Connecting Reading Research to Practice: A Crash Course

If you follow education trends, you’ll have noticed that “the science of reading” has gained popularity as a buzzword. Plenty of articles, podcasts, and products for educators claim to support the science of reading and align to reading research. For district leaders and school building administrators, understanding the fundamentals of reading research and how they apply to classroom instruction is the key to making informed decisions for all the learners you serve. This article is not a deep dive into linguistics, but rather a macro view of what research says is important for reading instruction, and how you can apply it to your work in schools. If you (like me!) didn’t take a college course on reading models, but want to understand a bit more than the basics with the limited time you have, you’re in the right place.

Reading Models

Let’s start with a very brief history of reading models. Chances are, you’ve seen at least one of these mentioned in articles, on podcasts, or on social media.

In chronological order, from left to right and top to bottom, you can see evolution of some popular peer-reviewed reading models from The Simple View, all the way to the most recent, the Active View. The D in Simple View is for Decoding, the C is for Comprehension, and the R is for reading. In a nutshell, Gough and Turner stated that understanding how letters form sounds and words, combined with knowing what those words mean, leads to reading comprehension. This was elaborated by Joshi and Allen, who argued that since there are sight words (S) which cannot be decoded (some, their, you, one, etc), reading was the product of decoding and comprehension, with the addition of drawing upon memorized words. In 2000, the National Reading Panel (NRP) created a nearly 500 page review of research and further expanded the initial equation of D + C = R into separate processes within D and C, which, they argue, must all be present for reading comprehension.

The middle row contains one of the most popular visuals I’ve seen, which is Scarborough’s Rope. Scarborough not only expanded on the ideas from previous research, but also created a model that served to visualize how readers get better at reading comprehension. As a learner progresses through grade levels, reading comprehension is a moving target; older = more complex = requires more/different skills. The Cognitive and DIME models are similar to the Rope, with DIME showing how some components interact with each other. Moving to the bottom row, the DIER model (middle) is the first one to introduce socio-emotional skills as a necessary component of reading comprehension. Finally, the Active View shows that self-regulation affects all components necessary for reading comprehension.

Which Model Should I Know?

If you walk away from this remembering two things, let them be the Simple View and the Active View. A school leader does not need to memorize the strands of Scarborough’s Rope or be able to illustrate the DIER model in order to be effective. However, one must know the integral ingredients of effective reading instruction. The models after the Simple View mostly tease out the parts of language that make up decoding and comprehension, whereas the Active View makes the statement that self-regulation and social-emotional skills affect a person’s ability to decode and comprehend. If you can internalize that concept, you’ve understood the assignment.

How Will This Impact My Work?

Now that you’re armed with the knowledge that self-regulation skills (SR) affect a person’s ability to decode (D) and comprehend (C), you can use it to make decisions that will affect all the learners in your care. Even though the general formula of SR + D + C = R applies to all learners, first graders need different reading instruction than ninth graders. Below, you can see a chart that details what components of reading are supported by specific research, at specific grade levels. At first glance, you’ll notice that the top left category (phonemic awareness) is supported by research for grades PreK, K and 1. However, there are some components (like oral language and language structures) that are supported by research for grades PreK-12.

If you’re a school or district leader tasked with choosing a curricular resource, there are plenty of programs out there that claim to be research based, or align to the science of reading research. But what, exactly, does the research say? You can use the chart to identify the necessary components of explicit reading instruction for that grade band, then use that information to evaluate a resource.

If you’re a teacher, parent, or school leader looking to understand how the science of reading applies to a certain grade level, the research cited in the chart can support that inquiry.

And, if you’re a teacher, the resources cited in the chart (specifically the NRP and the IES Practice Guides) are chock full of information and ideas that you can use in the classroom immediately.

Breaking It Down A Bit More

Earlier, I mentioned that a first grader needs different instruction than a ninth grader. Let’s look at what that means. Tracking across, from left to right, you can see that the necessary components of reading instruction for a first grader are phonemic awareness, oral language, alphabetic principle, sight words, fluency, language structures, vocabulary, self-regulation, and writing (not found in SOR models but supported by research). In evaluating a curricular resource or program, you’ll want to make sure that those components are present and instruction is systematic and explicit.

For middle and high schoolers, you can see that phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, and sight words are not components of reading instruction supported by specific grade-level research. The general expectation is that by sixth grade, students can self-regulate, comprehend, and decode. This expectation does not take into account students (such as MLL’s/ELL’s, or students with IEPs), for whom phonemic awareness, sight word instruction, and fluency practice may be necessary. That is why there is an intervention column, second from the right. Additionally, as students get older, text and concepts become more complex; students are not taught how to read, but taught how to learn from reading. In evaluating a curricular resource or program, you’ll want to make sure that that the needs of those students are addressed in an age-appropriate manner.

