Hempenstall, K. (2006). What brain research can tell us about reading instruction. Learning Difficulties Australia Bulletin, 38(1), 15-16.

http://ecolereferences.blogspot.com/2012/01/brain-research-reading-instruction.html



“In my years of working in the education system, I was always interested in new components that may have the capacity to enhance instruction. I did some study on the various education components introduced, and produced the above booklet in 2006.

I decided to take into account more recent literacy documents, and I’ve now selected only newish research findings - provided in the years 2020 to 2025.

The idea was to get some sense as to whether the treatment has been popular and effective or less valuable.

Next is my document, and the new material follows it.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



What brain research can tell us about reading instruction (2006)



“Brain-imaging techniques such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) have been shedding light recently on how our brain adapts optimally to the tasks of reading and spelling.



When good readers confront text, they can be seen to rely heavily on separate areas in the left side of the brain. These areas are employed cooperatively to convert letters into sounds, fit the sounds together to make words, and to do so fluently. Flourishing students have learned the letters of the alphabet, the sounds that the letters represent, and how the sounds are blended to build words. In the brain images, the three areas light up quite clearly while such students are reading.



With this capacity, the left brain’s parieto-temporal region becomes primed to decode (sound out) words, whether they be known or novel words. Progressively, as the readers see words in print, they start to build a neural model of that word. After they've correctly decoded a word a number of times, their neural model is an exact replica of the printed word. It specifies the way the word is pronounced, the way it's spelled, and what it means. In an accurate neural model, all these features are bonded together.



They clarify and store these new internal representations in the occipito-temporal region. When that word becomes represented in the occipito-temporal region, its recognition subsequently becomes automatic and instant - in about one sixth of a second. This is faster than one can predict the upcoming word. When this process occurs, students begin to display rapid, effortless word recognition rather than the slower sounding out strategy.



It’s tempting of course to suggest that children not be taught to sound out because it isn’t the way skilled readers are seen to respond to print. However, you can’t access the occipito-temporal region without first building up the parieto-temporal region. On average, from 4-14 accurate sounding-outs will create the firm links necessary. For some children, it may take many times that number – not all children have strong phonological skills (a talent for discerning small units of sound). Either a genetic component or an instructional component may be involved in their lack of progress.



Those who struggle to read do not use the same brain regions for reading. Instead, they create an alternative neural pathway, reading mostly with regions on the right side of the brain - areas not well suited for reading. It is purely a compensatory strategy involving the visual centres of the right hemisphere - looking at words as if they were pictures. Little activity is observed in the phonological areas of the left hemisphere where capable readers’ activity is dominant. The brains of people who can't sound out words look different - there is less blood flow to the language centres of the brain.



If this sequential developmental process (from sounding out to whole word recognition) does not occur, then children will be forced to employ less rapid and accurate systems such as prediction from context, guessing from pictures, and guessing from the first letter. Up to 40% of children will discover the alphabetic principle for themselves quite readily - regardless of instruction. About 30% will get there, but slowly, and about 20-30% will not achieve it without intensive, appropriate direct teaching.



We now understand that the brain has the quality of plasticity. It responds to experiences that stimulate activity in particular areas of the brain, thereby facilitating the growth of neural connections in and between those active regions. That is why practice makes permanent. Practising productive reading strategies forms and strengthens task-optimal neural connections that enhance subsequent reading development. In the same way, routinely engaging in ineffective strategies similarly builds circuits in the brain not optimal to the task. These routines are not easy to break as students grow older, perhaps because between ages 5 to 10 there’s a pruning process that erases the neural cells in the brain that remain under-utilised and unconnected. Forming neural links for language is relatively easy up to about age 6, and achievable though more effortful after that time.



The good news is that certain teaching strategies can alter this pattern of brain activation. A number of recent studies have indicated that about 60 hours of structured intensive daily phonics teaching alters the way the brain responds to print. Less right hemisphere involvement occurs, accompanied by more left hemisphere phonologically-based activity as reading improves. These new MRI images now correspond more closely to the pattern displayed by good readers. Importantly, in a study in 2004, the occipito-temporal region continued to develop 1 year after the intervention had ended. The outcomes included increased fluency, accuracy, and reading comprehension.



A recent MRI study of spelling produced similar outcomes. The brain activity of struggling spellers was discernibly different to that of competent spellers. However, when systematic spelling instruction was provided, spelling improved and the MRI profiles altered, becoming more like those of good spellers. Beginning with a need for phonological knowledge, the brain of the emergent speller (given adequate practice opportunities) establishes a new organizational pattern known as an autonomous orthographic lexicon. It enables automatic, rapid responses, without the phonological encoding previously necessary. However, English is a morphophonemic language, and expert spelling encompasses a further knowledge form. It involves an understanding of root words, affixes, and how they are assembled. This third interrelated level is morphological. Their intervention was based upon the Direct Instruction program, Spelling Through Morphographs.



These interventions require work and practice to achieve such positive outcomes, but many skills are hard won in our lives. Why should we expect these crucial abilities to arrive incidentally?



The brain imaging studies have also shown how difficult and exhausting is the task of reading for struggling students. These students have been shown to use up to five times as much energy as do fluent readers when reading. It is unsurprising then that they do not choose to read, and may become actively resistant to the task. Unfortunately, slow early progress predicts a decline in academic progress generally across their primary and, even more dramatically, in their secondary career, as they increasingly lose access to the curriculum.



The brain imaging research is fascinating, perhaps because it offers a glimpse of what appears to be happening when we teach effectively, and students learn something new. However, we don’t actually need this information about which areas of the brain tend to be active when most people engage skillfully or otherwise in a task. We can always assess their competence directly using behavioural assessments, such as with reading tests. Observing changed brain function consequent upon effective instruction can be affirming to the teacher, but really, what did we think was happening during learning? Was it the kidneys we thought we were affecting?



Another interesting brain imaging issue relates to the oft heard comment “All children learn differently”. It is difficult to argue with such an assertion, partly because it is difficult to operationalise it. However, it usually presented as though it were self-evidently true, despite a lack of supporting evidence. In similar vein, there is a whole industry devoted to the need to attend to children’s learning styles, again a notion lacking in empirical support. Within the broader context of whether humans’ uniqueness or commonality truly defines them, it would appear that, at least for literacy skills, competence arises for each of us in much the same manner.



The National Enquiry into the Teaching of Literacy has directed our attention toward the findings of scientific research. These findings that can make a huge difference to the many students for whom the reading task is made unnecessarily difficult, whether the cause is due to brain anomalies (very few) or instructional inadequacy (the vast majority).



At such a time when real reform is possible, it is unfortunate that some politicians and teacher organisations decry both the need for change and the strong evidence upon which the recommendations are based. It is our children's future at stake. Time to move on this.”



Yes, we should! But my literacy issue was in old 2006.



References:

Daigneault, S. (2002). Pure severe dyslexia after a perinatal focal lesion: Evidence of a specific module for acquisition of reading. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 23, 256-265.



Dixon, R., & Engelmann, S. (2001). Spelling through morphographs. Columbus, OH : SRA/McGraw-Hill


Halfon, N., Schulman, E., & Hochstein, M. (2001). Brain development in early childhood. In N. Halfon, E, Schulman, & M. Hochstein (Ed.), Building community systems for young children (pp. 1-24). UCLA Center for Healthier Children Families and Communities.



