science of reading research articles

Between the Lines: Integrating the Science of Reading and the Science of Behavior to Improve Reading Outcomes for Australian Children

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 21 November 2023
• Volume 33 , pages 504–531, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Karina L. Stocker   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4057-8125 1 ,
• Russell A. Fox   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3061-3495 1 ,
• Nathaniel R. Swain   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4608-2246 2 &
• Erin S. Leif   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2219-2405 1  

10k Accesses

76 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Many Australian students fail to meet an acceptable standard of reading proficiency. This can negatively impact their academic progress, social, and emotional well-being, and increase their risk of developing challenging behaviors. These risks and challenges have been found to compound over the lifetime of the learner. Unfortunately, the proportion of Australian students who fail to meet reading proficiency standards increases as they move through their years of schooling, and reading difficulties disproportionately affect historically marginalized groups. This has raised concerns about the effectiveness of instructional approaches used within the Australian education system, particularly in reading, and prompted discussions of reform. The purpose of this review paper was to examine the contributions of the science of reading and science of behavior to our collective knowledge regarding reading development and effective reading instruction, and how this knowledge is currently being used in the Australian context. We provide a discussion on the current state of reading instruction and achievement in Australia by considering national trends, inequities, and systemic challenges. Implications and recommendations to address inequities in reading outcomes, using both the science of reading and science of behavior, are discussed.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Progress and Promise of the Reading for Understanding Research Initiative

Classroom Reading Instruction for All Students

Still Falling at the First Hurdle: Examining Early Grade Reading in South Africa

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Learning to read is a vital skill for a successful life in a contemporary, information-based society (Benton & Noyelle, 1992 ) and is, arguably, the most important goal of education (Lemov et al., 2016 ). It is crucial that children become skilled readers early in their educational journey, so they can access and critique new knowledge and build academic success across the curriculum, paving the way for future employment, economic and social success (Graham et al., 2020 ). In contrast, deficits in reading skills can negatively impact a student’s academic progress (Snow, 2016 ), their social and emotional wellbeing (Francis et al., 2019 ), and increase their risk of developing challenging behavior (McIntosh et al., 2012 ). The detrimental effects of reading difficulties can continue into adulthood, with research linking deficits in reading ability to an increased risk of mental health issues (Eloranta et al., 2019 ), greater likelihood of unemployment (Aro et al., 2019 ), and increased contact with the justice system (Snow, 2019 ).

Although reading is one of the most researched areas of human cognition (Rayner et al., 2001 ; Snow, 2020a ), it has been suggested that approximately 30% of Australian school children experience difficulties learning to read (Hempenstall, 2013 ), and 47% of Australian adults do not have the necessary literacy skills to participate successfully in modern society (Australian Council for Educational Research [ACER], 2013 ). These figures should be a cause for concern for Australian school systems, especially since, when provided with effective evidence-based reading instruction and early intervention, 95% of children can successfully learn to read (Al Otaiba et al., 2014 ; Mathes et al., 2005 ; Torgesen, 2004 ). However, there currently appears to be a significant “research to practice gap” with respect to the provision of evidence-based reading instruction and intervention in Australian schools (Elliott et al., 2022 ; Snow, 2020a ). Considering the negative life outcomes associated with poor reading skills, ensuring all Australian students have access to effective evidence-based reading instruction and timely intervention at school is a pressing concern.

It has been suggested that children in Australia currently experience marked educational inequities with respect to reading outcomes, and there is ongoing debate about the best available methods for teaching reading to Australian children (Chamberlain & Medina, 2020 ; Cobbold, 2022 ). However, research findings from multiple disciplines including cognitive science, neuroscience, behavior science, education, and speech and language pathology provide helpful insights into how to best support all children to become confident and competent readers. Collectively, the application of these findings in the service of effective reading instruction is commonly referred to as the science of reading . As with many other scientific disciplines, the science of behavior has made a meaningful contribution to the overall development of the science of reading (see Brosnan et al., 2018 ; Goldstein, 1983 ; LaFrance & Tarbox, 2020 ; Kelley et al., 2015 ; Lambe et al., 2015 ; Newsome et al., 2014 ; Spencer & Peterson, 2020 ). Despite this, both reading and behavioral scientists may be unaware of the contributions, strengths, methods, and broader findings of their fellow travelers on the reading instructional journey.

The overall purpose of this discussion paper is to identify and describe the contributions of the science of behavior to evidence-based approaches to reading instruction as part of the broader sciences of reading. This is not to simply claim credit for such contributions. Rather, we believe that an exploration of the integration of the science of reading and the science of behavior has the potential to enhance cross-disciplinary knowledge and collaboration (Kirby et al., 2022 ). Given the scope and scale of the challenge of improving reading outcomes in the Australian context, practitioners and students alike may benefit from a deeper, more explicit understanding of the existing integration of the science of reading and science of behavior (Kirby et al., 2022 ). The identification of specific points of integration may also support cross-disciplinary conversations about the practices, research evidence, research methods, and approaches to systems change that are required to improve reading instruction at a scale of social significance.

To achieve the overall purpose, we first discuss current trends related to reading outcomes for students in Australia, which we believe are cause for significant concern. We describe data suggesting that children from historically marginalized groups, including Indigenous students and students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds, may be most at risk for experiencing poorer reading outcomes. We also discuss some of the policies and systemic structures that contribute to disproportionate literacy outcomes for historically marginalized Australian students. Second, we describe how principles and practices derived from both the science of reading and science of behavior have contributed to our collective understanding of reading development and best practice for reading instruction. Finally, we conclude with evidence-informed recommendations for further integrating the science of reading and science of behavior to improve reading instruction in Australia, with an emphasis on ways to promote more equitable educational outcomes for all Australian children.

Reading Achievement in Australia: National Trends and Cause for Concern

Declining reading performance.

Despite two decades of policy initiatives and record government funding aimed at improving the reading outcomes of Australian students (Chamberlain & Medina, 2020 ), data from international and national literacy assessments indicate that many Australian students fail to meet an acceptable standard of reading proficiency (Australian Curriculum and Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2023 ; Thomson et al., 2019 ). According to the recent Australian Government Productivity Commission (AGPC, 2023 ) report, the proportion of Australian students that failed to meet reading proficiency standards increased as they moved through their years of schooling. This concerning trend is reflected in 15 years of data from Australia’s National Assessment Program - Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN; ACARA, 2023 ), a yearly standardized test conducted in Australian schools to assess the literacy and numeracy skills of students in Years 3, 5, 7, and 9. In 2022, data collected via NAPLAN showed that the proportion of students “at or below” the minimum standard in reading, writing, spelling, grammar, and punctuation increased with each year level tested. For instance, in 2022, approximately 11% of Year 3 students were recorded as “at or below” the minimum standard for reading. However, this percentage increased to 15.4% in Year 7, and around 24% in Year 9 (ACARA, 2023 ).

Similar trends in reading performance can be seen when looking at data collected via the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), as well as when looking at Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) assessment data. While the latest PISA results showed that Australian children were performing better than most countries in reading, mathematics, and science, the past 20 years have seen a steady decline in Australia’s relative performance in literacy (Thomson et al., 2019 ). For example, Australia’s international rankings on the PISA reading outcomes dropped from fourth position (when the tests were first administered in 2000) to 13th position in 2018. Our nation’s absolute reading performance has also declined, with 15-year-old students in 2018 reporting average reading scores almost a year behind their same aged Australian peers who were assessed in 2000 (Thomson et al., 2019 ). Australian students’ reading performance has weakened over this period, with over 40% of 15-year-olds performing below the national minimum standard, compared to less than 35% below the minimum standard in 2006 (Thomson et al., 2019 ).

The performance of Australian students as measured by the 2016 PIRLS is not as stark, with 19% “at or below” the international benchmark in 2016 (ACER, 2017, as cited in AGPC, 2023 ). Data collected via PIRLS suggest that Australia’s performance is in the middle of the range compared to other participating countries (e.g., England, United States, Denmark, Ireland, Canada) with the average achievement sitting below the intermediate mark. However, this result did not improve between 2011 and 2016, during which time there was record investment in Australian educational funding to improve educational outcomes for all students (AGPC, 2023 ). Taken together, PIRLS and PISA metrics suggest that the academic reading performance of Australian students may decline between Year 4 and Year 10. This common trend of declining reading performance has raised concerns about the effectiveness of reading instruction across all Australian education systems (AGPC, 2023 ), and has prompted discussions about the need for a more targeted approach to support those students failing to make sufficient reading progress.

Widening Reading Achievement Gaps

Significant inequity is also evident when it comes to reading achievement within and across Australian schools, with students from different equity groups faring worse on literacy-based assessments. Concerningly, Australia’s most recent Productivity Commission Report ( 2023 ) found that the reading achievement gaps in Australian schools disproportionately affected students from historically marginalized groups, with achievement gaps noted for learners according to their socio-economic status, Indigenous status, and their state/territory of residence (AGPC, 2023 ). These achievement gaps between students are noted to be among some of the widest in the world (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2019 ) and suggest that Australia’s most vulnerable children are not receiving the support they need. For instance, the 2018 PISA data revealed a 1.5-year gap in reading performance between the highest performing jurisdiction, the Australian Capital Territory, and the lowest performing, Tasmania (Thomson et al., 2019 ). This same PISA data also revealed a 2.75-year gap in literacy achievement between the highest and lowest socio-economic quartiles, and a 2.3-year gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students (Thomson et al., 2019 ). Gaps in reading achievement between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students are also reflected in the 2016 PIRLS report (Thomson et al., 2017 ) and in 15 years of Australian NAPLAN data (ACARA, 2023 ). In fact, the 2022 NAPLAN figures show that Indigenous students are consistently over-represented in the proportion of children “at or below” the minimum standard for reading in Year 3 (36% of Indigenous students vs. 9.4% of non-Indigenous students), Year 5 (38% vs. 9.2%), Year 7 (45% vs. 13%), and Year 9 (55% vs. 17%; ACARA, 2023 ). However, it should be noted that current literacy assessments may not be appropriate for measuring the literacy skills of remote and multilingual Aboriginal students (see Freeman et al., 2023 ). Collectively, these statistics highlight the significant disparities in literacy outcomes between different groups of Australian students and reinforce the need for educational reform to address persistent equity issues and improve literacy outcomes for all Australian students.

Why Do Many Australian Students Struggle to Learn to Read?

Inadequate reading instruction in schools.

In 2005, the Australian National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy recommended that reading instruction be “grounded in findings from rigorous evidence-based research” (Rowe, 2005 , p. 121). Unfortunately, almost two decades on, these recommendations have yet to be successfully translated into Australian education systems. This is evident in the continued and widespread use of Whole Language, and its descendant, Balanced Literacy, approach to reading instruction in Australian schools (Graham et al., 2020 ; Snow, 2020b ), an approach still largely supported by the Australian Literacy Educators’ Association (Graham et al., 2020 ). Whole Language advocates assert that learning to read is as natural as learning to speak, and if you immerse children in written language, they will intuitively acquire these skills (Gough, 1996 ; Snow, 2016 ). As a result, Whole Language reading instruction does not emphasize the explicit and systematic teaching of phonological knowledge as it relates to decoding written words, or the explicit and systematic teaching of language comprehension. Instead, the teaching of semantic, syntactic or picture cues when attempting to “read” unfamiliar words is encouraged (Snow, 2020b ), and emphasis is placed on children “discovering meaning” through exposure to literacy rich environments (Castles et al., 2018 ). The Whole Language approach usually necessitates that children memorize banks of sight words and includes a more incidental, analytical approach to teaching phonics (Snow, 2020b ). In fact, decoding is “...considered potentially harmful, to be used only as a last resort” (Hempenstall, 2005 , p. 24). Considering the empirical evidence regarding the benefits of systematic explicit instruction in phonics and language comprehension, it was not surprising that the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy found that practices inherent in Whole Language can negatively impact on a child’s literacy development (Rowe, 2005 ) and are “not in the best interests of children, particularly those experiencing reading difficulties” (p. 12).

Alongside these dominant ineffective practices in Australian classrooms is the concern that many Australian teachers have not been sufficiently prepared with knowledge of evidence-based reading instruction (Buckingham & Meeks, 2019 ; McLean, et al.  2021 ). This lack of knowledge may impact on a teacher’s ability to effectively teach reading and to accurately identify the need for targeted intervention in subcomponent reading skills (Graham et al., 2020 ; Hammond, 2015 ; Tetley & Jones, 2014 ). As such, this gap in knowledge has been termed the “Peter Effect”; a biblical reference meaning “one cannot give what one does not have” (Snow, 2016 , p. 223). It has therefore been suggested that a significant proportion of students who fail to make sufficient reading progress in Australian classrooms, are, in fact, instructional casualties (Hempenstall, 2013 ), meaning that reading difficulties could have been avoided had these students received adequate and effective reading instruction.

Inadequate Pre-Service Teacher Education

To help bridge the research to practice gap and build the capacity of teachers, the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy recommended that pre-service teachers be adequately prepared to deliver evidence-based reading instruction and intervention (Rowe, 2005 ). However, evidence suggests that this recommendation has yet to be translated into initial teacher education courses (NSW Board of Studies Teaching and Educational Standards, 2014 ; Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group, 2014 ). For instance, a recent national audit of 116 initial teacher education literacy units found that none mentioned the Simple View of Reading as a theoretical foundation to effective reading instruction (Buckingham & Meeks, 2019 ; Gough & Tunmer, 1986 ). In fact, only 6% of the literacy units included all five practices recommended by the NITL, and 70% failed to mention any of these practices in their unit outlines (Buckingham & Meeks, 2019 ). According to Buckingham and Meeks ( 2019 ), none of the six most frequently prescribed textbooks in Australian initial teacher education literacy units “contained sufficiently accurate and detailed content that would allow graduate teachers to use effective, evidence-based instruction, and many contained information that was inadequate and/or misleading” (p. vi). Indeed, a recent study by McLean et al. ( 2021 ) found that teachers overwhelmingly reported dissatisfaction with their pre-service teacher education courses and the “limited or non-existent focus on evidence-based reading instruction” (p. 11). This lack of effective pre-service teacher training in evidence-based reading instruction leaves the building of teacher capacity in the hands of schools, where knowledge, skills, and resources to achieve this are limited (Hempenstall, 2012 ). Without system wide changes to the way initial teacher education courses teach reading instruction, Australian schools will continue to face the insurmountable task of retraining their teachers while they are already in the workforce.

Inadequate Access to Effective Early Intervention

The early provision of evidence-based reading intervention is crucial for the prevention of reading failure in schools (Rowe, 2005 ; Volkmer et al., 2019 ). However, in Australia, many children miss out on accessing early reading intervention due to resourcing constraints (Serry & Oberklaid, 2015 ), and schools’ failure to systematically screen and identify reading difficulties in the early years (Graham et al., 2020 ). According to Graham et al. ( 2020 ), Australian teachers’ ability to identify reading difficulties varies, with most teachers highlighting behavioral concerns (e.g., off-task or disruptive classroom behaviors) before reading difficulties. However, it is well established that students with poor reading skills are more likely to present with anxiety, depression, and challenging externalizing behaviors (Arnold et al., 2005 ; McIntosh et al., 2012 ). According to McIntosh and Goodman ( 2016 ), this is because students who begin to experience early reading difficulties, and who are not provided with early evidence-based interventions, are increasingly exposed to environments where they are required to use skills they do not yet possess. Unfortunately, for students with the highest risk, intervention becomes significantly less effective the longer it is delayed (Sprague & Walker, 2000 ). According to Serry and Oberklaid ( 2015 ), Australian students who have been able to access intervention are selected “primarily based on age” (p. 26) and have typically received Reading Recovery (i.e., a catch-up program for Year 1 students who have not made sufficient reading progress). However, Reading Recovery fails to meet all elements of an effective reading intervention, as outlined in the 2005 National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (Rowe, 2005 ; Serry & Oberklaid, 2015 ), and is “not aligned with evidence-based reading instruction” (de Bruin, 2019 , p. 37). In fact, research has shown that Reading Recovery has failed to close the literacy achievement gap of struggling readers, particularly those from vulnerable populations (May et al., 2023 ; Tunmer et al., 2013 ). The lack of identification and access to early, effective evidence-based reading intervention in Australian schools means that the gap between those that can read, and those that cannot, will continue to increase (Serry & Oberklaid, 2015 ). Intervening early, before reading problems become entrenched and harder to remediate, provides the best chance for successful outcomes and prevention of life-long disabilities (Torgesen, 1998 ).

