Dual Language Researcher Fact-checks SoR

Fact-checking 10 Science of Reading Claims: A Multilingual Education Perspective 

Jill Kerper Mora
San Diego State University 

The format for this fact-checking of the Science of Reading (SoR) from the perspective of multilingual learner education and the description of the SoR claims are based on the book by Robert Tierney and P. David Pearson titled Fact-checking the Science of Reading: Opening up the Conversation. The book is available for free access from Literacy Research Commons.

SoR CLAIM 1 

Explicit systematic phonics instruction is the key curricular component in teaching beginning reading.

Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (2024). Fact-checking the Science of Reading: Opening up the conversation. Literacy Research Commons.

Bilingual educators teach phonics in two languages. Spanish phonics is much easier to learn than English phonics because Spanish has a transparent orthography. On average, it takes one to three years for a Spanish speaker to learn to read Spanish (Alegría & Carillo, 2014: Jiménez & Ortiz, 2000). Contrarily, it takes from three to five years for an English speaker to learn to read English (Seidenberg, 2013; Share, 2004).

The question of how explicit and systematic phonics instruction needs to be is not a question that research can answer. This determination depends on the linguistic and cultural characteristics of the students receiving the instruction. For example, Spanish-English bilingual learners who are biliterate and have learned to read in Spanish need much less explicit instruction in English phonics when learning to read in English as a second/additional language (Fedeli, et al., 2021: Petito, et al., 2012). This is because many letter-sound correspondences are directly transferable across languages (Mora, 2016; Mora & Dorta-Duque de Reyes, in press; Thonis, 1983). These students have mastered alphabetic decoding. Their phonological/phonemic awareness is well developed and also transfers across languages. There is no fixed sequence for English phonics instruction needed for these students because, as fluent readers of Spanish, they already have a full repertoire of phonetic decoding skills (Jiménez, García & Pearson, 1996; Kovelman, et al., 2015; Marks, et al., 2022).

Orthography is the study of how oral language is represented systematically in writing. The term comes from the Latin roots ortho meaning “straight” or “correct” and graph meaning writing, or how to write correctly. Orthography is more than spelling since it refers to all aspects of written language such as punctuation, word spacing and special features used to signal meaning. Orthographic systems have varying degrees of consistency and regularity in terms of the one to one or multiple relationships with phonetic and morphological units of the language and the use of single letters or letter clusters and combinations to represent different phonemes and morphemes. The writing system represents oral language sounds, the reader must recode the written forms into language, which requires metalinguistic knowledge of how the symbolic writing system operates. A writing system represents oral language sounds, the reader must recode the written forms into language, which requires metalinguistic knowledge of how the symbolic writing system represents speech. This is referred to as the alphabetic principle or “mapping” sounds onto print, where the reader makes speech to print connections to comprehend a text. In biliteracy instruction, teachers make explicit contrasts and comparisons between the two language systems that students are learning, which increase their awareness and knowledge of how the languages are represented in written text. This explicit knowledge formation supports development of problem-solving strategies in decoding and comprehending text.

The features of effective phonics instruction for multilingual learners must include contextualization of word recognition skills in relationship to word meanings (semantics) to enhance vocabulary development. This requirement is supported by empirical research in second language reading on the construct of lexical inferencing (Haastrup, 2009; Nassaji, 2006; Raudszus, Segers & Verhoeven, 2021; Wesche & Paribakht, 2009). Explicit instruction is an issue of effectiveness for metalinguistic learning where the objective is to make explicit the knowledge of how language(s) work that undergirds multilingual learners’ first and second language competence (DeKeyser, 2003; Ellis, 2005; Francis, 2011). Isolated and decontextualized phonics instruction is counter-indicated for multilingual learners because vocabulary is retained in memory through word-context associations are made at the conceptual level rather than the word-form level (W.S. Francis et al., 2019). The use of decodable texts for Spanish literate students is not recommended because decodables are modified and artificial English language that decreases students’ ability to utilize natural English syntax and grammar for meaning making.

The San Diego Office of Education published the Common Core Standards Translation Project. The translation included a linguistic augmentation to specify Spanish-specific orthographical and grammatical knowledge needed for decoding and comprehending Spanish text. A project of the Council of Chief State School Officers, the California Department of Education, and the San Diego County Office of Education, the Common Core en Español Spanish translations and linguistically augmented versions of the CA CCSS to support equitable assessment and curriculum development.

The parallels to metalinguistic concepts and skills between English Language Arts and Spanish Language Arts are articulated in this standards document. This curriculum document presents a sequence of metalinguistic knowledge concepts, known as the Common Core en Español Standards (2012). The standards’ scope and sequence reflect a progression of linguistic competence and demands of academic tasks. The grade-by-grade articulation of metalinguistic concepts categorized by language subsystems to illustrate how knowledge of how language works is applied to students’ performance of academic language and literacy tasks in English and Spanish across the elementary grades (Mora & Dorta-Duque de Reyes, in press). 

Implications for Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Instruction

The National Reading Panel Report (2000) highlighted five “pillars” of reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension. Sic years later, the National Literacy Panel on Language-minority Children and Youth that provided a meta-analysis of 293 studies from between 1980-2002 that focused on factors that influence language minority students’ second-language literacy development and achievement (August & Shanahan, 2006). These factors included individual differences in second-language oral proficiency, first-language oral proficiency and literacy, some socio-cultural variables, and classroom and school factors. The National Literacy Panel asserted that language-minority students are subject to an additional set of intervening influences related to their language proficiency and literacy in their first language and their socio-cultural context for literacy learning that were not addressed in the National Reading Panel Report (2000). The research on literacy instruction for emergent bilingual and English learners cannot be comprehensive and complete without considering the findings and conclusions of the National Literacy Panel that employed a multidimensional, dynamic framework on native language and second-language literacy development. Also, consideration must be given to the research on Spanish literacy instruction from Spanish-speaking countries. See Dr. Mora’s Spanish Literacy Research bibliography available on the MoraModules website. 

In a dual language program where students are learning language and literacy in two languages in tandem, the commonalities and contrasts between Spanish and English phonology compel decision making regarding the scope and sequence of instruction across the grades in the target and partner languages and the degree of focus on developing language-specific metalinguistic knowledge. Decision making in this area is based on the realization that phonological awareness and its subset, phonemic awareness are a metalinguistic skill that is transferable. The processes of synthesis and analysis involved in developing an awareness of how sounds are manipulated to convey meaning is universally applicable to any language. The idea is this: When phonological awareness is taught in Spanish, the awareness that awareness of the sounds of Spanish. So the sound system that the learning about language-specific. Phonological abilities include explicit analysis and manipulations of linguistic sound units through matching of same phonemes, segmenting and blending, substitution of sounds in words, and isolation and/or deletion of phonemes within words (Mora, 2016).

English learners who are not literate in their first or primary language (L1) and are in English-medium classrooms may need to develop phonological awareness of English phonemes and blends that do not exist in their L1, such as English vowel sounds (Anthony, et al., 2009; Fabiano, et.al, 2010). They also may need explicit instruction in English spelling patterns such as blends, digraphs, silent-e patterns, etc.(Goodrich & Lonigan, 2016; Zutell & Allen, 1998). It is essential to consider these learners’ English oral language proficiency when assessing their progress in literacy learning since expected gains in the four domains of the language arts (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) exhibit different learning curves according to L2 language proficiency (Ardasheva, et al., 2012; De Avila, 1997; Thompson, 2017; Umansky & Reardon, 2014).  

The foundational research on literacy acquisition in Spanish focuses on metalinguistic awareness and knowledge development. The progression of metalinguistic knowledge development in Spanish literacy learning is based on the features of the language-specific characteristics (forms and functions) of the subsystems of language: phonology, morphology, semantics, syntax, and pragmatics (Koda & Reddy, 2008). Effective literacy instruction for emergent bilingual learners requires teachers to make the distinction is made between language and literacy universals and language-specific features of the language of the text that students are reading and writing.  A metalinguistic transfer facilitation approach to language and literacy instruction is recommended for emergent bilingual learners (Ke, Zhang & Koda, 2023). 

SoR CLAIM 2

The Simple View of Reading provides an adequate theoretical account of skilled reading and its development over time. 

Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (2024). Fact-checking the Science of Reading: Opening up the conversation. Literacy Research Commons.

The Simple View of Reading proposes that reading is the product of decoding and listening or linguistic comprehension. Decoding, in this model, refers to the ability to obtain a representation from print to remember the meaning of a word. Language comprehension refers to the ability to take the meaning of words to obtain meaning at the sentence and word level of input that have been presented orally. Reading comprehension requires the combination of both processes to derive meaning from text (Hoover & Gough, 1990).  The “language comprehension” component of the Simple View of Reading states a formula to describe the process required for reading comprehension:  “Decoding X Language Comprehension = Reading Comprehension.” The Simple View of Reading is based on this definition of decoding:

Decoding: For the simple view, skilled decoding is simply efficient word recognition: the ability to rapidly derive a representation from printed input that allows access to the appropriate entry in the mental lexicon, and thus, the retrieval of semantic information at the word level. (p. 130)

Nonetheless, the result is important in demonstrating the separate contributions of decoding and linguistic comprehension to reading ability, as the trend is consistent with the view that for skilled reading, skill in both components is required, while a weakness in either component is sufficient for less skilled reading. (p. 147)

Under the simple view of reading, linguistic comprehension and reading comprehension in this individual are equivalent; with respect to current linguistic skill, such a person is fully literate (for reading) since whatever can be comprehended by ear can likewise be comprehended by eye, and vice versa. Simply increasing the decoding skill of such an individual will not increase reading comprehension as the meaning of any words that can now be decoded given the newly expanded skill will still be absent from the internal lexicon. (p. 155)

Hoover and Tunmer (2018) provide a comprehensive perspective on how the Simple View of Reading informs literacy learning trajectories across the grades.

So what are the main conclusions we can draw from the three studies just reviewed? First, based on the benefits provided by latent variable modeling, the SVR continues to provide a robust description of reading comprehension for children in Grades 3 to 5, with word recognition and language comprehension capturing almost all of the variance in reading comprehension. The small amounts of remaining variance suggest that if there are other factors involved in reading, they will make relatively small contributions as proximal factors, or as distal ones they will likely operate through word recognition or language comprehension. Second, the two main component skills in reading at these later grades are substantially related to such skills in earlier grades, indeed as early as prekindergarten. Third, the contributions of word recognition and language comprehension vary with grade level, with word recognition generally making stronger contributions in the earlier grades and language comprehension in the later grades. Fourth, there are large amounts of shared variance between word recognition and language comprehension, and understanding the source of this overlap has important consequences for thinking about instructional interventions.

Cervetti, et al. (2020: S161) on behalf of the Reading for Understanding Initiative, describe reading comprehension as “… a complicated constellation of skills and knowledge...” that is not reflected in the Simple View of Reading. These researchers criticize the Science of Reading advocates for not giving sufficient attention to the research evidence of the significance of listening comprehension in young readers and the importance of early oral language skills that support both decoding and listening comprehension. 

Foorman and Petscher (2018) argue the following regarding the Simple View of Reading: 

Conceptually it makes sense that decoding and linguistic comprehension would share variance in predicting written language because word recognition entails the linguistic skills of levels phonology, semantics, and discourse at the sentence and text levels. Similarly, linguistic comprehension must be connected to orthographic representations of phonemes, morphemes, words, sentences, and discourse if text is to be understood. Regression results for linguistic comprehension showed a fairly constant picture of L contributing substantial proportions of variance to reading comprehension across the grades, 36% in grade 1 to 54% in grade 10. However, when the method of decomposing the variance was used, the unique contribution of linguistic comprehension over the grades showed a dramatic increase from 17% in grade 1 to 28% in grade 7, to 42% in grade 10. The amount of common variance that decoding and linguistic comprehension together explain in predicting reading comprehension, especially in the elementary grades, suggests that more instructional emphasis should be placed on the integration of linguistic knowledge at the word level.

Research on literacy development of multilingual learners reading in their second language based on the Simple View of Reading (SVR) finds that the most salient obstacles to reading comprehension for English learners are not decoding skills, but rather, are linguistic comprehension factors (Cho, et al., 2019; Jeon & Yamashita, 2014). Jeon and Kamashito define decoding as a process during which a reader converts letters (graphemes) to sounds (phonemes) and, essentially, to language. In a meta-analysis of research on the Simple View of Reading theoretical framework, these researchers found that overall, the developmental pattern of young L2 readers’ decoding ability and its relationship with reading largely mirror that of L1 children with only a slight delay or with an almost synchronous rate. Jeon and Yamashita (2014) found in a meta-analysis of SVR that the variance in comprehension measures for English Learners was attributable to second language (L2) grammar knowledge (72%) and L2 vocabulary knowledge (62%), while language-general variables and decoding were low-evidence coordinates.

Implications of SVR for Multilingual Learners

The obvious conclusion that must be drawn from a coherent view of reading is that the same knowledge and skills are necessary for comprehending the language of a written text as are required for comprehending speech orally. To understand speech, the listener must understand the semantics meaning of the words used by the speaker. Many of these words have meanings that depend on the linguistic context in which they are used. This context includes the syntax of the phrase or sentence in which the word is used. Words are not understood in isolation in the flow of speech. This is the essence of the Simple View of Reading. Many experienced teachers use a mode of assessment called an informal reading inventory (Ascenzi-Moreno, 2016; Kabuto, 2016). A part of an informal reading assessment is to read a passage to a student and then ask comprehension questions about the passage. If the student can understand the language of the passage read orally, then the probability that s/he can decode the passage is high. The teacher is engaging in assessment practices to discern the correlation between a student’s listening comprehension and his/her reading comprehension. Thus, this assessment procedure is an enactment of the Simple View of Reading. 

As teachers of students who are second language learners of English and are in the process of learning to comprehend oral English, teachers need to be knowledgeable about semantics as vocabulary knowledge. This involves an understanding of the grammatical and syntactic meaning and functions of words within sentences and discourse, the whole linguistic context of written text. The broader implication of the Simple View of Reading is this: Whatever the learner learns that enhances linguistic comprehension, also enhances decoding, and vice versa. Whatever the learner learns that enhances decoding, enhances linguistic comprehension. These two components are not in competition with each other. The notion that instruction in meaning-making strategies “dilutes” decoding instruction is logically incoherent. Consequently, attempts to discredit or ban instructional strategies that focus on prompting students to focus on any of the subsystems of language.

SoR CLAIM 3 

Reading is the ability to identify and understand words that are part of one’s oral language repertoire.

Claim 3 Reading is the ability to identify and understand words that are part of one’s oral language repertoire.

Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (2024). Fact-checking the Science of Reading: Opening up the conversation. Literacy Research Commons.

In their presentation of Claim 3 Tierney and Pearson emphasize the implications of narrow definitions of reading versus broader definitions of literacy.  “We take this stance mainly because we believe that the narrow definition pushes most of the important variables in the quest for making meaning into another category—one we might label literacy and learning… Conversely, we see—and will try to convince readers of—the many advantages of a sociocultural model, especially on standards of ecological validity, diversity, and equity (p. 49). This focus on sociocultural factors in literacy learning is in keeping with the different perspective of research on literacy learning for students who are learning to read in a language in which they do not (yet) have a native-speaker equivalent proficiency.

The common term for identifying such students in public schools in the United States is English Learners (EL). However, when these students are enrolled in bilingual or dual language programs where they are acquiring a second language and biliteracy in tandem are called Emergent Bilinguals (EB). There are multiple research paradigms that investigate these students’ language and literacy learning characteristics and outcomes (Cummins, 2021; Koda, 2004; Mora, 2024). These include predominantly second-language acquisition research, second-language reading research and metalinguistics.  The term multilingual learners is also commonly used to refer to students with different first other-than-English languages used in the home who may or may not be classified as English learners because of their proficiency levels in more than one language (Cummins, 2021).

Research in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) contributes a number of theories and constructs to the pedagogical knowledge base for literacy instruction for EL/EB students. Learning a new, second, foreign or additional language (L2) may be simultaneous or sequential, depending on the linguistic and cultural circumstances of the emergent bilingual student. SLA research provides knowledge of a sequence of learning through developmental levels that enable teachers to assess L2 language proficiency’s correlation with variability in students’ outcomes in literacy learning. The reciprocity of L2 language and literacy learning is confirmed through research that disaggregates factors within the learner’s common underlying reservoir of cross-linguistic interdependence (Cummins, 2021). Speaking develops more gradually through instruction scaffolded and differentiated to accommodate students’ language current proficiency level while challenging them to the next level of production and comprehension. Learners acquire language through making meaning of oral language that enables them to comprehend written text that they are able to decode fluently.  Reading and writing skills are delayed as students acquire adequate listening comprehension and speaking fluency at an intermediate level of proficiency. Consequently, English Learners’ success in literacy learning depends upon their building a foundation of oral language and listening comprehension. Language skills for forming and parsing sentences such as syntax  and grammar are crucial for developing decoding, reading fluency, and comprehension

Second Language Acquisition and Literacy Learning

Professor Michael Halliday (1993) describes children’s language development as a process of construction based on the child’s need to convey meaning in social settings, with the structures of language, such as syntax, grammar and idiomatic expressions used as a means to achieve a communicative purpose. Upon entering school, children are expected to learn through language used as a medium of instruction in the classroom and of academic and literary text. In fact, language itself is treated as educational knowledge, as seen in the emergence in current pedagogy of the concept of “academic language.” Children begin to learn about language as the essentially unconscious and implicit nature of linguistic processes are made conscious and explicit as students’ attention is drawn to linguistic forms and functions for meaning making. Teachers plan lessons based on the content standards and then select and utilize specific language teaching methods and approaches based on identifiable second or world language teaching methodologies (DeKeyser, 2003; Ellis, 2010).

Metalinguistic concepts and contrastive features of both English and Spanish are taught systematically and explicitly. Teachers plan for instruction of specific linguistic forms that may pose difficulty for the L2 learner that become the content focus of the lesson. Effective instruction requires a purposeful selection of second-language teaching methods or approaches that are research-based and have been demonstrated to be effective for supporting and enhancing L2 acquisition and development toward the goal of native-speaker equivalent L2 language proficiency. Language acquisition in a multilingual context is focused on building metalinguistic knowledge, which entails teaching students about how language work.  During direct instruction and through structured learning activities, students’ attention is directed to language functions and the particularities English-specific vocabulary, morphology, grammatical or syntactic forms and idiomatic expressions used to think and communicate about the content..

The Language Proficiency Factor

De Avila (1997) studied expected gains in language proficiency based on data from large-scale administration of the Language Assessment Scales proficiency test. Several important observations about language proficiency development over time emerged from this research. Language proficiency consists of both receptive and productive skills, input and output, information sent and received. It is important to observe the different rates of acquisition of both oral and literacy skills according to four domains: listening, speaking, reading and writing. Proficiency in each of the four domains is a necessary element to consider in assessing second-language proficiency, as each contributes to academic success differentially over the process of developing full native-speaker equivalent proficiency. It is noteworthy that the development of literacy skills is somewhat slower at the lower levels of proficiency. Reading and writing skills begin to converge at a level four language proficiency, which usually is achieved after four to five years of exposure and instruction in the L2. However, once minimal oral skills have been established, students move quickly through the middle levels. An implication of these findings is an expected gain of one proficiency level per academic year with equivalent achievement in reading and writing is misleading.

According to research on expected gains in English language proficiency over time (De Avila, 1997), ELs may not reasonably be expected to demonstrate on-grade-level performance on reading achievement tests until fourth or fifth grade or beyond. On the other hand, growth in oral proficiency is rapid, particularly in listening skills. Consequently, the acquisition of English as a second language develops in a non-linear fashion. According to these data, initial programmatic emphasis, at least at the elementary level, should be directed toward the development of beginning oral skills with modified and scaffolded instruction in reading and writing.

Second Language Reading Research

First language reading research is restricted to monolingual processing of written text that meld and interface, while L2 reading research considers learners’ first and second-language processing experiences and their probable interplay as well as the two languages’ influence on each other. Consequently, L2 reading research and pedagogy draw heavily from linguistics and psycholinguistics research paradigms (Traxler, 2023).

The knowledge base for literacy instruction for multilingual learners is further reinforced by investigations of L2 reading (Bernhardt, 1998; Bernhardt & Kamil, 1995; Koda, 2004). Second language reading is recognized as a phenomenon unto itself, with distinct characteristics and trajectories attributable to the interaction between language proficiency and literacy learning. Three prerequisite skills for the acquisition of literacy are competence with the oral language, understanding of symbolic concepts of print, and establishment of metalinguistic awareness (Bialystok, 2007).This field of inquiry is based on a multifactor theory that presupposes an interactive, multidimensional dynamic of literacy elements’ development along a continuum of L2 proficiency.

The underlying assumption is that second language learners must acquire a certain level of oral proficiency in their new language to benefit fully from instruction in reading and writing. This is because the phonology, vocabulary and grammar of their L2 is different from their native language. L2 reading research explores variables in text comprehension such as word recognition, vocabulary knowledge, syntax, phonology, and text structure through the perspective of language competencies as an integrative process (Jeon & Yamashita, 2014). Bernhardt attributes different error patterns (miscues) during oral reading performance in developing L2 literacy to readers’ risk-taking and to the increased potential for misusing and misunderstanding complex syntactic forms, which tend to decline as language proficiency increases. Second language reading research and metalinguistics also examine the contribution of other factors of language and literacy learning such as processes for inferencing the meaning of words, phrases and sentences that L2 learners employ for both oral comprehension and reading comprehension (Carton, 1971; Haastrup, 2009).

Metalinguistics

The field of metalinguistics examines interlingual relationships to discern the shared and unique contributions of awareness of the operations of defined subsystems of language in reading development and performance. Ke, et al. (2023) conducted a meta-analysis of empirical studies that identify multiple direct and indirect paths that connect metalinguistic awareness, reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge together as reading-related outcomes. These studies explain both shared metalinguistic awareness and language-specific metalinguistic awareness as empirical evidence of the extent of cross-linguistic transfer in literacy development. Koda’s Transfer Facilitation Model provides predictions on multiple factors that affect transfer of subskills in L2 reading and identifies conditions that promote cross-linguistic transfer. The operational hypothesis is that the language proficiency underlying cognitively demanding tasks, such as literacy and academic learning, is largely shared across languages, and therefore, linguistic competencies acquired in one language promote literacy development in another (Cummins, 2021; Gombert, 1992: Tunmer & Bowey, 1984; Yaden & Templeton, 1986). 

The theoretical construct of metalinguistic awareness, knowledge and control describes the ability to make language forms objective and explicit and to attend to them in and for themselves. Metalinguistic awareness is the ability to view and analyze language as a “thing,” language as a “process,” and language as a “system” (Ke, et al., 2023).  Metalinguistic knowledge development requires attention to the components of language beyond the language learner’s implicit and practical knowledge and use of language for practical purposes. Koda (2008) proposed a transfer facilitation model based on the research findings that reading skills transfer across languages. The specific metalinguistic competencies involved in fluent and proficient biliteracy that transfer across languages and writing systems can be identified according to the embedded and/or explicit knowledge of how spoken and written language are related through an alphabetic spelling system.

Metalinguistic transfer is the application of particular metalinguistic awareness and knowledge acquired in students’ L1 to listening, speaking, reading and writing in their L2 English. In bilingual learners, students form sensitivity to the regularities of spoken language as they develop oral language skills. Since all writing systems are structured to capture and represent these regularities, learning to read involves mapping spoken language elements onto the graphic symbols of the language of the text (Varga, 2021). Multilingual awareness enables learners to analyze spoken words into their constituent parts. This process becomes more explicit with increasing experiences with print. As first-language metalinguistic awareness is established, bilingual readers can automatically activate and apply this skill to reading in their second language. Development of metalinguistic knowledge also entails the ability to compare and contrast two language systems to discover commonalities as well as differences. Apel (2022) concludes that evidence from different lines of research demonstrates the important contributions of multiple metalinguistic skills (e.g., phonological awareness, morphological awareness, syntactic awareness) to reading comprehension, and therefore, instruction that includes a focus on these multiple language awareness skills is recommended for literacy instruction for all learners, but especially for multilingual learners such as EL/EB classified students (Cheung & Slavin, 2012).

Koda (2008) defines transfer as “… an automatic activation of well-established first-language competencies, triggered by second-language input.” For transfer to occur, the competencies to be transferred must be well established, to the point of automaticity in the reader’s L1. Koda (2008:77) proposed a transfer facilitation model that outlines several fundamental premises of skills transfer in biliteracy learning. Children form sensitivity to the regularities of spoken language as they develop oral language skills at an age-peer appropriate level upon entering school in their native language. Learning to read involves mapping spoken language elements onto written symbols of the language of the text. Metalinguistic awareness enables learners to analyze spoken words into their constituent parts so that they can decode written text. This process becomes more explicit through cumulative experiences with print. The result of metalinguistic abilities acquired in L1 and L2 is increased awareness of the specific ways in which regularities of language are represented in the writing system and how written language varies systematically in the two languages that the students are learning to read. The metalinguistic model of teaching for transfer depicts the overlap and distinctions necessary for understanding cross-linguistic transfer of reading skills.

Lexical Inferencing

Inferencing is a sub-type of the more general inferencing process that operates at all levels of text comprehension, involving the connections people make when attempting to reach an interpretation of what they read or hear. Lexical inferencing is seen as operating at the core of the relationship between reading comprehension and vocabulary development (Chun, 2020). Haarstrup (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of research relevant to the issue of L1 transfer in L2 lexical inferencing and to cross-linguistic commonalities and L1/L2 differences in lexical inferencing. Carton (1971) describes the interest in inferencing in second language learning this way:

It is argued here that it is precisely the perception of probabilistically contingent relations (both in language and in respect to the’ content’ of messages) that enhances and provides possibilities for the selection of appropriate linguistic units in production and the correct interpretation of these units in comprehension. The research into language generated by an interest in inferencing is concerned, therefore, with how linguistic units and the structures of sentences and paragraphs provide cues for the interpretation of other linguistic units. The view that language production and perception are largely dependent on the psychological processing of probabilistically contingent cues is implicit in the taxonomy of cues presented here. The assertion that cues from various echelons and levels of discourse are made to function in concert is a major underpinning of the psycholinguistic theory from which a research program on inferencing might be derived. (p. 57)

A language pedagogy that utilizes inferencing removes language study from the domain of mere skills to a domain that is more closely akin to the regions of complex intellectual processes. Language study becomes a matter for a kind of problem-solving and the entire breadth of the student’s experience and knowledge may be brought to bear on the processing of language.( p. 57-58) Haarstrup (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of research relevant to the issue of L1 transfer in L2 lexical inferencing and to cross-linguistic commonalities and L1/L2 differences in lexical inferencing. Inferencing is a sub-type of the more general inferencing process that operates at all levels of text comprehension, involving the connections people make when attempting to reach an interpretation of what they read or hear. Lexical inferencing is seen as operating at the core of the relationship between reading comprehension and vocabulary development.

