The Reading Instruction Show

Phonics is important, but if that’s all you’re teaching, you limit students’ ability to recognize words and create meaning with print. And that is the end goal – to create meaning, not to fill out phonics worksheets, or pass end-of-unit tests, or sound out words in isolation

I was having a discussion with a fellow online who insisted that early reading instruction should consist primarily of direct instruction of phonics. His argument was that unlike learning to use oral language, learning to use written language is not a natural process for humans. “We’re not wired to learn these skills” he insisted. “Reading is a uniquely human invention,” he said. According to him, children, starting around age 5 or 6, need lots of direct instruction of letter-sound relationships in order to learn “the code”. When they learn the code, then they can read (or decode).

This is a commonly held idea that seems to make good sense to many. But we want reading instruction to be based on good science, not good sense. So, let’s do a bit of unpack-o-rating:

If you threw a rock into the middle of a pond but that rock was not a rock, can you still be said to have thrown a rock? Likewise, can a standard be said to be a standard if it is not standardized?

We know that science is a good thing, and using science in reading instruction is a good thing. But what exactly is meant by the “science of reading”? What exactly is the Science of Reading? Is it a noun? Is it a verb? Or has it become an adjective or perhaps a metaphor used to indicate something else?

Basic terms are often misunderstood or misapplied by SoR advocates. My goal in this podcast is to bring a little more clarity to three important and often misunderstood terms: science, research, and research methods. In doing so, I hope to move the needle a little bit in helping you become more critical consumers of educational research

Science is both a noun and a verb. It’s a noun when it refers to a field or a system of knowledge within a particular area such as physics, chemistry, or zoology. It is a verb when it references the processes used to develop that system of knowledge (research).

Dr. Elena Aydarova is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Policy Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a fellow with the National Education Policy Center. Dr. Aydarova’s research examines the interaction between educational policies, education reforms, and policy advocacy. She is an award-winning author of over 40 publications. Dr. Aydarova received postdoctoral fellowships from the National Academy of Education/Spencer Foundation and the American Association of University Women.

If you can blame students, teachers, and colleges of education, we won’t see the social problems that impact learning. It’s much easier to blame teachers than to fix the actual cause of social problems. However, there is one thing of which we can be certain: If Cengage Learning, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill Education, Pearson Education, and Scholastic could sell products to fix one of these social problems, that problem would be the cause of the next educational crisis.

To fully understand this current reading “crisis” (which really isn’t a crisis at all), it must be seen in the context of similar “crises” occurring in the past (which weren’t really crises either). This current “crisis” is not the first reading crisis to come along (Aydarova, 2024; Berliner & Biddle, 1995; McQuillan, 1998; Thomas, 2024), and it certainly won’t be the last. And when this crisis runs its course, there will be a lull followed by another crisis, and then another, and then another. That’s because there will always be those willing to create the illusion of crises for political and economic gain (Altwerger, 2008; Aydarove, 2023). And sadly, it’s an effective tactic … for a time anyway.

The thing about research is that it doesn’t prove anything, at least not in the social sciences. There is no single research that conclusively proves anything once and for all about reading instruction. Research may support a hypothesis. It may provide evidence for something, show something, indicate something, or demonstrate something, but in the social sciences, research doesn’t prove things. The results may indicate, implicate, or illustrate, but educational research doesn’t prove things.

SoR advocates often claim that there is a “proven science” of reading. But when working with variable human beings interacting in variable social situations there are simply too many variables to say that something proves something else conclusively. Instead, research provides evidence for things. A lot of research provides strong evidence. A little research provides weak evidence. There are evidence-based practices (see Chapter *) but there is no “proven science” of reading. But even saying something is evidence-based says nothing about the quality of the evidence or the validity of the evidence.

Words are always encountered in the context of a sign, product, or sentence. In the same way, to be understood, data must be understood and evaluated in the context in which it was collected. Reading research can only be fully understood in the context of a wider array of research studies within a theoretical perspective. And theories must be understood in the context of a paradigm. The Science of Reading movement must be understood in the greater social and political context and in the context of past educational reform movements (NCLB).

If you were to consume a lot of popular media today related to education, you would be led to believe that there is a reading crisis. Apparently, it’s all “deeply concerning”. I can’t help but wonder if this current crisis is a new crisis or an extension of an old crisis. In 1983 the United States was said to be “at risk” because of a crisis that started in 1963 (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Was that crisis ever resolved? Is this crisis an extension of that crisis? Or is it brand new crisis?

In 1983 teachers were told they need to get back to the basics. Did we not get back far enough? Did we not get basic enough? Did our basic backtracking not take? Do we need to get back to basics much harder? Are we still basic backtracking? If we’re not getting back to basics, what are we getting to?