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.
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.