Pugh, K. P., Mencl, W. E., Jenner, A. R., Katz, L., Frost, S. J., Lee, J. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B .A. (2002). Neuroimaging studies of reading development and reading disability. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 240-249.



Richards, T.L., Aylward, E.H., Berninger, V.B., Field, K.M., Grimme, A.C., Richards, A.L., & Nagy, W. (2006). Individual fMRI activation in orthographic mapping and morpheme mapping after orthographic or morphological spelling treatment in child dyslexics. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 19(1), 56-86.



Shaywitz, S.E. (2003) Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: Alfred Knopf.



Shaywitz, B.A., Shaywitz, S.E., Blachman, B.A., Pugh K.R., Fulbright, R.K., Skudlarski, P., Mencl, W.E., Constable, R.T., Holahan, J.M., Marchione, K.E., Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., & Gore, J.C. (2004). Development of left occipitotemporal systems for skilled reading in children after a phonologically-based intervention. Biological Psychiatry, 55, 926-33.



Shaywitz, B.A., Shaywitz, S.E., Pugh, K.R., Mencl, W.E., Fulbright, R.K., Skudlarski, P., Constable, R.T., Marchione, K.E., Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., & Gore, J.C. (2002). Disruption of posterior brain systems for reading in children with developmental dyslexia, Biological Psychiatry, 52(2), 101-110. Retrieved November 11, 2004, from: http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2002/nichd-02.htm

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



So, the piece of mine was published in 2006. What issues have been raised much more recently - in the 2020 to 2025 period?



This next group below has more recent studies on the topic.



What does brain science have to say about teaching reading? Does it matter? (2025)



“Let’s get real. Neuroscientific research can do one of two things when it comes to the teaching of reading.

One possible outcome is that it will identify a structural difference (say, between the brains of normal readers and those with dyslexia) or some puzzling neurological process – such as a circuit implicating an unexpected region of the brain. These kinds of findings could, theoretically, lead to the development of new assessments for the early identification of reading problems or suggestions for new and different teaching methods.



Neurological science has not yet led to such practical innovations. They might someday – that research should continue to be funded – but at this stage it hasn’t happened.



My advice? Is teachers don’t need to know how the brain processes single words, but what content if taught and what instructional methods if used are likely to be most successful in raising students’ reading achievement. Except in the most general terms (e.g. teach phonics, encourage kids to read a lot), neuroscience has few practical suggestions that do any more than confirm what you and your teachers already probably know.

I wouldn’t look for a consultant who knows the neuroscience, but for one who has a deep understanding and appreciation of the findings of instructional study.



It may be hard to believe given news media reports and the numerous books that now purport to translate neuroscience into pedagogy, but there are not any new and effective instructional methods, approaches, techniques or materials that have been developed based on ‘brain science’.



Much is made in those books and articles about how phonics is the right approach because it alters the brain. That latter claim is true as far as I can tell (I’m not a neuroscientist so reading such research gives me the heebee jeebees). However, it is not just phonics that changes the brain. The same can be said about any kind of learning, education, physical exercise, meditation and so on.



Let’s get real. Neuroscientific research can do one of two things when it comes to the teaching of reading.

One possible outcome is that it will identify a structural difference (say, between the brains of normal readers and those with dyslexia) or some puzzling neurological process – such as a circuit implicating an unexpected region of the brain. These kinds of findings could, theoretically, lead to the development of new assessments for the early identification of reading problems or suggestions for new and different teaching methods.



Neurological science has not yet led to such practical innovations. They might someday – that research should continue to be funded – but at this stage it hasn’t happened.



I wouldn’t look for a consultant who knows the neuroscience, but for one who has a deep understanding and appreciation of the findings of instructional study. Your teachers don’t need to know how the brain processes single words, but what content if taught and what instructional methods if used are likely to be most successful in raising students’ reading achievement. Except in the most general terms (e.g. teach phonics, encourage kids to read a lot), neuroscience has few practical suggestions that do any more than confirm what you and your teachers already probably know.



I advocate phonics because so many studies show that kids do better in learning to read when that is part of their instruction. I do appreciate that these neurological findings appear to be consistent with those studies of teaching. This concurrence may give me greater confidence, but it would not make any difference in my practice. Of course, it should be noted that the instructional studies can do more than just suggest possible benefits or efficiencies that could result from phonics – unlike the brain studies. No, instructional studies will also provide me with guidance as to what the content of those lessons should be, the types of examples and explanations I should provide, the actions the students should be engaged in, their duration, and other practical specifics that are pedagogically essential if I am

to teach something, but that are unheard of in brain studies.



Think about it. What if we had no instructional evidence that phonics improved reading achievement, but neuroscientists had scads of photographs showing that we connect visual and phonological information when we read words? If that were the case, I would not be advocating the teaching of phonics. Instead, I’d be calling for further research to evaluate this fascinating hypothesis in classrooms. The same way such information is handled by the medical community.



Neuroscientists identify unusual accumulations of plaque in the brains of Alzheimer patients. Based on that information, physicians don’t immediately start prescribing anti-plaque medications. They wait until there are medical studies showing that reducing plaque works. Despite the obvious conclusion from brain images that plaque causes this disease, further study was required and that showed that plaque removal (or plaque removal alone) is neither a cure nor a palliative.



Neuroscience is largely a correlational enterprise. Scientists analyze brain images and look for patterns and consistencies. That information is then translated into hypotheses and possible explanations for how those patterns connect to external behaviours and conditions.



In reading, most neural studies have explored how children read, not how they learn to read. Longitudinal studies, for instance, have been unusual (Wang et al., 2023). Until recently, fMRIs could be used only with the reading of single words. Because those studies couldn’t look at connected text, they were unable to consider the impact of semantic context (Junker et al., 2023; Terporten et al., 2023), how ambiguous words are processed (Mizrachi et al., 2023), the role of morphemes (Marks et al., 2024), font differences (Wu et al., 2023), or anything else about how we process written language. The newer studies, as they have looked at phenomena more like real connected reading, have not contradicted the explanations formulated from the images of single word reading, but time will tell.



Back in the 1960s and 1970s, there were studies that compared children who received little or no phonics with those who received a heavy dose of it. Most kids in both groups learned to read (albeit with less failure, greater average achievement and better spelling ability in the phonics groups). But what about those kids who learned to read successfully without phonics? How do brains take such different learning paths to get to the same neural processing outcome?



I don’t know the answers to those kinds of questions, but I do know that the explanations that have been provided so far tend to neglect variations in learning and processing (Debska et al., 2023; Wat et al., 2024).”



What does brain science have to say about teaching reading? Does it matter? (2025). Nomanis.

This article originally appeared on the author’s blog, Shanahan on Literacy.

https://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/blog/what-does-brain-science-have-to-say-about-teaching-reading-does-it-matter



What People Are Getting Wrong About the Science of Reading. It’s time to look at the research and get real about the role of phonics (2023).



“The reading wars have become a tool used to further polarize and divide an already fraught educational climate, and the victims of this war are our nation’s students.

At the forefront of conversations about literacy instruction is the science of reading, a multidisciplinary body of research. Perspectives on the framework lean toward oversimplifying it as a way to champion the teaching of phonics alone.

In a recent New York Times article, Susan Neuman, a professor at New York University, speaks of the most recent shift toward incorporating phonics instruction into classrooms: “‘I worry,’ she said, ‘that it’s déjà vu all over again.’” It does feel as if we have had this debate before: teach phonics or not? Teaching phonics is crucial, but it is not the only facet of reading development, despite frequently being portrayed as such. The reading wars have intensified as an unnecessary battle of semantics, a losing battle at that.

Natalie Wexler, an education journalist and author of The Knowledge Gap, recently suggested that science of reading advocates receive pushback because of messaging that promotes phonics as the most important factor in improving reading outcomes. She argues that these advocates need to look at “all the science, not just the part relating to decoding” in order to support a more comprehensive translation of science into practice for literacy education.”



Brooke Wilkins & Lauren McNamara (2023). What People Are Getting Wrong About the Science of Reading. It’s time to look at the research and get real about the role of phonics.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What We Know About Reading and the Brain (2025)



“Our brains are the command center for reading and coordinate interrelated processes that allow us to use spoken and written language. In this section, you’ll learn about the brain regions that are related to reading.



Breadcrumb

Home
Reading 101
How Children Learn to Read
What We Know About Reading and the Brain
“What do current researchers think about how reading develops? While our brains are wired for spoken language and we learn to speak through exposure, we must be taught how to read. Reading instruction changes our brains’ structure and how they work. Once we learn to read, we can’t turn it off! Our brains automatically process print that we see with no conscious effort on our part.

The human brain is capable of handling a vast and complex array of operations needed to read print. But these reading components are not easily separated or taught in isolation. As Marilyn Adams (1994) describes, “the parts of the reading system must grow together. They must grow to and from one another” (1994, p.785).



The “reading brain”

Scientists learned that there are four brain regions that are related to reading:

the visual cortex that helps us perceive letters and words
the phonological cortex that maps the sounds to letters
the semantic cortex that stores word meanings, and
the syntactic cortex, that helps us understand the rules and structure of sentences
Each part of the brain works in concert by forming efficient and fast neural pathways as we read.

The brain consists of two sides or hemispheres. Each side can be divided into four lobes or regions: frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital. The left side of the brain is associated with language processing, speech, and reading. Each lobe has a unique role in reading words and they interact to link printed words with letter sounds and meaning:

Parietal-temporal region, where a written word is segmented into its sounds (word analysis, sounding out words).
Occipital-temporal region, where the brain stores the appearance and meaning of words (letter-word recognition, automaticity, and language comprehension).
Frontal region, where speech is produced (processing speech sounds as we listen and speak).


Excerpted from Teaching Reading Sourcebook, Third Edition. Honig B., Diamond L. & Gutlohn, L. (© 2018 by CORE)



How reading takes place in the brain

When we read, our brains transform the shapes of letters and characters on a page into the sounds of spoken language. But how does the brain do this? That’s what cognitive neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene (Reading in the Brain: The New Science of How We Read) is trying to find out. Dehaene, a professor at the Collège de France and a winner of the 2014 Brain Prize, studies how reading takes place in the brain and his research has revealed the brain networks involved. Learn more about his research — and its implications for how we teach reading — in this video.



What has scientific research taught us about how children learn to read? And how well has that penetrated the classroom?

Cognitive scientist Dr. Mark Seidenberg says that the “hallmark of skilled reading is the integration of print with what a person knows about the spoken language.” Seidenberg also talks about what we have learned from brain imaging.



Understanding reading disabilities

Neuroscientists study the brain and how its functions. Advances in neuroscience confirm what we know about learning to read, spell and write. In the late 1990’s and early 2000’s fMRI studies of students’ brains while performing reading tasks demonstrated structural and functional differences in skilled and poor readers’ brains (Eden, G.,1996, 2002; Meyer et al, 2008; Shaywitz et al., 2002, 2004). The brain scans of students with dyslexia are different in at least two ways:

Their brains are less active in the left hemisphere where language is processed, and
Their brains are overactive in other areas of the brain to compensate
What’s really exciting is that studies from neuroscience suggest that reading intervention may actually change the way struggling readers’ brains work (Barquero, Davis, & Cutting, 2014). Students who respond to word-focused interventions may be able to change how their brain functions to make their reading easier and more efficient. This is a promising area for research.



What’s different in the brain of a person with dyslexia?

Dr. Guinevere Eden is a professor in the department of pediatrics and director of the Center for the Study of Learning (CSL) at Georgetown University. She uses MRI scans to map brain activity and study the biological signs of dyslexia. Eden hopes that this will soon make it possible to diagnose dyslexia very early in children.



Teachers, you are changing brains

Dr. Guinevere Eden says that as you learn to read, your brain is changing. For children who struggle to become skilled readers, teachers can provide crucial help — through intensive interventions that activate regions of the brain that support reading.”

Learn more from the experts

Nadine Gaab (Harvard University)
Guinevere Eden (Georgetown University)
John Gabrieli (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Mark Seidenberg (University of Wisconsin-Madison)


What We Know About Reading and the Brain. (2025). Reading Rockets.

https://www.readingrockets.org/reading-101/how-children-learn-read/reading-brain

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Introduction to the science of reading (2023)



https://www.edresearch.edu.au/summaries-explainers/explainers/introduction-science-reading



Home
Summaries & explainers
Explainers
Introduction to the science of reading


“Understanding the cognitive science behind how students learn to read and the research on effective instruction makes it easier for educators to align policy and classroom teaching with evidence.

Downloads

Download explainerPDF, 517.4 KB

The science of reading

The ability to read proficiently is fundamental to a student’s success at school and in later life. The science of reading provides the strongest evidence about how young children learn to read. Understanding the cognitive science behind how students learn to read and the research on effective instruction makes it easier for educators to align policy and classroom teaching with evidence.



Cognitive science explains how the brain learns skills that are not innate or ‘biologically primary’. Speaking is a biologically primary skill that humans have evolved to learn or ‘pick up’ naturally, whereas reading, while closely associated with speaking, is primarily a cultural invention of the last 6,000 years, which requires repetition and external motivation to master (Geary, 2008; Sweller, 2008). When a child is taught how to read, neural networks that have evolved to specialise in language and visual recognition are repurposed for the process of reading and writing (Dehaene, 2010; Snow, 2021). Reading must be explicitly and systematically taught in a structured way.



The science of reading refers to a body of evidence that encompasses multidisciplinary knowledge from education, linguistics, cognitive psychology, special education and neuroscience. The science of reading looks at the essential cognitive processes for competent reading and describes how reading develops in both typical and atypical readers. These studies have revealed a great deal about how we learn to read, what goes wrong when students don’t learn, and the instructional strategies that facilitate the cognitive processes required for reading (Castles et al., 2018; Ehri, 2005, 2014; Moats, 2020)

Oral language development

Oral language development in the pre-school years is the essential foundation of reading development. Oral language development comprises children's ability to use vocabulary and grammatically correct sentences when they speak, as well as receptive language (understanding what others are communicating). Oral language development is considered a biologically primary skill; however, children exposed to more complex oral language in the first 5 years of life will arrive at school with a wider vocabulary and more comprehensive ability than those who have not been so exposed (Snow, 2021). Where children start school with limited oral language, early intervention is essential for ensuring they catch-up with their more experienced peers.

The simple view of reading

The aim of learning to read is comprehension, or the capacity to extract meaning from print. Reading comprehension is largely the function of 2 broad skill sets, identified in the Simple View of Reading. These skills are word recognition and language comprehension.

Word recognition

Word recognition includes decoding and the capacity to recognise printed words. Decoding is the ability to identify letter–sound relationships and letter patterns to correctly pronounce what is being read. Decoding begins with early phonological awareness (the ability to identify and manipulate parts of spoken words – for example, to recognise rhyming words, identify syllables and segment a sentence), phonemic awareness (the ability to identify and manipulate individual sounds [phonemes] in spoken words) and phonics (the development of letter–sound knowledge) (Buckingham, 2020).

Phonological awareness, phonemic awareness and phonics should be explicitly and directly taught in the early years of school to enable children to accurately sound out printed words. The active sounding out of words using letter–sounds knowledge is referred to as reading through the phonological pathway.

Beginning readers tend to rely on the phonological pathway to read words. Repeated decoding of an individual word over time causes that word to become retained in a reader’s long-term memory through a process that is known as orthographic mapping. This allows the reader to recognise the word automatically and read the word without needing to actively sound it out. Automatic recognition of words is called the lexical pathway for reading. It takes deliberate practise for children to build up enough words to read connected text with fluency. Skilled readers will primarily use the lexical pathway; however, they still use the phonological pathway if they come across an unfamiliar word.

Language comprehension

Language comprehension is the ability to derive meaning from spoken and written words. It consists of vocabulary, background knowledge and an understanding of how words are combined to form sentences. By upper primary and secondary school, most readers have been exposed to decoding, but issues with language comprehension commonly create barriers to being able to read at an appropriate level. Many words used in an academic context are not used in everyday speech and, as a result, must be explicitly taught.

The relationship between the 2 components is conceptualised in the Simple View of Reading as:

word recognition x language comprehension = reading comprehension

Importantly, the Simple View of Reading states that reading comprehension is a product of word identification ability and language comprehension. If either of these 2 factors is absent, the student will not demonstrate reading comprehension.

not been linked to cognitive science, and the definition of the 3 cues (syntactic, semantic and grapho-phonic) varies between different versions of the model. As a result, the meaning and use of multi-cueing is open to many interpretations (Seidenberg, 2017; Snow, 2021). In Australia, approaches to teaching and assessing reading include many that aren't supported by the strongest evidence and don't adhere to the science of reading, which is a foundation for reading success.

Conclusion

Learning to read proficiently is critical to a student’s entire education and predictive of future education, health and employment outcomes. The 5 specific reading sub-skills of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension should be taught explicitly and systematically so all children become capable readers. Explicit teaching of these important skills is not yet consistently happening in Australian schools. It's important teachers and school leaders are supported to implement this evidence-based approach if all young Australians are to achieve the success in reading they deserve.”



Ed Research. (2023). Introduction to the science of reading.

https://www.edresearch.edu.au/summaries-explainers/explainers/introduction-science-reading

______________________________________________



What is the Science of Reading? How the Human Brain Learns to Read (2024)

https://www.lexialearning.com/blog/what-is-the-science-of-reading-how-the-human-brain-learns-to-read



“Every educator wants to see their students succeed, and literacy skills are a cornerstone of that success. But when only 35% of American children are reading proficiently (according to the NAEP National Reading Report Card), we must ask ourselves—how do we better help EVERY student read with confidence?

The solutions can be found in a body of research known as the science of reading.


The “science of reading” is far more than just phonics. The term refers to more than five decades of gold-standard research about how we learn to read and how reading is effectively taught. The research spans hundreds of papers, multiple languages, and expert contributions from the fields of education, linguistics, psychology, neurology, and more.

This research has conclusively provided us with a deeper understanding of what skills are involved in learning to read, and how different parts of the brain work together to process written language. This in turn has helped us develop best practices for teaching these skills so every student can learn to read proficiently.


The Simple View of Reading


One of the foundational elements of the science of reading is known as the Simple View of Reading. This theory was proposed by Gough and Tunmer in 1986, and built upon by Hoover and Gough in 1990. The Simple View of Reading posits that both the ability to decode words and comprehend language are required to master reading comprehension.

This theory is typically shown as the following equation: decoding x language comprehension = reading comprehension.



It is important to note that the formula uses a multiplication sign, because inefficiency in one component may lead to overall reading failure (e.g. anything multiplied by zero is zero). Decoding includes the skills around word recognition, automaticity, and fluency, while linguistic comprehension is the understanding of language and sentence structure.


Scarborough’s Reading Rope


Another crucial piece of the science of reading is Scarborough’s Reading Rope (2001), which provides insight into how different reading skills work together to create fluency. Literacy expert Dr. Hollis Scarborough proposed a visual metaphor that represented all of the components that make up skilled reading as different “strands” of a rope which are woven together.



Scarborough’s “Rope” Model from Handbook of Early Literacy Research, © 2001 by Guilford Press.



In Scarborough's Reading Rope, the strands of language comprehension are: background knowledge like facts and concept, vocabulary, language structures like syntax, verbal reasoning like metaphor, and literacy knowledge like genres. The word recognition strands are: phonological awareness like syllables and phonemes, decoding like letter-sound correspondences, and sight recognition of unfamiliar words. The skills within each strand work together and reinforce each other simultaneously as the student’s reading skills become stronger. Over time, the word recognition strand and the language comprehension strands weave themselves together and reinforce one another, allowing the reader to become fluent.


So How Does the Brain Learn to Read?


While learning to speak is innate—an infant regularly exposed to language will learn to speak it—reading is not. No matter how many books you surround a child with, they will not master reading without instruction. Reading repurposes multiple parts of the brain, including visual processing and language comprehension. Researchers have studied this using MRI scans, and have shown that the same areas of the brain activate no matter what language people read in.



Temporo-parietal cortex—This connects the areas that understand speech sounds and meaning. This area of the brain lights up as we “sound out” or decode unfamiliar words.
Inferior frontal cortex—Speech production. This is used in the last step of reading, when we think about pronouncing written words.
Occipito-temporal cortex—Sight recognition. In learning to read, this area recognizes letters and eventually words by sight.
These areas are connected by “white matter pathways.” The stronger a reader is, the stronger the signals across the pathways. According to Dr. Nadine Gaab, timely intervention and instruction can improve these pathways, improving student’s reading comprehension.


The Essential Components of Reading


In 1997, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development partnered with the U.S. Department of Education to establish aNational Reading Panel to analyze existing literacy research and determine the best way to teach students to read. In its final report (2000), the National Reading Panel concluded there are five essential components of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.

Phonemic awareness is an understanding of phonemes, or the smallest units of spoken language which combine to create syllables and words. Phonemic awareness is the ability to isolate, identify, focus on, and manipulate sounds in spoken words.
Phonics is the relationship between letters and sounds in written language. A student who is strong in phonics is able to sound out and spell different words.
Fluency is the ability to read quickly and accurately, and comes about when the reader has mastered enough decoding skills to focus on the meaning of the text.
Vocabulary is the amount of words with which the reader is familiar. The larger a student’s vocabulary is, the easier it is for them to derive meaning from the text.
Comprehension is the ultimate goal of literacy. It is the reader’s ability to understand and make sense of written text.
These five components are sometimes considered the “five pillars” of reading instruction.


