![]() Another social media branch of the SOR is made of individuals providing services to Dyslexic children.This is just one of many examples of the incomplete, slanted, and misleading reporting done by many of the folks in the social media branch of SOR. I advise taking a buyer-beware approach when dealing with these social media versions of the Science of Reading. Omitting that demonstrates reporting designed to prove a point rather than reporting that rises to the standard of good journalism. The study had a 75% attrition rate (a major red flag), and as the last two bullet points indicate, the author of the May study still favored the use of Reading Recovery. Billy Molasso, Ph.D., in a Nov 14th advocacy alert for the Reading Recovery Community. Let’s look at a screen capture of what Dr. That study was reported as showing that over time Reading Recovery students got worse, i.e., not only did they fail to keep the gains made in recovery, but they actually moved backward. ![]() One clear example of misdirection and selective reporting can be found in the recent media postings about May’s study about the long-term effect of Reading Recovery. For this reason, I have labeled this group the social media branch of SOR to set them apart from other SOR advocates. As I discussed last week, they sometimes use “discount and discredit” tactics designed to “prove” the alternate methods don’t work LINK. I respectfully disagree with what many of these folks are saying. This is especially true of research claiming to prove that the most used publishers are selling flawed products despite the evidence that shows the methods are flawed. Some of the reporting on social media uses slanted misleading evidence.Ensure the research comes from peer-reviewed sources and the measures used in the studies are appropriate. Here is a screen capture from her RRQ article LINK.Īs part of the “buyer beware” way to approach the acquisition of materials and programs, educators would do well to ensure the research used to prove the value of such programs is examined carefully. Rachel Gabriel warns that not all research is created equal. Publishers use labels like Science of Reading or Research-Based to sell products, whether the labels really fit or not. Jordan’s experience is typical of many educators who go looking for new programs. The thread illustrates the point that it is a buyer-beware market: With her permission, I am presenting a Twitter thread posted by Jordan Page. When looking at the claims of some SOR advocates on social media, it is a buyer-beware market. ![]() In this week’s blog, I will again push back on this social media version of the Science of Reading and offer ideas about a different way to proceed. The answer lies in throwing out all the old and replacing it with their methods and products. That would be the new ways being advocated by some vocal proponents who claim they have found the answers we need to solve our nation’s reading problems. ![]() There is a knight in shining armor on the horizon. The products themselves are complete failures. Publishers of the old ways of doing things continue to publish only because of the money made on those products. If one is to believe some social media posts, all that has come before in reading has failed. In the past few weeks, the current debate on social media has heated up to the boiling point. Let’s use common sense to guide the way to common practices: A centrist’s advice on traversing the current social media debate about best practices in reading by Dr. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |