On instructional salad
Legacy pedagogy is undermining progress in the Sciences of Reading and Learning
This article originally appeared in Education HQ.
Evidence-based practice is no doubt gaining traction. We’ve seen huge shifts in the way that reading is taught and it feels like Emily Hanford’s Sold A Story has helped to bring the discussion to a head. Her podcast about the tragic history of reading instruction has provoked anger, frustration and sadness about the lost years of failed policy that has had devastating effects on the life outcomes of so many students. Even some of the big hitters like Lucy Calkins, with the most to lose from the uptake of evidence-based practice, have backed down. And other than some notable extinction bursts like this one, it seems that the Reading Wars might soon be over.Â
There’s still a way to go before evidence-based practice more broadly becomes mainstream and Science of Reading is implemented with fidelity. Certainly progress has been made, but we are entering an era of lukewarm adoption, especially when it comes to literacy. I’ve coined the term ‘instructional salad’ to describe the current state of play, where legacy methods persist, especially in the area of reading. School systems, with a couple of notable exceptions, seem to be dabbling in Science of Learning but seemingly without direction or intent. And on a policy scale, it seems that ‘evidence-based’ can mean any number of things as long as it fits the political agenda.Â
Of course, moves towards the inclusion of phonics are needed, with NESA in New South Wales prescribing their inclusion in the syllabus. The Victorian Government has been slow to move, but even where phonics is mandated, the legacy of Balanced Literacy is strong. Anecdotally, teachers report that in many settings, the time-consuming Fountas and Pinnell style running records — that enjoy similar accuracy to flipping a coin — run alongside Science of Reading. Similarly, many schools find it hard to wean their teachers off three-cueing, the strategy of poor readers who in desperation learn to ‘guess’ instead of read. Workshop-style writing also needs to go, especially in secondary schools.Â
The New South Wales Department of Education is similarly incoherent, providing guides on evidence-based practice but then suggesting problem-based, ‘authentic’ learning in Stage 1-3, a stage where it’s hard to imagine students as anything but complete novices. The Australian Curriculum has wholeheartedly embraced reading science but lags when it comes to Mathematics, leaning towards an inquiry approach. As well as these conflicting approaches being confusing for teachers, this is particularly dangerous when it comes to initial primary teacher education, where practitioners have not had the benefit of an undergraduate degree in mathematics. Too frequently we hear the claim that everything is contextual. But the Australian Education Research Organisaton’s meta-analysis shows that this claim is overegged.Â
The terms ‘research’ and ‘evidence-based’ have come to encompass so many proposals that they are in danger of becoming victims of their own ubiquity. Take NSW Minister for Education and Early Childhood Sarah Mitchell’s proposal to ‘disrupt’ education through a stage-not-age approach to student progress. This proposal gets lumped in with other perfectly sound evidence-based moves, but I’ve seen no research that has tested this fairly inchoate plan at any kind of feasible scale. In the instructional coaching space, Quality Teaching Rounds are gaining traction as a scalable solution to gaps in graduate teacher capabilities, despite the lack of evidence-base regarding their effect on student outcomes.Â
Similarly, the Victorian Department of Education and Training has neatly packaged up ‘8 High Impact Teaching Strategies.’ But again, the document promotes differentiation, conflating it with the highly effective and human-resources intensive RTI (response to intervention) model. The Nationally Consistent Collection of Data (NCCD) seems to favour volume of documentation over effective whole-class explicit instruction, with an emphasis on alternative learning activities. So it seems here that the evidence has been shoehorned into this competing agenda, despite no evidence for differentiation in its commonly understood form. Where RTI is supported by research but also expensive to staff, differentiation is required by policy and ostensibly free!
It’s so important that evidence-based practice is collectively understood. Not all ‘research’ is equal, particularly in education, and it’s difficult at times to tell the meat and potatoes from the lettuce. It is heartening to see whole dioceses like Canberra Goulburn Catholic Education setting a standard based on sound principles, with their Tasmanian counterparts following suit. Universities like La Trobe also give hope, with strong and clear leadership by Joanna Barboussas setting the bar for other initial teacher education providers to meet. What we need is greater coherence, greater commitment, and for leaders, systems and institutions to adopt the Science of Learning in good faith.Â
Rebecca, this is an important post. You identified multiple important points (e.g., the apparent shift toward EBI) and reported about them in insightful ways (e.g., incoherent policies) and with a sense of humor ("tell the meat and potatoes from the lettuce!"). Thank you very much.
JohnL