Science of reading

Overview

Traditionally, reading has been one of the main goals of education, along with writing and mathematics. Despite this significance and the importance of reading to learning, the methods of teaching students, particularly young children, how to read have varied significantly through time. They have also inspired significant discussion and debate, especially when faced with evidence that student reading abilities are below expectation. Educators and theorists have long disagreed on what constitutes successful reading, which skills contribute to successful reading, and how educators can best impart those skills to students.

In the late twentieth century, many educators and educational theorists began re-evaluating the act of reading and the ways people learn how to read. The term science of reading eventually came to refer to part of this study of reading, specifically the fundamental technical aspects by which the human mind connects written letters with their corresponding sounds to form words. In the most basic sense, the science of reading may be seen as focusing on how people sound out written words. Educators and theorists who support the science of reading generally consider it the most important single aspect of reading education. It is, to these proponents, a foundation without which students cannot effectively build any other reading skills. This position has led to considerable controversy in academics and beyond, with critics believing it is a far too narrow perspective that devalues many other important factors of reading education.

One influential model that helps to illustrate the interplay of reading skills, originating from the work of theorists Philip B. Gough and William E. Tunmer in 1986, is known as the Simple View of Reading. It may be expressed by the formula RC = D x LC. In this formula, RC stands for “Reading Comprehension,” one of the main goals of reading education, which is the ability of a reader to identify and understand the overall message and meaning of a work of writing. The D in the formula stands for “Decoding,” which refers to a mental process by which readers interpret written language: first by identifying letters, then by associating sounds with letters, and then by using their findings to identify an entire word. Finally, the LC refers to “Language Comprehension,” which entails understanding the basic meanings of words once they are sounded out, identified, and used in a sentence.

The Simple View of Reading formula shows that both decoding and language comprehension are essential for reading comprehension, and that, if one is lacking, the deficiency cannot simply be compensated for by an increase in the other. Educators who use this formula note that some students are proficient at decoding words, but struggle with language comprehension, or vice versa, and a struggle in either area is detrimental to overall reading comprehension. Many academic programs have focused on one aspect or the other, believing it to be more important, even as students fall behind in the other aspect and their overall reading comprehension abilities lag.

Supporters of the science of reading believe that the process of decoding—associating sounds with letters and letter groups to identify words—is essential to the reading process and should be the foundation and main focus of reading instruction. If students do not learn to decode, they cannot expand to other levels of reading skill, and will struggle with reading comprehension. Decoding is closely related to the concept of phonics, which is a teaching strategy based on how written symbols (letters, words, and so on) are related to sounds. Many early-education teachers focus on phonics to help young students connect letters with sounds to help identify words. For instance, learning the unique sound made by the letter combination th will help a student sound out and ultimately identify written words such as the, that, and this that might seem unidentifiable if their component sounds were not understood.

Many modern proponents of the science of reading believe that decoding the sounds of letters is just one aspect of the concept. The science of reading is more complex than just that and includes other functions of a reader’s mind. One such function is working memory, the ability of the human brain to hold a piece of information for a short time while it is in use. For example, when a reader encounters a th letter combination, the working memory is likely to connect it with previous encounters with these letters, which may then access memories of the related sound. Researchers of this form of memory differentiate working memory from basic memorization, which uses less of the brain and is less likely to inspire active and dynamic links between information. Another ability vitally important to the science of reading is auditory processing, or the physical ability to hear and understand sounds. Children with difficulties in auditory processing may have extra challenges in associating letters and sounds (Armes, 2022).

People who emphasize the science of reading typically acknowledge that many other factors may also be important to the overall ability to read proficiently, factors much broader than the ability of the mind to process information. They may note that cultural and linguistic differences, the personal identity of the reader, the nature of the writing, and many other factors are significant parts of the reading process. They merely contend that these additional factors are moot if students do not first focus on and master the basic scientific decoding process that allows them to identify the words in the first place.

However, the debate surrounding the science of reading has contributed to a polarizing mindset that may stereotype supporters of the science of reading as closed-minded and uninterested in any other factors. This stereotype suggests supporters of the science of reading take an excessively narrow point of view of reading education, to the detriment of students and their reading abilities. Critics of the science of reading believe that approach may help to produce readers who are technically proficient, in the sense that they can sound out and identify words, but who lack processing abilities beyond that. Students may be able to read and identify words, but they may not understand what the words mean, how they connect with other words, whether the statements and ideas resulting from the combinations of words are valid, and so on.

Proponents of the science of reading believe this approach to instruction has many potential benefits for students. It can greatly increase student familiarity with syllables, phonemes (individual sounds), and phonics that can help them turn written words into spoken words. This growing familiarity can lead to greater reading fluency, larger vocabularies, better comprehension of written text, and even increased proficiency with oral language (Jiban, 2022). Learning about phonics may help students decode exponentially more new vocabulary words than memorizing entire words. According to instructor Kirstina Ordetx, memorizing ten words only gives a child mastery over ten words; however, learning ten letter sounds can help students decipher hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of words with similar sounds. Supporters also believe that the science of reading can help to prevent reading difficulties among students who might otherwise struggle with traditional methods of instruction.

Further Insights

Debates over the nature of reading, and the best ways to conduct reading instruction, have been ongoing for generations. For much of the twentieth century, theorists have studied reading and proposed theories and approaches for teaching reading skills. One popular approach came to be known as the whole language technique. This technique deemphasizes the role of phonics or other technical aspects of letter sounds and their connections to words, and offers students minimal instruction in those areas. Instead, the whole language approach focuses on the belief that reading skills develop naturally. Instructors may provide good reading materials, light guidance and support, and some helpful hints, but overall the ability to read grows mainly from a student’s active attempts to read.

