5/15/2024

What the Science of Reading Is Not

By Jeanne Schopf

The science of reading is everywhere. As educators, with so much information swirling around, it is tough to know what is fact and what is a misconception. Is the science of reading something teachers can buy? Is it phonics only? So many misunderstandings of the science of reading permeate our circles of understanding. So, what are some of the significant misunderstandings? To truly change our students' lives, we should understand what science is and isn’t by rethinking some common myths.

Myth 1: Reading is Natural

Reading is natural is a myth that continues to permeate the minds of educators. Most individuals never remember how they learned to read. We seem to think since we were in a literate environment, we learned to lift letters off a page and read. As adult readers, words just seem to fly off the page, creating the illusion that the reading brain reads whole words, so we develop a belief system that learning to read is a natural process. When reading, it does feel as it is natural, like walking and talking. However, as literate individuals, our reading brains have been automatized, so the brain processes all the letters simultaneously. Reading feels natural. But it is not. We have forgotten how difficult it is to learn to read.

Most students would be fluent readers if reading were a natural, easy process, but the brain was never wired for reading. There are many developmental processes, such as walking and talking, that come naturally, but we were never born to read. Children are born with a sophisticated language and visual system, and if a child is immersed in a language-rich environment, they will learn the language. That is because the brain is hardwired for language, but what about reading? The science of reading has proven learning to read is a complex process that requires building neural connections between different brain regions of speech, sound, sight, and meaning.

“Less than 3% of human existence includes written language and reading. The human brain is not evolved to learn reading naturally,” 
—EAB District Leadership Forum Narrowing the Third Grade Reading Gap, 2019.

In the left hemisphere of the brain, two major regions must be connected for the reader to decode the words on the page. In the occipital lobe, the brain has a visual word form area built for processing words, and at the base of the frontal lobe, there is a language processing system wired to learn and use language. For a child to read the written word, the neural pathways between the brain's language area and the visual word form area must be bridged.

The Simple View of Reading

A child needs explicit, systematic phonics instruction to connect the language processing system to the visual word form area. When the neural pathways are created, language sounds are mapped to corresponding letters, a process called orthographic mapping. So, when proficient readers read, deciphering the individual letters to sounds happens so quickly there is the illusion of whole-word reading. Thus, it falsely appears reading is natural. For a child to be a proficient reader, the reading brain needs the neural interface to support the unconscious and rapid association of spoken language with written alphabetic symbols.

The Simple View of Reading framework developed by Philip Gough and William Tunmer in 1986 explains the reading process. The Simple View of Reading proves reading comprehension is a product of decoding, word recognition, and language comprehension. Reading is foundational to language. Children in a rich language environment will have a strong vocabulary and syntactic knowledge, supporting reading comprehension. However, a child can only comprehend reading with decoding skills. Almost all students have the cognitive capacity to learn to read. According to Dr. Reid Lyon, “NICHD reading research programs, which, to date have studied over 34,000 children and adults, have taught us that learning to read is a formidable challenge for approximately 60% of our nation's children, and for at least 20% to 30% of these children, reading is the most difficult tasks that they will have to master throughout their educational careers.” (p.41) Testimonies to Congress. So, for all students to reach basic reading proficiency, they must be explicitly taught.

Myth 2: Science of Reading is a Curriculum (and the Curriculum is the Magic Wand)

The term, science of reading, has gained a life of its own. Educators see the term in all social media spaces, and now, many publishers are stamping it on their covers. Yet, the science of reading is not a curriculum. It is not something schools can buy. Most importantly, if a curriculum states it is aligned with the science of reading, there is no guarantee the content and instruction will support all learners in gaining reading proficiency. You can’t buy the science of reading. The science of reading, as defined by The Reading League, is

“a vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing that have been conducted over the last five decades across the world, and it is derived from thousands of studies conducted in multiple languages. The science of reading has culminated in a preponderance of evidence to inform how proficient reading and writing develop; why some have difficulty; and how we can most effectively assess and teach and, therefore, improve students' outcomes through prevention of and intervention for reading difficulties.”

So, how can educators ensure they use a scientifically aligned curriculum? Many leaders look at EdReports or What Works Clearinghouse for reliable information about whether a selected curriculum aligns with the research.

