Explore the vast range of titles available.

The simple view of reading is commonly presented to educators in professional development about the science of reading. The simple view is a useful tool for conveying the undeniable importance—in fact, the necessity—of both decoding and linguistic comprehension for reading. Research in the 35 years since the theory was proposed has revealed additional understandings about reading. In this article, we synthesize research documenting three of these advances: (1) Reading difficulties have a number of causes, not all of which fall under decoding and/or listening comprehension as posited in the simple view; (2) rather than influencing reading solely independently, as conceived in the simple view, decoding and listening comprehension (or in terms more commonly used in reference to the simple view today, word recognition and language comprehension) overlap in important ways; and (3) there are many contributors to reading not named in the simple view, such as active, self-regulatory processes, that play a substantial role in reading. We point to research showing that instruction aligned with these advances can improve students’ reading. We present a theory, which we call the active view of reading, that is an expansion of the simple view and can be used to convey these important advances to current and future educators. We discuss the need to lift up updated theories and models to guide practitioners’ work in supporting students’ reading development in classrooms and interventions.

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.

In this commentary, the author explores the tension between almost 30 years of work that has embraced increasingly complex conceptions of digital reading and recent studies that risk oversimplifying digital reading as a singular entity analogous with reading text on a screen. The author begins by tracing a line of theoretical and empirical work that both informs and complicates our understanding of digital literacy and, more specifically, digital reading. Then, a heuristic is proposed to systematically organize, label, and define a multifaceted set of increasingly complex terms, concepts, and practices that characterize the spectrum of digital reading experiences. Research that informs this heuristic is used to illustrate how more precision in defining digital reading can promote greater clarity across research methods and advance a more systematic study of promising digital reading practices. Finally, the author discusses implications for assessment, research, practice, and policy.

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.

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.

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.

There has been a noticeable shift in how young readers approach reading where digital literacy communities serve as much purpose as traditional literacy communities like an ELA classroom. This article offers an introduction to TikTok and BookTok as well as several methods of integrating TikTok into classrooms. As the sub-community for book lovers and readers, BookTok is connected to a lineage of literacy practices. Despite the newness of TikTok, these democratized spaces provide teen readers with agency, community, and digital literacies for their voices, ideas, and creativity to take shape. By including or acknowledging BookTok literacy practices in ELA classrooms, teachers have the potential to hinge on digital literacies that are ultimately shaping students and their cultural understandings.

With increasing cultural and linguistic diversity in today’s classrooms, a growing body of research continues to explore the varied ways in which digital tools and multiple modalities can tap into emergent bilingual students’ academic and linguistic strengths. To understand the empirical landscape of this growing research, the authors systematically reviewed the literature on emergent bilinguals and digital multimodal composition in secondary classrooms. Through an inductive approach, the authors analyzed 70 studies to understand key findings and characteristics of the extant research. Five main themes of findings emerged across the research. First, a majority of studies illustrated how digital multimodal composing supports emergent bilingual students’ identity expression. With expanded opportunities to share ideas through multiple modes, students used their projects to bridge transnational identities, (re)present themselves, and communicate in empowering ways. Second, nearly half of the studies emphasized how the integration of digital multimodal projects can reshape classrooms by challenging language ideologies, transforming the classroom as a locus for social justice, and expanding temporal and spatial boundaries as students compose for multiple audiences. Third, many studies demonstrated how emergent bilinguals develop as designers and leverage the unique semiotic resources of multiple modes when composing. Fourth, approximately a third of the studies showed how multimodal composition offers emergent bilinguals opportunities to expand their existing linguistic repertoires. Finally, a quarter of the studies illustrated the potential of multiple modes to mediate learning during composing processes. The authors discuss the implications of these themes and critical new directions for future research on digital multimodal composing with emergent bilingual students.

In this commentary, the authors move beyond digital literacy and take up the question of what digital citizenship means and looks like in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic. To engage with questions of ethical practice, the authors begin with the International Society for Technology in Education framework for digital citizenship. They expand on these standards to argue for an awareness of the ethical questions facing citizens online that are difficult to encompass as a set of skills or competencies. The authors then take these considerations into a set of practical steps for teachers to nurture participatory and social justice–oriented digital citizenship as part of the curriculum. The authors conclude by noting the digital divide and social inequities that have been highlighted by the current crisis.

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.