Children’s Literature and the Science of Reading: Essential Partners for Comprehension
Carolyn Cort

“Is that actually what the science says… that I should disassemble my classroom library? Scrap read-alouds and read-ins?!” The young teacher’s frustration and distress following a Professional Learning Community (PLC) discussion about the Science of Reading was palpable, and it spilled out into a hallway conversation. Her takeaway from the meeting led by a district-level instructional coach was that phonics, phonemic awareness, and decodable books should be the primary focus of her literacy instruction. I knew that the science of reading research did not translate into restricting read-alouds – but somehow it had been misconstrued or perhaps misperceived into a mandative critique of this teacher’s classroom practices. I listened to her frustrated questions, and empathized because it took me back to the early aughts, when the Reading First movement barreled into schools.

Part of the sweeping No Child Left Behind act, RF funded curriculum and phonics-focused professional development, and earnest reading coaches were tasked with wandering in and out of classrooms, ensuring fidelity to approved curricula which promised results through “scientifically-based reading instruction.” It was 2002 and teachers like me were challenged not to spend time reading aloud and engaging in literature circles, suggesting these and other practices were responsible for U.S. children failing to make adequate yearly progress. Science, social studies, and art took a backseat to “double dips” of reading instruction time using decodable books and isolated skills practice. I remembered taking down my Graeme Base alphabet posters and replacing them with sound-spelling cards aligned to the new reading curriculum. As I listened to the frustrated young teacher before me, I started wondering… is this Science of Reading movement just history repeating itself? Are we in the midst of another swing of the pendulum? More importantly, how might we avoid reviving fruitless ideological debates, reorient this current moment, and coalesce around shared inquiry and purpose?

Recent experience gives me reasons to hope for more unified efforts going forward. The actual science of reading (that is, the body of research itself rather than the program) sheds light on the complexities of the reading process, and in doing so, highlights that engagement with rich literature and informational texts is a necessary, integral part of becoming a reader. I recently read evidence of this engagement happening in reflections written by the insightful teacher candidates with whom I work at a large urban university. Their writing revealed classroom practices of mentor teachers who are dedicated to embracing both evidence-aligned practices teaching the science-based components of reading and fostering literature rich classroom environments. This article presents an overview of the science of reading, its context in the national conversation, and insights from future teachers highlighting the good work of experienced educators enacting nuanced and comprehensive understandings about children learning to read.

The Science of Reading

Lately, it seems like the Science of Reading is everywhere. To be clear, scientific research about reading is not new, but the phrase itself has become ubiquitous and brand-like in literacy spaces from curriculum to learning games to legislation. Fueled in part by recent media attention, the term’s recent surge in usage has been influential in classrooms, school districts, and universities. The International Literacy Association (n.d.) defines it as “a corpus of objective investigation and an accumulation of reliable evidence about how humans learn to read and how reading should be taught.” This body of research, and its recent spotlight, is providing shared language and foundational understandings with the potential to align the efforts of teachers, teacher educators, administrators, and other stakeholders around this critical work.

Among its noticeable influences, discussions about research on reading has given renewed attention to defining and ensuring that children are provided expert literacy instruction. Educator preparation programs (EPPs) are under increased scrutiny to provide evidence that they are preparing teacher candidates who are well-started and equipped to meet these expectations. EPPs are establishing and shoring up robust literacy coursework sequences and candidate expectations that align to the science of reading. Similarly, schools and districts are focusing professional development efforts on understanding the reading and writing process better so that they can be literacy experts ready to meet the needs of their students.

Additionally, increased awareness of the scientific research about reading is shining a spotlight on the critical role of phonics and phonemic awareness in learning to read. Educators have been reminded about explicit instruction of the linguistic features of written and spoken words, and the importance of doing so systematically, guided by data-informed decisions and responsive instructional planning. Additional layers of curriculum review have been enacted to ensure that instructional materials support strategies and content that align with the sciences of reading and learning.

