# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For years now, the early literacy education community has been talking about the need to reform our practice to align to the science of reading. But what is the science of reading? And how can it improve our practice so kids become better readers?

What is the science of reading?

The science of reading is the converging evidence of what matters and what works in literacy instruction, organized around models that describe how and why.

One research study does not make a science. In early literacy alone, tens of thousands of studies have been published, and some even show results that are at odds with one another. For educators to be able to consume research meaningfully, we need to look for a convergence of evidence. When many well-designed studies point to a similar result, we should pay attention.

How does it help us make sense of reading?

An important model in early reading research is the simple view of reading. It says that reading comprehension (RC) is the product of decoding (D) and language comprehension (LC), or RC = D x LC.

Learning to read for understanding requires sounding out and recognizing words-decoding-but it also requires making meaning of the words and sentences we hear-language comprehension. While taking a microscope to any one aspect of reading reveals more complexity, the simple view continues to be supported as a strong core model in reading development, as it has been for decades.

What guidance does the science of reading offer?

Research is clear about what matters to teach in early literacy instruction: phonological awareness, phonics and word recognition, fluency, vocabulary and oral language comprehension, and text comprehension. For each of these, a convergence of evidence tells us what works, in practice.

Phonological awareness: Teach students to recognize and manipulate the sounds within words. Move from syllables to the individual sounds, or phonemes. Explicitly connect phonemes to letters to more effectively support word decoding.

Phonics and word recognition: Teach letter sounds and sound-spelling patterns explicitly and systematically. Practices that include both reading and writing of words in isolation and in text are most supportive of taught phonics.

Fluency: Include frequent chances for students to read and re-read orally from connected text-sentences, paragraphs, and passages. Focus on the development of both automatic word recognition and fluent expression, keeping understanding of the text as the central goal.

Vocabulary and oral language comprehension: Include high-quality, language-rich interactions in instruction. With read-aloud texts, unpack academic and inferential language. Explicitly build students' recognition of shared morphemes (e.g., root words, affixes) across words, both in oral and written language.

Text comprehension: Even before young students can read on their own, teach from rich texts via read-alouds and scaffolded reading. Teach students to use metacognitive strategies like setting a purpose, monitoring for meaning, and building inferences while reading. Discuss texts, including focusing on their organizational structures.

What could a science-of-reading classroom be like?

To align more closely to what the science tells us, we should start seeing and hearing some change. We should stop seeing only incidental teaching of sound-spelling patterns. Instead of just happening to notice a silent E on the page we have open-aha! Teachable moment!-we should teach decoding skills systematically. We should see a dedicated portion of the literacy block where phonics is taught clearly and sequentially from an identifiable curriculum. When kids learn from our planned sequence how that silent E works, we should see engaging practice-word work, often masquerading as play-followed by both reading and writing practice that applies those silent E skills purposefully.

The science of reading is the converging evidence of what matters and what works in literacy instruction.

We should also stop seeing comprehension taught via leveled reading groups, where each group visits the teacher for round-robin reading through a new text "at the right level." Instead, we should see use of a rich, complex text for all the students in a class. We should hear multiple reads of the same text, beginning with teacher modeling and moving to student practice. We should see partnering for repeated readings to develop fluency. We should hear the voices of students and the teacher in high-quality conversations about the text that focus on language, structure, and deepened understanding.

Where can we learn more?

Lots of good materials have been produced to get this research into practice, much of it paid for by our tax dollars.

These excellent research-to-practice materials can only help if we actually use them. Commit to building a learning community around one or more of these materials, beginning by downloading and reading as a group. Then discuss, try things with students, reflect, and repeat. This is how the science of reading matters, and how it works: by helping all our kids to become empowered and thoughtful readers.

For more on the science of reading, see "The science of reading and balanced literacy: What you need to know" and Everything you need to know about the science of reading.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The science of reading is the converging evidence of what matters and what works in literacy instruction. It guides how to teach reading.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Science of Reading: Defining Guide provides a firm definition of what the science of reading is, what it is not, and how all stakeholders can understand its potential to transform reading instruction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As young kids amaze us all by developing reading fluency (remember this blog?), they typically move toward greater and greater comprehension of what they read. That's good: reading with comprehension is, after all, the point of learning to read fluently.

But not all kids have enough of what they need to get to reading comprehension. Some kids have strong phonics and word recognition skills, but still fail to comprehend. Others show solid, insightful comprehension when you read TO them, but fall down in comprehending what they read on their own.

