If one of our primary goals as educators is to improve reading comprehension and develop excellent, literate readers who can function effectively in school and the workplace, then we must ask ourselves the following questions:
- Are we using valid and reliable reading strategies?
- Are we considering those alternative views that will push our thinking and our techniques?
- Are we continuing to defend strategies even though we know that our students are not showing evidence of deep comprehension?
- Are we truly reading the Science of Reading correctly?
As educators, we need to be like scientists. We need to analyze the veracity and validity of the reading strategies we are incorporating. In an era that advocates for STEM education, we must be scientific in our approaches and practices.
Do we as educators have all students’ best interests at heart? If the answer is yes, then why are we using one-size-fits-all reading strategies that were developed in the 1930s to help learners with learning disabilities for all learners? Why are we only focusing on the connections of reading to the left side of the brain when research states that both sides of the brain significantly contribute to heightening deep comprehension? Why are we not allowing students to create excellent learning products to depict deep comprehension of text?
Let’s dig deeper to gain information about alternative views, technology, and data, especially qualitative data, to determine if we are truly reading the Science of Reading correctly.
Alternative Views about the Early Discoveries of Science of Reading Strategies
This section provides alternative views about Dr. Samuel Orton’s dedicated work done mainly in the 1930s and 1940s. It is not in any way meant to discredit his extensive and passionate work, but to deeply explore the question: Are we reading the Science of Reading correctly?
A meta-analysis done in 2021 on Dr. Orton’s research found the effect size to not be statistically significant for improving phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, spelling, and comprehension. During the time Dr. Orton engaged in research, he “did not have access to modern brain scanning equipment, but he knew from his work with brain-damaged adults that had injuries to the left hemisphere produced symptoms similar to those he observed in children” (Samuel Orton, 2023).
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) technology was developed in 1990. That means from 1925 to 1990, he implemented reading strategies connected to the brains of students with language disabilities based on observations of behaviors of adult patients with brain damage.
Dr. Orton began working with students in 1925 in Greene County, Iowa, who were claimed to be “retarded or failing in their schoolwork” (Samuel Orton, 2023). What if, during this time, students in Greene County, Iowa, had other factors that contributed to their difficulty in reading? For example, the effects of the Great Tri-State tornado, which took place in March 1925, and other factors such as chronic absenteeism and truancy, so much so these impacted their ability to read and speak. Even though the tornado did not hit Greene County, Iowa, it could have traumatized students based on information they gained from parents, community members, and at school.
Most of Dr. Orton’s work occurred during the Great Depression, from 1929 to 1939, a time when more students were traumatized, hungry, and did not attend school regularly. They could have exhibited the same behaviors as those who were first tested and deemed as having learning disabilities. Could these students have been inaccurately diagnosed?
Whatever the case might have been then, research focused heavily on reading strategies for students with learning disabilities, and to date, we are extensively and exhaustively using reading strategies developed for learners with disabilities and dyslexia with all learners. These strategies do not focus on the needs and ability levels of all learners, which means we are only widening the equity gap in education. There is an urgent need for more up-to-date Science of Reading strategies that focus on deep reading comprehension as it relates to the whole brain. There is a need for valid and reliable strategies that cater to the needs of all learners, including those who are not struggling, with a primary emphasis on artifact-based reading.
Evolution, Reading Data, and Focus
We are in the year 2024, an era of creativity and innovation and one in which computers have evolved to pronounce words, translate and summarize text and analyze data. Yet, we are focusing on only teaching students phonics and phonemics, fluency, and vocabulary instead of giving them the opportunities to attain and depict deep comprehension.
Some will debate that technology, including Artificial Intelligence (AI), also assists with understanding documents and generating meeting notes, so why focus on comprehension? This is true, computers also now assist readers in understanding text and can even generate notes and action steps after a meeting. However, this is useless if learners do not possess the synthesis and application skills needed to deeply comprehend, summarize, and apply knowledge gained from any text not written by them. Additionally, synthesis, comprehension, implementation, and adaptability skills are linked to individual learners’ cultural and personal experiences, which AI cannot replicate.
Since April 30, 1993, when the internet was made public, technology has evolved to offer a more personalized form of information. Over the years, it has even advanced to simulate and tailor information to better meet human learning needs. Yet, despite these technological advancements, educators continue to use the same reading strategies developed in the 1930s for learners with disabilities, applying them to all students.