However, the Science of Reading, when interpreted as a collective push towards teaching fundamentals, is not without criticism. Pearson and Tierney (2023) wrote an extensive critique of the movement, digging into some of the claims they attribute to Science of Reading advocates. Central to their critique is challenging the notion that key aspects of reading development and the associated pedagogy are settled science. They argue that literacy research must continue using more interactive and situated approaches. “There is a need to nurture a science of reading development that seeks evidence-based findings across at least three layers of diversity – diverse learners experiencing diverse pedagogies in diverse settings” (p. 17). Kim and Snow (2021) add important questions to the discussion about how the science is being translated into instructional practice. They point out that the Science of Reading need to be “complemented with equivalent attention to the ‘science of teaching reading,'” including teacher knowledge and classroom practices (p. 5). These critiques highlight the ongoing need for careful consideration, future research, and nuanced application of science of reading principles in classroom practice.

As an educational community, it is imperative that we ensure the science not be oversimplified, or interpreted improperly or too narrowly, as recent discussion of the media coverage suggests (Goodwin & Jiménez, 2021; Wexler, 2024). We’ve known for a long time that phonics and decoding comprise one constrained (albeit very important) set of skills within a network of interacting processes. However, to focus on this one component as a magic solution, is to ignore many others and the complex interaction between reader, text, and task that leads to skilled reading comprehension. Interpretations of the science of reading that over-simplify or narrowly represent scientific research leads to misguided mandates and teachers who feel as my young teacher friend did: the only thing we can teach now is phonics.

The reading process is impossible to capture in a single theory, buzz-phrase, or packaged program. But now, more than ever, a solid framework that represents the interconnectedness of multiple components is needed to serve as an anchor for teaching, learning, and discussion. As a teacher educator, I use and rely on frameworks to guide learning and provide a touchpoint as teacher candidates’ conceptual understandings develop. Working with these future teachers over the years has helped me think about content in new ways as they offer their fresh and unique perspectives. An example of this happened a few years ago, while teaching a Comprehensive Literacy course to elementary education majors. I was using the Five Pillars model (National Institute for Literacy, 2003); each of the parallel, upright pillars had a label: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. One student raised a tentative hand and asked, “Wouldn’t four pillars holding up one comprehension roof make more sense?” I marveled at this wisdom and determined they were right. Because mastery of skills in each pillar on their own is incomplete and pointless – but reconceptualizing the first four pillars as existing in order to support the “comprehension roof” was a more accurate representation of the roles of each pillar in the reading process. I began the search for a more comprehensive and nuanced framework that might better hold the complexities surrounding the science of reading.

The Florida Reading Initiative (Lane & Hayes, 2015) developed such a framework designed to guide teacher knowledge development. With reading comprehension at its center, it includes four components and multiple subcomponents that influence and lead to skilled reading.

This framework broadly represents the science of reading by organizing components in a way that illustrates, “…the orchestration of a vast array of knowledge and skills that lead to a single, central purpose: to comprehend text” (Lane & Hayes, 2015). Because of this, I decided to use the FRI framework to structure the reflections assigned to my preservice teachers engaged in field experiences in local partner schools. I asked the students to observe literacy instruction through the lens of the four FRI components, watching specifically for ways that children engaged with text beyond decoding and the practice of constrained skills. I was curious to learn if literacy teaching routines would be formulaic or narrowly focused on single components, given the district’s focus on science of reading professional development. But instead, what I learned from my students’ reflections is that amidst a science of reading focus and rigorous standards, many teachers are still fostering authentic purposes and love for reading. Their reflections offered unique windows into classrooms where teachers are addressing the components of literacy on a daily basis through explicit, systematic instruction, AND using literature in thoughtful, intentional ways, to develop, integrate and apply those foundational skills aligned to the science of reading.

Component 1: Language

Comprehending text requires understanding language (NELP, 2008; Catts, Adlof, & Weismer, 2004). A child’s understanding of language is influenced by many sociocultural factors including the number of words and language interactions they are exposed to. Additionally, the amount of text read to them has a tremendous impact on the development and understanding of oral language – which is known to be the foundation for all literacy (Logan, Justice Yumus, & Chaparro-Moreno, 2019). Essentially, the more words children know, the more easily they are able to read and learn more words. By engaging in language interactions and hearing more books read aloud, children are equipped to recognize patterns of syntax and pragmatics when they encounter them in texts.

