Univocality and Civility in Scientific Writing: A Return to Sense Making
“[To stop] the reading wars, a good first step would be addressing the term itself. Terminologist Riggs (1993) noted that the… use of [the term reading wars] comes not only from usage in scholarly work; instead, multiple, and confusing definitions are often ‘compounded by journalists, politicians and other writers in ordinary language who often borrow words from technical writing to serve non-scholarly purposes. Thereby, they add new meanings to them, often, poorly defined and loaded with affective, usually pejorative, connotations’ (Riggs, 1993, p. 1)” (as quoted in Samuel DeJulio, Dixie D. Massey, Norman Stahl & James King (06 Feb 2024): Terminologically Speaking, the Reading Wars, Reading Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/02702711.2024.2309342).
Terminologist Riggs, speaking from the vantage point of 1993, is a ghost buster of sorts, on the alert for morphemic djinns using ‘ordinary language to serve non-scholarly purposes.’ According to tradition, djinns are beings created by Allah from a smokeless scorching fire. Djinns are invisible to human eyes. They live everywhere on the cheap—deserts, ruins, even invisibly in condominiums alongside humans.
Before DeJulio et al. (2024) introduced me to Riggs, I was unaware of any Department of Terminology in the Academy. In fact, the study of terminology is an established multidisciplinary specialty across the globe involving fields such as linguistics, translation studies, library science, information science, and sub areas like medical informatics or legal studies. Makes sense. Can we talk?
Terminology management is big business in some headquarters, a type of pest control for those who appreciate the finer things science brings like mRNA vaccines and phonemic awareness. (cf: Monterey Institute of International Studies, a language training juggernaut; University of Geneva where the Faculty of Translation and Interpreting offers courses and research opportunities in terminology as part of translation and interpreting studies; Concordia University where students can get a Graduate Diploma in Translation which includes terminology).
Given that ltRRtl subscribers and followers are likely unfazed by military metaphors in this Trumpian time, that this post is unlikely to reach far into tomorrow, I’ve decided to soldier on with the war metaphor and say that SoR ©️crossed a red line in the sand when it dissed Marie Clay and her Reading Recovery. So there’s my bias. I’m in good company. Tierney and Pearson (2024) published a book in February “fact checking” SoR ©️. It’s worth spending a moment with an excerpt from their Acknowledgment page where a Who’s Who in current reading research is listed:
“There is an element of uncertainty with the writing and publication of this monograph. From the outset we found ourselves wrestling with the merits of a project directed at fact-checking the Science of Reading. Our goal was to delve into the credibility of the evidence enlisted for the claims being made and the mandates being imposed. Our hope was that we could do so in a manner that was neither biased nor negative but represented a form of fair witnessing with an eye to supporting more discerning decisions by educators and increased civility in a field often characterized as contentious.”
Their first and lasting unease, the merits of writing the piece, is stuffed with baggage as I read. Tierney and Pearson have been around this block before, though some of the real estate has been upgraded. Why do it again? Consummate literacy scientists themselves, they may have doubted the sense and the pragmatics of defending the real science of reading from an onslaught by an anti-scientific movement analogous to anti-vaxxers. The parallel within the Trumpian zeitgeist is unavoidable. Fact-checking so far has done little to quell the insanity.
Their goal, to evaluate the credibility of SoR evidence vis a vis its conclusion, and their hope, to model fairness and civility, overrode their uneasiness, and they wrote—after assurances from the upper echelons of the reading scientific community whom they trusted from decades of scholarly collaboration. Presented in this context, this monograph can be viewed as a case of terminology management, a scouring of the evidence to separate scientific sense/terms from non-sense/doublespeak embedded in the language of SoR ©️ . Is the term “phonics” in the mouth of SoR ©️ the same term the field of reading as a scientific endeavor recognizes?
Something else factored into their calculus, a fresh cockiness in the [©️] movement that puts one in mind of a group that sees itself in military metaphors, that fights for an ideology—a group willing to reject the sine qua non of science, the principle of fallibility:
“We…noticed something new in the current SoR [©️] version: A self-assured attitude among those carrying the SoR flag [©️] who assert a clarity and a confidence about the return to phonics that leaves little if any doubt about what the research demonstrates about early reading” (Tierney and Pearson, 2024).
So they faced a paradox. They knew the opposition had not abandoned the military metaphor. They knew the military visioning of the opposing side of the argument assumed a moral righteousness on top of scientific certainty fed through the loudspeaker of media journalism reaching into political power. They knew deep damage had already been done in legislatures across the country.