This idea fell out of favor with many educators and theorists by the beginning of the twenty-first century when studies re-emphasized the importance of decoding. Many supporters of whole language techniques attempted to reconcile the two areas of thought into a new form widely known as balanced literacy. Balanced literacy keeps many of the strategies and beliefs of the whole language approach but incorporates increased references to phonics and other word-sound skills. They might also add other techniques to help students identify words. Teachers in balanced literacy programs might, for instance, create word walls that help young readers sharpen their memories by visually examining words they encounter. Teachers may also encourage children to use context clues in a text to find the meaning of an unfamiliar word rather than to decode the word.

Although balanced literacy became a staple in many classrooms and was deeply instilled in many young teachers and their students, critics believed it was not the right direction. Many proponents of the science of reading believe that a much greater emphasis on decoding would be necessary to improve young people’s reading abilities. The modern debate over the science of reading is just a new manifestation of this long-running disagreement. Proponents of the science of reading generally take up the cause of those who, in prior generations, advocated an educational focus on phonics. Meanwhile, those who oppose a focus on the science of reading assume the basic tenets of the whole language argument.

Discourse

In the late 2010s, the debate over the science of reading flared in part due to studies and editorials by educational researcher Emily Hanford, who claimed essential misunderstandings about how reading works contributed to ongoing lags in reading proficiency among students in the United States. Hanford wrote that many educational programs have wrongly assumed that learning to read is a natural process, much like how children learn to speak naturally from hearing and imitating other speakers. The existing approach used in many learning environments assumes that children may receive only minimal scientific preparation but will learn to read naturally if they are given interesting texts and helpful support. Hanford stated that this technique was based on inaccurate beliefs and largely responsible for dismal reading grades throughout the country. She noted studies that showed that reading was not an intuitively developed ability; for that reason, students require specific, clear, systematic training in how to decode phonics and other word parts for them to truly excel as readers (Hanford, 2018).

By the 2020s, the debate over the science of reading resulted in what is sometimes called in education circles the Reading Wars. This encompasses the longstanding disagreement between theorists who favor focusing on the fundamental act of reading versus those who see reading as a multifaceted skill requiring many focuses. Some theorists have taken hard positions on both sides of this so-called war, but many others have simply noted that both sides have valid arguments, and both approaches are necessary to create well-rounded readers. Basically stated, students need fundamental technical skills to convert letters to sounds and sounds to words. They also need a wide range of other aptitudes, much broader in scope, to draw out the full meaning of these words and use them in meaningful ways.

For most educators, the true debate of the Reading Wars is not which side is correct—they both are, in their own ways—but rather how to balance the sides for the greatest benefit to students. Many attempts to answer this question and find the correct ratio of focus have led to a variety of educational theories, which have in turn lead to experimental reading programs as well as mindsets and expectations. New programs may appear with enthusiastic assurances that they are effective and well-backed by studies, only to later be denounced and replaced with new programs. Teachers may draw their own conclusions about the efficacy of a particular program but may find the process of repeated program replacement jarring. The ongoing debate over reading has led to disruptions in educational styles and difficulties for educators, particularly those who are new to teaching (Townshend, 2021).

Given this ongoing debate, teachers often ultimately are responsible for finding the right techniques to balance differing points of view for the sake of their students’ ability to read. In many cases, this involves teachers undertaking their own research or endeavoring to customize existing practices to better meet student needs. Doing so may require teachers to abandon what they learned in the past, question their teaching philosophies, or part ways with other teachers on an ideological level to make the changes they believe are best (Schwartz, 2022).

About the Author

Mark Dziak is a Pennsylvania-based writer. He earned his bachelor of arts degree in English from King’s College in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, in 2003, and completed a secondary education program there in 2011. He has worked at Northeast Editing, Inc., since 2004. As a content developer, he has researched and written hundreds of educational articles, test items, and other resources on a wide variety of social science topics. In his spare time, Dziak has also published numerous works of nonfiction and fiction.

Bibliography

Armes, C. (2022, April 11). The Science of Reading: The Basics and Beyond. The Science of Learning Blog. www.scilearn.com/the-science-of-reading-the-basics-and-beyond/

Gough, P. B., and W. E. Tunmer. (1986, January/February). Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability. Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 7, Issue 1.

Hanford, E. (2018, October 26). Why Are We Still Teaching Reading the Wrong Way? The New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/opinion/sunday/phonics-teaching-reading-wrong-way.html

Jiban, C. (2017, December 19). Simple, But Not Easy: What We Forget About How Reading Comprehension Develops. NWEA. www.nwea.org/blog/2017/simple-but-not-easy-what-we-forget-about-how-reading-comprehension/

Jiban, C. (2022, January 25). The Science of Reading Explained. NWEA. www.nwea.org/blog/2022/the-science-of-reading-explained/

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (2021, September 30). Phonics and Decoding. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. www.doe.mass.edu/massliteracy/skilled-reading/fluent-word-reading/phonics-decoding.html

Ordetx, K. (2021, January 14). What Is the Science of Reading?IMSE Journal. journal.imse.com/what-is-the-science-of-reading/

Schwartz, S. (2022, July 20). Why Putting the “Science of Reading” Into Practice Is So Challenging. Education Week. www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/why-putting-the-science-of-reading-into-practice-is-so-challenging/2022/07

Townsend, D. (2021, October 5). What Is the “Science of Reading,” and Why Does it Matter?Nevada Today. www.unr.edu/nevada-today/news/2021/atp-science-of-reading