View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

When Science of Reading Meets Equity: Understanding and Applying Equity-Oriented Models to Enhance a Phonics Intervention

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: When Science of Reading Meets Equity: Understanding and Applying Equity-Oriented Models to Enhance a Phonics Intervention
Language: English
Authors: Bong Gee Jang (ORCID 0000-0002-6830-8170), Kate Franz
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: 19
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Descriptors: Reading Research, Equal Education, Models, Phonics, Intervention, Culturally Relevant Education, Early Childhood Education, Decoding (Reading), Multilingualism, Inquiry, Active Learning, Student Interests
DOI: 10.1002/rrq.70109
ISSN: 0034-0553
1936-2722
Abstract: This practitioner inquiry study examines how equity-oriented literacy frameworks can enrich a Science of Reading (SoR)-aligned phonics intervention, Road to Reading (RTR). Guided by an Asset-Based Integrated View of Reading and Culturally and Historically Responsive Literacy, 39 pre- and in-service teachers adapted RTR lessons for K-2 students in a graduate literacy methods course. We qualitatively analyzed 468 lesson plans and 312 reflective memos to document equity-oriented adaptations to the RTR phonics routine. Teachers embedded student-authored decodable texts, multilingual supports, inquiry-based learning, and assessment practices that attended to students' interests and identities. The findings illustrate patterns in teachers' equity-oriented adaptations that blend SoR-aligned instruction with culturally and historically sustaining pedagogy.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1503821
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFT3BA_NL79ZMfPWxkboZwYAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDA0WtIll8MHI1t9ucwIBEICBm40w5G7Xwbd9y_M3gWn95mU_hq-NFFI4SJfnnKCF52bU823wPztAvt2EMJ7ihvNbECMbJb4juW6Mx0tZDuS3foHuTBGzi-b9sMxwXJS5bB4SdMyUO7kP-4P9AZnP3KPz6VXVqd7FHQVnLp0gwhwARQUEOtY2ueqOBO3-JaPcvtQ_H-whCqGdHcgX5rBgSEz5B6qgi3eMGd9q_TPH
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0193225976;[nrnu]02apr.26;2026Apr27.05:00;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0193225976-1">When Science of Reading Meets Equity: Understanding and Applying Equity‐Oriented Models to Enhance a Phonics Intervention </title> <p>This practitioner inquiry study examines how equity‐oriented literacy frameworks can enrich a Science of Reading (SoR)–aligned phonics intervention, Road to Reading (RTR). Guided by an Asset‐Based Integrated View of Reading and Culturally and Historically Responsive Literacy, 39 pre‐ and in‐service teachers adapted RTR lessons for K‐2 students in a graduate literacy methods course. We qualitatively analyzed 468 lesson plans and 312 reflective memos to document equity‐oriented adaptations to the RTR phonics routine. Teachers embedded student‐authored decodable texts, multilingual supports, inquiry‐based learning, and assessment practices that attended to students' interests and identities. The findings illustrate patterns in teachers' equity‐oriented adaptations that blend SoR‐aligned instruction with culturally and historically sustaining pedagogy.</p> <p>This graphical abstract illustrates how three equity‐oriented theoretical frameworks—the Asset‐Based Integrated View of Reading (ABIVR), Culturally and Historically Responsive Literacy (CHRL), and Adaptive Teaching—guided 39 pre‐ and in‐service teachers in identifying opportunities for enrichment and designing equity‐oriented adaptations to the Road to Reading phonics intervention, demonstrating that Science of Reading–aligned instruction and culturally responsive pedagogy can function as complementary rather than competing priorities.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70109-toc-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70109-toc-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193225976-3">Introduction</hd> <p>A fundamental goal of elementary education is to equip young students with the foundational, code‐focused reading skills that are essential to reading success (Adams [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]; National Reading Panel [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref2">58</reflink>]). Explicit instruction in these skills can effectively prevent reading failure (National Reading Panel [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref3">58</reflink>]). Advocates for explicit, evidence‐based instruction in foundational reading skills—including phonological awareness and phonics—have given rise to a contemporary Science of Reading (SoR) movement, which has profoundly influenced reading instruction in contemporary classrooms (Parsons and Erickson [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref4">68</reflink>]). The SoR movement is anchored in the premise that evidence‐based literacy instruction is essential to creating equitable schooling and eradicating disproportionate gaps in reading achievement among historically marginalized students (Elzy‐Palmer et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref5">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, longstanding research on pathways to more equitable education suggests that students benefit from culturally and historically responsive teaching approaches that acknowledge and build on their diverse experiences, identities, and backgrounds (Paris [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref6">63</reflink>]; G. J. Ladson‐Billings [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref7">41</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref8">40</reflink>]; Muhammad [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref9">56</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref10">57</reflink>]). Literacy scholars have raised concerns that the view of reading instruction celebrated within the SoR creates a silo of discrete skills that are disconnected from culturally relevant and sustaining pedagogies (Hattan and Kendeou [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref11">28</reflink>]; Vaughn et al. [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref12">87</reflink>]). Literacy teachers in elementary classrooms across the country cannot operate in siloes that fail to integrate all aspects of best practice. As such, the purpose of this practitioner inquiry study is to explore how teachers can analyze and adapt SoR‐aligned instruction to emphasize and honor students' diverse cultural and linguistic assets.</p> <p>The teachers in this project are situated within a national landscape where nearly every state has passed legislation emphasizing the selection of programs, materials, and professional training aligned with the SoR (Neuman et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref13">60</reflink>]). While the term "Science of Reading" has been referenced for centuries, it has recently garnered significant media attention and has been widely used in public discourse about how to improve reading outcomes (Shanahan [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref14">78</reflink>]). The modern SoR movement centers the Simple View of Reading (SVR; Gough and Tunmer [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref15">26</reflink>]) as its dominant theoretical framework, drawing attention to the distinct but complementary contributions of decoding and language comprehension to skilled reading and how each accounts for unique variance in reading comprehension. While code‐focused skills represent only one component of a comprehensive literacy program—alongside vocabulary, comprehension, fluency, and writing (National Reading Panel [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref16">58</reflink>]; Duke and Cartwright [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref17">14</reflink>])—they have received disproportionate legislative attention and instructional time in the primary grades (Lee [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref18">45</reflink>]; Reinking et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref19">73</reflink>]). This paper focuses on code‐focused instruction not because it is the sole pathway to reading proficiency, but because it currently dominates instructional time for young students, particularly those receiving intervention.</p> <p>The SoR movement has initiated a legislative wave that underscores a nationwide commitment to enhancing literacy outcomes by mandating that reading curricula and assessments align with principles grounded in rigorous research. States and districts are actively evaluating various reading curricula and assessments to ensure they meet the standards set forth by SoR‐related legislation, signaling a shift toward more evidence‐based practices in literacy education. While neither the report from the National Reading Panel ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref20">58</reflink>]) nor the U.S. Department of Education's practice guide on foundational skills (Foorman et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref21">18</reflink>]) provide a precise recommendation for how much time students should engage in foundational skills instruction, most SoR‐aligned curricula allocate 30–60 min per day for whole‐class phonics instruction in the primary grades. Further, early elementary students who are behind in reading proficiency are most likely to benefit from additional Tier 2 intervention that focuses on code‐based skills that include phonemic awareness, letter–sound knowledge, word reading, and reading decodable text (Truckenmiller and Brehmer [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref22">83</reflink>]). Research suggests that students at risk for reading difficulties should receive an additional 20–40 min of small‐group foundational skills instruction at least three times per week (Gersten et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref23">24</reflink>]). Like the teachers in this study, many primary‐grade educators in the U.S. spend a sizable portion of the school day providing code‐focused reading instruction.</p> <p>Within the SoR movement, equity is commonly framed as ensuring that all learners acquire foundational reading skills, with particular emphasis on the ability to decode print. Scholars have criticized this narrow view of literacy, raising questions about how one‐size‐fits‐all approaches to foundational literacy instruction compromise the tenets of culturally responsive teaching by erasing students' interests and experiences from the curriculum (e.g., Lee [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref24">45</reflink>]; Milner IV [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref25">54</reflink>]; Vaughn et al. [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref26">87</reflink>]). When equity is defined solely as skill acquisition, the process of learning is often stripped of cultural relevance. Elzy‐Palmer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref27">17</reflink>]) conducted a review of literature examining the relationship between the SOR and equity, determining that SOR studies have not attended to these broader equity issues. Similarly, Pittman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref28">70</reflink>]) argue that the SoR reflects Anglocentric biases that center General American English while neglecting the linguistic and racial identities of African American students, proposing a culturally relevant SoR framework that integrates language and identity into evidence‐based reading instruction. Building on these concerns, we operationally define equity as (a) ensuring students' access to high‐quality, explicit instruction in foundational reading skills and (b) designing and adapting that instruction in ways that affirm students' identities, leverage their cultural and linguistic assets, and support their agency and motivation as developing readers.</p> <p>Despite the renewed attention on phonics instruction and the significant amount of instructional time it receives in elementary classrooms, there is a paucity of literature on ways educators can enact culturally responsive, asset‐based practices within the specific context of foundational reading skills instruction. Lawson ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref29">43</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref30">44</reflink>]) is a notable exception, with research on student‐generated decodable texts that intentionally center culture and race into phonics instruction. Similarly, while extensive research documents the importance of reading motivation for literacy development (e.g., Schiefele et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref31">76</reflink>]; Wigfield et al. [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref32">89</reflink>]), few studies examine how to cultivate motivation specifically within SoR‐aligned phonics interventions for students experiencing reading difficulties (Jensen [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref33">36</reflink>]; Parsons and Erickson [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref34">68</reflink>]; Parsons et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref35">66</reflink>]). Teachers do not yet have a roadmap for how phonics instruction can reflect principles of culturally responsive pedagogy and students' motivation to read. While motivation is not the central focus of this study, we attend to motivational dimensions throughout our analysis because equity‐oriented adaptations frequently implicated students' engagement, interest, and agency—constructs that are inseparable from culturally responsive instruction (Kumar et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref36">38</reflink>]; Parsons and Erickson [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref37">68</reflink>]).</p> <p>This gap in the literature motivates our central inquiry: <emph>How do teachers working within an SoR‐aligned intervention framework draw on equity‐oriented theories to rethink and adapt foundational skills instruction?</emph> More specifically, we ask:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What opportunities for enrichment in an evidence‐based phonics lesson framework do pre‐service and in‐service teachers identify when they analyze it through equity‐oriented theories?</item> <p></p> <item> What equity‐oriented adaptations do pre‐ and in‐service teachers make to an evidence‐based phonics lesson framework?</item> </ulist> <p>To address these questions, we examine three recent theoretical models of literacy that foreground students' motivation and identity within equity‐oriented frameworks, as well as the role of teacher adaptations, synthesizing core insights from each. Then, we report how these frameworks can be applied to adapt an existing phonics lesson model—Road to Reading (RTR) (Blachman and Tangel [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref38">5</reflink>])—to more fully honor students' self‐regulatory capacities and cultural resources. Through this work, we aim to document and theorize these teacher‐designed adaptations and to consider what they suggest about possibilities for integrating SoR‐aligned interventions with equity‐oriented frameworks in one local context, rather than to evaluate the effectiveness of RTR itself. We emphasize that our goal is not to critique the RTR program. RTR has a well‐established evidence base and has been a valuable tool in our work preparing future literacy educators and classroom teachers. Rather, we aim to explore how its implementation can be enriched by equity‐oriented perspectives that attend to students' identities, cultures, and motivations.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-4">Review of Relevant Literature</hd> <p>The following section examines foundational studies and recent advancements that informed our work to enhance the RTR intervention framework. The review focuses on four primary areas that collectively support our integrated approach: the role of self‐regulation, motivation, and strategy use in reading development; insights into culturally responsive practices; evidence supporting interventions for diverse learners; and adaptive teaching approaches in literacy instruction and interventions. Together, these bodies of research demonstrate both the effectiveness of systematic phonics instruction and the critical need for culturally responsive enhancements to maximize intervention impact for all students.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-5">Science of Reading–Aligned Foundational Skills Interventions and Road to Reading</hd> <p>Research on SoR‐aligned foundational skills interventions underscores the value of explicit, systematic instruction in phonological awareness and phonics for preventing and remediating reading difficulties (Gersten et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref39">25</reflink>]; Hall et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref40">27</reflink>]; National Reading Panel [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref41">58</reflink>]). RTR (Blachman and Tangel [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref42">5</reflink>]) is one such intervention, designed to build students' word recognition skills through a five‐step lesson template that includes sound‐symbol correspondences, word building, review of phonetically regular and high‐frequency words, oral reading in decodable texts, and spelling dictation. Studies of RTR and related programs have demonstrated positive effects on students' phonological awareness and word reading skills in whole‐class, small‐group, and one‐to‐one formats (Blachman et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref43">2</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref44">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref45">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref46">4</reflink>]). Although RTR was published two decades ago, its framework continues to reflect compelling evidence aligned with the SoR, and it can be enhanced through teachers' specific adaptations based on their students' needs and interests (Franz and Jang [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref47">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Subsequent work has found that RTR can also support English learners' development of foundational reading skills (Dussling [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref48">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref49">16</reflink>]). Dussling ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref50">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref51">16</reflink>]) specifically examined its impact on English language learners (ELLs), finding that both native and non‐native speakers benefited significantly from its structured, systematic approach. However, research by Ludwig et al. ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref52">49</reflink>]) and Richards‐Tutor and Solari ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref53">74</reflink>]) highlights a gap in resources tailored for minoritized students. While RTR excels in addressing phonological awareness and decoding, its original design lacks explicit provisions for integrating linguistic diversity and cultural responsiveness. To date, research has not examined how RTR might be enacted in ways that explicitly integrate culturally responsive and linguistically sustaining pedagogies.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-6">Motivation, Self‐Regulation, and Strategy Use in Reading Development</hd> <p>Research on skilled reading suggests that motivational and self‐regulatory processes are not ancillary to word reading; they shape how students experience and benefit from SoR‐aligned instruction, particularly when instruction is embedded in meaningful and responsive contexts. Skilled readers actively engage with texts through self‐regulation, employing executive functions to manage and adapt their reading processes. Georgiou and Das ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref54">23</reflink>]) and Ho and Lau ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref55">32</reflink>]) have demonstrated that executive skills, such as planning, monitoring, and revising, are essential for effective reading. These findings align with Pressley and Afflerbach's ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref56">71</reflink>]) foundational work emphasizing that successful readers are not passive recipients of information but actively deploy strategies to facilitate comprehension and decoding.</p> <p>This self‐regulatory engagement has important implications for literacy interventions. Effective interventions must cultivate not only foundational reading skills but also students' ability to develop decoding strategies and navigate complex texts strategically. For example, Vellutino and Scanlon ([<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref57">88</reflink>]) highlight this principle in their research on the Interactive Strategies Approach (ISA), demonstrating how explicit strategy instruction enables students to decode unfamiliar and multisyllabic words more effectively. This body of work informed our approach to enriching RTR with activities that promote strategic engagement, such as student‐generated decodable texts and contextually meaningful sentence dictations.</p> <p>Motivation and engagement play pivotal roles in mediating the effects of word recognition on reading outcomes (Conradi et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref58">10</reflink>]; Lee et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref59">46</reflink>]; Taboada Barber et al. [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref60">81</reflink>]; van der Sande et al. [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref61">84</reflink>]). When students are motivated, they are more likely to persist through challenging reading tasks and apply decoding strategies effectively. Research by Steacy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref62">79</reflink>]) highlights the efficacy of teaching chunking strategies, enabling students to decode multisyllabic or unfamiliar words. Despite motivation's demonstrated importance, Cho et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref63">8</reflink>]) meta‐analysis of foundational reading interventions for students with or at risk for dyslexia revealed that fewer than half of interventions incorporated any motivational practices, and only 16% explicitly taught students motivational strategies. This gap is particularly concerning given research demonstrating reciprocal relationships between motivation and reading achievement (Hebbecker et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref64">29</reflink>]; Morgan and Fuchs [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref65">55</reflink>]), wherein early reading difficulties negatively impact motivation, and diminished motivation further exacerbates reading challenges. This body of work informed our approach to enriching RTR with activities that promote strategic engagement and address motivational needs, such as student‐generated decodable texts and contextually meaningful sentence dictations.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-7">Culturally Responsive and Culturally Sustaining Literacy Practices</hd> <p>These motivational and self‐regulatory perspectives intersect with a robust body of work on culturally relevant (G. Ladson‐Billings [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref66">39</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref67">40</reflink>]), culturally responsive (Gay [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref68">22</reflink>]), and culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref69">63</reflink>]; Paris and Alim [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref70">64</reflink>]), which collectively argues that literacy instruction must be grounded in students' cultural and linguistic repertoires. Building on these foundational perspectives, Muhammad's ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref71">56</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref72">57</reflink>]) Culturally and Historically Responsive Literacy (CHRL) Framework extends this tradition by providing a roadmap for integrating identity, skills, intellect, criticality, and joy into reading interventions. The CHRL framework calls for teaching practices that affirm students' cultural backgrounds while fostering critical thinking and engagement. For example, Lawson's ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref73">43</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref74">44</reflink>]) work on student‐generated decodable texts exemplifies how phonics lessons can honor learners' lived experiences while maintaining focus on systematic skill development. By engaging students in creating their own decodable texts that reflect their cultural backgrounds and personal experiences, Lawson bridges the traditional gap between phonics instruction and cultural relevance.</p> <p>These concerns extend beyond multilingual learners to students whose home language varieties differ from the language of instruction. Pittman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref75">70</reflink>]) demonstrate how linguistic mismatches between African American English (AAE) and General American English (GAE) can lead educators to misidentify language differences as skill deficits, and they propose a culturally relevant SoR framework that centers students' linguistic and racial identities within evidence‐based instruction. Their work underscores the broader need for linguistically responsive adaptations to phonics interventions. Similarly, Toppel's ([<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref76">82</reflink>]) strategies for culturally relevant pedagogy emphasize integrating students' knowledge and experiences into lessons. By co‐authoring texts with students or incorporating multilingual resources, educators can create learning environments where students feel represented and valued. Hur et al. ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref77">34</reflink>]) findings echo this perspective, noting that when lessons include culturally relevant visuals or contexts, they are more likely to engage multilingual learners and promote comprehension. Collectively, this research suggests that motivation and culturally sustaining pedagogy go hand‐in‐hand in supporting student success (Jensen [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref78">36</reflink>]; Kumar et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref79">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>Emerging studies suggest several specific modifications to address this gap in traditional phonics interventions. For instance, Ludwig et al. ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref80">49</reflink>]) recommend supplementing phonics activities with materials that highlight cultural diversity, such as bilingual storybooks or decodable texts featuring multicultural narratives. These modifications maintain the systematic nature of phonics instruction while making content more accessible and relevant to diverse learners. Building on this, research demonstrates that incorporating visual supports, co‐constructed learning materials, and inclusive classroom discussions effectively bridges linguistic and cultural differences in literacy instruction (Cycyk et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref81">12</reflink>]; Parra and Proctor [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref82">65</reflink>]; Toppel [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref83">82</reflink>]). These strategies informed our participants' specific enhancements to RTR, particularly their decisions to embed elements such as student‐driven sentence generation and reading passages that reflect the backgrounds and experiences of the learners.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-8">Adaptive Teaching in Literacy Instruction and Intervention</hd> <p>Adaptive teaching represents a crucial bridge between systematic instruction and responsive pedagogy. Parsons et al. ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref84">67</reflink>]) argue for broadening traditional views of differentiated instruction to include cultural and linguistic responsiveness, not merely academic skill variation. Parsons et al. ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref85">69</reflink>]) provide a comprehensive research synthesis demonstrating that teachers' instructional adaptations—when grounded in knowledge of students, content, and pedagogy—consistently improve student outcomes. Their model illustrates the interconnections between classroom stimuli, teacher actions, teacher factors, and reflective practice, emphasizing that effective adaptation requires both systematic preparation and responsive decision‐making.</p> <p>Recent work by Vaughn and colleagues has specifically addressed adaptive teaching within the context of systematic reading instruction. Vaughn et al. ([<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref86">86</reflink>]) demonstrate how teachers can challenge overly scripted curricula through adaptive teaching practices that maintain instructional effectiveness while honoring student diversity. Their research directly addresses the tension between systematic phonics instruction and culturally responsive teaching, showing how these approaches can be integrated rather than positioned as competing priorities. Vaughn et al. ([<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref87">87</reflink>]) specifically examine aligning the SoR with adaptive teaching, providing practical guidance for educators seeking to maintain evidence‐based practices while incorporating responsive instruction. This work influenced our approach to RTR enhancement, providing both theoretical justification and practical strategies for adaptive implementation.</p> <p>Additional research supports the broader application of adaptive teaching principles. Paige et al. ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref88">62</reflink>]) argue that effective reading instruction requires both scientific rigor and pedagogical artistry, while Neugebauer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref89">59</reflink>]) demonstrate the natural variation in how teachers implement structured programs, suggesting that some degree of adaptation is both inevitable and potentially beneficial when guided by clear principles. Wissman's ([<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref90">90</reflink>]) work specifically addresses bringing culturally sustaining perspectives to reading intervention, providing concrete examples of how intervention programs can be enhanced without compromising their evidence‐based foundation. Vaughn and Masterson ([<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref91">85</reflink>]) extend this work by demonstrating how foundational skills instruction can support student agency rather than merely compliance.