What the Science of Reading Says about Reading Comprehension and Content Knowledge

by Jennifer Jump, Kathleen Kopp

Discover all about how students learn to read! This teacher resource explores current research on the science of reading and discusses what it means for classrooms today. From detailed background information to helpful classroom tips, authors Jennifer Jump and Kathy Kopp provide everything teachers need to improve students’ reading comprehension and content knowledge skills. Perfect for professional development, this book includes key words for teacher understanding, teaching checklists, top must-dos, and other features to help teachers bring these research-based strategies into their classrooms.

Genres: Education

216 pages, Paperback

Published July 15, 2022

Reviews

[Trevor · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’ve read three of these books now – there’s this one, obviously, which I think was the best of the three, and one of word recognition and another on writing. I want to start by saying I’m not a fan of the science of reading. I think many of its claims are grossly overstated or simply not true. And each of these books start with the same chapter that sets the scene, with one of the sections of this called Settle Science. As someone who started a physics degree in a previous life, this is a bit like sticking me in the eye with a pointy stick. There simply is nothing about the scientific method that is ‘settled’ – so, saying that immediately tells me the person saying they are representing the science of reading, or the science of anything else, is really telling me they know next to nothing about science. And this isn’t just a rhetorical point – but fundamental. In other reviews I’ve written here on GoodReads, I’ve tried to explain why the science is anything but settled – not least because there has been remarkably little research that has actively tested the validity or efficacy of particular pedagogical methods. Those advocating the science of reading often ignore entire fields of research – particularly ethnographic research and child centred ways of teaching. They also tend to reduce every other way of teaching reading to ‘guessing’ – which is more than just a misrepresentation, but utterly bizarre. This is also why they virtually never quote anyone who advocates anything other than the science of reading – to do so would require them to either be incredibly deceptive, given most other ways of teaching propose very similar strategies, at least in part, as they promote – but also, and to their great shame, they rarely appear to have spent any time investigating anything other than their ‘science’. This is the only way I can understand some of the nonsense they say about other methods.

What struck me most about this book was how, for the most part, what it was saying seemed identical to how constructivists recommend one should teach comprehension. I was surprised because people like Louisa Moats and Lyn Stone are particularly scathing about constructivism. Of course, there are differences. This book does not stress explicit teaching nearly as much as the other two do, but it is still very much a feature here. Constructivists do believe explicit teaching should have a place in the classroom, but certainly not the strictly linear one that is advocated here.

I didn’t do this, but I think it would be an interesting exercise to work through these books and a much better book on teaching reading, The Balancing Act: An Evidence-Based Approach to Teaching Phonics, Reading and Writing comparing the examples of practice each gives. If one is so obviously more ‘evidence based’ and ‘effective’ and even ‘scientific’ it would be interesting to see how and why this is the case. Which brings me to another of my problems with the science of reading – that it takes as gospel the results of cognitive science in relation to ideas such as cognitive load theory – when often these results are held much more tentatively by cognitive scientist themselves and have rarely been tested in classrooms. As someone who believes that teaching and learning are incredibly complex social and cultural experiences that are unlikely to be understood by simple models or universally applicable high impact strategies alone – I’m very keen to see the research base associated with teaching and learning broadened, rather than restricted in the way the science of reading advocates as settle science. To me, it could only be considered ‘settled’ if one remains ignorant of the breadth of the issues learning to read involves.

But, like I said, this was the least ideological book I’ve read from someone advocating the science of reading – not that it strays much from the basic beliefs of the movement, but it does propose engaging students with the meaning of texts and that can’t be a bad thing.

[Kelli · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was a good review of the science of reading, specifically based on Scarborough's reading rope. Along with the information in each chapter about a specific strand of the rope, there is a lesson/activity for each grade level. There is also next steps to help others put the reading in action.

[Valerie Biggam · Rating 4 out of 5]

✅Some good suggestions and I like the emphasis on newer research.

❌Many of the suggestions skewed more primary and intermediate; there seemed to be less concrete application examples for secondary classrooms.