Inadequate and Disparate Policy Guidance

In 1997, the Australian federal government set ambitious literacy and numeracy goals, specifying that “Every child leaving primary school should be numerate and be able to read, write, and spell at an appropriate level” (Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, 1998 ). This resulted in two decades of policy initiatives, national inquiries, and curriculum reforms aimed at improving the literacy achievement of all students. For example, the establishment in 2008 of the Australian National Assessment Program in Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy published in 2005, implementation of the National Curriculum in 2011, Australia’s Literacy and Numeracy National Partnership (2008–2009 to 2011–2012), and the literacy targets as set out by the Australian Education Act in 2013. Unfortunately, despite ambitious goals and ongoing national policy initiatives, literacy rates in Australia have continued to decline (Elliott et al., 2022 ). In addition, inconsistent practices regarding literacy instruction and assessment across jurisdictions remain. For example, inconsistent and limited uptake of the federally funded Year One Phonics Check is evident, with only three states actively mandating any type of phonics screening in schools. There is also inconsistency across state policies and guidance documentation regarding reading instruction and assessment. For example, the Victorian Department of Education still actively promotes assessments, instructional practices, and resources aligned with Balanced Literacy, as part of a “mix” of recommended approaches. Specifically, the use of the three-cueing method, running records, and predictable levelled readers that instruct and assess students’ ability to “read” unfamiliar words using contextual cues – practices which were deemed ineffective and damaging in the 2005 NILT report (e.g., Department of Education and Training Victoria, 2022 , 2023a ,  b ). In contrast, the Department of Education in New South Wales (NSW) has more consistently aligned its policy and guidance documents, as well as its assessment and instructional resources, to evidence-based reading instruction as set out by the 2005 NILT report (e.g., NSW Education, 2023a , b ). Mixed messages in policy guidance documents, regarding effective reading instruction and assessment, between the Australian states and territories, is likely to continue to lead to disparities in reading achievement across jurisdictions. This will only create further inequities and challenges for Australian students.

Toward an Integrated Framework for Improving Reading Outcomes

Science of reading.

The science of reading is a vast body of knowledge based upon cross-disciplinary scientific research into “reading and issues related to reading and writing” (The Reading League, 2022 ). Research in this area highlights the knowledge and foundational reading skills students need to acquire to become skilled readers and lays down a conceptual map for the effective teaching of reading. Four independent national inquiries into the teaching of reading in the US, Canada, UK, and Australia have provided practice recommendations that are consistent with the science of reading (National Reading Panel, 2000 ; Ontario Human Rights Commission [OHRC], 2022 ; Rose, 2006 ; Rowe, 2005 ). Collectively, the results of these independent national inquires highlight five key elements of effective reading programs; the systematic and explicit teaching of (1) phonemic awareness, (2) phonics, (3) reading fluency, (4) vocabulary knowledge, and (5) comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000 ; OHRC, 2022 ; Rose, 2006 ; Rowe, 2005 ). According to Petscher et al. ( 2020 ), the science of reading benefits from an ever-expanding evidence-base informed by decades of accrued research across various fields of study about “reading, reading development, and best practices for reading instruction obtained by the use of the scientific method” (p. 268). From a theoretical perspective, these recommendations are aligned to the Simple View of Reading (Hoover & Gough, 1990 ). In the Simple View of Reading, reading comprehension is defined as “the product (not the sum) of decoding ability and language comprehension skills” (Snow, 2020b , p. 37). This means that students must acquire proficiency in decoding and its subcomponents (i.e., phonological awareness, alphabetic principle, spelling-sound correspondence, and sight word recognition), as well as acquiring proficiency in language comprehension, and its subcomponents (i.e., background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning, and literacy knowledge), to become fluent, skilled readers (Scarborough et al., 2009 ). However, to ensure students’ effective and efficient learning in each of these domains, practitioners must have knowledge of, and be able to accurately use, effective and efficient teaching tactics. They must be skilled in monitoring, evaluating, and adjusting the instructional environment to suit learner needs (Ardoin et al., 2016 ). To do this, practitioners can draw on research from the science of behavior that highlights repertoires of instructional practices, tactics, and procedures that support the effective and efficient teaching and assessment of reading.

Science of Behavior

The science of behavior maintains that behavior is circumstantial, where the “person is seen as the locus of behavior, not the cause” (Friman, 2021 , p. 12). Research and practice conducted from this perspective focuses on the relationship between an individual’s behavior – academic or social behavior – and the contexts within which it occurs (Cooper et al., 2020 ). For the purposes of this paper, the term the science of behavior has been used to reflect an approach to behavior and behavioral research that is functional and contextual (i.e., consistent with Applied Behavior Analysis and Contextual Behavior Science). Behavioral research primarily focuses on the systematic experimentation and observation of environmental events that predict and influence valued outcomes. Reading research that is underpinned by a behavioral world view, (a) focuses on methods that define reading behaviors in objective, observable and measurable ways, and (b) systematically evaluates interventions by manipulating environmental variables and directly observing their impact on reading behavior (Dunlap et al., 2001 ). The aim of experimentation and practice is to demonstrate a reliable relationship between the environmental variables (i.e., instructional practices) and improvements in reading (Cooper et al., 2020 ). This is typically done using single-case experimental designs, where a participant’s pre-intervention reading behavior is systematically observed, in context, to create a baseline or benchmark of current performance from which to evaluate the effects of an intervention (Ledford & Gast, 2018 ). Reading interventions are then systematically implemented in phases, and changes in performance across phases are assessed for treatment effects (e.g., see Brosnan et al., 2018 ; Lambe et al., 2015 ; Newsome et al., 2014 ; Kelley et al., 2015 ). Such single-case research methods then allow for systematic and direct replication of experimental effects that allow for the development of principles, practices, and theories of learning and instruction. As such, behavior analytic research, and the science of behavior more broadly, has contributed significantly to our collective understanding of how to effectively teach and assess reading and evaluate reading instruction (Joseph et al., 2016 ).

Contributions of the Science of Behavior to Reading Instruction

Knowledge derived from the science of behavior is reflected in behaviorally based instructional approaches, where methods of instruction are implemented and assessed in conceptually systematic and explicit ways to support students to acquire, maintain, and generalize reading skills (Cooper et al., 2020 ; Joseph et al., 2016 ; Spencer, 2021 ). Examples include Direct Instruction programs (e.g., Corrective Reading, Spelling Mastery, Reading Mastery, Language for Learning) and curriculum-based measures (e.g., Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) where observable and measurable reading behaviors are systematically taught and assessed within a sophisticated instructional design process aligned with the science of behavior (Spencer, 2021 ). In particular, curriculum-based measures, originally developed by Deno and Mirkin ( 1977 ), “involve the direct observation of behavior and use the single case analytical procedures that are characteristic of Applied Behavior Analysis” (as described above; Deno, 2003 , p. 190). Specific examples used in Australian schools include, Story Champs, a narrative oral language Direct Instruction program, and CUBED, a suite of curriculum-based measures. These resources have been developed using behavior analytic instructional design principles (see Spencer, 2021 ) and co-created by a Board-Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA) and a Speech Language Pathologist (Petersen & Spencer, 2016 ; Spencer & Petersen, 2012 ). According to Dunlap et al. ( 2001 ), using data from curriculum-based measures to identify and modify interventions to improve academic behavior, has been “one of the most important contributions of Applied Behavior Analysis to the field of education” (p. 132). These instructional and assessment approaches maintain the behavioral assumption that student learning is highly dependent on the quality of the instructional environment (Stockard et al., 2018 ). A behavioral assumption that is also embodied in the famous quote by the father of Direct Instruction, Siegfried “Zig” Engelmann, who stated: “if the student hasn’t learned, the teacher hasn’t taught – that’s not a slogan, it’s an operating principle” (Heward et al., 2021 ). In other words, rather than blaming poor reading skills on the characteristics of the child, the teacher must instead determine aspects of the instructional environment to adjust to improve student learning outcomes (Ardoin et al., 2016 ).

On the contrary, non-behaviorally based approaches to reading instruction, such as Whole Language, are underpinned by a developmental or constructivist worldview (Friman, 2021 ; Stockard et al., 2018 ). These approaches assume that learning is dependent on student characteristics, such as, their ability to construct or derive knowledge, their current developmental stage, their individual learning style, or their unique ability to learn (OHRC, 2022 ). In essence, developmental/constructivist approaches to reading assume that children will naturally discover how to read when immersed in spoken and written language, and therefore, the teacher does not explicitly direct student responding but instead provides naturalistic opportunities for student learning to take place (Daly et al., 1996 ; OHRC, 2022 ; Rayner et al., 2001 ). Engelmann argued that developmental approaches to teaching reading tend to focus on student variables out of the teacher’s direct control (e.g., developmental “readiness”), whereas behavioral approaches provide teachers with tangible aspects of the environment to manipulate to better support targeted learning (e.g., strategic arrangement of antecedents, instructional prompting procedures, manipulation of stimuli, provision of reinforcement, and error correction; Heward et al., 2021 ; Spencer, 2021 ). Notably, reviews of reading research (e.g., NRP, 2000 ; OHRC, 2022 ; Rose, 2006 ; Rowe, 2005 ) have consistently favored behaviorally based instructional practices over constructivist based approaches, and Direct Instruction has consistently been reported as the most effective instructional approach to reading over other approaches (Barbash, 2021 ; Gersten et al., 2017 ; Przychodzin-Havis et al., 2005 ; Stockard et al., 2018 ).

On a granular level, Direct Instruction consists of multiple scientifically validated behavior analytic procedures. Most notably, the detailed use of task analysis, the instructional hierarchy, and strategically arranged trial elements to program for efficient transfer of stimulus control (Spencer, 2021 ). Task analysis is the process of breaking down a complex behavior (e.g., reading) into a series of discrete, measurable, and teachable components (Noell et al., 2011 ). The instructional hierarchy identifies the role of teaching tactics (e.g., modeling, prompting, repetition, etc.) to support accurate student responding across a staged and sequenced learning process of knowledge or skill acquisition, development of fluency of use, generalization of use, and adaptation (Daly et al., 1996 ). A learning trial is part of effective instructional design in Direct Instruction programs and consists of specific elements drawn from behavior analytic principles and teaching tactics. Learning trial  elements include an antecedent (e.g., the instruction, an attention signal, a task stimulus, a stimulus/response prompt), a behavior (e.g., the correct/incorrect student response – anything the student says or does), and a consequence (e.g., feedback that is either contingent reinforcement or error correction; Spencer, 2021 ). Some specific learning trial elements and behavior analytic teaching tactics have been described in more detail in Table 1 , along with a practical example of how each element might be used when teaching different aspects of reading. These behavior analytic procedures ensure that reading is taught in conceptually systematic ways, where student responding builds on previously mastered skills, and instructional practices are targeted to the appropriate stage of the instructional hierarchy, together allowing student learning to progress efficiently and effectively (Daly et al., 1996 ; Dunlap et al., 2001 ; Spencer, 2021 ; Stockard et al., 2018 ).

Multi-tiered Systems of Support Frameworks

At a larger scale, knowledge derived from behavioral research is reflected within multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) for reading. MTSS frameworks were designed with a three-tiered logic of increasingly individualized and intensive support based on public health models. The framework as a whole – and the practices and interventions across all three tiers – are underpinned by behavior science-based assumptions and procedures (Ardoin et al., 2016 ). For example, behavior analytic procedures are used to “determine what aspects of the instructional environment must be manipulated to maximize student reading outcomes” (Ardoin et al., 2016 , p. 29). Critically, MTSS for reading is delivered as a school-wide, data driven framework that supports practitioners to select and implement evidence-based reading instruction and intervention to all students. In this way, it may be best conceptualized as an organizing framework for the behavior of those working within a school, as it relates to reading instruction and intervention. It is a preventive framework that emphasizes the critical use of evidence (i.e., data and research-based practices) to actively prevent, identify, and provide needs-based intervention for reading difficulties in schools (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009 ). Core components of the MTSS framework include the use of evidence-based core reading curricula informed by the science of reading, evidence-based instructional practices informed by the science of behavior and learning, a sliding scale of increasingly intensive intervention support, universal screening and progress monitoring, data-based decision-making, and an emphasis on teacher professional development in evidence-based instructional practices and assessments (Jimerson et al., 2016 ; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016 ).

The tiered logic of MTSS provides universal evidence-based instructional practices for reading at Tier 1. This is with the intention of creating the stimulus conditions for successful responding by arranging an effective learning environment for all students. Specifically, by focusing on the analysis and manipulation of environmental factors (i.e., classroom and instructional variables) and measuring their impact on observable behaviors (i.e., targeted reading behaviors) to improve socially significant outcomes (Cooper et al., 2020 ; Jimerson et al., 2016 ). As noted above, this has been informed by the theoretical assumptions and empirically demonstrated principles and tactics of behavior science (Ardoin et al., 2016 ). In essence, implementation of MTSS for reading requires schools to embody a behavioral worldview and not “blame children for their poor academic performance, but instead determine what aspects of the instructional environment must be manipulated to maximize student achievement” (Ardoin et al., 2016 , p. 29). For example, where routine universal screening data indicates that reading behavior is “at risk” or reading instruction is not being provided “as intended,” manipulation of the existing environment might include, (1) the implementation of specific interventions to change teacher instructional behavior (i.e., professional learning, coaching, or additional resource provisions for practitioners; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016 ); (2) changes to curricula materials, teaching tactics, lesson frequency and/or pacing; and (3) providing increasingly intensive interventions for students deemed “at risk” (i.e., increase the duration and/or frequency of instruction by moving to Tier 2 or Tier 3 supports; Jimerson et al., 2016 ).

Students who have not adequately responded to Tier 1 instruction are provided Tier 2 support where additional evidence-based reading instruction is provided at greater intensity. Intensity of intervention is conceptualized as an increase in dosage of instruction (time, frequency, and duration of intervention), a reduction in instructional group size, an increase in the number of opportunities to respond, and frequency of performance feedback, as well as an increased level of skill of the practitioner (Mellard et al., 2010 ). Tier 2 support includes frequent progress monitoring (Hughes & Dexter, 2011 ), so that data-based decisions can be made regarding the need for additional support (i.e., a shift into Tier 3 supports; Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009 ). Tier 3 interventions are typically provided for a small percentage of students (i.e., 2–5%) who have not responded to previous Tier 1 and Tier 2 supports (Hughes & Dexter, 2011 ). These Tier 3 supports are provided for as long as necessary and are more intensive and highly individualized (Hughes & Dexter, 2011 ). Similar to the single-case analytical procedures inherent in behavioral research, intervention effects are then measured using progress monitoring data from curriculum-based measures (Deno, 2003 ) to assess the impact of the intervention (i.e., above-mentioned environmental modifications) on student reading behaviors (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009 ).

The Influence of the Science of Reading Instruction in Australian Education

In Australia, several noteworthy initiatives have been undertaken to better ensure the uptake and provision of approaches aligned with the science of reading in Australian schools. One such program is the “Making Up Lost Time in Literacy,” or MultiLit, program (Wheldall & Beaman, 1999 ). As a program, MultiLit was created to address a lack of research-based intervention programs for older readers experiencing difficulties with literacy. MultiLit incorporates the use of criterion-referenced student assessments to identify specific skills an individual student needs for fluent reading (Wheldall & Beaman, 1999 ). Systematic instructional methods, such as Direct Instruction, frequent opportunities for students to respond, error correction, and contingent positive reinforcement are then used to teach reading to fluency (Wheldall & Beaman, 1999 ). Progress data are collected frequently and used to guide the process of data-based decision making (Reynolds et al., 2009 ). In addition, Wheldall & Beaman ( 1999 ) recognized that effective behavior support was a necessary prerequisite for effective classroom teaching and learning. To this end, MultiLit teacher training programs incorporate skill building in a variety of positive and preventive classroom behavior management strategies. For example, arranging the classroom environment to promote student engagement, teaching positive classroom behaviors, and reinforcing positive student behavior (Wheldall et al., 2020 ). The positive impact of MultiLit programs on student reading outcomes have been clearly demonstrated (Buckingham et al., 2012 ).

