[AAACE-NLA] Star Struck

[tsticht@znet.com]

Colleagues: I am not surprised to find those who have worked on the STAR
project offering testimonials as to how it has benefited them and others
they have worked with. I recall a product called Hooked on Phonics that had
numerous testimonials on radio and TV about how it worked for them and
others they knew. But  it was eventually driven into bankruptcy by the
federal government's FCC because it did not have solid research to support
the many testimonials.  This bias in favor of a program frequently happens
when people participate in some educational endeavor and it is one of the
reasons that solid research is needed to ferret out what the actual value
of the endeavor is.

I am a bit more puzzled why John Comings would not be more concerned about
the fact that the STAR program was not tested in solid research before
going national. For one thing, it was NCSALL, the organization John
directs, that had the primary role in bringing forth the ARCS and national
survey  research behind the formation of the online products that NIFL
makes available on its web site. And John has been at the forefront of
those calling for evidence-based adult literacy education. So to find that
John thinks it is OK to depend upon K-12 based research rather than
adult-based research is troubling.

For a second thing, it is disconcerting when John says we can apply what is
known from K-12 research because contrary to what many may think, there is
not universal agreement on how children learn to read. Reports from the
National Reading Panel and elsewhere that have made claims about the
so-called "components" of reading have been challenged by many reading
professionals (see Jim Trelease's web site:
www.trelease-on-reading.com/whatsnu_nrp_ssr.html for instance). So it is
not clear that there is solid knowledge about how children learn to read to
be applied to adult literacy education.

All this movement to spread STAR across the nation, at a charge of over
$31,000 for 45 teachers, when there is no evidence-base behind it is also
disconcerting because the so-called 'components" of reading are not there.
Contrary to what is claimed, comprehension, for instance, is not a
component of reading, it is a product of language processing, prior
knowledge, and thinking. All that can be and is done by oral language with
no reading. Further, vocabulary is also a component of language, not
reading. And fluency is not a component of reading but rather a quality of
a reading performance. There is no "fluency" to be taught. Fluency must
develop through extensive practice. It can even be argued that fluency does
not aid comprehension, but rather that comprehension aids fluency.

So if the federal government is going to insist that all of us in the field
provide evidence-based instruction, shouldn't the same federal government
provide the necessary research to support the efficacy of the STAR program
as a more effective approach to teaching reading with (not TO) adults
before it goes national? As things stand now, the STAR program is not so
much a part of the federal government's evidence-based education
initiatives as it is its faith-based initiatives.
Tom Sticht