Read on Twitter
Is the resistance to the science of reading an example of science denialism? The tortuous reasoning in this blog entry by @plthomasEdD illustrates the lengths to which some progressive educators will go to fortify their misguided ideology. 1/X https://radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2020/03/23/epistemic-trespassing-from-ruby-payne-to-the-science-of-reading/
Thomas has emerged a leader in the backlash against the science of reading. He has an Ed.D., identifies as radical, writes Left-wing commentary, and teaches pre-service teachers. He's a real progressive-ed darling, challenging the science without any scientific credentials. 2/X
He has the audacity to argue that @markseidenberg — a cognitive scientist with a Ph.D. from Columbia and a distinguished career publishing scientific research focused on reading and language acquisition — lacks the expertise to make authoritative claims on reading. 3/X
(If you're unfamiliar with @markseidenberg's work, I highly recommend his book LANGUAGE AT THE SPEED OF SIGHT. See his University of Wisconsin faculty bio for more info on his credentials and research. 4/X) https://psych.wisc.edu/staff/seidenberg-mark-s/
Thomas also argues that journalist @ehanford likewise lacks the expertise to make authoritative claims on reading. Because she has no background in teaching, he scoffs, she has no expertise. 5/X
Thomas either doesn't understand how journalism works, or he hopes that readers don't. 6/X
An award-winning journalist for the widely-respected @apmreports, @ehanford has produced a series of meticulously-sourced audio docs on reading. Through her reporting, she has acquired extensive knowledge on reading and has been praised by experts such as @DTWillingham. 7/X
As if dismissing Seidenberg and Hanford weren't mendacious enough, Thomas goes on to claim that advocates of the science of reading rely on "the support of teachers and parents of struggling readers as proof that despite their lack of expertise, their claims are accurate." 8/X
Thomas knows there's more. This article, published by one of the most respected international psychology organizations, summarizes the scientific research on reading. It cites @markseidenberg's work, and @ehanford relied on it for her reporting. 9/X https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1529100618772271
Ironically, while arguing that advocates of the science of reading are "epistemic trespassers," Thomas reveals himself to be the trespasser. He clearly lacks the appropriate expertise to make claims on how children learn to read. 10/X
Thomas thus exemplifies the epistemic trespassing in the science-of-reading debate, inasmuch as the critics generally lack scientific training. They justify their trespassing by pointing to the support of teachers and by appropriating progressive-ed buzzwords. 11/X
At best, the critics trespass b/c they fail to recognize what @DTWillingham describes as difference b/w basic and applied science. They may be experts on applied science of teaching, but that doesn't make them experts on the basic science of reading. 12/X http://www.danielwillingham.com/daniel-willingham-science-and-education-blog/if-youre-going-to-write-about-science-of-reading-get-your-science-right
At worst, the critics trespass because they obdurately refuse to accept scientific findings that challenge their deeply-entrenched and long-held beliefs. They are science denialists, and their spurious arguments are similar to those of other denialists. 13/X
To be clear: Thomas is an expert — but not on reading acquisition. If I need an expert opinion on teaching methods for high school poetry or graphic novels, I might ask Thomas. However, to understand the cognitive processes of reading, I'll stick with the scientists. 14/X
To be clear: I'm not an expert on anything. Most teachers aren't. We're professionals. As such, we need experts' findings and insights to inform our work. However, when experts such as Thomas trespass in areas outside their expertise, they confound our profession. 15/X
The science of reading isn't at odds w/ progressive values. Rather, the science of reading provides the foundational knowledge teachers need to help privileged and underprivileged kids alike become literate. If that isn't equity work, then we need to redefine equity. 16/end
