LETRS Does Not Meet Basic SoR Standards
LETRS Knowledge
Dr. Moats and her LETRS minions would have us believe that if teachers just had the right kind of knowledge (her kind of knowledge), then they could teach reading effectively and all those pesky reading problems would go away.? Now, they are partially correct.? It has been well established that having a body of knowledge is an essential component of expertise in any domain (Sternberg & Williams, 2010) including teaching (Bruer, 1999; Darling-Hammond, 1999; Eggen & Kauchak, 2007; Sternberg & Williams, 2010).? However, the real question has always been, what kind of knowledge is important?? Dr. Moats claims that her kind of knowledge is the right kind of knowledge.? According to Dr. Moats, it’s not just important, it’s imperative for teaching reading effectively.?
To which I would respond in the most respectful way possible, “pish-posh”.
Baloney-Based Conclusions
Before we examine some of the research used to support the claims of Dr. Moats, we need to understand three important things about research.
1. Research is a process.? It’s a process in which the researcher asks a question, then conducts research to generate or gather data to answer the question.? Logical inferences in the form of conclusion are made based on the data.?
2. Conclusions should be made based solely on the data collected.? I mention this because in some of the research studies conducted by Dr. Moats, there was a tendency to go well beyond the data in making conclusions (Moats, 1994; Moats & Foorman, 2003; Moats, 2004; Foorman, et al., 2003; Foorman, et al.,2006).? In technical terms, this is known as baloney.?
3. Baloney-based conclusions are problematic.? This is because readers have a tendency to look at baloney-based conclusions and say, “Aha! Research supports baloney”, when in fact the data collected do nothing of the kind.? Baloney-based conclusions may be interesting and even compelling, but if they go beyond the data in a research study, they are baloney.? And as everyone knows, baloney is for sandwiches, not so go for research.
SoR Research Standards
So, if we want to be responsible consumers of educational research, and if we truly want to be in alignment with the SoR, the research standards in Figure 1 should be used to evaluate programs such as LETRS or policies such as The Read Act in Minnesota.??
Three Primary Research Studies Conducted by Louisa Moats
??????????? Below, I analyze three research studies conducted by Dr. Moats that are often used to support LETRS in some form.
#1. Moats, L. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. The Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81-102.
This 1994 study cited was in her white paper, Literacy Professional Learning: 10 Reasons Why It’s Essential (Moats, 2021) found on the Lexia LETRS website.? It was used to support two propositions:
? Teachers need more training in phoneme awareness and phonics.
? Many adults who become teachers of reading do not have fully developed phoneme awareness or an understanding of why words are spelled the way they are.
For this study, Dr. Moats created a survey and gave it to 89 students enrolled in six sections of an elective class, Reading, Spelling, and Phonology.? The survey was based on what students wanted to learn in this elective class (reading, spelling, and phonology).? The participants included an equal distribution of classroom teachers, speech-language pathologists, reading teachers, classroom teaching assistants, and graduate students.? So, 89 self-select students, maybe 17 of whom were classroom teachers, were given a survey/test.? The content of the survey/test is in Figure 2.
This knowledge is neither necessary nor sufficient for being an effective reading teacher.?? Also, no specific research question was provided in this research report.? The essence of this research is this: Moats gave a survey/test based on what she thought was important to some people in some classes, and then wrote a bunch of stuff, some of which was related to the survey.?
This is one of the research studies often used to generalize about teachers’ knowledge and teacher education programs.
#2. Moats, L., & Foorman, B. (2003). Measuring teachers' content knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 23-45.
The second study we’ll examine is a 2003, three-year study (see Figure 4).? In year one, 50 kindergarten, first-grade, and second-grade teachers were given a survey.? In year two, 41 second and third-grade teachers were given a survey.? And in year three, 103 third and fourth-grade teachers were given a survey.? The content of these surveys was similar to that in the study above (Moats 1994).? Not surprisingly, she found “surprising gaps” in teachers’ insights about learning to read” (p. 36).?
In the abstract and the discussion section of this article, she tried to make the connection to measures of students’ reading achievement levels as well as teachers’ observed teaching competence.? However, these were part of this larger study (Foorman & Moats, 2004).? In this larger study, the instrument used to observe teachers was not related to teaching reading and had an emphasis on teacher-centered, direct instruction. ?Also, the measures for reading achievement focused on a couple of low-level reading subskills.? But the larger point is, that neither of these were part of this current research.?
#3. Moats, L. (2004). Efficacy of a structured, systematic, language curriculum for adolescent poor readers, Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20, 145-159.
In this third study, Dr. Moats measured gain scores of poorly performing middle school students over the course of two years (see Figure 5).? These students used a structured language curriculum called LANGUAGE! (Greene, 1995).? Three schools were chosen in which the majority of their students (83%) scored below the 25th percentile in reading on the Standard Achievement Test (SAT-9).? Selected subtests from three standardized instruments were used as pre- and post-test measures for reading and spelling: comprehension subtest, word attack, letter-word identification, and cloze for comprehension.? Gain scores were used to compare pre-test to post-test measures.
There are a couple of problems with using single-group gain scores (Marsden & Torgerson, 2012; Rock, 2007; Pike, 1992; Tennant, Arnold, Ellison, & Gilthorpe, 2021):
1. Floor and ceiling effect.? Students with lower baseline scores consistently make larger gains than those with higher baseline scores.? It’s easier to make larger gains if you start lower.? For example, an 8% growth starting at the 23rd percentile is more likely than an 8% growth starting at the 78th percentile.?
2. Regression toward the mean.? The mean may stay the same, but if a few lower scores improve slightly, the mean will improve.? This is more apt to occur if you have an overrepresentation of students with low beginning scores (like this study).
