Science of Reading

Currently, the science of reading is getting a lot of positive press. However, it’s not a new concept. The science of reading is a collection of research-based evidence that gives insight into how children learn to read and write. It is based on findings from multiple fields, including education, linguistics, neuroscience, and psychology. The decades of research encompass core skills such as phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and writing.

Unlike learning to talk, learning to read does not develop naturally. It must be taught. “Learning to read is a very complex skill — one of the most complex things that we ask our children to take on. And for many kids, it doesn’t come easily” (Reading Rockets, 2026). While some children pick up reading skills more easily, others do not. Some children, like those with dyslexia, require direct, explicit, and systematic instruction. Additionally, multisensory instruction helps all children make connections in the brain, but for children with severe to profound dyslexia, multisensory instruction becomes a lifeline for learning to read successfully.

The science of reading advocates utilizing a structured literacy approach for teaching children to read and write. It is an explicit and systematic way to teach a child to read. The Orton-Gillingham approach adheres to the principles of structured literacy.

Simple View of Reading

We gained further insight into reading when, in 1986, Philip B. Gough and William E. Turner developed the Simple View of Reading model. The model explains the importance not only of teaching children to read but also of helping them connect with the reading through language comprehension. If a child can successfully decode the word “optimism” but has no idea what it means, the passage is still hard to understand. The Simple View of Reading states that Decoding x Language Comprehension = Reading Comprehension. A solid Orton-Gillingham program not only focuses on decoding (reading) words but also on building a child’s vocabulary.

National Reading Panel of 2000

The National Reading Panel confirmed what the science of reading research was saying by identifying what is now known as the five pillars of reading instruction. Based on their review of the research, the pillars identified include phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.

Though published in 2000, the results were three years in the making, following Congress’s request that a national reading panel be formed to examine the “effectiveness of various approaches to teaching children to read” (National Reading Panel, 2000, p. 1-1).

Scarborough’s Reading Rope

In 2001, Dr. Hollis Scarborough developed a more advanced model of the simple view of reading, now known as Scarborough’s Reading Rope. It takes into account additional skills that factor into reading comprehension, including phonological awareness and sight recognition as part of the decoding factor and background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning, and literacy knowledge as part of the language comprehension factor. Looking at Scarborough’s Reading Rope, one can see that learning to read is not a simple concept.

Active View of Reading

Looking back to the simple view of reading, an equation that says reading comprehension is a product of decoding and language comprehension, Duke and Cartwright examine the evidence in the 35 years since its introduction. The premise of their study is that reading difficulties do not always fit neatly into the domains of decoding and language comprehension. In fact, Duke and Cartwright advocate that decoding and language comprehension have overlapping elements in each of these categories. The researchers believe that other factors also affect reading and have developed the Active View of Reading, which has been widely accepted along with the simple view of reading and Scarborough’s reading rope.

At Lighthouse to Literacy, we value the research. How the brain learns to read is fascinating, and we believe it’s important to understand so that we know not only what to do but why we are doing it. Too many educators get stuck when what they’ve been taught to do isn’t working. If we know why we’re doing what we’re doing, we can tweak it and individualize it to work for each student.

We envision a world where every child is provided the opportunity to learn to read, regardless of the obstacles that may stand in their way. E.D. Hirsch Jr. felt that “failing to teach children what they must learn in order to be able to cope with further learning in school is the greatest form of injustice” (Glazzard & Stones, 2021, p. 2). We agree. Children who cannot read are at a great disadvantage, and that disadvantage can last a lifetime if their reading skills are not remediated.

Our vision for the future is simple. We want every child to reach their full reading potential. We believe this is possible with the right training and resources. The science of reading provides evidence-based research to ensure the tools we utilize meet learners’ needs.

References

Duke, N. K. & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. International Literacy Association. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48634387?searchText=&searchUri=&ab_segments=&searchKey=&refreqid=fastly-default%3A4424598b558bb2c07b4b4e3c062ed541&initiator=recommender&seq=4

Glazzard, J, & Stones, S. (Eds.). (2021). Dyslexia. IntechOpen. https://mts.intechopen.com/storage/books/10228/authors_book/authors_book.pdf

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. National Reading Panel - Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction

Reading Rockets (2026). Teaching reading is rocket science. https://www.readingrockets.org/reading-101/reading-101-learning-modules

‍ ‍

‍ ‍