Not Just Good Branding: How Science of Reading Can be a More Effective Process for Teaching Diverse Learners to Read

Regardless of the instructional intervention, it is crucial to recognize efficacy does not entail teaching alone.  A highly qualified teacher will understand the ongoing relationship between the curriculum, his or her instruction, and ongoing assessment of learning.  Competency regarding this relationship should be exhibited through increased classroom assessment literacy whereby standards-based instruction is continually provided and monitored through diverse and consistent formative and criterion assessments.

Undoubtedly, programs that utilize a phonemic and phonological awareness approach in a multisensory, systemic reading intervention model offer research-based Tier 3 RTI.  However, for at least two years following successful participation in any early intervention program, the effective school needs to ensure the student is exposed to “good classroom instruction and moderate personal motivation that should be achievable” (Clay, 2005, p. 52).  Providing instructional leaders with the skills to advance these competencies and promoting professional development in the area of classroom assessment literacy will address the need to optimize learning and sustain success.  Such an endeavor exhibits the vision for excellence in education and promotes the mission of learning for all. 

The Science of Reading is more than just a buzzword; it is grounded in a vast body of interdisciplinary research from cognitive science, neuroscience, linguistics, and education. Its effectiveness in teaching diverse learners to read—especially those who struggle with traditional methods—comes from its evidence-based, structured, and explicit approach to reading instruction. Documented improved literacy outcomes is what makes Science of Reading more than just good branding.

In contrast to spoken language, reading is not a naturally occurring skill that the brain automatically picks up. Science of Reading leverages research on how the brain processes print.  The Five Pillars of early literacy identified by the National Reading Panel (2000), suggests successful reading instruction must include systematic and explicit teaching of foundational skills such as phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.

Regardless if identified as dyslexic, are English Language Learners (ELLs), or from varying socio-economic backgrounds, diverse learners benefit from explicit phonics instruction. To address this need, Science of Reading emphasizes:

• Teaching phonemes (speech sounds) explicitly so students can decode words efficiently.
• Connecting phonics instruction to spelling and writing.
• Ensuring students develop automaticity in recognizing words so they can focus on comprehension.

Science of Reading approaches have been particularly beneficial for students with dyslexia and reading difficulties. Yet, it supports all learners by providing a structured, cumulative approach to literacy. Unlike a balanced literacy approach that encourages using pictures cues or context clues, Science of Reading ensures that all students learn to systematically decode. Phonemic and phonetic awareness skills are explicitly and directly taught. This foundational emphasis contradicts three-cueing approaches whereby students are encouraged to guess words using context clues or pictures cues rather than using decoding skills. Research shows that struggling readers, in particular, do not benefit from this strategy and the inferential approach can widen literacy gaps over time.

While embracing the importance of phonemic and phonetic awareness skill development, Science of Reading also incorporates Scarborough’s Reading Rope, which highlights the need for both word recognition: decoding and language comprehension: background knowledge, vocabulary, syntax. This ensures that students don’t just read words (word call) but are able to understand and engage with texts.  The latter is especially important for multilingual learners and students from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Therefore, Science of Reading is not a single program or product but is constantly evolving based on scientific consensus and peer-reviewed research. The conceptual framework for Science of Reading is supported by decades of studies on reading acquisition and intervention.

Some critics argue that Science of Reading has become a branding tool.  With publishers and training programs using the term loosely, this will always be a concern for this or any program.  However, when implemented with fidelity rather than cursory-level training or reliance upon overview materials, Science of Reading has been shown to significantly improve literacy outcomes for all students. How can the efficacy of Science of Reading professional development be optimized?

Implementing the Science of Reading through teacher preparation programs will require a shift from traditional literacy instruction to evidence-based practices that align with reading science. To promote this transformational change, teacher preparation programs should implement the following strategies:

• Ensuring coursework covers how the brain learns to read:
• Reading courses need to emphasize phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.
• Introducing teacher candidates to Scarborough’s Reading Rope and The Simple View of Reading
• Provide opportunities for the model to show how word recognition and language comprehension work together.
• Addressing problems with previous reading instruction systems,
• Identify ineffective practices for diverse learners such as three-cueing and leveled reading approaches that do not embrace explicit phonics instruction.

• Teaching their candidates systematic instruction and explicit phonics techniques.
• Modeling and practicing diagnostic assessments
• Such as phonemic awareness screening and decoding assessments
• Ensures future teachers can identify and address reading difficulties early.
• Training teacher candidates in multisensory approaches
• Orton-Gillingham based methods for engaging diverse learners.

• Incorporating clinical field experiences whereby candidates practice structured literacy with real students.
• Including ELLs and students with dyslexia.
• Partnering with schools implementing Science of Reading-aligned curricula to provide placements that would provide authentic exposure.

• Teaching how to use reading assessments
• DIBELS, Acadience, MAP Reading Fluency, CORE IRA
• To guide instructional decisions
• Help candidates analyze student data to determine effective interventions.

• Integrating decodable texts that reinforce phonics skills with leveled readers for subsequent language comprehension skill development.
• Teaching candidates how to balance knowledge-building with phonics instruction using content-rich texts across disciplines.

• Ensuring Science of Reading practices are adapted for linguistically and culturally diverse learners
• Integrating oral language development, background knowledge building, and morphological instruction
• Crucial for ELLs.
• Incorporating high-quality texts that reflect diverse experiences while maintaining a focus on structured literacy.

• Equipping teacher candidates with research and tools to advocate for evidence-based literacy instruction in their future classrooms and districts.

The Science of Reading is being widely adopted because it has been proven effective.  It is rooted in research on how the brain learns to read.  Science of Reading provides structured, explicit, and systematic instruction that benefits all learners, especially those who struggle. While the term, “Science of Reading” may be marketed, its core principles, especially when correctly applied, typically lead to more equitable and effective literacy instruction across diverse student populations.

 To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (February 27. 2025) Not just good branding: How Science of Reading can be a more effective process for teaching diverse learners to read. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References;

 

Big Ideas in Beginning Reading (2009) University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning

Retrieved from:  http://reading.uoregon.edu/resources/bibr_pa_concepts.pdf  

Brown, R. (2021). Understanding dyslexia. A whitepaper published by for Illuminate Education

Burkins, J., & Yates, K. (2021). Shifting the balance: 6 ways to bring the science of reading

into the balanced literacy classroom. Stenhouse Publishers.

 

Chall, J.S. (1983) Stages of reading development. McGraw Hill.

Clay, M. M. (1993). Reading recovery. Heinemann

 

Coley, J.D. & Hoffman, D.M (1990). Overcoming learned helplessness in at-risk readers. Journal of Reading v33. n7 497-508.

 

Ehri, L.. Dreyer, L., Flugman,B. and Gross, A. Alan. (2007) Reading Rescue: An effective

tutoring intervention model for first-grade struggling readers. American Educational

Research Journal, 44,414-448.  

Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001) Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the national reading panel's meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly 36 (3). 250-287 http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/rrq.36.3.2  

Hennessy, N. (2021). The reading comprehension blueprint: Helping students make meaning from text. Brookes Publishing. 

International Dyslexia Association. (2008). Just the Facts: Multisensory Structured Language Teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250-287. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2

 

Kame'enui, E. J., Simmons, D. C., Baker, S., Chard, D. J., Dickson, S. V., Gunn, B.,

Smith, S. B.,Sprick, M., & Lin, S. J. (1997). Effective strategies for teaching

beginning reading. In E. J Kame'enui, & D. W. Carnine (Eds.), Effective Teaching

Strategies That Accommodate Diverse Learners Merrill. 

Kilpatrick, D. A. (2016). Equipped for reading success: A comprehensive, step-by-step program for developing phonemic awareness and fluent word recognition. Casey & Kirsch Publishers.  

Kim, Y.-S., Wagner, R. K., & Lopez, D. (2012). Developmental relations between reading fluency and reading comprehension: A longitudinal study from grade 1 to grade 2. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology , 113(1), 93-111. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.03.002

 

Lyons, C.A. (1989) Reading recovery: A preventative for labeling young at-risk learners. Urban Education v 24, n2 125-39.  

Melby-Lervåg, M., Lyster, S.-A. H., & Hulme, C. (2012). Phonological skills and their role in learning to read: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 322-352. doi: 10.1037/a0026744 

Moats, L. C. (2020). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers (3rd ed.). Brookes Publishing. 

Moats, L. C., & Tolman, C. A. (2019). LETRS: Language essentials for teachers of reading and spelling. Voyager Sopris Learning. 

National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing Early Literacy: A Scientific Synthesis of Early Literacy Development and Implications for Intervention. National Institute for Literacy. 

 

National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of

the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction

[online]. Retrieved from: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm. 

Rosenthal, J., & Ehri, L. C. (2008). The mnemonic value of orthography for vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 175-191. 

Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. A. (2011). Effective programs for struggling                readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6(1), 1–26.                doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.002

 

Vacca, R. T. & Padak, N. D. (1990). Who's at risk in reading? Journal of Reading v33. n7

486-88.