Explore the vast range of titles available.

Although social-emotional learning (SEL) programmes are globally recognised for their positive contribution to the overall development of young people, they still lack a clear and consistent presence in the curricula of South-Eastern European (SEE) education systems (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia). This exploratory study, grounded in the theoretical framework of SEL, aims to explore young adolescents’ self-assessment across multiple SEL dimensions. Using a questionnaire originally developed to evaluate the Lions Quest Skills for Adolescence (LQSFA) programme in SEE countries, data were collected from 11,000 sixth-grade students (ages 11–13 years). No significant difference between the five countries in students' assessments of their SEL needs was found, suggesting a consistent, region-wide necessity for such interventions. Approximately one-third of students reported some difficulty practising key SEL skills, and about one-fifth expressed uncertainty in evaluating their competencies and in the support they receive. Females, compared to males, assessed responsibility management skills and social awareness more favourably. The study offers important insights into the perceived need for SEL in the SEE educational context while the questionnaire developed for this study shows potential as a useful evaluation tool for the implementation of the LQSFA programme in SEE countries.

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 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.

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.

Although numerous studies have identified a correlational relationship between vocabulary and comprehension, we know less about vocabulary interventions that impact reading comprehension. Therefore, this study is a systematic review of vocabulary interventions with comprehension outcomes. Analyses of 36 studies that met criteria are organized around (a) type of comprehension measure (i.e., comprehension of passages that included taught words or more generalized comprehension measures) and (b) type of intervention (i.e., direct teaching of word meanings or word-learning strategies). The authors looked for patterns in characteristics of vocabulary instruction within these analyses. Their findings led to four major themes: (1) Teaching of word meanings supported comprehension of text containing the target words in almost all cases; (2) instruction that focused on some active processing was typically more impactful than a definition or a dictionary method for supporting comprehension of text containing the target words, but we do not know how much instruction is sufficient; (3) there is very limited evidence that direct teaching of word meanings, even long-term, multifaceted interventions of large numbers of words, can improve generalized comprehension; and (4) there is currently no empirical evidence that instruction in one or two strategies for solving word meanings will impact generalized comprehension. However, studies that actively teach students to monitor their understanding of vocabulary and to use multiple, flexible strategies for solving word meanings are a promising area for future research. The authors discuss the implications of these themes, as well as critical avenues for future vocabulary research.

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.

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.

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.