3. Test effects.? Improvement could be a result of the test itself.? Students could remember the questions, or questions could raise an awareness that would trigger learning after the pre-test.
4. Maturation.? Simply growing, developing, and being exposed to content is going to cause growth.? Learners tend to improve over time simply due to maturation.? Without a control group, we can’t say that the treatment was the causal factor.
5. History.? The treatment is not compared to anything else.? We don’t know if the change from pre- to post is a result of (a) the treatment, (b) the effects from normal educational experience, or (c) other innovations or differences in practices.
领英推荐
LETRS Efficacy Research and White Paper
LETRS is published by Lexia?.? If you go to their website (www.lexia.learning.com), you will find,? Lexia? LETRS? Efficacy Research. (Lexia, 2023).? This contains 18 research studies that Lexia claims, “constitutes the evidence base for LETRS” (p. 1).? On that same site, you will find a white paper written by Louisa Moats (2021) entitled, Literacy Professional Learning: 10 Reasons Why It’s Essential.? Of these 38 research studies, none of them meet basic SoR standards.? None of them make a causal link between LETRS professional development and (a) teachers’ ability to teach reading effectively or (b) readers’ ability to read effectively.?? And none of them compare LETRS to other forms of professional development.?
Conclusions
The Science of Reading promotes the exclusionary use of strategies and practices that have been shown to be effective using controlled experimental or quasi-experimental research that was conducted in actual classroom settings.? Further, this is the standard upon which decisions should be made about reading instruction and reading policies.? What are we to conclude based on the data?? This standard is being selectively applied.? Also, LETRS fails to meet this basic SoR standard.
References
Bruer, J.T. (1999) Schools for thought: A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and study achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
Eggen, P. & Kauchak, D. (2007). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Foorman, B.R., Chen, D. T., Carlson, C., Moats, L., Francis, D.J., & Fletcher, J.M. (2003). Necessity of the alphabetic principle to phonemic awareness instruction. Reading and Writing, 16, 289–324.
Foorman, B.R., & Moats, L.C. (2004). Conditions for sustaining research-based practices in early reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 51-60.
Foorman, B.R., Schatschneider, C., Eakin, M.N., Fletcher, J.M., & Moats, L.C., & Francis, D.J. (2006). The impact of instructional practices in grades 1 and 2 on reading and spelling achievement in high poverty schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 1–29
Greene, J.F. (1995). LANGUAGE!” The effects of an individualized structured language curriculum for middle and high school students.? Annals of Dyslexia, 38, 258-275
Johnson, A. (2016). 10 essential instructional elements for students with reading difficulties: A brain-friendly approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Johnson, A. (2017). Teaching strategies for all teachers. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Johnson, A. (2019). Essential Learning theories and their applications (accepted for publication). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Marsden, E. & Torgerson, C.J. (2012) Single group, pre- and post-test research designs: Some methodological concerns, Oxford Review of Education, 38, 583-616, DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2012.731208
Moats, L. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. The Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81-102.
Moats, L. (2004). Efficacy of a structured, systematic, language curriculum for adolescent poor readers, Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20, 145-159.
Moats, L. (2019). Of ‘Hard Words’ and Straw Men: Let’s Understand What Reading Science is Really About. Edview 360 Blog Series.? https://www.voyagersopris.com/blog/edview360/lets-understand-what-reading-science-is-really-about
Moats, L. (2021) Literacy professional learning: 10 reasons why it’s essential. Lexia Learning.
Moats, L., & Foorman, B. (2003). Measuring teachers' content knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 23-45.
National Reading Panel (U.S.) & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.). (2000).?Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read : an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Pike, G. (1992). Lies, damn lies, and statistics revisited: a comparison of three methods of representing change. Research in Higher Education, 33, 71-84.
Rock. A. (2007). A note on gain scores and their interpretation in developmental models designed to measure change in the early school years. Educational Testing Service.? https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1111588.pdf
Shanahan, T. (2020). What constitutes a science of reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, S235-S247.
Shanahan, T. (2024). Unpacking the science of reading with Dr. Timothy Shanahan.? Regional Educational Laboratory Program.? Institute of Education Sciences. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/rel/Products/Region/west/Blog/107997
Sternberg, R.J. & Williams, W.M. (2010). Educational psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Tennant, P., Arnold, K., Ellison, G., & Gilthorpe, M. (2021). Analyses of ‘change scores’ do not estimate causal effects in observational data. International Journal of Epidemiology, 1604-1615
?
?
Learning & Development Specialist | Leader | Instructional Designer | Visionary | Strategist | Solutionist | Focused on Continuous Improvement planning and advocating for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
4 个月I appreciate you taking the time to fight back against this capitalistic movement. I have been so worried about the comprehension and ability to use multiple reading strategies for our students. Our state, Wisconsin, has legislators funneling money into this program and not only abandoning other reading strategies, but outlawing them unless you forfeit much needed funding. I am a reading specialist and am concerned for my grandchildren. I realize the pendulum will swing back once they see test scores are not going up and comprehension is absent, however, we will have lost many children by then. Politics and money laudering at its worst!
Assistant Superintendent
4 个月It is not a very professional paper if you start by calling them "minions". Instantly discrediting if this is supposed to be considered scholarly.
Director of Reading Readiness at The Reading Center
6 个月Nonsense.
I appreciate this article because LETRS should not be looked upon as the 'answer.' Instead, the focus should be on looking to bolster teacher content knowledge through multiple approaches that are evidence-based, inspire student engagement, and offer opportunities for responsive teaching and learning.
Reading Specialist
6 个月I appreciate you for sharing this valuable information.