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-9">Synthesis and Implications</hd> <p>Together, these studies point to a need for literacy interventions that balance technical rigor with cultural and contextual relevance. Practices that address equity and motivation cannot be just mere additional factors of early literacy development. They should be centered at every moment of development within foundational skills (Jensen [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref92">36</reflink>]; Lee [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref93">45</reflink>]). While frameworks like RTR provide a solid foundation for skill‐building, the inclusion of strategies that foster self‐regulation, motivation, and cultural responsiveness can make interventions more effective and inclusive. This literature informed our approach to educating teachers about iterative enhancements to RTR, ensuring the program builds decoding skills while simultaneously empowering students to see literacy as a tool for self‐expression, critical thinking, and personal growth.</p> <p>In our efforts to expand an existing reading intervention framework, we took great caution to avoid diluting the impact of evidence‐based practices. There is risk in addition and subtraction; we did not want teachers to wholly dismantle an evidence‐based intervention only to rebuild a framework that is ineffective and unwieldy. Phonics instruction is a means to an end (National Reading Panel [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref94">58</reflink>]). Its purpose is to provide the skill base that allows children to transfer knowledge of letter–sound patterns to meaningful reading and writing activities. As such, our goal was to preserve impactful instructional practices aligned with code‐focused skills while infusing them with principles of equity and justice.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-10">Theoretical Frameworks</hd> <p>To address our research questions about integrating equity‐focused practices with systematic phonics instruction, we drew upon three complementary but distinct theoretical foundations. Rather than attempting to merge disparate constructs, we used these different types of theories to inform different aspects of our work: a reading process model to understand how reading develops within sociocultural contexts, a pedagogical framework to guide equitable instructional design, and a bridging framework to support adaptive teaching practices.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-11">Reading Process Model: Asset‐Based Integrated View of Reading</hd> <p>We adopted Gabriel and López's ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref95">21</reflink>]) Asset‐Based Integrated View of Reading (ABIVR) as our primary theoretical lens for understanding reading processes. This model builds upon and extends the Active View of Reading (Duke and Cartwright [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref96">14</reflink>]), Self‐Determination Theory (Ryan and Deci [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref97">75</reflink>]), and Asset‐Based Pedagogy (López [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref98">47</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref99">48</reflink>]). This approach counters traditional, deficit‐oriented perspectives by placing students' cultural, linguistic, and individual strengths at the heart of reading development. By integrating sociocultural and cognitive perspectives, Gabriel and López address limitations of the Simple View of Reading (cf. Hoover and Gough [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref100">33</reflink>]), which does not account for the diverse identities and experiences of learners. Their model emphasizes that reading is not only a cognitive process but also deeply situated within social and cultural contexts, advocating for practices that affirm students' backgrounds and dismantle biases inherent in conventional reading instruction.</p> <p>This framework promotes an interactive view of reading where self‐regulation, motivation, and engagement are grounded in autonomy, competence, and relatedness—core components of Self‐Determination Theory (Ryan and Deci [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref101">75</reflink>]). <emph>Autonomy</emph> refers to learners' need to experience volition and ownership over their actions; in reading contexts, this manifests when students have meaningful choices in text selection, purposes for reading, and ways of responding to literature. <emph>Competence</emph> involves the need to feel capable and effective; readers develop competence when they experience success with appropriately challenging texts and receive feedback that supports their growing sense of self‐efficacy. <emph>Relatedness</emph> encompasses the need to feel connected and valued within a community; for young readers, this includes belonging within classroom literacy communities, feeling recognized by teachers and peers, and connecting with texts that reflect their identities and experiences. Together, these three psychological needs provide a foundation for intrinsic motivation—when all three are supported, students are more likely to engage willingly with reading and persist through challenges. Throughout the study, we used these motivational constructs as analytic lenses for interpreting teachers' descriptions of students' engagement and agency rather than as directly measured outcomes.</p> <p>Gabriel and López argue that honoring students' lived experiences and linguistic diversity enhances their agency and comprehension, aligning with asset‐based pedagogy principles. Through examples of translanguaging and culturally responsive teaching, they demonstrate how educators can bridge linguistic and cultural differences, fostering more inclusive and equitable literacy instruction. This perspective underscores that reading interventions should not only aim for skill acquisition but also empower students as active meaning‐makers and contributors to their educational communities.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-12">Pedagogical Framework: Culturally and Historically Responsive Literacy</hd> <p>To guide our instructional design honoring students' diverse linguistic and cultural assets, we employed Muhammad's ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref102">56</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref103">57</reflink>]) Culturally and Historically Responsive Literacy (CHRL) Framework. This framework extends traditional notions of culturally responsive teaching (Gay [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref104">22</reflink>]) and culturally relevant pedagogy (G. Ladson‐Billings [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref105">39</reflink>]) by integrating historical consciousness alongside cultural responsiveness, recognizing that students' identities are shaped by both contemporary cultural practices and historical legacies. The CHRL framework identifies five key pursuits for educators: identity, skills, intellect, criticality, and joy. These pursuits provided a comprehensive structure for reimagining RTR as an intervention grounded in both the SoR and principles of equity and justice.</p> <p>One critical enhancement inspired by CHRL was the integration of students' diverse histories and cultural identities into the RTR curriculum. While the original RTR model emphasizes automatic word recognition skills, Muhammad's framework guided our teachers to expand the intervention to address students as whole learners. Beyond building phonics knowledge, the CHRL lens guided them to incorporate activities where students could reflect on their personal identities, connect their reading to their cultural and historical contexts, and critically engage with texts. This approach aligns with Stevens' ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref106">80</reflink>]) argument that knowing students as humans who exist within multiple contexts is essential for fostering meaningful learning experiences.</p> <p>By embedding identity and criticality into the curriculum, we also encouraged teachers to create space for students to question power dynamics in texts, consider whose voices are represented or excluded, and engage in dialogues about fairness and justice. This critical engagement transforms phonics instruction from mechanical skill practice to intellectually engaging literacy work that honors students' capacity for sophisticated thinking. At the same time, the pursuit of joy reminded us that literacy learning should be an affirming and celebratory process. For example, within phonics‐based tasks, teachers encouraged students to share stories from their communities, explore texts that reflect their lived experiences, and engage in creative expression. These elements not only enhance engagement but also help students see literacy as a tool for empowerment and self‐expression.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-13">Bridging Model: Adaptive Teaching Framework</hd> <p>Vaughn et al. ([<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref107">87</reflink>]) served as our bridging framework, connecting the theoretical insights of ABIVR with the practical guidance of CHRL. Adaptive teaching recognizes that effective literacy instruction requires teachers to fluidly integrate their knowledge of students, pedagogy, and content to make responsive instructional decisions that honor both learning objectives and student assets (Parsons et al. [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref108">69</reflink>]). Literacy teachers who engage in adaptive teaching draw on pedagogy that situates instruction within authentic learning opportunities that value students' unique assets (Vaughn et al. [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref109">87</reflink>]). Parsons et al. ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref110">69</reflink>]) presented a model of adaptive teaching that demonstrates the interconnections between a classroom stimulus, teacher actions, teacher factors, and teacher reflection, noting that teacher adaptations have a positive effect on student outcomes.</p> <p>The adaptive teaching framework helped us to position the teacher as the mediator between knowledge of content and knowledge of students. It further elevates the importance of the micro‐decisions, or response to stimuli, that teachers make during instructional planning and facilitation. Vaughn et al. ([<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref111">87</reflink>]) grappled with the tension between an over‐emphasis on decontextualized reading skills associated with the SoR movement and the need for adaptive teaching practices that recognize the interconnected nature of reading skills to students' cultural identities and instructional needs. The lens of adaptive teaching provided us with the inspiration and the guardrails to consider how an evidence‐aligned reading intervention program could be modified and enhanced to allow for critical teaching adaptations.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-14">Integrating the Three Models</hd> <p>Collectively, ABIVR (Gabriel and López [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref112">21</reflink>]), CHRL (Muhammad [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref113">56</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref114">57</reflink>]), and an adaptive teaching framework (Vaughn et al. [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref115">87</reflink>]) served as powerful, complementary lenses for supporting educators with ways to enrich a phonics‐focused reading intervention program, RTR. While the ABIVR grounded us in the cognitive and motivational underpinnings of reading, the CHRL framework inspired us to center equity, culture, and history within our instructional design. In addition, adaptive teaching provided practical guidance for making responsive instructional decisions that honor both evidence‐based practices and student diversity. By using these frameworks as complementary lenses that informed different aspects of our work, we arrived at a more expansive intervention model that not only develops foundational reading skills but also validates students' identities, cultures, and lived experiences. Table 1 summarizes how the three frameworks informed our research questions, course design, and analytic decisions.</p> <p>1 TABLE Mapping theoretical frameworks onto study design and analysis.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Framework</th><th align="center">Key ideas</th><th align="center">How it informed course and intervention design</th><th align="center">How it guided data analysis</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Asset‐Based Integrated View of Reading (ABIVR)</td><td align="center">Reading as an interactive process that integrates cognitive, motivational, and sociocultural dimensions; emphasis on autonomy, competence, and relatedness</td><td align="center">Framed RTR tutoring as a space to center students' cultural and linguistic assets and to design activities that foster agency and self‐regulation</td><td align="center">A priori codes such as "student motivation and agency," "self‐regulation supports," and "asset‐oriented language"</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Culturally and Historically Responsive Literacy (CHRL)</td><td align="center">Five pursuits: identity, skills, intellect, criticality, joy; attention to culture and history</td><td align="center">Oriented teachers to plan phonics lessons that also cultivate identity, joy, and criticality (e.g., student‐generated decodables tied to students' lives)</td><td align="center">A priori codes such as "identity affirmation," "criticality," "joy," and "student voice in materials"</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Adaptive Teaching Framework</td><td align="center">Teacher as mediator between content and learners; responsive instructional decisions grounded in knowledge of students and context</td><td align="center">Positioned RTR as a flexible template rather than fixed script; encouraged teachers to make principled adaptations to meet students' needs</td><td align="center">Codes related to "teacher adaptation," "responsive decision‐making," "context‐specific modifications," and "constraints"</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Road to Reading (RTR) & SoR‐aligned phonics</td><td align="center">Structured, evidence‐aligned 5‐step phonics routine focused on word recognition</td><td align="center">Provided the core lesson framework and content focus for the tutoring; ensured alignment with SoR‐related legislation and foundational skills research</td><td align="center">Enabled us to trace which lesson components teachers adapted and which elements of the core routine they retained</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Ultimately, this theoretical foundation underscores that literacy interventions can—and should—accomplish more than teaching students to decode words accurately. They must also empower learners as active meaning‐makers, build their sense of belonging, and equip them with the skills to shape the world around them. Through this collective insight, we offer a pathway that pairs the SoR with culturally responsive and socially just teaching—one that illustrates how phonics interventions can evolve to meet the needs of all learners (Muhammad [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref116">57</reflink>]; Duke and Cartwright [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref117">14</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-15">Methods</hd> <p>Drawing on practitioner inquiry methodology, we designed a qualitative study to document and interpret the equity‐oriented adaptations teachers made to RTR in a graduate literacy methods course. Guided by our theoretical frameworks and positionalities, we approached the work from an interpretivist, sociocultural stance that views knowledge as co‐constructed by teachers, students, and researchers.