Emilee, a junior in the Elementary Education program was assigned to a pre-k classroom for her field experience. She shares her experiences of observing and eventually leading read-alouds designed to build vocabulary and oral language. She describes it this way:

Since they don’t read independently yet, the teacher engages children by reading aloud and having students engage with different words (saying new words together as a class, predicting words, etc.). Children are building their vocabulary and knowledge about the world during these read alouds by learning about how to be a good friend, student, or peer. These are book and conversation themes that often come up in the Pre-K classroom. Students engage in rich oral language experiences around the things that are being read to them by the teacher pausing throughout books and asking students to share ideas.

Kilee shares similar observations from her first-grade field experience classroom:

They all go to the carpet for read-aloud time. They have discussions throughout the story about what words mean, how characters resemble other students in the classroom, etc. One example of this was a book called I Can Be President Too that she read aloud just before election week. I think books like this help open up the discussion about topics students are unaware of or vocabulary that they are unfamiliar with. Many students in this specific classroom are ML students – there are 8 different languages besides English spoken in the classroom, so exposure to unfamiliar vocabulary is extremely beneficial.

Emilee and Kilee recognized the important language development that was happening during the read-alouds. They noticed the intentional pauses and in-text vocabulary instruction that build word knowledge and syntactical familiarity. Their mentor teachers used rich, timely literature to engage kids in these interactive read-aloud experience, laying the foundation for reading comprehension.

Component 2: Knowledge

Reading comprehension requires that a reader bring certain funds of knowledge to a text and then connect that knowledge to the author’s ideas (Schwartz, 2024). Prior knowledge of the topics in the text, and prior knowledge and experience with the text’s structure provides the reader with a foundation on which to build and organize new information. Additionally, a reader’s knowledge provides a well of ideas with which to make inferences, or fill in the gaps with information that is not explicitly stated in a text. A child’s funds of knowledge are built through specific linguistic experiences that are experienced firsthand or developed through a shared text with classmates or caregivers (NELP, 2008; Logan, et al., 2019). Like vocabulary, knowledge facilitates the acquisition of more knowledge – and without purposeful instruction, inequitable knowledge gaps may persist.

Sophia writes about her experience in a second grade classroom where reading for knowledge building about culture and genre was part of most writing projects:

Whenever they start a new writing unit where they learn to write either a narrative piece or poem, etc. they are introduced to it through mentor texts that give students new perspectives on the world around them. One book they read for their narrative unit was Nasreen’s Secret School which is about how girls in Afghanistan can’t go to school, so the main character had to attend school in secret. They also read an informational text about how different countries gain access to books since they don’t have libraries like we do here.

She recognizes her mentor teacher’s use of literature to build knowledge, read other literature and then produce writing about a complex topic. This knowledge building also contributes to reading comprehension by building on funds of knowledge which enable inference and processing of increasingly complex texts.

Component 3: Metacognition

Research highlights the important connection between reading comprehension and metacognition (Soto et al., 2019; National Institute for Literacy, 2003). Defined as thinking about one’s own thinking, the subcomponents of metacognition work together to facilitate strategic reading behaviors that result in comprehension. Monitoring and evaluating the construction of meaning as a reader moves through a text is a set of skills that might seem intuitive to some. However, a child’s desire to “get through” a text may win out over the drive to engage in fix-up and repair strategies without proper motivation to gain meaning from that text. Furthermore, if a reader has not been taught the skills to do so, many metacognitive strategies are unavailable. Children are likely to engage in such self-regulation during reading when they have been presented with motivating reasons to engage with and construct meaning from texts.

