Arlin, M. (1980). A response to Harry Singer. Reading Research Quarterly, 15(4), 550-558.

In this paper, I shall respond to my respected colleague, Harry Singer (1979-80), who recently criticized a focal attention study by Arlin, Scott, and Webster (1978-1979). I wish to show that Singer's statements in the critique reflect some errors and misconceptions. This assessment of Singer's critique does not extend to many of Singer's substantive claims in support of the focal attention hypothesis, about which legitimate disagreement is not only possible but desirable, nor to Singer's empirical work (Singer, Samuels, & Spiroff, 1973-74), which is a valuable contribution to the focal attention debate.

Singer claims that the Arlin, Scott, and Webster study contains "flaws and questions" so that our conclusions agains the focal attention hypothesis are "unwarranted". The argument to demonstrated these "flaws and questions" can be summarized around four claims: (1) our directions to pupils were biased; (2) our results for acquisition trials were questionable; (3) our data do not stand up to statistical re-analysis; and (4) our instructions were inconsistent. Some of Singer's claims are so extreme, that had they been true, the original article would have been rejected outright during the refereeing process. A separate response will be made to each of these four areas.