tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post864315344808545869..comments2024-03-25T17:14:36.888+00:00Comments on BishopBlog: Why I am not engaging with the Reading Warsdeevybeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15118040887173718391noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-34615296783295113162022-01-30T15:40:56.620+00:002022-01-30T15:40:56.620+00:00What you don't get, Jeff, is that the reason I...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. <br />You also underestimate how many requests I get to 'just look at this paper...' <br />I'm not some kind of academic gun-for-hire. deevybeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15118040887173718391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5841910768079015534.post-61784941653852527972022-01-30T10:52:47.120+00:002022-01-30T10:52:47.120+00:00Hi Dorothy, you mostly should be flattered – it is...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.<br /> <br />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”.<br /><br />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:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />If someone wants to go deep into the debate there are two responses and replies:<br /><br />-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.<br /><br />-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<br /><br />-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<br /><br />-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<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Jeff BowersJeffrey Bowershttps://jeffbowers.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/noreply@blogger.com