4.5 Article

Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition From Novice to Expert

Journal

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
Volume 19, Issue 1, Pages 5-51

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1529100618772271

Keywords

reading; language; reading acquisition; phonics; text comprehension

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Cognition and Its Disorders [CE 110001021]
  2. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/L002264/1, ES/P001874/1, ES/M009998/1]
  3. Leverhulme Trust [RPG-2015-070]
  4. ESRC [ES/P001874/1, ES/L002264/1, ES/M009998/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is intense public interest in questions surrounding how children learn to read and how they can best be taught. Research in psychological science has provided answers to many of these questions but, somewhat surprisingly, this research has been slow to make inroads into educational policy and practice. Instead, the field has been plagued by decades of reading wars. Even now, there remains a wide gap between the state of research knowledge about learning to read and the state of public understanding. The aim of this article is to fill this gap. We present a comprehensive tutorial review of the science of learning to read, spanning from children's earliest alphabetic skills through to the fluent word recognition and skilled text comprehension characteristic of expert readers. We explain why phonics instruction is so central to learning in a writing system such as English. But we also move beyond phonics, reviewing research on what else children need to learn to become expert readers and considering how this might be translated into effective classroom practice. We call for an end to the reading wars and recommend an agenda for instruction and research in reading acquisition that is balanced, developmentally informed, and based on a deep understanding of how language and writing systems work.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available