Debating the "Brain Glitch" Theory

Neurologist turned classroom teacher, Judy Willis, warns readers in The Gully in the "Brain Glitch" Theory not to be "fooled by policymakers or program developers who use the term brain-based learning in ways that many medical and teaching professionals consider irresponsible."

"Researchers have used the brain glitch theory to lump diverse reading differences and learning styles under a single label of phonics impairment," says Willis. Willis is concerned that problematic research is guiding federal policy makers and advancing a narrow approach to reading instruction.

Consider what research says about the brain, she advises, but not at the expense of instrinsic appeal and significance to the young reader--and not to the exclusion of teachers' own experiences and training.

In their response to Willis' article, neurologists Sally and Bennett Shaywitz argue that nearly three decades of research indicate that "successful beginning readers must recognize that letters and letter strings represent the sounds of spoken language."

They continue that, "To read, a child has to develop the insight that a spoken word can be pulled apart into phonemes, and that the letters in a written word represent these sounds." Shaywitz and Shaywitz contend research shows phonics-based inteventions are successfull in improving reading ability.

Add your voice to the debate:

What has your classroom experience taught you about effective ways to teach struggling readers?

Comments

[Judy Willis, M.D.]

Neuro-logical Reading Theory: author response to Shaywitz article
by Judy Willis, MD, M.Ed

The Shaywitz response to my article, “The Gully in the ‘Brain Glitch’ Theory,” was unresponsive to most of my concerns. For example, they ignored the neuroimaging confirmation of the importance of engagement and motivation on successful learning. Both my 20 years practice as a board-certified neurologist and the past seven years as a classroom teacher have taught me what most classroom educators know from their experience--that stress, comfort, engagement, motivation, and emotion influence all types of learning and memory. Superior learning taking place when classroom experiences are enjoyable and relevant to students' lives, interests, and experiences.
The Shaywitz over-interpretation of research extrapolates phonics-heavy interventions used for “dyslexic readers" into the promotion of phonics-heavy curriculum for all students who have trouble learning to read. Not all reading problems are dyslexias. And why should a phonics-heavy reading program that correlates with improvement in tests of phonics be the basis of a phonics-heavy curriculum for all students, as NCLB’s Reading First program demands? I agree with education scientist Gerald Coles, that other entry points into learning to read, be they whole language or combinations of instruction, could just as easily stimulate the brain pathways that are associated with reading.
Unfortunately, the phonics-heavy reading curriculums promoted by Reading First do not place a priority on enjoyment and motivation. While phonics instruction (alphabetic principle and phonemic awareness) is a critical part of learning to ready, Reading First has resulted in an overemphasis on phonics-heavy drills and decodables without adequate engaging reading activities. Some of the standardized curriculum that has resulted from partisan NCLB politization of education has made it very difficult for teachers to have the time and flexibility necessary for differentiated techniques to best reach students with varied learning styles.
It is critical, in this pioneering age of opportunity for the collaboration of neuroimaging research scientists with educators, that valid research remains pure and unbiased. It is discouraging, but a call to action I cannot ignore, when a vested interest group that stands to gain when a curriculum is purchased misrepresents data. I cannot stand by and watch the joy of learning extinguished in children. I have repeatedly seen children break down in tears of frustration during prescribed lessons using phonics-heavy, schedule-regimented curriculum that limits opportunities for creative teacher input. It is a great disservice to our children when researchers with political ties to these phonics-heavy programs over interpret neuroimaging studies beyond the honorable scientific standards of the medical profession of which I am proud to be a part.

[Mary Ann Kettlewell]

Dr. Willis' comments ring true with me.I work with children who have not yet learned to read despite intensive phonics instruction. Self-esteem and confidence, which can't be measured by functional MRI are key.Every brain has its own unique organization. The Shaywitz' have only one piece of the puzzle. I agree that phonics instuction helps many children learn to read but what is going to be done to help all the others? If phonics is the key, why are so many children having difficulty? I don't think the Shaywitz' are visual learners themselves so they believe anyone who is, must be neurologically impaired. I do not consider myself an expert of any kind and certainly don't pretend to have all the answers but I did work in an epilepsy monitoring unit so I am aware of the short comings and limitations of medicine (and research, imaging and EEG's).The educators I am in contact with are searching for help and guidance because so many of their students are struggling. I admire Dr. Willis' courage in initiating this debate. Her sincerity is obvious. Her students are fortunate to have an empathetic instructor with her knowledge and experience.
Mary Ann Kettlewell