Implications for Multilingual Learners’ Literacy Instruction

The most important implication of Claim 3 regarding the linkage between oral language comprehension of words, sentences and discourse that EL/EB students encounter in learning to read and write in English as a second language centers around the broad issue of language proficiency. Language proficiency must be viewed from the perspective of the different rates of growth in listening, speaking, reading and writing. Instructional decision-making for EL/EB learners is based on a clear understanding of how students’ L2 proficiency levels impact literacy acquisition in their L2 (Birch, 2007; Lems, et al., 2010). An assets-based approach to literacy instruction is based on a pedagogical orientation that affirms the language-specific knowledge of how language works as the foundation for metalinguistic awareness that supports and enhances  literacy and biliteracy learning (Mora & Dorta-Duque de Reyes, 2025; Zoeller & Briceño, 2022). A metalinguistic transfer facilitation approach to literacy instruction is highly recommended. Teachers of multilingual learners must keep in mind that learning how language works involves making implicit knowledge about the student’s first or native language explicit in order to utilize this knowledge to learn to speak, read and write in their L2. Ellis (2010) describes the process this way: Even though implicitly acquired knowledge tends to remain implicit, and explicitly acquired knowledge tends to remain explicit, explicitly learned knowledge can become implicit in the sense that learners can lose awareness of its structure over time, and learners can become aware of the structure of implicit knowledge when attempting to access it, for example for applying it to a new context or for conveying it verbally to somebody else. (p. 315). Honoring the assets that multilingual learners bring to their literacy learning context. Standards-based literacy instruction that is based on contrastive analysis and metalinguistic knowledge development is the pathway to academic achievement for multilingual learners. See the Common Core en Español standards.

 

SoR CLAIM 4 

Phonics facilitates the increasingly automatic identification of unfamiliar words.

Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (2024). Fact-checking the Science of Reading: Opening up the conversation. Literacy Research Commons.

Claim 4 is based on a interpretation of research on decoding skills, orthographic mapping and word recognition or identification skills. The manner in which words are processed to establish their spelling and meaning in memory automatically is the major concern of the research on decoding skills in the acquisition of fluent reading in emergent readers. One of these research questions involves the role of “contextual information, such as semantics, syntax and pragmatics in word recognition (Ehri, 2021). The concept of “unfamiliar words” versus words that are easily decodable or are learned as sight words entails differing perspectives on the role of “guessing” in establishing automaticity in word recognition processes.

Tierney and Pearson (2024: 53) state the following: “We are not aware of any evidence that suggests that context cannot aid the development of orthographic mapping.” (p. 53) These authors also state that they have “mixed views on the acceptability” of Claim 4, depending on the researchers’ focus on word-by-word reading accuracy versus a range of word-solving strategies that facilitate automatic identification of unfamiliar words. These authors assert that both perspectives rest on the presumption that naming words is key to learning to read (p, 54). Consequently, the issue for second-language readers of English is the role of orthographic mapping in learning to read in their native language (L1) and orthographic mapping in their not-yet-native-proficiency English as a second language (L2).

This analysis focuses on native Spanish speakers reading in Spanish as L1 and English as L2, specifying that the research on L1 Spanish reading and L2 English reading for Spanish native speakers are distinct but complimentary bodies of research literature (Bernhardt, 1998; Cutting & Scarborough, 2006; Koda, 1994; Mora, 2024). Through a review of the literature, there are identified literacy universals versus language-specific features of literacy acquisition particular to the orthography and grammar of a specific language (Frost, 2012), such as Spanish (Mora & Dorta-Duque de Reyes, in press).  Consequently, this analysis focuses on factors that impinge on or support word recognition and automaticity in L1 and L2 learners. Click here for Dr. Mora’s bibliography of Spanish Literacy Research.

Definition of “Unfamiliar Words”

Definition of terms is vitally important in any discussion of research studies and findings, so that colleagues can be sure that we are looking at and talking about the same thing. Therefore, we must determine what we are defining as “unfamiliar words.” Are these words that are unfamiliar because the listener or reader does not know the meaning of word (semantics)? Or is the word unfamiliar because it may be in the reader’s mental lexicon but s/he has not encountered the word in writing and is unfamiliar with its spelling? Or, in the case of a bilingual/biliteracy learner, does s/he know the word’s meaning in L1 but is not familiar with its L2 translation? Is the object, action or concept that the word names or describes familiar in L1 but the L2 label or description is not familiar? Or is the reader not familiar with either the concept or the L1 and the L2 label? These questions are essential for determining whether the “problem” of unfamiliarity can be addressed through phonetic decoding. If the underlying semantics of the word are unknown, then merely being able to decode the word to pronounce the word accurately in L1 or L2 does not result in recognition of the word, if word recognition is defined as arriving at the meaning of the word.

These questions about the definition of the term “unfamiliar words” point to the need to also define the terms “word recognition” and “word identification.”  Is a word recognized or identified when it is pronounced (phonologically recoded) or is the word recognized or identified when its meaning is retrieved from the reader’s mental lexicon (Ardila & Cuetos, 2016; Ferreiro, 2009, 2000; Cuetos & Suárez-Coalla, 2009; Goodman, 1971; Vernon & Ferreiro, 1999). Goodman (1971) describes the dilemma posed by the oral language-written word-mental lexicon this way:

The task in reading is not to hear the word or recognize the word or name it. The task is to get the underlying structure, to get at the meaning, and to constantly keep the meaning in mind. And that means that even when teachers set out to teach the relationships between oral and written language they turn them into a set of abstractions unless they keep these relationships within the context of language as it functions. (p. 462)

Below is an analysis of how factors of Spanish literacy learning and Spanish/English bilingualism and biliteracy are articulated and examined in the research literature regarding automaticity and word recognition. This includes a review of how models of word reading are interpreted in relationship to the unique learning characteristics of bilingual learners (Ardila & Cuetos, 2016; Cuetos & Suárez-Coalla, 2009; Signorini & Borzone de Manrique, 2003.).   

