Science and Learning to Read: I am NOT an Expert

Before I jump into the meat of this post, I want to make it very clear that I am not an expert in the science of learning to read. I’m a children’s librarian with a profound passion and interest in supporting kids learning to read and the grown ups in their lives. 

I want to share a bit of a personal struggle I’ve been having with a segment of the Geisel criteria over the last few years. The library system I work for has prioritized supporting developing readers since 2017. As a part of the team working on various projects and services for K-3rd graders, I’ve had the opportunity to really dig into the science around learning to read. And more than just reading the research, I’ve had thought-provoking conversations with colleagues about how science should inform the way reading is taught, and more importantly for this post, about how books can support, rather than hinder, reading skills. 

To be clear, I'm discussing research about the science around learning to read as distinct from the teaching approach called The Science of Reading, which has been gaining momentum lately. This approach has become part of the decades-long reading wars in which educators have been debating the most effective way to teach reading. If you're interested in learning more check out this article by Jill Barshay from the Hechinger Report, Four Things You Need to Know About the New Reading Wars. 

Thinking about the scientific research I've read over the past 3 years (and there's a lot of research out there; there's so much more for me to explore), many parts of the Geisel criteria hold up:

“New words should be added slowly enough to make learning them a positive experience” 

“Words should be repeated to ensure knowledge retention” 

“Sentences must be simple and straightforward” 

“The illustrations must demonstrate the story being told” 

The part of the Geisel criteria that I’ve been struggling to reconcile with science is: 

“The book must also contain illustrations, which function as keys or clues to the text.” 

Without science, this criteria seems to make sense. Upon first encountering a new word, readers can use pictures to help them figure out that word. But scientific research shows that readers who are taught to decode (in simple terms, sound out), rather than guess words based on visual context clues, are more likely to be stronger readers in the long term. Emily Hanford looks at this specific area of learning to read in her article/podcast for APM Reports in 2019, At a Loss for Words: How a Flawed Idea is Teaching Millions of Kids to be Poor Readers. 

So what do we do with this information? I don’t have the ability to magically change the Geisel criteria, although I hope ALSC might be interested in exploring and potentially updating the criteria in the near future. So let’s think beyond the award itself. Let’s think about the many ways libraries continue to perpetuate myths about the learning to read process. And let’s start thinking, and more importantly, taking action to use our library powers to debunk those myths so that we can help the children in our communities become strong, motivated readers. This includes lifting up truly supportive beginning reader titles during reader’s advisory interactions, and addressing the way we shelve, label and organize our books for new readers. We can also use our voices and collections budgets to encourage publishers, editors, authors, and illustrators to delve into the research themselves so that books being created and published for new readers are supportive AND fun, captivating, and page-turning. 

I am not an expert in the science of learning to read. But as a library professional, I can find research, educate myself, share my knowledge, have conversations, question how things are done, and make changes at my library that can and do impact the developing readers in my community. 

Interested in learning more about the science of learning to read? Here are a few resources to get you started. Add your recommendations in the comments section. 

• The Knowledge Gap: The Hidden Cause of America’s Broken Education System—And How to Fix It by Natalie Wexler. 2019. 
• Language at the Speed of Sight: How We Read, Why So Many Can't and What Can Be Done About It by Mark Seidenberg. 2017. 
• Reading Levels Unfairly Label Learners, Say Critics. And Then There's the Research by Wayne D’Orio. School Library Journal, 2020. 
• Science of Reading: The Podcast, Amplify Education.