[sue Shaw]

As a fourth grade team teacher in an inclusion school, my team members and I continually collaborate to provide the most effective reading instruction for our special education students. At this grade level when reading to learn is more the direction for instruction than learning to read, this instructional decision-making process becomes even more complicated. When students' energies are are focused on decoding and fluency issues,comprehension of reading text is often times hampered and limited. Addressing these instructional issues while maintaining students' motivation to read is a daily challenge, especially when students' reach this age level. As a medical doctor and classroom teacher, Dr. Willis has recognized the many complex facets of reading instruction in the classroom setting. Her article demonstrates a clear understanding of students and how they learn. Susan Shaw

[Anna Travis]

I do not agree with the punitive AYP requirements but the research behind NCLB is right on target. Who ignores the importance of engagement and motivation when using a phonics approach? However, successful learning does not take place solely with engagement, massaging of self-esteem, and motivation. I use a direct instruction phonics approach everyday in a lively and engaging atmosphere of high quality learning. We take failing students from schools that employ "whole language" approaches to both reading and writing and successfully teach their students much needed literacy skills. My student’s self-esteem improves dramatically when they soon realize it was their prior school’s method, and not them, failing. Reading and writing are not naturally acquired skills. Nothing is sadder or more motivationally challenging than facing a 5th or 6th grader years behind in reading. Failing students who are moved through a system with a naturalistic philosophy often simply need explicit skill instruction which should not to be downplayed and tied to negative connotations. I loved the response article by Sally and Bennett Shaywitz in the current issue of ASCD!

[Dennis Rowen]

I was most enthused to read the work by Dr. Willis.
First let me tell you how I came across her work. My article “Reading First Principles as Applied to Non-Reading First Schools: Pros and Cons.

I have to say that I am so in agreement with her theories concerning curriculum integration. One of the things that I do is provide on-going professional development to schools and teachers integrating literacy and technology with content material. I design projects that integrate literacy and technology focusing on a designated theme. I model and coach teachers on how to use technology to:

Access Background Information

Develop Vocabulary

Promote Comprehension

Improve Student Fluency

Integrate Phonic Development

I have had tremendous success with students becoming greatly engaged and excited with these projects, improving their literacy skills and becoming immersed in the content/theme. I also design my Graduate Courses along the same line with the grad students creating these types of units and activities. I have found this to be successful in every grade that I have worked (grades 1 – 12).

I found her discussion on the ASCD site to be quite invigorating and motivating. She eloquently give a cogent rationale for this effective teaching methodology.

I say "BRAVO" for providing some brain based research, in this day of NCLB and State Assessments, to validate the integration of curricula!

[Dennis Rowen]

Sorry! When editing my blog post, I deleted some information.

My article on Reading First Principles As Applied to Non-Reading First Schools: Pros and Cons will be published in the next issue of the International Reading Association Journal: The Journal of Reading, Writing and Literacy.

[Jan Stritzel]

I was more then surprised at the comments and observations made by Judy Willis. After reading both articles, I was relieved to find that Judy Willis taught math and was a neurologist.
I became acquainted with Open Court in 1964. At that time college professors were hired to teach my dyslexic brother how to read. The professors chose Open Court materials.(My parents bought the entire elementary student and teacher sets, which I treasure to this day).
Then starting in 1982 I used Open Court for the next 14 years as a second grade teacher. Every child who went through first and second grade at my school was reading above grade level by third grade.
Today as a reading specialist, I introduce new teachers to the hands on activities, learning games, and review workshop that is so vital to the Open Court system. I also use the language, wall sound cards, response cards, phonics readers, and phonemic awareness materials with remedial students.
Learning to read is a complicated process. There is no one-size-fits-all. But I have found that students who have systematic phonics instruction, are better readers, writers, and spellers. I have a passion for direct instruction/Open Court methods. With adequate training, it is fun for teachers and students.

