6/11/2024

Science of Reading: From Research to Practice for All Teachers

By Dana A. Robertson, Ed.D.

We all want what’s best for students with respect to reading instruction. Wanting what’s best for students is the easy part. Knowing what’s best and how to effectively orchestrate that in the classroom is considerably more complicated.

There’s a lot of information available about the science of reading, but connecting to the research is one of the most effective ways to guarantee you’re bringing the right ideas into the classroom.

To ensure you’re getting the most accurate information, steeped in evidence, Lexia® has collaborated with Dr. Dana Robertson to gain his perspective about the research surrounding science of reading instruction in classrooms.

In this Q&A, we delve into the literature and illuminate the critical elements science of reading experts have identified for fostering effective literacy learning.

What does it look like to have effectively implemented the science of reading in a classroom?

To effectively implement the science of reading in a way that maximizes instructional time, schools need a rigorous and coherent curriculum¹ within and across grades that systematically ensures foundational skills are sufficiently developed. This curriculum should consistently prioritize:

• Higher-order thinking and meaning-focused work
• Integration of reading into disciplinary areas to build content and conceptual knowledge
• Many opportunities for discussing content and ideas, and for reading and writing connected text (extended texts such as stories, informational texts, websites, etc.)

Rapid and accurate decoding is one means to this end, but an over-emphasis on code-focused skills is not what the science of reading instruction tells us.

This curriculum—which is not necessarily a published program—needs to progress incrementally to ensure each grade level builds on and extends the work of a previous grade rather than repeating lessons or jumping too far ahead. This requires educators to collaborate on careful vertical (from grade to grade) and horizontal (within grades) alignment of the curriculum (which is not the same as standards) that also allows for differentiation of instruction responsive to the student’s needs.

For example, do teachers within a school have a coherent vision of what it means to develop argumentative skills—a critical aspect of at least Western schooling—such that they can identify how students would develop those skills, as readers and writers, incrementally from kindergarten onward?

What are some practical strategies teachers can use to support literacy learning for all students, regardless of subject area?

When considering what can be done across subject areas, we know these practices matter:

Developing enough proficiency in single-syllable and multisyllabic decoding to be able to read widely matters.

• Engage in word study that integrates phonics, phonological awareness, spelling, and morphology together instead of separate lessons on these skills. Research has not definitely identified a single best approach (synthetic vs. analytic vs. analogy).

The volume of wide reading practice matters.

• Provide ample opportunity for students to practice their word reading skills across a range of text types and develop fluency instead of a reading diet of only “decodable” texts that are tightly controlled to match phonics lessons. Students need highly decodable texts for a window of time while consolidating word reading abilities, but at the same time, they need broader text access.

Giving students tools to access text but maintaining the overall focus on topic knowledge matters.

• Teach students to strategically read texts while they discuss and reason about the text’s content instead of spending a lot of time teaching individual comprehension strategies.

Providing many opportunities for productive use of new words matters.

• Build vocabulary knowledge while students are reading the text, and then continually prompt students to use these new words in their speaking and writing instead of only pre-teaching vocabulary and having students define the words. Definitional understanding of words is important, but vocabulary instruction involves so much more.

Helping students grapple with more sophisticated and complex language structures and text matters.

• Teach sentence comprehension and composing to develop students’ abilities to understand the cohesion of ideas while also having students read and write connected texts. This sentence-level work scaffolds text reading.

Teaching students to write well and see the connections to reading and knowledge development matters.

• Finally, teach students to write for varied purposes and in varied forms (i.e., graphic organizers and annotations, summaries, extended writing such as exposition, poetry, stories, and arguments) while also developing word reading and comprehension.

What are some common challenges teachers face when trying to apply science of reading principles in their classrooms, and how can they overcome them?

Beyond the sheer amount of information available (some useful and some not) to teachers, time is always a challenge. Efficient yet effective instructional pacing is always a balancing act between the curricular demands and the needs of students. One of the main priorities should be to maximize instructional time.

