Research Roundup

Using the Science of Reading (SoR) to Support Beginning Readers

Lisa M. Sensale Yazdian and Betsy Diamant-Cohen

Every Child Ready to Read (ECRR) was designed to help libraries and caregivers become partners in early literacy development. The initiative was informed by scientific research on the critical skills underlying early reading and writing along with best practices for supporting their development. ECRR was introduced in 2004, revised in 2011, and subsequently evaluated and revised in 2017.1

Research regarding reading continues to advance, especially as it pertains to beginning and fluent readers and the role context and culture play in learning.2 Since children’s librarians are continually encouraged to focus their efforts on getting children ready to read, learning about the science of reading helps us see the bigger picture.

The science of reading (SoR) is a robust body of research, comprising many sciences, that explains the various processes involved in learning to read and understand written language.3 It’s not a settled science because researchers continue to test the veracity and validity of their work.4 The SoR is not a new strategy, program, or silver bullet for developing readers, although it is currently portrayed this way in social media and popular press. The SoR involves a complex orchestration of skills and interactions,5 but policymakers in many state departments of education are not taking into account the entire science when making decisions. Instead, their focus is on the simple view of reading (SVR), even though many theoretical models and processes of reading exist6 and continue to emerge.7 The narrative around SoR has become extremely polarizing.8 This can be attributed, in part, to a lack of understanding, which is why this column is addressing it.

The SVR defines reading comprehension as the combination of two equally important components9: decoding (word recognition) and listening comprehension (language comprehension). Although the researchers who coined the term acknowledge the complexity of the reading process, their simple formula does not unpack these components, address how they overlap, or offer instructional guidance.10 This is concerning since how we define reading prioritizes and shapes what gets taught and the products that get endorsed.

When decoding is discussed, in the SVR, phonological awareness, the alphabetic principle, and sight word recognition are brought to the forefront. When listening comprehension is mentioned, vocabulary is often the only construct acknowledged in this domain, which is problematic since there is research evidence highlighting the significance of background knowledge, culture/content knowledge, verbal reasoning, language structure, and perspective-taking in the reading process.11

Most teachers and researchers agree that the reading process is more complex; it is broader than phonological awareness, alphabetics, and word reading. They also agree that more rigorous research needs to examine instructional practices in classrooms and that one size does not fit all when it comes to students, schools, or districts. And while libraries are not focused on the teaching of reading, they can certainly stay abreast of the latest research and continue offering access to a diverse body of texts and engaging experiences.

Readers’ Advisory for Beginning Readers

Motivated readers are engaged readers12 and although there are many titles to choose from, our children and families need quality readers’ advisory. While decodable texts composed of controlled vocabulary and phonetic patterns allow students to practice skills and build confidence and motivation, they have not been shown to have a significant impact on reading achievement alone; children who experience both decodable and non-decodable texts fare better on reading outcomes.13 The key is exposing children to books of interest to them, so they want to learn to read, and giving them practice reading no matter how easy it will or not be to decode the text.

The volume of texts that engage and inspire children continues to grow. While the ALA Youth Media Awards are consulted for the best and most notable, librarians spend countless hours curating book lists to meet library customers’ needs and wants. This work must continue. It is quite possible for early readers to develop literacy skills when they are exposed to picture books and nonfiction, even if they cannot read all of the words. Training in ECRR made it easier for us to select books to support specific skills and practices in storytimes and encouraged us to generate lists of engaging texts to help meet certain learning objectives. Lists can be broad like Books with Rhythm or Rhyme, or more narrow and matched to specific skills like, Books with Alliteration or Books Supporting Syllable Segmentation. Assemble your lists by listening to caregiver and educator requests and matching those needs to quality texts.

The need for “early,” “easy,” or “just-right” books has been long established. Choosing a beginning reader book can be overwhelming and it is possible to have vastly different experiences across branches and library systems. Leveling systems (e.g., Lexile, Accelerated Reader, Fountas & Pinnell, etc.) and categories assigned by publishers vary greatly and can have unintended consequences such as labeling children, restricting children’s access to information and enjoyable books, and causing children to become frustrated when there aren’t enough decodable words. They can be useful tools when they are clear and consistent and staff can explain their nuances.

Many libraries use color coding schemes describing book characteristics in simple terms. The earliest level readers might be described as having large print, few words, and large pictures, but the format can vary within a level; some texts may be composed of only high frequency words, others may feature word families, some are meant to be read with an adult, etc. The decodability of these readers varies tremendously and can present a challenge to a child with a limited understanding of orthography, or how words work. Chicago Public Library has begun addressing this issue by classifying a subset of their beginning readers as decodable, and categorizing them according to word features (e.g., CVC words, blends and digraphs, r-controlled vowels, etc.). As long as library users are educated about the classification systems at their disposal along with their distinctions, they can better support their learners’ needs.

Helping children become readers begins with nurturing relationships—parents, siblings, extended family, teachers, and friends. They need to experience a wide variety of texts, have multiple opportunities to read and write, and be surrounded by people supporting their efforts. Moreover, they need to be shown how enjoyable these opportunities can be. &

References

1. Susan B. Neuman and Donna Celano, “An Evaluation of Every Child Ready to Read: A Parent Education Initiative” (Chicago: American Library Association, 2007); Susan B. Neuman, Naomi Moland, and Donna Celano, “Bringing Literacy Home: An Evaluation of the Every Child Ready to Read Program” (Chicago: Association for Library Service to Children and Public Library Association, 2017).
2. P. David Pearson, Christina L. Madda and Taffy E. Raphael, “Current Issues and Best Practices in Literacy Instruction,” in Best Practices in Literacy Instruction, Seventh Edition, ed. Lesley Mandel Morrow, Ernest Morrell, and Heather Kenyon Casey, 3–40 (New York: Guilford, 2023).
3. Amanda P. Goodwin and Robert T. Jiménez, eds. “The Science of Reading: Supports, Critiques, and Questions,” special issue, Reading Research Quarterly 55, no. S1 (2020); Goodwin and Jiménez, eds. “The Science of Reading.”
4. National Education Policy Center and Education Deans for Justice and Equity, Policy Statement on the “Science of Reading” (Boulder: National Educational Policy Center, 2020), https://nepc.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/publications
   /REVISED%20FYI%20Ed%20Deans%20reading%20copy.pdf;
   David Reinking, George G. Hruby, and Victoria J. Risko, “Legislating Phonics: Settled Science or Political Polemics?” Teachers College Record 125, no. 1 (2023): 104–31, https://doi
   .org/10.1177/01614681231155688
5. Richard C. Anderson et al., Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission on Reading (Washington, DC: National Academy of Education, National Institute of Education, & Center for the Study of Reading, 1985), https://naeducation
   .org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Anderson-Hiebert-Scott
   -Wilkinson-Becoming-a-Nation-of-Readers.pdf.
6. Donna E. Alvermann et al., eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Literacy Seventh Edition (London, England: Routledge, 2018); Catherine F. Compton-Lilly et al., “A Confluence of Complexity: Intersections Among Reading Theory, Neuroscience, and Observations of Young Readers,” Reading Research Quarterly 56, no. S1 (2021): S185–S195.
7. Nell K. Duke and Kelly B. Cartwright, “The Science of Reading Progresses: Communicating Advances Beyond the Simple View of Reading,” Reading Research Quarterly 56, no. S1 (2021): S25–S44.
8. P. David Pearson, Current Issues and Best Practices.
9. Phillip Gough and William Tunmer, “Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability,” Remedial and Special Education 7 (1986): 6–10.
10. Wes A. Hoover and William E. Tunmer, “The Simple View of Reading: Three Assessments of Its Adequacy,” Remedial and Special Education 39, no. 5 (2018): 304–12.
11. Nell K. Duke, “The Science of Reading Progresses.”
12. John T. Guthrie and Allan Wigfield, “Engagement and Motivation in Reading” in Handbook of Reading Research Volume 3 (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2000), 403–22.
13. Alia Pugh, Devin M. Kearns, and Elfrieda H. Hiebert, “Text Types and Their Relation to Efficacy in Beginning Reading Interventions,” Reading Research Quarterly 58, no. 4 (2023): 710–32.