How the Brain Learns to Read

The Science of Reading

            There has been a century long debate over how to best teach children to read proficiently. The term “Science of Reading” has been popping up in educational forums and has recently taken center stage in the national debate on literacy. Mississippi and Florida, who have recently led the nation in gains in literacy based on the most recent NAEP results, have invested a lot of resources in having their teachers and administrators trained in the Science of Reading. Based on the minutes of the North Carolina State Board of Education as well as the mission and vision of the NCDPI K-3 Literacy Division, North Carolina is committed to investing in training and resources for educators related to the Science of Reading.

Image Credit: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2020). Mission, Vision, Guiding Principles. K-3 Literacy Division. Retrieved from https://www.dpi.nc.gov/districts-schools/classroom-resources/early-learning-read-achieve/k-3-literacy.

Yet, in my last post “What’s Happening in North Carolina Literacy”, I referenced a report commissioned by the UNC system president to study the literacy component of educator preparation programs which found that the majority of educator preparation programs were woefully lacking in their alignment to current research in literacy leaving graduates unprepared to teach literacy skills at the elementary level (Bryan, Hougen, & Nelsen  2018).

The National Council of Teacher Quality released its annual report on the quality of teacher preparation programs and how well these programs prepare teachers how to teach the five pillars of reading based on scientifically proven principles (Graham & Walsh 2020). Their report ranks teacher prep programs based on an extensive review of course syllabi, textbooks, and class assignments, and programs are rated based on an A-F grading system. Their report found that 51% of the programs reviewed received either an A or B rating which was a 16 point increase since 2013. Their full report provides links to the criteria they used to rate each program as well as to links that show performance by state. In North Carolina Lenoir-Rhyne University and UNC-Charlotte both received a rating of A; however; Lenoir-Rhyne received an additional rating of exemplary for meeting all of the criteria laid out by the reviewers. They also reviewed textbooks utilized in educator preparation programs and found that 57% align to current research on reading. As professionals seeking to continue to educate yourselves or your staff if you are an administrator, the report also provides a list of “acceptable” and “not acceptable” texts to learn how to teach reading. Unfortunately, many of the top ten texts that were rated “not acceptable” are frequently in use in multiple school districts in North Carolina as professional development for teachers.

If a large number of teacher preparation programs are not adequately preparing teachers to be effective literacy teachers and current teachers, administrators, and district decision makers have never been trained to be effective literacy instructors, then how are we ensuring that the curriculum and professional development being provided to teachers is in line with what science says is how best to teach reading, especially to our most struggling readers. What exactly is meant when you hear the term “Science of Reading”, or SOR? The Science of Reading is not an instructional approach to reading or a philosophical belief, but refers to the body of evidence from cognitive psychologists and cognitive neuroscience as well as other disciplines that shows how the brain learns to read efficiently and what goes wrong in the brains of non-proficient readers. Dr. Louisa Moats defines the term as follows:

“The body of work referred to as the “science of reading” is not an ideology, a philosophy, a political agenda, a one-size-fits-all approach, a program of instruction, nor a specific component of instruction. It is the emerging consensus from many related disciplines, based on literally thousands of studies, supported by hundreds of millions of research dollars, conducted across the world in many languages. These studies have revealed a great deal about how we learn to read, what goes wrong when students don’t learn, and what kind of instruction is most likely to work the best for the most students (Stuart & Fugnitto 2019).”

Thousands upon thousands of research studies have been conducted creating a large body of evidence revealing how the brain learns to read and the instructional strategies most likely to produce the neural pathways needed for proficient reading. Unfortunately, much of this research does not trickle down to currently practicing educators and changes in curriculum and instructional practices. Frequently, teachers are asked to evaluate programs and instructional practices based on scientific evidence. But, what is meant by the term “scientific evidence”? Educator preparation programs do not typically train teachers on how to be discerning consumers of research. Reid Lyon and Vinita Chhabra (2004) give an excellent overview of scientific evidence, the difference between qualitative and quantitative research, and how to evaluate the validity of research. When looking at research, it is important to look at sample size, the replicability of the study, and whether the study was published in a peer reviewed journal (Stanovich & Stanovich 2003). Unfortunately, many educators tend to rely on personal experiences in the classroom when selecting instructional strategies and curricula versus referring to research evidence.

Which areas of the brain are involved in reading?

            Thanks to advances in neuroimaging researchers have been able to pinpoint the specific areas of the brain involved in learning to read as well as being able to see the difference in functioning of proficient versus non-proficient readers. Our brains are not hard wired to read, and the act of reading requires us to use parts of the brain that are intended for other purposes to work together. Thanks to functional MRI scans, scientists are able to see how the brain functions during various tasks. Scientists have identified three main areas of the brain involved in proficient reading: the temporo-parietal cortex, inferior frontal cortex, and the occipito-temporal cortex (Eden 2019).

Images Credit: Eden, G. (2019). How Reading Changes the Brain. Retrieved from https://www.understood.org/en/learning-thinking-differences/child-learning-disabilities/reading-issues/how-reading-changes-the-brain.

            The temporo-parietal cortex, also referred to as the word analyzer, breaks words into syllables and individual sounds (Gorman 2003, Eden 2019). This area links individual sounds to letters. The inferior frontal cortex, also known as the phoneme producer, is used to analyze the individual phonemes in words as well as vocalizing words and making connections to meaning. These two areas are activated the most in beginning readers. The occipito-temporal cortex, or the automatic detector, is where the brain begins to recognize words by sight. As the brain encounters new words, they are compared to patterns previously stored in the brain allowing for automatic retrieval (Gorman 2003). As students become more skilled readers, more activation is seen in this area, and imaging studies have revealed that these three areas are involved in skilled reading no matter the language (Eden 2019). However, in students with poor reading skills, imaging studies have revealed that these areas of the brain are either not utilized or underutilized. Poor readers show a reliance on the right side of the brain to process visual cues such as pictures to process words (Gorman 2003) and have difficulty breaking words into individual sounds. The good news is that the same imaging studies have shown that through specific types of intervention, the brain can be trained to activate the more efficient parts of the brain that good readers use (Eden 2019). These same brain scans have also revealed that when targeted instruction is provided in kindergarten and first grade struggling readers, after a year their brain scans resemble the scans of proficient readers (Shaywitz & Boulton 2019).

The Four Processor Model of Reading

            When reading, there are four processing systems that must work together in the areas of the brain identified above: the phonological processor, the orthographic processor, the meaning processor, and the context processor (Moats 2016). In her LETRS training for teachers, Moats explains the functions of each processor in relation to reading. The phonological processor allows us to process the speech sounds of our language as well as other languages. Key functions include: identifying and categorizing speech sounds, production of speech sounds and syllables, distinguishing phonetically similar words, accurate phrase and sound repetition, word retrieval and pronunciation, and connecting individual sounds to spelling patterns. Essentially, this processor controls all of the functions needed for accurate and fluent phonemic awareness. Children struggling in this area have difficulty recalling letter sounds, blending, frequently confuse similar looking words, and have difficulty spelling all of the sounds found in words. The orthographic processor processes visual information from printed text including words, punctuation, spacing, and letter patterns. This system is highly involved in the ability to accurately and quickly retrieve information needed for word recognition and spelling. Students that struggle in this area will have difficulty with sight words, spelling, and rely on sounding out every word as they struggle to develop automaticity with skills learned. The meaning processor is essentially your mental dictionary that responds to words seen or heard by interpreting the various meanings of a word. Children who struggle in this area tend to have poor vocabularies. The context processor utilizes the context in which a word is found in conjunction with the meaning processor to determine the intended meaning of a word as it is used in a sentence or text. The context and meaning processors play a very limited role in the ability to name a word in print; the orthographic and phonological processors are responsible for the job of word recognition and pronunciation. Students will struggle to make meaning without first having the ability to accurately and quickly read words in print. The four processor model shows the importance of all pieces of the puzzle working together. No one piece can work in isolation without the support of the other pieces.

