Science of reading

What is the Science of Reading?

The body of research evidence known as the Science of Reading is comprised of more than 40 years of research into how we learn to read. Additionally, the body of research that provides the foundation for the Science of Reading consists of analyses of the instructional practices that have been repeated and validated consistently, over time, with proven results.

Decades of scientific research in reading have led to the identification of 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—also have provided valuable evidence about the most effective ways to teach these key components of literacy.
                                                                 - Excerpt from McGraw-Hill, Explore Science of Reading

The Simple View stands in stark contrast to the "whole language approach" or the three cueing approach (context, visual, and syntax) where beginning readers compensate for weak decoding skills by guessing at new or unfamiliar words using different cues such as pictures or context. For example, if a student is reading a word like dad in a sentence, the student could say the word father, based on a picture. While the words may have the same meaning, the student is not learning to read the correct word. Neurological and cognitive science research has shown that proficient reading depends upon decoding (Hanford, 2019).
 

Alternatively, Scarborough's Rope model is a related view of reading, using the metaphor of a rope where reading skills are represented by the strands in a rope, which "weave together" to create a strong reader.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 the other strand, depends upon skills like vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning, and so on. Research has found that all of the components represented in the graphic benefit from explicit instruction and practice, and that their mastery is usually accompanied by improvements in reading. And, as the rope metaphor suggests, these skills are not independent. Students must learn how to integrate these and orchestrate them together.

The Columbus Diocese supports the use of approaches that use the Science of Reading as a foundational model. The Orton-Gillingham Approach follows the Science of Reading – respecting that the skills needed to become a proficient reader need to be explicitly taught, individualized to the student. The Diocese has offered several OG professional development opportunities for teachers and will continue to do so.

See below for a list of curricular materials aligned to the Science of Reading that are approved for Diocesan use. These have been hyperlinked to aid in investigating the different programs. The Diocese also supports using Lexia or Renaissance Lalilo as supplemental digital products.

Fundations, Wonders, Benchmark, Orton-Gillingham, Phonics in Motion, Houghton Mifflin Into Reading, SAAVAS MyView Literacy, Functional Phonics, 95% Group, Sadlier Phonics to Reading, Amplify Core Knowledge, Letterland Phonics

No, it is not. Traditional guided reading is based on text reading levels and many times, are not decodable. Students are asked to guess the meaning of a word through context versus decoding the word. This is not to say that small group instruction or reading groups are ineffective. Working with small groups is a very effective instructional practice. The difference is what is taught and how it is taught.  See below for the differences.