From a book I waded through on research into reading (and I do mean "waded through", it was a bit mind-numbing in points with all the analysis on studies and statistics and whatnot, but I've read several of the author's other books so I gave it a try):
( Long and academic, just warning you )
This would explain why the vast majority of teachers in the USA have no idea how to teach reading properly, and worse, don't know that they don't know. What they're taught is the faddish or hodgepodge methods (whole language and/or balanced literacy based) from those pseudoscientific studies, often by proponents of said methods who are emotionally committed to their methods and resist any logic that contradicts them. (And it would also be why I've been working on a program of my own.)
The basic question the book presented was that poor reading is attributable to one (or more) of three possibilities (but which?):
- incorrect reading instruction
- impaired speech perception
- delays/impairments in core language functions such as receptive/productive vocabulary, syntax, or semantics
The book showed (by examining those studies) that there's no proof for either of the latter two arguments (and in fact, the research essentially *disproves* them) - and other of the author's same books illustrate the illogicality of some reading instruction methods, and the ways children are confused or struggle with them. The next to last paragraph is:
Apart from a few studies that shine like diamonds in a heap of dross, giving us new ways to look at how reading is influenced by language development, the central message of this book is basically this: The research question "What's wrong with children who can't read?" is a bad question scientifically, logically, and pragmatically, and has been extremely unproductive.
(From what I can tell - in most cases, nothing is wrong with them except that they were mal-instructed. Keep in mind, children learn at varying rates too, so as long as they're on the right track, being slower at learning is not a disability except in school where the age-grade lockstep mentality assigns disabilities to anyone who doesn't march along at the same rate. A very small minority do have significant issues that will affect their overall reading ability, but given the right instruction, even children with severe mental impairments can learn to read at a basic level, and often decode decently well.)
( Long and academic, just warning you )
This would explain why the vast majority of teachers in the USA have no idea how to teach reading properly, and worse, don't know that they don't know. What they're taught is the faddish or hodgepodge methods (whole language and/or balanced literacy based) from those pseudoscientific studies, often by proponents of said methods who are emotionally committed to their methods and resist any logic that contradicts them. (And it would also be why I've been working on a program of my own.)
The basic question the book presented was that poor reading is attributable to one (or more) of three possibilities (but which?):
- incorrect reading instruction
- impaired speech perception
- delays/impairments in core language functions such as receptive/productive vocabulary, syntax, or semantics
The book showed (by examining those studies) that there's no proof for either of the latter two arguments (and in fact, the research essentially *disproves* them) - and other of the author's same books illustrate the illogicality of some reading instruction methods, and the ways children are confused or struggle with them. The next to last paragraph is:
Apart from a few studies that shine like diamonds in a heap of dross, giving us new ways to look at how reading is influenced by language development, the central message of this book is basically this: The research question "What's wrong with children who can't read?" is a bad question scientifically, logically, and pragmatically, and has been extremely unproductive.
(From what I can tell - in most cases, nothing is wrong with them except that they were mal-instructed. Keep in mind, children learn at varying rates too, so as long as they're on the right track, being slower at learning is not a disability except in school where the age-grade lockstep mentality assigns disabilities to anyone who doesn't march along at the same rate. A very small minority do have significant issues that will affect their overall reading ability, but given the right instruction, even children with severe mental impairments can learn to read at a basic level, and often decode decently well.)