In 2019, MultiLit partnered with Five from Five, an Australian initiative established to promote the uptake of effective, evidence-based reading instruction by providing free resources to parents, teachers, and other stakeholders (Five from Five, 2023). Five from Five focuses on raising awareness about the five essential skills that all children need to become fluent readers: (1) phonemic awareness, (2) phonics, (3) reading fluency, (4) vocabulary, and (5) reading comprehension. In addition to developing resources for educators and parents, Five from Five synthesizes information about effective approaches for teaching reading to advocate for evidence-based policy related to the provision of education in Australia.

In addition, the Australian Association of Specific Learning Disabilities (AUSPELD) have made multiple recommendations and promoted the broad implementation of evidence-based reading across all Australian states and territories. This has taken the form of advocacy and engagement with departments of education across Australia to bring about systemic change to literacy instruction. Specifically, AUSPELD have recommended that teachers use instructional practices that involve (1) a prescribed sequence of learning targets, (2) breaking reading skills down into small teachable components, (3) providing students with repeated opportunities to practise new skills, and (4) regular review of learnt skills (AUSPELD, 2022 ). Further, AUSPELD advocates for these practices to be implemented within a Multi-tiered System of Support framework to ensure that all students, including students with learning disabilities, can access high quality evidence-based instruction and intervention in reading.

In 2020, the Australian Education Research Association (AERO) was established with the aim of lifting educational outcomes for all students through the effective use of evidence-based practice. Since its establishment, AERO has developed several practice guides to support professional learning in key evidence-based practices. For example, AERO’s Focused Classrooms resource describes the use of modeling, prompting, and reinforcement to teach positive classroom behaviors (AERO,  2021b ). Their Explicit Instruction (AERO,  2021a ) resource describes instructional practices such as, breaking larger skills down into smaller teachable components, systematically sequencing tasks to build on students’ prior learning, providing students with frequent opportunities to practise new skills, and systematically fading prompts as students become more independent (AERO, 2021a ). More recently, AERO has developed evidence snapshots and practice guides to directly support schools in their implementation of Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) for Literacy. These MTSS guidance documents describe instructional practices and interventions aligned with the science of reading (AERO, 2023 ). Each of the above-mentioned programs and organizations – and their practices and recommendations – have been essential to many students across Australia. However, to this point, they have not proven sufficient to address the scale of change required to improve reading outcomes for Australian students.

Implications and Recommendations

Significant changes to policy, practice, and preparation are required if the inequities and downward trends in Australian reading outcomes are to be ameliorated. As noted above, students from historically marginalized groups (e.g., Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students) disproportionately experience the negative effects of the variable reading instruction evident across all Australian school systems. In what follows, suggestions are made as to how the science of behavior and science of reading can be further integrated to improve reading outcomes for Australian students.

Pre-service Preparation to Deliver and Support Evidence-Based Reading Instruction

Currently, many pre-service teachers across Australia are not provided with the necessary knowledge, skills, or experiences to deliver evidence-based reading instruction as part of their pre-service preparation (McLean et al., 2021 ; Meeks & Kemp, 2017 ). To address this, Australian universities should provide pre-service teachers with two critical repertoires of skills (1) the conceptual understanding of reading development drawn from the science of reading, and (2) the repertoires of instructional practices, tactics, and procedures drawn from the science of behavior. Put simply, pre-service teachers need to be aware of what to teach and how to efficiently and effectively teach their students to read. For this to happen, teachers must be provided with sufficient conceptual knowledge within the domains of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (Scarborough et al., 2009 ). It is important to recognize that while these concepts may be presented or described to teachers within existing Australian pre-service preparation programs, this has not led to confidence to deliver instruction based on this understanding (Horner et al., 2019 ; Meeks & Kemp, 2017 ). As such, pre-service teacher preparation programs should focus on developing fluency in the application of this knowledge. For this to occur, pre-service teachers need to be provided with sufficient instruction and modeling, as well as opportunities to practise and receive feedback, on their use of critical instructional practices and tactics derived from the science of behavior. This also needs to be done in a range of settings, to promote the generalizations of teacher instructional skills. For example, pre-service teachers could be engaged in multiple opportunities to practice adjusting the instructional environment in response to learner needs. This could include opportunities to manipulate antecedents, to provide a range of stimulus prompts and to systematically fade those prompts, to provide error corrections, to deliver high rates of opportunities to respond/frequent learning trials and actively engage their students, as well as delivering and monitoring the impact of contingent reinforcement on students’ reading behavior. Ideally, pre-service teachers would be instructed and supported to practise these skills to fluency with expert feedback within structured university settings, either with peers or in virtual reality settings. These skills could then be applied in real classrooms as part of teaching practicum experiences. The development of these two repertoires will provide the skills necessary for beginning teachers to deliver on the promise of a science of reading-based understanding of reading instruction within their classrooms.

Pre-service teacher preparation programs in Australia may also provide pre-service teachers with a functional understanding of behavior. As described above, both the science of reading and the science of behavior focus on the impact and importance of the environment as it relates to social and academic behavior. This is likely to support teachers to generalize these skills across contexts and allow teachers to develop a sense of fluency and mastery before engaging in complex and dynamic classroom environments. Furthermore, preparation on a functional understanding of behavior, will likely better prepare beginning teachers to integrate their use of evidence-based instructional and evidence-based behavior support practices within a Multitiered System of Support (MTSS).

Finally, there is a need to prepare teachers and practitioners to engage in effective interprofessional collaboration. Given the importance of all staff in the school engaging in effective implementation of the different components of a MTSS for reading, teachers, education support staff, SLPs, behavior analysts, and school psychologists will be required to engage in effective interprofessional collaboration and cross-disciplinary practice. Challenges to such cross-disciplinary practice have been identified as it relates to teachers, teacher assistants, SLPs, behavior analysts, occupational therapists, and school psychologists (Bolton & Plattner, 2020 ; Brady & Kim, 2023 ; Kirby et al., 2022 ; Jackson et al., 2021 ; Pfeiffer et al., 2019 ). Specific challenges appear consistent across disciplines and may relate to disagreements or misunderstanding about roles, a lack of awareness of the challenges of teaching in classroom environments, limited understanding of the knowledge and skills offered by other professionals, limited time and resourcing to meet and work collaboratively, and challenges with cross-disciplinary communication (Bolton & Plattner, 2020 ; Brady & Kim, 2023 ; Kirby et al., 2022 ; Pfeiffer et al., 2019 ). Providing pre-service practitioners across multiple disciplines with specific training in models of collaborative work, as well as experiences to engage in collaborative models of work, has been suggested as one way to enhance cross-disciplinary practices to support effective intervention in schools (Pfeiffer et al., 2018 ).

Supporting Successful and Sustained Implementation

When considering the implementation of evidence-based practices such as those described above, Horner et al. ( 2019 ) noted that the stark reality facing implementers and system leaders is that many effective interventions are designed, tested, and then not successfully or sustainably implemented. Sadly, a lack of implementation at the classroom level -– and at scale across educational systems – limits the potential positive effects that evidence-based practices may generate for the students with the greatest needs (Cook & Odom, 2013 ). Australian teachers have reported facing significant workloads, competing priorities, challenging classroom behavioral environments, and a lack of time and knowledge to implement evidence-based practices; all common barriers to successful and sustained implementation of evidence-based practices (Fox et al., 2021 ; Longmuir et al., 2022 ; McIntosh & Goodman, 2016 ). As such, asking teachers to work independently to implement evidence-based reading instruction, in their own classroom, may only add to an already significant workload and level of stress. To address this, school and system leaders should focus on implementing evidence-based reading instruction as part of a whole-school framework such as Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) for reading. As described above, MTSS is a framework that supports school staff to select, implement, and monitor the effect of evidence-based instructional practices to develop students’ reading skills. In this way, a MTSS for reading may allow for the skills of all teachers and practitioners (e.g., school psychologists, behavior analysts, and SLPs) within the school environment to be leveraged to collectively and collaboratively address students’ learning and behavioral needs.

However, effectively implementing MTSS for reading in school settings has been found to be challenging (Arden & Benz, 2018 ; Balu et al., 2015 ). In contrast, implementation efforts of Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS), a MTSS approach to behavior, has had more success in being implemented at scale both in the U.S. (i.e., implemented in more than 28,000 schools across all 50 U.S. states; Sugai & Horner, 2020 ) and internationally (see Poed & Whitefield, 2020 ). The success of PBIS implementation has been explicitly linked to the focus on the processes, practices, and systems of implementation – the supports required to evoke and sustain adult behavior change – over and above the attention paid to interventions within the framework per se (Horner & Sugai, 2015 ; Horner et al., 2019 ). If the potential of the MTSS for reading framework is to be realized across Australian schools, attention must be paid to the successful and sustainable development of school-level implementation support systems. For instance, systems shown to support implementation include staff training programs and systems, ongoing coaching programs and structures, secured resourcing through policy prioritization, school-wide data collection systems that allow for effective data-based decision making, as well as teams to lead and guide the processes of implementation (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016 ).

As identified earlier, a MTSS can incorporate multi-tiered approaches to reading, mathematics, as well as other social and behavioral frameworks such as PBIS. By implementing MTSS for reading together with PBIS (MTSS for behavior), school leaders can create and leverage consistent structures (e.g., data collection systems and team-driven data-based decision-making) and practices (e.g., high rates of opportunities to respond, error correction, prompting, etc.) to address a range of school improvement needs in a way that minimizes the impact of competing priorities (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016 ). In this way, effective implementation of PBIS allows for the creation of the pre-conditions necessary for effective academic instruction (Gage et al., 2017 ), and effective academic instruction reduces the need for behavior supports (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016 ). As noted earlier, providing pre-service teachers with the specific knowledge and skill to deliver effective reading instruction when combined with a functional understanding of behavior will likely provide an effective platform for graduating teachers to be able to work in schools implementing a MTSS that addresses both academic and behavioral learning. Pleasingly, there has been an increased emphasis on the need to implement MTSS that support evidence-based reading instruction and behavior support within Australian educational settings (AERO, 2021c ).

Policy Change and Systems-level Supports

Educational policies focused on reading instruction across Australian school systems must undertake a process of realignment. As noted above, reports have been commissioned, policies have been drafted, and yet the reading outcomes for Australian students continue to decline. Providing a clear overview and definition of socially significant targeted reading outcomes for all students is a required first step in aligning policy and practice. For example, where reading outcomes are clear and concretely defined, the task of identifying the practices most likely to elicit these outcomes, and the most effective ways to support teachers to implement these practices, becomes clearer. This suggestion aligns with calls made by AUSPELD to define reading skills more clearly within and across curricula (AUSPELD, 2021 ). Such a move is likely to clarify for teachers and school leaders the reading skills and knowledge their students need most. This policy and curriculum development within Australia should be informed by knowledge acquired through the science of reading and should focus on theoretically and practically congruent documents that align toward socially significant outcomes. As Horner et al. ( 2019 ) noted, policies can have the greatest impact on practice when they prioritize socially significant outcomes, require regular measurement and reporting on progress, as well as record the provision of systems-level resources (e.g., training and coaching supports) required for staff to achieve the intended goals. In this way, public policy shapes behavior at the level of the group by creating contingencies of reinforcement for teachers and school leaders to engage in the necessary implementation behavior, while also reducing the response effort for teachers to effectively implement evidence-based practices (Noell & Gansle, 2009 ; Todorov & Freitas Lemos, 2020 ).

To see policies realized in practice in Australian schools, a greater focus on the active provision of implementation support at the district and state-levels is required. For example, Horner et al. ( 2014 ) analyzed the state-level variables associated with large-scale, sustained PBIS implementation efforts. They reported that state-level implementation leadership teams and data-based decision making at this same level were important to successful and scaled implementation at the school level. In addition, technical assistance that supports implementers to contextualize efforts, while also developing specific localized expertise (e.g., expertise in the science of reading, the science of behavior, and in implementation science) will be critical to ensuring MTSS implementation efforts can be successful, sustained, and then scaled (Blase et al., 2015 ; Horner et al., 2014 ). Critically, Blase et al. ( 2015 ) noted that the presence or absence of such implementation and content expertise embedded within the system may be a limiting factor in the long-term success and scalability of implementation efforts. As such, it is essential for education systems to focus on building coaching, consultation, and implementation expertise while also building knowledge and skill in the specific content areas related to the science of reading and science of behavior.

In Conclusion

Significant change is required at the individual, school, and systems-levels if improvements in reading outcomes for Australian students are to be realized. Throughout the current paper, we have discussed how the science of reading and science of behavior are both aligned and necessary to achieving improved reading outcomes. We want to conclude by emphasizing the role of the science of behavior in supporting the necessary changes at the individual, school, and system levels. While many consider the science of behavior to be limited to supporting behavior change at the level of the individual, successful applications at the level of cultures and systems have demonstrated that the science of behavior has the conceptual, theoretical, and practical tools to understand, predict, and influence change beyond the individual (Todorov & Freitas Lemos, 2020 ). As Horner and Sugai ( 2015 ) suggested, organizations and systems do not behave, people within them do. As such, the science of behavior allows for an assessment of implementation behavior – and the challenges of implementation – with a view to understanding lawful relationships between the environments within which individuals and groups work, and their implementation or reading instruction behaviors (Noell & Gansle, 2009 ). By underpinning this change with the science of behavior, it is our hope that implementers and system leaders across Australia can focus their efforts on creating the antecedent conditions that support effective reading instruction in Australian schools. That is, preparing pre-service teachers with knowledge from the science of reading and practices from the science of behavior, aligning systems-level policies, providing the necessary training, and creating structures of ongoing support may all serve to set the occasion for the successful and scaled implementation of effective reading instruction across Australian schools. Critically, data must be used to guide decision-making at the school, district, and state levels. Positive outcomes must be celebrated as a way to positively reinforce teacher and school-wide implementation, secure ongoing resources, and ensure that implementation can be sustained. Focusing on these practices and the creation of these supports at the individual and systems levels may allow for the creation of contingencies that encourage, evoke, and reinforce instructional practices that move Australian teachers toward the prized goal of improved student reading outcomes (Cihon & Mattaini, 2020 ).

Data Availability

We do not analyze or generate any datasets because our work proceeds within a theoretical and conceptual approach from the fields of the science of reading and science of behavior.

Al Otaiba, S., Wagner, R. K., & Miller, B. (2014). “Waiting to fail” redux: Understanding inadequate response to intervention. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37 (3), 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714525622

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Arden, S. V., & Benz, B. (2018). The science of RTI implementation: The how and what of building multi-tiered systems of support. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 44 (4), 21–25.

Google Scholar  

Ardoin, S. P., Wagner, L., & Bangs, K. E. (2016). Applied behavior analysis: A foundation for response to intervention. In M. K. B. S. R. Jimerson & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd ed., pp. 29–42). Spinger Media.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Arnold, E. M., Goldston, D. B., Walsh, A. K., Reboussin, B. A., Daniel, S. S., Hickman, E., & Wood, F. B. (2005). Severity of emotional and behavioral problems among poor and typical readers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33 (2), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-005-1828-9

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Aro, T., Eklund, K., Eloranta, A.-K., Närhi, V., Korhonen, E., & Ahonen, T. (2019). Associations between childhood learning disabilities and adult-age mental health problems, lack of education, and unemployment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52 (1), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418775118

Australian Association of Specific Learning Disabilities (2021). Australian Curriculum Review: Feedback provided by AUSPELD on the proposed Australian Curriculum: English (F - 6) Retrieved August 19, 2023, from https://auspeld.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/DSF12135_Auspeld_Submission-Doc_V5.pdf

Australian Association of Specific Learning Disabilities (2022). Understanding learning difficulties: A practical guide for parents . Retrieved August 19, 2023, from https://uldforparents.com/staging/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/DSF12029_Auspeld_Learning-Difficulties_PARENTS_V9-LR_WEB.pdf

Australian Council for Educational Research. (2013). International study reveals serious adult literacy and numeracy problems. Retrieved August 22, 2023, from https://www.acer.org/au/discover/article/international-study-reveals-serious-adult-literacy-and-numeracy-problems-1

Australian Curriculum and Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2023). National assessment program . Retrieved August 11, 2023, from https://www.nap.edu.au/results-and-reports/national-reports

Australian Education Research Organisation. (2021a). Explicit instruction: Know how to teach your students . Retrieved, August 11, 2023, from https://www.edresearch.edu.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/AERO-Tried-and-tested-guide-Explicit-instruction.pdf

Australian Education Research Organisation. (2021b). Focused classrooms: Managing the classroom to maximise learning . Retrieved August, 11, 2023, from https://www.edresearch.edu.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/AERO-Tried-and-tested-guide-focused-classrooms.pdf

Australian Education Research Organisation. (2021c). Strategic Plan: 2021-2024 . Retrieved August 11, 2023, from https://www.edresearch.edu.au/sites/default/files/2021-11/strategic-plan.pdf

Australian Education Research Organisation. (2023). Tiered interventions . Retrieved August 11, 2023, from https://www.edresearch.edu.au/our-work/current-projects/tiered-interventions

Australian Government Productivity Commission (2023). Report on government services: Child care, education and training (part B) . Retrieved August 14, 2023, from https://www.pc.gov.au/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2023/child-care-education-and-training/rogs-2023-partb-overview-and-sections.pdf

Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading (pp. 2016–4000) . National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

Barbash, S. (2021). Science in the service of humanity: The astonishing contributions of Siegfried Engelmann. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 44 (2–3), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-021-00293-z

Benton, L., & Noyelle, T. (1992). Adult illiteracy and economic performance. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) . Washington, DC: Publications and Information Centre.

