Видео

.

I would analyze Dr. Linawag's eye movement lecture in the same manner I did the first lecture. Read my comment. More specifically, why do we expect readers not to look at the pictures? Especially in English since the system is so opaque. In fact, those PIRLS assessments with pictures might be fraudulent in that they do not truly assess the decoding ability of students, but his ability to use other means to decode. I posit that students in languages like English would do much worse with texts that have no pictures & students using transparent systems, who are no trained to look at pictures, might no use these metacognitive strategies (because there is usually no need).

Dr. Flurkey, I like miscue analyses as a retired learning disabilities teacher & a linguistics alumnus, but the first example of miscues (a substitution or the replacing of a word with another) shows imho a different strategy (which might or might not apply and which would need to be clarified with the student). Maybe the reader has learned to not trust decoding & has learned intuitively or by way of school learning to just use words that could make sense or do make sense. Tbs, the English spelling system is notorious for being unreliable & unpredictable (by way of normal phonemic decoding). Just imagine if the reader had substituted the word with a word that changes the meaning of the sentence or the message? There are others to not like the system. The morpho-phonemic & etymological systems used cause a lot of false-positives, especially in the early years. Go to my community note on yt to see what I mean. PS: It is possible (but maybe not in this case) that the font used can also interfere with a reader's capability, especially with letters like "a" or "l" & "i", which can represent the same sound when written as a capital letter, for instance. There are others like "q" which can vary a lot.

gr8 presentations thank you, due to the bias in the media we don't see this level of depth and analysis.

Great presentation. However, it is way beyond the SOR proponents' ZPD. :)

You are great Mr. Andy

thank you for having a discussion even though u disagree about some things. Dave 's idea of getting all sides together to discuss and debate would b gr8. At 22 mins, Dave hit the bull's eye about reputation and income risk aversion stopping any changes in key proponents' views.

Thank you!

Isn't crying stage one?

The study of human cognition has long grappled with seemingly contradictory modes of thinking - rational, analytical processes versus intuitive, associative processes. The both/and logic of the monadological framework offers a novel way to model and integrate these poles in a coherent theoretical framework. Rational vs. Intuitive Thought Classical cognitive science has tended to treat rational and intuitive thought as dichotomous systems. Rational thought is viewed through the lens of classical logic, probability theory, and conscious deliberative reasoning. In contrast, intuition is often portrayed as an inscrutable, unconscious form of cognition operating by fuzzy heuristics and associations outside analytic rules. This binary framing, while valid as a first approximation, fails to capture the intimate coconstitution of rational and intuitive faculties in real-world human thought and decision-making. It misses their profound complementarities and integrated dance. The multivalent structure of both/and logic allows formulating descriptions that fluidly integrate the rational and intuitive poles in human cognition: Truth(rational analysis) = 0.7 Truth(intuitive insight) = 0.6 ○(rational, intuitive) = 0.8 Here, cognition is modeled as involving a moderate degree of both rational and intuitive processing, with high coherence between these seemingly opposing modes. We can push this further with synthesis operations conjoining the poles: rational deliberation ⊕ intuitive gut feeling This synthesized representation captures the coconstitutive psychophysical process where conscious step-by-step logic and spontaneous visceral intuitions mutually inform and generate each other in the flow of real-world reasoning and problem-solving. The holistic contradiction principle further allows "deriving" how eachepistemically primitive thought mode already implicates and enfolds its ostensible opposite. We could have: intuitive felt sense ⇒ rational inference rational line of reasoning ⇒ intuitive gestalt integration This expresses the dynamic by which intuitions are harvested into formal inference chains, which are then subsumed back into unifying felt insights - the perpetual cycle of intuition and reason in human cognition. Cognitive Biases Another domain where both/and logic finds relevance is in modeling cognitive biases - the paradoxical ways human reasoning systematically deviates from classical norms of rationality. For example, people exhibit seemingly contradictory patterns like: - Order/sequence effects on perceived probability - Conjunction fallacies violating normative probability logic - Framing effects modulating risk preferences These all involve simultaneous truth valuations that classical binary models flag as flatly contradictory or incoherent. But the both/and logic's multivalent structure allows assigning multiple context-sensitive truth values that formally capture these intuitive thought patterns. For instance, for a conjunction fallacy case: Truth(Premise A is true) = 0.7 Truth(Premise B is true) = 0.9 Truth(A & B are true) = 0.85 Here, while (A & B) > Max(A, B) in violation of classical logic, the both/and logic permits assigning this a coherent nonzero truth valuation aligned with typical human conjunction reasoning. The coherence and synthesis operations further allow quantifying how such "fallacious" reasoning coheres with broader cognitive capabilities, and modeling their integration into higher-order decision processes that can potentially vindicate their rationality under different bounded frameworks or agent utilities. In this way, the both/and logic opens up a new paradigm for cognitive science - one where phenomena like biases and heuristics are not simply dismissed as errors, but rather treated as rationally intelligible deviations from classical norms requiring expanded descriptive frameworks. Neurocognitive Modeling Both/and logic also has relevance for neurocognitive modeling bridging brain processes with mental operations. The parallel distributed nature of neural networks can be seen as instantiating both discrete and continuous, both linear and non-linear, both deterministic and stochastic processes simultaneously, challenging classical binary computational models. Multi-valued truth assignments based on neural activation patterns allow capturing this co-presence of seemingly contradictory properties. We could have: Truth(discrete processing) = 0.6 Truth(continuous processing) = 0.5 ○(discrete, continuous) = 0.7 The coherence value reflects how discrete and continuous dynamics closely cohere in the "condensed" representational codes and collective computation occurring across neural networks. Synthesis operations further formalize how uniquely psychological properties like intentionality and semantic meaning emerge as novel syndetic wholes coconstituted from these more primordial physical processes in the brain: discrete neural codes ⊕ continuous neural trajectories = cognitive situation model Such formulations open a path for process monist accounts where mind and brain arise as complementary aspects of an irreducible psychophysical reality modeled by the monads themselves. In summary, both/and logic and the monadological framework provide cognitive science with powerful theoretical tools for: 1) Modeling the coconstitution of rational and intuitive cognitive processes 2) Formalizing seemingly irrational cognitive biases/heuristics as coherent contextualized reasoning patterns 3) Representing the parallel paradoxical processes underlying neural information flow 4) Developing novel unified theories of mind/brain as complementary observables on an irreducible psychophysical reality By embracing the intrinsic contradictions of human cognition, both/and logic equips cognitive science with an expanded descriptive capacity to systematically model the nuances and contextualities of actual human thought - therein lies its transformative potential.