Image Credit: Moats, L. (2016). Chapter 3 What the Brain Does When It Reads. LETRS, Module 1: The Challenge of Learning to Read. Retrieved from http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/208815/2014-15_SchoolYear/LETRS/169261_Letrs2E_M1_29-38.pdf.

           

Closing

In closing, reading is a topic about which many educators are extremely passionate. We all know the outcomes for children who never become proficient readers, and their paths in life become very limited without proficient reading skills. As a child I always loved to read, and books were where I met some of my best friends, met my first loves, traveled to other times and places, and developed new interests. For me learning to read was an unnaturally easy process. Unfortunately, for almost 60% of learners learning to read can range from difficult to one of the most formidable challenges in their life. Many of these students come from our most at-risk populations: high poverty, limited english proficiency, speech/language impairments, hearing impairments, or homes where the parents have limited literacy skills (Lyons 1998). If we truly believe in equity for all of our students, then, as educators, we need to look closely at the instructional practices we are utilizing, how our teachers are being trained to teach literacy, the in-service professional development provided to teachers, the programs being utilized for literacy, and what research says. Do we truly believe that ALL students can learn to read or is it something we say casually? Are we willing to examine what we are doing to ensure that ALL students become proficient readers through early intervention? Over the next few weeks, I will delve more into the five pillars of reading and instructional and assessment practices that align with the Science of Reading.

Works Cited

Bryan, B.A., Hougen, M., and Nelson, K. (2018, Feb 14). Leading on Literacy: Challenges and Opportunities in Teacher Preparation Across the University of North Carolina System. The University of North Carolina System. Retrieved from https://www.northcarolina.edu/sites/default/files/documents/unc_teacher_preparation_report_final_021418.pdf.

Drake, G. and Walsh, K. (2020). Teacher Prep Review: Program Performance in Early Reading Instruction. The National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from https://www.nctq.org/publications/2020-Teacher-Prep-Review:-Program-Performance-in-Early-Reading-Instruction.

Eden, G. (2019). How Reading Changes the Brain. Retrieved from https://www.understood.org/en/learning-thinking-differences/child-learning-disabilities/reading-issues/how-reading-changes-the-brain.

Gorman, C. (2003 July 28). The New Science of Dyslexia. Time Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.marklemessurier.com.au/main/workshops/teacher/articles/The%20Time%20Magazine%20The%20New%20Science%20of%20Dyslexia.pdf.

Lyons, G.R. (1998 April 28). Overview of Reading and Literacy Initiatives. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED444128.pdf.

Lyon, G.R. and Chhabra, V. (2004 March). The Science of Reading Research. Educational Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar04/vol61/num06/The-Science-of-Reading-Research.aspx.

Moats, L. (2016). Chapter 3 What the Brain Does When It Reads. LETRS, Module 1: The Challenge of Learning to Read. Retrieved from http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/208815/2014-15_SchoolYear/LETRS/169261_Letrs2E_M1_29-38.pdf.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2020). Mission, Vision, Guiding Principles. K-3 Literacy Division. Retrieved from https://www.dpi.nc.gov/districts-schools/classroom-resources/early-learning-read-achieve/k-3-literacy.

Shaywitz, S. and Boulton, D. (2019). An Interview Dr. Sally Shaywitz-The Brain and Dyslexia-What brain imaging can and can’t tell us about reading difficulties. Children of the Code. Retrieved from https://childrenofthecode.org/interviews/shaywitz.htm.

Stanovich, P. and Stanovich, K. (May 2003). Using Research and Reason in Education: How teachers can use scientifically based research to make curricular and instructional decisions. National Institute for Literacy. Retrieved from https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/Stanovich_Color.pdf.

Stuart, K. and Fugnitto, G. (2019). Collaborative Circle Blog: A Conversation About the Science of Reading and Early Reading Instruction with Dr. Louisa Moats. Center for the Collaborative Classroom. Retrieved from https://www.collaborativeclassroom.org/blog/a-conversation-about-the-science-of-reading-with-dr-louisa-moats/.