What Else Do I Need to Know?

It’s important to note that there are many more research studies available than the ones cited here; this is by no means an exhaustive list. Another important note is that the research cited here is lacking specific studies for subgroups (like MLL’s/ELL’s, and students with IEPs). The far right of the chart includes components that have been identified through research as important for overall literacy, but which are not found in the science of reading models. A full list of references is at the bottom of the page.

To Sum It Up

In short, research supports the explicit instruction of certain skills (SR, D, C) which have been proven to affect reading comprehension. As a school or district leader, it’s crucial to know what they are. Once you do, you can identify them within your resources and programming, and make informed decisions regarding how they support the needs of your learners.

References

Ahmed, Y., Francis, D.J., York, M., Fletcher, J.M., Barnes, M., & Kulesz, P. (2016). Validation of the direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model of reading comprehension in grades 7 through 12. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44(45), 68– 82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedps​ych.2016.02.002

Clay, M. M., & Cazden, C. B. (1990). A Vygotskian interpretation of reading recovery. Vygotsky and Education, 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139173674.010

Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311

Duke, N.K., & Cartwright, K.B. (2021). The Science of Reading Progresses: Communicating Advances Beyond the Simple View of Reading. Read Res Q, 56(S1), S25– S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411

Fabienke, Nika & Kenner, Brandi & Betts, Anastasia & Thai, Kp. (2021). Sounds and Sippy Cups: New Approaches to Pre-Literacy in Adaptive Game-Based Learning for Young Children. 333-350. 10.22492/issn.2189-1036.2021.25.

Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J., Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner, R., & Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website: http://whatworks.ed.gov.

Francis, D. J., Kulesz, P. A., & Benoit, J. S. (2018). Extending the simple view of reading to account for variation within readers and across texts: the complete view of reading (cvri). Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 274–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518772904

Gillon, G., & Dodd, B. (1995). The effects of training phonological, semantic, and syntactic processing skills in spoken language on reading ability. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 26(1), 58–68.

Gough, P.B., & Tunmer, W.E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6– 10. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419​32586​00700104

Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Booth Olson, C., D’Aoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., & Olinghouse, N.(2012).Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide (NCEE 2012- 4058). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ wwc/publications_reviews.aspx#pubsearch.

Graham, S., Bruch, J., Fitzgerald, J., Friedrich, L., Furgeson, J., Greene, K., Kim, J., Lyskawa, J., Olson, C.B., & Smither Wulsin, C. (2016). Teaching secondary students to write effectively (NCEE 2017-4002). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website: http://whatworks.ed.gov.

Guerin, A., & Murphy, B. (2015). Repeated Reading as a Method to Improve Reading Fluency for Struggling Adolescent Readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(7), 551–560. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44011179

Gustafson, S., Samuelsson, C., Johansson, E., & Wallmann, J. (2013). How simple is the simple view of reading? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 57(3), 292–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2012.656279

Hoover, W.A., Tunmer, W.E. (2020). Summary of the Cognitive Foundations Framework. In: The Cognitive Foundations of Reading and Its Acquisition. Literacy Studies, vol 20. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44195-1_5

Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2000). The component model of reading: simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21(2), 85–97.

Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., and Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A Practice Guide (NCEE #2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc.

Kim, Y.-S. G. (2020). Hierarchical and dynamic relations of language and cognitive skills to reading comprehension: Testing the direct and indirect effects model of reading (DIER).Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(4), 667–684. https://doi-org.udel.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/edu0000407

McKenna, M.C., & Stahl, S.A. (2003). Assessment for reading instruction. New York: Guilford.

Mimeau, C., Laroche, A., and Deacon, S. Hè. (2019) The relation between syntactic awareness and contextual facilitation in word reading: What is the role of semantics?. Journal of Research in Reading, 42: 178– 192. https://doi-org.udel.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12260.

National Reading Panel (U.S.) & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read : an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional Discourse, Student Engagement, and Literature Achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 261–290. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171413

Rego, L. L. B., & Bryant, P. E. (1993). The Connection Between Phonological, Syntactic and Semantic Skills and Children’s Reading and Spelling. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 8(3), 235–246. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23420166

Scarborough, H.S. (2001) Connecting Early Language and Literacy to Later Reading (Dis)abilities: Evidence, Theory, and Practice. In Neuman, S. B., & Dickinson, D. K. (2001). Handbook of early literacy research. Guilford Press.

Stuart, M., Stainthorp, R., & Snowling, M. (2008). Literacy as a complex activity: deconstructing the simple view of reading. Literacy, 42(2), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-4369.2008.00490.x

van Rooyen, D., & Jordaan, H. (2009). An aspect of language for academic purposes in secondary education: complex sentence comprehension by learners in an integrated gauteng school. South African Journal of Education, 29(2), 271–287.