7 minute read

What’s the science in science-based reading instruction?, Part I

By Brian Bartel and Kevin Anderson

When we start to hear language about the science of [insert any topic], our science teacher minds tend to take notice. That’s why the current discussion about the science behind reading instruction in Wisconsin has captured our attention. Not only does reading instruction directly affect our members who are teaching reading at younger levels, but it also impacts secondary science teachers (and beyond) as they receive these students downstream, expecting them to be able to read proficiently. That’s why we wanted to take some time to address some questions for you, like what is the science of reading? What’s the problem with how we currently teach reading? What will new legislation about reading require and prohibit? Can I trust textbooks and their authors? And how could this affect science instruction? Let’s start with some of the background.

What’s the problem with how we teach reading?

Many schools in Wisconsin (and across the U.S.) have adopted an approach to reading that includes a strategy known as “three-cueing”, which teaches students to use cues in a book such as meaning, structure and visual clues (or MSV). This may be taught in place of structured programs like phonics, where students learn that letters themselves have specific and learned meaning in our spoken language. And this is when the “science of reading” starts to creep into the conversation. In the last few decades, we have seen research to indicate that three-cueing isn’t a strategy that good readers use. In fact, it’s a strategy used by slower, inefficient readers. Nonetheless, three-cueing is still being actively used to teach reading. And millions of dollars have been spent in curriculum, teacher preparation programs, and even in graduate programs that have supported this method.

Let’s take a moment to reiterate that teachers of reading were trained in methods like three-cueing, had curricula and books that reinforced these methods, and believed in programs that utilized them. It’s just that research for many years has indicated that three-cueing doesn’t work for all readers. But the methods and books they were using were rarely updated with current and emerging research, and that research was often hard for teachers to obtain on their own. Journalist Emily Hanford (from American Public Media) has been investigating how children are taught to read, and has described this problem with the public in her articles and groundbreaking podcasts. Along with others, this reporting has created a demand for changing reading instruction that’s grounded in “the science of reading”. Teachers of reading are now starting to realize that, and are struggling through what that means for how they teach reading now and in the future. Politicians have also realized this, and a change in how Wisconsin will be teaching reading has now been made at the legislative level through Act 20.

What is Act 20?

Signed into law in July 2023 by Governor Evers, Act 20 requires that all Wisconsin schools provide science-based early literacy instruction. Act 20 FAQ (provided by the DPI) helps us out with the meaning of “science-based early literacy instruction”, defined as “instruction that is systematic and explicit and consists of all the following: phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, phonics, building background knowledge, oral language development, vocabulary building, instruction in writing, instruction in comprehension, and reading fluency”. Districts will be tasked with reviewing their existing curricula to see if they align with these nine areas of early literacy instruction.

Perhaps most importantly, literacy instruction that includes “three-cueing” will be prohibited. That is, students cannot be taught to use context clues like pictures when learning reading foundational skills. There are other pieces of Act 20 that are important, such as support from statewide early literacy coaches, and a requirement for 3rd grade students to pass reading tests, among other things. For our purposes, we want to focus on the actual “science of reading” instruction and how that impacts Wisconsin students and teachers.

What About the Science of Reading?

Of course, that brings us back to ask: what actually is the science of reading? According to the Reading League, it is “the vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing.” It does not solely mean phonics. It is not a set reading program or package you can buy and adopt, though many programs attempt to build on this research (and often not well). It does not mean that teachers should not use a balanced approach to reading instruction. While it does mean that students need explicit and systematic phonics instruction, which has frequently been lacking in many places in recent years, that’s not the whole approach. Students need phonics along with shared reading experiences, vocabulary support, close studies of various types of text, and application of learning through writing and speaking. Of particular relevance to science educators, research in reading comprehension also suggests that students need broad support in gaining background knowledge about the world around them.

So why can’t we just implement the “science of reading” to fix our issues with reading? Remember that piece about a vast body? The “science of reading” isn’t just something we can easily distill into a tidy piece of legislation, a shiny curriculum package or a few hours of teacher PD. It’s an ongoing and changing body of research that doesn’t easily fit into our large and complex educational system. UW-Madison cognitive science and pyscholinguistic professor Mark Seidenberg, who studies how children learn to read nicely summarizes the problem: “...connecting research and practice is difficult, and what is being offered right now are interim solutions.” Here is a summary of his research-related thoughts (2023) that highlight some of the challenges of integrating “the science of reading”:

• More research needs to be done. There are foundational research ideas out there, but it does not yet connect the dots to the most effective instructional strategies for implementation with kids. So called experts are creating instructional materials and “filling in what’s missing with additional assumptions that aren’t supported by these studies and are called into question by other research.”

• What's being put out there isn't necessarily research-aligned. What’s “being offered right now are interim solutions.” There are many “well-intentioned individuals with limited research backgrounds who offer strong but flawed recommendations (and products) to teachers and school districts.”

• Things are being implemented poorly. If students can read well, you don’t have to keep grilling them on 44 phonemes. “Teachers need to have enough background to be able to use curricula and other instructional materials that draw on the broader research literature–materials that have the relevant science baked in.” We’re not there yet.

• We can't forget the affective side of learning. From the comments, “The other piece from neuroscience that cannot and should not be ignored is the research [that shows]… a steady diet of scripted curricula, worksheets (both paper and video games that are essentially worksheets), and direct instruction will not a reader make. Readers also need to feel engaged, interested, and motivated to read.”

And that’s where science comes in - the engagement and interest! We’ll discuss that more in our next article in this series. Further, some interpret the “Science of Reading” as a “back-to-the-basics” approach, and may worry that science will follow suit, so we’ll address that too.

Finally, given the complexity of education research, as detailed by Professor Seidenberg, we will also explore potential concerns of trusting research and textbooks.

Learn More

This article is from:

WSST Newsletter, Volume 65, #2