Phonics in Biliteracy Learning

Both Spanish and English employ the alphabetic principle in their orthographies and therefore, are both alphabetic writing systems. However, on the scale of invariable connections between sounds and symbols (phonemes and graphemes), Spanish orthography is classified as a transparent writing system while English is considered an opaque writing system (Birch, 2007).  Click here for a chart that analyzes the similarities and differences between the orthographies of Spanish and English in their application of the alphabetic principle (Mora, 2016). Spanish literacy instruction notoriously produces fluent Spanish readers in less time than English literacy instruction because of the transparency of Spanish orthography (Ardila & Cuetos, 2016; Chung et al., 2019; Mora, 2017, 2001). Due to its transparency, non-lexical reading represents –as in other transparent orthographies– the initial reading strategy in Spanish. Therefore, the “reading threshold” or the time required to become literate is lower in Spanish because there are no irregular words to learn. As reading experience increases, speed increases and lexical reading becomes used more. Given the characteristics of the Spanish reading system, it is also understandable that frequency of deep dyslexia is so low (Ardila & Cuetos, 2016).

There is an ample and credible body of research on the cross-linguistic transfer of reading and writing skills (Mora & Dorta-Duque de Reyes, in press; Thonis, 1983) Consequently, phonics instruction in Spanish in well-designed and effectively implemented dual language programs is not controversial. There are established curriculum design principles and articulated curriculum standards based on a transdisciplinary research base that support phonics instruction in both languages to promote the achievement of multilingual learners. Click here for the Common Core en Español Standards (San Diego County Office of Education, 2012).

The implication for phonics instruction of the differences in Spanish vs. English orthography in terms of developing automaticity must be considered in interpretations of research studies. First, native Spanish speakers have developed phonological awareness and phonemic awareness in their oral language sufficient to enable them to understand speech. However, the phonology of the Spanish language is considerably different from English phonology. Therefore, many aspects of phonological and phoneme awareness in English must be explicitly taught to Spanish speakers. Click here to view a description of these features and forms of English phonology and phonemics that are developed intentionally in English language development and phonics instruction titled English Phonics with Spanish Points of Non-Transfer (Mora, 2016). 

Second, teachers of emergent bilingual learners cannot assume that these students will progress in English literacy learning along the same trajectory of mastery of fluency and automaticity (Acha et al., 2024; Rolla, et al., 2006). In their study of third-grade sublexical and lexical reading in Spanish, Acha et al. (2024) found that letter knowledge and word identification skills made independent contributions to reading and spelling. They also concluded that Spanish speaking children in grade three rely more on word-level knowledge (word identification skills and vocabulary) than on their letter knowledge for both reading and spelling. Therefore, word identification skills are uniquely associated to bilingual learners’ word decoding:

“Interestingly, recent empirical evidence has sustained the finding that the word learning process is easier in transparent orthographies as opposed to opaque orthographies: children need very few exposures to correctly identify trained unknown words compared to nontrained, unknown words (see Suárez-Coalla et al., 2016). These findings suggested that after children’s reading experience, word identification skills might support word decoding and spelling. This might occur because the whole word representation is retrieved from memory, even given the different nature of decoding (translating a visual array of letters into sounds) and spelling (translating a spoken word into its corresponding letters within the visual array). (p. 9).

Third, the construct of reading fluency in Spanish literacy research is examined most frequently from the perspective of prosody (Borzone de Manrique & Signorini, 2000; Castejón, 2015; Defior, et al. 2015; Silva-Maceda & Romero-Contreras, 2017). Defior et al. affirm the importance of prosody in reading comprehension in Spanish:

“This study reviews some of the most relevant cognitive skills related to literacy acquisition in Spanish. Beyond the well-known influence of phonological segmental skills, it highlights the growing importance of other cognitive skills needed for acquisition, whether explicit or implicit in nature, to which too little attention has been devoted, including suprasegmental or prosodic skills, morphological skills and the implicit learning of linguistic regularities. It appears that all these skills constitute relevant factors that should be taken into account in order to understand typical as well as atypical literacy development.” (p. 571)

“All this would cause imprecise phonological representations which, in turn, would make learning grapheme-phoneme relationships more difficult. Other deficits that have been observed are difficulties in identifying the stressed syllable in words and pseudo-words. Thus the importance attached to segmental phonology has been criticized, to the detriment of suprasegmental phonology, and in recent years there has been a growing interest in prosodic abilities, which are thought to be another important factor influencing the acquisition of written language.” (p. 573)

Fourth, the strategies for word recognition/identification through access of the bilingual reader to his/her mental lexicon either via phonological recoding of the word or by sight as a unit of meaning must be considered in research on the role of phonics in biliteracy learning. For this analysis the research into models of reading studied through neuroscience (Ardila & Cuetos, 2016; Dehaene, 2009, 2014) and strategies for word solving such as lexical inferencing that are evidence in L1 and L2 literacy. Click here for a bibliography of research on L1 and L2 inferencing. Also under consideration are the variables involved in bilingual cognition and vocabulary and conceptual knowledge acquisition.