Some districts may also be asking teachers to implement a particular curricular program with fidelity, yet sometimes “fidelity” prompts a narrowed focus on what instruction can and should look like. Instead, I would look for teachers to implement instructional materials with integrity by adapting lessons to address high-leverage instructional practices, yet also be responsive to the needs of students. Schoolwide curricular materials provide a great way to establish a consistent baseline of instruction and Scope and Sequence across grades, but they often contain too many lesson components to be feasibly done well during instructional time and many fall short of accounting for the linguistic, social, and cultural diversities students bring to the classroom.

Other challenges stem from what it takes for teachers and administration to come together as a school and work toward the collective efficacy of literacy instruction. Oftentimes, implementation of evidence-based reading instruction is challenging because of various teacher, leadership, and schoolwide structures that are not aligned. This is not easy to overcome, but it is essential for school personnel to collaboratively align the school’s infrastructure on:

1. The nature and enactment of curriculum.
2. The professional learning (with ongoing coaching support and teacher collaboration) needed to realize that enactment.
3. Leadership that propels and sustains what it takes to enact schoolwide evidence-based instruction.²

What determines an effective literacy professional learning experience for teachers?

Meeting the challenge of implementing high-quality reading instruction and meaningfully improving students’ literacy learning requires teachers’ professional learning opportunities that include:

• Ongoing inquiry-focused approach that promotes meaningful engagement with content and colleagues.
• A focus on knowledge creation rather than transmission of the prescribed curriculum.
• Networks and partnerships of both inside teacher expertise and outside expertise.
• A focus on specific vexing problems teachers encounter with their students related to the curriculum that also values teachers’ experiences and knowledge.

It’s not a policy or program or test that matters in sustainably improving students’ reading lives. As Lieberman and Miller³ note, teachers get better at their craft by engaging in ongoing professional learning that is inclusive, broad-based, and grounded in the day-to-day realities of their jobs.

What are important considerations for schools and districts when providing ongoing support and professional development for teachers in literacy education? What should teachers be petitioning for?

First, it is important to consider these teacher factors⁴:

• Have teachers (whether in-service or pre-service⁵) had the professional learning opportunities to understand and enact the instructional practice? Just like students, teachers bring different knowledge and experiences to their environment and these differences need to be accounted for when learning new practices.
• Do teachers see a contextual fit between the new practices and what they perceive as their student and curricular needs?
• Do teachers have a sense of agency in how evidence-based practices are applied in their classroom? Teachers are professionals who bring valued knowledge and experiences to conversations of curriculum and instruction.

Second, it is important to consider the nature of collaborative opportunities, time, and resources available⁶:

• Is there a growing professional capital among the people in the school?
• Are there increased opportunities for teachers to collaborate and reflect on instruction and student learning?
• Is there access to the resources, both material and human, teachers need to advance their understanding of evidence-based reading instruction?

Third, it is important to consider the schoolwide culture and structures so collaborations can occur in ways that improve teachers’ collective efficacy.

• Is there a balance between innovation and socialization? Schools need structures that provide ample opportunity for teachers and administrators to explore instructional practices, while also bringing teachers together with supportive socialization “pressure” to generate, share, and use those innovative practices.
• Is there a balance between cohesion and diversity of thought? Schools need structures where social interactions occur within and across teachers and administrators with a high level of cohesion, yet also with interactions that express diverse attitudes. Teachers are less likely to grow in an ongoing fashion when they all hold the same attitudes and share the same approaches to problems of practice.
• Is there a balance between divergence and convergence that characterizes teachers’ shared understandings? Schools need structures where teachers and administrators come together about goals and approaches while also having trust and space for asking critical questions and encouraging new ways of thinking. It is the merging of understanding that brings individuals into the collective.

If these are out of balance, professional learning outcomes may not be fully realized or sustained.

Moving forward, how can teachers ensure their literacy instruction is evidence-based and aligned with science of reading principles?

