View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

An Anatomy of the SoR: A Systematic Review of the Conceptualizations and Instrumental Uses of the Science of Reading

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: An Anatomy of the SoR: A Systematic Review of the Conceptualizations and Instrumental Uses of the Science of Reading
Language: English
Authors: Cheryl McLean (ORCID 0000-0003-3585-0307), Tiffany Gallagher, Courtney Hattan (ORCID 0000-0003-2914-3307)
Source: Reading Research Quarterly. 2026 61(2).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Descriptors: Reading Research, Educational Research, Literacy Education, Phonics, Reading Comprehension, Equal Education, Multilingualism, Cultural Context, Bibliometrics, Definitions, Scholarship, Politics of Education, Evidence Based Practice, Reading Instruction
DOI: 10.1002/rrq.70095
ISSN: 0034-0553
1936-2722
Abstract: In this systematic review, evolving conceptualizations and instrumental uses of the "science of reading" (SoR) in educational literature from 2017 to 2025 were investigated. Amid renewed discussions reminiscent of historical "reading wars," the SoR has emerged as a dominant discourse in literacy education, shaped by media, policy, and scholarly engagement. Drawing on 121 researcher and practitioner-oriented articles analyzed through a PRISMA-informed review and coding process, we identified seven conceptualizations of the SoR, ranging from narrow phonics-based definitions to broader, multifaceted interpretations encompassing comprehension, equity, multilingualism, and sociocultural contexts. The study reveals that while over 90% of articles acknowledge narrow interpretations, nearly half also present broader perspectives, highlighting tensions and complexities within the field. Authors frequently use the SoR to introduce articles, frame arguments, and validate pedagogical models, with 93.8% employing multiple uses. The findings also underscore a disconnect between research and practitioner publications, with nuanced definitions more prevalent in scholarly work. This divergence has implications for policy, curriculum, and instructional practices, as these various portrayals in discourse risk marginalizing diverse literacy needs. This review calls for a fourth "Reading Research Quarterly" special issue to critically examine how the SoR shapes educational mandates, practices, and politics. Given the dual role of the SoR as both a construct and a rhetorical tool, the study emphasizes the need for ongoing critical inquiry into the politicization of the SoR and its impact on literacy education, advocating for inclusive and evidence-informed approaches to reading instruction.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1503767
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEDyeHbHHDoVtws5fJdb6LgAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCzcrURjFiajlA3FCwIBEICBm_OuEgT-4BgqWaAE17mfSoFq1EtL-eznDfCo_f1VdIGHGo-4W-ZSjp_HAxW2e9ToIRQeJw8sOB6bb6hiqiLoR7VFAlWjCHMijVAdQlkazTTnvVjGaWcOvpvuRow-YE3QSKPbQJePApEWSa284oVsK6wcxuiD0wH8coesTSUiaTiAITDZDJIgb_UpJskcpZ-zBQGxx1lWNQZwoXh1
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0193225962;[nrnu]02apr.26;2026Apr27.05:00;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0193225962-1">An Anatomy of the SoR: A Systematic Review of the Conceptualizations and Instrumental Uses of the Science of Reading </title> <p>In this systematic review, evolving conceptualizations and instrumental uses of the "science of reading" (SoR) in educational literature from 2017 to 2025 were investigated. Amid renewed discussions reminiscent of historical "reading wars," the SoR has emerged as a dominant discourse in literacy education, shaped by media, policy, and scholarly engagement. Drawing on 121 researcher and practitioner‐oriented articles analyzed through a PRISMA‐informed review and coding process, we identified seven conceptualizations of the SoR, ranging from narrow phonics‐based definitions to broader, multifaceted interpretations encompassing comprehension, equity, multilingualism, and sociocultural contexts. The study reveals that while over 90% of articles acknowledge narrow interpretations, nearly half also present broader perspectives, highlighting tensions and complexities within the field. Authors frequently use the SoR to introduce articles, frame arguments, and validate pedagogical models, with 93.8% employing multiple uses. The findings also underscore a disconnect between research and practitioner publications, with nuanced definitions more prevalent in scholarly work. This divergence has implications for policy, curriculum, and instructional practices, as these various portrayals in discourse risk marginalizing diverse literacy needs. This review calls for a fourth Reading Research Quarterly special issue to critically examine how the SoR shapes educational mandates, practices, and politics. Given the dual role of the SoR as both a construct and a rhetorical tool, the study emphasizes the need for ongoing critical inquiry into the politicization of the SoR and its impact on literacy education, advocating for inclusive and evidence‐informed approaches to reading instruction.</p> <p>Keywords: conceptualizations; science of reading; systematic review</p> <p>We recognize that there is more than ever a need for critical inquiry into the conceptions of the SoR and how specific interpretations of the SoR might have a unifying, diversifying, marginalizing, and/or polarizing impact on our views of and approaches to children's literacy development.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70095-toc-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70095-toc-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193225962-3">Introduction</hd> <p>In the past decade, the term science of reading (SoR) has been trending in both public/media and educational domains, with ensuing debates, discussions, and research generating hundreds of publications (e.g., articles, commentaries, curricula, textbooks). These publications have framed and informed current perspectives, practices, and research foci on learning and instruction. For example, <emph>Reading Research Quarterly</emph> (<emph>RRQ</emph>) has led the field in its special issues on SoR. The first special issue, published in the Fall of 2020, delineated the present queries into the SoR through featured articles on current perspectives on the interpretations of the "science" within the term SoR. These perspectives challenged media portrayals of SoR as a phonics‐first or phonics‐only approach. In response to the high readership interest, the second <emph>RRQ</emph> special issue followed in mid‐2021. In this second special issue, authors extended the dialogue related to how the SoR was conceptualized, modeled, and theorized. As editors of this second special issue, Goodwin and Jiménez ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref1">48</reflink>]) acknowledged the complexity of theories that attempt to anchor the SoR and made readers aware of the impact on social justice and equity issues. The second special issue also addressed curriculum and instruction, teachers' knowledge and practice, as well as multilingualism. More recently, authors in the forthcoming 2026 third <emph>RRQ</emph> special issue on the SoR consider the intersection of equity and the SoR. Empirical and conceptual articles explore topics ranging from dialogic talk and adaptive instruction to frames of equity and diversity within reading science. Beyond <emph>RRQ</emph>, there are series of publications that center on the SoR, including instructional, curricular, teacher preparation/professional development, and/or policy perspectives (e.g., Thomas [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref2">135</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref3">136</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref4">137</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref5">138</reflink>]; Schwartz [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref6">114</reflink>]).</p> <p>In fact, the editors of the first SoR special issue (Goodwin and Jiménez [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref7">48</reflink>]) have likened the current SoR discussions and debates to the "reading wars" of the 1960s and 1970s around phonics versus whole language, and even the 1980s‐1990s whole language movement. What scholarly research and articles in this decade signal in the renewed discussions and the push toward "evidence‐based" or "neuroscience" is that the SoR has become <emph>our</emph> contemporary "hot topic" in literacy (Cassidy et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref8">16</reflink>]). We argue that within the past decade, these discussions on the science behind how children learn to read and how they are taught to read were often initially generated from popular media publications such as podcasts, documentaries, and films (Hanford [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref9">55</reflink>]; Lowman [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref10">82</reflink>]), which likely served as a catalyst for public conversations and a reframing of educational research on SoR. As researchers and educators engaged in this discussion, we recognize that as the term and conceptualizations of SoR become further entrenched in educational discourse, research, and practice, and even as we examine the "<emph>what</emph>" (i.e., the "science" in the SoR), it is equally important to ask "<emph>how</emph>." To do so, we shine a spotlight on the politicized use of the term, SoR, to capture how the term has been conceptualized and instrumentally used among literacy and reading researchers and reporters.</p> <p>In this systematic review of SoR, we argue that there are multiple conceptualizations of the SoR<emph>—</emph>all of which have been influencing the current discourse in literacy research and education. The definition(s) of the SoR are varied. How the SoR has been taken up in publications on educational research and practice over the past 8 years, from 2017 to 2025, has been fluctuating. We question if we, as researchers and authors, are validating the discourse and re‐perpetuating the argument. Are we influencing our current discourse, and if so, how? Consequently, we sought to find out how the SoR has been conceptualized in peer‐reviewed. and non‐peer‐reviewed researcher and practitioner articles while acknowledging that across the range of articles reviewed, authors who write for researcher versus practitioner publications might conceptualize and apply the SoR differently, in ways that may be complementary or conflicting.</p> <hd id="AN0193225962-4">Objective and Research Questions</hd> <p>Our objective in this paper was to systematically review the educational literature published in the past 8 years (2017–2025) that represents the current discourse on the SoR. Specifically, we sought to document how the SoR is being defined and taken up in peer‐reviewed and non‐peer‐reviewed researcher and practitioner‐oriented publications. Accordingly, two research questions guided our work:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How are researchers and educators conceptualizing the science of reading in researcher and practitioner‐oriented articles?</item> <p></p> <item> How are authors using these conceptualizations of the science of reading throughout the articles?</item> </ulist> <p>Informed by these two questions, in the following section, we explain the search and evaluation processes used in the systematic review of how the SoR is being conceptualized and applied in educational literature.</p> <hd id="AN0193225962-5">Method</hd> <p>This systematic literature review (Alexander [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref11">1</reflink>]) began with a comprehensive search strategy to yield a sample of articles for evaluation. Throughout the process, our research team targeted articles that had an explicit connection to the SoR and/or referenced educational policies/mandates or political stances related to SoR. The analyses and synthesis of these articles address the two research questions (Siddaway et al. [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref12">121</reflink>]), which the research team investigated concurrently. To ensure consistency and alignment, the team met biweekly to recalibrate and maintain focus on these guiding questions. To support rigor and regulate the review process, the team also followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines as outlined by Moher et al. ([<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref13">88</reflink>]) and updated by Page et al. ([<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref14">95</reflink>]). Specifically, the steps in this current systematic review followed the PRISMA Checklist (Page et al. [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref15">95</reflink>]) items for each article's title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion.</p> <hd id="AN0193225962-6">Search, Evaluation, and Selection Process</hd> <p>For this review, in keeping with our focus on conceptualizations and applications of the SoR, our research team set out parameters for the types of publications and articles that fall within the scope of the review. We first identified two main journal publication types as sources for a comprehensive database search: researcher‐oriented and practitioner‐oriented journals, both peer‐reviewed and non‐peer‐reviewed. Researchers are the primary intended audience for the researcher‐oriented articles and educators, or the broader public are the primary audiences for the practitioner‐oriented articles. Determination of whether a journal was peer‐reviewed (i.e., refereed) was evaluated using <emph>Ulrichsweb Global Serials Directory</emph> which states that refereed, "...refers to the system of critical evaluation of manuscripts/articles by professional colleagues or peers (also called referees). Multiple types of peer‐review (e.g., double‐blind, expert) are included under this designation. The content of these refereed publications is sanctioned, vetted, or otherwise approved by a peer‐review or editorial board" (Ex Libris Knowledge Center, n.d.). [NB: the authors qualify that some journals include both peer‐reviewed and non‐peer reviewed articles in the same issue]. After having established the publication types, we applied general inclusion criteria guiding the search: Both publication types must contain the term "science of reading" in the title and/or abstract and keywords and be published from January 2017 to present.</p> <p>We separated the web‐based article searches (e.g., OMNI) into three distinct database categories: researcher journals, practitioner journals (e.g., <emph>Education Week, Literacy Today, Phi Delta Kappan</emph>), and International Literacy Association (ILA)/Wiley published journals (i.e., <emph>RRQ, The Reading Teacher, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy</emph>). The searches comprised 47 journals with a total of 875 articles screened and 413 reviewed. All searches for candidate articles were conducted between November 2024 and March 2025 across the three categories (databases, practitioner, and ILA/Wiley).</p> <p>In their discussion of some of the challenges of systematic reviews, Alexander ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref16">1</reflink>]) alluded to the iterative nature of the process of the systematic review resulting from procedural challenges. Such challenges required our research team to reconsider initial decisions, specifically in terms of the 8‐year review period. For example, although our team initially planned to have the review span a decade of articles (starting from 2015), we revisited this decision following an initial review of ILA/Wiley databases, where the Wiley staff informed us that Wiley Online archived databases only went as far back as 2017. We also determined that while the term SoR gained traction in the public discourse around the 2010s, particularly as advocacy groups, policymakers, and the media coalesced around evidence‐based reading instruction (Gabriel and Woulfin [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref17">40</reflink>]), it only began making its way into educational discourse around 2017, prompting the initial <emph>RRQ</emph> call for papers for a special issue on SoR in 2019. Even further, because we viewed this review as directly building off previous <emph>RRQ</emph> special issues on SoR, the first of which was published in 2020, our research team then made the decision to use 2017 as the starting point date for the research review.</p> <hd id="AN0193225962-7">Database Searches</hd> <p>All online scholarly educational journals were included in the database search using Ulrichsweb (Ex Libris Knowledge Center [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref18">29</reflink>]). These searches were conducted by a graduate research assistant searching for the term, "science of reading" in the article title, abstract, and/or keywords. Exact search fields used vary by database. The first search was done on January 1, 2025, using the following scholarly journal databases: OMNI, Education Source, Academic Search Complete, ERIC, PsychInfo, Scholars Portal, and Web of Science. This initial search yielded 3120 articles. The research assistant then applied the following search parameters and filters: English; publication date (2017–2025); and record type (scholarly/academic journals; articles). Exact filters used vary by database. This reduced the article sample to 517 articles.</p> <hd id="AN0193225962-8">Practitioner Journals</hd> <p>The second publication type, practitioner‐oriented journals, was purposefully selected as the research team agreed that these were the most common and readily accessible to the general education readership. These purposefully selected practitioner journals were not peer reviewed (<emph>Phi Delta Kappan</emph>, <emph>Literacy Today</emph>, and <emph>Education Week</emph>). We searched for the practitioner articles via two databases (Education Source and OMNI) in March 2025. This yielded 851 articles. The sample was reduced to 71 when the agreed‐upon specific timeframe search filters were used: publication dates (2017–2025).</p> <hd id="AN0193225962-9">ILA/Wiley Journals</hd> <p>For this search, we focused on three International Literacy Association (ILA), Wiley‐published journals: <emph>The Reading Teacher</emph>, <emph>Reading Research Quarterly</emph>, and <emph>Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy</emph>. These journals were purposefully selected as they are the three official ILA journals with a specific focus on research on reading and literacy. The preliminary searches across the three journals were conducted by staff of Wiley Publishing using January 1, 2017, as the earliest date and January 1st, 2025, as the latest; the first search was executed in November 2024 and the second in February 2025. The initial search yielded 1665 articles that were reduced to 287 when the search filter publication date (2017–2025) was applied. Interestingly, the <emph>Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy</emph> yielded no results; thus, articles under this review came from only two Wiley publications (<emph>RRQ</emph> and <emph>The Reading Teacher</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0193225962-10">Evaluation and Selection</hd> <p>The three separate category searches identified a total of 875 candidate articles, which having met the inclusion criteria, were deemed eligible for the next stage of the review process, involving abstract and full‐text screening and evaluation. All 875 articles were then uploaded into a web‐based software program, Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation [<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref19">143</reflink>]). Covidence is an online literature review shared platform that allowed the research team to work collaboratively during the review process. Once input into Covidence, all duplicate articles were identified per article type and then removed from the final screening sample. Through this evaluation process, the total sample for final screening was 413 articles.</p> <p>The three research team members then accessed Covidence to evaluate the 413 articles with a two‐step screening process: (a) title and abstract review, and (b) full‐text review. The first step involved screening the article title and abstract to determine the article's eligibility for inclusion in the sample. Using the dual screening system in Covidence, two of the research team members independently screened each entry and voted whether to include or exclude the article. If there was a disagreement between the votes cast by the two reviewers (e.g., one reviewer voted "yes" and another voted "no" and/or "maybe", then the third research team member was responsible for reviewing the entry and resolving the conflict). The vote of the third reviewer was final. The exclusion criteria for the scholarly articles eliminated articles that the filters missed, or where filters were unavailable (i.e., those that were not articles, not in English). Additionally, outliers that addressed "science" and "reading" in relation to reading science books, curricular integration, or reading/science academic achievement or standardized test scores were also excluded. The resultant sample of articles was 93, the full text of which was then screened. Finally, to eliminate articles not deemed relevant to the scope of the project, articles that were not relevant to the K‐12 classroom education context or the pre‐service education context were eliminated. For the practitioner‐oriented articles, we excluded those that were not full articles or related to the reading of science texts, which reduced the number of articles to 36 for full‐text screening.</p> <p>We excluded ILA/Wiley articles covering "science" and/or "reading" in relation to reading science books, curricular integration, reading/science academic achievement, or standardized test scores, or those that focused on oral language/writing. The resultant sample of Wiley published scholarly articles was 110, which were then voted for a full‐text screening.</p> <p>Following the abstract review, the second step was to then review the full text of each of the 239 articles that were voted by the research team as eligible for inclusion in the second round. At this stage, in Covidence, two of the research team members did an in‐depth review to evaluate each article and voted for its inclusion in or exclusion from the corpus of articles for the systematic review. Whenever there was a disagreement in the votes, the third research team member resolved the discrepancy. Two exclusion criteria were applied to the full‐text review of all articles: no substantive connection to the SoR and/or no coverage of policies, politics, and/or mandates related to the SoR. The final set of 121 articles included in this systematic review was 57 from scholarly databases, 20 from practitioner‐oriented databases, and 44 from ILA/Wiley journals. This final sample for inclusion in the systematic review is listed in the References with the NOTE: <bold>* =</bold> denotes articles included in the Systematic Review. See Figure 1 for a PRISMA flow diagram (Page et al. [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref20">95</reflink>]) that summarizes the steps described above.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70095-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70095-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 PRISMA flow diagram (Page et al. [95]) for steps in systematic review." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193225962-12">Description of the Article Sample</hd> <p>The 121 articles in the sample were all published between 2017 and 2025 with the following annual distribution: 2017 (<emph>n</emph> = 0); 2018 (<emph>n</emph> = 0); 2019 (<emph>n</emph> = 1); 2020 (<emph>n</emph> = 28); 2021 (<emph>n</emph> = 23); 2022 (<emph>n</emph> = 12); 2023 (<emph>n</emph> = 23); 2024 (<emph>n</emph> = 32); first quarter of 2025 (<emph>n</emph> = 2). Regardless of the search from where the articles were identified, all included articles were re‐classified by the research team as having researchers (<emph>n</emph> = 76) or practitioners (<emph>n</emph> = 45) as the primary audience. The articles were additionally classified as commentary (express opinions or offer solutions; <emph>n</emph> = 55), exposition (evaluate evidence, investigate or expound on an idea; <emph>n</emph> = 31), conceptual (introduce a new framework or theory; <emph>n</emph> = 5), empirical with human participants (<emph>n</emph> = 14), empirical with a content or media analysis (<emph>n</emph> = 8), or a literature review or meta‐analysis (<emph>n</emph> = 8).</p> <hd id="AN0193225962-13">Data Analysis</hd> <p>In response to research question one, each article was read to determine the authors' conceptualizations or definitions of the SoR. Direct statements were extracted from the articles to quote verbatim the authors' words and phrases. These statements were then coded (REF) according to whether the articles conceptualized or defined the SoR by (a) using the Simple View of Reading (Hoover and Gough [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref21">65</reflink>]), the Reading Rope (Scarborough [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref22">108</reflink>]), or the National Reading Panel's (National Reading Panel (U.S.) and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.) [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref23">91</reflink>]) Big 5; (b) identifying a professional organization (e.g., International Literacy Association) or naming a literacy leader (e.g., Shanahan); (c) mentioning a broader conceptualization of SoR; (d) mentioning a narrow conceptualization of the SoR; (e) honing in on one specific aspect of the SoR other than decoding (e.g., knowledge building); (f) acknowledging a tension in the field; or (g) acknowledging that the SoR is not settled science (see Table 1). The codes were not mutually exclusive, as authors included one (e.g., Bragg [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref24">12</reflink>]) to seven (e.g., Aukerman and Schuldt [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref25">5</reflink>]) conceptualizations in their articles. For example, Vaughn et al. ([<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref26">142</reflink>]) acknowledge narrow interpretations of the SoR by stating, "the SOR overemphasizes the teaching of discrete skills" (p. S300) while also calling for a broader conceptualization that integrates reading science with adaptive teaching. Examples of each code can be found in Table 1. The third author extracted and coded definitions, checking in frequently with the first and second authors when questions came up. Analyses included frequency counts (Nisbet [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref27">92</reflink>]) to determine the number of times each code appeared across articles.</p> <p>1 TABLE Codes for conceptualizations or definitions of the Science of Reading.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Code</th><th align="center">How the <italic>Science of Reading</italic> was conceptualized</th><th align="center">Examples</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">Mentioned the Simple View of Reading (Gough and Tunmer <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr49">1986</xref>), Scarborough's Roop and Howe (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr105">2021</xref>) or the Big 5 (National Reading Panel (U.S.) and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr91">2000</xref>)</td><td align="center">"Based on the simple view of reading (Gough and Tunmer <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr49">1986</xref>) the SOR conceptualizes reading comprehension as the product of word recognition and language comprehension, or what Gough and Tunmer (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr49">1986</xref>) originally described as decoding and listening comprehension in English" (Ferrell et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr32">2024</xref>, 5)."Clearly, readers are interested in this topic, which refers to literacy instruction aimed at phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension" (Heubeck <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2023a</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2023b</xref>, n.p.).</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="center">Identified a professional organization (e.g., ILA) or named a literacy leader (e.g., Shanahan)</td><td align="center">"The ILA (n.d.) defines the SOR as 'a corpus of objective investigation and accumulation of reliable evidence about how humans learn to read and how reading should be taught'" (Goodwin and Jiménez <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2020</xref>, S7)"Such a definition is consistent with what Shanahan (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr118">2020a</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr119">2020b</xref>) identified as early pedagogical use of the term science of reading in the 1830s that referred to sounding out words..." (Semingson and Kerns <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr116">2021</xref>, S158)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3</td><td align="center">Included a broader conceptualization of the Science of Reading</td><td align="center">"The debate over the science of reading has focused primarily on decoding (i.e., the ability to connect letters and sounds to read words) and whether to use phonics to teach it. Yet, language comprehension (i.e., the ability to make meaning from oral or written language) is an equally critical component of reading that has received far less attention." (Silverman et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr123">2020</xref>, S207)"We situate education, and the science of reading specifically, in the midst of a broad, evidence‐based revolution involving an array of disciplines focused on improving the health and well‐being of individuals and populations" (Fien et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2021</xref>, S105)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="center">Included a narrow conceptualization of the Science of Reading</td><td align="center">"Discussion of the science of reading in popular media outlets tends to focus on enhancing beginning readers' foundational skills through systematic and explicit phonics instruction during the early grades" (Cabell and Hwang <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">2020</xref>, S99)"But evidence from cognitive psychology and neuroscience research has long shown that good readers attend to the letters in the words to identify what words say. Research has demonstrated that instructing students on how to crack the code of written language is one of the most effective ways to get them reading words" (Schwartz <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr109">2021</xref>, n.p.)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5</td><td align="center">Honed in on one specific aspect of the Science of Reading other than decoding (e.g., knowledge building)</td><td align="center">"Clearly, readers are interested in this topic, which refers to literacy instruction aimed at phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. But within this scripted method [structured literacy] of how to make children proficient readers, there's one critical element that's been largely overlooked: the joy of reading" (Heubeck <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2023a</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2023b</xref>, n.p.)"Within the discussion of the SoR, addressing the unique linguistic character of AAVE is a social justice issue" (Johnson et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr70">2023</xref>, 8)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">6</td><td align="center">Acknowledged tensions in the field</td><td align="center">"We then address three tensions that educators, researchers, school leaders, parents, and community leaders should consider regarding reframing the knowledge gap; how readers' knowledge is activated, integrated, and revised throughout the reading process; and how knowledge is defined within literacy classrooms" (Hattan and Lupo <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">2020</xref>, S283)."One critical issue that spans the old and new debates concerns the amount of phonics instruction that students receive and, consequently, whether teaching syllable division patterns makes the cut" (Kearns <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr73">2020</xref>, S153)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">7</td><td align="center">Acknowledged that the Science of Reading is not settled</td><td align="center">"The science of reading is not a 'settled science' and should not just be concerned with decoding or word recognition. Teaching is both a science and art and attention to both areas is needed to realize full scale implementation of research into practice" (Howe and Roop <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67">2021</xref>, 29)."In this article, to inform the science of reading, we draw on this developing research base to affirm the central role of teaching the academic language commonly found in school texts as a component of supportive reading instruction" (Phillips Galloway et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2020</xref>, S331)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Each article was also read to determine <emph>how</emph> the interpretation and/or conceptualization of the SoR was communicated, and codes were applied (Saldaña [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref28">107</reflink>]) to characterize these methods; this was in response to research question two. This coding process was completed by the first and second authors for all the articles by independently reading, coding, and then meeting to discuss their independent codes. Where there was a lack of agreement on the assigned codes, the first and second authors met to reconcile the coding process and come to a consensus. Table 2 is a description of the codes for how the SoR was used in the articles and cited verbatim quoted examples; articles may have more than one code assigned. Analyses included frequency counts (Nisbet [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref29">92</reflink>]) to determine the number of times each code appeared for the entire sample of articles.</p> <p>2 TABLE Descriptions of codes for how the science of reading conceptualizations are used.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Code</th><th align="center">How the <italic>Science of Reading</italic> interpretation/conceptualization was used</th><th align="center">Descriptions and cited examples</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">Introduction to the Article</td><td align="center">"The science of reading (SoR) represents a view of reading instruction that emphasizes the need for explicit teaching of discrete skills to support reading acquisition (Gonzalez‐Frey and Ehri <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2021</xref>; Perfetti <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr98">2007</xref>; Perfetti and Stafura <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr99">2014</xref>; Stanovich and West <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr125">1989</xref>; Torgesen <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr139">2002</xref>)." (Vaughn et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr142">2020</xref>, S299)"The nature of the literacy assessments valued in the persistent accountability climate within public education in the United States, coupled with an increasingly polarized discourse around what counts as the SoR, have resulted in instructional gatekeeping that privileges constrained skill teaching and learning in K‐3 settings with the most adverse effects experienced by Black, Indigenous, and Communities of Color." (Whittingham et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr147">2024</xref>, 70)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="center">Model/Framework</td><td align="center">"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." (Wilkins <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr148">2023</xref>, 2)"To us, the science of reading means more and includes a systematic approach to phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency; yet, it also supports teaching vocabulary and word‐learning strategies, the development of comprehension, serious attention to motivation, engaging students in a wide range of texts to build broad and deep knowledge, and assessments that guide and evaluate instruction but do not distort it." (Dewitz and Graves <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr23">2021</xref>, S131)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3</td><td align="center">Argument/Stance/Critique of SoR</td><td align="center">"I pay particular attention to how the research on English literacy instruction for ELs coincides with, or diverges from, the science of reading based on research with students who learn to read and develop as readers in a language they already know." (Goldenberg <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr43">2020</xref>, S132)"Perhaps for this reason, opponents of this version of the science of reading (e.g., Hood <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr64">2019</xref>; Strauss <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr129">2018</xref>) have characterized it as 'a return to explicit phonics instruction and the dismissal of other approaches' (Strauss <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr129">2018</xref>, para. 9)' and other important components of early reading development. Although this public debate should not be confused with the body of scientific studies of reading, which is also sometimes collectively referred to as the science of reading, the debate has certainly brought the term to a more public conversation." (Cervetti et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2020</xref>, S126)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="center">Pedagogical/Practice Tool</td><td align="center">"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." (Stocker et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr127">2024</xref>, 520)"Effective instruction based on the science of reading is beneficial for the approximately 40% of students for whom learning to read with general instruction develops fairly easily, but essential for approximately 60% of students for whom learning to read is more difficult (Foorman et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2016</xref>; National Reading Panel (U.S.) and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr91">2000</xref>)." (Murdoch et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr90">2024</xref>, 480)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5</td><td align="center">Standard/Mandate/Policy</td><td align="center">"For example, a 2019 update to Colorado's 2012 Reading to Ensure Academic Development Act, or READ Act, built SoR concepts into law, and media coverage in subsequent years provided a nuanced yet representative example of the interplay between the research and ideologies of lawmakers, journalists, and educators." (Cox and Johns‐O'Leary <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr20">2024</xref>, 24)"Additionally, because curriculum policy in the USA is typically made at the state level, both state legislatures have moved forward curriculum policies (Florida Senate <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2022b</xref>; Virginia Department of Education <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr144">2022</xref>) that require mandated literacy programs and requisite teacher training and certification based on another contentious umbrella term: 'the science of reading.'" (Ferguson and Dernikos <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr31">2023</xref>, 2)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">6</td><td align="center">Theory of Teaching/Learning</td><td align="center">"Like those others, the state is trying to shift toward a vast body of theoretical knowledge and practice called the 'science of reading.'" (Banerji <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2024</xref>, 1)"In fact, a Google search finds that the terms science of reading and simple view appear together in websites over 71,000 times, and although 35 years old, the theory is cited more often now than ever. Yet, science progresses." (Duke and Cartwright <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2021</xref>, S25)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">7</td><td align="center">Curriculum</td><td align="center">"It is notable that 12 of the 26 states surveyed said that they intend to use federal monies for training new literacy curricula indicated and that some of the funds will be used for LETRS training, which is a commercial curriculum more soundly situated within the science of reading." (Yurick et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr156">2024</xref>, 576)"A 2017 law required teachers to be trained in 'scientific reading instruction,' followed by a 2019 law requiring public school curriculum and professional development to 'be in accordance with the science of reading.' Districts were required to use a core reading program from an approved list that 'meets the Science of Reading in all 5 components (i.e., Phonological Awareness, Phonics, Fluency, Vocabulary, Comprehension)' (State Department of Education <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr126">2018</xref>)." (Chaffin et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19">2024</xref>, 262)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">8</td><td align="center">Other</td><td align="center">"Despite the many contributions of science to the study of literacy, I contend that the sciences of reading and writing are too narrowly focused on how to teach either reading or writing and not focused enough on how these two skills can be used to support each other. This is not to say that researchers have completely ignored reading and writing relations and their implications for instruction (see Graham and Hebert <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51">2011</xref>; Graham, Liu, Aitken, et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">2018</xref>; Graham, Liu, Bartlett, et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr53">2018</xref>; Shanahan <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr117">2016</xref>), but such instructional research has not been commonplace, and teaching recommendations drawn from science often have failed to take advantage of how writing and reading can support each other." (Shanahan <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr118">2020a</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr119">2020b</xref>, S35–S36)"Moreover, the renewed focus on early literacy skills, the science of teaching reading (in the early years), and related systematic and vertically aligned programming may have shifted attention away from adolescent literacy." (Cassidy et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2022</xref>, 11)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0193225962-14">Results</hd> <p>The following results respond to the two research questions. The first subsection below describes how the SoR was conceptualized by author(s) based on seven coding categories. The second sub‐section assumes these conceptualizations of the SoR and then presents how these conceptualizations were instrumentally used in the articles.</p> <hd id="AN0193225962-15">Conceptualizations of the Science of Reading</hd> <p>Our first research question addressed how researchers and educators conceptualized the SoR in researcher and practitioner‐oriented publications. Frequency counts were determined by counting the number of articles in which each code (e.g., narrow) of the SoR conceptualizations appeared (Table 3). Additionally, percentages represent the number of articles that included a particular code (e.g., 62.8% of the articles acknowledged tensions in the field). These frequencies reveal interesting trends in how SoR is discussed across the articles.</p> <p>3 TABLE Frequency counts of codes and percentages of articles for how the Science of Reading was conceptualized.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Code</th><th align="center">How the <italic>Science of Reading</italic> was conceptualized</th><th align="center">Frequency count of codes</th><th align="center">Percentage of articles</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">Mentioned the Simple View of Reading (Hoover and Gough <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr65">1990</xref>), Scarborough's Rope (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr108">2001</xref>) or the Big 5 (National Reading Panel (U.S.) and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr91">2000</xref>)</td><td align="center">52</td><td align="center">43</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="center">Identified a professional organization (e.g., ILA) or named a literacy leader (e.g., Shanahan).</td><td align="center">33</td><td align="center">27</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3</td><td align="center">Included a broader conceptualization of the Science of Reading</td><td align="center">57</td><td align="center">47</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="center">Included a narrow conceptualization of the Science of Reading</td><td align="center">110</td><td align="center">91</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5</td><td align="center">Honed in on one specific aspect of the Science of Reading other than decoding (e.g., knowledge building)</td><td align="center">43</td><td align="center">36</td></tr><tr><td align="left">6</td><td align="center">Acknowledged tensions in the field</td><td align="center">76</td><td align="center">63</td></tr><tr><td align="left">7</td><td align="center">Acknowledged that the Science of Reading is not settled</td><td align="center">46</td><td align="center">38</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Many of the articles (<emph>N</emph> = 52, 43%) referenced an authority in the field, such as the prominent frameworks of SVR, Reading Rope, or the Big 5 that are often used as justification for SoR laws (e.g., North Carolina General Assembly [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref30">94</reflink>]) or are used in professional learning (e.g., LETRS training). Other articles (<emph>N</emph> = 33, 27%) relied on professional organizations, such as the International Literacy Association or the Reading League, to anchor their definitions. Articles that were written for researcher audiences were more likely to ground their conceptualizations in frameworks such as Kintsch's ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref31">76</reflink>]) Construction‐Integration Model or Duke and Cartwright's ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref32">26</reflink>]) Active View of Reading, moving beyond the three most common frameworks. Articles that were written for a special issue on the SoR for <emph>Educational Psychologist</emph> offered theoretical advancements in asset‐based instruction and motivation (Gabriel and López [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref33">39</reflink>]), multilingualism (Leider and Proctor [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref34">81</reflink>]), executive functions (Cartwright and Palian [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref35">15</reflink>]), and considering reading components and processes as part of a complex dynamic system (Hattan and Kendeou [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref36">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>Further, results revealed that over 90% (<emph>N</emph> = 110) of the included articles acknowledged a narrow understanding of the SoR. Yet, 47% (<emph>N</emph> = 57) included broader conceptualizations, indicating a possibility that the authors of several articles grappled with both narrow and broad understandings of SoR. For example, Dewitz and Graves ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref37">23</reflink>]) acknowledged a narrow definition by stating, "to most of the popular media, the SoR means decoding, phonics instruction, and the simple view of reading" (p. S131). Yet, they broaden this definition by sharing, "To us, the science of reading means more and includes a systematic approach to phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency; yet it also supports teaching vocabulary and world‐learning strategies, the development of comprehension, serious attention to motivation, engaging students in a wide range of texts to build broad and deep knowledge, and assessments that guide and evaluate instruction but do not distort it" (p. S131). In this way, researchers recognized a narrow view of SoR that is prevalent in media publications, state and local policies, and professional learning, while also embracing the breadth of reading research. Practitioner and public media pieces included narrow conceptualizations, but less frequently acknowledged the simultaneous presence of complementary or conflicting broader understandings. For example, in a publication for <emph>Education Week</emph>, Schwartz ([<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref38">111</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref39">112</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref40">113</reflink>]) wrote, "Decades of studies have shown that the most effective way to teach young children how to [read words] is through phonics instruction: teaching how letters represent sounds, and then how to blend those sounds together" (n.p.).</p> <p>Although decoding is prominent in the SoR discussions, 36% (<emph>N</emph> = 43) of the articles explicitly homed in on an aspect of reading science other than decoding. The foci of these articles ranged from multilingualism or language differences (e.g., Johnson et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref41">70</reflink>]; Noguerón‐Liu [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref42">93</reflink>]), to implementation science (e.g., Hindman et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref43">62</reflink>]; Shanahan [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref44">119</reflink>]), to sociocultural context, culturally relevant pedagogy, and equity (e.g., Aukerman and Schuldt [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref45">5</reflink>]; Milner [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref46">87</reflink>]). They also included articles that focused on supporting comprehension via executive functions (Cartwright and Palian [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref47">15</reflink>]), knowledge building (e.g., Cabell and Hwang [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref48">14</reflink>]; Kaefer [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref49">72</reflink>]), digital reading (Alexander [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref50">2</reflink>]), or foundational skills other than decoding such as fluency (Duffy et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref51">25</reflink>]) and letter names (Roberts [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref52">104</reflink>]). Articles also called for attention to the relation between reading and writing (e.g., Graham [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref53">50</reflink>]; Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref54">74</reflink>]).</p> <p>Additionally, the majority of articles (<emph>N</emph> = 76, 63%) acknowledged tensions in the field, which included 58% (<emph>N</emph> = 26) of practitioner articles and 66% (<emph>N</emph> = 50) of research articles. Yet, only 38% (<emph>N</emph> = 46) explicitly stated that the science was not settled, which included 11% (<emph>N</emph> = 5) of practitioner articles and 54% (<emph>N</emph> = 41) of research articles. Although it is helpful to recognize the varied perspectives that reading experts hold, it is also critical for researchers, educators, and other stakeholders to understand that new research enhances our collective understanding of reading processes and instruction. There is always space to learn more, and the ever‐evolving aspects of reading research could be clearer in practitioner‐facing articles.</p> <hd id="AN0193225962-16">Authors' Use of Conceptualizations of the Science of Reading</hd> <p>Research question two, how are those conceptualizations of SoR used throughout the articles (e.g., introduction, model, argument, standard, curriculum), was answered with a frequency count as well. Table 4 displays the distribution of the frequency counts and percentages of the total codes assigned. Given that articles may have more than one code, the codes were tallied and calculated as percentages of the total number of codes. For all 121 articles, frequency counts were calculated for the eight codes (codes described in Table 2). The majority of articles (93.8%) had more than one code (<emph>N</emph> = 113), and there were 10 articles (9%) that had five or more of the eight potential codes. The right‐hand column of Table 4. displays the percentage of articles that had each respective assigned code.</p> <p>4 TABLE Frequency counts and percentages of codes for how Science of Reading conceptualizations are used.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Code</th><th align="center">How the <italic>Science of Reading</italic> interpretation/conceptualization was used</th><th align="center">Frequency count and percentage of codes</th><th align="center">Percentage of articles</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1</td><td align="center">Introduction to the article</td><td align="center">102 (27%)</td><td align="center">84</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2</td><td align="center">Model/Framework</td><td align="center">87 (23%)</td><td align="center">72</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3</td><td align="center">Argument/Stance/Critique of SoR</td><td align="center">72 (19%)</td><td align="center">60</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4</td><td align="center">Pedagogical/Practice Tool</td><td align="center">53 (14%)</td><td align="center">44</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5</td><td align="center">Standard/Mandate/Policy</td><td align="center">33 (9%)</td><td align="center">27</td></tr><tr><td align="left">6</td><td align="center">Theory of Teaching/Learning</td><td align="center">5 (1%)</td><td align="center">4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">7</td><td align="center">Curriculum</td><td align="center">15 (4%)</td><td align="center">12</td></tr><tr><td align="left">8</td><td align="center">Other (specify)</td><td align="center">10 (3%)</td><td align="center">8</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="center">Total</td><td align="center">377 (100%)</td><td align="center" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>With reference back to Table 2 for examples, the most frequent code was "introduction to the article," as 84% (<emph>N</emph> = 102) of the articles used the science of reading to begin positioning their paper. This usage represents a notable proportion of the total number of codes at 27%. Next, authors used the SoR as if it were a "model or framework" that had been established—as was the case for 72% (<emph>N</emph> = 87) of the articles and was a proportion of 23% of the total codes. A fair number of authors (60%; <emph>N</emph> = 72) took a "stance" and/or made an "argument (for or against) or critiqued" the science of reading; as a proportion, this was 19%. Under half of the articles (44%; <emph>N</emph> = 53) or a 14% proportion espoused the SoR as a "pedagogy" or form of reading instructional practice. For about a quarter of the articles (27%; <emph>N</emph> = 33), the SoR was referenced as a "standard, mandate or policy" that was required by a given jurisdiction (proportion of 9% of the total codes). Authors referred to SoR as a "theory of teaching/learning" least often (4%, <emph>N</emph> = 5), which represented a very small proportion (1%) of the total codes in this category. For 12% (<emph>N</emph> = 15) of the articles, the SoR was regarded as a curriculum for teaching reading (4% of the proportion of codes). Finally, for 8% (<emph>N</emph> = 10) articles, the SoR was used in ways that did not align with the previously mentioned seven codes. Examples of this use were: a survey of evidence‐based literacy research (Cassidy et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref55">16</reflink>]); the reading sciences (Englebretson et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref56">28</reflink>]); the science of teaching reading (Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref57">74</reflink>]); the translation of the SoR (Solari et al. [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref58">124</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0193225962-17">Discussion</hd> <p>This systematic review examined articles published in the past 8 years (2017–2025) to describe how the SoR has been defined and conceptualized in educational research. We also analyzed how these conceptualizations of the SoR were instrumentally used by author(s). The results indicate that, predominantly, researchers and educators present a narrow understanding of the SoR, yet this narrow understanding is often coupled with broader perspectives. Well over half of the articles acknowledge tensions in the field of reading research and education, revealing inconsistencies related to terminology that must be recognized by scholars and practitioners as they make claims and critiques about the SoR. Further, while not the primary focus of this study, the findings suggest that practitioner‐oriented articles tend to use narrower, more prescriptive definitions whereas researcher‐oriented articles offer broader and more nuanced definitions.</p> <p>As a field, if we seek a broad and evolving conceptualization of the SoR to be included in the media and policy decisions, then researchers need to better identify and explain the SoR tensions with practitioners, administrators, and policy makers and the nature of evolving research fields. There is also a need to emphasize the nuances and complexities of reading processes and instruction in popular discourse, as these public conversations shape legislative mandates, approved curricula, and school, district, or state‐level policies regarding reading instruction. Therefore, there needs to be a balance between being succinct and clear for practitioner and public audiences, while also acknowledging the complexity and evolving nature of reading science.</p> <p>The results of our analyses point to authors frequently using or citing the SoR as a rhetorical and conceptual anchor in the article's introduction—one that presents a guiding model of reading instruction or frames a stance on the SoR. Whether the introduction either explicitly or implicitly refers to the SoR as a model or framework, using the SoR to position the introduction of a paper is an influential writing technique to set the stage for a compelling stance or argument to be made in the piece. This may also conjure reader interest, given the current debate about the SoR in literacy research and education. Even if the focus of a given article only tangentially addressed the specific SoR model or framework itself, the introduction sought to situate the article within or connect it thematically to the SoR. In the sizable proportion of articles that specifically used the concept of the SoR as a model or a framework, author(s) implied that the SoR has a recognizable, structured approach to teaching and learning. This would suggest that the SoR is based on a prescribed set of beliefs, values, and practices related to how educators should teach and how students learn. As Johnson ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref59">71</reflink>]) notes, educational models and frameworks can be cited to develop curricula, select instructional resources, and guide pedagogy. Thus, by referring to the SoR as a model or framework, author(s) might be seeking to validate the discourse and conjure a degree of credibility as they refer to the concept.</p> <p>Given the increasing interest in and special issues on the SoR (particularly from 2020 onwards), it was not surprising that over half of the articles reviewed either expressed a stance related to the SoR or made an argument for the SoR or critiqued the SoR. As pointed out above, there were many articles that describe the current tensions in the field of reading research–this was reflective of our diverse sample of articles garnered from both researcher‐ and practitioner‐oriented sources. Just under half of the articles used the SoR as an identifiable form of reading instructional practice or pedagogy. This has powerful implications as teachers' pedagogy is influenced by their theories of learning, understandings of students and their backgrounds, needs, and interests; pedagogy dictates teachers' instructional methods and teaching strategies (Shulman [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref60">120</reflink>]). Over one quarter of the articles used the SoR as a piece of governance, referring to it as a standard or policy or in some cases as a required mandate. It is well established that standards, policies, and mandates in education all have systemic implications on all levels of education (Sider [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref61">122</reflink>]), and framing and using the SoR in this manner is a powerful tool. Finally, and overall, it is worth highlighting that the majority of articles (93.8%) used the conceptualization of the SoR in more than one way. This suggests that authors are assuming that the concept of SoR has utility or instrumentality. This pattern suggests that the SoR is understood as a concept that can be mobilized strategically to serve different purposes within a text.</p> <hd id="AN0193225962-18">Implications and Call for Special Issue</hd> <p>As researchers and educators engaged in this discourse, we recognize that as the conceptualizations of the SoR become further entrenched in educational research, practice, and policy that we need to interrogate the politicized use of the term SoR. Herein, we have examined the "<emph>what?</emph>" or the ways that the concept of SoR has been presented in the recent literature and "<emph>how?</emph>" author(s) are using this conceptualization. Now, it is timely to expand on the "<emph>how?</emph>" with a question for prospective authors to respond to in a call for a fourth RRQ Special Issue: <emph>How is the SoR shaping policies, practices, research, mandates, and politics?</emph> Policies might include instructional guides, curriculum, resources, guidelines, mandates, recommendations, and laws. Practices involve pedagogies, instructional methods, and approaches that are taken up in response to the policies or mandates. Research method types and various techniques are all welcomed in response to this call. Mandates might include policy documents and agendas, legislative directives and contexts, codified laws and acts, jurisdictional communiques, reports, and published statements. Politics may encompass the public, institutional and/or governmental forces that promote agendas, structures, pressures related to the SoR and how these, in turn, influence and shape the decision‐making on how reading research is interpreted and applied in education.</p> <p>Our systematic review shows that the SoR influences the current educational discourse, research, policies, and pedagogical practices across the mainstream educational landscape. The research shows that for researchers and educators, the SoR (whether as a model/framework, argument, pedagogical tool, policy, or theory) is being researched, evaluated, discussed, applied, critiqued, interpreted, and/or legalized/legitimized in educational research, practice, and mandates. What is more, although beyond the scope of our study, our findings on definitional differences and variations of the SoR between practitioner‐directed articles and research‐facing articles point to a need for future research on how such differing framings and discourses circulate and shape policy, research, and classroom contexts as well as the public narrative of reading instruction.</p> <p>We contend that the various understandings of and approaches to SoR are influenced by and influence internal and external forces, which individually and collectively can have a tangible impact and far‐reaching consequences, especially in terms of our understanding of and approaches to how children learn to read and are taught to read. Whether the influence lies in funding allocations, curricular mandates, professional development opportunities, research directions, instructional approaches, performance measures, etc., these realities do in fact alter how researchers, educators, policymakers/legislators, curriculum designers, and the media eventually respond to, interpret, apply, and promote the SoR.</p> <p>Consequently, given its social and educational currency, the SoR has become increasingly politicized, with its advocates often using it to develop, promote, and/or justify resultant policy mandates, curriculum reform, research foci/directions, publication opportunities, and instructional practices. It is against this backdrop that we ask: <emph>How is the SoR shaping policies, practices, research, mandates, and politics?</emph> We recognize that there is more than ever, a need for critical inquiry into the conceptions of the SoR and how specific interpretations of the SoR might have a unifying, diversifying, marginalizing, and/or polarizing impact on our views of and approaches to children's literacy development.</p> <hd id="AN0193225962-19">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>We wish to acknowledge the significant contribution made by Research Assistant, Roselyn Gishen (Ph.D. student, Brock University), that relates specifically to the use of the PRISMA method, the Covidence platform, database searches, and summary of methodological procedure.</p> <hd id="AN0193225962-20">Funding</hd> <p>The authors have nothing to report.</p> <hd id="AN0193225962-21">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>The authors have nothing to report.</p> <hd id="AN0193225962-22">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest. All published articles, including those authored by editorial board members, undergo strict peer review. This article was submitted by an editor of the journal using the standard double‐anonymized submission process with independent reviewers that applies to all authors. The manuscript was assigned to and managed independently by another member of the editorial board to avoid any conflict of interest, ensure an impartial, rigorous, and objective review process. [Corrections added on 17 March 2026, after first online publication: The last 3 sentences of the Conflicts of Interest statement have been added to clarify the peer review process for this article.]</p> <hd id="AN0193225962-23">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available in ERIC at https://eric.ed.gov. These data were derived from the following resources available in the public domain: ERIC https://eric.ed.gov; Web of Science https://clarivate.com/academia‐government/scientific‐and‐academic‐research/research‐discovery‐and‐referencing/web‐of‐science/.</p> <ref id="AN0193225962-24"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref11" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alexander, P. A.2020a. "Methodological Guidance Paper: The Art and Science of Quality Systematic Reviews." Review of Educational Research90, no. 1: 6–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref50" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> *Alexander, P. A.2020b. "What Research Has Revealed About Readers' Struggles With Comprehension in the Digital Age: Moving Beyond the Phonics Versus Whole Language Debate." Reading Research Quarterly55, no. S1: S89–S97. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.331.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> *Arya, D. J., and A. Maul. 2021. "Why Sociocultural Context Matters in the Science of Reading and the Reading of Science: Revisiting the Science Discovery Narrative." Reading Research Quarterly56, no. S1: S273–S286. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.393.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> *Au, K., and T. E. Raphael. 2021. "What Matters." Reading Research Quarterly56, no. S1: S65–S67. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.403.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref25" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> *Aukerman, M., and L. C. Schuldt. 2021. "What Matters Most? Toward a Robust and Socially Just Science of Reading." Reading Research Quarterly56, no. S1: S85–S103. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.406.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> *Aydarova, E.2023. ""Whatever You Want to Call It": Science of Reading Mythologies in the Education Reform Movement." Harvard Educational Review93, no. 4: 556–581. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943‐5045‐93.4.556.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> *Aydarova, E.2024. "What You See Is Not What You Get: Science of Reading Reforms as a Guise for Standardization, Centralization, and Privatization." American Journal of Education130, no. 4: 653–685. https://doi.org/10.1086/730991.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> *Banerji, O.2024. "Principals Have a Lead Role in the 'Science of Reading.' Are They Ready? Education Week."https://<ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/leadership/principals‐have‐a‐lead‐role‐in‐the‐science‐of‐reading‐are‐they‐ready/2024/05">www.edweek.org/leadership/principals‐have‐a‐lead‐role‐in‐the‐science‐of‐reading‐are‐they‐ready/2024/05</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> *Bauer, E., A. Razfar, A. Skerrett, C. L. Dobbs, B. G. Jang, and S. A. Parsons. 2024. "Science of Literacies: Meaning Making & Critical Pragmatism in the Postdigital Age." Journal of Literacy Research56, no. 1: 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X241226798.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Beltchenko, L.2024. "A Practitioner's Guide to the Illinois Comprehensive Literacy Plan, and Implications for the Advanced, Accelerated, High Potential, and Gifted Literacy Learner." Illinois Reading Council Journal52, no. 4: 12–21. https://doi.org/10.33600/IRCJ.52.4.2024.12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Bose, S.2023. "Professional Development for the Science of Reading." Phi Delta Kappan104, no. 5: 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217231156228.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Bragg, S.2022. "Taking the First Steps With Science of Reading." Indiana Literacy Journal50, no. 2: 28–30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Brinegar, K., L. Harrison, and E. Hurd. 2024. "Toward a Culturally Sustaining Science of Reading." Middle School Journal55, no. 3: 2–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2024.2332142.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Cabell, S. Q., and H. Hwang. 2020. "Building Content Knowledge to Boost Comprehension in the Primary Grades." Reading Research Quarterly55, no. S1: S99–S107. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.338.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Cartwright, K. B., and S. R. Palian. 2024. "Considering Roles of Executive Functions in the Science of Reading: A Meta‐Analysis Highlighting Promises and Challenges of Reading‐Specific Executive Functions." Educational Psychologist59, no. 4: 263–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2024.2418392.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Cassidy, J., S. Grote‐Garcia, and E. Ortlieb. 2022. "What's Hot in 2021: Beyond the Science of Reading." Literacy Research & Instruction61, no. 1: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2021.2011236.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Cerdán, R., I. Máñez, and M. Serrano‐Mendizábal. 2021. "Reading From Multiple Documents: The Role of Text Availability and Question Type." Reading Research Quarterly56, no. S1: S209–S220. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.380.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Cervetti, G. N., P. D. Pearson, A. S. Palincsar, et al. 2020. "How the Reading for Understanding Initiative's Research Complicates the Simple View of Reading Invoked in the Science of Reading." Reading Research Quarterly55, no. S1: S161–S172. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.343.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Chaffin, M., H. S. Riesco, K. Hackett‐Hill, V. Collet, M. Y. Grizzle, and J. Warren. 2024. "'Phonics Monkeys' and 'Real Life Reading': Heteroglossic Views of a State Reading Initiative." Literacy Research & Instruction63, no. 3: 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2023.2271085.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Cox, O. J., and E. Johns‐O'Leary. 2024. "Media, Legislation, and the Science of Reading: Understanding Policy Narratives for a Path to Collaboration." Journal of Literacy Research56, no. 1: 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X241226475.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *David, A. D., A. Consalvo, S. Grote‐Garcia, A. Burke, K. Jansky, and P. Semingson. 2020. "Teaching Goldilocks to Read: Too Much, Too Little, or the Just Right Amount of Phonics?" English in Texas50, no. 1: 42–49. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1304607.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *de Oliveira‐Mens, S., and C. Leite. 2024. "Curriculum Policies in the Field of Initial Reading Instruction in Brazil: From Theoretical‐Epistemological‐Didactic Advances to the Contemporary Blackout." Educar Em Revista40: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984‐0411.93007‐T.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Dewitz, P., and M. F. Graves. 2021. "The Science of Reading: Four Forces That Modified, Distorted, or Ignored the Research Finding on Reading Comprehension." Reading Research Quarterly56, no. S1: S131–S144. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.389.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Dilgard, C., T. S. Hodges, and J. Coleman. 2022. "Phonics Instruction in Early Literacy: Examining Professional Learning, Instructional Resources, and Intervention Intensity." Reading Psychology43, no. 8: 541–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2022.2126045.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Duffy, M. A., D. L. Mazzye, M. Storie, and R. L. Lamb. 2024. "Professional Development and Coaching in the Science of Reading: Impacts on Oral Reading Fluency in Comparison to National Norms." International Journal of Instruction17, no. 1: 533–558.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Duke, N. K., and K. B. Cartwright. 2021. "The Science of Reading Progresses: Communicating Advances Beyond the Simple View of Reading." Reading Research Quarterly56, no. S1: S25–S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Durán, L., and M. Hikida. 2022. "Making Sense of Reading's Forever Wars." Phi Delta Kappan103, no. 8: 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217221100003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Englebretson, R., M. C. Holbrook, and S. Fischer‐Baum. 2023. "A Position Paper on Researching Braille in the Cognitive Sciences: Decentering the Sighted Norm." Applied PsychoLinguistics44, no. 3: 400–415. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716423000061.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ex Libris Knowledge Center. n.d. "Ulrichsweb Global Serials Directory: Glossary of Terms."https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Ulrich's/Product_Documentation/Searching/Ulrichsweb%3A_Glossary_of_Terms.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Falk‐Ross, F., K. A. Gormley, and P. McDermott. 2024. "Examining the Evidence for Selecting Reading Programs in a Large Urban School System." Language and Literacy Spectrum34, no. 1: 1–18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Ferguson, D. E., and B. P. Dernikos. 2023. "Reorienting Curriculum Materials as Agents of Restorative Justice in Early Literacy Classrooms." Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood24, no. 2: 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/14639491231162314.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Ferrell, A. L., L. Soltero‐González, and S. Kamioka. 2024. "Beyond English Centrality: Integrating Expansive Conceptions of Language for Literacy Programming Into IEPs." Frontiers in Education9: 1347503. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1347503.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Fien, H., D. J. Chard, and S. K. Baker. 2021. "Can the Evidence Revolution and Multi‐Tiered Systems of Support Improve Education Equity and Reading Achievement?" Reading Research Quarterly56, no. S1: S105–S118. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.391.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Florida Senate. 2022b. "CS/HB 7011: Student Literacy."https://<ulink href="http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7011/ByCategory">www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7011/ByCategory</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foorman, B. R., Y. Petscher, C. Stanley, and A. Truckenmiller. 2016. "Latent Profiles of Reading and Language and Their Association With Standardized Reading Outcomes in Kindergarten Through Tenth Grade." Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness10, no. 3: 619–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1237597.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Gabriel, R.2020a. "Beyond the Label: Looking at the Science of Reading Instruction." Literacy Today38, no. 2: 34–37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Gabriel, R.2020b. "The Future of the Science of Reading." Reading Teacher74, no. 1: 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1924.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Gabriel, R.2024. "The Science of Reading and Deaf Education." Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education29, no. 4: 556–557. https://doi.org/10.1093/jdsade/enae035.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Gabriel, R., and F. López. 2024. "The Role of Asset‐Based Pedagogy in an Interactive View of Reading." Educational Psychologist59, no. 4: 233–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2024.2394031.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gabriel, R., and S. Woulfin. 2022. "The Science of Reading as a Movement: Five Tensions at the Intersection of Science, Policy, and Practice." Reading Research Quarterly57, no. 1: S157–S171. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.438.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Galbally, J., and N. Scharff. 2022. "Pilot Study of the Dynamic Early Literacy Framework for Implementation of Science of Reading Aligned Instruction." Journal of Inquiry and Action in Education11, no. 1: 1–36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Galloway, E. P., J. B. McClain, and P. Uccelli. 2020. "Broadening the Lens on the Science of Reading: A Multifaceted Perspective on the Role of Academic Language in Text Understanding." Reading Research Quarterly55, no. 1: S331–S345. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.359.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Goldenberg, C.2020. "Reading Wars, Reading Science, and English Learners." Reading Research Quarterly55, no. 1: S131–S143. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.340.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Goldenberg, C.2021a. "Science of Reading Advocates Have a Messaging Problem. Education Week."https://<ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/opinion‐science‐of‐reading‐advocates‐have‐a‐messaging‐problem/2021/05">www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/opinion‐science‐of‐reading‐advocates‐have‐a‐messaging‐problem/2021/05</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Goldenberg, C.2021b. "The Science of Reading Should Make Room for Skepticism (Just Not for Ignorance)."Education Week. https://<ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/opinion‐the‐science‐of‐reading‐should‐make‐room‐for‐skepticism‐just‐not‐for‐ignorance/2021/09">www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/opinion‐the‐science‐of‐reading‐should‐make‐room‐for‐skepticism‐just‐not‐for‐ignorance/2021/09</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Goldman, S. R.2024. "Reading Is Complex: Implications for Research and Practice." Educational Psychologist59, no. 4: 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2024.2418062.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzalez‐Frey, S. M., and L. C. Ehri. 2021. "Connected Phonation is More Effective than Segmented Phonation for Teaching Beginning Readers to Decode Unfamiliar Words." Scientific Studies of Reading25, no. 3: 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2020.1776290.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Goodwin, A. P., and R. T. Jiménez. 2020. "The Science of Reading: Supports, Critiques, and Questions." Reading Research Quarterly55, no. S1: S7–S16. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.360.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gough, P. B., and W. E. Tunmer. 1986. "Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability." Remedial and Special Education7, no. 1: 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Graham, S.2020. "The Sciences of Reading and Writing Must Become More Fully Integrated." Reading Research Quarterly55, no. S1: S35–S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.332.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham, S., and M. Hebert. 2011. "Writing to Read: A Meta‐Analysis of the Impact of Writing and Writing Instruction on Reading." Harvard Educational Review81, no. 4: 710–744. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.4.t2k0m13756113566.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham, S., X. Liu, A. Aitken, et al. 2018. "Effectiveness of Literacy Programs Balancing Reading and Writing Instruction: A Meta‐Analysis." Reading Research Quarterly53, no. 3: 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.194.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham, S., X. Liu, B. Bartlett, et al. 2018. "Reading for Writing: A Meta‐Analysis of the Impact of Reading Interventions on Writing." Review of Educational Research88, no. 2: 243–284. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317746927.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Hahn, J.2022. "When the 'Science of Reading' Goes Too Far."Education Week. https://<ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/opinion‐when‐the‐science‐of‐reading‐goes‐too‐far/2022/07">www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/opinion‐when‐the‐science‐of‐reading‐goes‐too‐far/2022/07</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanford, E. (Executive Producer)2018—Present. "Hard Words: Why Aren't Our Kids Being Taught to Read?" [Audio podcast]. American Public Media. <ulink href="http://www.apmreports.org/episode/2018/09/10/hard‐words‐why‐american‐kids‐arent‐being‐taught‐to‐read">www.apmreports.org/episode/2018/09/10/hard‐words‐why‐american‐kids‐arent‐being‐taught‐to‐read</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Hattan, C., and P. Kendeou. 2024. "Expanding the Science of Reading: Contributions From Educational Psychology." Educational Psychologist59, no. 4: 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2024.2418048.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Hattan, C., and S. M. Lupo. 2020. "Rethinking the Role of Knowledge in the Literacy Classroom." Reading Research Quarterly55, no. S1: S283–S298. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.350.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Heubeck, E.2023a. "I Literally Cried": Teachers Describe Their Transition to Science‐Based Reading InstructionEducation Week. https://<ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/i‐literally‐cried‐teachers‐describe‐their‐transition‐to‐science‐based‐reading‐instruction/2023/09">www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/i‐literally‐cried‐teachers‐describe‐their‐transition‐to‐science‐based‐reading‐instruction/2023/09</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Heubeck, E.2023b. "Reading Aloud to Students Shouldn't Get Lost in Shift to "science of reading," Teachers Say."Education Week. https://<ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/reading‐aloud‐to‐students‐shouldnt‐get‐lost‐in‐shift‐to‐science‐of‐reading‐teachers‐say/2023/12">www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/reading‐aloud‐to‐students‐shouldnt‐get‐lost‐in‐shift‐to‐science‐of‐reading‐teachers‐say/2023/12</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Hiebert, E. H.2023. "Thinking Through Research and the Science of Reading." Phi Delta Kappan105, no. 2: 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217231205940.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Hill, S.2022. "Caught in the Cross Fires: Assessment of Early Reading." Practical Literacy: The Early & Primary Years27, no. 1: 4–5. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.279563433194351.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Hindman, A. H., F. J. Morrison, C. M. Connor, and J. A. Connor. 2020. "Bringing the Science of Reading to Preservice Elementary Teachers: Tools That Bridge Research and Practice." Reading Research Quarterly55, no. S1: S197–S206. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.345.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Hoffman, J. V., M. Hikida, and M. Sailors. 2020. "Contesting Science That Silences: Amplifying Equity, Agency, and Design Research in Literacy Teacher Preparation." Reading Research Quarterly55, no. S1: S255–S266. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.353.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hood, M.2019. "What the New Reading Wars Get Wrong."Education Week, September 10. https://<ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2019/09/11/what‐the‐new‐reading‐wars‐get‐wrong.html">www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2019/09/11/what‐the‐new‐reading‐wars‐get‐wrong.html</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoover, W., and P. Gough. 1990. "The Simple View of Reading." Reading and Writing2, no. 2: 127–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Hoover, W. A., and W. E. Tunmer. 2022. "The Primacy of Science in Communicating Advances in the Science of Reading." Reading Research Quarterly57, no. 2: 399–408. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.446.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Howe, K., and T. Roop. 2021. "Missing Pieces and Voices: Steps for Teachers to Engage in Science of Reading Policy and Practice." Michigan Reading Journal54, no. 1: 28–34. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mrj/vol54/iss1/9/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Infante‐Green, A.2025. "Don't Blame "Science of Reading" for Low Scores."Education Week. https://<ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/opinion‐dont‐blame‐science‐of‐reading‐for‐low‐scores/2025/02">www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/opinion‐dont‐blame‐science‐of‐reading‐for‐low‐scores/2025/02</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Jensen, B.2021. "Advancing the Science of Teaching Reading Equitably." Reading Research Quarterly56, no. S1: S69–S84. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.409.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Johnson, K. P., S. L. Graves, M. A. Jones, et al. 2023. "Understanding African American Vernacular English and Reading Achievement: Implications for the Science of Reading." School Psychology38, no. 1: 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000516.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, M.1967. "Definitions and Models in Curriculum Theory." Educational Theory17: 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741‐5446.1967.tb00295.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Kaefer, T.2020. "When Did You Learn It? How Background Knowledge Impacts Attention and Comprehension in Read‐Aloud Activities." Reading Research Quarterly55, no. S1: S173–S183. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.344.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Kearns, D. M.2020. "Does English Have Useful Syllable Division Patterns?" Reading Research Quarterly55, no. S1: S145–S160. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.342.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Kim, Y.‐S. G., K. R. Harris, R. Goldstone, A. Camping, and S. Graham. 2025. "The Science of Teaching Reading Is Incomplete Without the Science of Writing: A Randomized Control Trial of Integrated Teaching of Reading and Writing." Scientific Studies of Reading29, no. 1: 32–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2024.2380272.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Kim, Y.‐S. G., and C. E. Snow. 2021. "The Science of Reading Is Incomplete Without the Science of Teaching Reading." Reading League2, no. 3: 5–8 & 10–13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kintsch, W.1998. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Kittle, J. M., S. J. Amendum, and C. M. Budde. 2024. "What Does Research Say About the Science of Reading for K‐5 Multilingual Learners? A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews." Educational Psychology Review36, no. 4: 108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐024‐09942‐6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Kuo, N.‐C.2023. "Instructing Students With Dyslexia Through Structured Literacy." International Journal of Education, Technology & Science3, no. 1: 110–124. https://ijets.org/index.php/IJETS/article/view/97.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Lammert, C., K. Allen, A. Van Wig, and B. Worthen. 2022. "Teacher Educator and In‐Service Teachers' Self‐Efficacy and Professional Literacy Knowledge in the Context of the Science of Reading Era." Teacher Educator57, no. 4: 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2022.2034199.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Lammert, C., and L. D. Brice. 2024. "The Impact of Interviewing a Reading Interventionist on Preservice Teachers' Self‐Efficacy and Views of Reading Instruction." Teaching and Teacher Education144: 104579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104579.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Leider, C. M., and C. P. Proctor. 2024. "Toward a Dynamic Idiolect: Multilingual Perspectives on the 'Science of Reading'." Educational Psychologist59, no. 4: 250–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2024.2394026.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lowman, S. (Director)2017. "Teach Us All [Film]. The Lowell Milken Center for Unsung Heroes."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *MacKay, E., E. Lynch, T. S. Duncan, and S. H. Deacon. 2021. "Informing the Science of Reading: Students' Awareness of Sentence‐Level Information Is Important for Reading Comprehension." Reading Research Quarterly56, no. S1: S221–S230. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.397.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *MacPhee, D., L. J. Handsfield, and P. Paugh. 2021. "Conflict or Conversation? Media Portrayals of the Science of Reading." Reading Research Quarterly56, no. S1: S145–S155. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.384.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Marek, M. C., and V. Godfrey. 2024. "Elementary Preservice Teachers' Experiences at the Intersection of Culturally Sustaining and Historically Responsive Pedagogy, Early Literacy, and the Science of Reading." Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice73, no. 1: 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/23813377241285830.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Miles, K. P., K. E. McFadden, D. Colenbrander, and L. C. Ehri. 2022. "Maximising Access to Reading Intervention: Comparing Small Group and One‐To‐One Protocols of Reading Rescue." Journal of Research in Reading45, no. 3: 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9817.12383.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Milner, H. R.2020. "Disrupting Racism and Whiteness in Researching a Science of Reading." Reading Research Quarterly55, no. S1: S249–S253. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.347.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moher, D., A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D. G. Altman. 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses: The PRISMA Statement." BMJ339, no. 7716: 332–336. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Mosley Wetzel, M., A. Skerrett, B. Maloch, et al. 2020. "Resisting Positionings of Struggle in "Science of Teaching Reading" Discourse: Counterstories of Teachers and Teacher Educators in Texas." Reading Research Quarterly55, no. S1: S319–S330. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.358.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Murdoch, A., J. Q. Morrison, and W. Strickler. 2024. "Process Evaluation of a Problem‐Solving Approach for Analyzing Literacy Practices Within a Multi‐Tiered System of Supports Framework." Behavior and Social Issues33, no. 1: 479–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822‐024‐00166‐5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Reading Panel (U.S.) National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.). 2000. Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence‐Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction: Reports of the Subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nisbet, J. D.1961. "Frequency Counts and Their Uses." Educational Research3, no. 1: 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188600030104.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Noguerón‐Liu, S.2020. "Expanding the Knowledge Base in Literacy Instruction and Assessment: Biliteracy and Translanguaging Perspectives From Families, Communities, and Classrooms." Reading Research Quarterly55, no. S1: S307–S318. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.354.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> North Carolina General Assembly. 2021. "Session Law 2021‐8 (Senate Bill 387)."https://<ulink href="http://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2021/Bills/Senate/PDF/S387v6.pdf">www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2021/Bills/Senate/PDF/S387v6.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Page, M. J., J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, et al. 2021. "The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews." Systematic Reviews10, no. 1: 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643‐021‐01626‐4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Paige, D. D., C. Young, T. V. Rasinski, W. H. Rupley, W. D. Nichols, and M. Valerio. 2021. "Teaching Reading Is More Than a Science: It's Also an Art." Reading Research Quarterly56, no. S1: S339–S350. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.388.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Peng, P., and J. M. Goodrich. 2020. "The Cognitive Element Model of Reading Instruction." Reading Research Quarterly55, no. S1: S77–S88. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.336.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C.2007. "Reading Ability: Lexical Quality to Comprehension." Scientific Studies of Reading11, no. 4: 357–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C., and J. Stafura. 2014. "Word Knowledge in a Theory of Reading Comprehension." Scientific Studies of Reading18, no. 1: 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Petscher, Y., S. Q. Cabell, H. W. Catts, et al. 2020. "How the Science of Reading Informs 21st‐Century Education." Reading Research Quarterly55, no. Suppl 1: S267–S282. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.352.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Rasinski, T., W. Nichols, D. Paige, W. Rupley, C. Young, and M. Valerio. 2020. "Teaching Reading: A Blend of Art and Science." Literacy Today38, no. 2: 46–47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Ray, K., K. Dally, K. Colyvas, and A. E. Lane. 2021. "The Effects of a Whole‐Class Kindergarten Handwriting Intervention on Early Reading Skills." Reading Research Quarterly56, no. S1: S193–S207. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.395.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Reinking, D., G. G. Hruby, and V. J. Risko. 2023. "Legislating Phonics: Settled Science or Political Polemics?" Teachers College Record125, no. 1: 104–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681231155688.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Roberts, T. A.2021. "Learning Letters: Evidence and Questions From a Science‐Of‐Reading Perspective." Reading Research Quarterly56, no. S1: S171–S192. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.394.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Roop, T. D., and K. S. Howe. 2021. "What Teachers (Really) Need to Know About the Science of Reading & Dyslexia." Reading in Virginia43: 43–48. https://heyzine.com/flip‐book/10dfac1a75.html#page/48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Rowe, M. W., and R. R. Soulen. 2023. "The Science of Reading and School Libraries." Knowledge Quest52, no. 2: 38. link.gale.com/apps/doc/A774475136/AONE?u=st46245&sid=bookmark‐AONE&xid=488b8446.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña, J.2009. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage Publications Ltd.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scarborough, H. S.2001. "Connecting Early Language and Literacy to Later Reading (Dis)abilities: Evidence, Theory, and Practice." In Handbook for Research in Early Literacy, edited by S. Neuman and D. Dickinson, 97–110. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Schwartz, S.2021. "Popular Literacy Materials Get 'Science of Reading' Overhaul. But Will Teaching Change?"Education Week. https://<ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/popular‐literacy‐materials‐get‐science‐of‐reading‐overhaul‐but‐will‐teaching‐change/2021/10">www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/popular‐literacy‐materials‐get‐science‐of‐reading‐overhaul‐but‐will‐teaching‐change/2021/10</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Schwartz, S.2022. "Why Putting the 'Science of Reading' Into Practice Is So Challenging."Education Week. https://<ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/why‐putting‐the‐science‐of‐reading‐into‐practice‐is‐so‐challenging/2022/07">www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/why‐putting‐the‐science‐of‐reading‐into‐practice‐is‐so‐challenging/2022/07</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Schwartz, S.2023a. "With Moms for Liberty Endorsement, 'Science of Reading' Faced More Political Controversy."Education Week. https://<ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/with‐moms‐for‐liberty‐endorsement‐science‐of‐reading‐faces‐more‐political‐controversy/2023/10">www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/with‐moms‐for‐liberty‐endorsement‐science‐of‐reading‐faces‐more‐political‐controversy/2023/10</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Schwartz, S.2023b. "To Move Past the Reading Wars, We Must Understand Where They Started."Education Week. https://<ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/to‐move‐past‐the‐reading‐wars‐we‐must‐understand‐where‐they‐started/2023/08">www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/to‐move‐past‐the‐reading‐wars‐we‐must‐understand‐where‐they‐started/2023/08</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Schwartz, S.2023c. "Why Some Teachers' Unions Oppose 'Science of Reading' Legislation."Education Week. https://<ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/why‐some‐teachers‐unions‐oppose‐science‐of‐reading‐legislation/2023/03">www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/why‐some‐teachers‐unions‐oppose‐science‐of‐reading‐legislation/2023/03</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Schwartz, S.2024. "The 'Science of Reading' in 2024: 5 State Initiatives to Watch."Education Week. https://<ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/the‐science‐of‐reading‐in‐2024‐5‐state‐initiatives‐to‐watch/2024/01">www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/the‐science‐of‐reading‐in‐2024‐5‐state‐initiatives‐to‐watch/2024/01</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Seidenberg, M. S., M. Cooper Borkenhagen, and D. M. Kearns. 2020. "Lost in Translation? Challenges in Connecting Reading Science and Educational Practice." Reading Research Quarterly55, no. S1: S119–S130. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.341.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Semingson, P., and W. Kerns. 2021. "Where Is the Evidence? Looking Back to Jeanne Chall and Enduring Debates About the Science of Reading." Reading Research Quarterly56, no. S1: S157–S169. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.405.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shanahan, T.2016. "Relationships Between Reading and Writing Development." In Handbook of Writing Research, edited by C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, and J. Fitzgerald, 2nd ed., 194–207. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Shanahan, T.2020a. "The Science of Reading: Making Sense of Research." Reading Teacher74, no. 2: 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1940.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Shanahan, T.2020b. "What Constitutes a Science of Reading Instruction?" Reading Research Quarterly55, no. S1: S235–S247. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.349.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shulman, L.1987. "Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform." Harvard Educational Review15, no. 2: 4–14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siddaway, A. P., A. M. Wood, and L. V. Hedges. 2019. "How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta‐Analyses, and Meta‐Syntheses." Annual Review of Psychology70: 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐psych‐010418‐102803.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sider, S.2020. Policies That Foster Education for All: Implications for Economically Wealthy Nations. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore‐9780190264093‐e‐1027.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Silverman, R. D., E. Johnson, K. Keane, and S. Khanna. 2020. "Beyond Decoding: A Meta‐Analysis of the Effects of Language Comprehension Interventions on K–5 Students' Language and Literacy Outcomes." Reading Research Quarterly55, no. S1: S207–S233. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.346.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Solari, E. J., N. P. Terry, N. Gaab, et al. 2020. "Translational Science: A Road Map for the Science of Reading." Reading Research Quarterly55, no. S1: S347–S360. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.357.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanovich, K. E., and R. F. West. 1989. "Exposure to Print and Orthographic Processing." Reading Research Quarterly24, no. 4: 402–433. https://doi.org/10.2307/747605.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> State Department of Education. 2018. "Reading Initiative for Student Excellence." Retrieved December 12, 2021.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Stocker, K. L., R. A. Fox, N. R. Swain, and E. S. Leif. 2024. "Between the Lines: Integrating the Science of Reading and the Science of Behavior to Improve Reading Outcomes for Australian Children." Behavior and Social Issues33, no. 1: 504–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822‐023‐00149‐y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Stouffer, J., and J. Van Dyke. 2023. "Stones From a Glass House: The Paradoxical Condemnation of Reading Recovery in the Ontario Human Rights Commission's "Right to Read" Report." Journal of Teaching and Learning17, no. 1: 52–71. https://doi.org/10.22329/jtl.v17i1.7426.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strauss, V.2018. "The Straw Man in the New Round of the Reading Wars."The Washington Post, September 25. https://<ulink href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/09/25/straw‐man‐new‐round‐reading‐wars/">www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/09/25/straw‐man‐new‐round‐reading‐wars/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Taylor, K.2024. "Reading Between the Lines: Embracing the Science of Reading Through a Culturally Relevant Lens." Indiana Literacy Journal53, no. 1: 26–30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Temur, T., and T. Sezer. 2023. "The Agenda of the Reading Teacher Journal on Reading and Reading Skills: A Corpus Analysis in the Last Decade." International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education15, no. 4: 357–369. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2023.288.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Terry, N. P.2021. "Delivering on the Promise of the Science of Reading for All Children." Reading Teacher75, no. 1: 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2031.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Terry, N. P., K. Albritton, J. Hasbrouck, R. S. Codding, and K. Burk. 2023. "Commentary: If Not You, Then Who: Equity, Social Justice, and the Role of School Psychologists in Ensuring Reading Success for All Learners." School Psychology38, no. 1: 44–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000525.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Thomas, P. L.2023. "The 'Science of Reading,' Education Faddism, and the Failure to Honor the Intellectual Lives of All Children: On Deficit Lenses and Ignoring Class and Race Stereotyping." Voices From the Middle30, no. 3: 18–21. https://doi.org/10.58680/vm202332439.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Thomas, P. L.2024a. "We Teach English in Times of Perpetual Crisis: Selling a Story of Reading." English Journal113, no. 5: 16–22. https://doi.org/10.58680/ej2024113516.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Thomas, P. L.2024b. "We Teach English in Times of Perpetual Crisis: The Media Continue to Misread Teaching Reading and Literacy." English Journal114, no. 1: 14–19. https://doi.org/10.58680/ej2024114114.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Thomas, P. L.2024c. "We Teach English in Times of Perpetual Crisis: The Long (And Tedious) History of Reading Crisis." English Journal113, no. 4: 21–26. https://doi.org/10.58680/ej2024113421.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Thomas, P. L.2024d. "We Teach English in Times of Perpetual Crisis: For All ELA Teachers, 'the Time Is Always Now'." English Journal114, no. 2: 21–26. https://doi.org/10.58680/ej2024114221.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torgesen, J. K.2002. "The Prevention of Reading Difficulties." Journal of School Psychology40, no. 1: 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022‐4405(01)00092‐9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Tortorelli, L. S., S. M. Lupo, and B. C. Wheatley. 2021. "Examining Teacher Preparation for Code‐Related Reading Instruction: An Integrated Literature Review." Reading Research Quarterly56, no. S1: S317–S337. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.396.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Toste, J. R., and E. R. Lindström. 2023. "Science of Reading in Special Education Teacher Preparation." Intervention in School and Clinic59, no. 1: 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512221130064.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Vaughn, M., S. A. Parsons, and D. Massey. 2020. "Aligning the Science of Reading With Adaptive Teaching." Reading Research Quarterly55, no. S1: S299–S306. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.351.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Veritas Health Innovation. 2025. "Covidence Systematic Review Software [Computer Software]."<ulink href="http://www.covidence.org">www.covidence.org</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Virginia Department of Education. 2022. "Critical Teaching Shortage Areas in Virginia, 2022–23."https://<ulink href="http://www.doe.virginia.gov/about‐vdoe/search?q=shortage#!#qcuqCUN9Q2">www.doe.virginia.gov/about‐vdoe/search?q=shortage#!#qcuqCUN9Q2</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Wattenburg, R.2024. "How Background Knowledge Builds Good Readers and Why Knowledge Building ELA Curricula Are Vital." State Education Standard24, no. 1. https://<ulink href="http://www.nasbe.org/curriculum‐that‐counts/">www.nasbe.org/curriculum‐that‐counts/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Whitfield, E. J.2023. "Supporting Developing Readers: Intervention Practices Grounded in the Simple View of Reading Framework." Florida Literacy Journal3, no. 2: 60–73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Whittingham, C. E., E. B. Hoffman, and K. A. Paciga. 2024. "Assessment, Accountability, and Access: Constrained Skill Mastery as Instructional Gatekeeper." Journal of Early Childhood Literacy24, no. 1: 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687984211042056.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Wilkins, B.2023, July 7. "What People are Getting Wrong About the Science of Reading."Education Week. https://<ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/opinion‐what‐people‐are‐getting‐wrong‐about‐the‐science‐of‐reading/2023/07">www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/opinion‐what‐people‐are‐getting‐wrong‐about‐the‐science‐of‐reading/2023/07</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Will, M.2019. "Will the Science of Reading Catch on in Teacher Prep?"Education Week. https://<ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/will‐the‐science‐of‐reading‐catch‐on‐in‐teacher‐prep/2019/12">www.edweek.org/teaching‐learning/will‐the‐science‐of‐reading‐catch‐on‐in‐teacher‐prep/2019/12</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Williams, J.2023. "The 'Reading Wars' Are Back: What Are the Implications for Adolescent Literacy?" Michigan Reading Journal56, no. 1: 64–68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Woulfin, S., and R. E. Gabriel. 2020. "Interconnected Infrastructure for Improving Reading Instruction." Reading Research Quarterly55, no. S1: S109–S117. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.339.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Woulfin, S. L., and R. Gabriel. 2022. "Big Waves on the Rocky Shore: A Discussion of Reading Policy, Infrastructure, and Implementation in the Era of Science of Reading." Reading Teacher76, no. 3: 326–332. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2153.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Wrenn, M., M. Liebfreund, M. D. Johnson, V. Gardner, and J. McLawhorn. 2024. "A Case Study of Rural Elementary Teachers Integrating Social Studies With the Science of Reading." Reading & Writing Quarterly41, no. 3: 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2024.2421965.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Yaden, D. B.2023. "Chasing Shadows: Why There Cannot Be a 'Simple' Science of Literacy." Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice72, no. 1: 26–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/23813377231190414.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Yaden, D. B., D. Reinking, and P. Smagorinsky. 2021. "The Trouble With Binaries: A Perspective on the Science of Reading." Reading Research Quarterly56, no. S1: S119–S129. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.402.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Yurick, A. L., M. Council, A. O. Telesman, S. Musti, R. Gardner, and G. Cartledge. 2024. "On the Science of Reading: How Social Justice, Behavior Analysis, and Literacy Instruction Converge." Behavior and Social Issues33, no. 1: 563–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822‐023‐00154‐1.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Cheryl McLean; Tiffany Gallagher and Courtney Hattan</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib135" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib136" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib137" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib138" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib143" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib142" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref61"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1503767
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: An Anatomy of the SoR: A Systematic Review of the Conceptualizations and Instrumental Uses of the Science of Reading
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cheryl+McLean%22">Cheryl McLean</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3585-0307">0000-0003-3585-0307</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tiffany+Gallagher%22">Tiffany Gallagher</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Courtney+Hattan%22">Courtney Hattan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2914-3307">0000-0003-2914-3307</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Research+Quarterly%22"><i>Reading Research Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2026 61(2).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Research%22">Reading Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literacy+Education%22">Literacy Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonics%22">Phonics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Comprehension%22">Reading Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Education%22">Equal Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multilingualism%22">Multilingualism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cultural+Context%22">Cultural Context</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Bibliometrics%22">Bibliometrics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Definitions%22">Definitions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scholarship%22">Scholarship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Politics+of+Education%22">Politics of Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence+Based+Practice%22">Evidence Based Practice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Instruction%22">Reading Instruction</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/rrq.70095
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0034-0553<br />1936-2722
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In this systematic review, evolving conceptualizations and instrumental uses of the "science of reading" (SoR) in educational literature from 2017 to 2025 were investigated. Amid renewed discussions reminiscent of historical "reading wars," the SoR has emerged as a dominant discourse in literacy education, shaped by media, policy, and scholarly engagement. Drawing on 121 researcher and practitioner-oriented articles analyzed through a PRISMA-informed review and coding process, we identified seven conceptualizations of the SoR, ranging from narrow phonics-based definitions to broader, multifaceted interpretations encompassing comprehension, equity, multilingualism, and sociocultural contexts. The study reveals that while over 90% of articles acknowledge narrow interpretations, nearly half also present broader perspectives, highlighting tensions and complexities within the field. Authors frequently use the SoR to introduce articles, frame arguments, and validate pedagogical models, with 93.8% employing multiple uses. The findings also underscore a disconnect between research and practitioner publications, with nuanced definitions more prevalent in scholarly work. This divergence has implications for policy, curriculum, and instructional practices, as these various portrayals in discourse risk marginalizing diverse literacy needs. This review calls for a fourth "Reading Research Quarterly" special issue to critically examine how the SoR shapes educational mandates, practices, and politics. Given the dual role of the SoR as both a construct and a rhetorical tool, the study emphasizes the need for ongoing critical inquiry into the politicization of the SoR and its impact on literacy education, advocating for inclusive and evidence-informed approaches to reading instruction.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1503767
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1503767
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/rrq.70095
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Reading Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Literacy Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Phonics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Comprehension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equal Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Multilingualism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cultural Context
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Bibliometrics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Definitions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scholarship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Politics of Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evidence Based Practice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Instruction
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: An Anatomy of the SoR: A Systematic Review of the Conceptualizations and Instrumental Uses of the Science of Reading
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cheryl McLean
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tiffany Gallagher
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Courtney Hattan
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0034-0553
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1936-2722
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 61
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading Research Quarterly
              Type: main
ResultId 1