Right to Read on bogus "Research" Date sent: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 08:36:28 -0900 From: FAMILY To: Alaska Ed LOOP Subject: FACT SHEET: CAN YOU TRUST THE "RESEARCH?" Here is a perspective, from the National Right to Read Foundation, on what you should think about when people talk of research. It is also why I would like to see the Alaska Commissioner of Education, the State Board of Education, and the Legislature call for a National Reading Summit in the State of Alaska. Possibly our US delegation could also help in this regard. Dr William Pfeifer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FACT SHEET: CAN YOU TRUST THE "RESEARCH?" http://www.jwor.com/nrrf/researc4.htm The National Right to Read Foundation "Everyone seems to think that all you need to do to be a good teacher is to love to teach. But no one thinks that all you need to do to be a good surgeon is to love to cut." Adam Urbanski, Vice President, American Federation of Teachers. Lengthy bibliographies of "studies" supporting various techniques in reading are shot back and forth between proponents of phonics and whole language in an effort to provide conclusive evidence that their perspective is correct. Bewildered parents, school board members, legislators and interested observers look on with little knowledge or understanding of what is actually referred to in these seemingly well documented lists of studies. In the hard sciences, like physics, chemistry, biology, medicine and engineering, references to research studies are more likely to be helpful to "practitioners" or those searching for solutions to complicated, often cutting edge problems, because careful documentation of findings are recorded, checked and double checked, before any thought of application is considered. Peer review panels are convened to scrutinize every aspect of the study. Useful research should arrive at reliable predictions using a scientific method of inquiry. This approach to research should "separate quackery from best practice."1 Education Research is altogether different. Here is how most education "research" is conducted: (1) Build the theory; (2) Test the theory; (3) Replicate the results in large-scale studies in classrooms, schools or district wide implementations; (4) No objective evaluation using control groups is conducted. And, theories of learning abound. For decades educators have followed the theories of developmental psychologist John Jacques Piaget. Piaget never tried to teach children, he only tried to describe what they do at different ages."2 Yet in our public schools today "developmentally appropriate practice," which undergirds whole language and almost all "child centered" educational programs, has become almost sacred. Anyone daring to challenge the underlying premises of these theories is considered "unprofessional" or just ignorant. For example, block scheduling and an integrated curriculum, now the rage in our schools, has no empirical scientific evidence to support its educational value.3 Cooperative learning, another fine sounding theory, is one of the most widely used innovations of our time, and yet is often implemented without clear goals or any individual accountability. Educational literature now includes citations that look impressive. Names, dates, well known journals, and often prestigious Universities are listed as confirmation that the theories presented have been carefully researched and tested, when what is being cited is often nothing more than opinion laced with "happy faced" anecdotal stories. "A small number of prolific professionals with strong beliefs can write a great deal and quote each other's ideas. This creates a circular knowledge base that may appear to be research, but which can, in fact, just be "bull."5 Ken Goodman, one of the most prolific writers and proponents of whole language, conducted a "research" study in New Zealand in 1965. His findings have served as one of the main stays of current whole language practice in America. Specifically, Goodman found that "children's reading accuracy improved 60% - 80% in context, in comparison with a [word] list. However, Tom Nicholson, Professor of Education at the University of Auckland, New Zealand twice replicated Goodman's study, and found that this classic study that supported "enlightened [word] guessing is incorrect..."6 This is especially important because in today's "whole language," "balanced approach" classrooms guessing at words by context to identify them is strongly recommended as one of the three "cueing systems" essential in how a child learns to read. Thus, Ken Goodman's research advocating the use of context clues to identify unknown words is bogus. Does Dr. Nicholson's finding change how most teachers are teaching our children to read? Not in the least. If the scientific method were used to validate educational programs there would be: (1) Development of an hypothesis; (2) Testing the hypothesis by formal experiment; (3) Analyzing data to determine the truth of the hypothesis; (4) Peer review, replication of the experiment, large-scale and/or long-term follow-up studies. Parents should be told their children are in experimental classrooms, and schools should ask parents' permission to include their children in such experiments. One federal education research study, Project Follow Through, conducted over the past twenty five years, did apply the scientific method. It cost the taxpayers more than one billion dollars, and funding only ceased in 1995. The goal of the study was to identify the specific teaching methods that could raise the performance levels of America's poorest schools from the 20th percentile (the normal level of performance for children in poverty) up to the 50th percentile (even with mainstream America). The results of this massive study were conclusive. Direct instruction, (one of the Follow Through models) included direct, systematic instruction in phonics as one component, and was found to be "the only program which consistently produced substantial progress"7 in reading. Project Follow Through also evaluated the "child centered," "developmentally appropriate practices" model that relied almost exclusively on a form of instruction that could be called "relevant activity." The goal of this model was to "develop problem solving abilities, healthy self- concepts, and culturally pluralistic attitudes and behaviors."8 Not only did the "child centered" approach fall far short in reaching its goals, but students in the Direct Instruction Model improved their academic skills in reading, writing and mathematics, while at the same time enhancing their self-esteem and problem solving abilities. The lack of rigor in testing most educational theories, including whole language and its clones, and its implication for policy makers should be obvious. Students who are taught direct, systematic phonics develop reading skills far superior to those exposed to the unproven whole language philosophy. If schools are going to use unproven theories, they should do so only if parents approve, and they should be held accountable for the results. These studies have been conducted using the "scientific method,"and the findings are based on empirical evidence. A bibliography of studies is available from The National Right to Read Foundation. End Notes 1. Grossen, B. (Fall 1996) "Making Research Serve the Profession," American Educator, American Federation of Teachers. 2. Ibid 3. Ellis, A., & Fouts (1993). "Research on Educational Innovations." Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education. 4. Ibid 5. Grossen, B. (Fall 1996)"Making Research Serve the Profession," American Educator. 6. Nicholson,T., (1991) "Do Children Read Words Better in Context or in Lists: A Classic Study Revisited." Journal of Educational Psychology, No. 83, No. 4,444-450. 7. Bock, G. (Winter 1996) "Education as Experimentation: A Planned Variation Model," Effective School Practices. 8. Ibid