Science of Reading: Where are the gaps?

Last weekend I led a workshop at the Montessori Schools of Massachusetts Conference looking at the Science of Reading and the places where we sometimes run into trouble implementing it in Montessori Prek-K. (You can download a PDF of my slides here.)

I've really gone down the rabbit hole looking into this. In addition to oodles of research studies, I used the Reading League's Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines. They've made a workbook that any program can use to evaluate their own language program. 

As I went through each part of the workbook, I discovered a few key things.

1. Alignment

The Maitri Learning Montessori Language album is spot-on with alignment for the Science of Reading. We explicitly cover all key areas of instruction including:

1. Vocabulary, background knowledge, and oral language development
2. Phonological awareness (hearing and manipulating the sounds in words)
3. Phonics (letter-sound knowledge, encoding, and decoding)
4. Fluency (accuracy, automaticity, rate/speed, prosody/expression)
5. Comprehension (making meaning from the written word and metacognitively noticing when you don't understand)

2. Things Missing in SOR

There are many items in the workbook that I believe are missing, specifically with respect to the neuroscience of learning. In particular, the importance of relationships and agency for learning.

While the science of reading is meant to be an all-encompassing field of research including anything related to literacy development, in practice it seems like it leans heavily on literacy research and less so on research in other fields. 

3. Errors in SOR age recommendations

In Montessori, we are firmly grounded in the reality that children before approx. age 6 are concrete learners. Young children live in the here and now. In the elementary years, however, they become more abstract in their thinking and their imagination grows. Keep this in mind as you consider any recommendation made about SOR. Why? Because there are many items in the workbook that seem to be designed for older students, above K and/or grade 2.

Graphic organizers are a prime example. As you can see in my response to the workbook query about this, I dispute the appropriateness of graphic organizers for Prek-2 instruction.

You can find clear evidence to support my concern about graphic organizers in the National Reading Panel report. It says, “Graphic Organizers were used in 11 studies on texts used in Social Studies and Science. The most frequent grade levels were 4 to 6. Children who can learn and benefit from this instruction have to have skill in writing and reading” (p. 4-45). None of the studies reviewed by the panel were conducted in grades below grade 2 (see p. 4-73). 

So, somehow, things for older children have creeped into the "recommendations" for younger children. With this in mind, the big takeaway I have for you is: do not blindly trust any "authority" with respect to the science of reading! As Montessorians, we are all scientists. We need to exercise conscientiousness in searching for truths before swallowing "research" recommendations.

Where Montessori excels

When we follow our language albums, including the Dwyer approach, we really nail the science of reading. Just think of little things like phonetic activity cards. These cards empower children to work together (peer learning), read phonetically, act out what they have read (embodiment and agency), and then guess what others are acting out. This fun little game gets at the root of decoding practice, fluency, social interaction, and reading comprehension.

When we do face challenges, they tend to come from having teacher trainings that are incomplete or by adopting different "evidence-based practices" here and there without looking to our existing program deeply first. This can make our language lessons a little scattered and often leads us to skim over areas where we typically (and wisely) go deep. 

You're welcome to take a peak at my in-progress draft of the Reading League Workbook, along with my comments and disputes. But I invite you to evaluate your own language album and compare that with what you actually do in practice. See if your album hits all the areas it should. Then, make sure you're following it with fidelity.

What do you think? Please add your comments and thoughts below. It really does take a village!