The problem with SOR fanaticism is thinking posting on social media > scholars' heavily cited work. In fact, their posting exposes that SOR advocacy is deeply misleading and factually wrong. Some evidence
Read the scholars, folk, for yourself radicalscholarship.com/2024/04/03/rec…
An on cue ... SCIENCE of reading advocates cite NCTQ which has never released a "report" this is marginally scientific or valid (also noted by Tierney/Pearson in the fact check this person is trying to refute) See this radicalscholarship.com/2023/09/18/nep…
@plthomasEdD Out of curiosity, what's the source of the claims cited in the screenshots?
@plthomasEdD You appear to be missing the point of the post. The person said your state has BANNED three cueing so the evidence you claim to have would be asking them to break a state law. Since your aren’t teaching in a classroom I guess that doesn’t matter to you.
@plthomasEdD Heavily cited work 🤔 The Simple View of Reading - cited 13,735x, neurologist Stanislaus Dehaene work on visual word form area of the brain - cited 1,963x, Ehri on systematic phonics - 1,572x, Hulme on PA - cited 1,649…. Your guys- Scanlon cited 32x, Bowers cited 161x,
@plthomasEdD The only thing factually accurate in your post is there IS heavily cited work - it just doesn’t align with your opinion.
@plthomasEdD Minnesota has banned three cueing, too, by statute. The fact you can sound out "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" doesn't mean you can figure out what it means, except maybe by the words around it or its function in a sentence. Pictures don't figure in here at all.