Explore the vast range of titles available.

The science of reading has made genuine progress in understanding reading and the teaching of reading, but is the science of reading just the science of reading English? Worldwide, a majority of students learn to read and write in non-European, nonalphabetic orthographies such as abjads (e.g., Arabic), abugidas/alphasyllabaries (e.g., Hindi), or morphosyllabaries (e.g., Chinese). Over a decade ago, I argued that the extreme inconsistency of English spelling–sound correspondence had confined the science of reading to an insular, Anglocentric research agenda addressing theoretical and applied issues with limited relevance for a universal science of reading. Here, I ask if the science of reading has moved forward. Acknowledging some limited progress over the past decade, it is evident that even today, mainstream reading research remains entrenched in Anglocentrism, Eurocentrism, and another form of ethnocentrism that I call alphabetism. Even the two dominant theoretical frameworks for describing cross-script diversity, orthographic depth and psycholinguistic grain size theory, give little or no consideration to non-European alphabets or nonalphabetic scripts, promoting a one-dimensional view of script variation (i.e., spelling–sound consistency). Consideration of the full spectrum of the world’s languages and writing systems reveals multiple dimensions of writing system complexity, each liable to create obstacles for the developing reader. If the science of reading is to contribute meaningfully to assessment, diagnosis, instruction, and intervention for all readers around the world, then we must extricate our field from entrenched ethnocentrism and embrace global diversity.

Equipping elementary (i.e., grades K–5) teachers with adequate content and pedagogical knowledge to promote effective reading instruction based on the science of reading is a crucial piece of the reading education puzzle. We reviewed 20 empirical studies to examine the impact of teacher preparation and training programs on elementary teachers’ knowledge of the science of reading, focusing on the foundational pillars of reading instruction, namely, phonological and phonemic awareness, phonics, and morphological awareness, as well as student outcomes in reading. We also identified program characteristics that promoted positive growth in teacher knowledge. Generally, findings support the effectiveness of training and preparation programs in increasing elementary teachers’ knowledge of foundational constructs. Training in which teachers have the opportunity to apply their learned knowledge and skills under expert guidance produced the largest growth in teacher knowledge. Implications of findings are discussed.

The complexities of words in different subject areas increase as students transition from elementary school to middle school. Although most secondary school readers can read monosyllabic words, many other older readers have difficulty with reading multisyllabic words because of their poor phonological and morphological skills. Explicit word‐reading instruction, focused on syllabic and morphemic analyses of multisyllabic words, therefore should be considered for advancing older struggling readers’ word‐reading skills. Results from word‐reading interventions have shown that analyses of syllables and morphemes in multisyllabic words advance older struggling readers’ phonological and morphological skills. Proficiency in recognizing syllables and morphemes in multisyllabic words then promotes older struggling readers’ accurate reading of complex words. Therefore, reading instruction for struggling older readers should focus on using syllable and morpheme analyses for promoting their multisyllabic word reading.

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.

Research has shown that language and literacy skills in a first language (L1) are related to performance in a second language (L2) and that these relations are reciprocal. However, cross-linguistic skills related to word reading are influenced by numerous factors. These include linguistic factors such as the specific language and literacy skills being examined and the languages being compared. They also include societal/contextual factors, such as the linguistic and educational contexts where learners reside. Specifically, contextual factors include the use of the L1 and L2 in the curriculum (e.g., immersion, dual language, heritage language, available supports), teaching methods, and whether the L1 and L2 are societal languages. Research based on the science of reading for bilinguals has shown that phonological awareness is highly related across languages, whereas other language skills have shown differential levels of relations to reading. Word-reading skills are also related, but these relations are more complex and are due to linguistic factors such as script and linguistic typology and societal/contextual factors, such as instruction and exposure to each language, which are consistent with various theories. Consideration of a wider range of L1s and L2s and specific contextual/societal factors should be included more systematically. Additionally, learner experiences and specific L1 and L2 variables should be considered in educational decisions.

