How the Science of Reading Informs 21st‐Century Education

Equipping elementary (i.e., grades K-5) teachers with adequate content and pedagogical knowledge to promote effective reading instruction based on the science of reading is a crucial piece of the reading education puzzle. We reviewed 20 empirical studies to examine the impact of teacher preparation and training programs on elementary teachers' knowledge of the science of reading, focusing on the foundational pillars of reading instruction, namely, phonological and phonemic awareness, phonics, and morphological awareness, as well as student outcomes in reading. We also identified program characteristics that promoted positive growth in teacher knowledge. Generally, findings support the effectiveness of training and preparation programs in increasing elementary teachers' knowledge of foundational constructs. Training in which teachers have the opportunity to apply their learned knowledge and skills under expert guidance produced the largest growth in teacher knowledge. Implications of findings are discussed.A ll students have the right to learn to read and, thus, the right to have access to knowledgeable literacy educators (International Literacy Association [ILA], 2019; UNESCO, n.d.) who under stand the science of reading, or "the accumulated knowledge about reading, reading development, and best practices for reading instruction obtained by the use of the scientific method" (Petscher et al., 2020, p. S268). Theoretical propositions such as the componential model of reading (Aaron, Joshi, Gooden, & Bentum, 2008) and the lattice model of the development of reading comprehension (Connor, 2016) highlight the importance of classroom factors in reading development, such as teachers' ability to plan and manage instructional activity, and the qual ity of literacy instruction. However, effective literacy instruction is quite complex (Connor et al., 2009) and should consider students' home learning environment, previous background knowledge and experi ences, and effective instructional methods that will produce the highest results for each child (Connor, 2016). Thus, teachers must possess a depth of knowledge, including content and pedagogical knowledge, and understand how to be socially just and culturally responsive in their practice (Mosley Wetzel et al., 2020).In their recent article pertaining to teacher preparation, Hoffman, Hikida, and Sailors (2020) pointed out that over 600 empirical studies on literacy teacher preparation were published between 1999 and 2018. These studies examined teachers' knowledge and practice through a wide range of methodologies and lenses, which was necessary given the complexity of effective literacy instruction. Hoffman et al. also argued

Section: Selection Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Elementary Teachers’ Knowledge of Foundational Literacy Skills: A Critical Piece of the Puzzle in the Science of Reading

Hudson¹,

Moore²,

Han³

et al. 2021

“…Researchers across paradigms must engage in investigations that view literacy and the teaching of reading as a critical sociocultural practice, using a variety of research methods to demonstrate not only what works but also when, why, for whom, and under what circumstances. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed‐methods designs are necessary to explore these questions (Kamil, Afflerbach, Pearson, & Moje, 2011; Petscher et al, 2020), and given our nation’s large, diverse, multicultural composition, such a multifaceted approach is critical.…”

Section: Our Recommendationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result, the outcomes of the SOR have influenced multiple areas within education, including research supported by the federal government, the pedagogy of reading, and expectations of teachers and students (Moats, 2007, 2009; Seidenberg, 2013). Scholars have demonstrated that phonemic awareness, phonics, word recognition, decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension strategies are necessary components for students to acquire to accurately read and understand text (Armbruster, Lehr, & Osborn, 2001; Castles, Rastle, & Nation, 2018; Petscher et al, 2020, this issue; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005; Snowling & Hulme, 2005). Under the influence of the SOR, experimental and quasi‐experimental research is valued as scientific, whereas other types of research (e.g., descriptive, qualitative) are often dismissed as lacking rigor and evidence (Coburn, Pearson, & Woulfin, 2011; Coles, 2003; Shelton, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aligning the Science of Reading With Adaptive Teaching

Vaughn

Parsons

Massey

2020

The authors discuss the tension between the science of reading and adaptive teaching. The discussion focuses on the ways in which the science of reading emphasizes the teaching of reading as decontextualized and compartmentalized aspects of literacy acquisition that are distant from culturally sustaining and relevant pedagogies and restrict teachers in their efforts to teach reading. The authors demonstrate that adaptive teaching is a vital characteristic of effective reading teachers and recommend that scholars—those who study reading processes and reading acquisition (i.e., the science of reading) and those who study effective literacy instruction—work across paradigms to research the nuances of these processes, particularly in ways that study diverse student and teacher populations in various real‐world classroom contexts.

“…For example, better distinguishing between the SOR knowledge base and SOR instructional practices would offer needed precision in scaling effective reading practices. Solari et al (2020) suggested that the gap between the SOR knowledge base and the application of that knowledge base in classrooms can be bridged through translational science, comprising researchers and education stakeholders who cover a range of skills and areas of expertise (Petscher et al, 2020). Translational science teams would continue to generate initial findings through efficacy trails, conducted under ideal conditions, and increasingly examine outcomes in larger effectiveness trials conducted under routine conditions and in population trials where widespread implementation of evidencebased practices occurs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Can the Evidence Revolution and Multi‐Tiered Systems of Support Improve Education Equity and Reading Achievement?

Fien¹,

Chard²,

Baker³

2021

We situate education, and the science of reading (SOR) specifically, in the midst of a broad, evidence-based revolution involving an array of disciplines focused on improving the health and well-being of individuals and populations. Low and stagnant levels of reading proficiency, massive reading disparities, and a robust SOR knowledge base suggest that the withholding of evidence-based practices in schools differentially harms students of Color, students from poor families, English learners, and students with disabilities. We acknowledge that simply expecting greater use of evidence-based reading practices in schools will not suffice. We present a framework where practitioners and policymakers would continue to gain better and easier access to the SOR knowledge base and evidence-based reading practices and where much greater emphasis would be placed on fueling the demand for evidence-based practices in schools. How schools are organized to provide reading instruction for students is also a key consideration in efforts to expand the use of evidence-based practices. We make the case that schools engaged in comprehensive use of multi-tiered systems of support approaches in reading are well positioned to increase their use of evidencebased reading practices. Because much is not known about how to scale the use of effective practices, scaling efforts themselves represent opportunities to generate new SOR knowledge on both the supply and demand sides. This work would be consistent with the SOR knowledge base as a dynamic and constantly emerging phenomenon, rather than a static repository waiting to be accessed and used.