Sunday 30 January 2022

Why I am not engaging with the Reading Wars

I’m not sure whether to feel flattered or irritated by Jeff Bowers’ latest blogpost, where he expresses his disappointment in my failure to support his critique of research on phonics intervention.

The short explanation, as I already conveyed to Jeff, is that I'm busy with other stuff. I’m aware that there’s a pretty intemperate debate going on at present about the value of phonics in teaching children to read, with various people writing lengthy critiques of one another’s positions. So clearly it’s a complex and murky situation. The last thing this needs is for someone else, me, who hasn’t looked in depth at the relevant research, to weigh in with an opinion.

As background: I am a (soon-to-be retired) researcher who has never worked on reading intervention, though I do work on topics tangentially related to this. I'm currently finishing off a big project on cerebral lateralization for language. I’m also involved in a couple of other projects unrelated to reading. I am a  hands-on researcher, so am heavily involved in designing, analysing and writing up research. I currently work a 4 day week, and these three projects, plus regular reviewing, giving talks, etc, take up all of my time.

One of the fun parts of my job is that I am my own boss and, as far as time allows, I can pursue odd topics that take my fancy. I sometimes put my head above the parapet and engage in, or even initiate, academic disputes about research. These consume much time and emotional energy, so I choose carefully which battles I want to get involved in. In particular, I think hard about what can be gained - I do get passionate when something is wrong, especially where someone is behaving badly and deliberately distorting science for some nefarious ends. In such cases I will get engaged to try and put things right.

The reading wars don't look like that to me. They actually look rather like the equally heated debates going on among epidemiologists and public health experts around Covid – another topic on which I don’t’ speak out because I lack expertise. The most I’m prepared to offer is a general suggestion about perspective that might be helpful in achieving some truth and reconciliation.

In both Covid and reading wars there are arguments about research evidence and arguments about policy. Typically, there isn't really good research on which to base important decisions, but we don’t have the luxury of waiting for such studies to be done. Doing nothing is in itself a choice, for which, in the case of an epidemic, we know the consequences are likely to be bad. So it’s all about making the best decisions we can, given the patchy evidence that we have – a point nicely made by Trisha Greenhalgh in the context of COVID-19. 

The current debates have highlighted the shortage of well-designed studies to show which teaching method is most effective for which children at which age. As with medical interventions, studies also need to evaluate potential costs and harms – something which was neglected in the past, but which is relevant given that some of the disagreements are about whether particular approaches can be counterproductive.

But, as with Covid, policy decisions have to be pragmatic. This was the remit of the 2006 Rose Report, which attempted to synthesise evidence and expert opinion on reading intervention and came out recommending use of synthetic phonics. Overturning the status quo to radically change how reading is taught would only be reasonable if there was some other intervention approach for which there was better evidence of effectiveness – so much so that the costs of making a change would be justified. Maybe there is, but it hasn’t come up on my radar. 

My apologies to all of those engaged in current discussions whose contributions I have ignored. I hope this blogpost will suffice to explain why.

2 comments:

  1. Hi Dorothy, you mostly should be flattered – it is your excellent work on criticizing bad science that led me to contact you in the first place.

    You write: “So I’m aware that there’s a pretty intemperate debate going on at present about the value of phonics in teaching children to read, with various people writing lengthy critiques of one another’s positions. So clearly it’s a complex and murky situation. The last thing this needs is for someone else, me, who hasn’t looked in depth at the relevant research, to weigh in with an opinion”.

    But my critique is a methodological one and does not require you to read two sides of a complex argument, nor does it require you to become expert in this large literature. It just requires you or someone to consider the methodological points I make in the following paper:

    Jeffrey S. Bowers (2020) Reconsidering the Evidence that Systematic Phonics is more Effective than Alternative Methods of Reading Instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 681-705.

    If someone wants to go deep into the debate there are two responses and replies:

    -Buckingham, J. (2020). Systematic phonics instruction belongs in evidence-based reading programs: A response to Bowers. The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 37(2), 105-113.

    -Jeffrey S. Bowers and Peter N. Bowers (2021). The science of reading provides little or no support for the widespread claim that systematic phonics should be part of initial reading instruction: A response to Buckingham. doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/f5qyu

    -Fletcher, Savage, and Sharon (2020). A commentary on Bowers (2020) and the role of phonics instruction in reading. Educational Psychology Review (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09580-8

    -Jeffrey S. Bowers (2021). Yes children need to learn their GPCs but there really is little or no evidence that systematic or explicit phonics is effective: A response to Fletcher, Savage, and Sharon (2020). Educational Psychology Review. doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09602-z

    But this methodological debate has ended for now as no one seems willing to respond further to the simple points I’ve made (although plenty of people keep saying the same things as if my critique does not exist). I keep asking leading researchers to debate this important topic, with limited success (Charles Hulme and I debated at UCL, and there is this: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/reading-wars-debate-featuring-dr-kathryn-garforth-dr/id1448225801?i=1000512993070 ). So yes, I was disappointed that you do not have time to read a few papers on this important topic related to your interests. I’m also trying to make a broader point to a more general audience – the striking the failure of experts to respond to my points.

    Regarding your more general point about policy, I don’t disagree. Pragmatically, decisions need to be made, and I’m not calling for the immediate removal of phonics from schools in England. But scientists should not be mischaracterizing the evidence for political reason to introduce phonics mandates in Australia and various states in the USA. And equally important, the politics of the science of reading is making it hard to carry out basic research on alternative approaches to phonics.

    Jeff Bowers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you don't get, Jeff, is that the reason I am taken seriously is because I am an obsessive nerd. This means that if I do get involved in something, I go right down the rabbithole and take it seriously. So I *would* end up reading everything.
      You also underestimate how many requests I get to 'just look at this paper...'
      I'm not some kind of academic gun-for-hire.

      Delete