Emily notices the following in her kindergarten field experience classroom:

My mentor teacher creates a learning environment where every student feels involved and supported. She provides opportunities for the students to engage with both literature and informational texts, that are accessible yet challenging enough for the students. During read-alouds, she encourages metacognition by asking students questions like, “What do you think will happen next?” and “How do you know that?” She models thinking out loud, showing them how to fix-up misunderstandings through rereading or thinking about context.

In this example, Emily described her mentor teacher demonstrating and teaching metacognitive processes. The students are seeing firsthand how a reader uses the skills to construct meaning from relevant, engaging texts as they read.

Component 4: Fluency

Reading fluency is one of the greatest influences on understanding text (Kuhn, et al., 2010), and serves as a critical bridge between effortful decoding and comprehension (Rasinski, EEF, & Green, 2022). Fluency is comprised of three components: prosody, automaticity, and reading rate. Of the three, prosody correlates most strongly with comprehension (Kuhn, et al., 2010). Automaticity, at the word and connected text level, leads to prosody and reasonable rate.

Decoding accuracy precedes automaticity, and depends on a strong foundation of phonological awareness and the ability to segment and blend individual phonemes. As stated earlier, this recent science of reading moment has illuminated the importance of explicit, systematic instruction in phonics and phonological awareness, as well as deep teacher knowledge about the linguistic and orthographic structures of language.

It is within this skill area that decodable books are important because they provide critical practice opportunities to read connected text using word recognition skills that have been explicitly taught. For beginning readers, these books will not have well-developed characters, or engaging, creative story lines. But they will build skills that are necessary for fluency, which is critical for reading comprehension. Additionally, these books build developing readers’ confidence which can lead to self-efficacy and motivation as they grow into skilled readers.

And, in order to develop the other components, rich literature should be complementing decodable books as part of a wide reading diet throughout the school day.

Ella, whose experience in a second grade classroom offered a glimpse of a decoding and fluency routine that involved authentic sharing of stories with families, writes this:

Every week the teacher provides them with short books in the take home folders with a story that they read in class and then take home to read[.] The story includes words they work on in class but also provides them with a story to spend time with. The stories are read multiple times throughout the week, by the teacher, chorally, and individually. They stop to ask questions and provide comments during and after they read, and I can see that this helps them to think about the story and what it means more deeply.

This student highlights a classroom routine that provides context and audience for beginning readers to practice reading independently. She noticed the intentionality of prompting dialogue about the story and the experience of reading it aloud for others. By encouraging fluent reading, and providing ample practice opportunity, this classroom routine also builds reading comprehension.

The Center of the Framework: Reading Comprehension

Ultimately, each of the 4 components are both influences on and requirements for reading comprehension. The International Literacy Association (ILA) defines reading comprehension as the active process of constructing meaning from text, involving both decoding words and understanding the language and ideas presented. Cartwright and Duke’s research (2021) adds to this definition by classifying some of the subcomponents of the FRI model as bridging skills, which connect both decoding and understanding language. Intertwined with executive functioning and cognitive flexibility, these bridging skills serve to enhance readers’ ability to make sense of texts of increasing complexity. Critical theorist Paulo Friere (1987) provides us with the ten-thousand foot view when he describes, “…reading the word and the world.” By any definition, reading comprehension is complex work, and teaching it requires deep teacher knowledge about its contributing components and a toolbox of strategies that results in children becoming skilled readers. This simply cannot be accomplished without literature.

My teacher candidates provided evidence of the ways good teachers continue to achieve this, informed by new understandings gained in this science of reading era. It’s heartening to hear that there are still spaces carved out in the course of a busy day for children to curl up with books simply for enjoyment. It’s exciting to read about teachers who offer students opportunity to read books about equity and human rights for the purpose of building knowledge and creating art from what they learn. I’m confident that through these experiences, teacher candidates are gaining conceptual understandings about the science of reading and also models of how skills are explicitly and systematically taught within the context of rich language experiences and interaction with literature. Indeed, any single component of the reading process is incomplete and decontextualized without the other. Rich texts are the contextualization of the components, and when used well can provide the safe, supportive spaces for children to build knowledge, practice skills, and grow as readers.