However, as noted in Natalie Wexler’s most recent article, Literacy Experts Say Some Ed Reports are Misleading, many literacy curricula from large publishers have been given all green ratings, yet they don’t deserve them. There is no perfect curriculum or program. When selecting a curriculum, teachers have to become detectives, analyzing the publishers. As Dr. Lousia Moats explains in her seminal text, Teaching Reading is Rocket Science, “The most important factor to student success is the teacher.” When teachers know the “why” and the “how” of teaching reading, they will significantly impact a child’s reading development more than any curriculum.

Understanding that most teachers come into the field with little training in the science of reading is essential. A recent National Center of Teacher Quality study showed only some teacher-education programs provide training in evidence-based instruction and the science of reading. So, what does a teacher do? Keep developing their knowledge around the research and effective practices. Most importantly, always question the source and the authors. It is critical to know there is no perfect curriculum or magic wand.

Myth 3: Science of Reading-Based Instruction Emphasizes Phonics Exclusively

Many educators would like to put the science of reading in a box and label it “phonics.” This way, the research and evidence are easy to dismiss. Yet, in 2000, the National Reading Panel Report established the five pillars of reading. The panel of reading experts reviewed years of research and determined there are five critical areas of reading instruction:

1. Phonemic awareness
2. Phonics
3. Fluency
4. Vocabulary
5. Comprehension

As explained in the Simple View of Reading, for a child to develop reading comprehension, they must be able to decode words on the page and then access their language to create the meaning of the text. For children to decode a text, they must have direct instruction in the early grades on the foundational skills of phonemic awareness and phonics, vocabulary, and language instruction. As stated in the text Narrowing the Third-Grade Reading Gap, in the early years children must be able to recognize and produce the 44 sound phonemes in the English language and blend and segment the sounds in words. Phonemic awareness is the glue to which all letters stick. Also, recognizing the letters is foundational to mastering the writing system of English.

For a child to decode a word, they need to understand how the sounds of letters are mapped to the symbols that represent them (phonics). Some people think phonics instruction is “kill and drill” and takes the “love” out of reading. But, we do know that early reading will allow students to build success. People get caught up on too much phonics, but in all reality, explicit phonics instruction provides access to the code. It allows children to understand how the writing system works to access meaning and the body of knowledge. According to Dr. Pamala Snow on the podcast, Debunking Balanced Literacy Arguments, she states, “The idea that phonics instruction kills the love of reading has no evidence to back it up. In all reality, what kills the love of anything is not being able to do it.”

Some educators think too much phonics is not fun for students or phonics takes the love out of reading. Many teachers believe learning must be fun, but what does fun look like? Does it look like students are all smiles and laughing all the time? What does the love of anything really mean? Do all children love gym class? Love social studies? Love science? Love art? Probably not. As educators, it is not our responsibility to instill the love of anything or make learning fun. Our job is to develop autonomy and ensure our students have the skills to choose what they want to love. It is important to remember we just don’t enjoy anything we are not successful at doing and that engaging in learning and experiencing mastery is fun, however, the process of getting there may be arduous. It is not our job as educators to ensure every step of learning is fun; it is our job to ensure our students can master the foundational reading skills so they can choose to read.

“We listen to views that make us feel good, instead of ideas that make us think hard,” says Adam Grant in “Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know.” Reflecting and evaluating our belief systems makes us think hard but does not make us feel good. However, the beliefs that reading is natural, the science of reading is a curriculum, and the science of reading is just phonics are myths that keep so many from the evidence about how children learn to read. Yet, many educators continue to believe them. Why? Because it is easier to cling to our beliefs than to choose the courage to sit in discomfort.

Reading is a complex process involving many linguistic and cognitive skills. More than 40 years of reading research have identified evidence that, if implemented, will change the lives of children. It is time to choose courage over comfort and rethink what we believe to be true about the science of reading.

For 34 years, Jeanne Schopf, M.Ed., NBCT, C-SLDI, has dedicated her life to improving the lives of children as an educator and a state and national literacy leader. She is an experienced K–9 teacher, literacy coach, reading specialist, and certified dyslexia Interventionist with a demonstrated impact of working in the primary and secondary education populations. Schopf is a dynamic, fun, engaging individual who puts her heart and soul into education and literacy leadership. Her vast experience and knowledge of literacy, leadership, and systems change add value to the teachers she mentors and school leaders she guides as they transform their schools. As a certified John Maxwell speaker, trainer, and coach, Schopf strives to add value to the people she serves by seeing their potential, making connections, and inspiring lasting change. She has a personal mission to support all teachers and leaders in building pathways toward literacy in their schools.