Blase, K., Fixsen, D., Sims, B., & Ward, C. (2015). Implementation science: Changing hearts, minds, behavior, and systems to improve educational outcomes . The Wing Institute.

Bolton, T., & Plattner, L. (2020). Occupational therapy role in school-based practice: Perspectives from teachers and ots. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention, 13 (2), 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/19411243.2019.1636749

Article   Google Scholar  

Brady, K., & Kim, J.-H. (2023). Collaborative practices between speech-language pathologists and teachers: A survey of teachers in two Australian states. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 0(0) , 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2023.2166674

Brosnan, J., Moeyaert, M., Brooks Newsome, K., Healy, O., Heyvaert, M., Onghena, P., & Van den Noortgate, W. (2018). Multilevel analysis of multiple-baseline data evaluating precision teaching as an intervention for improving fluency in foundational reading skills for at risk readers. Exceptionality, 26 (3), 137–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2016.1238378

de Bruin, K. (2019). Tier two literacy interventions in Australian Schools: A review of the Evidence Version 2.0.

Buckingham, J., Beaman, R., & Wheldall, K. (2012). A randomised control trial of a MultiLit small group intervention for older low-progress readers. Effective Education, 4 (1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2012.717537

Buckingham, J., & Meeks, L. (2019). Short-changed: Preparation to teach reading in initial teacher education . https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29582.72001

Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19 (1), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271

Chamberlain, M. C., & Medina, E. J. (2020). A case of being the same?: Australia and New Zealand’s reading in focus. The Australian Journal of Education, 64 (3), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944120953235

Cihon, T. M., & Mattaini, M. A. (2020). History and progress in cultural and community science. In T. M. Cihon & M. A. Mattaini (Eds.), Behavior science perspectives on culture and community (pp. 1-21). Association for Behavior Analysis International book series: Behavior Science: Theory, Research, and Practice. Springer.

Cobbold, T. (2022). Shocking inequalities in school results. SOS Australia: Fighting for equity in education . Retrieved July, 19, 2023, from https://saveourschools.com.au/funding/shocking-inequalities-in-school-results/

Cook, B. G., & Odom, S. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79 (2), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900201

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis . Pearson UK.

Book   Google Scholar  

Daly, E. J., Lentz, F. E., Jr., & Boyer, J. (1996). The Instructional Hierarchy: A conceptual model for understanding the effective components of reading interventions. School Psychology Quarterly, 11 (4), 369. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088941

Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37 (3), 184–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669030370030801

Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Leadership Training Institute for Special Education.

Department of Education and Training Victoria. (2022). Literacy and numeracy tips to help your child everyday; A guide for parents and carers of children 0-12 . Retrieved July 29, 2023, from https://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/english/literacy/LiteracyandNumeracyTipstoHelpYourChild_Final.pdf

Department of Education and Training Victoria. (2023a). Literacy teaching toolkit: Running records . Retrieved July, 29, 2023, from https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/english/literacy/readingviewing/Pages/examplerunning.aspx

Department of Education and Training Victoria. (2023b). Literacy teaching toolkit: Use of decodable texts . Retrieved July 29, 2023, from https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/english/literacy/readingviewing/Pages/phonics-decodable-texts.aspx

Department of Employment Education Training and Youth Affairs. (1998). Commonwealth literacy policies for Australian schools (Australian Schooling Monograph Series No. 1/1998) . Commonwealth of Australia.

Didion, L., & Toste, J. R. (2022). Data mountain: Self-monitoring, goal setting, and positive attributions to enhance the oral reading fluency of elementary students with or at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55 (5), 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194211043482

Dunlap, G., Kern, L., & Worcester, J. (2001). ABA and academic instruction. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16 (2), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/108835760101600209

Elliott, M., Louden, B., & Scott, D. (2022). Next steps: Report of the quality initial teacher education review . Department of Education, Skills and Employment.

Eloranta, A.-K., Närhi, V., Ahonen, T., & Aro, T. (2019). Does childhood reading disability or its continuance into adulthood underlie problems in adult-age psychosocial well-being? A follow-up study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23 (4), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2018.1561698

Engelmann, S., Haddox, P., & Bruner, E. (1986). Teach your child to read in 100 easy lessons . Simon and Schuster.

Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3 (1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00072.x

Fox, R. A., Leif, E. S., Moore, D. W., Furlonger, B., Anderson, A., & Sharma, U. (2021). A systematic review of the facilitators and barriers to the sustained implementation of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. Education and Treatment of Children . https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-021-00056-0

Francis, D. A., Caruana, N., Hudson, J. L., & McArthur, G. M. (2019). The association between poor reading and internalising problems: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychologyl Review, 67 , 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2018.09.002

Freeman, L., Staley, B., & Wigglesworth, G. (2023). Assessment equity for remote multilingual Australian Aboriginal students through the lens of sustainable development goals. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 25 (1), 157–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2022.2129788

Friman, P. C. (2021). Dissemination of direct instruction: Ponder these while pursuing that. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 44 (2–3), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-021-00285-z

Gage, N. A., Cook, B. G., & Reichow, B. (2017). Publication bias in special education meta-analyses. Exceptional Children, 83 (4), 428–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917691016

Gersten, R., Newman-Gonchar, R., Haymond, K. S., & Dimino, J. (2017). What is the evidence base to support reading interventions for improving student outcomes in grades 1-3? REL 2017-271. Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast (pp. 1–52).

Goldstein, H. (1983). Recombinative generalization: Relationships between environmental conditions and the linguistic repertoires of language learners. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 3 (4), 279–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-4684(83)90002-2

Gough, P. B. (1996). How children learn to read and why they fail. Annals of Dyslexia, 46 , 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02648168

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7 (1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104

Graham, L. J., White, S. L. J., Tancredi, H. A., Snow, P. C., & Cologon, K. (2020). A longitudinal analysis of the alignment between children’s early word-level reading trajectories, teachers’ reported concerns and supports provided. Reading & Writing, 33 (2020), 1895–1923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10023-7

Hammond, L. (2015). Early childhood educators’ perceived and actual metalinguistic knowledge, beliefs and enacted practice about teaching early reading. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 20 (2), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2015.1023208

Hempenstall, K. (2005). How might a stage model of reading development be helpful in the classroom? Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 10 (3–4), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000271737

Hempenstall, K. (2012). Response to intervention: Accountability in action. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 17 (2), 101–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2012.704879

Hempenstall, K. (2013). What is the place for national assessment in the prevention and resolution of reading difficulties? Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 18 (2), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2013.840887

Heward, W. L., Kimball, J. W., Heckaman, K. A., & Dunne, J. D. (2021). In his own words: Siegfried “Zig” Engelmann talks about what’s wrong with education and how to fix it. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 14 (3), 766–774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00636-x

Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2 (2), 127–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799

Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2015). School-wide PBIS: An example of applied behavior analysis implemented at a scale of social importance. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 8 , 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-015-0045-4

Horner, R. H., Kincaid, D., Sugai, G., Lewis, T., Eber, L., Barrett, S., Dickey, C. R., Richter, M., Sullivan, E., & Boezio, C. (2014). Scaling up school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports: Experiences of seven states with documented success. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16 (4), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300713503685

Horner, R. H., Ward, C. S., Fixsen, D. L., Sugai, G., McIntosh, K., Putnam, R., & Little, H. D. (2019). Resource leveraging to achieve large-scale implementation of effective educational practices. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 21 (2), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300718783754

Hughes, C. A., & Dexter, D. D. (2011). Response to intervention: A research-based summary. Theory into Practice, 50 (1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.534909

Jackson, C., Sharma, U., Odier-Guj, D., & Deppeler, J. (2021). Teachers’ perceptions of their work with teacher assistants: A systematic literature review. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 46 (11), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2021v46n11.5

Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2016). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3

Joseph, L. M., & Eveleigh, E. L. (2011). A review of the effects of self-monitoring on reading performance of students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 45 (1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466909349145

Joseph, L. M., Alber-Morgan, S., & Neef, N. (2016). Applying behavior analytic procedures to effectively teach literacy skills in the classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 53 (1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21883

Kelley, E. S., Goldstein, Ho., Spencer, T. D., & Sherman, A. (2015). Effects of automated Tier 2 storybook intervention on vocabulary and comprehension learning in preschool children with limited oral language skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 31 , 47–61.

Kirby, M. S., Spencer, T. D., & Spiker, S. T. (2022). Humble behaviorism redux. Behavior and Social Issues, 31 , 133–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-022-00092-4

LaFrance, D. L., & Tarbox, J. (2020). The importance of multiple exemplar instruction in the establishment of novel verbal behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53 (1), 10–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.611

Lambe, D., Murphy, C., & Kelly, M. E. (2015). The impact of a precision teaching intervention on the reading fluency of typically developing children: Precision teaching. Behavioral interventions, 30 (4), 364–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1418

Ledford, J. R., & Gast, D. L. (2018). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences . Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved July 10, 2023, from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/monash/detail.action?docID=5228997

Lemov, D., Driggs, C., & Woolway, E. (2016). Reading reconsidered : A practical guide to rigorous literacy instruction (1st ed.). Wiley.

Longmuir, F., Gallo Cordoba, B., Phillips, M., Allen, K.-A., & Moharami, M. (2022). Australian teachers’ perceptions of their work in 2022 [Report] . Monash University. Retrieved July 15, 2023, from https://www.monash.edu/perceptions-of-teaching

Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40 (2), 148–182. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.40.2.2

May, H., Blakeney, A., Shrestha, P., Mazal, M., & Kennedy, N. (2023). Long-term impacts of reading recovery through 3rd and 4th grade: A regression discontinuity study. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2023.2209092

McIntosh, K., & Goodman, S. (2016). Integrated multi-tiered systems of support: Blending RTI and PBIS . The Guilford Press.

McIntosh, K., Sadler, C., & Brown, J. A. (2012). Kindergarten reading skill level and change as risk factors for chronic problem behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14 (1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300711403153

McLean, E. J., Snow, P. C., & Serry, T. A. (2021). Dual-qualified teachers and speech-language therapists reflect on preparation and practice in school-based language and literacy. Child Language Teaching and Therapy . https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659021995543

Meeks, L. J., & Kemp, C. R. (2017). How well prepared are Australian preservice teachers to teach early reading skills? Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 42 (11), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2017v42n11.1

Mellard, D., McKnight, M., & Jordan, J. (2010). RTI tier structures and instructional intensity. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 25 (4), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00319.x

Mosk, M. D., & Bucher, B. (1984). Prompting and stimulus shaping procedures for teaching visual-motor skills to retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17 (1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1984.17-23

National Reading Panel Report. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research evidence on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Retrieved July 17, 2023, from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf

Newsome, K., Nix Berens, K., Ghezzi, P. M., Aninao, T., & Newsome, W. D. (2014). Training relational language to improve reading comprehension. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 15 (2), 165–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2014.11434512

Noell, G. H., Call, N. A., & Ardoin, S. P. (2011). Building complex repertoires from discrete behaviors by establishing stimulus control, behavioral chains, and strategic behavior. Handbook of applied behavior analysis (pp. 250–269).

Noell, G. H., & Gansle, K. A. (2009). Moving from good ideas in educational systems change to sustainable program implementation: Coming to terms with some of the realities. Psychology in the Schools, 46 (1), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20355

NSW Board of Studies Teaching and Educational Standards. (2014). Literacy learning in the early years: Quality of Initial Teacher Education in NSW . Sydney.

NSW Education. (2023a). Effective reading in the early years of school . Retrieved July 29,2023, from https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/curriculum/literacy-and-numeracy/teaching-and-learning-resources/literacy/effective-reading-in-the-early-years-of-school

NSW Education. (2023b). Literacy K-12 policy . Retrieved July 29, 2023, from https://education.nsw.gov.au/policy-library/policies/pd-2005-0288

Ontario Human Rights Commission. (2022). Right to read inquiry report . Retrieved July 17, 2023, from https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/right-to-read-inquiry-report

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2019). What students know and can do (Volume I) . OECD.

Ozen, A., Genc-Tosun, D., & Tekin-Iftar, E. (2022). Response prompting procedures delivered within embedded teaching trials for teaching chained skills. Behavioral Interventions, 37 (4), 1096–1117. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1887

Petersen, D., & Spencer, T. D. (2016). CUBED. Language dynamics group . Laramie, WY.

Petscher, Y., Cabell, S. Q., Catts, H. W., Compton, D. L., Foorman, B. R., Hart, S. A., Lonigan, C. J., Phillips, B. M., Schatschneider, C., Steacy, L. M., Terry, N. P., & Wagner, R. K. (2020). How the science of reading informs 21st-century education. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (Suppl 1), S267–S282. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.352

Pfeiffer, D. L., Pavelko, S. L., Hahs, Vaughn D. L., & Dudding, C. C. (2019). A national survey of speech-language pathologists’ engagement in interprofessional collaborative practice in schools: Identifying predictive factors and barriers to implementation. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50 (4), 639–655. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-18-0100

Pfeiffer, D. L., Pavelko, S. L., & Ingram, S. B. (2018). Interprofessional education for preprofessional speech-language pathologists and general-education teachers. EBP Briefs, 13 (1), 1–10. NCS Pearson, Inc.

Poed, S., & Whitefield, P. (2020). Developments in the implementation of positive behavioral interventions and supports in Australian schools. Intervention in School and Clinic, 56 (1), 56–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451220910742

Przychodzin-Havis, A. M., Marchand-Martella, N. E., Martella, R. C., Miller, D. A., Warner, L., Leonard, B., & Chapman, S. (2005). An analysis of “corrective reading” Research. Journal of Direct Instruction, 5 (1), 37–65.

Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2 (2), 31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.00004

Reynolds, M., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2009). Building the WARL: The development of the Wheldall assessment of reading lists, a curriculum-based measure designed to identify young struggling readers and monitor their progress. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 14 (1), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404150902783443

Rose, J. (2006). Independent review of the teaching of early reading . DfES Publications. Retrieved July 17, 2023, from https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5551/2/report.pdf

Rowe, K. (2005). National inquiry into the teaching of literacy: Report and recommendations . Department of Education, Science and Training. https://research.acer.edu.au/tll_misc/5

Scarborough, H. S., Neuman, S., & Dickinson, D. (2009). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis) abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. Approaching difficulties in literacy development: Assessment, pedagogy and programmes , 10 (pp. 23–38).

Serry, T. A., & Oberklaid, F. (2015). Children with reading problems: Missed opportunities to make a difference. The Australian Journal of Education, 59 (1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944114555584

Snow, P. C. (2016). Elizabeth Usher Memorial Lecture: Language is literacy is language - Positioning speech-language pathology in education policy, practice, paradigms and polemics. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 18 (3), 216–228. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2015.1112837

Snow, P. C. (2019). Speech-language pathology and the youth offender: Epidemiological overview and roadmap for future speech-language pathology research and scope of practice. Language Speech and Hearing Services Schools, 50 (2), 324–339. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-CCJS-18-0027

Snow, P. C. (2020). SOLAR: The science of language and reading. Child Language Teaching and Therapy . https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659020947817

Snow, P. (2020). Balanced literacy or systematic reading instruction? Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 46 (1), 35–39.

Spencer, T. D. (2021). Ten instructional design efforts to help behavior analysts take up the torch of direct instruction. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 14 (3), 816–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00640-1

Spencer, T. D., & Petersen, D. (2012). Story champs. Language Dynamics Group . Laramie, WY.

