“…Finally, we reiterate central arguments that were not addressed by our critics: (1) instruction must be responsive to readers and (2) teachers must bring a vast range of expertise to competently serve readers who bring multifaceted literate and experiential knowledge to texts. Reiterating concerns raised by other readings scholars (Collet et al., 2021; Flippo, 1998), we worry that attending to microdimensions of arguments creates false binaries, obfuscates important areas of agreement, and distracts attention from what truly matters: children.…”
mentioning
confidence: 72%
“…“…experts emphasized that, like all aspects of reading instruction, phonics instruction should be based on need…The survey statement, ‘Teachers should use ongoing observation and assessment in language and literacy to inform instruction’ was one with which almost all experts strongly agreed.” (Collet et al., 2021, p. 11)…”
Section: Concern #2: Pausing and Ponderingmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In fact, our prompts reflected voices from across the field: “It is important to emphasize that systematic phonics instruction should be integrated with other reading instruction to create a balanced reading program. Phonics instruction is never a total reading program.” (National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US), 2000, p. 2–97)“…experts emphasized that, like all aspects of reading instruction, phonics instruction should be based on need…The survey statement, ‘Teachers should use ongoing observation and assessment in language and literacy to inform instruction’ was one with which almost all experts strongly agreed.” (Collet et al., 2021, p. 11)“[A fixation on] simple linear decoding and single syllable words is unfortunately a characteristic of many ‘Science of Reading’ materials and social media posts, but it is not an accurate representation of the actual science.” (Mesmer, 2024, p. 8)…”
Section: Concern #2: Pausing and Ponderingmentioning
Compton‐Lilly and colleagues respond to recent critiques of their viewpoint article, Stories Grounded in Decades of Research: What We Truly Know about the Teaching of Reading—published in The Reading Teacher. We first respond to specific concerns raised by our critics. We then discuss recent legislation being enacted in statehouses across the United States that does not reflect current research. Finally, we reiterate two preeminent concerns that were not addressed by our critics: (1) instruction must be responsive to readers and (2) teachers must bring a vast range of expertise to competently serve readers who bring multifaceted literate and experiential knowledge to texts. Reiterating concerns raised by other readings scholars, we worry that attending to microdimensions of arguments creates false binaries, obfuscates important areas of agreement, and distracts attention from what truly matters: children.
“…Finally, we reiterate central arguments that were not addressed by our critics: (1) instruction must be responsive to readers and (2) teachers must bring a vast range of expertise to competently serve readers who bring multifaceted literate and experiential knowledge to texts. Reiterating concerns raised by other readings scholars (Collet et al., 2021; Flippo, 1998), we worry that attending to microdimensions of arguments creates false binaries, obfuscates important areas of agreement, and distracts attention from what truly matters: children.…”
mentioning
confidence: 72%
“…“…experts emphasized that, like all aspects of reading instruction, phonics instruction should be based on need…The survey statement, ‘Teachers should use ongoing observation and assessment in language and literacy to inform instruction’ was one with which almost all experts strongly agreed.” (Collet et al., 2021, p. 11)…”
Section: Concern #2: Pausing and Ponderingmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In fact, our prompts reflected voices from across the field: “It is important to emphasize that systematic phonics instruction should be integrated with other reading instruction to create a balanced reading program. Phonics instruction is never a total reading program.” (National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US), 2000, p. 2–97)“…experts emphasized that, like all aspects of reading instruction, phonics instruction should be based on need…The survey statement, ‘Teachers should use ongoing observation and assessment in language and literacy to inform instruction’ was one with which almost all experts strongly agreed.” (Collet et al., 2021, p. 11)“[A fixation on] simple linear decoding and single syllable words is unfortunately a characteristic of many ‘Science of Reading’ materials and social media posts, but it is not an accurate representation of the actual science.” (Mesmer, 2024, p. 8)…”
Section: Concern #2: Pausing and Ponderingmentioning
Compton‐Lilly and colleagues respond to recent critiques of their viewpoint article, Stories Grounded in Decades of Research: What We Truly Know about the Teaching of Reading—published in The Reading Teacher. We first respond to specific concerns raised by our critics. We then discuss recent legislation being enacted in statehouses across the United States that does not reflect current research. Finally, we reiterate two preeminent concerns that were not addressed by our critics: (1) instruction must be responsive to readers and (2) teachers must bring a vast range of expertise to competently serve readers who bring multifaceted literate and experiential knowledge to texts. Reiterating concerns raised by other readings scholars, we worry that attending to microdimensions of arguments creates false binaries, obfuscates important areas of agreement, and distracts attention from what truly matters: children.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