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-16">Our Assumptions and Positionalities</hd> <p>Before outlining our methods, we seek to be transparent about the assumptions and positionalities that guide our inquiry into reading interventions. As a team of researchers and practitioners dedicated to equity and justice, we recognize that literacy development is inseparable from broader cultural, historical, and political contexts. This stance underpins our shared belief that instructional approaches must address not only the cognitive foundations of reading but also the cultural, motivational, and linguistic assets that students bring to the classroom.</p> <p>Typically, when researchers and educators design, implement, and evaluate reading interventions, they follow a linear sequence: they begin by articulating a theoretical framework, then develop practices based on that framework, and finally reflect on the implementation process. This pattern is well‐documented in numerous studies (e.g., Gersten et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref118">24</reflink>]; National Reading Panel [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref119">58</reflink>]), which often situate theory as a starting point before turning to intervention design and outcomes.</p> <p>In contrast, our thinking emerged through a recursive, practice‐oriented process. We began by examining actual classroom practices—observing, documenting, and reflecting on what was happening on the ground as teachers provided small‐group phonics instruction using an evidence‐based intervention framework. As researchers, we bring particular identities and histories to this work. The first author is an Asian male literacy teacher educator and researcher whose work focuses on literacy assessment and motivation. The second author is a White female educator and researcher who previously taught in elementary schools and served as a literacy coach in various educational settings. We are situated within predominantly White, U.S., English‐dominant university settings and have benefited from the institutional power and privileges that accompany those roles. These identities shape how we design interventions, interpret data, and interact with teachers and students.</p> <p>Following Milner IV's ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref120">53</reflink>]) discussion of the "seen," "unseen," and "unforeseen" dangers of researchers' positionalities, we continually asked how our racialized, linguistic, and institutional locations might influence this project. For example, we considered the <emph>seen</emph> danger of imposing deficit assumptions about minoritized students' reading abilities, the <emph>unseen</emph> danger of over‐valuing our own perspectives as teacher educators, and the <emph>unforeseen</emph> danger of unintentionally re‐inscribing whiteness and monolingualism in our recommendations. We sought to mitigate these dangers through collaborative analysis meetings, reflexive memoing, and informal member checking with participating teachers, as well as by actively looking for disconfirming evidence in our data.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-17">Research Design</hd> <p>We employed a practitioner inquiry methodology (Cochran‐Smith and Lytle [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref121">9</reflink>]; Dana and Yendol‐Hoppey [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref122">13</reflink>]) to examine how an evidence‐based phonics intervention could be adapted through equity‐oriented frameworks. Following calls for educational researchers to articulate the philosophical assumptions that guide their work (Cross Francis et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref123">11</reflink>]; McCrudden and Rapp [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref124">50</reflink>]), we explicitly name our ontological, epistemological, and axiological stances. Ontologically, we view reality as socially constructed, acknowledging that individuals' experiences are socially, historically, culturally, and temporally bound (Cross Francis et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref125">11</reflink>]). Epistemologically, we adopt an interpretivist perspective, understanding that knowledge and meaning are constructed through individuals' interactions with their environment and can only be accessed by interpreting their lived experiences. Axiologically, we embrace a commitment to equity and justice, recognizing that contextualized understandings have value because our goal is for findings to benefit those within the context under study. From this interpretivist and sociocultural worldview, we conceptualize knowledge as situated, partial, and co‐constructed rather than objective and generalizable. Accordingly, we focus on trustworthiness, credibility, and transferability rather than post‐positivist notions of validity and reliability, aligning our rigor criteria with our stated worldview.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-18">Context and Participants</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193225976-19">Course Setting</hd> <p>We conducted this study within a graduate‐level literacy methods course for pre‐service and in‐service teachers at a research‐intensive university in a Northeastern state. The course focused on evidence‐based reading instruction and served as the natural context for examining how theoretical frameworks could enhance practical instruction. All the classes were taught in a partnership elementary school, and the tutoring lessons were provided as part of the school's after‐school program. The tutoring lessons were designed and provided to support early literacy development in students in kindergarten through grade 3 with identified literacy challenges, while helping graduate students fulfill practicum and coaching requirements. Teachers enrolled in the course assessed and provided individualized tutoring to 1–3 tutees including:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Administering literacy assessments and delivering research‐based, code‐emphasis interventions.</item> <p></p> <item> Communicating regularly with teachers and parents.</item> <p></p> <item> Writing daily lesson plans and monthly progress reports.</item> <p></p> <item> Completing a comprehensive case study/assessment of student learning.</item> <p></p> <item> Designing Tier 2 and Tier 3 intervention plans to address the tutee's specific needs.</item> <p></p> <item> Engaging parents by inviting them to observe a tutoring session.</item> </ulist> <p>In addition to working directly with students, graduate students developed literacy coaching skills by collaborating with classmates, reviewing tutee progress during seminars, and reflecting on their own professional development. This program is typically 1 h twice a week, totaling approximately 25 h.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-20">Participants</hd> <p>Participants included two instructor‐researchers who collaborated on course development and 39 teachers (24 in‐service teachers, 15 pre‐service teachers) enrolled for the graduate literacy program. Thirty‐six participants were female and three were male. Twenty‐four were White, nine were Black, three were Asian, and three were Latinx. The teacher participants tutored students with literacy difficulties (approximately 150 students across various grade levels and demographic backgrounds).</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-21">Target Intervention: Road to Reading</hd> <p>As described earlier, RTR has an established evidence base for improving foundational word reading skills (Blachman et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref126">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref127">3</reflink>]; Dussling [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref128">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref129">16</reflink>]). In this course, we used RTR because it aligned with SoR‐related state legislation and was already widely used in our local school district. The RTR manual contains a brief introduction that outlines the goals of the program and explains the structure of the five‐step lesson, which is intended to take 30–40 min. Subsequent sections of the manual are organized by levels, which increase in complexity. Each level in RTR corresponds to at least one of the six syllable types: closed, open, final e, vowel teams, r‐controlled vowels, and consonant‐le. As shown in Figure 1, the lesson template includes the following five steps:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Teach or review sound‐symbol correspondences: Students are presented with a letter card and are asked to produce the letter name and sound.</item> <p></p> <item> Teach or review new decoding skills: Working with a soundboard and manipulative letter cards, students build and read phonetically regular words by changing one letter at a time.</item> <p></p> <item> Review phonetically regular words and high‐frequency words: Students read word cards containing phonetically regular words and high‐frequency words (many of which are phonetically irregular).</item> <p></p> <item> Read orally in context: Students read texts that contain a high percentage of words that are decodable for the students based on their current skills. The teacher listens and provides feedback.</item> <p></p> <item> Spelling dictation: The teacher dictates words and a short sentence which includes words with the lesson's target patterns; students write the words and sentence in a notebook.</item> </ulist> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70109-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70109-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Sample Road to Reading lesson with anecdotal observation notes." /> </p> <p></p> <p>These predictable lesson structures help simplify planning and ensure that all key elements of a phonics lesson are included (Lane et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref130">42</reflink>]). It is important to note that RTR does not provide detailed scripts for each lesson plan. Rather, the program is designed so that teachers can build a five‐step lesson plan that is tailored to the specific needs of their students. Each level section of the manual includes word lists and references to support teachers in building their five‐step lesson plans. The program also directs teachers to capture anecdotal notes on each lesson plan to evaluate students' progress and inform future lesson plans. RTR includes a suite of diagnostic assessments (i.e., letter–sound correspondence, decoding inventory, high‐frequency word reading) to help determine the best starting level for a student and to progress monitor throughout the intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-23">Procedures: Guiding Teachers to Adapt RTR by Discussing Its Potential Opportunities for Enric...</hd> <p>In the preceding foundational literacy seminar course, participating teachers learned about the RTR program and its theoretical foundations and examined the program through three equity‐oriented theoretical frameworks—Asset‐Based Integrated View of Reading (ABIVR), Culturally and Historically Responsive Literacy (CHRL), and Adaptive Teaching. Through these lenses, teachers were encouraged to identify both the benefits and potential limitations of the structured phonics approach when serving diverse learners. In the subsequent field‐based practicum course, which is the focus of this study, teachers were expected to design and implement lessons based on what they had learned. For the first 3 weeks of the practicum course, participating teachers reviewed what they had learned from the preceding seminar course including the RTR program and its theoretical foundations as well as the equity‐oriented lenses. During the next 4 weeks, participating teachers were advised to teach the lessons as outlined in the manual with small groups of students with reading difficulties in a local partnership school. For the remaining 8 weeks, they were encouraged to adapt their RTR lessons based on their students' interests and identities. Throughout the practicum, they were asked to document their instructional decisions and student responses and to reflect on the integration of equity practices within the phonics framework.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-24">Data Sources</hd> <p>To explore how teachers integrated equity‐oriented practices into the evidence‐based phonics intervention, RTR, we drew upon multiple qualitative data sources collected across two 15‐week graduate‐level literacy methods courses. The data consisted of:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Lesson plans: Participating teachers submitted a total of 468 lesson plans (12 plans per teacher). These plans detailed adaptations to the RTR framework and served as primary evidence of how teachers implemented phonics instruction in alignment with equity frameworks.</item> <p></p> <item> Reflective memos: Teachers submitted weekly reflections documenting their instructional decisions, perceived successes and challenges, and student responses. In total, 312 (8 memos per teacher) were collected and analyzed. These reflections offered insights into participants' pedagogical thinking and evolving understandings of equity in literacy.</item> <p></p> <item> Classroom artifacts: We collected student‐generated decodable texts, annotated charts, multilingual reading materials, and mini‐assessments, which illustrated students' engagement and supported triangulation of teacher‐reported practices.</item> <p></p> <item> Field notes: Instructor‐researchers documented classroom observations and informal discussions during methods instruction and debrief sessions, offering contextual information about teacher learning and implementation.</item> <p></p> <item> Student work samples: Samples of student writing, sentence dictation, and illustrations were gathered from participating teachers to examine how children engaged with adapted phonics instruction and to assess patterns of self‐regulation and motivation. All identifiable information regarding students was removed before analysis.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0193225976-25">Data Analysis</hd> <p>We analyzed the data using an iterative, inductive‐deductive approach (Miles et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref131">52</reflink>]), combining open coding with theory‐informed thematic analysis. We employed the following steps:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Phase 1: Initial Coding. Both researchers independently coded a subset of data (lesson plans, reflections, and field notes) to identify initial codes related to instructional adaptations, student engagement, cultural responsiveness, and challenges in implementation.