[Fred Lavell]

I am inspired by Dr. Judy Willis's article. I was quick to make sure that many of my colleagues read this article. I found it disconcerting when reading the response by the Shaywitzs. It left me wondering when have they ever been in a regular education classroom teaching reading to a whole group of students or a small group of students who are not dyslexic. I deal with English language learners and "at risk" students on a daily basis teaching them to read. The emphasis on phonemic awareness and phonics is misunderstood. I have seen students who score low in phonemic awareness who are beginning to read. In my own five year old daughter, I see her using her strong word knowledge to read books even though she doesn't use phonics or phonemic awareness strategies while reading. She is using meaning and structure to read. (And we are not using decodables to read either!) This has lead me to believe that phonemic awareness in reading is not as critical. Now for writing, it is critical that phonics and phonemic awareness is taught and that is why me and my colleagues teach it to our kindergarteners. My team uses predictable readers that make much more sense to them and provide more meaning. I have seen first hand students trying to read decodables and make meaning of them. I observed a teacher listening to her students read on a line in a decodable book which read "Sam sat on the mat." I had to keep from laughing as readers after reading would read it, "Sam is on the mat."

I would have to say to Sue, who responded earlier in this blog, that your students are motivated because you have develop a relationship with them in what I think you teach in a small group setting. Because you have develop this relationship and relevance for them, it is easier for your students to release the dopamine that allows them to learn.

If you believe in what Judy Willis is writing, then read Elaine Garan's and Richard Allington's materials. You will discover the real truth to the National Reading Panel Report that the Shaywitz mention in their response.

[Judy Gamboa]

Dyslexia is not a single neurological abnormality as described in the Shaywitz article and it is not a term used to encompass all reading problems. Reading delay or difficulty is not due to a single brain glitch and it certainly can present in a multitude of diverse problems. Some reading delays, for example, are associated problems in handwriting, oral language, mathematics, sequencing, motor coordination, spatial orientation, eye movement control, and memory. I agree completely with Dr. Willis that it is not reasonable to expect a single intervention, such as the phonics-heavy reading programs, to be the answer for this diversity of problems. I would never recommend the same intervention for all reading delays any more than I would consider using the identical approach with all LD students. Thank you, Dr. Willis for speaking out for the children who are being left behind by misleading research.

[karen Polk]

I agree with both Willis and the Shaywitz's points. However, I have to say that a knowledgable teacher who knows the reading process and how to help students who have difficulty in any part of it and who is creative as well as able to connect to her/his students will make the difference in delivering any type of program. I have worked extensively with dyslexic readers and I use multisensory, sequential, and highly structured approaches [OG based] to teach reading successfully but I also use a less structured approach [Teacher College, Literacy based] offering choice of text, and teaching other strategies to read along with the structure of learning skills. I never teach anything in isolation and I try to make learning fun when it is such a struggle for my students. Each success, no matter how small it is, makes my students motivated to keep on trying. I think when teachers believe in their students and are knowledgeable, they are key to a students success. Teachers need to broaden their perspective and knowledge of teaching of reading and be able to use the various programs. Teaching reading is an art and a science.

[Karyl]

I'm not a teacher, so forgive me for being somewhat ignorant to the finer details of the profession. But I will say I am a fan of balance. I think the problem is not that whole-word is wrong, or phonics is wrong, or motivation is wrong - but that it is difficult to find that delicate balance that will work for a particular child.

But then, I have been an avid reader since before school. Who taught me? Not a teacher. My own mother. She read to me. She taught me the alphabet. She pointed to the words as she read to me. Eventually I had to say some of the words. Then I read with her. Then I read to her. I was too young then to remember the exact process, but I do know I was reading before kindergarten ever started, and somehow my mother had put in me that spark that made me decide this reading stuff was fun, so I was swallowing up books on my own. It's easier t read something you enjoy.

Even as an advanced reader, I always had trouble with textbooks by the time I got to high school. Not because I couldn't read them, but because they were just too dry. This coming from a kid who used to read the encyclopedia for fun. So in addition to teaching kids to research, I still think you need to mix it up with things they're going to find interesting - for my own part, by the end of college I was so sick of books being shoved down my throat, I haven't read much (aside from articles online and the like) since I graduated. I know that will change, because I can't keep away from good reading for long. But it's that delicate balance all over again. And you need that proper balance at any age, I think, to keep the interest going.