What gives? This sounds complicated.

Actually, it's helpful to focus on how simple it is. An important model for reading comprehension is one asserted by Gough & Tunmer (1986). Their model, the Simple View of Reading, is described by a simple formula:

This is "simple" because it only has two moving parts, the D and the LC. Just as a simple lever only has two parts, handle and fulcrum, the development of reading comprehension can be modeled as being, at its core, simple.

Decoding (D) is the ability to turn printed words into the right word sounds, more and more automatically. Phonics instruction aims toward increasing decoding proficiency.

Language Comprehension (LC) is the ability to understand spoken words in sentences. When we speak with easier words and less complex structures to very small kids, we are reaching toward their less proficient language comprehension.

In this model, D and LC are multiplied together, not added. That's important because it means this: when one is weak, you can't just compensate with a heavier dose of the other.

You can think of each of the factors as working like a percentage, ranging from 0 (no proficiency at all) to 1 (100%, perfect proficiency). Imagine that Decoding is at full power, and Language Comprehension is only at half power. That's 1 times 0.5, which gives us a pretty poor value for Reading Comprehension. Even a student who can read every single word accurately can have poor comprehension. The product, Reading Comprehension, will be at or below the level of the lower factor.

That's important: whichever of the two proficiencies is weakest, that is the one that most limits Reading Comprehension. How are we doing at finding and targeting the weak factor, student by student?

In the U.S., we have often done a poor job of adequately supporting both D and LC. In too many schools, we have tested and watched for progress in Decoding skills alone. We have often gone so far as to assume that every student with low Reading Comprehension must need help developing their Decoding. But as Valencia and Buly (2004) have so clearly shown, struggling readers' needs vary. Some "automatic word callers," kids who are able to read with accuracy and even solid rate, still lack the language comprehension needed to get good at reading comprehension. ( In future blogs, we'll unpack "language comprehension" a bit, to point toward the kinds of skills that can be assessed and explicitly supported in instruction.)

So: what a relief to know that Reading Comprehension is simple, am I right? The key here is to remember that simple does not mean easy. Just having a simple lever doesn't mean you can lift an elephant later this afternoon, easy peasy.
MAP® Reading Fluency™ can now help you assess your early readers-in as little as 20 minutes. Learn more.
But with well-considered preparation - think instructional savvy and individualization-we can apply our exertion to better points of leverage. While simple is not easy, keeping the Simple View of Reading in mind might help us optimize for that all-important product, Reading Comprehension.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Simple, but not easy: What we forget about how reading comprehension develops

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While simple is not easy, keeping the Simple View of Reading in mind might help us optimize for that all-important product, Reading Comprehension. #edchat #earlylearning #education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learning to Read: “The Simple View of Reading”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is the Science of Reading? | Really Great Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
[row][oneThird]Attend a complimentary Science of Reading Virtual Workshop: Register Now[/oneThird] [twoThird]What Is the Science of Reading?The science of reading is a body of research that incorporates insights and research from disciplines that include developmental psychology, educational psychol…

# data[].attributes.headline
Three Elements of Science-Based Phonics InstructionBased on science, the three elements you need for effective phonics instruction are:A hands-on approachMoving from presentation to practiceShowing the direct application to reading and spelling

# data[].attributes.subject
Three Elements of Science-Based Phonics InstructionBased on science, the three elements you need for effective phonics instruction are:A hands-on approachMoving from presentation to practiceShowing the direct application to reading and spelling

# data[].attributes.headline
Five Key Elements of Scientific Reading Instruction?The National Reading Panel (NRP) report in 2000 identified these five elements that are key to reading success:ComprehensionFluencyVocabularyPhonicsPhonemic AwarenessLet’s take a look at both phonemic awareness and phonics in more depth

# data[].attributes.subject
Five Key Elements of Scientific Reading Instruction?The National Reading Panel (NRP) report in 2000 identified these five elements that are key to reading success:ComprehensionFluencyVocabularyPhonicsPhonemic AwarenessLet’s take a look at both phonemic awareness and phonics in more depth

# data[].attributes.headline
The science of reading is a body of research that incorporates insights and research from disciplines that include developmental psychology, educational psychology, cognitive science, and cognitive neuroscience.

# data[].attributes.subject
The science of reading is a body of research that incorporates insights and research from disciplines that include developmental psychology, educational psychology, cognitive science, and cognitive neuroscience.