There is more than one science of reading
#3 of 5 things school leaders need to know about the science of reading
In this third of five posts about the science of reading, I:
summarize an action research project I was a part of, focused on engagement,
share a short definition of the sciences of reading, and
offer a practical approach to embracing the different sciences of reading within an existing intervention.
While the goal is not to persuade, I hope this and previous articles in the series (see below) affirm your experience and/or help you reflect on what you currently believe.
During the 2015-2016 school year, I partnered with multiple teachers in helping them collect data around their action research projects.
One teacher I partnered with wanted to replicate aspects of the research conducted by Ivey and Johnston (2015)1, including:
no book quizzes
no book reports
access, time, and support for students to read independently with books of their choice
opportunities for students to talk to peers about their reading
My role was to interview some students’ motivation and engagement levels, take observational notes in the classroom, and co-analyze the data with the teacher.
What we learned is motivation and engagement can be an up-and-down experience for kids, particularly for students who lacked the opportunity to engage in this level of freedom in their reading lives. (Although not exclusive, the students I am thinking about are kids whose only experience was scripted reading instruction and who lacked exposure and instruction on how to be a reader.2)
I remember one student who I quietly identified as a “Jekyll-and-Hyde” reader:
One week he was ecstatic about reading because he found a book he loved (and was almost annoyed when I disrupted his reading for the interview).
Two weeks later, he would proclaim that he “hated reading”. While I didn’t pry, I suspected his lack of motivation and engagement was at least partially influenced by his current home situation.
The following week he was up in front of his peers, proudly and successfully giving a book blessing for the title he recently finished.
When we organized and analyzed our data, we noted how some students’ motivation and engagement levels looked like a roller coaster, quite different than the typical progress monitoring trend line a reading interventionist hopes to see.
The Sciences of Reading
Six years later, I wish I would have better embraced the frameworks that capture the complexity of teaching readers vs. the simple stories that continue to persist around teaching reading.
One of my favorite constructs is “the sciences of reading”.
In a nutshell, research supports multiple influences on becoming a reader.
Students need skills and strategies, which sit within the cognitive domain of teaching readers.
Motivation and engagement along with self-efficacy and other factors fall into the affective domain of teaching readers.
A student’s belief that they are a reader, an identity based on previous successes with prior reading experiences, can be categorized under the conative domain.
At the 2022 WSRA Reading Conference3, Peter Afflerbach offered a helpful comparison for understanding the different sciences.4
This effort to distinguish helps expand upon the limiting and exclusive nature of the SoR movement.
Yet when I think about how teachers might attend to all three domains during the literacy block, I feel overwhelmed.
Where do we begin?
Try this: Augment an existing intervention
For all its promise, Response to Intervention has in some situations become an administrative process a school follows to qualify a student for special education.
Use measures within one domain (cognition) to determine if students need intervention.
Ensure you follow the rules for progress monitoring.
If a student doesn’t respond to the intervention, assume it is the student and not the intervention.
But what if it isn’t the student?
Instead of hopping from one kit or program to the next one, consider adding an affective or conative dimension to the cognitive-based intervention.
Here are a couple of possibilities based on actual experiments in this area.
If the student is not identifying as a reader, have them set personal goals for their reading. The data to measure progress is best represented in concrete ways, such as recording their oral reading performance once a week and later taking time to review and compare recordings to look for improvement. (This could also happen naturally in the classroom by guiding students to periodically examine the complexity of the texts in their reading logs over time. Ask: “How are you growing as a reader and taking risks by seeking out new authors and genres?”)
If the student is lacking engagement with reading, reach out to the family as you normally would. Within that communication, ask the family if they would be willing to watch a few video recordings during the intervention timeline, of you demonstrating a skill or strategy with their child and how they respond. This request can be followed up with an invitation to emulate some of the language and actions used during the intervention in authentic contexts, such as when visiting the public library or bookstore or reading aloud before bed.
In both situations, allow the student to self-select the texts to be read within the intervention or at least offer a choice.
These shifts are smaller because the traditional intervention is already established.
And please note: the following question will inevitably come up:
“But is your progress monitoring tool scientifically- or evidence-based?”
This is not my area of expertise, but I’ll offer a few questions about the situation.
To which science of reading are we referring?
Based on the evidence we have for this student, is the intervention and corresponding assessment aligned with their needs?
What is most important right now for this student in becoming a lifelong reader?
“Teaching readers, as opposed to teaching reading, requires a broad perspective on what developing student readers need, how they thrive, and how our instruction best serves them.”
- Peter Afflerbach
Starting November 7 through December 16, I will be responding to Teaching Readers (Not Reading) by Peter Afflerbach (Guilford, 2022) and inviting readers to join me.
In this book study, you will develop a deeper understanding of the science(s) of reading and build greater confidence in conversing about literacy instruction with teachers and other colleagues.
To participate:
Purchase the book on the publisher's website, Amazon, or wherever it is sold.
Subscribe to this space (if you haven’t already) for future responses to the book.
Become a regular and active reader here. I will be sending out another round of invites to engaged readers for the Reading by Example community, where I will be hosting some virtual conversations around the book (kickoff: October 27).
Here is the suggested schedule for (re)reading together:
November 7 - 11: Introduction, Chapters 1-3
November 14 - 18: Chapters 4-5
November 21 - 25: Chapter 6
November 28 - December 2: Chapters 7-8
December 5 - 9: Chapters 9-10
December 12 - 16: Chapter 11, Conclusion
Ivey, G., & Johnston, P. H. (2015). Engaged Reading as a Collaborative Transformative Practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 47(3), 297–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X15619731 (open access)
I created a toolkit teacher teams or schools can use to examine your current literacy curriculum program and then adapt it to better meet your students’ needs here.
Along with other educators, I’ll be presenting at the Wisconsin State Reading Association (WSRA) Conference in 2023; check out the program and register here.
We will be reading Peter’s book, Teaching Readers (Not Reading) starting November 7 through December 16. See the information above for how to participate.