Learning science is both complex and rapidly evolving. The knowledge it encompasses is essential for anyone concerned with education, but much of it is buried in research journals that are inaccessible to most educators. We need a superb communicator capable of intelligibly explaining complex issues. Natalie Wexler is that person. Her latest book is superb. If you need to know what learning science is currently saying about instructional issues, do not go past this book.
—John Sweller emeritus professor of educational psychology School of Education, University of New South Wales
If you are looking for the best source for acquiring a full understanding of the science of reading, then Natalie Wexler’s Beyond the Science of Reading is your book. It makes an eloquent case and lays out a plan for right-sizing phonics instruction, for accelerating knowledge acquisition, and for building e ective, coherent curriculum. Wexler’s recommendations would maximize intellectual engagement as they impart critical reading, speaking, listening, and writing skills—facilitated by the proven elements of high-quality, explicit instruction. If these things matter to you, read this book.
—Mike Schmoker author of Results Now 2.0 and
Focus: Elevating the Essentials to Radically Improve Student Learning
Natalie Wexler o ers a master class in why the reading debate is about more than just phonics or reading, why it matters, and how leaders can cut through the debate to help students learn far more than most do today. This book is a tutorial for anyone interested in this vital issue and a road map for policymakers who want to expand access to opportunity by giving people the gift and power of literacy.
—Andy Rotherham Eduwonk.com, Bellwether, Virginia Board of Education
It’s about time that the science of how we learn was connected to how we learn to read! Reading, together with writing, is the basis for all further learning. Natalie Wexler makes this connection perfectly. We can only learn to read, and enjoy reading, if we heed the general principles of learning (the science of learning) and apply them to reading instruction within a content-rich environment. Both are prerequisites for successfully learning to read, and being able to read and understand is a precondition for being a knowledgeable and good citizen. This book is a large and important step toward science-informed reading instruction.
—Paul A. Kirschner emeritus professor
of educational psychology Open Universiteit, The Netherlands
Natalie Wexler has a unique gift for synthesizing research, connecting it with classroom practice, and communicating why that intersection matters for teachers and students alike. Educators across the country credit her with opening their eyes to the important relationship between content knowledge and literacy. Her new book is a worthy sequel to The Knowledge Gap—and can help classroom teachers, parents, and policymakers connect the dots between literacy and the fascinating field of learning science.
—Barbara R. Davidson president, StandardsWork, Inc. executive director, Knowledge Matters Campaign
The field of education is sadly dominated by bad ideas. Teachers are trained in the opposite of what is true. Those who want to pursue what has become known as the science of learning are therefore a di use band of rebels sharing contraband sources across the internet. Now, Natalie Wexler has brought this hidden knowledge together in an accessible and punchy book written with fierce intelligence. Start here if you want to understand how cognitive science should be at the center of the education project.
—Greg Ashman writer,
researcher, and deputy principal at Ballarat Clarendon College, Australia
Natalie Wexler’s latest book is an important and necessary reminder of the power of teaching knowledge. It’s a vital part of learning to read and, by extension, a vital part of learning to learn.
Daisy Christodoulou director of education, No More Marking
Natalie Wexler makes a compelling case that America’s reading crisis is actually a learning crisis. She argues that by expanding the science of reading to include knowledge-based literacy instruction and insights from cognitive science, we can improve not only reading outcomes but overall student learning. Educators stand to gain much from the numerous examples and references to how the science of learning can be e ectively integrated into the curriculum.
—Hugh Catts professor, Florida State University
As we intentionally address our nation’s stagnant literacy rates, we cannot a ord to overlook a key element: the science of learning. Every child deserves a teacher who understands the integration of the science of reading and the science of learning. Natalie Wexler’s book merges that schism; this book gives every teacher and school leader a user’s guide to learning, memory, and cognition.
—Molly Ness author and reading researcher
Natalie Wexler makes a compelling and evidence-based case that knowledge building is an essential component of the science of reading and the science of learning and is the cause of educational equity. The great news is that teaching young children about the world is joyful and fun. Bring these insights to every elementary school in America, please!
