Today’s episode critiques Kim’s Interactive Dynamic Literacy Model (2020), arguing that it is presented as settled fact in professional development sessions despite being a proposal built from existing research rather than a new empirical study. The author of the critique, Dr. Jaime Hoerricks—a teacher with expertise in literacy and neurodiversity, contends that Kim's model fails to account for approximately 40% of learners, specifically Gestalt Language Processors (GLPs) and other students whose literacy development is not linear. Dr. Hoerricks suggests this exclusion of diverse learning styles is systematic, serving the financial interests of the education industry by promoting standardised, marketable interventions that do not adequately address the needs of all students. She emphasises the importance of alternative peer review and recognizing different “maps” for literacy acquisition that embrace the natural, holistic learning paths of often-overlooked populations.

Here’s the link to the source article: https://open.substack.com/pub/autside/p/the-peer-review-that-should-have

Let me know what you think.

The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit autside.substack.com/subscribe