How (and Why) Do We Teach the Science of Reading?


The science of reading is not a literacy method in and of itself. Rather, it is the existing body of knowledge about how we learn to read. This body of evidence proves again and again that nearly every child can learn to read with confidence, given explicit instruction in the components of reading.

Ninety-five percent of students have the cognitive ability to learn to read, when instruction is based on the science of reading. That explicit and direct instruction is crucial for most students. According to a research brief from EAB:



Thirty percent of students are capable of learning to read, regardless of instructional quality.
Fifty percent of students are able to learn to read with explicit and direct instruction in foundational skills.
Fifteen percent of students will learn to read with additional time and support.
Five percent of students struggle with severe cognitive disabilities that affect their ability to learn to read. x
Over the decades, there have been different approaches to teaching reading. While some, like whole language, missed the mark for many students, others, like Orton Gillingham, have been proven to help students learn to read, even when they struggle with dyslexia.

Orton Gillingham, the Wilson Reading System, and other successful approaches to reading are successful because they teach foundational skills from the science of reading, in an explicit and systematic way. While this is essential for students with learning disabilities like dyslexia, evidence-based approaches like these can help all students master reading.

In 2014, the International Dyslexia Association® proposed a new term: Structured Literacy. Structured Literacy is an umbrella term that encompasses the approaches that teach foundational reading skills through explicit instruction—in other words, that align with the science of reading. The science of reading proves that intentional, explicit instruction of the foundational components of reading will help all students learn to read.

According to the IDA, Structured Literacy covers the evidence-based elements:

Phonology
Sound-symbol association
Syllables
Morphology
Syntax
Semantics
But more importantly, these elements are taught in an explicit, systematic, cumulative, diagnostic, and responsive way. When an instructional approach incorporates ALL of this, it will be effective for all students, and lead to a more equitable learning experience.

Literacy is at the heart of educational equity, and every student deserves the chance to become a confident reader. As American Enterprise Institute senior fellow and education expert Robert Pondiscio, points out“ any discussion about ‘equity’ in education that is not first and foremost a discussion about literacy is unserious.”

The next step is ensuring teachers have the knowledge and tools they need to provide that equitable, Structured Literacy instruction to all of their students. We know the ways to effectively teach literacy. The challenge now is to implement them.”



Lexia Learning. (2024). What is the Science of Reading? How the Human Brain Learns to Read.

https://www.lexialearning.com/blog/what-is-the-science-of-reading-how-the-human-brain-learns-to-read

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



The “Reading Brain” is Taught, Not Born: Evidence From the Evolving Neuroscience of Reading for Teachers and Society (2022)



“For decades, while loving adults have read children rhymes like Humpty Dumpty and tales of fairies and heroes, researchers from multiple areas have sought to understand how the human brain ever learned to read, why it sometimes doesn’t, and how this collective knowledge can help all children learn to read wisely and well. It is the cumulative knowledge gained from disciplines ranging from psycholinguistics and neuroscience to educational practice that comprises the evolving science of reading.

From the outset, it is essential to emphasize that the science of reading is neither static, nor reducible to the common assumption that it is synonymous with phonics, however important phonics is in instruction. In this paper we will describe contributions to the science of reading from cognitive neuroscience, an area in which researchers study the underpinnings of different cognitive functions, like reading or math.

As we will explore here, the study of the brain-basis of reading begins with the fact that, unlike oral language, there is no ready-made genetic program for learning to read. Rather, for human-invented capacities like reading, the brain must create new circuits. It does so by recycling (Dehaene, 2009) and connecting some aspects of older parts that are genetically programmed, like vision, language, affect (emotional feeling), and cognition. The circuit for reading emerges slowly in the brain, as each potential component part develops separately in the first five years. It takes all of our collective efforts as educators and parents to continue to develop these parts and, very importantly, to teach children how to connect the different parts fast enough to decode and understand written language.

This is the first reading circuit that connects language processes like phonology and semantics with vision and conceptual knowledge. Over time, this basic circuit is elaborated and becomes the foundation of increased knowledge, empathy, critical analysis, and novel thought. Little could be more important for our society and, indeed, our species. Here we offer an historical lens on how research from cognitive neuroscience and education provides insights for how to teach, connect, and strengthen the reading circuit.

Two key contributions of cognitive neuroscience will be emphasized:

the study of the reading brain’s development and its relation to reading disabilities
a view of how the neuroscience of reading contributes to instructional practice now and into the future A Brief Overview of the History of Connecting the Parts of the Reading Circuit More than thirty years ago, one of the authors of this paper wrote an essay with the purpose of illustrating how basic reading theory research and neuroscience research can inform each other and offer implications for educational practice (Wolf, 1991). Today, despite advances in efforts to translate insights from neuroscience to classroom practice, many educators have never been given sufficient background in understanding the reading process and how this knowledge can help improve the ways we teach all children to read, including those who struggle.
The “Reading Brain” is Taught, Not Born: Evidence From the Evolving Neuroscience of Reading for Teachers and Society by Rebecca Gotlieb, Laura Rhinehart, and Maryanne Wolf “Words strain, Crack and sometimes break, under the burden, Under the tension, slip, slide, perish, Decay with imprecision, will not stay in place, Will not stay still.” ~T.S. Eliot Burnt Norton, Four Quartets 12

The Reading League Journal Beginning in the mid-late 1800s, physicians such as Paul Broca, Joseph Jules Dejerine, Adolf Kussmaul, and Rudolf Berlin studied the brains of individuals who had suddenly lost their ability to speak or read and individuals who unexpectedly (i.e., despite adequate speech, vision, and education) could not learn to read. In the 1960s and 70s the neurologist Norman Geschwind used these early collective insights to create our first models of the reading brain (Geschwind, 1974). His work, and that of his students like Al Galaburda (1989), became the modern foundation for the study of dyslexia, just at a time when our technologies transformed our capacities to study what the brain does when it reads. Major advances in imaging technology have allowed researchers to non-invasively study individuals and their brains in real-time while they read or do other tasks. The two most widely used tools are functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and event-related potential (ERP) measures. The fMRI tools measure changes in blood flow in the brain. This allows scientists to localize where brain activity is occurring when we read. For example, we can now demonstrate that when the reader begins to see a word, a region of the brain’s “visual word form area” is activated (Yeatman et al., 2013). However, fMRI can’t illuminate with great specificity when that activation happens in the reading process. ERP measures are well suited to help us understand when brain activity is occurring; they are precise to within milliseconds.

The ERP tools measure the electrical and magnetic fields that brain cells, called neurons, create when they are active during a task like reading. Thus, we can demonstrate that the visual word form area is being activated within the fi rst 200 milliseconds (McCandliss et al., 2003), and the phonological processes are activated around 200 milliseconds, while semantic processes for understanding a word’s meaning are activated later at about 400 milliseconds (Coch, 2017). Together these tools and others provide a vivid picture of what the reading circuit includes, how the circuit builds new connections in the brain, and how dependent the circuit is on cultural factors (e.g., the type of writing system) and educational instruction. Cognitive Neuroscience’s Key Contributions to the Science of Reading Neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene (2009) has argued that understanding the multifaceted nature of the reading circuit will greatly enhance how teachers teach reading.

