I am sorry I cannot watch the vid at the moment, but what a nice article . The vid may talk about the current prevalence of teaching queuing (I think I’m so funny), I didn’t see it come up beyond incidental mention in the article nor did it mention that the rate of teaching MSV has increased, but I overall agree with everything they’re saying there: But Adams soon figured out the disconnect. Teachers understood these cues not just as the way readers construct meaning from text, but as the way readers actually identify the words on the page. And they thought that teaching kids to decode or sound out words was not necessary. Teaching cueing and phonics doesn’t work, Sajous-Brooks said. “One negates the other.” Yes absolutely, MSV is not a replacement for phonics. To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with pictures. They’re great to look at and talk about, and they can help a child comprehend the meaning of a story. Context — including a picture if there is one — helps us understand what we’re reading all the time. But if a child is being taught to use context to identify words, she’s being taught to read like a poor reader. Again, absolutely correct. The beneficial parts of MSV are in learning to derive meaning and infer context and thereby meaning from non-textual cues, not the whole phonics thing. I’m getting the distinct impression this is an overloaded term and that we’re agreeing about phonics vs. MSV, I suspect it has (ironically) a fairly contextually-dependent meaning.