Why are we allowing people who have never gone through the hard work of having their own classes, never taught students full-time for more than 3 years, and never had excellent qualitative results, to dictate which strategies we use? Why are we allowing them to interpret the Science of Reading for us? Are they reading the Science of Reading correctly?
Implemented Programs and Qualitative Data
One of the major reading programs, LETRS, developed in 2014, is extensively used across our country to help with literacy instruction. “Lexia LETRS teaches the skills needed to master the foundational and fundamentals of reading and writing”(Lexia, 2023). Every program has dedicated developers, advocates, and benefits. Even though many districts use this program, data has it that to date, for the 2024-2025 year, “the US ranks 36th in literacy” (National Literacy Institute, 2024).
High test scores have also been associated with the LETRS pedagogical practices, which are claimed to be closely associated with the Science of Reading. However, some have questioned the content and validity of the target group, as well as the test and testing environment that produced these scores. Since 2014, students have not shown improvement in later grades. If this is true, then we need to ensure that we are reading the science of reading correctly and implementing artifact-based reading strategies that will help readers develop excellent comprehension skills.
Additionally, “one experimental study found teachers who were trained by LETRS did improve in their knowledge of reading science, but their students did not have statistically higher differences in achievement than teachers in the control group (Cohen, 2023). The most important people in education are our students, so if they are not showing improvement by using LETRS programs, we need to allow for the use of other programs and courses that are aligned to the science of teaching strategies. Even a spokesperson for LETRS shared this point of view, “We know it has been proven to drive positive student outcomes when coupled with other educational interventions.” (Cohen 2023).
Are we reading the Science of Reading correctly? If we are, then improvement in teacher’s knowledge should correlate to excellence in student achievement and outcomes. Excellence here relates to analyzing qualitative data to reflect students’ progression of learning and depth of knowledge. When we read the Science of Reading correctly, we focus on artifact-based reading and student portfolios to have students show their deep comprehension. When we read the science of reading correctly, we know that a one-size-fits-all program will never support the needs of all learners.
Remember that quote about scientists? That’s correct, “ scientists want to understand the how, why, and in what circumstances different approaches may or may not be a good fit.” If we use only one program and one approach, can we really give power to the word “science” in the science of reading?
For consecutive years, my students’ scores in both Geometry and Algebra 1 exceeded all expectations with 100 percent of them passing the state test. Many people questioned these scores. However, the qualitative data I focused on showed a positive correlation between students’ deep knowledge and their test scores. In addition, students attained excellence in consecutive grades. Each student maintained two portfolios to showcase their knowledge and took responsibility for analyzing their own qualitative and quantitative data while setting goals.
As a teacher, I had the autonomy to explore multiple programs and teaching strategies and blend the best of all worlds. I was very fortunate to have great leaders support my approach because of their genuine concern for our students, the most important people in education.
When we start reading the Science of Reading correctly, we will stop focusing on fluency rate and vocabulary in isolation, stop using quantitative data to gauge excellence in reading, viewing reading as a subject, and stop using strategies developed in the 1930s for learners with disabilities, among other outdated practices. Instead, we will start seeing all learners having the potential to attain and depict deep comprehension, using artifact-based reading strategies to gauge and improve students’ depth of knowledge, exploring and understanding the powerful impact of the whole brain, and start viewing reading as a curriculum and not a subject. Additionally, we will stop using one main reading program to meet the needs of all learners and start giving educators the choice to use multiple programs instead of one reading program.
The SAGE Approach to the Science of Reading
Valid and reliable research supports reading practices that focus on depicting deep comprehension. If we want to improve reading comprehension and develop literate readers who can function effectively in school and the workplace, then we must change our reading techniques to a SAGE approach. We must use a blend of valid and reliable research-based reading strategies that focus on the whole brain and allow students to depict deep comprehension through artifact-based reading.
The below SAGE Science of Reading Framework that incorporates true Science of Reading ideas to help learners and educators focus on incorporating research-based reading comprehension strategies which have proven time after time to profoundly increase deep comprehension skills.
