The Future of the Science of Reading

Gabriel, Rachael

doi:10.1002/trtr.1924

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A better term would be the sciences of reading (plural) to demonstrate the richness of research currently avail able (Gabriel, 2020). Effective reading requires both skills to decode symbols into sounds and skills to make mean ing of texts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contribution of Play Experiences in Early Literacy: Expanding the Science of Reading

Rand¹,

Morrow²

2021

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children's experiences in preschool and kindergarten influence their future literacy learning. Although emergent literacy has traditionally been supported by play-based experiences, there has been a decline in play opportunities in recent years. Media publications citing the science of reading have called for more focus on systematic, direct instruction of skills in phonics and phonemic awareness. However, from the perspective of the simple view of reading, the process of learning to read involves developing both decoding and linguistic comprehension skills. In this article, we review the research that has linked play experiences to three areas: (1) the development of language skills necessary for linguistic comprehension, including vocabulary, decontextualized language, and oral narrative competence; (2) opportunities for functional literacy behaviors, including emergent reading and writing behaviors; and (3) skills related to decoding, including print awareness, phonological awareness, word recognition, and reading fluency. The research also has demonstrated the value of adult guidance during play experiences in optimizing literacy learning. This review of the literature linking play and literacy in early childhood expands the scope of the science of reading to include a wider range of skills that support reading development. Children's literacy behaviors in early childhood can predict their successful reading performance in later years (Suggate, Schaugh ency, McAnally, & Reese, 2018). It is imperative, therefore, to examine the science of reading to understand how preschool and kin dergarten practices ensure literacy achievement. Planned time for play has traditionally been considered important for young children. In spite of the research that has shown the benefits of play as it relates to literacy development, the time allotted for play has been reduced and often replaced by teacher directed, skill based lessons (Bassok, Latham, & Rorem, 2016; Miller & Almon, 2009). Emergent literacy methods have been challenged in the media by advocates of more direct instruction of decoding skills (Hanford, 2018;Hood, 2019). They have pointed to the findings of the National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) that included support for the importance of teaching phonics and phonemic awareness in a systematic sequence for young children. However, these critics have ignored other findings of the panel that included the importance of fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Since this report, the consensus among researchers has been that a nar row focus on decoding skills discounts the complexity of the science of reading and other important skills (Cabell & Hwang, 2020; Language and Reading Research Consortium, 2015).

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contribution of Play Experiences in Early Literacy: Expanding the Science of Reading

Rand¹,

Morrow²

2021

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bona fide plural ism will demand constant attention and concerted effort. I discussed the challenge of epistemology in advancing a plural science, as well as the challenge of translating research to practice and practice to research (Gabriel, 2020). There are additional challenges.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Teacher Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, using generalizable evidence to improve local instructional practice is not straightforward (Donovan, Bransford, & Pellegrino, 1999); the implementation process itself should be a focus of scientific inquiry (Coburn, Russell, Kaufman, & Stein, 2012; Gabriel, 2020). Building generalizable evidence for teaching is incomplete without examining “the status of general knowledge in local contexts, the relevance of local knowledge, the kinds of structures and cultures that support evidence‐informed practice in context, and more briefly the ways in which practice‐informed evidence might contribute to general knowledge” (Moss & Haertel, 2016, p. 222).…”

Section: Pluralism and Generalizable Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The SOR can glean from improvement science (Bryk et al, 2015; Gabriel, 2020; LeMahieu et al, 2017) to orient work with teacher teams and school leaders. I recommend three activities, in particular: Develop and validate formative uses of measures of equitable teaching. Design and test materials to sustain implementation of equitable practices. Examine institutional conditions that afford teacher learning to enact practices to teach reading equitably. …”

Section: Advancing the Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Advancing the Science of Teaching Reading Equitably

Jensen¹

2021

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teaching Reading Is ComplexTeaching reading is an "outrageously complex activity" (Shulman, 1987, p. 11). Articles in Reading Research Quarterly's two special issue on the SOR identify various skills and capacities needed to read. The authors show how "reading is not a uniform activity but rather varies depending on purpose, skill, type of material, and con text" (Seidenberg, Cooper Borkenhagen, & Kearns, 2020, p. S121). Shaped by biological, behavioral, social, devel opmental, and cultural factors (Snowling & Hulme, 2005), models portray the act of reading with increasing complexity.Yet, "we know more about the science of reading than about the science of teaching based on the science of read ing" (Seidenberg et al., 2020, p. S121). Most models of reading are not pedagogical (Shanahan, 2020). Identifying the statistical significance of a cognitive skill in learning to read does not necessarily suggest that it should be taught or how. Debates about teaching phonological skill (e.g., Mathes & Torgesen, 2000) are illustrative of this. Models of reading " [do] not yet speak to what to teach, when, how, and for whom at a level that is useful for teachers" (Seidenberg et al., 2020, p. S121).Even SOR models that examine the meaning construc tion process among the reader, the text, and the teacher, such as Ruddell, Unrau, and McCormick's (2019) sociocognitive model, still focus on reading more than teaching reading. These models address a single reader rather than a class room of readers and do not account for the role of peer interactions (e.g., Palincsar, Brown, & Martin, 1987), cur riculum, lesson planning, classroom organization, affective support, questioning, personalized feedback, support mate rials, and myriad other factors that bear on teaching students to read in classroom settings (Grabe, 2004;Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005). Addressing the complexity of teaching read ing, Snow and Juel (2005) acknowledged that

show abstract

International Evidence for the Teaching of Reading in New Zealand

Wright

2021

Third International Handbook of Globalisation, Education and Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Future of the Science of Reading

Cited by 6 publications

References 15 publications

The Contribution of Play Experiences in Early Literacy: Expanding the Science of Reading

The Contribution of Play Experiences in Early Literacy: Expanding the Science of Reading

Advancing the Science of Teaching Reading Equitably

International Evidence for the Teaching of Reading in New Zealand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About