</item> <p></p> <item> Phase 2: Theoretical Framework Application. We then developed a codebook guided by our three primary frameworks—Asset‐Based Integrated View of Reading (ABIVR), Culturally and Historically Responsive Literacy (CHRL), and Adaptive Teaching. Codes such as "student voice in materials," "culturally relevant text integration," "adaptive use of sentence dictation," and "student motivation and agency" were aligned with theoretical principles from these models.</item> <p></p> <item> Phase 3: Collaborative Refinement. The research team met biweekly to compare coding decisions, resolve discrepancies, and refine themes. Through memoing and constant comparison, we identified salient patterns and illustrative examples that reflected both shared and divergent teaching practices. During Phase 3, we reduced data by creating matrices organizing coded excerpts by adaptation type and theoretical alignment. For example, we compiled all instances of student‐generated texts, then analyzed patterns across these instances: 31 of 39 teachers (80%) incorporated student‐generated decodable texts at least once; of these, 15 explicitly connected content to students' cultural backgrounds, 20 incorporated student interests, and 8 integrated home languages. This reduction process enabled us to identify which adaptations appeared across multiple teachers versus those representing individual innovations.</item> <p></p> <item> Phase 4: Triangulation and Member Checking. We conducted informal member checking with eight participating teachers during end‐of‐semester debrief sessions to refine our interpretation. Teachers clarified that what we initially coded as 'resistance to curriculum' was better characterized as 'critical analysis identifying opportunities for enhancement'. Teachers also emphasized that peer collaboration emerged organically rather than from explicit instruction, leading us to foreground this finding. No major themes were added or removed through member checking, but exemplars were refined based on teacher feedback about representativeness.</item> </ulist> <p>These four phases mirror practitioner inquiry's emphasis on cyclical movement between action and reflection, as teachers and researchers jointly generate and interrogate evidence from practice (Cochran‐Smith and Lytle [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref132">9</reflink>]; Dana and Yendol‐Hoppey [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref133">13</reflink>]). Table 2 presents a summary of key inductive codes developed from the data and a priori codes derived from ABIVR, CHRL, and the adaptive teaching framework, along with brief definitions and exemplar data excerpts.</p> <p>2 TABLE Summary of a priori and inductive codes.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Code</th><th align="center">Definition</th><th align="center">Source</th><th align="center">Exemplar</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">A Priori Codes (from frameworks)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Identity affirmation</td><td align="center">Instruction that validates students' cultural, linguistic, or personal identities</td><td align="center">CHRL</td><td align="center">The teacher worked with the student to co‐author a text titled 'I Love Myself' celebrating students' unique strengths.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Student voice in materials</td><td align="center">Students contribute to creating instructional texts or content</td><td align="center">CHRL, ABIVR</td><td align="center">Students co‐authored a story about playing soccer in their neighborhood, embedding target phonics patterns.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Multilingual integration</td><td align="center">Incorporation of students' home languages</td><td align="center">ABIVR</td><td align="center">Teachers paired visual supports with phonics activities in both English and home languages.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Autonomy support</td><td align="center">Instruction promoting student choice and agency</td><td align="center">ABIVR/SDT</td><td align="center">Teachers asked students to brainstorm sentences using target words rather than using predetermined sentences.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Self‐regulation supports</td><td align="center">Activities that foster students' metacognitive awareness and self‐monitoring</td><td align="center">ABIVR/SDT</td><td align="center">Teachers used mini‐charts listing sequential steps with color‐coded shapes and icons, allowing students to track their progress and anticipate upcoming tasks.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Adaptive decision‐making</td><td align="center">Teacher modifications responsive to student needs</td><td align="center">Adaptive Teaching</td><td align="center">A teacher‐designed activities linking her tutees' interest in art to targeted vowel digraphs.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Inductively Developed Codes</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Inquiry‐based learning</td><td align="center">Instruction that invites students to explore, question, and discover phonics patterns</td><td align="center">Inductive</td><td align="center">The teacher guided tutees to create a "How to Draw an Eye" poster while learning vocabulary and practicing vowel digraphs (aw, eyes).</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Strategy explicitness</td><td align="center">Teacher modeling of decoding strategies</td><td align="center">Inductive</td><td align="center">Teachers encouraged students to think about the sounds of the letters, breaking down each letter–sound relationship.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Peer collaboration</td><td align="center">Structured and organically emerging opportunities for students to work together</td><td align="center">Inductive</td><td align="center">One teacher introduced 'buddy checklists' where pairs took turns reading aloud.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0193225976-26">Findings</hd> <p>This practitioner inquiry explored how classroom teachers employed the ABIVR, CHRL, and Adaptive Teaching frameworks to adapt and enhance the RTR intervention in ways they perceived as more equitable and meaningful for diverse learners. Analysis of lesson plans, reflective memos, and artifacts revealed two overarching patterns: (a) teachers identified specific opportunities for enrichment in RTR when viewed through equity‐oriented frameworks, and (b) they designed strategic adaptations that foregrounded students' assets while maintaining a focus on foundational skills.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-27">Teachers' Analysis of Opportunities for Enrichment in RTR</hd> <p>Drawing on teachers' reflective memos from the first 4 weeks of the course and on field notes from seminar discussions, we identified three recurring areas of concern that guided their subsequent adaptations of RTR. Although teachers were invited to examine RTR through the frameworks, the specificity of these critiques suggests genuine pedagogical tensions rather than compliance with course expectations.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-28">Opportunities for Cultural and Linguistic Responsiveness</hd> <p>Twenty‐seven teachers (69%) recognized that while RTR has demonstrated effectiveness across diverse learner populations, including multilingual learners (Dussling [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref134">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref135">16</reflink>]), the program, like other phonics intervention curricula, lacks inherent culturally or linguistically responsive elements. Teachers recognized their agency in adapting a flexible lesson plan template like the one presented in RTR to meet the needs of their learners, and they identified opportunities to make adaptations. Specifically, teachers noted that RTR's lesson plans and use of decodable texts offered entry points for more intentionally incorporating students' diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds into instruction.</p> <p>Teachers noted that RTR's key words for sound‐symbol correspondences—such as "apple" for /a/, "itch" for /i/, "octopus" for /o/, and "Ed" for /e/—while phonetically appropriate, lack cultural resonance for diverse learners. One teacher reflected, "When I used 'Ed' as the key word for short /e/, my students looked blank—none of them knew anyone named Ed. But when I asked them to think of names they knew with that sound, they immediately said 'Elvia' and 'Eduardo,' names from their own families and communities. The RTR key words assume a cultural familiarity that many of my students simply don't have."</p> <p>Teachers also raised concerns about representation in the decodable texts they used with students. Teachers identified that the texts available to them in their practicum settings rarely featured characters, settings, or storylines reflecting the racial, cultural, or linguistic backgrounds of their students. One teacher wrote: "The stories are about generic kids doing generic things like going to the lake, having a pet cat. None of my students see their neighborhoods, their families, or their traditions in these books." Another noted: "My student asked why none of the characters in his reading books have names like his." This absence of representation, teachers argued, communicates an implicit message about whose experiences are valued in literacy learning.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-29">Monolingual Orientation</hd> <p>Ten teachers (26%) working with multilingual learners noted that RTR operates within an English‐only paradigm. The manual does not reference students' home languages or provide guidance for leveraging translanguaging practices, and it assumes English phonemic awareness as the starting point. One teacher observed: "The program doesn't take into account that my students speak Spanish at home. It would be much better if it considered what they know about sounds in their own language to help them learn English."</p> <p>Teachers also identified that RTR's assessment framework emphasizes skills students have not yet acquired—letter sounds they have not mastered, words they cannot decode—without providing structures for recognizing the linguistic and cultural assets students bring. One teacher reflected: "The assessments tell me what my student is missing, but they don't capture what she knows. She can read in Spanish. She has vocabulary knowledge from two languages. But none of that shows up in how we're supposed to assess her." Teachers wrestled with how to reconcile the programmatic assessment guidance with asset‐based pedagogical principles.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-30">Opportunities for Student Agency and Voice</hd> <p>While RTR's flexible framework allows teachers to select specific words and texts, 18 teachers (46%) noted that the lesson structure positions students as passive recipients of instruction rather than active agents in their learning. One teacher wrote: "Every step is something I do <emph>to</emph> the students. I present the sounds, I dictate the words, I select the decodable text. There's no moment where students get to contribute their own ideas or make choices about their learning." Though the predictable lesson structure in RTR and other systematic phonics programs can be helpful for novice teachers (Lane et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref136">42</reflink>]), participants raised questions about where students could have more agency.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-31">Strategic Adaptations to RTR Implementation</hd> <p>Based on their analysis, teachers developed and implemented several key adaptations that maintained RTR's structural integrity while enhancing its cultural responsiveness and student engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-32">Inquiry‐Based Phonics Instruction</hd> <p>In reflective memos and lesson plans, 24 of the 39 teachers (62%) described using inquiry‐based prompts at least once within the RTR routine. For example, a classroom teacher who tutored two second‐graders observed her tutees had developed growing phonemic awareness but continued to struggle with decoding vowel teams and silent <emph>e</emph>, especially when the vocabulary felt disconnected from their everyday interests. Determined to reinforce both foundational decoding skills and deeper engagement, she applied an inquiry‐based approach drawn from the ABIVR and CHRL models. Centering on words such as <emph>draw</emph> (emphasizing the /aw/ sound) and <emph>eyes</emph> (exploring the tricky /aɪz/ pronunciation), the teacher‐designed activities that linked her tutees' interest in art to targeted vowel digraphs and letter–sound patterns.</p> <p>First, the teacher guided her tutees to practice segmenting and blending words containing <emph>aw</emph> (e.g., <emph>draw, straw, flaw</emph>) as well as irregular vowel constructions like those in <emph>eyes</emph> (e.g., <emph>eyes, tries, fries</emph>). To make these abstract phonics skills more concrete, she invited her tutees to create a "How to Draw an Eye" poster (see Figure 2). Group members observed each step of their drawing processes while learning vocabulary such as <emph>iris, pupil</emph>, and <emph>outline</emph>. This integration of art and inquiry not only made words like <emph>draw</emph> and <emph>eyes</emph> more meaningful but also leveraged the tutees' passion for artistic pursuits. The teacher reported that through discussing, writing, and illustrating these terms in context, her tutees appeared more confident in decoding longer words and more purposeful in their engagement with the lesson.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70109-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70109-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 A sample poster created by one tutee." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193225976-34">Student‐Generated Decodable Texts</hd> <p>Decodable texts offer developing readers a critical opportunity to apply their newly acquired knowledge of sound‐spelling correspondences to meaningful texts. A decodable reader contains a high proportion of letter–sound correspondences and high‐frequency words that the reader has been taught, enabling the reader to apply what they have just learned (Mesmer [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref137">51</reflink>]). In our study, most teachers (31 of the 39 teachers) collaborated with students to create decodable texts reflecting their lived experiences. This approach preserves the purpose of decodable reading but expands it to include students' interests and identities.</p> <p>For example, one group of students co‐authored a story about playing soccer in their neighborhood, embedding target phonics patterns like <emph>say</emph>, <emph>day</emph>, and <emph>play</emph> and a set of previously taught high‐frequency words. The teacher and students first listed those ‐ay target words on a whiteboard, and then the small group collaboratively shared sentences about a soccer game (e.g., <emph>It was a good day to play soccer!