Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this column, design features are considered and their association with comprehending contemporary picturebooks is featured.

The authors trace the development of the concept of translanguaging, focusing on its relation to literacies. The authors describe its connection to literacy studies, with particular attention to bi/multilingual reading and writing. Then, the authors present the development of translanguaging as a sociolinguistic theory, discuss its formulations, and describe what is unique about translanguaging: its beginnings and grounding in educational practice and attention to the performances of multilinguals. The authors argue that multilingualism and bi/multiliteracies cannot be fully understood as simply the use of separate conventionally named languages or separate modes. Instead, translanguaging in literacies focuses on the actions of multilingual readers and writers, which go beyond traditional understandings of language, literacy, and other concepts, such as bi/multilingualism and bi/multilingual literacy. The authors show how multilinguals do language and literacy and how they do so in school. The authors review case studies that demonstrate how a translanguaging literacies framework is used to deepen multilingual students’ understandings of texts, generate students’ more diverse texts, develop students’ sense of confianza (confidence) in performing literacies, and foster critical metalinguistic awareness. The authors end by discussing implications for literacy pedagogy, as well as literacy research, that centers multilingual students.

The science of reading should be informed by an evolving evidence base built on the scientific method. Decades of basic research and randomized controlled trials of interventions and instructional routines have formed a substantial evidence base to guide best practices in reading instruction, reading intervention, and the early identification of at-risk readers. The recent resurfacing of questions about what constitutes the science of reading is leading to misinformation in the public space that may be viewed by educational stakeholders as merely differences of opinion among scientists. The authors’goals in this article were to revisit the science of reading through an epistemological lens to clarify what constitutes evidence in the science of reading, and to offer a critical evaluation of the evidence provided by the science of reading. To this end, the authors summarize those things that they believe have compelling evidence, promising evidence, or a lack of compelling evidence. The authors conclude with a discussion of areas of focus that they believe will advance the science of reading to meet the needs of all students in the 21st century.

The author reviews theory and research by Ehri and her colleagues to document how a scientific approach has been applied over the years to conduct controlled studies whose findings reveal how beginners learn to read words in and out of text. Words may be read by decoding letters into blended sounds or by predicting words from context, but the way that contributes most to reading and comprehending text is reading words automatically from memory by sight. The evidence shows that words are read from memory when graphemes are connected to phonemes. This bonds spellings of individual words to their pronunciations along with their meanings in memory. Readers must know grapheme–phoneme relations and have decoding skill to form connections, and must read words in text to associate spellings with meanings. Readers move through four developmental phases as they acquire knowledge about the alphabetic writing system and apply it to read and write words and build their sight vocabularies. Grapheme–phoneme knowledge and phonemic segmentation are key foundational skills that launch development followed subsequently by knowledge of syllabic and morphemic spelling–sound units. Findings show that when spellings attach to pronunciations and meanings in memory, they enhance memory for vocabulary words. This research underscores the importance of systematic phonics instruction that teaches students the knowledge and skills that are essential in acquiring word-reading skill.

Science has greatly enhanced what we know about reading and writing. Drawing on this knowledge, researchers have proffered recommendations for how to teach these two literacy skills. Although such recommendations are aimed at closing the gap between research and practice, they often fail to take into account the reciprocal relation that exists between reading and writing. Writing and writing instruction improve students’ reading and vice versa. Theory and evidence that support this reciprocal relation are presented, and implications for the scientific study of reading and writing, policy, and practice are offered, including the proposal that the sciences of reading and writing need to be better integrated.

Advocates of the science of reading have invoked the simple view of reading (SVR) to justify an approach that foregrounds decoding in early reading instruction. The SVR, which describes comprehension as the product of decoding and listening comprehension, also served as the primary theoretical model underlying the Reading for Understanding (RfU) initiative. Research funded under the RfU initiative included direct examinations of the validity of the SVR and the nature of its underlying components and extended the SVR in studies of middle school and high school readers. In this article, the authors use research conducted under the RfU initiative to examine the validity and utility of the SVR, in general, and the appropriateness of its application in the “science of reading” debate. RfU research has provided not only evidence in support of the overall SVR model but also important cautions relevant to the “science of reading” debate. In particular, RfU has provided evidence regarding the significance of the listening comprehension component of the SVR, often overlooked by advocates of the science of reading. This research has documented the importance of early oral language skills, which support both decoding and listening comprehension in young readers and plays a critical role in students’success as readers as they move through school. In addition, RfU research has identified a complicated constellation of skills and knowledge that impact reading comprehension as students advance in school.

