The work of our GIANTS - How often do we have to evidence the same results? What matters the most now?

This is the hub of the site and the place to post queries, start discussions and join in the conversation!
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: The work of our GIANTS - How often do we have to evidence the same results? What matters the most now?

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Sat May 18, 2019 2:15 pm

Professors James Chapman and Bill Tunmer have worked very hard for years on analysing the results and realities of the Reading Recovery intervention programme - and their contribution is exceptionally important for laying bare the truth of the whole language approach on already weak readers:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1054

We conclude that RR does not tailor instruction to meet the needs of individual students, as claimed. The RR instructional model, developed in the 1970s, fails to recognise the importance of explicit, systematic instruction in phonemic awareness and the use of letter–sound relations. Such instruction is essential for most students who struggle with literacy learning during their early years of schooling and especially important for students who experience the most difficulty with learning to read. Suggestions are presented for strengthening the RR programme and for reducing the number of unrecovered students.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: The work of our GIANTS - How often do we have to evidence the same results? What matters the most now?

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Sun May 19, 2019 12:22 am

Member of the founding committee of the International Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction, Sir Jim Rose, is world-renowned for his work to promote evidence-informed systematic synthetic phonics - drawing on both research findings and leading-edge classroom practice:

About Sir Jim Rose:

https://iferi.org/members/sir-jim-rose- ... a/#more-51

Sir Jim Rose's famous report commissioned by the, then, UK Government in 2005/6 was a turning point in England to the official acceptance of the Simple View of Reading model (Gough and Tunmer, 1986) replacing the 'Searchlights' multi-cueing strategies (National Literacy Strategy, 1998) for teachers' professional understanding of what it means to be a reader in the full sense. Despite many phonics critics and detractors, England has gone from strength to strength in accepting and embracing the need for systematic synthetic phonics provision in early years and infant schools.

See Sir Jim Rose's Final Report (2006) via this page:

https://iferi.org/evidence/

Sir Jim Rose continues to support the need for systematic synthetic phonics in our schools and writes articles periodically on the topic of literacy, for example - see the topics of IFERI's blog to view several articles by Sir Jim:

https://iferi.org/blog/
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: The work of our GIANTS - How often do we have to evidence the same results? What matters the most now?

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:31 am

Here are some historical facts about a great lady and great contributor to knowledge and understanding about reading instruction, Geraldine Rodgers:

https://infogalactic.com/info/Geraldine_Rodgers

Thanks to Elizabeth Brown who reminded us of Geraldine via her Tweet below:

Geraldine Rodgers wrote her first pro-phonics book after a sabbatical in 1979. She wrote her last phonics book year at age 92! Her history of reading instruction is an amazing work. Bio: https://infogalactic.com/info/Geraldine_Rodgers … Her history is now available as a PDF. http://donpotter.net/pdf/history.pdf
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: The work of our GIANTS - How often do we have to evidence the same results? What matters the most now?

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:31 pm

A couple of 'contemporary' greats in Australia include Professor Pamela Snow - a prolific blogger and tweeter; and Dr Jennifer Buckingham.

This interview with Jennifer facilitated by Tom Bennett of researchED reveals some interesting background to Jen's journey. Our IFERI message forum has many threads featuring the important work of Jennifer in Australia:

https://researched.org.uk/screen-queen- ... uckingham/

Tom Bennett interviews Australian phonics champion Dr. Jennifer Buckingham.

Dr Jennifer Buckingham is the Director of Strategy and Senior Research Fellow at MultiLit, a literacy programme provider and research unit in Australia. A prominent figure on the Australian literacy stage, she previously spent two decades at the Centre for Independent Studies, most recently as Senior Research Fellow and founder of the FIVE from FIVE initiative. She has published numerous reports and articles on reading instruction and has provided advice to state and federal governments on literacy programmes and the introduction of a Year 1 Phonics Check. Jennifer is a board member of the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. Jennifer’s PhD was in the area of literacy and social disadvantage, supervised by Professor Kevin Wheldall and Dr Robyn Wheldall. I caught up with Jennifer at the Literacy, Language and Learning conference in Perth, Australia, in April 2019, where we talked about her career, phonics, and the political landscape of Australian education.

TB: Thanks for speaking to researchED magazine. How did you get started?


And here is a link to Pam's very popular, extremely well-written blog, The Snow Report:

http://pamelasnow.blogspot.com
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: The work of our GIANTS - How often do we have to evidence the same results? What matters the most now?

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:34 pm

Dr Linda Siegel is a founding committee member of the International Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction. Her lifelong contribution to an understanding of learning difficulties is exceptional:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Siegel


Linda contributed a statement in light of the controversy of whether the term 'dyslexia' is helpful or not;

http://www.iferi.org/wp-content/uploads ... tement.pdf

Solving the Problems of Dyslexia (Reading Disability)

In their recent book, The Dyslexia Debate (Cambridge University Press, March, 2014), Julian G. Elliott and Elena L. Grigorenko have proposed that we abandon the term dyslexia because it has outlived its usefulness. They note many difficulties with the definition and use of the term. They outline the inequities in the manner in which the term is applied and the interventions and accommodations that are available. These points are very important ones and clearly worthy of consideration.

Return to “General Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests