Connecting Science and Education
Discussions of the alphabetic principle and phonemic awareness on social media make me wonder, has anyone read the original sources for these ideas? Here, for example, is a trenchant quote from Liberman, Shankweiler, and Liberman’s classic article “The alphabetic principle and learning to read”: “As we see it, the letters of the alphabet do not represent sounds as such, but rather the more remote…
The purpose of these posts is to bring more of what is known from basic research on reading, language, and learning into decisions about how to teach children to read. In the Gretkzy [sic] post I used some humorous spelling errors to draw attention to the fact that the way that words are read changes as skill develops. Skilled reading involves parallel processing of multiple letters, using one’s…
A friend has sent me a post about misspelled names on the uniforms of professional athletes. It’s an old post but new to me. Such errors are amusing because they seem so colossal (shouldn’t someone have caught that??) but also familiar (who among us has not made similar ones?). They are also of interest because they illustrate some basic facts about reading and spelling that are relevant to…
Is there too much phonics instruction in the “science of reading” approach? The question is now on the table, with articles such as these ( EdWeek , EdNext ) as well as predictably contentious exchanges on social media. It’s unfortunate that yet another debate about reading has devolved on phonics.The “science of reading” emphasizes the importance of extensive instruction about phonics and other…
A recent article in Education Week raises an issue I’ve been concerned about for some time and I was glad they contacted me about it: Phonics Is Crucial—But How Much Is Too Much ? The piece reflects a shift that’s been building: after correcting the relative lack of phonics and other basic skills instruction in the Whole Language/Balanced Literacy approach, some adopters of the “science of…
Last month I enjoyed attending the 2026 Research to Practice symposium at the AIM Institute for Learning and Research. AIM is a private school for children with reading and learning difficulties; in recent years they have branched into other areas such as teacher education. Every year they honor a researcher for their contributions to reading research and practice. The award is named for Hollis…
The New Yorker article “Alphabet Soup” (Dec 29/Jan 5 issue) did a good job of conveying the complexity of dyslexia, the frustrations of dyslexics and their families, and the promise of schools such as the Central Brooklyn Learning Academy. It covered a lot of ground, and I know it wasn’t generated by AI because it was so well written. I am less enthusiastic about other aspects of the article.
This post summarizes my longstanding concerns about the practice of phonemic awareness instruction, a core element of the “science of reading” approach that is based on a deep misunderstanding of what phonemes are and how phonemic awareness develops. This material will appear in somewhat different form in the updated edition of my book, to appear early next year.
An updated version of my book about reading and education will appear in a few months. It focuses on developments in reading education since it was published, including the emergence of the “science of reading” approach to instruction. This post is based on material that will appear in the new edition.
An index of published articles by Mark Seidenberg and/or Maryellen MacDonald, with links to PDFs. Still updating but mostly complete. Here.
The December 2024 article does a good job of characterizing Lucy Calkins’ complex legacy, but she is not the “scapegoat” for America’s failure to adequately teach reading.
In light of the Dec 2024 article in the Atlantic about Lucy Calkins, I am reposting this piece of mine from a few years ago.
AI tools that do remarkable things are appearing so often it’s impossible to keep up. I have just tried the innocuously named NotebookLM from Google and think you’ll be interested in the results.
There has been an extensive discussion of phonemic awareness instruction on the SPELLtalk list . It seems to have ended with a lot of uncertainty about the implications of my observations about PA for instruction, so let me try to boil it down. I’ll be pursuing these issues in greater detail here in the near future. I will be responding to comments that are posted here as soon as I can! Hey, maybe…
I don’t know if we agree about phonics, but let’s get back to phonemic awareness. Thanks for clarifying that you don’t advocate teaching 44 phonemes as a prerequisite skill. I had in mind the many people who are doing this.
You’re obviously committed to reading education and to achieving consensus about what works and why. Engaging in thoughtful, civil discussions about challenging issues is essential, of course, and I am responding with that in mind. Although I’m responding to your post, I’m addressing views that are shared by many people, which you’ve helpfully summarized.
I wrote this article to expand on issues about the “science of reading” approach that I’ve discussed in many talks. Want to learn more about “statistical” learning. The Seidenberg & MacDonald article mentioned in the text is here . Questions about this material? Direct them to me at msseidenberg@gmail.com. Thanks for your interest! Mark Seidenberg
I gave a talk on this topic at the Yale Child Study Center on 12/4/23 which was not recorded. I have recorded a version with a narration. The slides are here . I also wrote a post on these issues, which is here . It begins: This is an updated perspective on the “Science of Reading” approach to instruction from someone who helped get the movement off the ground. There is only one reason for me…
I have a short piece about the Science of Reading in Edweek, here . Mae West has entered the conversation. The column is the result of cutting a longer piece to satisfy the publication's very strict 1000 word limit. Now that it is published I can post a longer version that is less telegraphic. NB: I did not write the headlines, which only partially capture the content. The text says that…
This is the third (and thankfully the last) of my posts on the Simple View of Reading and its relevance to instruction. So far I've pointed out that the SVR didn't address what was in the components, how they are learned, or the role of instruction, and that attempts to extend the SVR run into other conceptual and practical problems. As noted previously, I will prepare and post here a tidy PDF…