Translational Science: A Road Map for the Science of Reading

The role of the teacher, specifically teacher craft, is central to engaging students in effective reading instruction. However, the science of reading has revealed that the content taught is also important to reading acquisition. Although the science of reading was aggregated some two decades ago to result in what became known as the five big pillars, it has not been fully incorporated into instructional practice. Subsequent research has continued to inform and strengthen what we understand about reading, and new energy has now emerged to bring the science of reading fully into practice. However, the science of reading and teacher craft are each insufficient without the other. In this article, we discuss the art of teaching and advocate that it must be given serious consideration if the science of reading is to be adopted en masse by teachers. We also discuss several reading strategies and their role in effective reading instruction and the art of teaching.It is the supreme art of the teacher to awaken joy in creative expression and knowledge. (Albert Einstein) A s Einstein's quote suggests, teachers can have tremendous influence on the academic and creative development of their students, to which we add their reading development. Literacy instruction is not only teaching the skills, strategies, and content of science-based teaching but also recognizing that teachers must be flexible and adaptive in their daily decision making and interaction with students to meet their literacy needs. Thus, the art of teaching involves professional judgments and adaptations to content delivery that teachers make to their reading instruction to ensure student success (Scales et al., 2018). We firmly stand on the science of reading (SOR) as it has established components that are critical to students' successful reading acquisition. Whereas Seidenberg, Cooper Borkenhagen, and Kearns (2020) argued that the SOR and teaching practice are two different entities, we maintain that the SOR has established the importance of the art of teaching reading. Further, we propose that the SOR and teacher craft are individually insufficient for effective reading instruction but, when properly blended, become powerful allies that lead to improved reading outcomes for all students.

Section: Moving Forwardsupporting

confidence: 70%

Teaching Reading Is More Than a Science: It’s Also an Art

Paige¹,

Young²,

Rasinski³

et al. 2021

“…Reading research that uses translational and implementation science frameworks and methodologies (e.g., Solari et al, 2020, this issue) will make more explicit the processes of adoption, implementation, and sustainability and how these interact within diverse settings and with multiple populations (Brown et al, 2017; Fixsen, Blase, Metz, & Van Dyke, 2013; Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005). This work will be guided by new questions, not only asking what works but also what works for whom under what conditions and what factors promote sustainability of implementation.…”

Section: Where Do We Go Next In the Science Of Reading?mentioning

confidence: 99%

How the Science of Reading Informs 21st‐Century Education

Petscher¹,

Cabell²,

Catts³

et al. 2020

Self Cite

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.

“…Building generalizable evidence for teaching is incomplete without examining "the status of general knowledge in local contexts, the relevance of local knowledge, the kinds of structures and cultures that support evidence informed practice in context, and more briefly the ways in which practice informed evidence might contribute to general knowledge" (Moss & Haertel, 2016, p. 222). This is consis tent with calls in Reading Research Quarterly's first SOR special issue (Seidenberg et al, 2020;Shanahan, 2020;Solari et al, 2020) to work with educators (Blaunstein & Lyon, 2006) to examine how to support, sustain, and scale implementation of evidence based teaching, which requires drawing on frameworks and tools from improve ment science (Bryk, Gomez, Grunow, & LeMahieu, 2015;Coburn et al, 2012;LeMahieu, Bryk, Grunow, & Gomez, 2017;Lewis, 2015).…”

Section: Pluralism and Generalizable Evidencementioning

confidence: 91%

Advancing the Science of Teaching Reading Equitably

Jensen¹

2021

Teaching Reading Is ComplexTeaching reading is an "outrageously complex activity" (Shulman, 1987, p. 11). Articles in Reading Research Quarterly's two special issue on the SOR identify various skills and capacities needed to read. The authors show how "reading is not a uniform activity but rather varies depending on purpose, skill, type of material, and con text" (Seidenberg, Cooper Borkenhagen, & Kearns, 2020, p. S121). Shaped by biological, behavioral, social, devel opmental, and cultural factors (Snowling & Hulme, 2005), models portray the act of reading with increasing complexity.Yet, "we know more about the science of reading than about the science of teaching based on the science of read ing" (Seidenberg et al., 2020, p. S121). Most models of reading are not pedagogical (Shanahan, 2020). Identifying the statistical significance of a cognitive skill in learning to read does not necessarily suggest that it should be taught or how. Debates about teaching phonological skill (e.g., Mathes & Torgesen, 2000) are illustrative of this. Models of reading " [do] not yet speak to what to teach, when, how, and for whom at a level that is useful for teachers" (Seidenberg et al., 2020, p. S121).Even SOR models that examine the meaning construc tion process among the reader, the text, and the teacher, such as Ruddell, Unrau, and McCormick's (2019) sociocognitive model, still focus on reading more than teaching reading. These models address a single reader rather than a class room of readers and do not account for the role of peer interactions (e.g., Palincsar, Brown, & Martin, 1987), cur riculum, lesson planning, classroom organization, affective support, questioning, personalized feedback, support mate rials, and myriad other factors that bear on teaching students to read in classroom settings (Grabe, 2004;Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005). Addressing the complexity of teaching read ing, Snow and Juel (2005) acknowledged that