Allow learners to select and use Student Write strategies for inferencing and synthesizing and creating artifacts to represent knowledge gained when reading text. Reading goes way beyond phonics, phonemics, fluency, and vocabulary. Therefore, it is very important to go beyond fluency, reading rate, and isolated vocabulary and provide learners with extensive time to use student selected Student Write strategies to represent their deep comprehension of text. The goal of reading is comprehension. The goal of reading is comprehension. How are learners using Student Write Strategies to represent their comprehension of text profoundly?
Give learners time to engage in meaningful “Student Read-Write-Talk-Listen” activities simultaneously. The Wernicke’s area in the brain makes sense of spoken and written language by connecting to images, prior knowledge, learners’ personal experiences, and more. Learners have been naturally immersed in a world of sound from birth, so meaningful spoken language is very important as it incorporates what has already been in place. A Reading-Writing-Speaking-Listening focus develops the process of orthographic mapping and very importantly neuroplasticity to build neural circuitry and stronger neural networks for deep comprehension.
Growth mindset is a neuroscience connected skill focused on the neural growth actions of embracing change and challenges, persisting through obstacles, developing grit, overcoming limiting beliefs, and so much more. Learners need ongoing guidance on how to develop and focus on a growth mindset when creating high-level and excellent comprehension artifacts. Representing comprehension is not and will never be a one-time practice. Learners must embrace the growth mindset of editing and revising multiple versions of initial written drafts to create excellent learning products by engaging in ongoing self-reflection and metacognition, and implementing meaningful feedback.
Student Write reading strategies need to be implemented across curriculum and content, with the premise that all teachers are reading teachers. Increasingly, books and education programs are indicating that reading is no longer a subject, but a profound pedagogical strategy that strongly focuses on having learners represent what they comprehend. To further deepen comprehension, Student Write reading strategies must be coupled with extensive time for
Reading is a part of all subjects, our workplace, and everyday lives, so how can we designate reading as a subject? When we send the message that reading is a subject, we are telling our students and adults reading should only be focused on during Reading class.
If we believe that reading is a subject, then we are reading the Science of Reading wrong. Subscribe to the K12 Hub or check back on December 13th for A Sage Approach to The Science of Reading: Part 4 — Reading is not a Subject, it is a Curriculum and an Everyday Part of Life.
Did you miss the previous parts in this series, or want to refresh your memory? Catch up using the links below!
Part 1 – A Need for Artifact-Based Reading Strategies
Part 2: A Deeper Dive into Reading The Science of Reading
About the Author
Cherry-Anne Gildharry holds a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics, a Master of Science in Education, and a Graduate Certificate in Instructional Coaching. With 29 years of experience in education, she has worked across various locations, including Trinidad and Tobago, North Carolina, Iowa, Texas, and other parts of the U.S. Throughout her career, Cherry-Anne has held numerous roles, such as High School and Middle School Math Teacher, Department Chair, and Teacher Leader. She has also served as an Algebra 1 and Geometry Lead Teacher, Workshop Creator and Facilitator, and Marzano’s Demonstration Teacher. Additionally, she has been a School-Based and District Coach, Leadership Coach and Collaborator, Learning Design Strategist, Virtual Instructional Coach, Professional Development Auditor, and Professional Development Content Creator.
Cherry-Anne has established a notable record of success both as a teacher and a coach. In North Carolina, 100% of her Algebra 1 and Geometry students achieved passing scores for consecutive years. Furthermore, teachers she coached, including those from Teach for America, saw their students achieve similar success rates.
Fun Fact: Cherry-Anne loves globe-trotting with her wife Melanie Gildharry! To date, they have traveled to all 50 states and 47 countries with 25 of them being European countries. Cherry-Anne took her first international flight from Trinidad and Tobago at age 9 to the United Kingdom to visit Scotland and England.
References
Bromley, M. (2017, June 14). Every teacher is a teacher of literacy: Literacy practice across the
curriculum. SecEd. https://www.sec-ed.co.uk/content/best-practice/every-teacher-is-a-teacher-of-
literacy-literacy-practice-across-the-curriculum
Building the Reading Brain | Zaner-Bloser. (n.d.). Www.zaner-Bloser.com.
https://www.zaner-bloser.com/research/building-the-reading-brain.php
Cartwright, K., & Mermelstein, L. (2023, September 21). 7 Ways to Put the Science of Reading
Into Practice with the Active View of Reading. Learning without Tears.
