By Jennifer KiiliChe
Only a third of American students read with competence, according to the 2024 National evaluation of education progress. The scores continue to delay on those of 2019 and 2022, and there has been little overall improvement since the NAEP began to follow reading in 1992.
Political educators and decision -makers responded by implementing “reading science” approaches, which most experts are now suitable are effective. But what exactly can be understood by the term and what constitutes significant gains remains elusive.
Vanderbilt Peabody College Professor Amanda Goodwin noted that teachers – and our self -confidence – could be a key ingredient to harvest the advantages of reading teaching supported by science. Before, she explains how we can define the science of reading a broader objective, why teachers’ autonomy is vital and where we go from here.
Search for a common definition
Goodwin, professor of language, literacy and culture in Vanderbilt Peabody College human education and development, previously publisher of Reading Research QuarterlyThe pre -eminent newspaper on the ground. In addition to research during literacy, it is an eminent spirit on the subject and one of the architects of Word detectivesAn evaluation tool based on the game for linguistic skills written with a proven success. Much of his work now involves translating reading data into practice and consulting for the main program editors on reading lessons based on evidence.
Goodwin became curious about reading science when, as a researcher from Peabody, editor and parent, she noticed that everyone was talking about the buzzing subject, but no one was talking about it in the same way.
In 2020 and 2021, she and she Reading Research Quarterly publisher Robert JiménezProfessor of Education Peabody, Emeritus, published two questions of special journals that have decided to unpack what the science of reading really means, in search of a collective understanding of researchers. She examined more than 80 submitted articles that have run the whole range in their interpretations. “I think that reading and analyzing these submissions are what really informed my perspective about reading science,” said Goodwin.
So what is the science of reading?
The perception of the subject’s public differs from the way scientists see it, and legislators and educators have interpreted and applied research to read multiple ways. “Reading science is not just a thing,” said Goodwin. “You can’t take a magic ball view.”
A historic federal study carried out 25 years ago – the 2000 National reading panel report– Launched the concept in the public sphere, launching years of (sometimes animated) discourse around scientifically lit lessons. He identified five reading pillars – phonological, phonetic, mastery, vocabulary and understanding of reading – and recommended an explicit or systematic instruction in these fields.
“These determinations were not incorrect,” said Goodwin. “You want to teach phonemic consciousness, phonetics, vocabulary, understanding and mastery. But we found that these buckets had become so great that we had lost the nuance of how to teach these things.”
During the quarter century since this study, related federal legislation came and disappeared. At least 40 states and the Columbia district have adopted laws related to the science of reading, and more recently, 11 states have prohibited a technique known as “three actions”. This method teaches students to extract words based on context, images and syntax – rather than reading letters. In the creation of legislation, public discourse has often distilled the approach in a closely defined technique which focuses on systematic and critical phonic teaching the previous methods as balanced literacy And whole language. (To understand phonetics, think back to these “sound” reading lessons in childhood – It is essentially the decomposition of words into sounds.)
But unlike his rigid reputation, Goodwin found that researchers consider the reading of sciences through a broader objective. They consider all the latest studies that shed light on reading education, fundamental concepts such as phonetics and understanding to the integration of things such as context, basic knowledge and writing in reading lessons.
“We absolutely want children to use phonetics, using impression and to be able to say words,” said Goodwin. “But there is more. We want them to be manufacturers of meaning. For example, a study examined the difference between sound education only – and phonic teaching with integrated contextual education.
Researchers and decision -makers agree on one thing: Reading work focused on evidence. Faced with slow improvements in schools, they are now trying to adjust how to make it work in practice.
Center teachers
“Researchers have made an important distinction between the science of reading research and the science of research on teaching reading,” said Goodwin. Reading research tells us how children learn to read. The search for reading instruction guides us on how to transmit these skills to learners in real classrooms.
For example, how do teachers manage variable class sizes, different learning differences or linguistic history that could have an impact on how children relate to reading equipment?
These questions all indicate the judgment of the teachers. “We were able to examine the research studies that showed the role of the professional judgment and shown how important teachers were in this work,” said Goodwin.
A 2023 Study have shown that among the states that had adopted the laws on reading sciences, those which included the support, training and financing of teachers benefited from more important gains than those who did not do so.
But the scripted nature of the programs of the science of reading does not always leave room for the discernment of teachers. The National Association of Education reported That teachers are increasingly consider that their work is deprofessional, because heavier laws limit their teaching autonomy.
“I think the key is to really kiss teachers’ professionalization and the judgment that comes into play to adapt the teaching script to a particular set of readers – in a way that is enlightened by data,” said Goodwin. In other words, reading the program is not a single size; Goodwin believes that teachers who work daily with their students are well equipped to withdraw their professional know-how to teach each only child. And they can do it in tandem with a science -based reading program.
Teacher jobs today are multifaceted. In addition to understanding their students, they must enter the latest research and programs, know how to assess the skills of children, then assemble all the parts in a way that recognizes the differences of students. “We must work at the intersection between the script, the evaluation data and the professionalization of teachers,” said Goodwin.
We know reading works based on science. Now what?
Goodwin shared three key elements for decision -makers and educators to consider while they work to fill the reading gap. “These things are really underlined by the science of reading research,” she said, “however, these are not things that remain at the script.” His suggestions include:
-
Allocate a lot of time for teaching literacy.
“Metro Nashville public schools have enabled a lot of time in the literacy block,” said Goodwin. “This is what I would like to: see the students read, write and reason every day.”
-
Support teachers.
“When they present their reading programs in MNPs, they have more and more supplied support for teachers to unpack these documents. It allows teachers to capitalize on their professional development, what research shows us is really important, “said Goodwin.
-
Focus on rigor with differentiation.
“The reflection on the rigor of the school level and the correspondence of this rigor with scaffolding, supports, etc., is essential. For example, with readers in difficulty or multilingual learners, they may find it difficult to read the texts, but they can certainly critically think of these texts. Having everyone in the game and providing multiple access points is really stimulating.”
Goodwin pointed out that there are a wide range of factors that enter into a good reading instruction. By compiling the problems of special journals, she found that in addition to phonetics, science also highlights the importance of social learning. He underlines the need to incorporate the morphology, which explores the radicular words more deeply. He highlights the value of the quality of teachers authorized to use their own judgment.
The data remind us that teaching reading is linked to writing teaching and that understanding requires teaching the language, said Goodwin. “And you can teach all these things, but in the end, understanding of reading is very closely linked to fundamental knowledge. So how do we build background knowledge? ” By pouring research, “there were a lot of really wonderful nuances,” she said.
“I think if we knew how to do this with a script, we would have done it,” concluded Goodwin. “We would have put children on a computer and a robot would read the script.