If someone were to ask me what the Science of Reading is, I would have to say that it appears; to be a rebranding name for the names of reading instruction and research which have evolved over time. The same principles of reading from the past have not changed. They still include the same five pillars of reading instruction as existed in the past (which AI identifies from the National Reading Panel):
- Phonemic Awareness: The ability to hear, identify, and manipulate individual sounds (phonemes) in spoken words. This is a foundational skill for phonics.
- Phonics: Understanding the relationship between letters (graphemes) and sounds (phonemes) to decode and encode written words. Systematic phonics instruction is more effective than unsystematic approaches.
- Fluency: The ability to read text accurately, quickly, and with appropriate expression. Fluency bridges word recognition and reading comprehension.
- Vocabulary: Knowledge of a wide range of words and their meanings, which is essential for understanding the text.
- Reading Comprehension: The ability to understand and interpret the meaning of text. This involves integrating decoding skills with oral language skills, background knowledge, and reasoning abilities
During the "Reading Wars,", the branding names separated approaches such as 'whole language' vs 'phonics' and pushed early phonemic skills into pre-reading. . . then each of the opposite approaches was branded together into the name 'Balanced Reading.'
AI tells us about the term "Science of Reading."
The term "Science of Reading" has a long history, first appearing in educational contexts as early as the 1830s, but it emerged as a widely recognized label for the interdisciplinary body of modern reading research in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and gained significant traction in the mid-to-late 2010s.
Historical Context
- Early Usage: The phrase was used in a letter to the editor in 1836 in the context of systematic spelling and pronunciation instruction. It was also found in educational literature in the mid-20th century, though not often.
- The "Reading Wars": During the debates (often called the "reading wars") in the 1990s over the best way to teach reading (phonics vs. whole language), the term "scientific research-based reading" (SRBR) was used in federal law to emphasize evidence-based approaches.
- Modern Re-emergence: The term "Science of Reading" re-emerged more prominently around the turn of the 21st century after the release of the National Reading Panel (NRP) report in 2000. This report synthesized a vast body of research and identified five key components of effective reading instruction (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension), which laid the foundation for the modern understanding of the "Science of Reading".
- Widespread Popularity: The term became an educational phenomenon in the late 2010s, largely due to investigative journalism, notably Emily Hanford's 2018 radio documentary Hard Words, which highlighted the discrepancy between scientific research findings and common classroom practices at the time.
Today, the term serves as a shorthand for a vast, interdisciplinary body of research from fields including cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and linguistics, which informs how proficient reading develops and the most effective ways to teach it.
These historical articles trace the origins and resurgence of the "Science of Reading" label from the 1830s to its modern prominence in the late 1990s and 2010s.
The 2000 National Reading Panel (NRP) report identified five evidence-based components of reading instruction, often termed the "five pillars," based on a synthesis of research. For more information, visit reallygreatreading.com.
Just when I determined that SOR is a methodology, I had to ask, 'What is the difference between
Balanced Literacy and the Science of Reading?" It appears it may also be an instructional approach.
Now we are finding that the science of reading cannot act as a literacy method on its own. And there is
a call for structured literacy approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment