EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Science of Reading

Reading Research Quarterly Special Issue

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Science of Reading

Supports, Critiques, and Questions

International Literacy Association | September 2020

1

Acknowledgments

Publishing this special issue within a six-month time frame has certainly been an ambitious effort. The original call for abstracts yielded over 70 manuscript submissions. We recruited a team of associate editors to assist with assigning reviewers (each manuscript received two) and adjudicating. Their service was invaluable, and we acknowledge them here:

Joanne F. Carlisle Donald L. Compton Amy C. Crosson Bridget Dalton David K. Dickinson Patricia Enciso Kathy Escamilla Elfrieda H. Hiebert Margaret G. McKeown Annemarie S. Palincsar

We are grateful for the efforts of our reviewers and authors as well as the Reading Research Quarterly staff (including Susanne Viscarra) and the International Literacy Association staff and leadership (including Dan Mangan, Lara Deloza, Colleen Clark, and Wesley Ford). We are also grateful for Laura Buckley, our RRQ editorial assistant who helped with much of the organization of this special issue.

2

SUMMARY

W hen preparations began for this special issue of Reading Research Quarterly, the term science of reading (SOR) was a dominant part of discourse in education. We kept hearing the term in discussions across our experiences as researchers, teacher educators, partners of local education agencies, community members, and even parents. Even the media weighed in. Those invested saw SOR as either a magic solution to education's problems or an impediment that kept historical structural inequities in place. These divisions were reminiscent of the decades-old reading wars, and few people seemed to occupy the middle ground.

We started to solicit opinions on SOR and what the term meant to people both in and outside of the field. It quickly became clear that, not only was there no single definition, there was also no consensus as to what has been cited to inform theory, research, policy, and practice in the name of SOR.

As coeditors of RRQ, a leading global journal that provides the latest research and scholarship on literacy, we saw an opportunity to put together a special issue of the journal focused on what's at the heart of this debate: science. Our goal for this project was never to decide which is the "right" side of the debate but to help all of us be better consumers and creators of information.

The compilation of articles in this special issue, as well as those that will appear in the second special issue in spring 2021, examine SOR through a broader, more inclusive lens. Together, these pieces bring a supportive and critical perspective to the conversations, and identify next steps for the field.

The Science of Reading: Supports, Critiques, and Questions contains 26 articles written by a total of 77 authors who represent diverse, innovative, and challenging ideas and perspectives that reframe the science of reading debate.

We asked authors, reviewers, and associate editors to focus on accuracy of statements, bridging of perspectives, and impact of manuscripts to the field. As mentioned earlier, the term science of reading can be interpreted in divisive ways. The goal of this issue is to highlight how bridging of perspectives via accurate and meaningful information can move us forward.

Although each article shares important points, there is overlap. These articles show that our research community agrees on more of the science (or sciences) of reading than not.

Seeking to Define

The International Literacy Association (ILA) defines SOR as "a corpus of objective investigation and accumulation of reliable evidence about how humans learn to read and how reading should be taught."

The authors for this special issue seem to characterize SOR as an approach that prioritizes basic science and experimental work.

For example, Graham writes, "The science of reading involves studying how reading operates, develops, is taught, shapes academic and cognitive growth, affects motivation and emotion, interacts with context, and impacts context in turn. It includes genetic, biological, environmental, contextual, social, political, historical, and cultural factors that influence the acquisition and use of reading."

3

Similarly, Alexander writes, "As someone who has been conducting empirical studies of reading for 40 years, I see the science of reading as contributing to a vast interdisciplinary store of critical information about reading-related skills, processes, antecedents, and outcomes, representing linguistic, cognitive, social, cultural, neurological, and psychological dimensions."

Following suit, Petscher et al. state, "The `science of reading' is a phrase representing the accumulated knowledge about reading, reading development, and best practices for reading instruction obtained by the use of the scientific method.... Collectively, research studies with a focus on reading have yielded a substantial knowledge base of stable findings based on the science of reading. Taken together, the science of reading helps a diverse set of educational shareholders across institutions (e.g., preschools, schools, universities), communities, and families to make informed choices about how to effectively promote literacy skills that foster healthy and productive lives (DeWalt & Hink, 2009; Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, & Seidenberg, 2001)."

These definitions reflect the broad view of SOR conveyed across the articles in this issue as well as the important implications of how SOR is conceptualized. Yet the special issue authors consistently noted that the interpretation of SOR typically has been much narrower. SOR is often interpreted as focused solely on word reading and the role of systematic phonics instruction in supporting reading achievement, particularly for developing readers. As Alexander notes, "To see the phrase `science of reading' used in such a limited and pejorative manner is bewildering."

What is important here is that the authors almost universally emphasized that narrow interpretations of SOR (often taken up by the media to make its way into practice, policies, and schools) are problematic.

Taken together, the articles in this special issue suggest that SOR is both a body of knowledge (defined broadly by researchers and scholars) and an interpretation of that body of knowledge (often defined narrowly by audiences outside the academy). The authors in this special issue push back on the idea that SOR be characterized by support for or opposition to phonics instruction.

Again, as Alexander writes, "The reality is that reading does not begin or end with phonics or whole-word instruction (Seidenberg, 2013). It is far broader and more complex. Reading, broadly conceived, is any interaction between a person--be it a child, adolescent, or adult--and written language (Pearson & Cervetti, 2013). That interaction can involve written language at many levels, from words and sentences, to paragraphs, to entire volumes (Shanahan, 2019). Also, reading can be performed for many reasons, from purely personal to largely academic, and in many contexts, both in and out of school, as well as online or in print."

Hence, the aim of this special issue is to impact the field by advocating for a broader interpretation of SOR that can affect policy and practice and result in curricula decisions, legislation, and even teacher licensing requirements in ways that this narrower view has (which many of the articles in this special issue question).

This is not to suggest that there are no differing views regarding SOR. This collection of articles purposefully represents different stances and were reviewed by scholars representing different stances. As Petscher et al. note, "Researchers often frame the science of reading from contrasting applied epistemological perspectives. Thus, two scientists who approach the science of reading with different epistemologies will both suggest that they have principled understandings and explanations for how students learn to read; yet, the means by which those understandings and explanations were derived are often distinct."

Here, we hope the varied perspectives presented results in an engaging discussion that can move the field forward in ways that simple agreement would not.

4

Key Findings

The articles chosen for this issue contribute to the SOR discussion in different ways. They can be categorized as culminating in two key findings.

1. Multiple Studies Focus on Deepening Our Understanding of What Typically Is Seen as the Core of the SOR: Phonics Instruction

For example, Petscher et al. describe the strong evidence for explicit and systematic foundational skill instruction, providing a big-picture view. Ehri provides a more focused look at phonics and why it is helpful. She uses her research to emphasize the importance of reading words by sight, with phonics serving the role of linking spellings of words and lexical representations. Kearns explores nuances related to phonics instruction, investigating whether the English orthography is consistent enough to warrant explicit instruction of syllabication rules.

Scanlon and Anderson review 25 years of work, suggesting "that using both phonicsand context-based information facilitates the ability to build sight vocabulary, which in turn enables readers to turn their attention to the most important goal of literacy learning: meaning construction." Seidenberg et al. and Solari et al. both consider the translation of findings to classrooms more broadly. For example, they suggest that the science of statistical learning in quasi-regular domains has shown that readers combine implicit learning of the mappings of the orthography (i.e., how spellings are likely to be pronounced) with learning from explicit instruction that accelerates the implicit learning, but such views provide complexities related to translation to classrooms.

Overall, this work deepens understandings of what is currently discussed as SOR (even within the media) and has consequences for instruction.

2. The Majority of the Articles Within This Special Issue Push to Expand Conceptualizations of SOR

This perspective contrasts to the singular focus on phonics and word reading. Articles such as those by Petscher et al. and Cervetti et al. represent efforts to provide an updated big-picture view on SOR. Both of these author teams suggest the importance of not only foundational skills but also "a complicated constellation of skills and knowledge that impact reading comprehension" (Cervetti et al.). These include academic language instruction, comprehension strategy instruction, multifaceted language interventions, explicit instruction in key vocabulary, and text discussions. Hence, the SOR that best moves the field forward and serves learners is one that attends to more than just foundational skills.

Overall, the studies within this issue suggest a broad conceptualization of SOR to unite what science conveys about literacy. Articles suggest that SOR should include findings on the role of language comprehension (Cervetti et al.; Phillips Galloway et al.; Silverman et al.), writing (Graham), content and background knowledge (Cabell & Hwang; Kaefer), and instruction (Shanahan). Articles also suggest that SOR should take a more expansive view of reading that acknowledges its complexity (Compton-Lilly et al.) and the challenges readers face, particularly within digital literacy (Alexander).

Importantly, authors also push a more expansive view of readers, attending to the different ways that readers (and their families and communities) experience literacy and literacy instruction and acknowledging structural inequities. These readers include English learners

5

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download