Petscher Yaacov, Cabell Sonia Q, Catts Hugh W, Compton Donald L, Foorman Barbara R, Hart Sara A, Lonigan Christopher J, Phillips Beth M, Schatschneider Christopher, Steacy Laura M, Terry Nicole Patton, Wagner Richard K
Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University.
Read Res Q. 2020 Sep;55(Suppl 1):S267-S282. doi: 10.1002/rrq.352. Epub 2020 Sep 6.
The science of reading should be informed by an evolving evidence base built upon the scientific method. Decades of basic research and randomized controlled trials of interventions and instructional routines have formed a substantial evidence base to guide best practices in reading instruction, reading intervention, and the early identification of at-risk readers. The recent resurfacing of questions about what constitutes the science of reading is leading to misinformation in the public space that may be viewed by educational stakeholders as merely differences of opinion among scientists. Our goals in this paper are to revisit the science of reading through an epistemological lens to clarify what constitutes evidence in the science of reading and to offer a critical evaluation of the evidence provided by the science of reading. To this end, we summarize those things that we believe have compelling evidence, promising evidence, or a lack of compelling evidence. We conclude with a discussion of areas of focus that we believe will advance the science of reading to meet the needs of all children in the 21st century.
阅读科学应以基于科学方法逐步发展的证据基础为依据。数十年来的基础研究以及关于干预措施和教学常规的随机对照试验已经形成了一个坚实的证据基础,以指导阅读教学、阅读干预以及对有阅读风险学生的早期识别方面的最佳实践。最近,关于什么构成阅读科学的问题再次出现,这在公共领域导致了错误信息,教育利益相关者可能将其视为科学家之间仅仅是意见分歧。我们在本文中的目标是通过认识论的视角重新审视阅读科学,以阐明阅读科学中什么构成证据,并对阅读科学提供的证据进行批判性评估。为此,我们总结了那些我们认为有确凿证据、有前景的证据或缺乏确凿证据的方面。最后,我们讨论了一些重点领域,我们认为这些领域将推动阅读科学的发展,以满足21世纪所有儿童的需求。