Recently, the term science of reading has been used in public debate to promote policies and instructional practices based on research on the basic cognitive mechanisms of reading, the neural processes involved in reading, computational models of learning to read, and the like. According to those views, such data provide convincing evidence that explicit decoding instruction (e.g., phonological awareness, phonics) should be beneficial to reading success. Nevertheless, there has been pushback against such policies, the use of the term science of reading by “phonics-centric people”, and their lack of instructional knowledge and experience. In this article, although the author supports pedagogical decision making on the basis of a confluence of evidence from a variety of sources, he cautions against instructional overgeneralizations based on various kinds of basic research without an adequate consideration of instructional experiments. The author provides several examples of the premature translation of basic research findings into wide-scale pedagogical application.

Well-established theoretical models and a body of empirical research elucidate the critical role of content knowledge in comprehending texts. However, the potential of supporting knowledge in service of enhancing linguistic and reading comprehension has been a relatively neglected topic in the science of reading. The authors explicate why knowledge building in English language arts instruction (i.e., content-rich instruction) can support language and content knowledge, leading to better linguistic and reading comprehension, based on theoretical arguments and empirical studies. In particular, the authors review the evidence on this claim, paying special attention to experimental trials conducted in K–2 settings. The authors also share preliminary findings from a novel intervention study testing one instantiation of a widely used content-rich English language arts curriculum. Whereas this growing literature base demonstrates evidence of promise, further rigorous trials are needed to examine the efficacy of this integrative approach to teaching reading for understanding.

Does reading a lot lead to better reading skills, or does reading a lot follow from high initial reading skills? The authors present a longitudinal study of how much children choose to read and how well they decode and comprehend texts. This is the first study to examine the codevelopment of print exposure with both fluency and comprehension throughout childhood using autocorrelations. Print exposure was operationalized as children’s amount of independent reading for pleasure. Two hundred children were followed from age 5 to age 15. Print exposure was assessed at ages 5, 7, 8, 9, and 13. Prereading skills were tested at age 5 and reading skills at ages 7, 8, 9, 14, and 15 (the latter with the Programme for International Student Assessment [PISA]). Before children learned to read (i.e., age 5), prereading skills and print exposure were not linked. Path analyses showed that children’s print exposure and reading skills reciprocally influence each other. During the early school years, the effects run from reading fluency to comprehension and print exposure, so from skills to amount. The effect of accumulated practice only emerged in adolescence. Reading fluency, comprehension, and print exposure were all important predictors of age 15 PISA reading comprehension. These findings were largely confirmed by post hoc models with random intercepts. Because foundational reading skills predicted changes in later reading comprehension and print exposure, the authors speculate that intervening decoding difficulties may positively impact exposure to and comprehension of texts. How much children read seems to matter most after the shift from learning to read to reading to learn.

Learning and developing as a reader are more complicated in a language the reader is simultaneously learning to speak and understand. This challenge is faced by millions of English learners (ELs) who are in all-English programs and must therefore learn to read, write, and develop as readers and writers while learning and becoming proficient in English. The author summarizes what is known about teaching ELs beginning and more advanced reading skills, all in English, as they progress through school. Drawing on classroom studies, interventions, and neurolinguistic research, the author focuses on how learning to read in a second language is similar to learning to read in a first language and what differences might exist. These differences, not surprisingly, have to do with ELs’limited English proficiency. The author’s intent is to begin with the knowledge base of the science of reading, build onto it research on effective literacy instruction for ELs, and then begin articulating what could become a science of reading instruction for students who are learning and progressing as readers in English while learning to speak and understand it. Promoting higher levels of literacy for ELs will require teachers to use what is currently known about effective practices in literacy instruction for students in general and, in addition, help ELs achieve higher levels of English language proficiency. Both English literacy and English oral language proficiency must be priorities if these students are to have adequate and equitable opportunities for success in school and beyond.