With two-thirds of fourth-grade students not proficient in reading, we are facing a nationwide literacy crisis—one that is disproportionately affecting marginalized communities.
Many students continue to enter third grade lacking automatic word recognition, an essential skill for reading proficiency. The current emphasis by the “science of reading” on explicit instruction for the development of decoding skills is not moving the needle to help students automatically recognize words, which is critical for fluency and comprehension.
Simply put: relying on the science of reading is not enough.
Understanding what’s happening
Recent laws in 40 states require the use of evidence-based reading curricula. While many district administrators are investing in curriculum and professional learning focused on the science of reading, students are still not where they need to be.
It is widely acknowledged that explicit, systematic teaching of early foundational skills is an essential first step for reading. However, while sufficient for some students, it is not enough to close the gap between phonics and fluency for many—particularly students in Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions. This creates a bottleneck that impedes students’ comprehension and academic progress.
Here’s what seems to be happening: Students acquire decoding knowledge, but they lack the effective practice to use this knowledge well enough to reach automatic word recognition. Some make benchmarks for early skills, appear on track and then get stuck. At the elementary level, these students will receive interventions often consisting of a greater dose of explicit phonics instruction.
While this may increase the accuracy of basic decoding skills, it falls short on developing automatic word recognition. By the time students arrive in middle school, assessment and instruction is centered on grade-level fluency and comprehension.
Not only are middle schools often unprepared to assess foundational skills or provide instruction for these skills, the daily schedule is not conducive to this level of intervention. As a result, these students continue to struggle and lose motivation to read.
Fortunately, there is a solution.
Incorporating the science of learning
To move past building students’ basic decoding knowledge, educators need to connect the science of reading with the science of learning.
The science of learning encompasses five decades of research on the learning conditions necessary to build automaticity and fluency in complex skills. This body of work is relevant to reading and can be applied through the systematic practice of certain learning principles that make learning stick.
These principles include varying tasks, highlighting content contrasts, interleaving, spacing practice, providing immediate feedback, rehearsal and review. By incorporating these principles into practice, students can retain and retrieve information and generalize information in new contexts.
When it comes to reading, students develop automaticity and ultimately become successful readers through both explicit instruction of new knowledge and implicit learning through practice. This is why connecting the science of reading with the science of learning is so important.
Supporting reading fluency across the district
As school and district leaders, it is important to support educators in integrating the science of learning with the science of reading while creating classroom environments that focus on engagement, motivation and learning.
Below are four questions to ask, and various strategies to implement, to foster school- and district-wide reading success.
1. Is my reading intervention curriculum designed so each student reaches automatic word recognition and fluency? Look for intervention solutions supported by the research from the science of learning that:
- Are designed around principles from the science of learning to increase retention and retrieval through systematic and varied practice that activates long-term memory.
- Adapt to the right level of content and tasks for each student’s needs.
2. Does my reading curriculum for intervention assess whether students have attained automatic word recognition? Check to see if automatic word recognition is an explicit goal of the intervention and if it is regularly assessed.
3. Is practice set up so students can make mistakes and learn from their errors? Encourage teachers to provide environments in which students are given opportunities to hypothesize about an answer to a question, provide an answer, and receive immediate feedback about their choice. If their answer is incorrect, students should have the opportunity to try to solve the problem again after reflection.
Emphasize the importance of thinking about the question and answer from multiple perspectives and that making mistakes is an important part of learning. This reflection can occur individually, with teacher guidance, or in small groups.
4. Do my teachers have the resources and professional learning to understand the benefits of explicit instruction and its limitations? Make sure teachers understand that many students do not easily transition to fluency from decoding knowledge taught through explicit instruction. Students need varied and systematic practice designed to develop automatic word recognition.
Once students are provided with plenty of intentional, targeted, and systematic practice opportunities to put their new knowledge into use, their engagement and progress in fluency and comprehension increases.
Driving change
Now is the time to rethink reading instruction and get all students—especially those who have struggled under traditional approaches—to where they need to be.
Adopting an evidence-based curriculum, ensuring instruction is supported by research-backed learning principles from the science of reading and the science of learning, and investing in professional learning can help drive this change.
These collective practices can empower teachers and, most importantly, positively transform reading outcomes for all students.