Over the last 20 years, findings about the reading circuit provided new ways of conceptualizing instruction, as seen in some of the many rigorous, evidence-based intervention studies, often federally funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Institute of Education Sciences, and the Office of Special Education Programs. Although a large body of this research focused on the importance of phonological processes like phoneme awareness in assessment and explicit phonics-based instruction, one group of studies demonstrated the need for instruction in multiple aspects of language, cognition, and affect. For example, several randomized control trials provide important evidence showing that early intervention that supports multiple components of the reading circuit combined with phonics emphases is significantly more effective than phonics instruction alone (Lovett et al, 2017; Morris et al, 2012; Pallante & Kim, 2013).

Thus, while ample evidence demonstrates that phonics instruction is critical to early reading development in most children, fluent reading requires development and instruction simultaneously in multiple aspects of language and cognition, including prosody, pragmatics, orthography, semantics, syntax, morphology, and background knowledge (Wolf, 2008; Wolf et al., 2009; see also Orkin et al., 2022). What does all this mean for educators and policymakers? First and foremost, these insights show the complexity of the teacher’s task in teaching reading. The herculean job of educators is no less than to help the brain develop a skill it could not otherwise, which requires creating an entirely new circuit in the brain. From this perspective, learning to read is best enhanced by providing young readers with explicit, systematic, phonics-forward, language-based, multicomponent instruction that supports and connects to the develop.

Today, despite advances in efforts to translate insights from neuroscience to classroom practice, many educators have never been given sufficient background in understanding the reading process and how this knowledge can help improve the ways we teach all children to read, including those who struggle. Assessing Our Students Targeted Small Group Instruction Response to Intervention Scan the QR code for immediate access to our K-3 course suite! 14 The Reading League Journal meant of the many other cognitive skills that make up fluent reading. Development over time is crucial. Reading-relevant neural changes occur across the whole first two decades of life and buttress the need for multiple years of literacy instruction, starting well before kindergarten and continuing past secondary education. Thus, all teachers in all grades must have a thorough understanding of what reading requires over time and how they can help it develop across multiple subjects.

Teachers cannot do this work in a vacuum. The impact of the environment on the brain, coupled with the prolonged development of reading, suggests that educators should not be the only contributors to literacy’s development. Reading development occurs in the home and community, as well as at school. The differential effects of COVID on children and schools in privileged versus unprivileged communities is testimony to the importance of society in the development of the reading brain.

Within this context, some neuropsychologists developed a theory known as the ChildWorld Model to explain the effects of environment (broadly defined) on neurodevelopment and skill development (Waber, 2010). Such a view reveals how disability, as well as COVID-based regressions in learning, may lie within an environment rather than an individual—i.e., the instructional environments may not be set up to enable an individual to demonstrate his or her strengths or needs.

While this insight is important for better supporting individuals with learning disabilities, it is also germane to providing more culturally relevant instruction or providing educational environments that can help youth learn academic content. Similarly, general education can benefi t from principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). UDL has its roots in neuropsychologists’ recognition that there is vast individual variability among young people and that there are opportunities (especially through technology) to better serve students on the margins of this spectrum of variability (Meyer et al., 2014; Rose & Meyer, 2002).

A prime example of this variability pertains to children with reading challenges like dyslexia. An important area of insight from cognitive neuroscience concerns how the development of a reading circuit is impacted by the interaction between an individual’s biology and environment. Dyslexia provides a case study in this interaction because children from families with a history of dyslexia have a genetic propensity to have a range of reading challenges (e.g., Snowling et al., 2003).

Dyslexia is usually described as a specific learning disability associated with difficulties with phonology, decoding texts, retrieval, reading fluency, word recognition, and spelling. The reality is as complex as reading itself. Cognitive neuroscientists have come to understand that while the brains of individuals with and without dyslexia are far more alike than different, there are indeed differences in the brains of people who have dyslexia (e.g., Pollack et al., 2015). Further, there are differences even among individuals with dyslexia. We now know that there is considerable heterogeneity in dyslexia with different constellations of strengths and weaknesses (Ozernov‐Palchik et al., 2017). The implications of these findings are many, ranging from early screening and early intervention (including more targeted interventions for individuals with different profiles), to better general educational instruction. There is a well-known “dyslexia paradox”: early intervention works best for children with dyslexia, yet most diagnoses do not occur before second or even third grade (Ozernov-Palchik & Gaab, 2016).

Early screening is a critical antidote to this paradox. For example, a paediatrician developed a quick, 10-item screener that assesses 4-year-olds’ early literacy skills (Iyer at al., 2019). Because the screener only takes a minute or two to administer, a paediatrician could administer it to a child during a regularly scheduled check-up. Results from this brief screener could prompt families to strengthen home literacy practices and/or seek out preschool programs that have a focus on early literacy.

Most states now have legislation related to early, universal screening in kindergarten of students at risk of dyslexia (National Center for The herculean job of educators is no less than to help the brain develop a skill it could not otherwise, which requires creating an entirely new circuit in the brain. There is a well-known “dyslexia paradox”: early intervention works best for children with dyslexia, yet most diagnoses do not occur before second or even third grade. Improving Literacy yet ambiguous policies and inconsistent practices have led to concerns that these screenings are not generally implemented in a way that substantially helps students at risk of dyslexia (Gearin et al., 2021).

Some of our work at the Center for Dyslexia, Diverse Learners, and Social Justice at UCLA involves a model demonstration project, funded by the Office of Special Education Programs, to develop a model for early screening and intervention for students at risk of dyslexia. Towards that end, we are collaborating with several local elementary schools to help them use data from effective screeners for dyslexia risk to determine the strengths and needs of all children and to implement appropriate interventions for students identified as at risk of dyslexia by the screener.

A unique aspect of this model is that we are targeting literacy interventions to match students’ specific area(s) of need (e.g., phonological awareness deficits, fluency-related areas indexed by naming speed). Our model is guided by Ozernov‐Palchik’s et al. 2017 study on subtypes of students with reading challenges, which showed that specific profiles of strengths and weaknesses in reading can be identified early in kindergarten and first grade.

Further, the interventions that are part of our model demonstration project are informed by decades of research from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, among others, on the characteristics of reading interventions that lead to the best results (e.g., Lyon, 1998). An often neglected area in cognitive neuroscience research and the science of reading in general is attention to the social and emotional ramifications of learning challenges to children and adolescents.

Despite many efforts to inform parents, educators, and society at large about the strengths and needs of individuals with dyslexia, many children and youth are subjected to unfair prejudices about their intelligence and work ethic. Consequently, many individuals internalize these negative messages, with costs to their sense of self (Daley & Rappolt-Schlichtmann, 2018) and ultimately their ability to develop their full potential.

Whether Leonardo da Vinci or California Governor Gavin Newsom was/is dyslexic is less important than the emotional detriment of considering themselves less able than others when they were children. Future Directions Just as our understanding of the reading brain has contributed over time to the science and practice of reading and its instruction, we believe it has much more to give before systematic, comprehensive literacy instruction is available in every classroom.

