THE SCIENCE OF READING
Research and Frameworks

INTRODUCTION
We're dedicated to the application of basic and pedagogical research toward the development of
products designed to improve student and educator outcomes. As such, we have drawn upon decadesof rigorous literacy research, as well as our collaborative work with preeminent reading researchersand experts, to inform the design, development, and ongoing efficacy testing of our literacy solutions.
How do students learn? This question is at the core of learning science—and at the core of ourapproach to optimizing learning. We recognize that equitable literacy education provides learners with
the instruction they need, when they need it, while also providing a robust learning experience that
addresses each of the critical skills and competencies needed for successful literacy development.

What is the Science of Reading?
The body of research evidence known as the Science of Reading is comprised of more than forty
years of research into how we learn to read and analyses of the instructional practices that have been
repeated and validated consistently over time and with proven results. It has led to the identificationof several key pillars that are the core of any effective literacy program: Phonemic Awareness, Phonics
and Word Recognition, Fluency, Vocabulary and Language, and Comprehension. These studies—among others—have also provided valuable evidence about the most effective ways to teach thesekey components of literacy.
1

TWO IMPORTANT VIEWS
There are two ways these elements of reading are often presented to support understanding: theSimple View of Reading and Scarborough's Rope.

The Simple View of Reading

D

LC

RC

Decoding

LanguageComprehension

Reading
Comprehension

The Simple View formula of reading
The Simple View formula presented by Gough and Tunmer in 1986 is one model of how reading
comprehension is achieved. While the model is called the "Simple View of Reading," we should notinfer that the teaching of reading is simple. In fact, Louisa C. Moats refers to the teaching of reading as"rocket science" (Moats, 2020).
The Simple View of Reading was developed to clarify the role of decoding in reading (Gough & Tumner,1986). It contends that there are two basic processes integral to reading: decoding and language
comprehension. Decoding is the ability to translate text to oral language; readers then use theirknowledge of language to make sense of the decoded message. Basically, reading comprehension is
the product of these two processes. Readers who are low in either decoding or oral language ability
will have difficulty comprehending.
The Simple View stands in stark contrast to approaches that minimize the importance of decoding.
For instance, it has been claimed that strong decoding skills are not necessary for successful reading
comprehension if other language abilities can be used as an alternative route to decoding. This claim
has led to instructional approaches that stress preparing beginning readers to compensate for weak
decoding skills by guessing at new or unfamiliar words through a process known as "three cueing" or
MSV (Meaning, Structure, Visual). However, neurological and cognitive science research has shownthat proficient reading depends upon decoding rather than these alternative routes and that the brain
learns to read by mastering decoding (Hanford, 2019). Decoding instruction teaches students to use
a process of blending phonemes (sounds) represented by graphemes (letters) to identify new or
unfamiliar words. During this process, students use all the sound/letters connections and engage inrepeated practice until they achieve accurate decoding and acquire a lexicon of sight words that allows
them to read fluently.
2

"The Simple View of Reading" (Farrell, Hunter, Davidson, & Osenga, 2019) outlines findings from theresearch that support the Simple View:■

The Simple View formula makes clear that strong reading comprehension cannot occur unless
both decoding skills and language comprehension abilities are strong.

■Intervention for struggling readers is likely to be most effective when it addresses the student's
specific weakness, which may be decoding, language comprehension, or both.

■

Decoding and language comprehension skills can be addressed separately for both assessment
and teaching, although both are required to achieve reading comprehension.

Scarborough's Rope
Alternatively, Scarborough's Rope model is a related view of reading, using the metaphor of a rope
where reading skills are represented by different strands that "weave together" to create a strong
reader. It was developed in 2001 by Dr. Hollis Scarborough to introduce and explain the complexities
involved in learning to read that underlie the "simple view" (Scarborough, 2001).
Scarborough's Rope essentially deconstructs the Simple View of Reading by revealing some of theunderlying cognitive components that make up decoding and language comprehension.
According to this model, the components that contribute to the ability to read words include items
like phonological awareness, decoding, and sight recognition. Reading comprehension, on theother strand, depends upon skills like vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning, and so on.
Research has found that all of the components represented in the rope benefit from explicit instruction
and practice, and component mastery is usually accompanied by improvements in reading. And, as therope metaphor suggests, these skills are not independent; students must learn how to integrate andorchestrate them together.
Scarborough's apt representation doesn't purport to be comprehensive; rather, it indicates somekey features of reading. In her later writings, Dr. Scarborough points out additional componentsof reading, such as reading comprehension strategies, working memory, planning, and so on(Cutting & Scarborough, 2012).
Language Comprehension
Background Knowledge

