Scientific theories, explicit or implicit, have enormous practical ramifications. It was theory and not decisive data that caused current reading programs to include trivial, disconnected reading materials and to allot too much time and effort to the teaching of formal comprehension strategies. Proponents of the strategies could point to data that showed some improvements after a few weeks of strategy instruction. (Most educational interventions can supply positive data.) But these improvements were not large.[5] And long-term data regarding strategy instruction are even less impressive. If the long¬term data favoring these practices had been decisive, we would not be having a nationwide reading comprehension problem. As I have suggested, the existing research on this issue better supports a contrary theory which is far more consistent with findings of cognitive science. This counter theory holds that extensive comprehension strategy instruction, while showing brief initial results for easily adduced reasons, is not a productive use of instructional time. This theory is well based on data and on a broad range of studies concerning the nature of language comprehension. Which theory is to be preferred?