</emph>). After the text was written on chart paper, students were able to copy the sentences into their own booklets and create their own illustrations.</p> <p>In another example, a teacher worked with the reading intervention group to co‐create a text titled "I Love Myself" that allowed for practice with previously taught phonetically regular words with vowel teams (<emph>read</emph> and <emph>count</emph>) and high‐frequency words (<emph>am, and, me</emph>) while celebrating students' unique strengths (see Figure 3). These texts enhanced students' sense of ownership and engagement while providing meaningful contexts for decoding practice.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70109-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70109-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Student‐generated decodable books." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Not all teachers found this adaptation equally feasible. Eight teachers (21%) did not incorporate student‐generated texts, citing time constraints and concerns about maintaining fidelity to the RTR scope and sequence. One teacher explained in her reflective memo, "I wanted to try co‐authoring texts, but with only 40 min per session for three beginning‐level students, I couldn't figure out how to make it work without sacrificing systematic progression." Another noted uncertainty about "whether student‐generated content would have enough repetition of the target patterns." These variations highlight the genuine tensions teachers navigate when adapting structured interventions and suggest that implementation support—such as planning templates or sample co‐authored texts organized by phonics pattern—may be necessary for broader adoption.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-36">Multilingual Learning Supports</hd> <p>Building on this student‐generated approach, tutoring groups with a high proportion of multilingual learners integrated visuals and home languages to further enhance meaning and motivation. Teachers paired visual supports with phonics activities to ensure that new vocabulary drew upon students' existing cultural and linguistic knowledge. For instance, a decodable text about a farm included animal illustrations familiar to diverse cultural backgrounds, helping multilingual learners connect prior experiences to unfamiliar words. Teachers also guided students in creating simple story maps—often in both English and their home languages—to provide continuity between decoding practice and personal lived experiences.</p> <p>Figure 4 presents a compelling example of a student‐created, multilingual decodable book produced by a young child of Korean and Black‐American heritage—who experienced reading challenges—and his Korean mother. Together, they developed a series of bilingual decodable texts in Korean and English. One such title, <emph>왜 나는 다르게 생겼어? (Why Am I Different?)</emph>, addresses themes of self‐identity and physical differences in language accessible to early readers. The illustrations—including a child wondering why his hair is "soooo curly"—provide a visual bridge between the Korean script and its English counterpart on each page.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70109-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70109-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Multilingual decodable books." /> </p> <p></p> <p>During small‐group RTR lesson, teachers introduced these student‐ and family‐created Korean‐English decodable books to highlight specific phonemic patterns in both languages. They started by reviewing a few Korean words, helping learners forge connections between newly introduced English sounds and their familiar home language. As students decoded the English passages, they could refer to the Korean text and illustrations for contextual support. By bringing together students' linguistic resources and cultural narratives, teachers reported that these multilingual decodables helped them honor students' bicultural identities and made decoding practice personally meaningful. Overall, this example underscores how blending student voice, cultural authenticity, and decodable text structures can strengthen foundational reading skills, foster pride in diverse linguistic and racial identities, and create an inclusive classroom environment.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-38">Enhanced Dictation Through Student Voice</hd> <p>Teachers modified RTR's traditional dictation component—where teachers dictate words and sentences containing target sound‐spelling patterns—to include student‐generated content. Drawing on research emphasizing the connection between decoding and encoding (Chall [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref138">7</reflink>]; Kim [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref139">37</reflink>]), teachers provided opportunities for students to generate their own sentences for spelling practice.</p> <p>Rather than using predetermined sentences, teachers shared target spelling pattern words and asked students to brainstorm sentences using one or more words. For example, during a lesson on final ‐e words, students generated the sentence, "We made a cute cake and cookies," which became a shared sentence dictation activity. Opportunities for students to generate sentences often included a few words with patterns that have not yet been learned, but practice isolating sounds and applying estimated spelling supports reading outcomes (Oulette and Sénéchal [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref140">61</reflink>]). In the example above, students had not yet been taught the patterns necessary to spell "cookies," but encouraging children to use invented spelling does not preclude their development of conventional, accurate spellings (Schrodt et al. [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref141">77</reflink>]). These modifications positioned students as active participants in their learning and allowed them agency within the structured writing activity.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-39">Explicit Strategy Integration</hd> <p>Teachers enhanced phonics instruction by explicitly modeling and practicing decoding strategies that build student confidence and independence. For example, when introducing a new or challenging word, teachers encouraged students to think about the sounds of the letters in the word. By breaking down each letter–sound relationship, students become more aware of how letters combine to form syllables and words. Teachers also described thinking out loud: saying, "I see the letter f; f spells the /f/ sound," and then blending each sound together. This process helps students understand that reading unfamiliar words involves more than just memorization—it relies on systematically analyzing letters and sounds.</p> <p>Teachers also guided students to identify familiar word parts within unfamiliar words, significantly reducing cognitive load. For example, when a word contains a familiar chunk, such as <emph>at</emph> in "sat" or <emph>ing</emph> in "looking," teachers drew attention to those known parts to help students piece the word together more easily. By continually prompting students to use these strategies, teachers fostered a sense of problem‐solving and persistence in young readers. Over time, teachers noted that their students developed a toolkit of decoding skills, allowing them to approach unfamiliar words with greater proficiency and confidence.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-40">Supporting Student Self‐Regulation and Motivation</hd> <p>A key finding from our RTR implementation involved the use of visually engaging mini‐charts (see Figure 5), which helped young learners keep track of the lesson's components and their progress. For instance, one chart listed sequential steps—ranging from phonological awareness activities to guided reading tasks—using color‐coded shapes and simple icons. By referencing this visual guide at the start of each session, students were able to anticipate upcoming tasks, prepare themselves for transitions, and recall the purpose of each activity. Teachers noted that this visual roadmap not only alleviated confusion about what came next but also fostered a sense of responsibility for following through with each phonics and decoding step.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70109-fig-0005.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70109-fig-0005.jpg" title="5 Sample mini‐charts." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The second mini‐chart focused on writing tips—reminding students to capitalize the first letter of a sentence, insert spaces between words, and reinforce targeted phonics patterns. Teachers reported that children took pride in "checking off" each skill after successfully applying it in their writing. As a result, teachers observed that their students began to see themselves as active participants in their learning, rather than passive recipients of instruction. Combining explicit mini‐charts with consistent teacher modeling cultivated greater self‐regulation, as students looked to these visual prompts for guidance and gradually internalized the steps for success. Overall, these visuals not only reinforced core literacy skills but also empowered children to take ownership of their reading and writing processes, contributing to a more engaged and confident group of emergent readers.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-42">Equity‐Centered Assessment Practices</hd> <p>To strengthen connections between motivation and justice‐oriented reading instruction, teachers expanded RTR's diagnostic assessment battery beyond traditional measures of letter/sound correspondences, word reading skills, and high‐frequency word knowledge. Recognizing motivation as multifaceted (Jang et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref142">35</reflink>]), teachers incorporated brief motivation and interest surveys exploring students' reading habits and personal interests.</p> <p>This expanded assessment approach enabled strategic instructional decisions. For example, one student shared her passionate interest in cats. The teacher was able to locate two decodable texts that featured cats and worked with the student to co‐author a text on getting a new kitten. Another teacher used a student's love of drawing as a motivational incentive; after co‐authoring and reading a decodable text, the student was provided an additional 5 min of illustration time. By repositioning the holistic student profile as a part of the assessment cycle, teachers were better able to affirm students' interests and motivations (Forzani et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref143">19</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-43">Peer Collaboration and Community Building</hd> <p>Structured peer collaboration emerged as a significant factor in enhancing student engagement and skill development (Cho et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref144">8</reflink>]). Teachers observed that when students worked in pairs or small groups to practice letter–sound correspondences, both confidence and accuracy increased. For instance, one teacher introduced "buddy checklists," where each pair took turns reading aloud short decodable passages and noted when their partner accurately applied target phonics patterns. Teachers shared that students responded enthusiastically to the supportive peer feedback, often providing prompts like, "Remember, that sound is /sh/," which increased both learners' focus and willingness to try new words.</p> <p>Peer collaboration also promoted a sense of reciprocity and shared responsibility for learning. During group read‐alouds, teachers shared that their students spontaneously offered encouragement and gentle corrections, celebrating each other's successes and collectively problem‐solving when encountering difficult blends or sight words. Teachers reported that this social dimension of literacy instruction helped even the most hesitant readers feel safe taking risks and asking for clarification. Moreover, by participating in small‐group discussions—where students compared their approaches to decoding or shared mnemonic strategies—the children developed a deeper metacognitive awareness of their reading processes. Overall, peer collaboration emerged as a catalyst for motivation, reinforcing the idea that every student can contribute positively to the learning community.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-44">Discussion</hd> <p>This practitioner inquiry illustrates adaptations that classroom teachers made to incorporate culturally responsive pedagogy into an SoR‐aligned intervention in one local context. Rather than evaluating RTR's impact on student achievement, we documented the equity‐oriented moves that surfaced in teachers' lesson plans, reflective memos, and artifacts as they implemented an SoR‐aligned intervention with K−2 students experiencing reading difficulties. In this section, we interpret those documented adaptations through our three theoretical frameworks and consider what they suggest about possibilities for integrating SoR‐aligned interventions with equity‐oriented frameworks.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-45">Teachers' Analysis as Foundation for Adaptation</hd> <p>A significant finding of this study was teachers' capacity to engage in theoretically grounded critique of an evidence‐based intervention. The three areas for enrichment teachers identified—limited cultural and linguistic responsiveness, monolingual orientation, and limited student agency—reflect sophisticated engagement with the equity‐oriented frameworks introduced in the course. That 69% of teachers recognized cultural and linguistic opportunities to enhance RTR suggests that when provided with appropriate theoretical tools, educators can thoughtfully analyze well‐established programs.</p> <p>This thoughtful analysis aligns with the adaptive teaching framework (Vaughn et al. [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref145">87</reflink>]), which positions teachers as active mediators between content knowledge and student needs rather than passive implementers of scripted curricula. Teachers' observations about RTR's key words (e.g., "Ed" for /e/) lacking cultural resonance and decodable texts featuring "generic kids doing generic things" reflect the kind of context‐specific knowledge that Parsons et al. ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref146">69</reflink>]) argue is essential for effective instructional adaptation. Importantly, this critique was not a rejection of systematic phonics instruction but rather an identification of opportunities for enhancement—a distinction teachers themselves clarified during member checking.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-46">Connecting Findings to the ABIVR</hd> <p>The examples and cases we presented underscore the importance of centering students' assets by integrating equity, motivation, and cultural responsiveness into the foundational skills framework of RTR. For example, our findings illustrate how culturally relevant materials, such as decodable texts reflecting a student's family traditions, enhanced his decoding fluency and classroom engagement. This finding aligns with Gabriel and López's ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref147">21</reflink>]) Asset‐Based Integrated View of Reading (ABIVR), which advocates for centering students' cultural and linguistic assets and identities to promote autonomy and competence. Similarly, inquiry‐driven lessons, such as when the teacher connected her students' artistic aspirations to decoding skills, highlight how motivation and self‐regulation can be fostered through assets‐based and student‐centered activities. These examples illustrate that when phonics instruction acknowledges students' cultural contexts and personal goals, it can transcend early literacy skill acquisition to become a more empowering and affirming experience.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-47">Alignment With Culturally and Historically Responsive Literacy Framework</hd> <p>Our findings also reinforce Muhammad's ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref148">56</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref149">57</reflink>]) Culturally and Historically Responsive Literacy (CHRL) framework, which identifies identity, intellect, skills, criticality, and joy as essential components of literacy education. By incorporating culturally relevant narratives, student‐generated texts, and multilingual supports, teachers not only fostered decoding skills but also created opportunities for students to engage critically with their own identities and histories. For instance, the use of Korean‐English bilingual decodables co‐created by a young child and his mother exemplifies how blending cultural narratives with phonics instruction can validate students' heritage and build their confidence as readers. These findings echo Toppel's ([<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref150">82</reflink>]) work on culturally relevant pedagogy, which highlights the importance of integrating students' lived experiences into literacy lessons to enhance engagement and comprehension.</p> <p>In addition, our findings align with recent studies on culturally relevant decodable texts. Research demonstrates that developing readers read more accurately when they have ample opportunities to practice with texts specifically designed to reinforce targeted phonics patterns (Hiebert [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref151">30</reflink>]; Hiebert and Fisher [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref152">31</reflink>]). Recent studies also suggest that children benefit from exposure to a variety of decodable text types (Pugh et al. [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref153">72</reflink>]), particularly those that reflect diverse cultures and interests (Lawson [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref154">43</reflink>]). However, many students encounter decodable texts that lack meaningful connections to their identities and lived experiences. In our work, we have observed students' motivation decline during the portion of the RTR lesson where they read texts that are decodable but neither engaging nor relevant to their lives. This disconnect between decodable content and student experience creates a missed opportunity for meaningful literacy engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-48">Implications for Future Research and Practice</hd> <p>This study suggests that enhancing SoR‐aligned interventions with culturally responsive practices can create conditions that support foundational reading practice while also fostering a sense of purpose and belonging. Although we did not directly measure student outcomes, the adaptations teachers designed—student‐generated decodable texts, multilingual supports, inquiry‐based routines, and equity‐centered assessment practices—illustrate how SoR interventions can be enacted in ways that take students' identities and communities seriously. Our findings contribute to a growing body of scholarship calling for more expansive conceptions of the SoR—one that integrates cultural and linguistic responsiveness alongside cognitive skill development. Pittman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref155">70</reflink>]), for instance, advance a culturally relevant SoR framework that centers African American English and racial identity, demonstrating that the field is moving toward theorizing equity not as an add‐on to evidence‐based instruction but as integral to it. Together, these efforts suggest that future research should explore how equity‐oriented frameworks can be systematically embedded into SoR‐aligned programs across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts. Additionally, professional development programs should prioritize equipping teachers with strategies to adapt evidence‐based interventions like RTR to diverse classroom contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-49">Limitations and Future Research Directions</hd> <p>While our study provides valuable insights into culturally responsive literacy instruction, several limitations suggest directions for future research. First, our focus on small‐group intervention contexts may limit generalizability to whole‐class instruction. Future studies should examine how these principles can be applied in larger instructional settings.</p> <p>Second, our study concentrated on the immediate implementation of adaptations without examining long‐term impacts on student outcomes. Longitudinal research is needed to understand how culturally responsive modifications to evidence‐based interventions affect sustained reading growth and student engagement over time.</p> <p>Third, while we documented successful teacher adaptations, we did not systematically examine the professional development processes that enabled these modifications. Future research should investigate how to most effectively prepare teachers to implement integrated approaches that honor both scientific evidence and cultural responsiveness.</p> <p>Finally, our study was conducted in specific contexts with particular student populations. Research across diverse settings and with varied student groups would strengthen understanding of how these principles can be adapted across different cultural and linguistic communities.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-50">Conclusion</hd> <p>This paper underscores the potential for literacy interventions to achieve both academic rigor and cultural responsiveness by integrating principles from SoR with equity‐focused frameworks. The findings highlight how culturally and linguistically relevant strategies, such as student‐generated decodable texts, multilingual supports, and inquiry‐based activities, can be integrated into enhancing foundational reading skills. We illustrate how, in one graduate course context, these perspectives can be synergistically integrated to create more equitable literacy instruction.</p> <p>As literacy education continues to evolve, this work reaffirms the importance of centering equity in foundational skills instruction. Moving forward, educators and researchers must collaborate to ensure that all students, particularly those from historically marginalized communities, have access to reading interventions that are both inclusive and transformative. By doing so, educators and researchers can work toward cultivating readers who are not only proficient in decoding but also increasingly equipped to engage critically and joyfully with the world around them.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-51">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0193225976-52">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>Research data are not shared.</p> <ref id="AN0193225976-53"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adams, M. J.1990. Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print. MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref43" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Blachman, B. A., E. W. Ball, R. Black, and D. M. Tangel. 1994. "Kindergarten Teachers Develop Phoneme Awareness in Young Children: A Study of Implementation and Effects." Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal6, no. 1: 1–18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref45" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Blachman, B. A., C. Schatschneider, J. M. Fletcher, et al. 2004. "Effects of Intensive Reading Remediation for Second and Third Graders and a 1‐Year Follow‐Up." Journal of Educational Psychology96, no. 3: 444–461.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref46" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Blachman, B. A., C. Schatschneider, J. M. Fletcher, M. S. Murray, K. A. Munger, and M. G. Vaughn. 2014. "Intensive Reading Remediation in Grade 2 or 3: Are There Effects a Decade Later?" Journal of Educational Psychology106, no. 1: 46–57.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref38" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Blachman, B. A., and D. M. Tangel. 2008. Road to Reading. Paul S. Brookes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref44" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Blachman, B. A., D. M. Tangel, E. W. Ball, R. Black, and C. K. McGraw. 1999. "Developing Phonological Awareness and Word Recognition Skills: A Two‐Year Intervention With Low‐Income, Inner‐City Children." Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal11, no. 3: 239–273.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref138" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chall, J.1967. Learning to Read: The Great Debate. McGraw Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref63" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cho, E., U. Ju, E. H. Kim, M. Lee, G. Lee, and D. L. Compton. 2023. "Relations Among Motivation, Executive Functions, and Reading Comprehension: Do They Differ for Students With and Without Reading Difficulties?" Scientific Studies of Reading27, no. 4: 289–310.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref121" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cochran‐Smith, M., and S. L. Lytle. 2009. Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the Next Generation. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conradi, K., B. G. Jang, and M. C. McKenna. 2014. "Motivation Terminology in Reading Research: A Conceptual Review." Educational Psychology Review26, no. 1: 127–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐013‐9245‐z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cross Francis, D., J. Decuir‐Gunby, F. López, and M. McCrudden. 2025. "A Humanizing Approach to Race‐Focused Research in Educational Psychology." Educational Psychologist60, no. 4: 251–266.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cycyk, L. M., S. De Anda, H. Moore, and L. Huerta. 2021. "Cultural and Linguistic Adaptations of Early Language Interventions: Recommendations for Advancing Research and Practice." American Journal of Speech‐Language Pathology30, no. 3: 1224–1246.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dana, N. F., and D. Yendol‐Hoppey. 2019. The Reflective Educator's Guide to Classroom Research: Learning to Teach and Teaching to Learn Through Practitioner Inquiry. 4th ed. Corwin Press.</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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dussling, T. M.2018. "Examining the Effectiveness of a Supplemental Reading Intervention on the Early Literacy Skills of English Language Learners." Literacy Research & Instruction57, no. 3: 276–284.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dussling, T. M.2020. "The Impact of an Early Reading Intervention With English Language Learners and Native‐English‐Speaking Children." Reading Psychology41, no. 4: 241–263.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elzy‐Palmer, J., A. Babino, and T. Hubbard. 2025. "Dimensions of Equity in the Science of Reading Research: A Systematic Review of Actual, Artificial, and Absent Up‐Takes of Equity." Reading Research Quarterly60, no. 4: e70070.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foorman, B., N. Beyler, K. Borradaile, et al. 2016. "Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade." NCEE2016: 4008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forzani, E., J. Corrigan, D. Slomp, and J. Randall. 2024. "Prioritizing Equitable Social Outcomes With and for Diverse Readers: A Conceptual Framework for the Development and Use of Justice‐Based Reading Assessment." Educational Psychologist59, no. 4: 291–314.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Franz, K., and B. G. Jang. 2025. "Rebooting a Foundational Reading Program With Recent Evidence From the Science of Reading. The Language and Literacy." Spectrum35, no. 1: 9. https://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/lls/vol35/iss1/9.</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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gay, G.2010. Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice. 2nd ed. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Georgiou, G. K., and J. P. Das. 2018. "Direct and Indirect Effects of Executive Function on Reading Comprehension in Young Adults." Journal of Research in Reading41, no. 2: 243–258.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gersten, R., D. Compton, C. M. Connor, et al. 2009. Assisting Students Struggling With Reading: Response to Intervention and Multi‐Tier Intervention in the Primary Grades. Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gersten, R., K. Haymond, R. Newman‐Gonchar, J. Dimino, and M. Jayanthi. 2020. "Meta‐Analysis of the Impact of Reading Interventions for Students in the Primary Grades." Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness13, no. 2: 401–427.</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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall, C., K. Dahl‐Leonard, E. Cho, et al. 2022. "Forty Years of Reading Intervention Research for Elementary Students With or at Risk for Dyslexia: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis." Reading Research Quarterly58: 285–312.</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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hebbecker, K., N. Förster, and E. Souvignier. 2019. "Reciprocal Effects Between Reading Achievement and Intrinsic and Extrinsic Reading Motivation." Scientific Studies of Reading23, no. 5: 419–436.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hiebert, E.2017. "The Texts of Literacy Instruction: Obstacles to or Opportunities for Educational Equity?" Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice66, no. 1: 117–134.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hiebert, E. H., and C. W. Fisher. 2007. "Critical Word Factor in Texts for Beginning Readers." Journal of Educational Research101, no. 1: 3–11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ho, E. S. C., and K. Lau. 2018. "Reading Engagement and Reading Literacy Performance: Effective Policy and Practices at Home and in School." Journal of Research in Reading41, no. 4: 657–679.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoover, W. A., and P. B. Gough. 1990. "The Simple View of Reading." Reading and Writing2: 127–160.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hur, J. H., P. Snyder, and B. Reichow. 2020. "Systematic Review of English Early Literacy Interventions for Children Who Are Dual Language Learners." Topics in Early Childhood Special Education40, no. 1: 6–23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jang, B. G., K. Conradi, M. C. McKenna, and J. S. Jones. 2015. "Motivation: Approaching an Elusive Concept Through the Factors That Shape It." Reading Teacher69, no. 2: 239–247. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1365.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jensen, B.2021. "Advancing the Science of Teaching Reading Equitably." Reading Research Quarterly56: S69–S84.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, Y. S. G.2023. "Simplicity Meets Complexity: Expanding the Simple View of Reading With the Direct and Indirect Effects Model of Reading." In Handbook on the Science of Early Literacy, 9–22. Guilford Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumar, R., A. Zusho, and R. Bondie. 2018. "Weaving Cultural Relevance and Achievement Motivation Into Inclusive Classroom Cultures." Educational Psychologist53, no. 2: 78–96.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladson‐Billings, G.1995. "Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy." American Educational Research Journal32, no. 3: 465–491.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladson‐Billings, G.2021. "I'm Here for the Hard Re‐Set: Post Pandemic Pedagogy to Preserve Our Culture." Equity & Excellence in Education54, no. 1: 68–78.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladson‐Billings, G. J.1999. "Preparing Teachers for Diverse Student Populations: A Critical Race Theory Perspective." Review of Research in Education24, no. 1: 211–247.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lane, H. B., V. A. Contesse, and C. Gallingane. 2023. "Phonics 101: Preparing Teachers to Provide Effective Intervention in Word Reading Skills." Intervention in School and Clinic59, no. 1: 9–19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lawson, A.2023. ""We Can Draw and Think About It Ourselves": Putting Culture and Race in Phonics Reading Research." Reading Research Quarterly59, no. 1: 5–31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lawson, A.2024. "Make It Make Sense: Fostering Children of Color From Minoritized Communities' Comprehension Through Student‐Generated Decodable Readers." Reading Teacher77, no. 4: 541–552.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, S. Y.2025. "Seeing the Brain, Scientizing the Teacher Knowledge: The Question of Equity in the Science of Reading Reforms." Teachers College Record127, no. 5: 152–186.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, Y., B. G. Jang, and K. Conradi Smith. 2021. "A Systematic Review of Reading Engagement Research: What Do We Mean, What Do We Know, and Where Do We Need to Go?" Reading Psychology42, no. 5: 540–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2021.1888359.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> López, F.2017. "Altering the Trajectory of the Self‐Fulfilling Prophesy: Asset‐Based Pedagogy and Classroom Dynamics." Journal of Teacher Education68, no. 2: 193–212.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> López, F.2024. "Asset‐Based Pedagogies: Perspectives for Educational Psychology." In Handbook of Educational Psychology, edited by P. Schutz and K. Muis, 4th ed.American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ludwig, C., K. Guo, and G. K. Georgiou. 2019. "Are Reading Interventions for English Language Learners Effective?" A Meta‐Analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities52, no. 3: 220–231.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCrudden, M. T., and D. N. Rapp. 2024. "Inquiry Worldviews, Approaches to Research, and Mixed Methods in Educational Psychology." In Handbook of Educational Psychology, edited by P. Schutz and K. R. Muis, 4th ed., 48–70. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mesmer, H. A. E.2000. "Decodable Text: A Review of What We Know." Literacy Research & Instruction40, no. 2: 121–141.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miles, M., A. Huberman, and J. Saldaña. 2019. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 4th ed. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milner, H. R., IV. 2007. "Race, Culture, and Researcher Positionality: Working Through Dangers Seen, Unseen, and Unforeseen." Educational Researcher36, no. 7: 388–400.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milner, H. R., IV. 2020. "Disrupting Racism and Whiteness in Researching a Science of Reading." Reading Research Quarterly55, no. S1: 249–253.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan, P. L., and D. Fuchs. 2007. "Is There a Bidirectional Relationship Between Children's Reading Skills and Reading Motivation?" Exceptional Children73, no. 2: 165–183.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muhammad, G.2020. Cultivating Genius: An Equity Framework for Culturally and Historically Responsive Literacy. Scholastic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muhammad, G.2023. Unearthing Joy: A Guide to Culturally and Responsive Teaching and Learning. Scholastic Incorporated.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Reading Panel. 2000. Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence‐Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neugebauer, S. R., L. Sandilos, J. DiPerna, L. Hunter, S. C. Hart, and E. Ellis. 2023. "41 Teachers, 41 Different Ways: Exploring Teacher Implementation of a Universal Social‐Emotional Learning Program Under Routine Conditions." Elementary School Journal124, no. 1: 157–192.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neuman, S. B., E. Quintero, and K. Reist. 2023. Reading Reform Across America: A Survey of State Legislation. Albert Shanker Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oulette, G., and M. Sénéchal. 2017. "Invented Spelling and Its Role in Early Literacy Development." Child Development Perspectives11, no. 2: 91–96.</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: S339–S350.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paris, D.2012. "Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy: A Needed Change in Stance, Terminology, and Practice." Educational Researcher41, no. 3: 93–97.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paris, D., and H. S. Alim. 2017. Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies: Teaching and Learning for Justice in a Changing World. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parra, M. O., and P. Proctor. 2023. "The Translanguaging Pedagogies Continuum." Journal of Education203, no. 4: 917–924.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parsons, A. W., S. A. Parsons, L. A. Groth, S. T. Ives, and H. Heo. 2025. "Exploring Science of Reading Policy Through the Lens of Self‐Determination Theory." Education Policy Analysis Archives33: 8614. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.33.8614.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parsons, S. A., S. L. Dodman, and S. C. Burrowbridge. 2013. "Broadening the View of Differentiated Instruction." Phi Delta Kappan95, no. 1: 38–42.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parsons, S. A., and J. D. Erickson. 2024. "Where Is Motivation in the Science of Reading?" Phi Delta Kappan105, no. 5: 32–36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parsons, S. A., M. Vaughn, R. Q. Scales, et al. 2018. "Teachers' Instructional Adaptations: A Research Synthesis." Review of Educational Research88, no. 2: 205–242.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pittman, R. T., W. McCoy, D. Latimer‐Hearn, Q. Ogletree, and G. Downing. 2026. "Centering Language and Identity to Advance a Culturally Relevant Science of Reading Framework for African American Students." Urban Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859261417342.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pressley, M., and P. Afflerbach. 1995. Verbal Protocols of Reading. Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pugh, A., D. M. Kearns, and E. H. Hiebert. 2023. "Text Types and Their Relation to Efficacy in Beginning Reading Interventions." Reading Research Quarterly58, no. 4: 710–732.</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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richards‐Tutor, C., and E. J. Solari. 2022. "Evidence‐Based, Culturally Responsive Interventions to Improve Academic Outcomes for English Learners With Reading Difficulties." In Handbook of Special Education Research, edited by C. J. Lemons, S. R. Powell, K. L. Lane, and T. C. Aceves, vol. II, 150–162. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2020. "Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation From a Self‐Determination Theory Perspective: Definitions, Theory, Practices, and Future Directions." Contemporary Educational Psychology61: 101860.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schiefele, U., E. Schaffner, J. Möller, and A. Wigfield. 2012. "Dimensions of Reading Motivation and Their Relation to Reading Behavior and Competence." Reading Research Quarterly47, no. 4: 427–463.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schrodt, K., J. G. Fain, and T. Morrison. 2020. "Invented Spelling as a Developmental Tool for Early Literacy." Reading Teacher73, no. 4: 489–498.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shanahan, T.2020. "What Constitutes a Science of Reading Instruction?" Reading Research Quarterly55: S235–S247.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steacy, L. M., A. M. Elleman, M. W. Lovett, and D. L. Compton. 2016. "Exploring Differential Effects Across Two Decoding Treatments on Item‐Level Transfer in Children With Significant Word Reading Difficulties: A New Approach for Testing Intervention Elements." Scientific Studies of Reading20, no. 4: 283–295.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stevens, L. P.2011. "Literacy, Capital, and Education: A View From Immigrant Youth." Theory Into Practice50, no. 2: 133–140.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taboada Barber, A., S. Lutz Klauda, and L. M. Stapleton. 2020. "Cognition, Engagement, and Motivation as Factors in the Reading Comprehension of Dual Language Learners and English Speakers: Unified or Distinctive Models?" Reading and Writing33, no. 9: 2249–2279.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Toppel, K.2012. "Phonics Instruction With a Culturally Responsive Twist: Three Approaches to Transforming Curriculum." Multicultural Perspectives14, no. 2: 99–102.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Truckenmiller, A. J., and J. S. Brehmer. 2021. "Making the Most of Tier 2 Intervention: What Decisions Are Made in Successful Studies?" Reading & Writing Quarterly37, no. 3: 240–259.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van der Sande, L., R. van Steensel, S. Fikrat‐Wevers, and L. Arends. 2023. "Effectiveness of interventions that foster reading motivation: A meta‐analysis." Educational Psychology Review35, no. 1: 21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaughn, M., and J. Masterson. 2025. "Supporting Foundational Skills for Adolescents With Agency." Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy68, no. 4: 363–368.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaughn, M., S. A. Parsons, and M. A. Gallagher. 2022. "Challenging Scripted Curricula With Adaptive Teaching." Educational Researcher51, no. 3: 186–196.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaughn, M., S. A. Parsons, and D. Massey. 2020. "Aligning the Science of Reading With Adaptive Teaching." Reading Research Quarterly55: S299–S306.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vellutino, F. R., and D. M. Scanlon. 2002. "The Interactive Strategies Approach to Reading Intervention." Contemporary Educational Psychology27, no. 4: 573–635.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigfield, A., J. R. Gladstone, and L. Turci. 2016. "Beyond Cognition: Reading Motivation and Reading Comprehension." Child Development Perspectives10, no. 3: 190–195.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wissman, K. K.2021. "Bringing a Culturally Sustaining Lens to Reading Intervention." Journal of Literacy Research53, no. 4: 563–587.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Bong Gee Jang and Kate Franz</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref153"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1503821
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: When Science of Reading Meets Equity: Understanding and Applying Equity-Oriented Models to Enhance a Phonics Intervention
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bong+Gee+Jang%22">Bong Gee Jang</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6830-8170">0000-0002-6830-8170</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kate+Franz%22">Kate Franz</searchLink>
– 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: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Research%22">Reading Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Education%22">Equal Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Models%22">Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonics%22">Phonics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Culturally+Relevant+Education%22">Culturally Relevant Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decoding+%28Reading%29%22">Decoding (Reading)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multilingualism%22">Multilingualism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inquiry%22">Inquiry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Active+Learning%22">Active Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Interests%22">Student Interests</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/rrq.70109
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0034-0553<br />1936-2722
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This practitioner inquiry study examines how equity-oriented literacy frameworks can enrich a Science of Reading (SoR)-aligned phonics intervention, Road to Reading (RTR). Guided by an Asset-Based Integrated View of Reading and Culturally and Historically Responsive Literacy, 39 pre- and in-service teachers adapted RTR lessons for K-2 students in a graduate literacy methods course. We qualitatively analyzed 468 lesson plans and 312 reflective memos to document equity-oriented adaptations to the RTR phonics routine. Teachers embedded student-authored decodable texts, multilingual supports, inquiry-based learning, and assessment practices that attended to students' interests and identities. The findings illustrate patterns in teachers' equity-oriented adaptations that blend SoR-aligned instruction with culturally and historically sustaining pedagogy.
– 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: EJ1503821
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1503821
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/rrq.70109
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Reading Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equal Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Phonics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Culturally Relevant Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decoding (Reading)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Multilingualism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inquiry
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Active Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Interests
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: When Science of Reading Meets Equity: Understanding and Applying Equity-Oriented Models to Enhance a Phonics Intervention
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bong Gee Jang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kate Franz
    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