I had a chance to revisit the teacher whose PLC meeting had left her feeling professionally criticized and restricted. I shared the conceptual framework with her, and we discussed the complexity of the reading process, the various contributing components and subcomponents, and evidence-aligned instructional approaches that rely on engagement with rich texts and literature. We also talked about the explicit, systematic code-based instruction that was a regular part of every day in her classroom, and how it was a gateway to skilled, fluent reading. Her knowledge of the science was solid, and her toolbox of evidence-aligned strategies was full. This teacher did not need a mandate or a prescription, but rather a professional learning community that embraced science, an inquiry stance, and a focus on student learning. Like the descriptions written by teacher candidates, teachers are finding ways to translate the science of reading into classroom practices within unique contexts. Perhaps in time, with further open discussion, and a commitment to continue learning, we might just find that we don’t have to resort to mandates in order to move towards our shared vision of developing skilled, engaged, and critical readers. We can instead, follow the science to children’s literature.

References

Catts, H., Adlof, S., and Weismer, S. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278–293.

Duke, N.K., & Cartwright, K.B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S25–S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411

Duke, N.K., Ward, A.E., & Pearson, P.D. (2021). The science of reading comprehension instruction. Reading Teacher, 74(6), 663–672. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1993

Goodwin, A. P., & Jiménez, R. T. (2021). The science of reading: Supports, critiques, and questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S7–S16. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.416

Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Meisinger, E. B., Levy, B. A., & Rasinski, T. V. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 230–251. https://doi-org.libproxy.boisestate.edu/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.4

Lane, H. B., & Hayes, L. F. (2015). Keeping the big picture in mind: using a reading conceptual framework to guide teacher learning. Journal of Reading Education, 40(2), 19–26.

Logan, J. A. R., Justice, L. M., Yumuş, M., & Chaparro-Moreno, L. J. (2019). When children are not read to at home: the million word gap. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics : JDBP, 40(5), 383–386.

National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. National Center for Family Literacy. https://lincs.ed.gov/sites/default/files/NELP_Report.pdf

National Institute for Literacy. (2003). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read (K-3). U.S. Department of Education.

Rasinski, T., EEF, & Green, S. (2022, March 23). Why focus on reading fluency? Education Endowment Foundation. Retrieved from https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/news/why-focus-on-reading-fluency

Schwartz, S. (2024). Reading comprehension hinges on building knowledge. Education Week, 43(14), 3–7.

Seidenberg, M. S., Cooper Borkenhagen, M., & Kearns, D. M. (2020). Lost in translation? Challenges in connecting reading science and educational practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, S119–S130. https://doi-org.libproxy.boisestate.edu/10.1002/rrq.341

Soto, C., Gutiérrez de Blume, A. P., Jacovina, M., McNamara, D., Benson, N., & Riffo, B. (2019). Reading comprehension and metacognition: The importance of inferential skills. Cogent Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1565067

Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (2024). Fact-checking the Science of Reading: Opening up the conversation. Literacy Research Commons. https://literacyresearchcommons.org/

Wexler, N. (2024, April 14). Will the science of reading movement become a Frankenstein’s monster? Substack. https://nataliewexler.substack.com/p/will-the-science-of-reading-movement

Carolyn Cort is a Clinical Assistant Professor in the College of Education at Boise State University where she teaches undergrads and graduate students in literacy-focused courses. Her work at the university also focuses on supporting teacher candidates during clinical field experiences and fostering mutually beneficial community partnerships that enhance P-12 learning, especially in the area of early literacy. Carolyn is involved in state level initiatives focused on breaking down silos to promote knowledge sharing and idea building towards a shared vision of literacy for all kids.

ORCID: 0009-0004-3284-642X

© 2025 Carolyn Cort

Authors retain copyright over the vignettes published in this journal and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under the following Creative Commons License:

WOW Stories, Volume XII, Issue 1 by Worlds of Words is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on work by Carolyn Cort at https://wowlit.org/on-line-publications/stories/xii-1/4.

WOW stories: connections from the classroom
ISSN 2577-0551