How do we read? It’s a complex question, and there are plenty of theories about what the answer might be. In a wide-ranging review, we’ve brought together more than 300 research studies, journal articles and chapters to produce an overview of what is known about how children learn to read. Here are the key findings.
1. Phonics has to be the first step
To read, children must acquire three sets of skills: cracking the alphabetic code; becoming fluent at recognising words; and understanding written text. These are not independent capacities that develop separately. But there is a strong consensus that cracking the alphabetic code - ie, understanding the relationship between printed words and spoken language - is a necessary foundation for learning to read.
The purpose of phonics is to teach this directly. Myths about phonics abound: “it teaches children to read nonsense” ; “it interferes with reading comprehension” ; “English is too irregular for phonics to be of any value” ; “phonics is boring and puts children off reading”. Our research explains why all these claims are misguided. Phonic knowledge provides the necessary foundation for what comes later, but it is only part of the story. It is necessary, but not sufficient.
2. Morphemes and morphology are important
When first learning to read, children encounter short words, where the letters are code for sounds: “lock”, “pick” and “pack”. But as children encounter longer words, letters and groups of letters become code for meaning: “unlock”, “unpick” and “unpack”. Here, the letters “un” can apply to many other words, too. This type of coding is known as “morphology”, and a “morpheme” describes the minimum meaning-bearing unit of language.
Most English words are built by combining morphemes - for example, “unlock”, “lockable”, “relocked”, “locksmith”, “headlock”. We know skilled readers use knowledge of morphology to compute the meanings of words rapidly. This needs explicit instruction once alphabetic knowledge is established.
3. Reading experience counts
Children who are good readers tend to read more and therefore become better at reading. Motivating poor readers isn’t easy, but the question of how to do it should not be divorced from the question of how best to teach them. And, actually, ensuring a child has solid basic skills and considers themselves “a reader” can maximise motivation.
4. We must teach the means to create meaning
As we read, we build a “situation model”, culminating in a rich interpretation of the text which goes beyond what is explicit. We pull in relevant knowledge, using our language and memory resources to process this information as we read to make connections between elements of the text and to draw inferences about the intended meaning.
Beyond reading words, many aspects of reading comprehension are, in fact, features of language comprehension.
Once children are able to read fluently, there is clear evidence that explicit instruction in strategies to help comprehension has an impact. This includes instruction in clarification, summarisation, prediction and in helping children to make inferences and to actively monitor their comprehension. However, strategies can only take us so far. Without access to the relevant knowledge to understand the content, comprehension will fail.
5. It’s time for a truce
Too often, phonics has been unfairly criticised and, while practitioners know reading goes beyond alphabetical skills, we lack a full discussion about other aspects of reading acquisition.
The evidence is there to get the balance right. We need to train teachers in how the writing system works and how the broader language system it represents underpins the process of becoming a reader. We also need to structure teaching time to reflect the need to teach alphabetic decoding, fluent word reading and text comprehension at different and particular points in development.
Kate Nation is professor of experimental psychology at the University of Oxford and directs its language and cognitive development research group. Kathleen Rastle is professor of cognitive psychology at Royal Holloway, University of London, and directs its language, learning and cognition lab. Anne Castles is professor of psychology at Macquarie University in Sydney and deputy director of the ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders
Commentary: ‘The reading wars are over’
Kathleen Rastle, professor of cognitive psychology at Royal Holloway, University of London, says:
Three years ago, when our article first appeared in Tes, there was mutual agreement within the research community that scientific understanding of how children learn to read wasn’t having an impact on reading instruction in classrooms.
Things are very different now. Indeed, when “Ceasefire in the reading wars” was published, there was an immediate and immense interest among teachers in understanding how the science of reading can contribute to children’s outcomes.
Our research has since been shared more than 3,000 times on Twitter (mostly by teachers) and has reached nearly 5 million people. Primary schools in England have cited it in their curriculum plans, and it has been described on the websites of education leadership organisations, dyslexia charities, reading scheme publishers and parent advocacy groups.
The work has also had a major influence at the policy level, motivating changes to reading curricula and assessment in high-income countries, as well as the approach of organisations such as the World Bank to literacy in low- and middle-income countries.
Why have things shifted so much? Well, we’ve developed new understandings of old oppositions. The period of “reading wars” was rightly focused on the vital importance of phonics instruction. However, some took this to mean that phonics is all there is to reading. This, of course, is not that case and our piece was important because it described how the other ingredients of successful reading fit into the jigsaw. We know that reading for pleasure is vital, for example, and that high-quality phonics instruction enables rather than prevents this.
The importance of teachers and teacher leaders in this process cannot be overstated. Our Tes piece described the science of how children learn to read and it outlined some broad implications of that evidence base for teaching children to read.
Yet, turning that science into day-to-day classroom practices that are effective, feasible and acceptable requires educators doing the work to understand and translate the evidence. I’ve really appreciated observing and contributing to this process through excellent organisations, such as the Education Endowment Foundation, ResearchED, Teacher Development Trust and Deans for Impact.
We are still far from making sure that every child has the opportunity to acquire literacy. Our scientific knowledge is incomplete and the need for people who are able to translate the knowledge we do have is immense. But the research-practice gap is narrowing and we now have the tools to go forward together.
In many ways, the “reading wars” are over.