For a response to this webinar see: The Reading League Responds to CABE Webinar That Attempted to Discredit the Science of Reading

"I don’t understand why some teachers and trainers feel entitled to dismiss brain imaging findings so lightly. For cognitive neuroscientists like me, neuroscience and psychology have the same goal and work hand in hand to shed light on how we learn." Stanislas Dehaene

Good

so glad I stumbled upon this. Thank you for your presentation. Will definitely be adopting and adapting some of them. Warm greetings from Indonesia.

Use this link for better sound quality. www.gocabe.org/no_on_ab2222/

What makes S o R Political? A great question. How do we know it's political? Another great question. I explored these issues in my PhD, now published (with modifications) in a book titled " Light Sensitive Learners: Unveiling Policy Inaction, Marginalisation, Discrimination" . My supervisor Prof Allan McConnell tweeted "Attention public policy peeps. Major monograph on policy inaction by Wendy Johnson, activist/academic on the marginalisation of light-sensitive learners. Aus focus but issues are global". I'd welcome your comments. Dr Wendy E. Johnson NSW Australia

Thanks

Stop E v m

I normally see this study combined with Torgesen 1999 which had controls and saw gains on word attack but nothing on comprehension. That study was a longitudinal one with a control group which saw the least amount of gains, so it was considered unethical to provide one since they considered proven to be effective on word attack. They theorized the reason they saw no gains on the 1999 one for comprehension was intensity. Here they saw the gains from shorter intense sessions and concluded shorter intense session is more effective since they seemed to hold on later measures. The participants in this study jumped in their percentile on delayed measures of reading accuracy and reading speed. The inference they want to draw is short intense interventions are better and lead to long term gains. Though a lot could happen in those years so its assumed

I am a qualified English primary school teacher in Algeria and I want to teach in Canada. Any orientation??

❤❤

YOU ARE THE BEST! Thank you for the clear and concise demonstration.

This method of teaching reading has been scientifically debunked.

I would appreciate a modeling by you reflecting meaningful miscues preferably an Elementary age student. Thank you,Bonnie

A Clown Club? Seriously? It's obvious that Andy Johnson is the Clown here. It sounds as though he himself is avoiding the science behind reading. I read the books he referred to by Lucy Calkins. If he truly knows about reading, then he would know that in order to become literate, you need to learn how to sound out words first. You truly don't become literate until maybe 3rd grade, but more so by 4th grade. That is when you know that there is literature that one can refer to search for what you need. To ignore the science behind reading and support ideas not backed up by science is what is clown-like behavior. The science behind reading is not a curriculum as Johnson seems to be referring to it as, by saying "the science of reading people". The science behind reading is not a theory, it is based on many cognitive based scientific studies that have research on how the brain works when learning how to read. The irony here is that he's calling Lucy Calkins approach research based and the science of reading (actual scientific studies) as a theory. This is a lie and the educational malpractice was when this science based research was ignored. Misinformed came when schools adopted whole language and units of study. The real clown here is Dr. Andy Johnson. The only thing "Dr." Johnson is saying are what teachers should have knowledge in when teaching reading. Interesting that one of those things was "knowledge of research", when he seems to ignore the cognitive science behind how kids learn to read. When one calls people who have knowledge in a scientific based study clowns, and says that he "forced" to call them "clowns", then one doesn't have to wonder who the really clown is here. And as far as making a statement and support it, "Dr. Johnson" has not done that in the lack of support for his belief-(not based on science), and has not claimed any evidence (support) against the findings behind the science of reading. It's all a bunch of BS to get you to buy his products. This podcast is almost laughable, as he is the one going around making up facts and spreading his own pedagogy which is not based on science but only on theory and ideation.