Spencer, T. D., & Petersen, D. B. (2020). Narrative intervention: Principles to practice. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 51 (4), 1081–1096. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_LSHSS-20-00015

Sprague, J., & Walker, H. (2000). Early identification and intervention for youth with antisocial and violent behavior. Exceptional Children, 66 (3), 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290006600307

Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Khoury, C. R. (2018). The effectiveness of direct instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of research. Review of Educational Research, 88 (4), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317751919

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2020). Sustaining and scaling positive behavioral interventions and supports: Implementation drivers, outcomes, and considerations. Exceptional Children, 86 (2), 120–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919855331

Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group. (2014). Action now: Classroom ready teachers . Australian Government Department of Education.

Tetley, D., & Jones, C. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ knowledge of language concepts: relationships to field experiences. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 19 (1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2014.891530

The Reading League. (2022). Science of reading: Defining guide . Retrieved July 17, 2023, from https://www.thereadingleague.org/what-is-thescience-of-reading/

Thomson, S., Hillman, K., Schmid, M., Rodrigues, S., & Fullarton, J. (2017). Highlights from PIRLS 2016: Australia's perspective . Australian Council for Educational Research Retrieved July 22, 2023, from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=pirls

Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., Underwood, C., & Schmid, M. (2019). PISA 2018: Reporting Australia’s results . Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) Retrieved July 22, 2023, from https://research.acer.edu.au/ozpisa/35

Todorov, J. C., & Freitas Lemos, R. (2020). Applying behavioral science to large-scale social changes. In T. M. Cihon & M. A. Mattaini (Eds.), Behavior science perspectives on culture and community (pp. 171-193). Association for Behavior Analysis International book series: Behavior Science: Theory, Research, and Practice. Springer.

Torgesen, J. K. (1998). Catch them before they fall. American Educator, 22 , 32–41.

Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Preventing early reading failure–and its devastating downward spiral. American Educator, 28 (3), 6–19.

Tunmer, W. E., Chapman, J. W., Greaney, K. T., Prochnow, J. E., & Arrow, A. W. (2013). Why the New Zealand national literacy strategy has failed and what can be done about it: Evidence from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2011 and Reading Recovery monitoring reports. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 18 (2), 139–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2013.842134

Volkmer, S., Galuschka, K., & Schulte-Körne, G. (2019). Early identification and intervention for children with initial signs of reading deficits - A blinded randomized controlled trial. Learning and Instruction, 59 , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.09.002

Wheldall, K., & Beaman, R. (1999). An evaluation of (MULTILIT):‘Making up lost time in literacy’: Executive summary . Macquarie University.

Wheldall, K., Wheldall, R., & Merrett, F. (2020). Positive teaching for Australian primary schools . MultiLit Pty Ltd.

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship as well as Monash University in the form of the Graduate Research Completion Award.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, Monash University, 19 Ancora Imparo Way, Clayton, Melbourne, VIC, 3800, Australia

Karina L. Stocker, Russell A. Fox & Erin S. Leif

Faculty of Education, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

Nathaniel R. Swain

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karina L. Stocker .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Stocker, K.L., Fox, R.A., Swain, N.R. et al. Between the Lines: Integrating the Science of Reading and the Science of Behavior to Improve Reading Outcomes for Australian Children. Behav. Soc. Iss. 33 , 504–531 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-023-00149-y

Download citation

Accepted : 26 September 2023

Published : 21 November 2023

Issue Date : August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-023-00149-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Science of reading
• Behavior science
• Evidence-based instructional practices
• Multi-tiered systems of support
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Researchers Translating the Science of Reading

Nicole patton terry.

1 Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA

Yaacov Petscher

Nadine gaab.

2 Harvard University, Boston, USA

Translation of the science of reading into effective classroom practice and improved reading achievement has been difficult. There is evident when we consider that despite decades of scientific research of how reading develops, many children and adolescents across the country read below expected levels.

Some of the proposed reasons for why translating reading research to reading practice is so difficult have centered on professors in colleges and universities. The public has assumed that some professors do not understand the realities of classrooms settings because they are not engaged with teachers and schools, they are not interested in solving this problem because it is not their priority, or worse, they contribute to the translation problem because their ideologies get in the way of preparing teachers to use evidence-based practices in P-12 schools. In truth, university professors contribute to the science of reading in many different ways. For example, some engage in basic science by studying how the brain learns to read or the genetic influence of reading development. Others engage in applied science, working directly with the community and schools to better the implementation of reading instruction in authentic classroom settings. Because of the broad range of work professors engage in, their roles are often misunderstood. Included among the many misunderstandings are beliefs that professors can teach whatever they want, spend the majority of their time teaching undergraduate students, or, our favorite, have summers off. However, the realities of the job are much more complicated, especially when it comes to the translation of scientific evidence to the public. Three misunderstandings related to the roles of university professors are relevant to translating the science of reading in a way that leads to effective practice and improved student achievement in schools.

Misunderstanding 1: A professor’s primary responsibility is teaching.

Reality: most professors balance responsibilities for teaching, research, and service..

For many people, the word professor conjures up images of Robin Williams’ students standing on a desk in Dead Poets Society , Laurence Fishburne demanding complex thought in Higher Learning, Julia Roberts exploring feminism through art in Mona Lisa Smile , or Harrison Ford battling Nazis in the Indiana Jones trilogy. Even films that are based upon true stories portray a certain image of a professor, like Russell Crowe triumphing over schizophrenia in A Beautiful Mind or Denzel Washington molding young minds in The Great Debaters . Although the relationships between professors and their students portrayed in these films are endearing, they only speak to one part of the job.

Many professors do not actually spend the majority of their time teaching students. This is because their time is split across three primary areas of responsibility: research, teaching, and service. The value of teaching and service is evident in the courses they teach, the committees they serve on, and the professional development workshops they deliver. However, research often takes up just as much if not more time because many are also scientists. Scientists apply the scientific method in the search for answers to questions about the human condition, to create inventions that are used in everyday life, and to improve the overall quality of life for humankind. At many universities, research is valued and rewarded much more than teaching and service when it comes to earning promotion and tenure. Balancing the demands and expectations of research, teaching, and service responsibilities makes it extremely difficult for professors to engage in translational activities—translating their science into practice.

Misunderstanding 2: Reading researchers lack P-12 classroom teaching experience, and that is a bad thing.

Reality: reading researchers have different background experiences and their multidisciplinary expertise (which sometimes does include p-12 teaching experience) is a good thing..

A common misunderstanding of reading research is that a lot of it has been carried out by professors who have never been teachers in P-12 schools. This concern is about “street credibility”—how can someone who has never taught a student to read fully understand or support classroom practice? Many reading researchers are faculty in schools of education within teacher education programs—positions typically attained by people with previous experience as P-12 teachers—yet others are not. The “science of reading” has emerged from researchers in schools of education as well as from those in cognitive and developmental psychology, cognitive neuroscience, genetics, speech language pathology, and other disciplines ( Petscher et al., 2020 ). This is a good thing because reading research benefits from collaboration within and across disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, computer science, applied mathematics, educational policy, and business in order to better understand what “reading” is and how to help it develop.

Perhaps some of the difficulty with translation of the science of reading into everyday classroom practice is due to the broad range of fields that engage in reading research. As noted in a recent report on how to communicate science effectively ( National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017 ), it can be difficult for practitioners to wade through what are often competing voices in the search for the answer to one simple question: what am I supposed to do? This can be difficult for teachers, administrators, and policymakers. However, an important truth is that the science on most human behavior is evolving constantly and rarely settled. Researchers are making new discoveries every day at the same time that teachers are trying to apply those discoveries every day. This makes bridging the divide between reading research and reading practice a challenge, but in actuality, researchers’ different background experiences and multidisciplinary expertise provides a necessary collective wisdom and set of experiences that have led to rapid advances in reading research and practice. Each has brought unique strengths to the table, and each has played an important part in addressing reading instruction and achievement in schools.

Misunderstanding 3: Researchers cannot possibly appreciate the everyday challenges of teaching reading in schools.

Reality: many researchers work alongside practitioners to develop solutions that inform practices, programs, and policies in schools, but we can do better..

An expectation placed upon many researchers by their universities is that they will participate in as many activities as possible that lead to publications in peer-reviewed, scientific journals. There are many reasons why scientific research appears mostly in peer-reviewed journals; some are positive—it allows reviewing scientists to comment anonymously on the work and it is a primary way that moves science forward, allowing it to contribute to a broader knowledge base about things like the science of reading. Other aspects of research appearing mostly in peer-reviewed journals are negative—there are paywalls that prevent the public from accessing articles, and it can isolate researchers from practitioners. In addition, professors often find themselves siloed with colleagues in their field, creating an echo chamber in which they communicate their findings that is outside of schools and classrooms. An unintended consequence of the pressure to publish in peer-reviewed journals is that it becomes difficult for professors to engage in collaboration, translation, and dissemination alongside practitioners.

However, there are many researchers who intentionally engage with practitioners at every stage of the research process to generate and apply knowledge. They garner feedback from teachers who are implementing new strategies and curricula, present research in practitioner journals and at conferences, serve on boards in community organizations, share findings and resources through social media, establish formal partnerships with school districts to share research agendas, and invite practitioners, parents, and caregivers to work on research teams and advisory councils. These examples of working alongside practitioners illustrate how researchers actively bridge the research-to-practice divide. However, there is still room for researchers to do better. For those who have been P-12 teachers, and for those of us who have not, it is important to recognize the challenges of promoting learning and development under conditions that may make it difficult to do so, and to understand the student populations who encounter barriers disproportionately due to historical, systemic, and structural inequities in education specifically, and in society in general. All researchers must be conscious of how the research process, from funding to design to knowledge generation to dissemination, can lead to disparity ( Chicago Beyond, 2019 ).

As authors of this paper, our research areas are diverse—psychology, neuroscience, education, and social work—but we are all interested in the science of reading. More than that, we all want to help change the nature of scientific collaborations and change the ways we communicate our research about the science of reading. So, we do what we do best as interdisciplinary researchers: we look to other disciplines to learn, to grow, and to advance our own. One approach we think holds promise for us as individual researchers and for the field of reading research is translational science.

What is Translational Science?

Translational science is a relatively new field that emerged from the biomedical and public health disciplines. Often referred to as “bench to bedside,” translational science is the process of translating research findings into research-based and research-informed practices, programs, and policies to improve individual and population health outcomes (National Institutes of Health (NIH, 2009). Translational science is focused on reducing barriers to the widespread use of these practices, programs, and policies. Translational researchers involve people and communities at each stage of the research process, with the goal of producing research, developing and implementing interventions and practices, and changing policies to improve individual and public health.

Because translational science is a new way to translate science into practice, it can be difficult to understand just what it is, why it should matter, and how to go about it. Translational science can be as simple as improving the readability of scientific articles for an unfamiliar audience. For the field of reading research, examples of translational science can also include:

• advancing scientific research from basic research science (e.g., determining what factors predict children’s word reading ability),
• testing evidence-based practices in authentic environments (i.e., working in multiple classrooms with diverse learners to study different types of word reading instruction),
• communicating and disseminating the research and these practices widely to improve reading achievement (e.g., engaging in professional learning opportunities and teacher training to ensure effective word reading instruction in all primary classrooms).

In this paper we ask, “What does it mean for a reading researcher to be engaged in translational science?” Gilliland and colleagues (2019) are part of a group called Translation Together, and they developed a model of what it means to be a translational scientist ( Figure 1 ). The model provides descriptions of seven character traits of a translational scientist: Systems Thinker, Skilled Communicator, Rigorous Researcher, Domain Expert, Process Innovator, Team Player and Boundary Crosser. In their model, a translational scientist is someone who should possess all of these characteristics. We think there are two reasons why this model does not work for the field of reading research at this time.

• The multiple disciplines that make up reading research differ in how and to whom they translate and communicate research findings. For example, the primary audience for researchers in reading education may be teachers, principals, and superintendents, whereas the primary audience for researchers in cognitive neuroscience may be clinicians, diagnosticians, and pediatricians. Translating research findings from the science of reading to different audiences is important because each has an important role to play in improving reading outcomes. However, translating the research findings effectively would require researchers in each of these fields to develop knowledge and skills from other fields, which would take a tremendous amount of effort and time. This is a challenge because the field of reading research needs effective translation today . The model, as presented, does not take this into consideration.
• The field of education is relatively young in its journey toward effectively translating scientific evidence to the public. This is a challenge shared with many other fields, especially where the findings are controversial (e.g., climate change). Reading researchers are becoming creative in translating research for practitioners and the public. For example, they are writing comic books for young readers with dyslexia (like the second author of this paper, see: https://improvingliteracy.org/kid-zone/ar ), gathering resources for parents and practitioners (like the third author of this paper, see: https://www.gaablab.com/screening-for-reading-impairments ), and participating in podcasts for researchers and practitioners (like the fourth author on this paper, see: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/within-between/id1517310439 ). Despite these efforts, there is still a need to improve the translation of reading research to various stakeholder groups so that reading achievement outcomes improve in schools. Doing so requires empirical study, concerted effort, increased funding, and strategic incentives at a level that does not currently exist within the field of reading research ( Solari et al., 2020 ). Again, this will take time and the field needs effective translation today .

Seven Characteristics of a Translational Scientist

Reprinted with permission from Gilliland, C. T., White, J., Gee, B., Kreeftmeijer-Vegter, R., Bietrix, F., Ussi, A. E., … & Suematsu, M. (2019) . The Fundamental Characteristics of a Translational Scientist, ACS Pharmacol. Transl. Sci, 2, 213–216. Copyright 2019 American Chemical Society.

How can reading researchers provide effective translation today? Rather than developing researchers who possess all of the characteristics suggested by Gilliland et al. (2019) , we believe there is greater value in creating teams. We propose adapting the Gilliland traits to a “Translational Science Team” approach that will more quickly lead to a translation of the science of reading into practice.

Team Translational Scientists

We propose that translational science could happen more effectively and more quickly if scientists who each have expertise in some of these characteristics individually work together to create teams who have all of these characteristics collectively. Strategic collaboration like this could help translational science move forward with more ease and greater impact. With this in mind, we developed an adapted and expanded model of Gilliland et al.’s (2019) traditional model to illustrate the characteristics of scientists within a team approach to translational science (See Figure 2 ). Each of the characteristics in our adapted model is described below.

Characteristics of a Team Approach to Translational Science

Reprinted with permission from Petscher, Y., Terry, N. P., Gaab, N., & Hart, S. A. (2020, April 17) . Widening the Lens of Translational Science through Team Science. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/a8xs6 . Copyright (2020) by Authors.

Big Picture Thinker

A scientist who considers all of the complex interrelations among systems that can impact outcomes. The Big Picture Thinker considers how aspects of individuals (e.g., age, sex, race, poverty, language, culture), microsystems (e.g., family, school, peers), mesosystems (e.g., neighborhood and community), exosystems (e.g., government and political systems), and macrosystems (e.g., widely shared beliefs, customs, and laws) influence the scientific study of educational outcomes.

Skilled Communicator

A scientist who effectively communicates scientific ideas, research, and evidence to various groups. The Skilled Communicator engages with stakeholders like researchers, practitioners, educators, administrators, clinicians, social workers, pediatricians, industry, and policymakers--all of whom are also diverse along many sociocultural dimensions (e.g., race, age, gender, education, language, geography). The Skilled Communicator excels not only at delivering the message in speech and in print, but also at listening and responding to the needs of their stakeholders.

Methods Maven

A scientist who applies the scientific method to develop and/or conduct studies with rigor. Whether using quantitative or qualitative methods, the Methods Maven strives to create the optimal conditions to produce results that are valid and reliable.

Domain Scholar

A scientist with deep disciplinary knowledge across the range of scientific domains within their field.

BAE Innovator

Focused on systems, a BAE innovator is a scientist who identifies b arriers that prevent individuals and groups from a ccessing materials or services as intended and creates new tools, services, and processes that facilitate e quitable access and opportunity. A BAE Innovator is solutions-oriented, acknowledges how problems emerge, and strategically addresses them.

Expert Implementer

A scientist who applies scientific findings to improve outcomes. Whether developing, designing, implementing, testing, or observing practices, programs, or interventions, the Expert Implementer is focused on moving scientific discoveries from the lab to the field. Recognizing the importance of the product and the process, Expert Implementers build partnerships with stakeholders to bridge the divide between research and practice.

Silo Bridger

A scientist who enhances interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary collaboration for research, practice, and stakeholder engagement. Recognizing that complex problems often require comprehensive solutions, the Silo Bridger creates or participates in opportunities across disciplines.

Multimodal Disseminator

A scientist who uses multiple and varied creative media to communicate evidence-informed and evidence-based scientific ideas. Stretching beyond traditional outlets like peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, advances in new audio, visual, and social media are used to translate and disseminate findings to a broad and diverse audience.

Team Translational Science in Action

Applying a team approach to translating science into practice relies on researchers and practitioners being willing to do research differently. It also relies on building supports that are not always in place (e.g., sufficient funding). Fortunately, as noted previously, individual reading researchers are already making beginning strides toward translation, so a team approach could provide some of the support needed for a collective effort towards translating reading research.

The potential of this approach has recently taken place as the field has worked to address learning loss due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, using an existing research-practice partnership between the Florida Center for Reading Research and a local public school district, a team of researchers, principals, and school district personnel worked to implement an at-home summer reading program and to study outcomes for participating students and their families. The project required:

• Big Picture Thinkers who envisioned evidence-informed solutions to learning loss with school partners who were appropriately focused on the health and safety of their students and staff and funders who were interested in addressing challenges associated with COVID-19;
• Silo Bridgers who brought together school district personnel and principals with university researchers, staff, and graduate students to support the project;
• BAE Innovators who designed programming that was sensitive to the needs of vulnerable learners who attend Title I schools and attuned to issues related to the digital divide in under-resourced homes and communities;
• Domain Scholars with expertise in early reading and language development and instruction, approaches to integrating culturally responsive children’s literature; and effective family-based interventions;
• Expert Implementers with expertise in implementing interventions for young learners at home with families and caregivers and that use text-messaging platforms;
• Methods Mavens with expertise in designing experiments with limited sample sizes and managing multiple kinds of data from multiple sources;
• Multimodal Disseminators with expertise in developing and delivering content through infographics, YouTube videos, and social media platforms; and
• Skilled Communicators to communicate with principals, school district personnel, school board members, parents, and caregivers before, during, and after the program.

By taking a team approach from the very beginning, a diverse group of researchers and practitioners were able to use research evidence to develop, implement, and study a program to address the immediate needs of students and families. There is certainly room to grow and learn in the refinement of our approach to translational science. Nevertheless, this project provides a glimpse of what is possible and how researchers and practitioners can begin.

Moving Forward

One of the ultimate goals of scientific research is translating basic research findings into products, processes, and policies that inform and improve life for the broader community. Many reading researchers may be interested in a translational science approach to achieve this goal. Rather than taking on what may feel like an insurmountable challenge alone, translational team science offers a different way to view that work—one that allows for individual scientists to come together, contributing their narrower set of expertise and skills towards a bigger whole. Teachers, clinicians, and other education practitioners are key members of the team. Both researchers and practitioners have work to do to support the translation of the science of reading.

For practitioners, it may mean joining research teams focused on using evidence-based practices in school settings; using multimedia tools to disseminate research findings to colleagues, parents, and caregivers; supporting formal partnerships between districts and schools and local colleges and universities to address student achievement goals; and advocating for equitable roles for practitioners, parents, and caregivers on translational teams.

For researchers, it may mean creating inter disciplinary research-practice teams that include practitioners as investigators, implementers, and disseminators; conducting replication studies to examine the effectiveness of evidence-based practices for specific student groups or in specific educational contexts; or advocating for translational activities to “count” during promotion and tenure processes. Reading researchers and practitioners have much to learn about applying a translational science framework to the field. It is apparent that the strengths of both researchers and practitioners are needed to translate the science into practice. The team science framework provides reading researchers and practitioners with a realistic guide to achieving the goals of translational science. This team approach is a critical driver for the translation of the science of reading ( Solari et al., 2020 ). Fully embracing a team science approach will move research and its translation forward; and, by doing so, science will remain a public good.

• Chicago Beyond (2019). Why am I always being researched? : A guidebook for community organizations, researchers, and funders to help us get from insufficient understanding to more authentic truth . Available at: https://chicagobeyond.org/researchequity/ . [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilliland CT, White J, Gee B, Kreeftmeijer-Vegter R, Bietrix F, Ussi AE, … & Suematsu M. (2019). The fundamental characteristics of a translational scientist . ACS Pharmacology & Translational Science , 2 , 213–261. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda . National Academies Press. 10.17226/23674 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institutes of Health. Definitions under Subsection 1 (Research Objectives), Section I (Funding Opportunity Description), Part II (Full Text of Announcement), of RFA-RM-07–007: Institutional Clinical and Translational Science Award (U54) ( March , 2007). [Accessed April 12, 2020]. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-RM-07-007.html
• Solari E, Terry NP, Gaab N, Hogan TP, Nelson N, Pentimonti J, Petscher Y, & Sayko S (2020). Translational science: A roadmap for the science of reading . Reading Research Quarterly , 55 ( 1 ), 347–360. 10.1002/rrq.357 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Petscher Y, Cabell S, Catts HW, Compton D, Foorman B, Hart SA, Lonigan CJ, Phillips BM, Schatschneider C, Steacy L, Terry NP, & Wagner RK (2020). How the science of reading informs 21st century education . Reading Research Quarterly , 55 ( 1 ), 267–282. 10.1002/rrq.352 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Petscher Y, Terry NP, Gaab N, & Hart SA (2020, April 17). Widening the lens of translational science through team science . 10.31234/osf.io/a8xs6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

The Latest in Science of Reading Research

• #Expert Insight

The Science of Reading (SoR) is a comprehensive body of research that encompasses years of scientific knowledge and spans across many languages.

There have been thousands of studies and scholarly articles that have been published over the last few decades. In this article, we will summarize some of the latest findings and entries surrounding the Science of Reading.

The Four Pillars To Reading Success (June, 2020)

In June 2020, the National Council for Teacher Quality released an action guide for states looking to boost their reading scores. The purveying message is that reading does not come naturally and lays out the four components that states can have a direct impact on.

These four pillars are:

• Insisting that prep programs build teacher candidate knowledge
• Recommending to districts the best tools for assessing their students’ reading proficiency
• Evaluating and recommending instructional materials
• Giving resources to districts so they can provide external supports for classroom teachers

When it comes to prep programs, the report states that teachers should avoid any program that includes drawing shapes around words, making alphabetic word walls, teaching the “cueing systems” approach of appealing to context to guess at unknown words, or that does not follow a clear scope and sequence where one skill is built upon another.

SOLAR: The Science of Language and Reading (2020)

This study cites research that indicates we should be successfully teaching 95% of children to read, yet, in reality, high rates of reading failure are common in western, industrialized nations. 

The author suggests the Science of Language and Reading (SOLAR) framework as a way of positioning oral language as the main factor in reading comprehension. The SOLAR framework is illustrated via the Language House schema, which considers the social-emotional contexts for language acquisition and reading instruction, alongside the ongoing development of prosocial interpersonal skills and mastery of sufficient language and reading skills by early adulthood to be able to function as part of the social and economic mainstream. 

• Solid ground: The emotional and interpersonal experience of infancy
• Strong foundations: Oral language development in the preschool years
• First wall: The prosocial interpersonal skills and the home language and literacy environment
• Second wall: The reading, writing, and spelling and instructional environment
• A structural beam to support the roof: Social-emotional and behavioral wellbeing
• The roof: Access to the social and economic mainstream through marketable employment skills

The author argues that speech-language therapy has much to offer to the promotion of evidence-based early reading and writing instruction and support, given the linguistic nature of reading and the high comorbidity between language and reading difficulties and social-emotional disturbances in childhood and adolescence.

Teaching Reading Is Rocket Science (2020)

Dr. Louisa Moats states that much of the research surrounding the science of reading is not yet included in teacher preparation programs, widely used curricula, or professional development. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that typical classroom practices often deviate substantially from what is recommended by our most credible sources.

She states the professional development and teacher preparation courses should ensure teachers should have knowledge of all the following subjects and how they can be applied in the classroom.

• Phonetics and Phonology
• Orthography
• Syntax and Text Structure

As a whole, Moats identifies seven steps that states and schools need to take to make noticeable and lasting improvements. 

• Use research to guide the profession
• Establish core professional standards, curricula, and entry-level assessments for new teachers.
• Align teacher education curricula, standards for students, and licensing requirements for teachers.
• Create professional development institutes for professors and masters teachers
• Press the developers of textbooks and instructional materials to improve their products
• Promote high-quality professional development for teachers.
• Invest in teaching

How the Science of Reading Informs 21st‐Century Education (2020)

This study dives into the history of science of reading research and why it is such a contested topic. It compares approaches such as the whole language approach or three-cueing system to that of observational research, but states, “observational research devoid of rigorous methodology, testing, and replication produces spurious results and leads to biased inferences.”

While identifying research that has ample evidence, the authors state that teaching children to decode words using systematic and explicit phonics instruction results in improved word-decoding skills. 

Such instruction is effective both for monolingual English-speaking children and children whose home language is other than English (i.e., dual-language learners; Baker et al., 2014; Gersten et al., 2007) as well as children who are having difficulties learning to read or who have an identified reading disability (Ehri, Nunes, Stahl et al., 2001; Gersten et al., 2008). 

The article also touches on how important building knowledge in other areas is vital to reading comprehension. 

Compelling evidence is available to guide understanding of how reading develops and identify proven instructional practices that impact both decoding and linguistic comprehension.

The scientific literature on reading is ever-expanding through contributions from education, psychology, linguistics, communication science, neuroscience, and computational sciences. 

Phonological Awareness Materials in Utah Kindergartens: A Case Study in the Science of Reading (April, 2021)

This study looked into the instruction and materials that were being used in Utah kindergarten classrooms. While many classrooms are incorporating phonemic awareness and phonics into their instruction, much of it is still inconsistent with the science of reading research.

In this instance, the current study found that the most widely used materials in the state did not incorporate explicit, direct instruction that was sequential and structured. Moreover, orthographic mapping was not taken into sufficient account when teaching literacy to their students. 

Additionally, the materials did not use letters and did not limit focus to one or two skills. With all of these findings, the state’s most widely used materials do not align with the science of reading.

We will leave you with the words of Dr. Louisa Moats, published in “Teaching Reading is Rocket Science”.

 “The fact that teachers need better training to carry out deliberate instruction in reading, spelling, and writing should prompt action rather than criticism. It should highlight the chronic gap between what teachers need and what they have been given. It should underscore the obligation of licensing programs to combine coursework with practice on a range of predefined skills and knowledge. The deficiencies in teacher preparation represent both a misunderstanding of what reading instruction demands and a mistaken notion that any literate person should be able to teach children to read. We do not expect that anyone who appreciates music can teach music appreciation, or that anyone who can balance a check- book can teach math,” Moats writes. 

“Just about all children can be taught to read and deserve no less from their teachers. Teachers, in turn, deserve no less than the knowledge, skills, and supported practice that will enable their teaching to succeed. There is no more important challenge for education to undertake.”

Sign up for our  LIVE virtual Orton-Gillingham training ! We are now offering half-day, evening, and weekend options to best fit your schedule. 

The IMSE approach allows teachers to incorporate the five components essential to an effective reading program into their daily lessons: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. 

The approach is based on the Orton-Gillingham methodology and focuses on explicit, direct instruction that is sequential, structured, and multi-sensory.

It is IMSE’s mission that all children must have the ability to read to fully realize their potential. We are committed to providing teachers with the knowledge and tools to prepare future minds.

Please connect with us on  Facebook ,  Twitter , and  Pinterest  to get tips and tricks from your peers and us. Read the  IMSE Journal  to hear success stories from other schools and districts, and be sure to read the OG Weekly email series for refreshers and tips.

You are using an outdated browser. Upgrade your browser today or install Google Chrome Frame to better experience this site.

• Professional learning

Teach. Learn. Grow.

Teach. learn. grow. the education blog.

The science of reading explained

Speak up! How getting students to talk more can improve their writing and writing process

The what, why, and when of decodable and leveled texts

4 ways to teach academic vocabulary and help students master grade-level content

4 simple ways to apply the science of reading to your classroom

“Science of reading” has become a ubiquitous phrase in education, but it’s more than just a buzzword. Learn how to confidently use it in your classroom.

View the guide

STAY CURRENT by subscribing to our newsletter

You are now signed up to receive our newsletter containing the latest news, blogs, and resources from nwea..

Skip to content

The Science of Reading: The Basics

If you prefer, read the text-version of the infographic.

There are so many pieces to the Science of Reading that it can be difficult to know where to start. Here are a few highlights about what the Science of Reading IS and what it IS NOT. This knowledge will help you on your journey to teaching all children, including those with diverse needs and cultural backgrounds, to read.

A Collection of Research

Research, over time, from multiple fields of study using methods that confirm and disconfirm theories on how children best learn to read.

Teaching Based on the 5 Big Ideas

Phonemic Awareness - The ability to identify and play with individual sounds in spoken words.

Phonics - Reading instruction on understanding how letters and groups of letters link to sounds to form letter- sound relationships and spelling patterns.

Fluency - The ability to read words, phrases, sentences, and stories correctly, with enough speed, and expression .

Vocabulary - Knowing what words mean and how to say and use them correctly.

Comprehension - The ability to understand what you are reading.

Ever Evolving

There is new research and evidence all the time. As populations, communities, and approaches evolve, so should practice.

What it is NOT

A program, an intervention, or a product that you can buy..

The Science of Reading could be considered an approach to teaching reading that is based on decades of research and evidence. It is NOT a specific program.

Phonics-based programs that drill phonics skills.

Phonics is an integral part of teaching reading based on science, but it is just one of the five big ideas that should be taught so all children can learn to read.

Complete and no more study needs to be done.

As with any science, it is never complete. We can always know more. More study happens all the time and researchers, teachers, and families can work together to bring the best research into classrooms.

Suggested Citation

National Center on Improving Literacy (2022). The Science of Reading: The Basics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Improving Literacy . Retrieved from http://improvingliteracy.org .

Get started on your Science of Reading journey with these highlights about what it IS and what it IS NOT.

Related Resources

What are the characteristics of effective literacy instruction?

Science of reading: defining guide.

The "Science of Reading: Defining Guide" provides a firm definition of what the science of reading is, what it is not, and how all stakeholders can understand its potential to transform reading instruction.

Topic:  Evidence-based, General Literacy

More on Evidence-based

• A Snapshot of RTI Implementation a Decade Later: New Picture, Same Story
• Are Individual Differences in Response to Intervention Influenced by the Methods and Measures Used to Define Response?
• Comparison of Reading Growth Among Students With Severe Reading Deficits Who Received Intervention to Typically Achieving Students and Students Receiving Special Education
• Important Pieces of School-Based Intervention for Students with or at Risk for Dyslexia: Evidence from 40 Years of Research
• NCIL Intensification Framework

The research reported here is funded by awards to the National Center on Improving Literacy from the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, in partnership with the Office of Special Education Programs (Award #: S283D160003). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of OESE, OSEP, or the U.S. Department of Education. Copyright © 2024 National Center on Improving Literacy. https://improvingliteracy.org

What People Are Getting Wrong About the Science of Reading

• Share article

The reading wars have become a tool used to further polarize and divide an already fraught educational climate, and the victims of this war are our nation’s students.

At the forefront of conversations about literacy instruction is the science of reading, a multidisciplinary body of research. Perspectives on the framework lean toward oversimplifying it as a way to champion the teaching of phonics alone. In a recent New York Times article , Susan Neuman, a professor at New York University, speaks of the most recent shift toward incorporating phonics instruction into classrooms: “‘I worry,’ she said, ‘that it’s déjà vu all over again.’” It does feel as if we have had this debate before: teach phonics or not? Teaching phonics is crucial, but it is not the only facet of reading development, despite frequently being portrayed as such. The reading wars have intensified as an unnecessary battle of semantics, a losing battle at that.

Natalie Wexler , an education journalist and author of The Knowledge Gap , recently suggested that science of reading advocates receive pushback because of messaging that promotes phonics as the most important factor in improving reading outcomes. She argues that these advocates need to look at “ all the science, not just the part relating to decoding” in order to support a more comprehensive translation of science into practice for literacy education.

As two veteran educators and science of reading advocates on the front line of addressing the literacy crisis , we provide an answer to Wexler’s call to action to reframe arguments supporting the science of reading. Serving as reading specialists and literacy coordinators, we have developed an integrated model of programs that addresses phonics as well as language comprehension for students at a K-6 Title I school in Pennsylvania. We have observed significant improvement in our students’ early-literacy benchmark scores and, throughout this process, we have developed a perspective on the science of reading that we believe can help others in need of clarification.

We have rooted our work in the knowledge that phonics alone will not solve instructional issues. Students who are learning to crack the code need more intensive instruction in this area, but that instruction should not impede the learning of those who are already decoding. By differentiating phonics instruction through a data-driven model, we provide learning experiences specific to individual student needs. Additionally, cracking the code is not the only element of literacy instruction we provide. Our integrated model includes a comprehensive language arts program that builds students’ knowledge and empowers them to comprehend increasingly complex texts.

The science of reading, while typically villainized for solely advocating phonics, is misrepresented as a phonics program, while really, it is a body of research that informs the most effective way to teach decoding and language comprehension. The definition of the science of reading, provided by The Reading League, is “the vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing.” The term “science of reading” does not equate to phonics. That term does not equate to comprehension.

The term also does not equate to a teaching approach. In another recent New York Times article , columnist Nicholas Kristof writes, “Many school systems, most recently New York City’s, are adopting the science of reading, based partly on the success in Mississippi and elsewhere.” The science of reading, however, is not something that can be adopted. It is research that informs the resources and approaches that are adopted so that instruction matches how the brain processes text and creates meaning from language. When the science of reading is branded as something that can be adopted, it is too easy to conflate it with phonics and, thus, problematize it as a single-minded approach toward literacy education. When we conflate the science of reading with phonics, we dismiss a critical aspect of learning how to read that is also informed by the science of reading: development of language comprehension. Hollis Scarborough’s reading rope is a helpful visual metaphor from the science of reading research that depicts the necessity of both aspects of reading development.

Balanced literacy sits on the other side of the reading wars. One definition is “an instructional approach that involves a balance between teacher-led reading and writing instruction and independent learning.” It is difficult to find a consistent definition for balanced literacy because the ambiguity of the term allows for individual interpretation based on teaching preferences. As with the science of reading, balanced literacy is conflated with other terms, including workshop, three-cueing, and whole language. When we conflate balanced literacy with the damaging strategies that have become attached to the label, we contribute to the idea that an intentionally balanced approach to literacy is exclusive to those using erroneous strategies and ineffective instructional practices.

Herein lies why the reading wars will never be won. Both sides have a part of the answer. If we define reading as the action or skill of reading written or printed matter silently or aloud , and if we define the intended outcome of reading to be comprehension, the capability of understanding something, then we need to account for students’ abilities to decode while also building their capabilities to make meaning from what they are reading. The science of reading informs a pedagogical approach toward teaching reading that suggests balancing the literacy block for students so they receive direct, explicit, and systematic instruction in the teaching of phonics (word recognition) and they receive instruction that will build their vocabulary, background knowledge, and understanding of grammatical structures (language comprehension). Instruction aligning with these principles includes a balance of explicit phonics instruction; shared reading experiences; close studies of fiction, nonfiction, and digital media; practice with vocabulary; and application of learning through written and spoken outcomes.

Using information that exists on both sides of the war can empower teachers, administrators, and school leaders to develop a literacy program that is both balanced in its time allocation of the elements of reading instruction and supported by the body of research that is the science of reading. Isn’t it time to call a truce?

How to Submit

A version of this article appeared in the July 12, 2023 edition of Education Week as No One Will Win the Reading Wars

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

• Nation & World
• Environment
• Coronavirus

The science of reading comes to Ohio classrooms. What's that? How can parents help?

All Ohio schools will teach the science of reading this school year in an attempt to bring up literacy rates across the state.

Gov. Mike DeWine is a huge proponent of this phonics-based approach to literacy, which he proposed as part of the state's budget . Lawmakers approved the push and now all Ohio schools are retraining teachers and getting new curricula to teach kids how to read.

But what is the science of reading? Here's what parents need to know ahead of the 2024-25 school year.

What is the science of reading?

The science of reading is one of two widely taught literacy methods. The science of reading is also referred to as structured literacy and teaches students to break down words by letters and sounds.

The other commonly known method is called balanced literacy or whole language. This approach teaches students strategies to uncover unknown words by looking at other words in a sentence or pictures.

'We know what works': DeWine pushes Ohio schools to adopt science-based literacy education

Many experts, and DeWine, are now saying that evidence points to the science of reading as the best approach.

Is the science of reading a specific curriculum or program?

The science of reading is a collection of research that shows, over time, the best ways to teach kids how to read. It does have basic principles, or five "big ideas," according to the National Center on Improving Literacy. They are:

• Phonemic awareness, which is the ability to identity and play with individual sounds in spoken words.
• Phonics, which is understanding how letters and groups of letters link to sounds.
• Fluency, which is the ability to read words, phrases, sentences and stories correctly with speed and expression.
• Vocabulary, which is knowing what words mean and how to use them properly.
• Comprehension, which is the ability to understand what you are reading.

What is Ohio's youth literacy rate?

About 38% of the state's third-graders are not proficient in reading, according to the most recent Ohio report card data . This is a slight increase from the 2021-22 school year.

Kids who are not reading at grade level must be on reading improvement and monitoring plans aligned to the science of reading, and receive high-dosage tutoring.

Are all teachers being retrained? How much does that cost?

The state has set aside up to $43 million for professional development in the science of reading for teachers. All teachers and administrators must complete a science of reading course by June 30, 2025. This course was developed in partnership with Keys to Literacy , an educational consultant company based in Massachusetts.

The course is provided by the state and is free, and all teachers who complete the course will receive a stipend of $400 or $1,200. Administrators will not receive stipends.

How can parents support literacy at home?

The state refers to the National Center on Improving Literacy 's guide for parents and families when it comes to helping kids learn to read and write.

The center recommends the following activities to help with your child's early literacy development:

• Read together, taking turns with your child reading parts of a book. Ask your child, in open-ended questions, what they think about the story and how they might connect to it.
• Sing nursery rhymes.
• Play audiobooks or read aloud. This increases the amount of language your child is exposed to.
• Label objects in your home.
• Talk about everyday experiences and tell stories to help your child build background knowledge on various topics.

For older kids, the center recommends playing word games, talking about the meaning of different words and still reading together and talking about books. Ask questions before, during and after reading together.

Parents can support adolescents in literacy by talking with them about all things including school and current events, providing various, age-appropriate reading materials around your home and being a good role model by reading yourself.

Suggested Searches

• Climate Change
• Expedition 64
• Mars perseverance
• SpaceX Crew-2
• International Space Station
• View All Topics A-Z

Humans in Space

Earth & climate, the solar system, the universe, aeronautics.

• Learning Resources

News & Events

Hubble Rings in a New Galactic View

NASA’s Perseverance Rover to Begin Long Climb Up Martian Crater Rim

NASA Citizen Scientists Spot Object Moving 1 Million Miles Per Hour

• Search All NASA Missions
• A to Z List of Missions
• Upcoming Launches and Landings
• Spaceships and Rockets
• Communicating with Missions
• James Webb Space Telescope
• Hubble Space Telescope
• Why Go to Space
• Commercial Space
• Destinations
• Living in Space
• Explore Earth Science
• Earth, Our Planet
• Earth Science in Action
• Earth Multimedia
• Earth Science Researchers
• Pluto & Dwarf Planets
• Asteroids, Comets & Meteors
• The Kuiper Belt
• The Oort Cloud
• Skywatching
• The Search for Life in the Universe
• Black Holes
• The Big Bang
• Dark Energy & Dark Matter
• Earth Science
• Planetary Science
• Astrophysics & Space Science
• The Sun & Heliophysics
• Biological & Physical Sciences
• Lunar Science
• Citizen Science
• Astromaterials
• Aeronautics Research
• Human Space Travel Research
• Science in the Air
• NASA Aircraft
• Flight Innovation
• Supersonic Flight
• Air Traffic Solutions
• Green Aviation Tech
• Drones & You
• Technology Transfer & Spinoffs
• Space Travel Technology
• Technology Living in Space
• Manufacturing and Materials
• Science Instruments
• For Kids and Students
• For Educators
• For Colleges and Universities
• For Professionals
• Science for Everyone
• Requests for Exhibits, Artifacts, or Speakers
• STEM Engagement at NASA
• NASA's Impacts
• Centers and Facilities
• Directorates
• Organizations
• People of NASA
• Internships
• Our History
• Doing Business with NASA
• Get Involved

NASA en Español

• Aeronáutica
• Ciencias Terrestres
• Sistema Solar
• All NASA News
• Video Series on NASA+
• Newsletters
• Social Media
• Media Resources
• Upcoming Launches & Landings
• Virtual Events
• Sounds and Ringtones
• Interactives
• STEM Multimedia

Primary Instrument for Roman Space Telescope Arrives at NASA Goddard

Artemis Emergency Egress System Emphasizes Crew Safety 

What’s New With the Artemis II Crew

Food in Space

NASA-Designed Greenhouse Gas-Detection Instrument Launches

Airborne Surface, Cryosphere, Ecosystem, and Nearshore Topography

Amendment 42: A.30 Understanding Changes in High Mountain Asia Deferred to ROSES-25

The Summer Triangle’s Hidden Treasures

Solar Eclipse Data Story Helps the Public Visualize the April 2024 Total Eclipse

EXCITE (EXoplanet Climate Infrared TElescope)

NASA Selects 5 New Roman Technology Fellows in Astrophysics

National Aviation Day 2024 Celebrates Faces of Flight

NASA’s X-59 Progresses Through Tests on the Path to Flight

NASA Aircraft Gathers 150 Hours of Data to Better Understand Earth

Perseverance Pays Off for Student Challenge Winners

Amendment 41: DRAFT F.13 Lunar Terrain Vehicle Instruments Program Released for Community Comment.

NASA Tests Deployment of Roman Space Telescope’s ‘Visor’

How Do I Navigate NASA Learning Resources and Opportunities?

NASA Demonstrates ‘Ultra-Cool’ Quantum Sensor for First Time in Space

55 Years Ago: NASA Group 7 Astronaut Selection

There Are No Imaginary Boundaries for Dr. Ariadna Farrés-Basiana

Astronauta de la NASA Frank Rubio

Diez maneras en que los estudiantes pueden prepararse para ser astronautas

Nasa funds research projects advancing stem career development.

Jessica Taveau

Nasa headquarters.

NASA has awarded $6 million to 20 teams from emerging research institutions across the United States supporting projects that offer career development opportunities for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students.

This is the third round of seed funding awarded through the agency’s MOSAICS (Mentoring and Opportunities in STEM with Academic Institutions for Community Success) program, formerly the Science Mission Directorate Bridge Program. The program seeks to expand access to NASA research opportunities in the science and engineering disciplines, as well as to NASA’s workforce.

“The STEM workforce continues to grow, and today’s students, studying at a variety of higher-education institutions — community colleges, primarily undergraduate institutions, and minority-serving institutions — are the STEM workforce of tomorrow, who will work to solve some of our biggest challenges at home while answering some of our biggest questions about our universe,” said Padi Boyd, director of MOSAICS at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “Exposing today’s students to the incredibly inspiring and cutting-edge discoveries made through NASA’s space science people and resources ensures that these students get the training they need to persist in STEM careers, while fostering enduring collaborations between NASA researchers and faculty at a wide range of institutions.”

NASA’s Science Mission Directorate MOSAICS program funds research projects building relationships between college faculty and researchers at the agency while providing mentorship and training for students in STEM disciplines. The projects support teams at academic institutions that historically have not been part of the agency’s research enterprise — including Hispanic-serving institutions, historically Black colleges and universities, Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institutions, and primarily undergraduate institutions.

The program previously awarded seed funding to 11 teams in February and 13 teams in April. This third cohort brings the total number of projects funded to 44 teams at 36 academic institutions in 21 U.S. states and territories, including Washington and Puerto Rico, in collaboration with seven NASA centers. A new opportunity to apply for seed funding is now open until March 28, 2025.

The following projects were selected as the third cohort to receive seed funding:

“Bridging Fundamental Ice Chemistry Studies and Ocean World Explorations” Principal investigator: Chris Arumainayagam, Wellesley College, Massachusetts NASA center: NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Southern California

“Planetary Analog Field Science Experiences for Undergraduates: Advancing Fundamental Research and Testing Field Instrument Operations” Principal investigator: Alice Baldridge, Saint Mary’s College of California NASA center: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland

“Building an FSU-JPL Partnership to Advance Science Productivity Through Applications of Deep Learning” Principal investigator: Sambit Bhattacharya, Fayetteville State University, North Carolina NASA center: NASA JPL

“CSTAT: Establishing Center for Safe and Trustworthy Autonomous Technologies” Principal investigator: Moitrayee Chatterjee, New Jersey City University NASA center: NASA Goddard

“Development of Biomechanics Simulation Tool for Muscle Mechanics in Reduced Gravity to Enhance Astronaut Mission Readiness” Principal investigator: Ji Chen, University of the District of Columbia NASA center: NASA’s Johnson Space Center, Houston

“NASA Next Level” Principal investigator: Teresa Ciardi, Santa Clarita Community College District, California NASA center: NASA JPL

“Controlled Assembly of Amphiphilic Janus Particles in Polymer Matrix for Novel 3D Printing Applications in Space ” Principal investigator: Ubaldo Cordova-Figueroa, Recinto Universitario Mayaguez NASA center: NASA’s Glenn Research Center, Cleveland

“Development of a Non-Invasive Sweat Biosensor for Traumatic Brain Injury Compatible With In-Space Manufacturing to Monitor the Health of Astronauts” Principal investigator: Lisandro Cunci, University of Puerto Rico, Rio Pedras NASA center: NASA’s Ames Research Center, Silicon Valley, California

“Examining Climate Impacts of Cirrus Clouds Through Past, Present, and Future NASA Airborne Campaigns” Principal investigator: Minghui Diao, San Jose State University Research Foundation, California NASA center: NASA Ames

“CSUN-JPL Collaboration to Study Ocean Fronts Using Big Data and Open Science Structures in Coastal North America” Principal investigator: Mario Giraldo, California State University, Northridge NASA center: NASA JPL

“Accelerating Electric Propulsion Development for Planetary Science Missions With Optical Plasma Diagnostics” Principal investigator: Nathaniel Hicks, University of Alaska, Anchorage NASA center: NASA JPL

“Advancing Students Through Research Opportunities in Los Angeles (ASTRO-LA)” Principal investigator: Margaret Lazzarini, California State University, Los Angeles NASA center: NASA JPL

“Bridging Toward a More Inclusive Learning Environment Through Gamma-ray Burst Studies With Machine Learning and Citizen Science” Principal investigator: Amy Lien, University of Tampa, Florida NASA center: NASA Goddard

“Hampton University STEM Experience With NASA Langley Research Center: Polarimetry for Aerosol Characterization” Principal investigator: Robert Loughman, Hampton University, Virginia NASA center: NASA’s Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia

“Aerocapture Analysis and Development for Uranus and Neptune Planetary Missions” Principal investigator: Ping Lu, San Diego State University NASA center: NASA Langley

“Pathways from Undergraduate Research to the Habitable Worlds Observatory” Principal investigator: Ben Ovryn, New York Institute of Technology NASA center: NASA Goddard

“Point-Diffraction Interferometer for Digital Holography” Principal investigator: James Scire, New York Institute of Technology NASA center: NASA Goddard

“From Sunbeams to Career Dreams: Illuminating Pathways for NMSU Students in Solar-Terrestrial Physics in Partnership With NASA GSFC” Principal investigator: Juie Shetye, New Mexico State University NASA center: NASA Goddard

“CONNECT-SBG: Collaborative Nexus for Networking, Education, and Career Training in Surface Biology and Geology” Principal investigator: Gabriela Shirkey, Chapman University, California NASA center: NASA JPL

“Multiplexed Phytohormone and Nitrate Sensors for Real-Time Analysis of Plant Responses to Pathogenic Stress in Spaceflight-Like Conditions” Principal investigator: Shawana Tabassum, University of Texas, Tyler NASA center: NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, Florida

Learn more about the MOSAICS program at:

https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/smd-bridge-program

Alise Fisher Headquarters, Washington 202-358-2546 [email protected]

Related Terms

• For Colleges & Universities
• Goddard Space Flight Center
• Kennedy Space Center
• Science Mission Directorate

Science journal retracts peer-reviewed article containing AI generated ‘nonsensical’ images

• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More

An open access scientific journal, Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology , was openly criticized and mocked by researchers on social media this week after they observed the publication had recently put up an article including imagery with gibberish descriptions and diagrams of anatomically incorrect mammalian testicles and sperm cells, which bore signs of being created by an AI image generator.

