The Science of Reading – More than a Pendulum Swing Back to Phonics

So what is the “Science of Reading” anyway, and why is it important that we, as educators, have a good understanding of its breadth?

The Science of Reading is a body of scientifically-based research about reading and writing. It informs how reading and writing develop, how to most effectively teach students, and how to best intervene if students are having trouble.

For many years, most educators, including myself, were unaware of this body of research. In essence, there was a significant disconnect between common practices in the literacy classroom and research-based recommendations.

Have things ever shifted now! For some educators and parents, this change has been long overdue. For others, it seemed to come out of nowhere.

Let’s take a moment and look at some of the events that have driven this shift through a Canadian lens.

Driving the Shift

Moore v. British Columbia

In November 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada released a unanimous decision recognizing that learning to read is not a privilege, but a basic and essential human right. This decision laid the foundation for the changes that have been occurring since.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission – Right to Read Inquiry

In 2019, the Ontario Human Rights Commission launched the Right to Read Inquiry. This 3-year public inquiry reviewed the Ontario curriculum, common practices and interventions in a selection of Ontario school boards, and programs being provided by Ontario’s faculties of education. The inquiry also held a series of public hearings, during which it heard from students, parents, educators, and professionals in education. The OHR’s report, released in 2022, showed that a great deal of change was needed, from core curriculum expectations to screening to classroom resources to intervention. A total of 157 recommendations were made in the report.

What do Experts Actually Recommend?

While the recommendation is to include systematic and explicit instruction in letter-sound associations, there is so much more to it.

Here are a few of the key instructional components mentioned in the recommendation section of the Right to Read Inquiry Report:

Teach foundational word-reading skills, including:

• phonemic awareness
• letter-sound associations
• word-level decoding (including blending sounds to read words and segmenting words into sounds to write words)
• word-reading proficiency or fluency
• knowledge of simple morphemes

In and beyond Grade 2/3, include more advanced expectations with morphology, knowledge, and analysis of words.

Incorporate other aspects of a comprehensive approach to literacy, which are addressed in the research science, such as evidence-based instruction in oral language, reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and spelling and writing.

These recommendations go well beyond phonics and align with our fundamental reading models. So let’s take a closer look at these.

Reading is Multifaceted!

The Simple View of Reading

The Simple View of Reading has been a part of teacher training since 1986. It is, as the name implies, quite simple.

There are two sides to reading. The first is the word-recognition side (decoding words on the page/knowing a word by sight). The second is the language comprehension side (understanding the meaning of the word). Both sides are needed in order for a person to read a text and glean meaning from it. This model is obviously quite simplified. To delve deeper, let’s look at the Active View of Reading.

The Active View of Reading

The Active View of Reading is explained in a research article by Duke and Cartwright, released in 2021.

This article is well worth reading. Like the Right to Read recommendations, it acknowledges the complexity involved in early literacy instruction. I particularly like this model for 2 reasons. The first is that it includes a self-regulation component. Anyone teaching in schools today is painfully aware of the fact that students are having increasing challenges with self-regulation and maintaining a state of calm conducive to learning. The second reason I like this article is that it includes a bridging section, which acknowledges that many skills involve a combination of “word recognition” and “language comprehension”.

Notice, though, that both models acknowledge (in their own way) that instruction needs to include more than just phonics. A complex interplay of foundational skills makes reading instruction a complex thing. When discussing this with educators, I often reference Dr. Louisa Moats’s article, “Teaching Reading is Rocket Science”, because it also acknowledges this complexity.

As an educator, it can feel overwhelming to dig into the comprehensive research. This might be part of the reason why there has been a disconnect between literacy instruction and research for so many years. This is an ever-evolving field, and keeping on top of the latest findings isn’t easy.

Our next few posts will be delving into decodable books, levelled readers, and what to actually do with those book rooms!

Feel free to share your comments with us on Instagram.