https://www.lwtears.com/blog/7-ways-put-science-reading-practice-active-view-reading
Cohen, R. M. (2023, August 15). The new “science of reading” movement, explained. Vox.
https://www.vox.com/23815311/science-of-reading-movement-literacy-learning-loss
eSoft Management Consultants. (2023, October 14). Cultivating A Growth Mindset: A Complete
Guide. Online Business School.
https://esoftskills.com/cultivating-a-growth-mindset-a-complete-guide/
Graham, S. (2019). Changing How Writing Is Taught. Review of Research in Education, 43(1),
277–303. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732×18821125
Hanford, E. (2018, September 10). Why aren’t kids being taught to read? www.apmreports.org
https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2018/09/10/hard-words-why-american-kids-arent-being-
taught-to-read
Harrington-Atkinson, T. (2021, August 5). Reading – A Four-Step Process. Paving the Way.
https://tracyharringtonatkinson.com/reading-a-four-step-process/#google_vignette
Healthline Media. (n.d.). Left brain vs. right brain: What’s the difference? Healthline.
https://www.healthline.com/health/left-brain-vs-right-brain#research
Hertrich, I., Dietrich, S., & Ackermann, H. (2020, September 30). The margins of the
language network in the brain. Frontiers
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/communication/articles/10.3389/fcomm.
2020.519955/full
Heubeck, E., & Borowski, J. (2023, October 27). What is the orton-gillingham method for
teaching reading?. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/what-
is-the-orton-gillingham-method-for-teaching-reading-video/2023/10
Hutner, N. (1991). Right hemisphere participation in reading*1. Brain and
Language, 41(4), 475–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934x(91)90169-2
Jenae. (2022, February 24). How our brains learn to read. Pathways to Reading
Homeschool.https://pathwaystoreadinghomeschool.com/how-our-brains-learn-to read/
Lexia. (2023). LETRS® | Lexia Learning. www.lexialearning.com.
https://www.lexialearning.com/letrs
Mahowald, C. (n.d.). Six Reading Comprehension Strategies Families Can Practice Together At
Home. Parent Powered. https://parentpowered.com/blog/science-of-reading/comprehension-
strategies/
National Literacy Institute. (2024, March 7). Literacy Statistics 2024- 2025 (Where we are now).
National Literacy. https://www.thenationalliteracyinstitute.com/post/literacy-statistics-2024-2025-
where-we-are-now
Nielsen, J. A., Zielinski, B. A., Ferguson, M. A., Lainhart, J. E., & Anderson, J. S. (2013).
An evaluation of the left-brain vs. right-brain hypothesis with resting state functional
connectivity magnetic resonance imaging. PLoS ONE, 8(8).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071275
Orton-Gillingham | About Orton and Gillingham. (n.d.). Teresa Garretson Site.
https://www.orton-gillingham.com/about-orton-and-gillingham/
Samuel Orton. (2023, September 7). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Orton
Stewart, L. (n.d.). The Science of Reading: Evidence for a New Era of Instruction.
Zaner-Bloser.com. https://www.zaner-bloser.com/research/the-science-of-reading-evidence-for-a-
new-era-of-reading-instruction.php
Staake, J. (2022, June 17). What Is the Science of Reading? We Are Teachers.
https://www.weareteachers.com/what-is-the-science-of-reading/
Stevens, E. A., Austin, C., Moore, C., Scammacca, N., Boucher, A. N., & Vaughn, S.
(2021). Current State of the Evidence: Examining the Effects of Orton-Gillingham
Reading Interventions for Students with or at Risk for Word-Level Reading
Disabilities. Sage Journal. 87(4), 397–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402921993406
ScienceDaily. (2003, May 19). Was Orton right? A new study examines how the brain
works in reading; offers key to better understanding dyslexia. ScienceDaily.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030519083450.htm
Science of Reading. (n.d.). The Reading Center.
https://www.thereadingcenter.org/science-of-reading
The Science of Reading Resource Hub. (n.d.). Www.zaner-Bloser.com. Retrieved October 15,
2022, from
https://www.zaner-bloser.com/science-of-reading-resource-hub.php?wvideo=w1g71oepvr
The Science of Reading. (n.d.). Brainspring.com.
https://brainspring.com/why-professional-development/
UNESCO. (2024, January 31). What you need to know about literacy. UNESCO
https://www.unesco.org/en/literacy/need-know