We investigated the word-reading development of adult second-language learners of English. A sample of 70 (Mandarin or Cantonese) Chinese-speaking students enrolled in a university-level English bridging program at a Canadian university silently read passages of text at the beginning and end of the program while their eye movements were recorded. At each timepoint, we also administered a battery of tests that measure key component skills of secondlanguage reading (phonological processing, vocabulary knowledge, and listening comprehension). We found longitudinal changes in lexical processing for long words in early (refixation probability and gaze duration) and late (go-past time and total reading time) eye movement measures, indicating a shift from a sublexical to a holistic word-processing strategy. We found the largest gains in sublexical processing among students with stronger phonological awareness upon entry to the program and students who acquired more vocabulary than their peers during the program. We interpret the results of this study as evidence of a transition from a lexical processing strategy that is heavily reliant on phonological decoding to word-reading behavior that is more actively engaged in higher order cognitive processes, such as meaning integration. This research offers novel insights into predictors of reading skill in postsecondary English-language bridging programs.

Can the science of reading contribute to improving educational practices, allowing more students to become skilled readers? Much has been learned about the behavioral and brain bases of reading, how students learn to read, and factors that contribute to low literacy. The potential to use research findings to improve literacy outcomes is substantial but remains largely unrealized. The lack of improvement in literacy levels, especially among students who face other challenges such as poverty, has led to new pressure to incorporate the science of reading in curricula, instructional practices, and teacher education. In the interest of promoting these efforts, the authors discuss three issues that could undermine them: the need for additional translational research linking reading science to classroom activities, the oversimplified way that the science is sometimes represented in the educational context, and the fact that theories of reading have become more complex and less intuitive as the field has progressed. Addressing these concerns may allow reading science to be used more effectively and achieve greater acceptance among educators.

The authors developed a digital spelling game to promote children’s early literacy skills. Based on the dual-coding theory, the authors studied the benefits of auditory support alone versus auditory+visual support. Children played the game in three conditions: no support, hearing the whole word; auditory-only support, hearing a word segmented; and auditory+visual support, hearing the word segmented together with seeing the highlighted position of the letters. The participants were 129 Hebrew-speaking children (mean age = 5.7 years) from five preschools located in low–socioeconomic status neighborhoods. Children were randomly divided into one of the four groups (the three intervention conditions and a comparison group that did not play the game but watched electronic books). Children in each of the four groups participated in eight 20-minute sessions over the course of one month (two sessions per week). Children’s letter knowledge (letter names and sounds), phonological awareness (word segmentation), word spelling, and word decoding were assessed before and after the intervention. Children’s visuomotor and oral skills were assessed and controlled for in the analyses. Generalized estimating equations regressions showed that the auditory+visual support and auditory-only support groups scored higher on the posttest than the no-support and comparison groups in letter knowledge, phonological awareness, word spelling, and word decoding. The no-support group scored higher than the comparison group only in letter knowledge. The authors highlight ways for promoting children’s understanding of the writing system and demonstrate the effectiveness of a computerized game adapted to the orthography in promoting basic early literacy skills.

Advocates of the science of reading have argued that (a) teacher preparation programs do not provide adequate preparation to teach code-related reading skills; (b) as a result, teachers lack knowledge of this area of literacy development; and (c) without that knowledge, teachers are unable to effectively teach students to read. In this integrative literature review, we assessed the research evidence for the first claim. We identified 27 studies examining preservice general elementary preparation in code-related instruction, including phonological/phonemic awareness, phonics/decoding, spelling/orthography, and morphology, published between 2001 and 2020. We analyzed the studies to determine (a) how preservice knowledge of code-related instruction has been studied, (b) how preservice teachers’literacy knowledge was defined and assessed in these studies, and (c) primary findings across studies and implications for teacher preparation and future research. We found that the research base largely relied on quantitative multiple-choice assessments that privileged linguistic content knowledge over pedagogical and situated knowledge. The body of research was constrained by narrow definitions of science and knowledge, repetition across studies in methods and data sources, limited samples that overlooked diversity in preservice teachers and elementary contexts, and methodological problems. Thus, we caution against considering the issue of teacher preparation settled, and we offer recommendations for teacher preparation programs and directions for future research.