Scarborough's Reading Rope

Vocabulary
In cr

Language Structures

ea

in

gly

s

Verbal Reasoning

Str a t e g i c

Literacy Knowledge

Skilled Reading

Word Recognition
Phonological AwarenessSight Recognition

Inc
re
a

Decoding

Automatic
gly
sin

Handbook of Early Literacy Research, Volume 1, Edited by Susan B. Neuman and David K. Dickinson. 2001. Copyright Guilford Press. Reprinted and adapted with permission of The Guilford Press.

3THE RESEARCH CONTINUESThe Science of Reading is not a fixed body of research. In the words of Nobel prize-winning scientist andengineer, John Bardeen, "science is a field which grows continuously with ever-expanding frontiers."
As evidenced by Dr. Scarborough's more recent work and by the more than three decades of research
since the introduction of the Simple View of Reading, our understanding of how we learn to readcontinues to develop and deepen in light of new scientific findings.
There are now multiple models of reading that incorporate recent research, address additional
domains, and expand our knowledge. Three such models are the Componential Model of Reading by
Drs. Joshi and Aaron, the Active View of Reading by Drs. Duke and Cartwright, and the work of the
RAND Reading Study Group around reading comprehension. These models are not a comprehensive
or exhaustive overview; they provide a representative sampling of the important research that has
been added to the Science of Reading in more recent years.

Word
Recognition
Bridging
Processes

READING

LanguageComprehension

The Active View of Reading
Drs. Nell Duke and Kelly Cartwright have identified significant overlap between word recognition andlanguage comprehension. In “The Science of Reading Progresses: Communicating Advances Beyond
the Simple View of Reading,” the authors review recent research to support their findings that word
recognition and language comprehension are not entirely separate, and important processes bridge
them, including vocabulary, reading fluency, and morphological awareness (Duke & Cartwright, 2021).
Their research synthesis also finds that there are many contributors to reading that were not includedin the Simple View of Reading—including self-regulatory processes such as executive function skills
and motivation—that play a substantial role in reading (Duke & Cartwright, 2021). These elements arepart of a theory that expands upon the Simple View of Reading, which the authors are calling an Active
View of Reading (Duke & Cartwright, 2021).
4

READINGCOMPONENT
MODEL

DOMAIN 1

DOMAIN 2

DOMAIN 3

Cognitive
Components

Psychological
Components

Ecological
Components

The Component Model of Reading
In “The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex,” Drs. R.
Malatesha Joshi and P.G. Aaron expanded upon the Simple View of Reading with their Component
Model (Joshi & Aaron, 2000). The Component Model treats decoding as a prerequisite for wordrecognition skill. Sight-word reading emerges as an important aspect of word recognition aroundthe fourth grade; since sight-word reading skill appears to be built on decoding skill and is notindependent of decoding skill, it is not treated independently in this model (Joshi & Aaron, 2000).
The Component Model aims to provide a more comprehensive view and introduces additional factors
and domains that contribute to reading achievement. Factors include the home environment, dialect,motivation, peer influence, English as a second language, and the classroom environment, among
others. The factors are classified into three domains—cognitive, psychological, and ecological—whichshould all be examined as part of the diagnosis and intervention of literacy problems (Joshi & Aaron,
Componential Model of Reading (CMR): Validation Studies, 2012).

The RAND Model of Reading Comprehension
Dr. Catherine Snow and the RAND Reading Study Group havealso proposed a research-based model for understanding
reading comprehension. They began by defining the term
reading comprehension as "the process of simultaneously
extracting and constructing meaning through interaction andinvolvement with written language" (Snow, 2002). This model
consists of three elements: the reader (who is doing thecomprehending), the text (that is to be comprehended), andthe activity (in which comprehension is a part). Furthermore,their model finds that reading comprehension "occurs within alarger sociocultural context that shapes and is shaped by thereader and that interacts with each of the elements iteratively
throughout the process of reading" (Snow, 2002).

ocultural
Soci

TEXT

ACTIVITY

READERC o n t ex t5

Identifying Research-Based Practices
Many advocates seem to argue for the direct application of Science of Reading research findings
drawn from the neurosciences and cognitive psychology to reading instruction. This approach has
been found to be problematic (Shanahan, 2020) since instructional applications drawn from thesesources have often proven to be ineffective. Basic scientific findings about how reading works and how
it is learned must be translated into pedagogical approaches that then should be rigorously evaluatedto ensure their effectiveness. True "Science of Reading instruction" needs to be consistent with thefindings of such instructional studies.
While there is no governing body or organization charged with evaluating the consistency or degreeof alignment that instructional programs have with the Science of Reading and rigorous instructional
evaluation, some states (including Florida, North Carolina, and Colorado) and organizations like theReading League (The Reading League, 2021) and EAB (EAB Global, Inc., 2021) are creating their own
rubrics to help educators determine which programs are supported by the Science of Reading. However,those rubrics vary in what they cover and the quantity or quality of research evidence they require.
It's important to note that the Science of Reading is extensive, complex, and ever-changing, and does
not exist in any one program or book. Specific instructional practices and approaches can be supported
by research and compared to one another in terms of their effectiveness at raising reading achievement.
Pedagogical research tends to focus on instructional practices–not on specific curricula or literacy
programs. A certain program may be further grounded in the Science of Reading based on the practices
that it employs to teach the key areas of reading, but no program is "a Science of Reading program."

UNDERSTANDING THE RESEARCH ON THE SCIENCE OF READING
With the current focus around the Science of Reading and research-based practices, there is apotentially overwhelming amount of research and information available to educators. Educators will
also find that the conclusions of published research can be contradictory or inconsistent with otherresearch findings, resulting in confusion. For these reasons, there is a need for everyone involved in
the education of our learners to know how to determine the validity of such research. There are many
ways to accomplish this, but two possible tools to help us to wade through the plethora of research aremeta-analyses and effect size.

Meta-analysis
Dr. Jan Hasbrouck and colleagues (2021) caution educators to "never change classroom practicebased on a single study" (Hasbrouck, Shanahan, & Fisher, 2021). She reminds us that "we need aconvergence of evidence, over time, in well-constructed studies, analyzed by experts" before we makeany changes to classroom practice. She urges educators who are expanding their knowledge of the
Science of Reading to look toward meta-analyses of research, like the work of the National Reading
6Panel (National Reading Panel, 2000), before making changes to classroom practices. Meta-analysis
is a method for combining relevant qualitative and quantitative data from multiple studies to develop
one conclusion with greater statistical importance. It can be used to establish significant findings whenstudies have conflicting results and to provide stronger data due to greater diversity among subjects,
increased number of subjects, and the aggregate effects and results (Himmelfarb Health Sciences
Library, 2021).
The goal of these types of reviews of multiple studies is to ensure that someone with researchexperience is sorting through the data and methodology, establishing a standard of quality, evaluating
the various studies, and providing a comprehensive summary of findings and interpretation that
authors, curriculum providers, and educators can use to impact what happens in the classroom.
Meta-analyses are not prevalent. There may be many topics of interest to educators that are notcovered in a meta-analysis, so it's important to be able to read and question individual articles with acritical and discerning eye to better understand the research space.

Effect size
To establish that a practice or approach is effective and supports the Science of Reading, it needs tobe research-based and more effective than "standard practices" in that it delivers some added learningadvantage for students over those existing practices. Effect size is an important measure to gauge
these advantages in both individual studies and meta-analyses.
Effect size is a measure that can be evaluated for practical importance of a research outcome; it
answers the question, "How well did this work?" Practical importance shows that the effect size is large
enough to be meaningful in the real world (as compared to statistical significance, which shows that aneffect was not likely to have occurred by chance alone).
One of the most common ways to use effect size is to determine the efficacy of an instructional
practice relative to a comparison group or approach (the "standard practice"). Effect size indicates if anapproach works, but it also predicts how much impact to expect in a range of scenarios. A large effectsize means that a research finding has practical value and a strong impact on outcomes, while a small
effect size indicates that a finding has limited practical applications. For this reason, effect size is at
the heart of research, and understanding the effect size of a research finding is crucial to determining
whether that research can be proven effective.

7

Asking Important Questions
In Language at the Speed of Sight, Professor Mark Seidenberg (2017) notes that the "lack of tools to
ask hard empirical questions about the validity of [proposals for fixing problems in education] has left
the field besieged and vulnerable to a good story and a hard sell" (Seidenberg, 2017, p. 286). However,these "hard questions" are exactly the kinds of questions that must be asked and answered to benefit
from the body of research we've come to know as the Science of Reading.
Learn more on this topic from Drs. Timothy Shanahan, Jan Hasbrouck, and Douglas Fisher:Your Questions Answered by Experts

SUMMARY
Viewing research through a critical lens and asking important questions can help educators andinstructional leaders determine which practices and approaches will have a positive and meaningful
impact on helping their students learn to read.
Learning to read can be difficult. In the words of Mark Seidenberg, "Reading is an extraordinarily
complex act. [It is a] behavior that is the product of our capacities to see, hear, write, speak, learn,
remember, and think" (Seidenberg, 2017, p. 187). Despite this complexity, Seidenberg writes, "reading is
an area in which there is a large body of modern research relevant to teaching... ranging from theories
that integrate a broad spectrum of findings, ruling out other accounts, to experiments that compare theeffectiveness of different methods for teaching specific skills." Throughout this body of research, thereis evidence that some methods are more effective at teaching children to read, and others are far lesseffective (Seidenberg, 2017, p. 286).
By building on scientific insights gleaned from decades of inquiry into how we learn to read, we canchange how we approach reading instruction and improve how our children read.

8

LEARN MORE
Learn more about the research behind our family of literacy solutions and how they are supported by
the Science of Reading:• Straight Talk on the Science of Reading• Research in Action Brochure• Reading Mastery Transformations®: Science of Reading Proof Points• Open Court Reading ©2016: Evidence for Science of Reading• Wonders®: Science of Reading Proof Points

9Citations
Cutting, L., & Scarborough, H. (2012). Multiple bases for comprehension difficulties: The potential of cognition andneurobiological profiling for validation of subtypes and development of assesssments. In T. O. J.P. Sabatini (Ed.), Reachingan understanding: Innovations in how we view reading assessment. R&L Education.
Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The Science of Reading Progresses: Communicating Advances Beyond the Simple
View of Reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 1-20.
EAB Global, Inc. (2021, June 25). The Science of Reading Implementation Guide. Retrieved from EAB: https://eab.com/
research/district-leadership/toolkit/the-science-of-reading-implementation-guide/
Farrell, L., Hunter, M., Davidson, M., & Osenga, T. (2019). The Simple View of Reading. Retrieved from Reading Rockets:
https://www.readingrockets.org/article/simple-view-reading
Gough, P. B., & Tumner, W. E. (1986). Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7 (1),
6-10.
Hanford, E. (2019, August 22). At a Loss for Words: How a flawed idea is teaching millions of kids to be poor readers.
Retrieved from APM Reports: https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading
Hasbrouck, J., Shanahan, T., & Fisher, D. (2021, April 8). McGraw Hill School of Thought: The Science of Reading.
Columbus, OH, USA.
Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library. (2021, June 25). Study Design 101: Meta-Analyses. Retrieved from Himmelfarb Health
Science Library: https://himmelfarb.gwu.edu/tutorials/studydesign101/metaanalyses.cfm
International Dyslexia Association (IDA). (2018, April). Scarborough's Reading Rope: A Groundbreaking Infographic.
Retrieved from International Dyslexia Association: https://dyslexiaida.org/scarboroughs-reading-rope-a-groundbreakinginfographic/#:~:text=The%20genesis%20of%20the%20Reading,interdependence%20of%20all%20the%20components
Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex.
Reading Psychology 21(2), 85-97.
Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. (2012). Componential Model of Reading (CMR): Validation Studies. Journal of Learning Disabilities.
Moats, L. C. (2020). American Federation of Teachers. Retrieved from Teaching Reading is Rocket Science: https://www.
aft.org/ae/summer2020/moats
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research
Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development.
Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, andpractice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for research in early literacy (pp. 97–110). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Seidenberg, M. (2017). Language at the Speed of Sight: How We Read, Why So Many Can't, and What Can Be Done
About It. New York: Basic Books.
Shanahan, T. (2020). What constitutes a science of reading instruction? Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S235-S247.
Shanahan, T. (2021, March 6). Why Your Students May Not Be Learning to Comprehend. Retrieved from
Shanahan on Literacy: http://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/blog/why-your-students-may-not-be-learning-tocomprehend#sthash.4c0CFDVy.dpbs
Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding : toward a research and development program in reading comprehension.
Santa Monica: RAND.
The Reading League. (2021, June 25). Curriculum Evaluation Tool. Retrieved from The Reading League: https://www.
thereadingleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Curriculum-Evaluation-Tool-August-2020.pdf

RD23 M 22270 8/24

10