Science of Reading

What is the Science of Reading?

The term “Science of Reading” has become somewhat of a buzzword. But what does it really mean?  “The Science of Reading is a vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing.  This research has been conducted over the last five decades across the world, and it is derived from thousands of studies conducted in multiple languages. The science of reading has culminated in a preponderance of evidence to inform how proficient reading and writing develop; why some have difficulty; and how we can most effectively assess and teach and, therefore, improve student outcomes through prevention of and intervention for reading difficulties. The Science of Reading is derived from researchers from multiple fields including cognitive psychology, communication sciences, developmental psychology, education, implementation science, linguistics, neuroscience, and school psychology” (The Reading League, 2021). 

The Science of Reading is not: 

• an ideology or philosophy, 

• a fad, trend, new idea, or pendulum swing,

      -    a political agenda, 

      -    a one-size-fits-all approach, 

      -    a program of instruction

      -    a single, specific component of instruction such as phonics.

A Paradigm Shift:

THIS IS A CALL FOR A PARADIGM SHIFT.  By definition, a paradigm shift describes a fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions that govern the behavior of an individual, group, organization, or society. 

In Teach Them ALL to Read: Catching Kids Before They Fall Through the Cracks, Elaine McEwan identifies several paradigms that impact reading achievement.  We used to think that demographics were a big determinant of students’ academic destiny.  Now we focus less on deficits and more on providing opportunities to learn.  We used to “wait and see” as a solution for struggling readers, hoping they would “catch up”, but now we know that we MUST prioritize prevention and intervention.  We used to believe that reading is natural, but now we know that speaking is natural, reading is rocket science, and that we literally rewire the neural pathways in the brain when we learn to read. We used to believe that the best way to teach reading was through whole-group instruction, but now we know that that instruction must be differentiated.  We used to believe that teachers should have complete autonomy over instructional materials and methods, but now we know that teachers must make decisions based on scientifically-based reading research, not their own preferences and teaching philosophies.  We used to think that there were many inalterable variables that contributed to student failure, but now we know the brain is malleable, and we focus instead on alterable variables by promoting a growth mindset.  We also discard competitive school cultures in favor of a more collaborative, team-oriented culture.  When we know better, we do better. 

Reflecting on Current Practices:

      We have unfinished work around literacy, and this work necessitates both humility and confidence.  This is a “no shame zone”.  Pruning and refining our teaching is hard work.  In some ways, it’s heart work.  But keep this in mind as we strive to implement the science of reading AND provide better instruction and interventions to our students who have dyslexia: when we utilize the science of reading, ALL students benefit.

     Nancy Young’s Ladder of Reading reminds us that a structured literacy approach, as promoted by HB 436,  is essential for 10-15% of our students who have dyslexia.  For them, learning to read requires code-based explicit, systematic, sequential, diagnostic instruction with many repetitions. It is also essential for roughly 40-50% of our students who also NEED code-based explicit, systematic, and sequential instruction to read proficiently.  It reminds us that for 35% of our students, learning to read is relatively easy with broad instruction, and for 5% of our students, learning to read seems effortless, but even these fortunate students are not hindered by a structured literacy approach.  Snow and Juel have asserted that “attention to small units in early reading instruction is helpful for all children, harmful for none, and crucial for some.” Skilled and gifted readers are actually advantaged by code-based instruction, BUT it is up to US to ensure that they are sufficiently challenged, and provided targeted enrichment opportunities that encompass ALL FIVE components of literacy--culminating in comprehension instruction using complex texts across content areas and grade level bands.  The diagnosis may be different, the prescription may be different, and the dosage may be different for each student, but it’s up to US to ensure that all students are climbing the ladder of reading--- up the ladder of complexity-- and that the bottom rungs are solid.