Although there is considerable progress in understanding that phonics is a critical component in reading instruction, a deeper understanding of the reading circuit involves more emphasis on connecting encoding and decoding skills with multiple aspects of word and world knowledge. We need more evidence-based programs that address and connect all the components of the circuit. These programs must use explicit, systematic, and engaging instruction, along with metacognitive supports (Lovett et al., 2017; Petscher et al., 2020; Wolf et al., 2009).

Unfortunately, there are old and new reading wars that persist in pitting phonics and what we conceptualize as multicomponent instruction that includes phonics, against other forms of instruction, like Balanced Literacy and/ or culturally responsive teaching. The reading brain is neutral and indeed shows how important word and world knowledge are to its circuit building. Similarly, affect, identity, and culture impact the experience of becoming literate (Gotlieb et al., under review).

We believe that a major future contribution in cognitive and affective neuroscience is to show how evidence-based, multicomponent reading instruction that integrates social-emotional engagement and support will help the majority of students. While neuroscientists have learned a great deal about both affect and reading, there is minimal neuroscientific research connecting the two. We expect that in the coming years, our work and that of others (e.g., Immordino-Yang & Knecht, 2020) will show that students’ strong feelings and emotional thinking about texts can propel their reading fluency development.

We expect neuroscientific evidence to complement what many educators have already observed—that deep reading We expect that in the coming years, our work and that of others (e.g., Immordino-Yang & Knecht, 2020) will show that students’ strong feelings and emotional thinking about texts can propel their reading fluency development. 16 The Reading League Journal requires both a repository of cognitive and language skills and also strong affective engagement.

We hope such evidence can dissolve the unnatural conceptualization of science-based approaches as being in opposition to cultural and affective factors and instead show the power of integrating them in assessment, instruction, and intervention. We are particularly hoping to study this direction with Black, LatinX, and Native youth, who are those most adversely affected by inadequate literacy instruction in the U.S.

Greater understanding of the role of affect in reading development in these populations will push our education system to contend with the ways that these students’ affective and academic experiences are being insufficiently addressed in our educational and judicial systems today. In conclusion, the science of reading, like all of science and like language itself, “will not stay still” (T.S. Eliot, 1936). With insights from cognitive neuroscience, educators, clinicians, and policymakers, this cumulative work will continue to evolve with ever more implications for classroom instruction and for all those who experience challenges in becoming fully literate.”



Rebecca Gotlieb, Laura Rhinehart, and Maryanne Wolf. (2022). The “Reading Brain” is Taught, Not Born: Evidence From the Evolving Neuroscience of Reading for Teachers and Society. The ReadingLeague.

https://www.thereadingleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/The-Reading-Brain.pdf



______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



The Science of Reading vs. Balanced Literacy (2024)



“This post is Part Three of a three-blog series that highlights the differences between the science of reading and balanced literacy. This series explores what the science of reading is, how it differs from balanced literacy, and why these differences impact student outcomes.

Check out Parts One and Two to learn more about the impact of “the reading wars” and how our brains learn to read.

Reading is an equity issue. Only about 33% of American fourth grade students and 31% of eighth grade students are reading proficiently, and these opportunity gaps are even more significant for underprivileged students. Fortunately, we now have research that illuminates the science of teaching reading. Following this research, we can close literacy gaps and help every child learn to read proficiently. The solution lies in evidence-based instruction, because while learning to speak is an innate process, neuroscience research tells us that learning to read is not.

Through decades of studies in neuroscience, education, psychology, and more, experts have determined the best practices behind the science of teaching reading, and we are seeing this evidence-based instruction make a difference in children’s lives.

As of April 2024, 38 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws or implemented policies around evidence-based reading instruction to ensure every child is given their best chance to become successful, confident readers.

The state of Mississippi has already seen score improvements on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) as a result of shifting to the science of reading. In 2019, the state made the greatest gains in the nation on the fourth grade NAEP reading test. A recent analysis by Mississippi First, an education policy nonprofit, found that 97% of the state’s districts improved their third grade reading scores since the passage of a 2013 state law that required additional teacher training on the principles of the science of reading and evidence-based instruction.



So, what is this evidence-based instruction? Simply put, it is instruction based on the science of reading.

What is the Science of Reading?

Thanks to the reading wars, detailed in the podcast, “Sold a Story,” it is often assumed the science of reading is just another term for phonics instruction. Instead, it refers to a body of research that definitively answers the question: “How does the human brain learn to read?”

The science of reading spans more than 100 papers and the research has been growing for more than five decades. Backed by studies from education, linguistics, psychology, and neurology experts, the science of reading includes proven research about how our brains process written words.

The Science of Teaching Reading

The skills students must develop to read proficiently can be broken down in many different ways.

Philip Gough and William Tunmer (1986) described reading comprehension as the product of decoding and language comprehension. This was known as The Simple View of Reading.

Decoding


x

Language Comprehension


=

Reading Comprehension




This equation can be further broken down into the underpinning components of each group:

Decoding

x

Linguistic Comprehension

=

Reading Comprehension


Phonology
Orthography
Morphology


Syntax
Semantics
Pragmatics
Discourse


In 2000, the National Reading Panel summed up effective reading instruction as requiring these concepts: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.

Dr. Hollis Scarborough (2001) devised Scarborough’s Reading Rope as a more in-depth visual depicting the skills required for fluent reading.


Scarborough’s “Rope” Model from Handbook of Early Literacy Research, © 2001 by Guilford Press.

Based on how each skill or concept is defined, the terms used by a model or instructional method may be different. For example, phonological awareness (Reading Rope) and phonemic awareness (National Reading Panel) are both part of phonology, the study of sounds in a language, which in turn is a component of decoding (Simple View of Reading).

When we incorporate the alphabet, we can introduce phonics as a way to teach sound-letter or sound-spelling correspondences; thus, phonics is tied to orthography as it begins to incorporate written symbols. Similarly, semantics and vocabulary go hand in hand as components of linguistic or language comprehension, and are just as necessary as the components of decoding or word recognition.

Through the science of reading, we can better understand how we learn to read, what skills are involved in reading, and how those skills work together. This research also helps educators best target their instruction to ensure all students can learn to read.

The science of reading is not a literacy method in and of itself. Today, there are several approaches based in the science of reading, including Orton-Gillingham and the Wilson Reading System. These approaches, and others that teach foundational reading skills through explicit instruction are often referred to by the umbrella term: Structured Literacy.

What is Structured Literacy?

Structured Literacy is the application of knowledge from the science of reading that teaches children to read in an evidence-based and systematic way.

Any Structured Literacy approach weaves together an array of skills from the science of reading, including at a minimum:

Phonology
Sound-Symbol Association
Syllables
Morphology
Syntax
Semantics
But more importantly, Structured Literacy approaches are explicit, systematic, cumulative, diagnostic, and responsive.

Explicit means skills and concepts are directly taught and practiced.
Systematic means the skills are taught in a stairstep fashion: Each skill builds on the last, and they are taught in a logical order that starts with simple information and becomes progressively more complex.
Cumulative means all of the information builds upon earlier knowledge.
Diagnostic and responsive mean students' unique strengths and weaknesses are identified through differentiated instruction.
With sufficient direct instruction about the foundational skills of reading, 95% of students can learn to read. This is why a Structured Literacy approach is crucial. Without it, only 30% of students will learn to read. Fifty percent require explicit and direct instruction in foundational skills to learn to read, and a further 15% require additional attention and support.