—Michael J. Petrilli president, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Natalie Wexler brings her intellect, insights, and depth of knowledge to this brilliant book about what works in our schools, what doesn’t, and why. It should be read by educators, policymakers, and anyone who cares about the dangerously low levels of literacy in the United States. Even after decades as a teacher and an administrator, I learned something new or found something to think about more deeply on every page. This book addresses our reading and learning crises—in terms of history, current challenges, and proposed solutions—as clearly and persuasively as anything I’ve read.
—Judith Hochman coauthor of
The Writing Revolution
In this inviting yet hard-hitting volume, Natalie Wexler carefully weaves the often-separated threads of learning to read, learning to write, and learning in general. She shows how these bodies of knowledge are deeply interlocked, demonstrating how the chasms between research and practice underscore fundamental issues in education today. By illuminating relevant research and case studies, Wexler skillfully guides readers to understand the challenges of teacher preparation, curriculum specificity, standardized testing, and education polarization. This book isn’t merely a critique of education in the United States and abroad but a road map toward real, systemic change.
—Nathaniel
Swain instructional coach and author of Harnessing the Science of Learning
Accessible, informative, and timely! Wexler skillfully merges the conversation on the science of reading with the science of learning, while centering the role of knowledge building. Understanding how people learn is foundational to understanding how to teach. This book is an essential resource for teacher preparation programs.
—Sonia Q. Cabell associate professor of reading education, Florida State University lead editor of Handbook on the Science of Early Literacy
This work is copyright. Apart from fair dealings for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review, or as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part should be reproduced, transmitted, communicated or recorded, in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.
PO Box 3160 Mentone East, Victoria 3194, Australia
Phone: (03) 8686 9077
Website: www.grifteducation.com
Email: orders@grifteducation.com
Code: ASC2170
ISBN: 9781923412170
Printed in Australia
To the many dedicated educators who have guided my thinking, encouraged my work, and bravely engaged in the sometimes difficult process of change
Acknowledgments
I am deeply grateful to the many educators and other individuals who gave generously of their time and expertise and shared their experiences with me, helping to make this book possible.
In particular, I’d like to thank the school and district leaders and classroom teachers in Monroe, Louisiana, who welcomed me into their o ces and classrooms and showed me—and, I hope, my readers—how a content-rich curriculum can be combined with e ective writing instruction to create a model for true education reform. I’m particularly grateful to Serena White, the district’s chief academic o cer, who took time out of a busy schedule to ensure that I met many teachers and observed many classrooms—and to ensure that I ate well while in Monroe.
I am also indebted to the individuals who spoke with me for my 2023 six-part podcast “Reading Comprehension Revisited,” the first season of The Knowledge Matters Podcast—interviews I drew on in writing this book. They include Abby Boru , Cassidy Burns, Kyair Butts, Hugh Catts, Brent Conway, Spring Cook, Deloris Fowler, and LaTonya Go ney.
I’d also like to thank Eric Kalenze, whom I interviewed some years ago about his experiences as a high school English teacher for an article for The American Scholar. I returned to my notes of that interview for
Beyond the Science of Reading
material for this book. I also interviewed Stacy Edmonson and Arrinna Poessnecker for that article and reinterviewed them for this book to update their experiences. I appreciate their willingness to share them.
Valerie Sakamura and Jim Heal of Deans for Impact graciously shared their expertise with me, and Margaret Lee of the Frederick County, Maryland, school system was kind enough to speak with me about her district’s collaboration with Deans for Impact on a partnership with a local teacher-prep program.
Kate Jones, whom I met at a conference in Santiago, Chile, generously gave me one of her books—Retrieval Practice: Research & Resources for Every Classroom—and I drew on some of her many excellent ideas to write the beginning of Chapter 4.
I’m deeply indebted to my editor at ASCD, Bill Varner, without whom this book would probably never have been written. He asked if I might be interested in writing a book about why the science of reading needs to go beyond phonics. The book ended up going well beyond that topic, and Bill provided valuable guidance in keeping my writing on track.