There is so much information available to teachers through curricular programs and resources, books and articles, websites, and social media. It can be dizzying to follow. Add to this the issue of access to research that is often published in journals behind paywalls and the sometimes incomprehensible nature of educational research filled with jargon.

First, consider: What does “evidence-based” mean, and for whom and in which contexts? This is where we need to remember the applied research across varied research methodologies mentioned previously. What is working in actual classrooms for whom and how? My goal is always to use the approaches that get students interested in and reading text as much as possible with increasing independence.

As a starting point, draw on resources that are vetted and freely accessible such as the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Practice Guides⁷ published by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). Since they only report on experimental and quasiexperimental research available to date when the reports are published, they are not perfect (no research or program provides a silver bullet); yet they can provide a baseline for evaluating instructional materials and programs and understanding instructional approaches that have been validated in at least some school-based research contexts. The site even provides a rubric and describes a process school divisions can use to evaluate their instructional materials⁸.

Second, use resources such as those provided by IES to be a critical consumer of programs and resources. Focus on the aspects of instruction that are highly leveraged for making a difference in students’ reading lives and make adaptations in response to students’ strengths and needs. Remember also the experiential knowledge of teachers critically matters when determining “what works” for groups of students, and research continually points to the importance of the teacher when considering the effectiveness of instructional programs and approaches. While all educators should strive to be critical consumers, establishing the “baseline” curricular approaches is likely best suited for a school English language arts leadership team composed of grade-level or content-area teacher representatives and specialists.

Third, establish and continually refine the school's rigorous and coherent curriculum. In doing so, engage in ongoing professional inquiry as a network of professionals—including those in the school and outside collaborators—pool their collective knowledge to discuss and refine their understanding of what is working and what might need to be enhanced or refined.

References

1. Au, K. H., & Raphael, T. E. (2021). What matters. Reading Research Quarterly, 56, S65-S67. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.403
2. Woulfin, S., & Gabriel, R. E. (2020). Interconnected infrastructure for improving reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, S109-S117. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.339
3. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2014). Teachers as professionals: Evolving definitions of staff development. In L. E. Martin, S. Kragler, D. J. Quatroche, & K. L Bauserman (Eds.), Handbook of professional development in education: Successful models and practices, PreK-12 (pp. 3-21). Guilford.
4. McChesney, K., & Aldridge, J. M. (2021). What gets in the way? A new conceptual model for the trajectory from teacher professional development to impact. Professional Development in Education, 47, 834-852. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1667412
5. Hindman, A. H., Morrison, F. J., Connor, C. M., & Connor, J. A. (2020). Bringing the science of reading to preservice elementary teachers: Tools that bridge research and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, S197-S206. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/bringing-science-reading-preservice-elementary/docview/2625004130/se-2
6. Cirkony, C., Rickinson, M., Walsh, L., Gleeson, J., Salisbury, M., Cutler, B., Berry, M., & Smith, K. (2024). Beyond Effective Approaches: A Rapid Review Response to Designing Professional Learning. Professional Development in Education, 50(1), 24-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2021.1973075
7. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
8. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/rel/Products/Region/southeast/Publication/3814

Dana A. Robertson, Ed.D., is an associate professor and program coordinator of Reading and Literacy Education in the School of Education at Virginia Tech. He is a former elementary classroom teacher, literacy specialist, and literacy coach. Robertson conducts research focused on classroom discussion and teachers’ talk, reading and writing challenges, and literacy professional learning through coaching. He is a frequent presenter at national and international conferences, and he was a collaborating author on the International Literacy Association’s Standards for the Preparation of Literacy Professionals (2017). He?serves as a board member-at-large for the International Literacy Association (ILA) and chair of the ILA Research Committee, and he was recently elected as vice president of ILA. He was also a past board member for the Literacy Research Association. He has authored or co-authored numerous books, book chapters, and journal articles related to literacy instruction and coaching.