I apologize for not making much sense here. But the whole "balance" concept isn't so much something I think about as something I feel. It's not like there's a set line of "I should be reading x books solely for learning and y books just for enjoyment without going over z total so I don't burn out." It's not that easy. And, unfortunately, that's the problem. But that's where it's good to allow kids time to read. Sustained Silent Reading - we did that when was in elementary school. By high school I would rush to class, get to my seat,and take the tiny lump of minutes I had between bells to catch a few more pages of whatever novel I was into at the time. Because somewhere along the way, somebody instilled into my head that reading was great. The kids don't have to know it's important right off. They have to know it's fun to really care about it in those ages before they start thinking about the future. So they have to find it fun to want to learn it, but at the same time they have to learn it enough not to be frustrated by it in order to find it fun. Balance.

I'm pretty sure I'm repeating myself, so I think I'll cut this off now before I bore you all with more rambling.

[Michael Tomlin-Brenner]

The importance of explicit instruction in Phonemic Awareness and Phonics can not be ignored. However, the focus on any single approach as a "silver-bullet" is tantamount to forcing all children into a theory rather than making a diagnosis based on individual need.
With the use of DIBELS and a phonics based primary approach (as well as a balanced literacy program) we have moved our 4th grade student achivement from 45% to 90% proficiency. That remaining 10% received the same focused "phonics instruction" as the others.
We now are digging deeper to look more closely at the specific individual needs/differences. It is not surprising to find that the majority of students are affected not by a lack of phonics instruction or knowledge, but by a host of other learning hurdles from home distractions to learning style preferences to actual learning deficits.
While we appreciate the value of neuroscientific insights, we try not to apply any theory whole-sale and pick up the pieces later. By having the majority of our students reach proficiency we gain the time and abiltiy to look more closely at each child and apply the most appropriate scientifically researched approach.

[Leslie Buford]

While I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Willis' assertion that dry, rigid application of a "phonics-heavy reading program" is ineffective at best, the same could be said about such poor implementation of any content in any discipline. That's just bad teaching. Sally Shaywitz and the other researchers quoted never suggested that systematic phonics instruction should ignore the impact of affect and emotion on learning. Research and teacher experience agree that you can't teach someone who is fearful or anxious as well as you can someone who feels safe and confident. But neither will a program focused solely on positive affect teach a child to read.

Self esteem is built on a foundation of competence. I have seen more frustration and anxiety provoked by teachers that assume students can intuit the structure of the English language if only you rub them up against it in a warm, fuzzy environment. It is true that children come wired up with more or less facility with the process of learning to read, just as they do for all human endeavors. It seems that the response to intervention model (RTI) may offer a way out of this constant bickering about how much phonics is enough. With its emphasis on monitoring progress from the very beginning, RTI requires teachers to sort out who needs more intervention, and to increase that intervention until the right balance is found for each student. For many schools this results in a 3 tiered system with movement between tiers determined through close attention to weekly progress.

For the person who described learning to read at her mother's knee before kindergarten, I would say that you were one of the lucky few who have been blessed with neurology that allowed you to intuit the structure of the language with little direct instruction. The positive memories you cherish may have been the result, rather than the cause, of your success with reading. For many of the students I meet, the same scenario calls up the shame and frustration of not being able to unscramble to complex code of text.

[Judy Willis, MD]

I am excited by the interest in this important topic. The current, March 2007 issue of Educational Leadership includes my follow up article addressing my concerns about the Shaywitz response to my "Gully in the Brain Glitch" article in the February issue. Here is the abstract:

Response / Toward Neuro-logical Reading Instruction

Dr.Willis discusses Shaywitz's response to her February 2007 Educational Leadership article, “The Gulley in the Brain Glitch Theory.” She asserts that in their response (“What Neuroscience Really Tells Us about Reading Instruction: A Response to Judy Willis”), the Shaywitzes did not address four main problems inherent in the brain glitch model: (1) The brain glitch research is based on dyslexic readers, although all reading delays are not due to dyslexia; (2) The Shaywitz research focuses on a single area of the brain, which is not the only region involved in reading; (3) No neuroimaging evidence yet exists that can accurately distinguish between brain changes resulting from a specific intervention and the major developmental plasticity that children's brains undergo; and (4) The Shaywitz research emphasizes single-word reading as the measurable outcome, ignoring other complex components of reading. Willis asserts that federal policy mandates that rely on the brain glitch research are harming students.

