Comments on: Scientifically Based Reading Research Wars

By: Doug Noon

Doug Noon — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 03:12:55 +0000

The link to the commercial site in the above comment has been removed. But I’ve left the comment otherwise intact to serve as evidence that at least one advocate for explicit phonics instruction doesn’t have basic punctuation figured out yet.

By: Learn Phonics Will Read

Learn Phonics Will Read — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 02:46:30 +0000

Great post and comments. Simply remember when phonics was out. What happened to our childrens grades? Yes I agree with phonics your teaching children to become more fluent all the way around.

By: private schools

private schools — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:45:40 +0000

I think whole language is only useful if you have already mastered phonics. I’ve seen so many children hit the wall at a certain age who were soley taught whole language. Its like teaching a person to fish, not just giving them a fish for a day.

By: Borderland » The Might-Work Clearinghouse

Borderland » The Might-Work Clearinghouse — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:30:49 +0000

[...] Dick Allington’s comment on the previous post sent me on a little journey into What Works land. He mentioned a report on [...]

By: Dick Allington

Dick Allington — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:55:59 +0000

Moats is just another mercenary for the pro-phonics forces. I’d be happy to line up each of our research “credentials” (things like research publications, editorships, awards, etc.) and have an independent panel review judge whose credentials are “better.”

But two points: First, the notion that the National Reading Panel found very modest positive effects for systematic phonics instruction as compared to non-systematic or no phonics instruction was not mine. I was quoting/summarizing key points from an article by Don Hammill and Lee Swanson, two distinguished special education quantitative researchers (appears in Sept. 2006, ssue of Elem Sch Journal). They pointed out that using the NRP data only 2-4% of the variance in reading achievement is accounted for by the presence/absence of systematic phonics instruction. That leaves 96-98% of the variance in achievement unexplained, or, attributable to other factors.

Second, The federally funded What Works Clearinghouse has just posted their report on Reading Recovery effectiveness. I mention this because Moats and her ilk are constantly battering RR as unscientific. But the WWC reports that RR has positive effects on reading achievement. Their highest rating! So will all those other “approved” commercial intervention programs now be deleted from the various state agency websites and replaced by the only intervention, so far, found to be effective by the WWC?

Dick A