Last but definitely not least, I’m grateful as always to my husband, Jim Feldman, who provided encouragement and support while I was engaged in researching and writing the book and also gave me astute suggestions and comments on short notice when I was done (or thought I was).
Introduction
Since 2019, when I last addressed the topic of reading instruction in a book-length format, much has changed in the world of education. The term science of reading wasn’t in common usage then—and maybe hadn’t even been coined. Now it seems to be everywhere. Most states have adopted legislation or policies aimed at grounding early literacy instruction in what is commonly referred to as SoR (Schwartz, 2022). Some reading programs that don’t line up with evidence on how children learn to decode words have lost market share (Peak, 2024). These are, in many ways, positive developments.
At the same time, all too often, policymakers, journalists, educators, parents, and the general public have defined SoR to mean, essentially, “more phonics.” This has led to significant pushback, with some educators and literacy experts pointing out that there’s far more to reading than sounding out words—and arguing that requiring children to participate in hours of phonics drills every day is misguided and potentially harmful.
The resulting sometimes bitter conflict has led some observers to characterize the current debate as a replay of the so-called reading wars of the 1990s. As I explain in Chapter 1 of this book, that’s not entirely
Beyond the Science of Reading
accurate, but there are some similarities. The present-day conflict, perhaps like that of the previous century, rests on some fundamental misconceptions. My contention, and my hope, is that if we can all come to a clearer understanding of the various factors that a ect literacy—and how literacy is connected to learning in general—we can find common ground.
One fundamental misconception is that SoR advocates simply want more phonics instruction. Rather, the advocates who know what they’re talking about want more e ective phonics instruction. And while SoR proponents have spotlighted problems with phonics instruction, they do acknowledge that there are other crucial components to skilled reading. In fact, both camps—generally referred to as SoR on one side and balanced literacy on the other—point to the same model to describe what goes into literacy: the five pillars of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.
However, many in the SoR camp haven’t recognized or acknowledged problems with reading instruction beyond those related to foundational skills. That omission has given rise to the assumption that, in order to align with scientific evidence, schools only need to change their approach to phonics. In fact, the standard approach to teaching reading comprehension also conflicts with a substantial body of evidence.
To enable students to become fully literate, we need to start defining the science of reading to include the well-established evidence that academic knowledge plays a key role in comprehension. Expanding that definition could also help defuse conflicts over reading instruction. For one thing, it would clarify that the two-hour reading block shouldn’t be entirely devoted to phonics. For another, as I’ll explain in Chapter 1, an expanded definition would counter the argument that SoR-aligned instruction will kill students’ interest in reading. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that reading aloud to children from complex, engaging texts is not only the most e ective way of building their knowledge of new topics but also a wonderful way to introduce them to the joy of reading.
We also need to recognize that the evidence related to reading doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It should be seen as part of a science of literacy that includes listening, speaking, and writing. Beyond that, the science of
literacy should be seen as a subset of a broader body of evidence related to learning in general: cognitive science, or the science of learning.
As I’ve thought about cognitive science and literacy over the years, I’ve come to realize there’s no real distinction between literacy and learning. When we read a text, our ability to understand it depends in large part on what we have already been able to learn. Our ability to write is even more dependent on prior learning. It can be challenging to read about a topic you know little or nothing about, but it’s virtually impossible to write about one. At the same time, reading and writing are ways of learning. Reading is a way of acquiring knowledge, and writing is a way of deepening and reinforcing it. That means scientific evidence related to how we learn is inextricably linked to the evidence on how we learn to read and write. Nevertheless, researchers and educators have treated literacy as though it were almost entirely separate from learning in general.
Recent Focus on the Science of Learning
As the SoR movement has mushroomed in recent years, a smaller but growing movement has arisen that is aimed at connecting K–12 educators to the science of learning—or SoL. Cognitive scientists have found evidence to support a number of instructional strategies that make it easier for students to learn, but—for reasons I’ll delve into in Chapter 3—teachers rarely encounter that information during their training. Although most of the cognitive science research has focused on math, science, and other content areas, the strategies are theoretically applicable to any learning, including learning to be literate.