Any instructional method that does not teach the components of the science of reading in an explicit, cumulative, and responsive way risks leaving children behind, often without an understanding of why the student is struggling. Unfortunately, many educators still use a balanced literacy approach and don’t have the evidence-based knowledge they need to help every student.

What is Balanced Literacy?

Balanced literacy is a popular method of teaching reading and writing. In 2019, A national survey found about 72% of American educators report using balanced literacy to teach reading. One reason for its popularity is its openness to interpretation.

Irene Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell (1996), early proponents of balanced literacy, define the method as a “philosophical orientation that assumes that reading and writing achievement are developed through instruction and support in multiple environments using various approaches that differ by level of teacher support and child control.” Their method involves a combination of whole-group instruction, small-group instruction, and independent learning with a focus on authentic texts. More recently, Fountas and Pinnell have emphasized phonics, spelling, and word study as components of their program.

Lucy Calkins, another champion of balanced literacy, advocates using a workshop model to teach students how to read. Students then demonstrate their skills with minimal direct instruction. Her approach has been criticized for asking students to rely heavily on contextual cues to identify words and their meanings, known as the three-cueing system. In 2023, she stepped down from her organization, the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project at Columbia University, amid criticism that her method downplayed phonics. The organization has since been disbanded and Calkins now advertises resources that include phonics and decodable books for a private organization she leads.

Because many experts in the field interpret it differently, balanced literacy is difficult to define, and implementation can vary greatly from classroom to classroom. For most balanced literacy educators, the term refers to teaching reading in a way that meets students’ needs while also promoting a love of reading.

Balanced literacy can be described as a “little bit of everything” approach that incorporates some good ideas and practices as it strives for a laudable goal. It can help many students discover a love of reading. However, because it may or may not include phonics and other evidence-based concepts, and because it lacks the structured, explicit instruction and content needed for students with learning disabilities like dyslexia, it will never work for every student.

As seen in the pie chart above, most students need explicit and direct instruction in foundational reading skills (and not just phonics). Without additional intervention, balanced literacy will only help 30% of students become successful readers.

Despite balanced literacy being the most popular literacy method used during the last few decades, national reading scores continue to dip, and educators are leaning into research that supports Structured Literacy.



Is the Science of Reading Better Than Balanced Literacy?



For balanced literacy to be effective, it must include explicit instruction in ALL of the skills necessary for reading. For students to develop a love of reading, they first must learn to read.

Literacy is one of the cornerstones of educational equity and is crucial for lifelong success. We must ensure no student is left behind, and at the same time, we must provide educators with tools and resources based on the science of teaching reading.

Transitioning to a Structured Literacy approach or incorporating additional science of reading-based instruction in a balanced literacy approach will not only improve student outcomes—it will help level the playing field for all students.

Dive deeper into the reading wars and the science of reading. Check out Parts One and Two of this series.”

Back To All



Lexia Learning. (2024). The Science of Reading vs. Balanced Literacy.

https://www.lexialearning.com/blog/the-science-of-reading-vs-balanced-literacy



What People Are Getting Wrong About the Science of Reading. It’s time to look at the research and get real about the role of phonics (2023).

“The reading wars have become a tool used to further polarize and divide an already fraught educational climate, and the victims of this war are our nation’s students.

At the forefront of conversations about literacy instruction is the science of reading, a multidisciplinary body of research. Perspectives on the framework lean toward oversimplifying it as a way to champion the teaching of phonics alone.

In a recent New York Times article, Susan Neuman, a professor at New York University, speaks of the most recent shift toward incorporating phonics instruction into classrooms: “‘I worry,’ she said, ‘that it’s déjà vu all over again.’” It does feel as if we have had this debate before: teach phonics or not? Teaching phonics is crucial, but it is not the only facet of reading development, despite frequently being portrayed as such. The reading wars have intensified as an unnecessary battle of semantics, a losing battle at that.

Natalie Wexler, an education journalist and author of The Knowledge Gap, recently suggested that science of reading advocates receive pushback because of messaging that promotes phonics as the most important factor in improving reading outcomes. She argues that these advocates need to look at “all the science, not just the part relating to decoding” in order to support a more comprehensive translation of science into practice for literacy education.”



Brooke Wilkins & Lauren McNamara (2023). What People Are Getting Wrong About the Science of Reading. It’s time to look at the research and get real about the role of phonics.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

AI Overview

The "science of reading" is generally regarded as a good approach to teaching reading, with strong evidence supporting its effectiveness. It emphasizes a systematic, explicit, and cumulative approach to teaching reading skills, including phonics, vocabulary, and reading comprehension.

Elaboration:

Evidence-Based:
The science of reading is based on decades of research in cognitive science, neuroscience, and education, providing a strong foundation for its practices.

Effective Instruction:
It focuses on providing all students with explicit and direct instruction in reading skills, helping them develop into skilled readers.

Positive Outcomes:
Many studies have shown that students who receive instruction based on the science of reading demonstrate significant improvements in reading proficiency.

Policy Changes:
The science of reading has also influenced policy changes, with many states implementing laws or policies to ensure that reading instruction is evidence-based.

Addressing Misconceptions:
Some misconceptions about the science of reading exist, such as the belief that it is a "one-size-fits-all" approach. However, it is a flexible framework that can be adapted to meet the needs of diverse learners.

In summary, the science of reading is a well-supported approach to teaching reading that can improve student outcomes.”



Various relevant elements

25 Jan 2023 — The science of reading provides the strongest evidence about how young children learn to read. Understanding the cognitive science behind how ...

People also ask

What is the argument against the science of reading?

What do Fountas and Pinnell say about the science of reading?

What the science of reading is not?

What is the main idea of the science of reading?

Science of Reading Research: Does the ...

Lexia

https://www.lexialearning.com › blog › evidence-based...

__________________________________________

3 Dec 2024 — The science of reading is a gold-standard body of research, and instruction based on the science of reading has shown to be more effective at ...

What People Are Getting Wrong About the Science of ...

______________________________________________
Education Week

https://www.edweek.org › teaching-learning › 2023/07

_______________________________________________

7 July 2023 — The science of reading informs a pedagogical approach toward teaching reading that suggests balancing the literacy block for students.

How the Science of Reading Informs 21st‐Century Education

______________________________________________
National Institutes of Health (NIH) | (.gov)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC8128160



by Y Petscher · 2020 · Cited by 331 — The “science of reading” is a phrase representing the accumulated knowledge about reading, reading development, and best practices for reading instruction ...

What is the Science of Reading

_______________________________________________
The Reading League

https://www.thereadingleague.org › what-is-the-science-o...

_______________________________________________

The science of reading is a vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing.

What the Science of Reading Is Not

_______________________________________________

Lexia

https://www.lexialearning.com › blog › what-the-scienc...



15 May 2024 — The science of reading has proven learning to read is a complex process that requires building neural connections between different brain regions.



22 Aug 2019 — The findings have been incorporated into every major scientific model of how reading works. But cueing is still alive and well in schools.



Science of Reading Research: Does the Science of Reading Work? 12/3/2024

https://www.lexialearning.com/blog/evidence-based-does-the-science-of-reading-really-work



What does the science of reading trend mean for people who teach middle and high school? Cool_Sun_840

Go to ELATeachers r/ELATeachers



So, hopefully this paper will be of usefulness!