The Fallacy of Scientifically-Based Reading Research

The traditional view of the scientific process. The traditional view of the scientific process goes something like this. You get two groups. You measure them before the study begins. You do something to one group and you don’t do something to the other. You control everything else so that the two groups are as similar as possible. Then after a bit, you measure them to see if there are differences between the two groups. [slide]. If there are, you can say that the thing you did to the one group was the cause of the difference.

Many think of this as THEE scientific method. This is often called controlled experimental research (CER) or controlled experimental studies (CES). You control all the variables except for one (the treatment or independent variable) in order to find out if something was the cause of something else. However, one big idea I would hope you would take with you is this:

1. There is no such thing as THEE scientific method. Rather, there are methods of science. CER is only one of many methods of science. To insist that this is the only method of science that can be used to understand reading and reading instruction is to insist that we look at reading reality through a tube. Our view and thus our understanding are greatly impeded. Yet this is exactly what the US Department of Education and other groups have done. They have insisted that the only knowledge that counts is that which is derived through controlled experiment research (CER). In reading, they call this scientifically based reading research (SBRR). But this insular view demonstrates a limited understanding of educational research. It insists that we look at reading reality through a very narrow peephole. There’s a lot of data being missed. And how could anything be truly scientific if it chooses to ignore a wealth of very important data.