The strongest claim from the SoR ©️ regiment was more philosophical and epistemological than evidentiary, that is, the new soldiers for phonics claimed that the science is settled. Science by definition remains eternally falsifiable, but we do have scientific theories which we treat as settled. Nobody wants to argue with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein about the theory of gravity. Louis Pasteur’s germ theory isn’t likely to be doubted soon. Engineers question the laws of thermodynamics at their peril. Even in a field like psychotherapy where near certainty is elusive, cognitive behavioral therapy for post traumatic stress disorder is all but settled. The point is certain scientific theories have become so deeply embedded in how humans live, work, and think—and are so reliable—that we take them as maps of reality.
The Theory of Phonics in the manner of SoR ©️ is not like gravity, germ theory, or thermodynamics. It is not even like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in relation to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, a highly recommended approach with widespread agreement though not settled and static like gravity. PTSD itself is recognized in psychological science as temporarily settled in the DSM-5; keep in mind this psychiatric disorder manual is periodically updated. Even settled isn’t settled, though it is carefully monitored by academic terminologists.
For decades the efficacy of a cueing system model of reading, a theory that captured more of the complexity of the reading process, was on the verge of settled. Tierney and Pearson (2024) refer to the use of the 3-cueing system, the whipping boy in the vilification of non-approved teaching methods by SoR ©️ as an important example of the infiltration of non-scientific conclusions into political mandates:
“In several states in the U.S., the legislation has been so detailed as to specify that certain educational practices may not be taught in schools (see Olson, 2023, for an account of passed or proposed legislation). These include practices such as the three-cueing system, which encourages students to use both meaning and orthographic cues to unlock unknown words. Some states have gone as far as to ban the three-cueing system from being taught as a pedagogical strategy in teacher education program.”
The 3-cueing system itself is beyond the scope of this post. To oversimplify, this system posits that readers use grammar and syntax, word meanings, and phonics in combination to make sense of words in context, that readers use these aspects of language separately and in parallel as needed, and that learning to read well means learning to orchestrate these elements of language. SoR ©️ insists that the scientific evidence—settled, by the way—indicates that beginning readers should never be distracted from the phonics cueing system; teaching them to attend to syntax and meaning is a distraction that weakens learning to sound out words. According to Tierney and Pearson (2024), the SoR ©️ conclusion is untenable both empirically and logically:
“In our view,… SoR [©️] advocates have been too quick to dismiss the positive contributions of multiple cueing models and approaches—namely, that they support word identification and understanding, as well as the development of word learning, word solving, and orthographic mapping. Reading requires an orchestration of various factors across words and sentences. It seems overly limiting to discredit the use of cueing systems based on what some might consider a restrictive assumption—that reading is entirely the accurate naming of words, rather than an act of meaning making that involves hypothesizing. To dismiss the use of context as an over-reliance on ‘guessing’ or ‘predicting’ ignores important evidence….”
Stoufer and Van Dyke (2023) wrote about Ontario, Canada’s, recent decision to outlaw instructional approaches relying on 3-cueing theory, providing us with an example of a government taking a stand against real science (not the first—Tierney and Pearson [2024] cite language from a political document from England in 2007 among others which also demonizes a 3-cueing approach). Here is what Canada did:
“The OHRC… names and rebukes the continued implementation of Reading Recovery (Clay, 2005) and Leveled Literacy Intervention (Fountas & Pinnell, 2009) because of reference to a three-cueing system in their theoretical underpinnings and/or utilization of non-generic sequence of phonics instruction. In their place, the OHRC lists reading intervention programs that align with systematic phonics instruction (Section 10, e.g., Empower Reading [Empower Reading and Learning Group, 2022]; Open Court Reading [McGraw Hill, 2022]). Although the Right to Read report focuses on Ontario, because it is associated with a declaration of children’s human rights, its recommendations are likely to attract widespread attention and further politicize Canadian [education].”
Stoufer and Van Dyke (2023) remind the Ontario Commission of the good work Reading Recovery has done since Canada invested fiscal and human resources in its implementation. They also characterize its robust professional development approach which transforms and deepens conceptions of professional development:
“Experienced teachers apply for Reading Recovery training and assignment through their school district. Reading Recovery teachers receive over 300 hours of job-embedded training,during which they learn to apply Clay’s literacy processing theory (Clay, 1991; Doyle, 2019) to individual student learning. Professional development and ongoing coaching through monthly professional learning sessions and regular in-school visits from a mentoring teacher leader are provided (Canadian Institute of Reading Recovery [CIRR], 2022a). This sustained approach to professional learning is intended to be part of a school’s comprehensive approach to literacy development for all students.”
Darling-Hammond et al. (20171) focused a publication on explicating the qualities of high-quality professional development for teachers based on empirical evidence. In their executive summary, these researchers make clear that the institutional work on teacher improvement across the career must be grounded in evidence of efficacy vis a vis student achievement:
“Examples of PD that have been successful in raising student achievement can help policymakers and practitioners better understand what quality teacher professional learning looks like. Policy can help support and incentivize the kind of evidence-based PD described [in this document].”