When the science of learning movement has touched on literacy, it—like the science of reading movement—has largely limited its focus to decoding. SoL proponents recognize that for most children, systematic phonics instruction is essential if decoding is to become automatic, thereby freeing up cognitive capacity for higher-order cognitive tasks such as comprehension. Few in the movement have focused on how schools are actually teaching reading comprehension—and even fewer have focused on how they’re teaching writing.
Beyond the Science of Reading
If they did, they would likely recognize that, as I’ll detail in Chapter 4, we have been making reading and writing much harder for students than they need to be. In addition, they would see that the instructional strategies backed by cognitive science, such as retrieval practice, can’t actually be applied to the standard skills-focused approach to reading comprehension. As I’ll discuss in Chapter 5, they might also see that explicit, systematic writing instruction can provide the benefits of cognitive science–informed instruction—and more.
All students benefit from instruction grounded in scientific evidence, but those who stand to benefit the most are those who struggle the most in our current system: generally, students from less highly educated families with fewer resources, a disproportionate number of whom are Black and brown. Equity has been a major issue in education in recent years, but e orts to create a more equitable system have largely overlooked the need to provide the explicit, fully guided instruction that many—if not most—students need to be successful. That topic is the focus of Chapter 6.
Given that few teachers will have been exposed to the principles of cognitive science during their training, it’s crucial for them to be guided by curricula—including literacy curricula—that are grounded in those principles. One such principle is that the curriculum needs to focus on substantive content. As with comprehension skills, it is simply not possible to teach skills like critical thinking in the abstract, divorced from any particular subject matter.
That means people need to agree on what content the curriculum will cover. In the current polarized political climate, that may seem impossible. However, as I’ll explain in Chapter 7, it can be done—perhaps not throughout the nation as a whole but almost certainly within states or school districts. The key is that those on all sides need to recognize the need to compromise—and to avoid crossing the line into what most members of the public would perceive as indoctrination. The process won’t always be easy, but it’s necessary for children to get a meaningful education.
Science can’t resolve everything. There will inevitably be disagreements about how best to educate children—and a certain amount of disagreement and variation is healthy. Following scientific evidence doesn’t mean stifling debate. The nature of science is that it evolves as new evidence comes to light. It’s also important to remember that scientific studies don’t translate easily into classroom practice.
If, however, we can agree on some basic well-established principles—for example, that learning requires retaining information in long-term memory—then I think we stand a good chance of lowering the temperature of the current debates over reading instruction, clearing up misconceptions, and finding common ground. As I’ve mentioned, one misconception is that SoR-aligned instruction will kill the joy of reading. In fact, if we understand what kids really need to become fully literate, the opposite is true. Another misconception is that explicit instruction means just lecturing, turning children into joyless, passive recipients of information. In fact, the kind of explicit instruction backed by cognitive science is highly interactive and engaging—and can build students’ confidence in a way that increases their motivation to learn.
All teachers want their students to be engaged, thoughtful, and successful. Too often, though, the beliefs and assumptions underlying our current system make that di cult if not impossible. Cognitive science won’t provide all the answers, and evidence-backed instruction doesn’t guarantee that all students will achieve at the same level, but at least they can help us ask the questions that will enable all students, and all teachers, to reach their full potential.
1
How Embracing All of the Science of Reading Can Get Us Past the Old Debates
In November 2021, in a high-poverty school in rural South Carolina, a teacher named Andrea Yon could see the effects of the ongoing COVID19 pandemic and resulting school closures on her 7th and 8th graders. In previous years, she told The Hechinger Report, some of her students had been reading at a 5th- or 6th-grade level. Now, she said, she saw them reading at a 3rd- or 4th-grade level (Barshay et al., 2021).
That wasn’t the only problem. In previous years, students would read whatever they wanted for 20 minutes during silent reading time. But now, Yon told a reporter, “they’re looking up after three to five minutes.”
Yon’s experience was a microcosm of trends across the country. In the wake of COVID-19 and the remote or hybrid learning systems it brought to many schools, students clearly lost ground academically. By the spring of 2023, according to one analysis, students were finally
