Dr. Jill Kerper Mora is the author of Spanish Language Pedagogy for Biliteracy Programs (2016) and thusly abundantly qualified to critique was is regarded today as the "Science of Reading (SoR)." Currently, an associate professor emeritus at San Diego State University, Dr. Kerper Mora is a credible voice in this contentious debate on literacy considering that she has over 40 years of experience in the field as a teacher, researcher, and scholar in these very areas of literacy, including biliteracy, instruction (also see Bowers, 2020; Johnston & Scanlon, 2021; Reinking, Hruby, & Risko, 2023; Thomas, 2022).
Of great concern to Dr. Kerper Mora is that what is not science at all is actually a movement that politicizes, as opposed to professionalizes, the teaching of reading and writing in schools. She encourages teachers to debunk the false claims of this movement which is particularly led by journalist Emily Hanford.
With respect to multilingual literacy, it is clear that the SoR approach compounds an already flawed model for monolingual speakers of English. Dr. Kerper Mora not only debunks various claims that Hanford and others make, but also draws on research from Spanish-speaking countries to make her case. She further shares this pertinent review of Spanish literacy research as part of her evidentiary base for her detailed response to this arguably harmful, and ill-informed movement.
-Angela Valenzuela
References
Bowers, J. S. (2020). Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 32(3), 681-705. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10648-019-09515-y.pdf
Thomas, P. (2022). The Science of Reading Movement: The Never-Ending Debate and the Need for a Different Approach to Reading Instruction. National Education Policy Center. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED625611.pdf
 |
| Mora, J. K. (2016). Spanish language pedagogy for biliteracy programs. Montezuma Publishing. |
Science of Reading: A Critique
A Bilingual Educator’s Critique of the Science of Reading Movement
Jill Kerper Mora
The Science of Reading is a hot topic on the internet and in the media these days. A plethora of Facebook groups and other social media venues advertising themselves as Science of Reading for XYZ group of educators have sprung up recently. These groups are drawing considerable interest and lots of members with hundreds of comments daily. One example is a Facebook group that calls itself Science of Reading for Bilingual Education. Many of the posts in this group are by dual language teachers who are seeking information about whether the instructional programs they are using in their classrooms are “Science of Reading-aligned.” These queries reflect a genuine concern among teachers who seek confirmation and validation that their instructional approaches are maximally effective for the students they teach.
The issue with these social media that tout their bilingual credentials is that there is often no way for teachers to verify the bona fide expertise of group administrators or participants who comment in the group on the Science of Reading (SoR) research. This is especially problematic for teachers in dual language programs who implement instruction for bilingual and biliteracy learners. This concern is what prompts me to post this analysis and critique of the SoR. My purpose is to challenge the claims made in these groups by self-proclaimed “experts” regarding the research on literacy instruction in Spanish/English dual language programs. I present this critique of the SoR as it applies to bilingual learners based on my 40 years of experience as a bilingual teacher, teacher educator and researcher.
This analysis makes an important distinction between the Science of Reading and the Science of Reading Movement (SoRM). Bilingual educators who visit my website do so with trust in my advocacy for biliteracy learners and their teachers, families, and communities. The term Science of Reading is a global descriptor of research from multiple academic disciplines that informs literacy program design and instruction (reading and writing). In and of itself, the term is not problematic. However, determining the extent to which research meets the criteria for claiming that it is “science” or “scientific” very quickly becomes problematic. Much of what is touted as the Science of Reading does not meet the criteria that the research community sets for itself to ensure the credibility and legitimacy of research and the interpretation and application of research findings. A concern is that the term “science” is being used as a cudgel to marginalize and discredit certain theoretical perspectives and bodies of data that have a track record confirming their legitimacy and credibility, while some other research frameworks claim to be “more scientific than thou.” When we go below the surface, we discover misuse and abuse of the notion of scientific research in service of ideological and political agendas.
Purpose of the Critique of SoR
The purpose of this critique of the Science of Reading is to accomplish the following:
- Review criteria for judging the legitimacy and credibility of claims made in the name of science.
- Identify misrepresentations, misinterpretations, and misapplications of scientific research that lead away from, rather than toward, effective literacy instruction.
- Examine what neuroscience research tells us about the bilingual brain and literacy learning to articulate the implications of bilingual brain research for effective instruction for multilingual learners.
- Present the research that documents the “common thread” of metalinguistic skills between decoding and language comprehension that challenges the SoR proponents’ arguments against “cueing” from the applied linguistics and psycholinguistic perspectives on the relationship between the two components of the Simple View of Reading.
- Debunk false claims that are unscientific and without a credible evidence base in the research literature made by proponents of the Science of Reading to avoid perpetuating inequities in language and literary education for multilingual learners.
The format for this analysis is a presentation of a summary of an argument that I make with a link to further elaboration of the argument on a separate webpage. I begin with an analysis of the media’s portrayal of the Science of Reading perspective of the Reading Wars. I elaborate on how journalists are framing an argument around particular teaching strategies for the purpose of promoting fear and distrust of teachers and publishers of instructional programs to promote policies and regulation to mandate more teaching of phonics in the public schools. I present the reasons why this media campaign is detrimental to public education, and specifically to language minority students. I point out that despite claims of “science” as the basis for the policies that the Science of Reading Movement promotes, the media’s portrayal of reading research and the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of certain instructional practices do not qualify as scientific. The SoR Movement seeks to politicize rather than professionalize the teaching of reading and writing in the public schools. The purpose of this analysis is to empower teachers to combat the abuse of the term “science” and to respond with knowledge and expertise to false claims and misrepresented research from the SoR Movement.
Here I list the related webpages that together present a thorough analysis and critique of the applications of the Science of Reading to language and literacy instruction for multilingual learners.
Neuroscience Research: Literacy Learning in the Bilingual Brain
Miscue Analysis Research: The Ghost of Whole Language
The Structured Literacy Approach: Implications for Multilingual Learners
Lexical Inferencing: The Truth About Cueing
Science as Metaphor: Debunking the More-Scientific-Than-Thou Argument
Is Reading Natural? A Metalinguistic Perspective
California’s Reading Wars: A Brief History
Science of Reading Legislation: Unconstitutional Laws and Indecipherable Policy
So, without further ado, let us examine together the claims and counterclaims that arise from the new battlefront in the Reading Wars.
CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING
