Suppose one tries to debate the Science of Reading (SoR) and what it is precisely. They will likely be met by cognitive psychologists, parents, and educators who are insistent about the importance of neuroscience.
Trying to understand how the brain works and why some children have learning disabilities has existed for decades. I’m staring at an old textbook special education teachers used: Alexander Bannatyne’s 1971 Language, Reading, and Learning Disabilities: Psychology, Neuropsychology, Diagnosis, and Remediation.
However, how neuroscience translates into the classroom today, especially how it’s supposed to indicate the existence of a Science of Reading, seems murky with drastic political ramifications.
For example, what makes unproven, costly digital reading programs purchased by states and school districts and heavily advertised as the SoR acceptable? Where is the scientific evidence, proof that these programs work?
No matter what you think of neuroscience and the SoR, it has become a profitable marketing tool for reading.
To better understand the SoR, I read Reading in the Brain: The New Science of How We Read, by cognitive neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene (2009), the Science of Reading bible—one of the book’s blurbs is from the late Oliver Sacks, whose writings have been intriguing.
I also watched Dr. Steven L. Strauss’s Debunking Science of Reading Neuroscience Claims (2024) video. Strauss, a reputable neurologist, M.D., and Ph.D. linguist, raises valid questions concerning the SoR, including its effects on bilingual instruction. He disputes some of the claims made by Dehaene and SoR enthusiasts and describes the limitations of MRI brain imaging and controversies regarding the SoR.
Pediatrics published his commentary Politics and Reading at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development in 2002. And Phi Delta Kappan also published Challenging the NICHD Reading Research Agenda in 2003.
The Reading League asked Dr. Dehaene about the Strauss video. They state:
In response to this claim, Dr. Dehaene emphasized that hundreds of brain-imaging studies have utilized sentences and texts as stimuli during fMRI. These studies have provided valuable evidence regarding how brain circuits form and function regardless of what is being read.
Dehaene notes:
What [the speaker] says is so utterly false that it betrays a dramatic lack of knowledge of the scientific literature…for more than 20 years, we and many other researchers have routinely used sentences and texts as stimuli during functional MRI, both written and spoken…shown how written and spoken texts activate extremely similar brain circuits for meaning and used fMRI to dissect the brain circuits for reading at various levels, from single word processing to syntactic and semantic integration.
What Dehaene says here may all be true, that Strauss was wrong, but it’s still hard to see any real-world evidence that reading can only be taught focusing on formal systematic phonics.
Stanislas Dehaene’s writings about dyslexia are compelling, but still his proclamations about MRI imaging, no matter if they’re sentences or text, translating it to proof that all children need systematic phonics instruction in the classroom, seems hard to fathom.
It’s hard to see how brain science, especially visual MRI depictions of the brain, conclusively links phonics, one piece of instruction, to classroom reading as an isolated rigid holy grail for all children.
In referencing neuroscience and optimal teaching methods, Dehaene states:
A great deal of caution is needed here. My own impression is that neuroscience is still far from being prescriptive. A wide gap separates the theoretical knowledge accumulated in the laboratory from practice in the classroom. Applications raise problems that are often better addressed by teachers than by the theory-based expectations of scientists.
This makes sense, but he continues by implying that children need the same instruction.
Nevertheless, brain imaging and psychological data cannot be detached from the great pedagogical debates. Relativism notwithstanding, it simply is not true that there are hundreds of ways to learn to read. Every child is unique…but when it comes to reading, all have roughly the same brain that imposes the same constraints and the same learning sequence (p.218).
Children may learn to read similarly, however, teachers working with children with reading problems face variables that often interrupt or derail a child’s learning sequence.
In fact, children likely don’t show up to school with the same reading history or needs. Some learn to read easily, or may already read, and others move along a bit slower but catch up. Children with disabilities may need more assistance and intensive instruction.
But students aren’t usually on the same page, ready for a one-size-fits-all reading regimen. Unfortunately, that seems to be how the SoR and neuroscience often translates into classroom instruction, with all children facing the teacher (or screen) with rigid phonics and phonetic rule instruction. Personalized online instruction may individualize needs, but assessment goals are the same.
Even where a group of children with reading disabilities warrant an IEP, one finds a variety of reading differences. Some children can’t focus. Others read well out loud but struggle with memory and comprehension. Still others read O.K. but can’t write. Some children auditorily misinterpret sounds, or have motor problems. They may not be able to name words or pictures (dysnomia). There’s a much longer list, of course, and this is why educators grapple with student differentiation, especially in the inclusion classroom.
It’s also a reason why reading teachers require a well-rounded understanding of how children learn to read and many methods to address the difficulties their students may face during instruction.
Sometimes these problems resolve themselves when children get lots of practice with books they can read and enjoy, or when they get intensive one-to-one or group instruction. Often, the best remediation involves both of these practices.
Dehaene says around age five or six the visual recognition processes are in place, particularly conducive to the acquisition of novel visual shapes like letters and words (p. 199). If I understand correctly, he’s describing this as the time to begin formal reading instruction. Morphett and Washburne found in their 1936 study 6 to 6 1/2 to be best.
Dehaene doesn’t speak, that I see, to fads that make children read earlier than we ever used to expect and whether some children may be mistakenly labeled disabled or slow for that reason.
Later Dehaene concludes:
If a child is to learn to read quickly and well, he [sic] must be given well-structured grapheme-phoneme instruction (p.227).
But most of us also know children who read without systematic phonics instruction, who grasp graphemes and phonemes with a language-rich environment. They hear and see letter sound connections by being read to frequently, scanning words and pictures, with access to lots of reading material to enjoy.
Also, if well-structured grapheme-phoneme instruction was necessary how have so many people become literate for centuries without it? I learned to read with Dick and Jane in first grade, after my mother read to me when I was very young. When I faced a phonics chart in third grade, I was already checking out chapter books, and loved reading. Phonics may have helped me become a good speller.
Some children might need intensive phonics instruction but who those children are and how much systematic instruction is the question.
In the second chapter, Dehaene criticizes whole language. This is questionable for a variety of reasons and worthy of a separate review.
Dehaene covers much about how we learn to read that’s interesting, but the emphasis on the connection between neuroscience and the systematic instruction of phonics for all students seems weak, especially the connection of MRIs to phonics in the classroom.
References
Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain: the science and evolution of a human invention. Viking.
Strauss, S. L. (2002). Politics and Reading at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Pediatrics 109 (1): 143–144. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.109.1.143
Strauss, S. L. (2003). Challenging the NICHD Reading Research Agenda. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(6), 438–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170308400605
Debunking Science of Reading Neuroscience Claims with Dr. Steven Strauss 4/24/24.
I recommend Dehaene’s response to Strauss, where he begins by saying: “What Dr. Steven Strauss says is so utterly false that it betrays a dramatic lack of knowledge of the scientific literature.”
https://www.thereadingleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/stanislas-dehaenes-responses-to-the-reading-league.pdf
I also recommend Nancy Young’s Ladder of Reading and Writing, which shows that about 40% of us will learn to read regardless of the instruction.
https://nancyyoung.ca/the-ladder-of-reading-writing/
You may also be interested in a piece I’ve recently written about the challenges of differentiation: The Devil is in the Details of Differentiation: Meditations from a Mere Mortal, Merely Teaching.
https://highfiveliteracy.com/2024/10/06/the-devil-is-in-the-details-of-differentiation-meditations-from-a-mere-mortal-merely-teaching/
Sure he’s going to disagree. I’m neither a neuroscientist or neurologist but it is still hard for me to see the connection with MRIs with what Dehaene says to systematic phonics instruction as being necessary for all children to read. For example, he states in the reading league rebuttal, “Thus, the accurate recognition of letters is an essential early stage common to all reading tasks.” Well sure, but lots of kids learn letters and sounds when parents read to them.
I might add that phonics has been around for a long time.
Nancy Young says children will read “regardless of instruction” well O.K. Isn’t that arguing against Dehaene?
“Nancy Young says children will read “regardless of instruction” well O.K. Isn’t that arguing against Dehaene?”
What she says is that for 40% of children “learning to read is relatively easy with broad instruction.” Like you, my school used Dick and Jane, but even though my Greek mother never read to me, I quickly learned to decode words and can now decode new words (like hydroxychloroquine) effortlessly. We teach systematic phonics instruction because we can’t be sure at the beginning which students will catch on effortlessly and which are dependent on our instruction. That’s how it was in my K-1 classrooms and how it is now working with my intervention students.
I revised the post to add notes about Dehaene’s rebuttal. But I still don’t see the connection between MRIs and systematic phonics.
I think it is wrong to put all children through phonics drill at an early age as some kind of preventative measure, when many children will learn phonics with a rich language environment. I know children who would shut down in K especially considering reading never used to be taught so early.
Furthermore what’s the point of assessment if you’re going to run children through the same program anyway. It’s too much too soon.
“I think it is wrong to put all children through phonics drill.”
Fortunately, good teaching doesn’t use phonics “drill.” Not one of my 27 kindergartners “shut down” because I made the learning fun: beach balls, bean bags, letter necklaces, white boards, and lots of interactive games as well as opportunities to write so they could use their letter-sound knowledge for personal writing. The point of “screeners” is to see which students might be “at risk” for reading difficulty and need targeted attention. We don’t want these students to slip through the cracks.
Unfortunately, I see many examples of kindergartners lined up in front of a whiteboard with the teacher asking them to repeat letter sounds or even rules. You can easily find this on social media since teachers believe they’re doing the right thing. Often, children look bored or they’re moving around. There are also frequently discussions and attempts to justify Direct Instruction.
I appreciate that you’re including writing, but this pushes kindergarteners to read earlier than ever before, and since this has been done since NCLB you’d think we’d ask some questions about whether it’s working.
But thank you for sharing your experiences.
You can find more reading research in this review, The Vanishing Act in The Balancing Act: Reading Instruction That Ignores Orthographic Mapping and Cognitive Load Theory Is a Setback for Students, which I wrote in response to the new Wyse and Hacking book, The Balancing Act: An Evidence-Based Approach to Phonics, Reading and Writing.
https://highfiveliteracy.com/2024/08/28/the-vanishing-act-in-the-balancing-act/#comment-3164
I hope you find time to read it. It’s very important that we get reading research right.
There are serious concerns about the lack of SoR research and the NRP which, I’ve written, should be replaced with a new NRP, one that this time includes real teachers (and parents). You might read the concerns about the original NRP from Joanne Yatvin who stepped down from the panel due to problems she witnessed with the panel. I’ve had people send me what they claim are studies that are neither peer-reviewed nor independent, and sometimes, they don’t say what they claim. I’ve not read your essay yet. But I will.
Unfortunately, other so-called research comes from the commercialized programs which is more marketing than research.
I’m reading the Wyse and Hacking book, and so far, it is one of the best books I’ve seen about reading in a while. I hope to write a review about it soon.
“You might read the concerns about the original NRP from Joanne Yatvin who stepped down from the panel due to problems she witnessed with the panel. ”
Yes, I read them in my reading specialist credential program. I’m so glad you’re reading The Balancing Act. I really do hope you will take the concerns I express in my review under consideration when writing your review. The fact that a book on reading instruction fails to take into consideration the research by Linnea Ehri on orthographic mapping is alarming.
Thank you!
Ehri sat on the NRP. Maybe it is an oversight, but it is hardly alarming.
Harriet, this kind of argumentation is why I pulled my kids out of public school and deeply regret sending my kids to schools that relied on ‘balanced literacy’ that is basically ‘whole language’ nonsense in a different outfit.
Hi Brian, How would you define balanced literacy?
“Hi Brian, How would you define balanced literacy?”
via GIPHY
Balanced literacy involves many activities that are genuinely validating for children. Journal writing, for example, was a welcome activity for students with LD in my class who were uncomfortable writing. Many children have also learned to write with invented spelling. Phonics is not the only activity that teaches reading. The Reading League recently wrote about the benefits of choral reading I believe.
Brian, I welcome comments, even from those who disagree with me. However, I think Diane Ravitch said one’s blog is like their living room. I feel the same way. If you want to criticize make it of substance. If you want to simply make annoying comments I will no longer put them here.
You asked how I define balanced literacy, that’s how I define it. It’s not an ad hominem attack, it’s a visual representation of my views. I
Whole language is a rolling critique, an effort to pick an argument because those doing it are thinking ahead to a synthesis that will advantage them, professionally.
It is a certain style of intellectual parasitism that afflicts every field, sooner or later; it is dialectical sophistry.
It’s just the flavor that happens to afflict literacy.
You asked, I answered, both visually and verbally. That’s how I define balanced literacy.
So the answer I gave is the only intellectually honest response I can give you because I believe a visceral reaction is what it attempts to evoke in order to gain energy, to spark the discussion that gives its backers oxygen.
I would define it is an intellectual dumpster fire.
So you only believe in phonics instruction? Because many other activities to teach reading, I listed 2 fall under the category of WL.
Speaking of books, you may be interested in my (non-profit) instructional guide to reading, From Sound to Summary: Braiding the Reading Rope to Make Words Make Sense. Six chapters: Making sense of words we hear, words we say, words we see, words we understand, words we remember, and words we analyze. Chapter 5, Making Sense of Words We Remember, is all about the importance of orthographic mapping. If you do read it, I would love to hear your thoughts. Thank you.
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=from+sound+to+summary+janetos&i=stripbooks&crid=2OUTXUX39NU5U&sprefix=from+sound+to+su%2Cstripbooks%2C162&ref=nb_sb_ss_fb_2_16
Learning to read!?!?!
That is of foremost importance! Today’s school age kids can’t spell much less write a paragraph! Neuroscience in classrooms here in the USA is useless.
We are if a third world county in teaching academics! Shame!
“Many children have also learned to write with invented spelling. Phonics is not the only activity that teaches reading.”
It’s not either/or–it’s both/and. Invented spelling has robust research by Gene Ouellette and others to support it and was a fundamental part of my K-1 classrooms. Chapter 2 of my instructional guide (Making Sense of Words We Say) is all about the importance of writing (encoding) to promote phonemic awareness and reading proficiency.
But we can’t just rely on the research we happen to like for one reason or another. Chapter 3 (Making Sense of Words We See) is all about the importance of decoding instruction and relies upon the robust research by Linnea Ehri and others, which you dismiss.
We let families like Brian’s down when we don’t opt for the most effective and efficient reading instruction based on reliable research. Yesterday, I met with my 48 first and second graders in their intervention groups. My obligation to them and their families is to apply what is know about effective reading instruction so that they can become proficient readers.
I think families are let down when we insist children read before first grade and retain them in third grade, a practice well known to cause harm (See Jimerson research). Or when school districts spend vast amounts on unproven online programs advertising SoR that teachers are pushed to use with fidelity even if the instruction is poor.
Ehri was on the NRP which many believe did a poor job. You might read the reviews of Joanne Yatvin who left the panel for many reasons, like lack of time and inability to cover research well, the only educator, I might add. I believe, from what I’ve read so far, that Wyse and Hacking did a phenomenal job. You can choose to disagree. Thank goodness, thus far we live in a free country to do so.
I’ve called for a new National Reading Panel. Both you and Brian might be good participants.
“I believe, from what I’ve read so far, that Wyse and Hacking did a phenomenal job. You can choose to disagree.”
I definitely disagree, and I give lots of evidence in my review to support my view. I hope you will evaluate my objections objectively and not based on pre-determined beliefs. Linnea Ehri is not the only researcher who studies the importance of orthographic mapping, which is facilitated when instruction unites phonology, orthography and semantics (sounds, spellings, meanings). Wyse and Hacking say their book is evidenced-based. Ignoring orthographic mapping betrays their ignorance of the copious amount of research supporting its importance.
I read their book with an open mind, which is why in my review I was able to praise their emphasis on integrating reading and writing, which has robust research to support it. Unfortunately, their claims related to contextualized phonics instruction are not evidence-based.
Review: The Vanishing Act in The Balancing Act: Reading Instruction That Ignores Orthographic Mapping and Cognitive Load Theory Is a Setback for Students.
https://highfiveliteracy.com/2024/08/28/the-vanishing-act-in-the-balancing-act/#comment-3164
After reading the book, I will write a review, which might take a while. Thanks, Harriett.
Thank you for keeping the lines of communication open! So important for our students!
All I know is this…there are multiple ways to learn. Heck, just refinishing my front deck I watched several YouTube videos to see if I was missing something; each video had their own way, the best tools, and whatnot. I had the gist, but in the long run (as I do — it’s part of me) I evaluate the situation, attack it accordingly, and organically moved forward. I needed some lumber and instead of the expensive trim, I ripped boards to the size I needed. Not at all text book, but mostly from years of “having to figure it out.” When I taught third grade, Whole Language was the thing. “See they just read…blah, blah…blah.” I quickly took a look at “my team” and addressed the immediate concern “knowing their sounds” as I was first year teacher and didn’t know all the teacher lingo. So, I went with what I knew. THEY said, “Get rid of all your phonics books because Whole Language is the panacea for it all. Yes finally the one and only way!” That didn’t sit with me, In fact, a lot of this “one size fits all” methodology didn’t sit well with me. I knew the kids needed more time, small group, and focusing learning. “We don’t have time for that! You can’t do that! You’ll never get through the book.” As typical for me, I liked to explain the “Why’s and How’s” of how we learn — and the kids told me what worked for them. And we looked words up; and we did this and we did that. I said, “See all of your brains work a bit differently, but everyone will get to where we are going.” One young man (now a successful tile worker/custom homes) entered my class while mom said, “Can he sit in front? He has learning disabilities.” At the time, I had no clue to what they were, but as time went on, he was severely ADDHD and could not read. So I worked with him. All I knew was what I knew and by Parent Night, he could read a page out loud. I looked in his file and found out he was diagnosed as a “behavior issue” and “…could not wait to move him into the next year’s class…” He was a great kid, and the parents were supportive. And, throughout my career, I spent hours researching to help students. Along the way, I found Dr. Judy Willis. We had a handful of discussions (for me I was collecting information) and she made a lot of sense. So, you can peruse her thoughts on neuroscience and teaching. Well worth the read. Blessings. https://radteach.com
Thanks, Rick. So your school told you to get rid of the phonics books? Wow.
Thanks for sharing, Judy Willis. I’ve looked at one of her books and found good teaching ideas, and I appreciate how she connects those tasks to the brain in a concrete and understandable manner. However, I zone out a bit on the longer brain discussions.
Nancy,
Yes, that was the directive “get rid of phonics because we have whole language.'” The veteran teachers told me to “hide them.” Another person introduced me to the Slingerland Method where we would use tactile/touch methods to help students learn., e.g.., edge, eh-JUDGE while touching the edge of the table. I used touchpoint math as well. Whatever was needed, I moved organically in that direction. https://www.slingerland.org/slingerland-approach Honestly, on the dense neuroscience, I need to very awake to study. But, I loved asking her questions about “why’s and how’s” of how the brain works. One of the things I asker her was, “Why do you think students’ attention spans have dwindled in recent years? I asked her about the use of cell phones and such.” If I remember correctly, she said students are not allowed to “play with stuff” anymore. I understood her immensely. She went on to say that kids needed to take broken things and figure out how they work (well something like that). I grew up fixing things. My mother saves things for me to fix because she knows I will diagnose the problem and fix it correctly. My wife tells me, “Why not throw it out?” Because I know I can fix it. Judy Willis alluded to that point with kids being more passive learners. I remember a friend of mine told me that children need to crawl and not be put in walkers. The bilateral coordination develops areas in the brain that helps children learn to read. She also told me illiterate prisoners developed reading skills by crawling. That’s what she told me and she had a masters in kinesiology. Bilateral crawling is a physical activity that requires the use of both sides of the body to move, and it’s an important developmental milestone for babies:
Brain development
Crawling strengthens the corpus callosum, the part of the brain that helps the two sides communicate. This helps with activities that require crossing the midline, like reading and writing. Thinks that one think better. Thanks for letting me share.
Interesting comment, Rick. Thanks.
Nancy, I am glad to share my experiences if it helps others grow. Finally, a place to share without fear of retribution. Too many years of “going along to get along.” Thank you.