The Science of Reading

Untreated dyslexia is a symptom of a larger
misunderstanding about how to teach reading

The Science of Reading

The science of reading is similar to the science of climate change. We have the data and know the solutions. However, the practical implementation of those solutions do not make it into our communities or schools. 
​
It is unfair to teachers and students that teacher training does not include the science of how to teach reading.

Humans evolved over millions of years, our brains have only been exposed to reading for a few hundred years. Reading is not a natural process like speech. Reading cannot be understood simply as associative learning—that is, the learning of an arbitrary code connecting written symbols and their sounds. Reading involves higher-level mental processes such as the connecting symbols to sounds, the discovery of rules, order, patterns and when those rules do not apply. Finally, once the code is cracked - the extraction of structured, meaningful information can occur.

Data chart: "below basic" means more than 30% of students in 2017 across the USA are illiterate.

False Strategies: The Three-Cueing System

“ ... attention should be focused on decoding words rather than the use of unreliable strategies such as looking at the illustrations, rereading the sentence, saying the first sound or guessing what might ‘fit’. Although these strategies might result in intelligent guesses, none of them is sufficientlyreliable and they can hinder the acquisition and application of phonic knowledge and skills,prolonging the word recognition process and lessening children’s overall understanding. Childrenwho routinely adopt alternative cues for reading unknown words, instead of learning to decode them, later find themselves stranded when texts become more demanding and meanings less predictable. The best route for children to become fluent and independent readers lies in securing phonics as the prime approach to decoding unfamiliar words (Primary National Strategy, 2006b,p.9).”

Phonics vs Whole Language

by Reading researcher Dr. Maryanne Wolf 

Whole-Language High Jinks
How to Tell When "Scientifically-Based Reading Instruction" Isn't 

By Louisa Moats
Foreword by Chester E. Finn, Jr., and Martin A. Davis, Jr.

Developmental building blocks for language 

Image credit: Tim Conway- Now Programs

Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2018

Research review by Castle, Rastle and Nation: Corrigendum: Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition From Novice to Expert (2018) was supposed to bring teaching reading into the 21st century. The review lays out what is known about the acquisition of reading and talks about why there is resistance.

The full 39 page review is posted below in Scribd, here is a summary by Paula J. Schwanenflugel, Ph.D., and Nancy Flanagan Knapp, Ph.D. in Psychology Today here.

This is what the review conclusion states (similar to the National Reading Panel conclusion in 2001 and the vast majority of studies on the subject):

4. Conclusions (pg 38)
We commenced this review by asking why the reading wars have continued. Despite extensive scientific evi- dence, accumulated over decades, for the centrality of alphabetic decoding skills as a foundation of learning to read, there remains resistance to using phonics instruction methods in the classroom. We suggested that two factors may have contributed to this resistance. First, limited knowledge about the nature of writing systems among many practitioners means that they are not equipped to understand why phonics works for alphabetic systems. Second, practitioners know that there is more to reading than alphabetic skills, but a full presentation of the scientific evidence in relation to these more advanced aspects of reading acquisition in a public interest forum has been lacking; as a result, calls for a greater focus on phonics instruction can seem unbalanced.

Research: Institute of Educational Sciences

Corrigendum: Ending the Reading Wars: Acquisition from Novice to Expert (2018) 

Mentoring teachers in systematic phonics instruction 

​National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read (2001)

What Teachers Should Know About the Science of Reading

An interview with Emily Hanford
​Transcript and original HERE

Dyslexia found in high numbers in prisoners...​

A study found that 80 percent of inmates in the Huntsville, Texas, state prison were functionally illiterate, and 48 percent of those were dyslexic.
​​

 Watch the news clip here including information about a prison reform bill to
​EVALUATE PRISONERS FOR DYSLEXIA!

​Thank you Ameer Baraka! 

Find out how well YOUR school district teaches reading :
​
Education Consumers Foundation

Hard Words
Why aren't kids being taught to read?

Scientific research has shown how children learn to read and how they should be taught. But many educators don't know the science and, in some cases, actively resist it. As a result, millions of kids are being set up to fail.

by Emily Hanford

​                                                    Listen to the article here

Why Are We Still Teaching Reading the Wrong Way? 

by Emily Hanford, New York Times, October 26th 2018

Proven science-based approaches to reading are not taught at most schools. The phenomena is known as "reading wars" (the book industry V's science).                           

 Find out about that here..

Response to Intervention RTI Hurts Students with Dyslexia

by Fernette Eide

Teachers Criticize Their Colleges of ED. for Not preparing Them to Teach Reading

by Madeline Will (Education Week)
​view original HERE

A UConn study of how the human brain reads has implications for teaching and improving reading skills

​by Sheila Foran

New York City Department of Education Literacy Intervention Pilot Project 

More Studies and Articles 

Click on tab

• Comprehension
• Multi-Sensory 
• Brain Connections
• Early Identification
• Orton-Gillingham

<

>