Artfully expressed, Thank uou! Cant wait to share with students!

Can anyone say how to improve fluid intelligence with science based plz?

thank you this helping me a lot with my studies.

Is the book published?

what was put in yo coffe bro

It was horrible for me and I was forced to skip grades I was told when i was older.

This guy is good 👍

Join us for our free teacher professional development webinar on Monday, April 8, 2024 7:00 EST, 6:00 CST, 4:00 PST, 11:00 PM GMT Register in advance for this free webinar. We are limited to 500 attendees. lnkd.in/gekVgzrC

And the sad reality is that teachers don't have time for that extended reading time anymore with all of the scripted nonsense they are asked to deliver. Sad, sad, sad!

Thank you my good sir *oui oui

Awesome instructional / informational video. I am taking a SWK Policy and Practice class at a local university. THIS video makes sense!

Thank you Dr. Johnson for exposing the Science of Reading crowd. Wouldn’t it be nice if they had actually read the report by the National Reading Panel?

Thank you so much.

VERY clear! That was just great! Thank you a lot

Thats right, he was my literacy professor

My favorite professor!! Nice moves Dr. J!!

The American national reading panel must not examine evidence from other countries because there are plenty of studies that show that systematic (or synthetic) phonics instruction has a huge impact on students ability to read text and make meaning out of it. If you can't read single words, then you can't read whole sentences. Being able to read words and sentences is the first and most important step in comprehending what you are reading. You have misinterpreted some of the information in the report. For instance the passage "Programs that focus too much on the teaching of letter sound relations and not enough on putting them to use are unlikely to be effective. Student need to apply their skills in daily reading and writing activities" means that teaching letter-sound correspondences with the skills of segmenting/decoding words that they come across into their sounds and blending/synthesising these sounds to produce the pronunciation of the words that they are reading. The passage is NOT an argument for 'whole language' or 'balanced literacy' approaches to teaching word reading or recognition. If children have poor comprehension in spite of reasonable word reading accuracy, it is not the fault of the systematic phonics teaching and not an argument for returning whole language instruction. In spite of the arguments that whole language word reading instruction focuses on comprehension, there is actually no scientific evidence whatsoever that it does. Poor reading comprehension in spite of good reading accuracy is associated with poor language comprehension in general, poor vocabulary and/or background knowledge, poor understanding of text structure and connections and lack of inferential skills. Improving comprehension therefore should focus on teaching vocabulary, grammar and inferential skills. None of this is taught in whole language/balanced literacy approaches to teaching reading. The Pirls international reading test comparing reading in 10 year olds in many countries across the world. 10 year olds have been reading for approx 4-5 years and should be well out of the learning to read phase, so how much does the initial reading instruction influence the scores at age 10? The countries that teach initial reading with synthetic phonics have always been at the top of the rankings, whereas countries that use whole language/balanced literacy feature well down the rankings. The rankings have consistently shown that wealthier countries often have worse results than countries with lower GDPs but use better methods of teaching reading. England was one of the wealthy countries with poor results until the government mandated that initial reading instruction be changed to phonics from 2007. Since then, English kids have been moving up the rankings until the latest Pirls where they have now reached 4th in the world. That result is for fourth graders who have finished learning to read and are now 'reading to learn'. That's a powerful message for how important initial reading instruction is to how well students can read and comprehend at age 10.

wish you were my professor, I'd listen

Thank you for the information.

Thank you SO much Dr. Johnson, I am 18, and in my second semester of my college journey with hopes of becoming a therapist. I am currently starting in community college, and have been faced with my first APA paper in Psych! Not only did this video answer my questions about level 2-3 headings, it was clear, concise and enjoyable to watch & listen. Thank you again, you got a like from me! <3

As a retired primary grade teacher with experience in classroom, Reading Recovery, and reading resource, I thank you for your leadership and passion.

Yes!! This is exactly the kind of depth and detail I was looking for. Thank you c:

Thank you for this video, Dr. Johnson. It was incredibly helpful. Thank you for sharing your expertise with the world.

What is described as intuition, the AHA moment, is actually an "insight," not an intuition. The AHA can be reached through analytical process or through an intuitive process. However, the end result is an insight. Dr. Andy Johnson is very clearly confusing and mixing up definitions and concepts. There are ways and methods to develop "insight", however, they are different than how to develop intuition.