[Jennifer Shettel]

I want to thank Dr. Willis for her timely and well-written article on
neuroscience and reading. I read the Shaywitz response as well and was appalled with the inflammatory and denigrating tone of that article. Kudos to Dr. Willis for staying professional and "cool under
pressure" and not succumbing to name-calling or trading insults. As a parent and reading teacher, I too share a concern for what is happening in education today. Thank you for a being a "voice of reason" in this politically-charged arena.

[Eileen Craig]

Having just read Judy Willis' response article, I can't resist jumping into the "debate". The political implications of reading instruction may surface when researchers'political associations are revealed, but a more insidious
partisan marker is using single-word pronunciation as a measure of "reading".
Could it be that comprehension of complex material might be somewhow threatening to certain political interests? Hmmm. . .

[Jan Olson]

This is the first time that I have ever responded to an article. However, I felt so strongly about the Shaywitz article that I had to respond.

As a practicing principal and MEd student I am not an expert on research or research protocol nor am I an expert on neuroscience. What I do know is that I have a limited amount of time to read professionally. Therefore, when authors use unprofessional approaches in their writing I instantly question their findings.

1) The Shaywitz(s) use mud-slinging terms like "It is a pity that..." and "she seems unaware...". Politicians use similar methodology. This type of attack is usually an attempt to shift the focus from the lack of value in what the speaker has to say and focus on the errors of the other. The bottom-line is that if what the author has to say is valuable enough, it will stand on its own.

2) In all the professional reading I have done, I have never read an author that referenced their own work 8 times in a 2 page article. If the research that supports their findings is so obvious and abundant, why do the Shaywitz(s) feel that need to reference themselves 35% of the time?

I question the place of an article like this in a professional journal such as Educational Leadership.

[Fred Lavell]

Thanks Jan for your response and thanks to Judy for your great follow up article. Are the Shaywitzs to "ivory tower" to respond to any blogs here?

I would again have to further the idea that phonics and phonemic awareness is most useful in Kindergarten with writing. We forget the value of writing in learning to read.

[Alana Tucker]

I have enjoyed reading the postings on this issue. I tend to agree with the view that a variety of strategies must be taught in order to help children to learn to read. For some children, teachers only have to ignite the flame by setting the right environment and providing the books. For other students, they require explicit instruction, over a longer periods of time. Teachers must be proficient and knowledgable as to how to best draw on the expertise and methods that will most effectively reach all students. Of course, we know once students start to read, they all need to be taught how to use a variety of cueing systems in order to unlock meaning from the text.
As stated earlier, we must provide students with a variety of strategies to unlock the the key to reading. The key that may work with one, may not work with another. Just as doctor may use various approaches in treating a patient, teachers must be proficient in using a variety of teaching models and strategies to help students learn to read and enjoy reading

[Katie Rustad]

As a teacher and the parent of a child with dyslexia, I have found the Shaywitz's work invaluable. All these comments dismissing the importance of their research make me sad because they represent many children who will not get the help they need. Dyslexia is devastating -- please don't leave that 10% behind, because it will ruin their lives.

[Shawna Hastings]

I have read all postings relating to this issue and I hope to find more opinions everytime I log on. Reading the vast amount of knowledge contained in these blogs should encourage teachers to get involved in these serious issues.

Honestly I am just a novice when it comes to neuro-logical reading theory; however, reflection of current reading theory and how it relates to brain functioning is essential in the varied learning styles we find in our classrooms.

I tend to agree with Dr. Willis, one approach does not cut it when it comes to struggling readers. It takes a "well-traveled" teacher to understand all his/her students. Learning styles, life styles, and environment need to be taken into account. While I agree that phonics is important, there are many other best practices that teachers can use. As far as dyslexia, Shaywitz's program may be the answer....isn't this why teachers are using differentiated instruction?

As for the post regarding "Open Court," kudos to you. I also use this reading system. It is overwhelming at first, but once teachers become comfortable with the material, it offers many options for different learning styles. The bottom line is that we as teachers need to keep reading and learning new methods/theories and then apply them only if they will benefit our students.