Two literacy related professional development approaches were highlighted in this 2017 report: one conducted by the National Writing Project intended to better prepare students for college writing and one by the Reading Recovery approach, the very same approach incorporating the Theory of Three Cueing Systems Ontario outlawed. Evidence of student achievement is plentiful:
“A 2016 evaluation of the i3 funded initiative found that students who participated in the U.S. expansion of Reading Recovery signifcantly outperformed students in the control groups on measures of overall reading, reading comprehension, and decoding. Moreover, these gains were nearly three times as large as average gains for similar broad instructional interventions. This effect translates to Reading Recovery students in the study gaining an additional 1.55 months of learning compared to the national growth average for 1st graders. Of particular interest during the i3 scale-up study was the performance of English language learners (ELLs) and rural students. Results indicated that there was a similarly large positive impact on their performance.24 These findings suggest that the Reading Recovery PD program is capable of positively impacting student achievement on a large scale and can help drive equitable learning outcomes for ELL and rural students.”
Stoufer and Van Dyke (2023) amassed a similar collection of evidence arguing favorably for Reading Recovery, evidence overlooked by a politicized committee in Ontario looking only at the narrow band of research approved by the SoR ©️:
“In Canada, the trademark and national data collection for the intervention are managed by the CIRR, a registered charitable organization. In their evaluation of scientific evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of reading intervention programs that met specific research evidence standards, the United States Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences’ What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) (2013, 2022) reviewed randomized control studies on Reading Recovery’s efficacy. The WWC determined that Reading Recovery warranted positive or potentially positive ratings across four outcomes of reading interventions: alphabetics (i.e., phonics and phonemic awareness), fluency, comprehension, and general reading achievement. In their comparison of reading interventions, Reading Recovery received the highest improvement index in fluency and general reading achievement.”
Several scientific fields have made significant strides in establishing a standardized vocabulary for precise communication among their experts. Terminologists in the field of literacy studies might take note and construct a researcher’s guide to settled and settling scientific theories and concepts. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) developed systematic naming conventions for chemical compounds; each compound's name reflects its structure and composition unequivocally. The genetic code, reflecting how DNA sequences are translated into proteins, is universally consistent across nearly all known organisms. A set of nucleotide triplets (codons) corresponds to specific amino acids in a highly predictable manner.
The International System of Units (SI) provides a standardized set of units of measurement used in science and engineering globally expressing and comparing measurements accurately. In fields like psychiatry, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) provide standardized criteria for the diagnosis of mental health conditions. The binomial nomenclature system, established by Carl Linnaeus, provides a universal system for naming and classifying living organisms.
All of us understand here at ltRRtl (I think) that the study of reading and the study of chemistry are significantly different in that one studies observable human behavior to discern mental states while the other studies observable aspects of physical substances to grasp physical potentials. Nominalism is a philosophical viewpoint partly on the problem of universal abstract concepts. It complicates the ontology of entities that do not exist in space and time but are nonetheless undeniable existent. Specific objects exist realistically and sensually, but abstract objects are nominal in that they do not exist outside of our minds. Instead of treating concepts like 3-cueing theory as real, nominalism posits that the 3-cueing system is real only as a term we use to talk about our observations of reading in the real world.
SoR ©️ steals the appeal to realism to support an ideological cause when the subject under consideration is nominal. Its advocates are angry that mainstream theorists of reading refuse to give ground to their impulse to universalize. Mainstream researchers have known since the time of Edmund Huey that reading is cognitive activity, not neurological, not chemical, not electrical. SoR ©️ mistakes sound waves coming out of children’s mouths in harmony with letters on a page for reading, and its advocates commit the logical fallacy of univocal predication: Reading has one meaning, it is the meaning I hear with my own ears when a child pronounces words, it is obvious to all right thinkers. Nominalism suggests that concepts and theories are not pure reflections of inherent, natural divisions in the world, but are human-made constructs built to describe, simplify, and navigate the complexity of the world.
“I’m depressed,” she said. “What if he wins the election?”
“You’re probably wrong,” Dr. Talisman replied.
“But I see a dark future for the children.”
Talisman sighed and then spoke: “A depressed person must experience at least five symptoms during the same two-week period, and at least one should be either depressed mood or loss of interest or pleasure.”
“Depressed mood?”
“Empty, hopeless, on the verge of tears.”
“No, no, I’m just…depressed.”
“Decrease or increase in appetite?”
“Why, yes.”
“Insomnia, hypersomnia, fatigue, feelings of worthlessness or inappropriate guilt?”
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., Gardner, M. (2017).
Effective Teacher Professional Development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Instituate