What Matters Most? Toward a Robust and Socially Just Science of Reading

Abstract

Science of reading is a term that has been used variously, but its use within research, policy, and the press has tended to share one important commonality: an intensive focus on assessed reading proficiency as the primary goal of reading instruction. Although well intentioned, this focus directs attention toward a problematically narrow slice of reading. In this article, we propose a different framework for the science of reading, one that draws on existing literacy research in ways that could broaden and deepen instruction. The framework proposes, first, that reading education should develop textual dexterity across grade levels in the four literate roles first proposed by Freebody and Luke: code breaker (decodes text), text participant (comprehends text), text user (applies readings of text to accomplish things), and text analyst (critiques text). Second, the framework suggests that reading education should nurture important literate dispositions alongside those textual capacities, dispositions that include reading engagement, motivation, and self‐efficacy. Justification is offered for the focus on textual dexterity and literate dispositions, and we include research‐based suggestions about how reading educators can foster student growth in these areas. Finally, we propose that reading education should attend closely to linguistic, cultural, and individual variation, honoring and leveraging different strengths and perspectives that students bring to and take away from their learning. Reimagining a science of reading based on these principles has the potential to make it both more robust and more socially just, particularly for students from nondominant cultures.

Apprenticing for Equity Literacy Teaching: A Needed Change in Teacher Education

“…I am reminded of Katie's observation about undifferentiated phonics instruction. Inviting her to share this observation with her peers could have prompted critical discussions about how phonics programs are being used in classrooms, why certain programs are adopted, how district-level policies regarding intensive phonics instruction are made (Johnston & Scanlon, 2020), and how these decisions can translate to inequitable classroom practices (Aukerman & Chambers Schuldt, 2021; Hoffman et al, 2020; Willis, 2019). Additionally, we could have debated Katie's suggestion to have some students engage in phonics work while their more phonetically developed peers read silently.…”

“…Further, there is a need to show candidates how the literacy profession privileges whiteness and positions the languages and literacies of BIPOC communities pathologically. For instance, it would be essential to examine how a simple view of reading is encased in the TEP and in schools (Aukerman & Chambers Schuldt, 2021).…”

“…Further, these mandates are increasingly predicated on a “science of reading” construct that emphasizes basic reading processes and is rooted in experimental psychology (Hoffman et al, 2020). Science of reading promulgates a simple view of reading that “holds that decoding proficiency and language proficiency (typically operationalized as listening comprehension) fully account for reading comprehension proficiency” (Aukerman & Chambers Schuldt, 2021, p. 86). Such a narrowly defined view of reading disregards students’ linguistic, cultural, and individual variations and capacities, as well as their literacy dispositions and engagements across contexts (Aukerman & Chambers Schuldt, 2021; Willis, 2019).…”

Redesigning Reading in and for the Disciplines

“…Research has demonstrated that effective readers are engaged, motivated, and exhibit self‐efficacy; these literate dispositions, as Aukerman and Schuldt (2021) call them, have been shown to positively impact overall reading performance (see Finn & Zimmer, 2012; Schunk, 1989; Unrau et al, 2018). Engaged readers, for example, participate actively and deeply in reading and reading‐related activities; they are attentive, emotionally invested, and care about their interactions with a text's ideas (Aukerman & Schuldt, 2021). Cultivating these dispositions is critical not only to students' developing reading competencies, but also to their evolving literate and academic identities.…”

“…School-based researchers' field notes reported three main positives related to student learning. During interviews, teachers recounted stories related to improvements in students' motivation to read and their literate dispositions (Aukerman & Schuldt, 2021). One teacher's response exemplified the experiences of others.…”