[Judy Willis, MD]

More evidence is now available from Department of Education internal investigations about the "failures and corruptions" in the reading programs endorsed by NCLB. These can be found at:

http://chronicle.com/news/article/4410/midterm-report-card-for-reading-first-finds-no-evidence-of-effectiveness

http://www.interversity.org/news/nclb_corrupt

[www.funeticslearning.com]

I'm also not a teacher, but I feel pretty strongly about issues such as this. At times, I feel we spend so much time trying to explain the challenges we are having with children that we forget our underlying objective - to help them develop a love of reading and to open the doors of comprehension and academic achievement to them. So while I think brain research is essential, at the end of the day, I think it's vital we continue to develop great early literacy programs and help parents with strategies to help them give their children strategie to learn. As such, I heartily agree with Shaywitz and Shaywitz when they encourage educators and parents to focus on phonics-based interventions that appeal to the young reader. After years of observing young learners and phonics-based interventions, I truly feel this is the key to the code for many of these struggling students.

[Sally Rossini,M.Ed, Teacher]

I am encouraged to see a challenge to the restrictions imposed on Educators and Students by NCLB, by somone with Dr. Willis' credentials.
As a special eeds teacher, an inclusion teacher trained in the Orton Gillingham Philosophy, working at the pimary level I agree that any one method as a focus for instruction will fail a significant number of students. The restrictions of NCLB are monumental in this regard. School districts across the country are investing heavily, their limited funds, to purchase the most reliable "approved" programs to meet the accountablility statistics that have been politically laid before them. The many published reports touting these programs have proven effective, in my opinion, as a result of the research school's faculty, consultants, and support staff's committed efforts to implememt the programs with trained insight, and ongoing dialogue with "researchers"/consultants. In the hands of a novice teacher with out ongoing support, coaching or indepth understanding for the underlying purpose of why a particular lesson is valid to student's success, I venture no "proven" program can succeed. Yet, that is the reality for most cash strapped districts in this country. Reading skills do not travel on a school plants conveyor belt with parts that can be put together in any one size fits all packaged product. Yet NCLB accountability is written and reported in just that way.
I believe that the Shaywitz' research is invaluable to the plight of those who do not learn reading, writing, or other forms of visual coding easily. Call them by what ever approved disorder or disability you like, a structured and sequential phonics approach works when less specific measures fail. If students think their lessons are boring, or lack stimulation then the students have not been motivated by the surrounding community of adults(this includes parents, other adult relatives, older siblings, coaches, music and dance instructors, and neighbors)of the importance of their efforts to master the code of print.
A love of reading is fostered in the larger community. The point of view a child brings to class of pleasure, and anxiety are usually impressed upon the child prior to the start of the school experience.
Parents often need guidance in how to help foster the love of reading at home. My students biggest success comes when I can convince the parent that their investment of time is critical to their childs ability. Homework, requires the parents commitment to make regular trips, with their child, to the public library. Those who do never stagnate, those who don't often lag behind in end of the year testing, inspite of being exposed to the same instructional methods, curriculum, text programs, and daily teacher support. It is not a program, rather a sustaained diet of daily life. I trust I can teach any program I am provided (even when I do not agree with the approach or methods)to my students, with or without coaching support. I have over 25 years of experience, advanced degrees, and more than 20 years following the developments and implications of brain research as it applies to learning, but I can not teach ALL children to read at grade level in a classroom setting on my own. The research in reading does not account for the homeless, abused, hungry, neglected or hospitalized children who are a part of my class each year. As Dr. Willis pointed out, a childs emotional state of mind is chemically critical to achieving success.

[Sara Rosado]

Who said that phonemic awareness is boring? It is taught through games, chants, songs, and wordplay.

Phonemic Awareness is a major part of my reading instruction for struggling first grade readers. A typical student of mine would come to me scoring 2-10 sounds per minute on a phonemic awareness assessment and by January is producing 35-50 sounds per minute, which shows quite a recovery in reading readiness.

What first grader would be stressed to acquire phonemic awareness when they are singing, "Willowby wolloby Wustin, an elephant sat on Justin?" Actually, the answer is not as simple as it seems. These activities, even though designed to be silly and fun, are still rigorous and will put struggling students under stress if the teacher does not have that affective line (relationship, trust, risk-encouraging environment) engaged.

I have found the phonemic awareness songs books by Kimberly Jordano www.kinderbykim.com invaluable in my instruction.

Sara Rosado