring in your head. What could be simpler than this? Yes?Later iterations of this theory would change it slightly. Scarborough (2001) created his now famous reading rope based on this (see Figure 9.2). According to this theoretical model, skilled reading is like a rope comprised of two sets of strands. Word recognition strands. The word recognition strands represent three low level skills related to: (a) phonological awareness (syllables, phonemes, etc.), (b) decoding (alphabetic principle and spelling-sound correspondence), and (c) sight word recognition (orthographic mapping). These skills are to be learned and practiced until they become increasingly automatic. That means that students do it without thinking.Language comprehension strands. The language comprehension strands represent five higher level skills related to: (a) background knowledge, (b) vocabulary, (c) language structures (syntax and semantics), (d) verbal reasoning (inferring, predicting, and (e) literacy knowledge (print concepts, genres, etc.). These elements are to be learned in ways that enable students to consciously apply them as needed. (They become increasingly strategic.)As the smaller strands within each set become increasingly intertwined, two sets of strands eventually become intertwined. And as the intertwining becomes increasingly tighter, one becomes more skilled as a reader.

The SoR is based on the simple view of reading (Cervettie, et. al, 2020; Duke & Cartwright, 2021; Hoffman, 2017). According to this theory, skilled reading is a result of decoding and language comprehension (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) (see Figure 9.1). In other words, you decode each word (sound it out) and then listen to the decoding occurring in your head. What could be simpler than this? Yes?Later iterations of this theory would change it slightly. Scarborough (2001) created his now famous reading rope based on this (see Figure 9.2). According to this theoretical model, skilled reading is like a rope comprised of two sets of strands.