We thank the readers for their scrutiny of our articles: when we get it wrong, the crowdsourcing dynamic of open science means that community feedback helps us to quickly correct the record. — Frontiers (@FrontiersIn) February 15, 2024

The publication has since responded to one of its critics on the social network X, posting from its verified account: “We thank the readers for their scrutiny of our articles: when we get it wrong, the crowdsourcing dynamic of open science means that community feedback helps us to quickly correct the record.” It has also removed the article , entitled “ Cellular functions of spermatogonial stem cells in relation to JAK/STAT signaling pathway ” from its website and issued a retraction notice, stating:

“Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the nature of its AI-generated figures. The article does not meet the standards of editorial and scientific rigor for Frontiers in Cell and Development Biology; therefore, the article has been retracted.

This retraction was approved by the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. Frontiers would like to thank the concerned readers who contacted us regarding the published article. “

Misspelled words and anatomically incorrect illustrations

However, VentureBeat has obtained a copy and republished the original article below in the interest of maintaining the public record of it.

As you can observe in it, it contains several graphics and illustrations rendered in a seemingly clear and colorful scientific style, but zooming in, there are many misspelled words and misshapen letters, such as “protemns” instead of “proteins,” for example, and a word spelled “zxpens.”

Perhaps most problematic is the image of “rat” (spelled correctly) which appears first in the paper, and shows a massive growth in its groin region.

Blasted on X

Shortly after the paper’s publication on Feb. 13, 2024, researchers took to X to call it out and question how it made it through peer review.

Someone used DALL-E to create gobbledygook scientific figures and submitted them to Frontiers Journal. And guess what? The editor published it. LOL https://t.co/hjQkRQDkal https://t.co/aV1USo6Vt2 pic.twitter.com/VAkjJkY4dR — Veera Rajagopal  (@doctorveera) February 15, 2024

It’s finally happened. A peer-reviewed journal article with what appear to be nonsensical AI generated images. This is dangerous. pic.twitter.com/Ez54H6l7iZ — ?Kareem Carr | Statistician ? (@kareem_carr) February 15, 2024

The paper is authored by Xinyu Guo and Dingjun Hao of the Department of Spine Surgery, Hong Hui Hospital at Xi’an Jiaotong University; as well as Liang Dong of the Department of Spine Surgery, Xi’an Honghui Hospital in Xi’an, China.

It was reviewed by Binsila B. Krishnan of the National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology (ICAR) in India and Jingbo Dai of Northwestern Medicine in the United States. It was edited by Arumugam Kumaresan at the National Dairy Research Institute (ICAR) in India.

VentureBeat reached out to all the authors and editors of the paper, as well as Amanda Gay Fisher, the journal’s Field Chief Editor, and a professor of biochemistry at the prestigious Oxford University in the U.K., to ask further questions about how the article was published, and will update when we hear back.

Troubling wider implications for AI’s impact on science, research, and medicine

AI has been touted as a valuable tool for advancing scientific research and discovery by some of its makers, including Google with its AlphaFold protein structure predictor and materials science AI GNoME, recently covered positively by the press (including VentureBeat) for discovering 2 million new materials .

However, those tools are focused on the research side. When it comes to publishing that research, it is clear that AI image generators could pose a major threat to scientific accuracy, especially if researchers are using them indiscriminately, to cut corners and publish faster, or because they are malicious or simply don’t care.

The move to use AI to create scientific illustrations or diagrams is troubling because it undermines the accuracy and trust among the scientific community and wider public that the work going into important fields that impact our lives and health — such as medicine and biology — is accurate, safe and screened.

Yet it may also be the product of the wider “publish or perish” climate that has arisen in science over the last several decades, in which researchers have attested they feel the need to rush out papers of little value to show they are contributing something, anything , to their field, and bolster the number of citations attributed to them by others, padding their resumes for future jobs.

But also, let’s be honest — some of these researchers on this paperwork in spine surgery at a human hospital: would you trust them to operate on your spine or help with your back health?

With more than 114,000 citations to its name, the journal Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology has now had its integrity called into question by this lapse: how many more papers published by it have AI-illustrated diagrams that have slipped through the review process?

Intriguingly, Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology is part of the wider Frontiers company of more than 230 different scientific publications founded in 2007 by neuroscientists Kamila Markram and Henry Markram , the former of whom is still listed as CEO.

The company says its “vision [is] to make science open, peer-review rigorous, transparent, and efficient and harness the power of technology to truly serve researchers’ needs,” and in fact, some of the tech it uses is AI for peer review.

As Frontiers proclaimed in a 2020 press release :

“ In an industry first, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is being deployed to help review research papers and assist in the peer-review process. The state-of-the-art Artificial Intelligence Review Assistant (AIRA), developed by open-access publisher Frontiers, helps editors, reviewers and authors evaluate the quality of manuscripts. AIRA reads each paper and can currently make up to 20 recommendations in just seconds, including the assessment of language quality, the integrity of the figures, the detection of plagiarism, as well as identifying potential conflicts of interest. “

The company’s website notes that AIRA debuted in 2018 as “ The next generation of peer review in which AI and machine learning enable more rigorous quality control and efficiency in the peer review .”

And just last summer, an article and video featuring Mirjam Eckert , chief publishing officer at Frontiers , stated:

“ At Frontiers, we apply AI to help build that trust. Our Artificial Intelligence Review Assistant (AIRA) verifies that scientific knowledge is accurately and honestly presented even before our people decide whether to review, endorse, or publish the research paper that contains it.

AIRA reads every research manuscript we receive and makes up to 20 checks a second. These checks cover, among other things, language quality, the integrity of figures and images, plagiarism, and conflicts of interest. The results give editors and reviewers another perspective as they decide whether to put a research paper through our rigorous and transparent peer review. “

Frontiers has also received favorably coverage of its AI article review assistant AIRA in such notable publications as The New York Times and Financial Times .

Clearly, the tool wasn’t able to effectively catch these nonsensical images in the article, leading to its retraction (if it was used at all in this case). But it also raises questions about the ability of such AI tools to detect, flag, and ultimately stop the publication of inaccurate scientific information — and the growing prevalence of its use at Frontiers and elsewhere across the publishing ecosystem. Perhaps that is the danger of being on the “frontier” of a new technology movement such as AI — the risk of it going wrong is higher than with the “tried and true,” human-only or analog approach.

VentureBeat also relies on AI tools for image generation and some text, but all articles are reviewed by human journalists prior to publication. AI was not used by VentureBeat in the writing, reporting, illustrating or publishing of this article.

Stay in the know! Get the latest news in your inbox daily

By subscribing, you agree to VentureBeat's Terms of Service.

Thanks for subscribing. Check out more VB newsletters here .

An error occured.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Biden Awards $150 Million in Research Grants as Part of Cancer ‘Moonshot’

President Biden has had a deep personal interest in cancer research since his son Beau died of an aggressive brain cancer in 2015.

President Biden Announces $150 Million in Cancer Research Grants

President biden said eight research centers would receive research awards aimed at pioneering new methods of precision cancer surgery as part of his administration’s cancer “moonshoot” initiative..

As all of you know, cancer surgery is an incredibly challenging procedure. It takes the best surgeons in the world, and it takes its toll on families. As Jill and I — as Jill says, it steals time. It steals away hope. Our family knows the feeling, as many here do. Today, we’re announcing $150 million ARPA-H funding for some of the nation’s cutting-edge cancer research institutions. That includes, right here, Tulane University. [cheers] And we’re moving quickly because we know all families touched by cancers are in a race against time. It’s all part of our goal, of our cancer “moonshot,” to end cancer as we know it. Even cure some cancers. We’re mobilizing the whole of country effort to cut American cancer deaths in half by — within 25 years, and boost support for patients and their families. I’m confident in our capacity to do that.

By Zach Montague

Reporting from New Orleans

Freed from the campaign trail and the grinding pursuit of another term, President Biden traveled to New Orleans on Tuesday to focus on a project close to his heart: the “moonshot” effort to sharply cut cancer deaths in the United States that he carried over from his time as vice president and has become a hallmark of his presidency.

Speaking at Tulane University, Mr. Biden and the first lady, Jill Biden, announced eight research centers, including one at Tulane, that will collectively receive $150 million in research awards aimed at pioneering new methods of precision cancer surgery.

Before addressing a crowd on campus, the president and the first lady met with a team of researchers who demonstrated the technology under development at Tulane. It uses imaging of cells on tumor sites to verify for surgeons that cancer cells have been fully removed and to reduce the need for follow-up surgeries.

Standing in front of a sign reading “curing cancer faster,” Mr. Biden described touring cancer centers in Australia and Ireland, and being frustrated by a lack of international collaboration.

“We don’t want to keep information — we want to share it,” he said.

The awards announced on Tuesday are to be made through the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health , or ARPA-H, which was founded in 2022 and is aimed at driving biomedical innovation.

The other award recipients were Dartmouth College; Johns Hopkins University; Rice University; the University of California, San Francisco; the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign; the University of Washington; and Cision Vision in Mountain View, Calif.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Sustainability
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

Arvind, longtime MIT professor and prolific computer scientist, dies at 77

Press contact :, media download.

*Terms of Use:

Images for download on the MIT News office website are made available to non-commercial entities, press and the general public under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives license . You may not alter the images provided, other than to crop them to size. A credit line must be used when reproducing images; if one is not provided below, credit the images to "MIT."

Previous image Next image

Arvind Mithal, the Charles W. and Jennifer C. Johnson Professor in Computer Science and Engineering at MIT, head of the faculty of computer science in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS), and a pillar of the MIT community, died on June 17. Arvind, who went by the mononym, was 77 years old.

A prolific researcher who led the Computation Structures Group in the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), Arvind served on the MIT faculty for nearly five decades.

“He was beloved by countless people across the MIT community and around the world who were inspired by his intellectual brilliance and zest for life,” President Sally Kornbluth wrote in a letter to the MIT community today.

As a scientist, Arvind was well known for important contributions to dataflow computing, which seeks to optimize the flow of data to take advantage of parallelism, achieving faster and more efficient computation.

In the last 25 years, his research interests broadened to include developing techniques and tools for formal modeling, high-level synthesis, and formal verification of complex digital devices like microprocessors and hardware accelerators, as well as memory models and cache coherence protocols for parallel computing architectures and programming languages.

Those who knew Arvind describe him as a rare individual whose interests and expertise ranged from high-level, theoretical formal systems all the way down through languages and compilers to the gates and structures of silicon hardware.

The applications of Arvind’s work are far-reaching, from  reducing the amount of energy and space required by data centers to  streamlining the design of more efficient multicore computer chips .

“Arvind was both a tremendous scholar in the fields of computer architecture and programming languages and a dedicated teacher, who brought systems-level thinking to our students. He was also an exceptional academic leader, often leading changes in curriculum and contributing to the Engineering Council in meaningful and impactful ways. I will greatly miss his sage advice and wisdom,” says Anantha Chandrakasan, chief innovation and strategy officer, dean of engineering, and the Vannevar Bush Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

“Arvind’s positive energy, together with his hearty laugh, brightened so many people’s lives. He was an enduring source of wise counsel for colleagues and for generations of students. With his deep commitment to academic excellence, he not only transformed research in computer architecture and parallel computing but also brought that commitment to his role as head of the computer science faculty in the EECS department. He left a lasting impact on all of us who had the privilege of working with him,” says Dan Huttenlocher, dean of the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing and the Henry Ellis Warren Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

Arvind developed an interest in parallel computing while he was a student at the Indian Institute of Technology in Kanpur, from which he received his bachelor’s degree in 1969. He earned a master’s degree and PhD in computer science in 1972 and 1973, respectively, from the University of Minnesota, where he studied operating systems and mathematical models of program behavior. He taught at the University of California at Irvine from 1974 to 1978 before joining the faculty at MIT.

At MIT, Arvind’s group studied parallel computing and declarative programming languages, and he led the development of two parallel computing languages, Id   and pH. He continued his work on these programming languages through the 1990s, publishing the book “Implicit Parallel Programming in pH”   with co-author R.S. Nikhil in 2001, the culmination of more than 20 years of research.

In addition to his research, Arvind was an important academic leader in EECS. He served as head of computer science faculty in the department and played a critical role in helping with the reorganization of EECS after the establishment of the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing.

“Arvind was a force of nature, larger than life in every sense. His relentless positivity, unwavering optimism, boundless generosity, and exceptional strength as a researcher was truly inspiring and left a profound mark on all who had the privilege of knowing him. I feel enormous gratitude for the light he brought into our lives and his fundamental impact on our community,” says Daniela Rus, the Andrew and Erna Viterbi Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and the director of CSAIL.

His work on dataflow and parallel computing led to the Monsoon project in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Arvind’s group, in collaboration with Motorola, built 16 dataflow computing machines and developed their associated software. One Monsoon dataflow machine is now in the  Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California.

Arvind’s focus shifted in the 1990s when, as he explained in a 2012 interview for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), funding for research into parallel computing began to dry up.

“Microprocessors were getting so much faster that people thought they didn’t need it,” he recalled.

Instead, he began applying techniques his team had learned and developed for parallel programming to the principled design of digital hardware.

In addition to mentoring students and junior colleagues at MIT, Arvind also advised universities and governments in many countries on research in parallel programming and semiconductor design.

Based on his work on digital hardware design, Arvind founded Sandburst in 2000, a fabless manufacturing company for semiconductor chips. He served as the company’s president for two years before returning to the MIT faculty, while continuing as an advisor. Sandburst was later acquired by Broadcom.

Arvind and his students also developed Bluespec, a programming language designed to automate the design of chips. Building off this work, he co-founded the startup Bluespec, Inc., in 2003, to develop practical tools that help engineers streamline device design.

Over the past decade, he was dedicated to advancing undergraduate education at MIT by bringing modern design tools to courses 6.004 (Computation Structures) and 6.191 (Introduction to Deep Learning), and incorporating Minispec, a programming language that is closely related to Bluespec.

Arvind was honored for these and other contributions to data flow and multithread computing, and the development of tools for the high-level synthesis of hardware, with membership in the National Academy of Engineering in 2008 and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2012. He was also named a distinguished alumnus of IIT Kanpur, his undergraduate alma mater.

“Arvind was more than a pillar of the EECS community and a titan of computer science; he was a beloved colleague and a treasured friend. Those of us with the remarkable good fortune to work and collaborate with Arvind are devastated by his sudden loss. His kindness and joviality were unwavering; his mentorship was thoughtful and well-considered; his guidance was priceless. We will miss Arvind deeply,” says Asu Ozdaglar, deputy dean of the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing and head of EECS.

Among numerous other awards, including membership in the Indian National Academy of Sciences and fellowship in the Association for Computing Machinery and IEEE, he received the Harry H. Goode Memorial Award from IEEE in 2012, which honors significant contributions to theory or practice in the information processing field.

A humble scientist, Arvind was the first to point out that these achievements were only possible because of his outstanding and brilliant collaborators. Chief among those collaborators were the undergraduate and graduate students he felt fortunate to work with at MIT. He maintained excellent relationships with them both professionally and personally, and valued these relationships more than the work they did together, according to family members.

In summing up the key to his scientific success, Arvind put it this way in the 2012 IEEE interview: “Really, one has to do what one believes in. I think the level at which most of us work, it is not sustainable if you don’t enjoy it on a day-to-day basis. You can’t work on it just because of the results. You have to work on it because you say, ‘I have to know the answer to this,’” he said.

He is survived by his wife, Gita Singh Mithal, their two sons Divakar ’01 and Prabhakar ’04, their wives Leena and Nisha, and two grandchildren, Maya and Vikram. 

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL)
• Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science

Related Topics

• Computer science and technology
• Programming
• Electronics
• Computer chips
• Electrical Engineering & Computer Science (eecs)

Related Articles

Restructuring the MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science

Advance boosts efficiency of flash storage in data centers

Device allows a personal computer to process huge graphs

Streamlining chip design

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

When the lights turned on in the universe

Read full story →

3 Questions: How to prove humanity online

Lincoln Laboratory and National Strategic Research Institute launch student research program to tackle biothreats to national security

Christine Ortiz named director of MIT Technology and Policy Program

MIT engineers design tiny batteries for powering cell-sized robots

New open-source tool helps to detangle the brain

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram