Beyond the Science of Reading: Disentangling Five Common Myths

Over the past decade, many schools across North America and around the world have seen renewed emphasis on the need to draw upon current, high quality research to inform how early reading is taught. Spurred by concerns that children have fallen through the cracks (OHRC 2021), much of the focus has centred on the imperative to make sure all children learn to fluently decode text. In Alberta, for example, recent revisions to elementary language arts curriculum placed greater emphasis on phonics skills, and school districts are revamping instruction to be more intentional in these areas. We see greater intentionality as a positive development that has the potential to strengthen early literacy instruction. Simultaneously, we recognize that shifting rhetoric and rapidly changing mandates can leave educators reeling, unsure of what to embrace and what to discard. The struggle is real, particularly because the umbrella term science of reading, often linked to literacy education reforms, has no stable, agreed-upon meaning (Aydarova 2023). Adding to the confusion, some of the approaches and practices referred to as the science of reading are anchored in research, while others lack research support (see Shanahan 2021). More frequently, approaches may contain snippets of research-informed veracity but are communicated to educators in ways that strip them of nuance and create inaccuracies. Educators may come away with the message that they should always or never engage in a particular instructional approach, even though the reality is less black and white. Our goal here is to examine five widely circulating myths, outlining what aspects are in alignment with contemporary reading research. Our hope is that this analysis will allow educators to be more intentional in how they bring research-based classroom practices to life.