Lexical Prediction Research

The phenomenon of prediction is widely accepted as foundational to understanding how word recognition automaticity develops in readers over time (Chun, 2020; Cutting & Scarborough, 2006; Samuals & Flor, 1997). Automaticity is found to play a role in reading in alphabetic orthographies across languages (Francis et al., 2019; Heibron, et al., 2022; Pienemann, 2005; Sheriston, et al., 2016). Heibron et al. (2022) describe the theoretical base for research into prediction as a factor in processing written text:

Theorists propose that the brain constantly generates implicit predictions that guide information processing. During language comprehension, such predictions have indeed been observed, but it remains disputed under which conditions and at which processing level these predictions occur. Here, we address both questions by analyzing brain recordings of participants listening to audiobooks, and using a deep neural network to quantify the predictions evoked by the story. We find that brain responses are continuously modulated by linguistic predictions. We observe predictions at the level of meaning, grammar, words, and speech sounds, and find that high-level predictions can inform low-level ones. These results establish the predictive nature of language processing, demonstrating that the brain spontaneously predicts upcoming language at multiple levels of abstraction. We first tested for evidence for linguistic prediction in general. We reasoned that, if the brain is constantly predicting upcoming language, neural responses to words should be sensitive to violations of contextual predictions, yielding “prediction error” signals which are considered a hallmark of predictive processing.

Mazoyer et al. (1993) elaborate on the multiple sources of signals that the brain utilizes for linguistic analysis of speech that also operate in prediction of written text.

 To perceive and understand speech, one must deal with the acoustical, phonological, lexical, prosodic, syntactic and conceptual information conveyed by the signal. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the existence in the human brain, of specialized cerebral regions corresponding to these levels of linguistic analysis. (p. 468) Finally, what view of the neural architecture of speech processing do our results imply? We believe that the speech processing system of the human brain is not organized, at the neural level, in a hierarchy of areas that successively and automatically come into play, whenever they receive an adequately structured stimulus. Rather, speech processing seems to imply the coordination of a network of areas, each of which may be specialized in one aspect of speech processing, but requires coherent support from the others in order to reach a high level of activation. (p. 476)

Dehaene (2009) describes two models of processing in reading that operate simultaneously through different pathways in the brain.

The spelling-to-sound route is defined as the phonological route. “Infrequently used words and neologisms move along a phonological route that converts letter strings into speech sounds.” The direct-lexical route is the pathway for familiar words. “Frequently used words, and those whose spelling does not correspond to their pronunciation, are recognized via a mental lexicon that allows us to access their identity and meaning.” (p. 104)

Dehaene explains that neurons in the brain use these dual routes to derive meaning from text.

“These brain imaging results dovetail nicely with conclusions from a great many psychological studies of reading. Do we have to pronounce words mentally before we understand them? Or can we move straight from a letter string to it meaning and skip the pronunciation stage? Both may happen, but it all depends on the type of word.” (p. 115-116) “The brain’s networks for meaning, however, are not limited to simply processing single words…. The process that allows our neurons to snap together and “make sense” remains utterly mysterious. We do know, however, that meaning cannot be confined to only a few brain regions and probably depends on vast arrays of neurons distributed throughout the cortex. All visual stimuli are channeled to the left letterbox region… This package of visual information is then shuttled on one of two main routes: one that converts it into sound, the other into meaning. Both routes operate simultaneously and in parallel–one or the other gets the upper hand, depending on the word’s regularity.” ( p. 119)

Click here for a bibliography of research on Spanish literacy from Spanish-speaking countries. 
Click here for Dr. Mora’s presentation in Spanish of the Foundations for Spanish Language Arts Methods

The Bilingual Mental Lexicon

A growing body of research in the functioning of the bilingual brain supports the view that the bilingual memory organization consists of two independent mental lexicons of words in both languages of the learner. However, these mental lexicons represent an integrated conceptual system. Therefore, the corresponding words in the two languages, termed translation equivalents, have a shared conceptual representation in the bilingual learner’s semantic memory. When bilingual learners’ vocabulary in both languages is considered, their total vocabulary size is generally comparable to the total vocabulary size of their monolingual peers (Dong et al., 2005; Patterson & Pearson, 2022).

Researchers propose two predominant hypotheses about lexical and conceptual representations: One theory is called the word association hypothesis that proposes that a direct association is established between words in two languages. The greater experience of bilinguals relative to monolinguals in associating multiple word forms with common concepts may increase the efficiency with which they associate words with concepts in their non-dominant language. For example, an emergent bilingual learner whose L1 is Spanish may know different words for a car such as auto/coche/carro, so that when he hears the English word “automobile” he easily makes the connection to the concept in his mental vocabulary. This is the advantage of cognates that have similar or the same meaning in both languages (car/carro) for associating word meanings with concepts.

Another theory, called the concept mediation hypothesis proposes the connection between the two languages is via an underlying conceptual system through which bilinguals have “lexical access” to words and their meanings (Dufour & Kroll, 1993; Peña, et al., 2022; Potter et al, 1984). This theory suggests that when a bilingual learner is exposed to a new linguistic form associated with a known concept, the learner only needs to attend to a new name or label for the concept. However, the student does not need to relearn the concept itself.

A more in-depth understanding of the mental and cognitive operations of bilingual students’ vocabulary development comes from neurolinguistic brain scan research that identifies regions of the brain that are activated in a learner’s access to his/her mental lexicon and conceptual system in his/her memory (Rolla, et al., 2006). Cognitive processing of the bilingual’s two mental lexicons occurs when the student accesses names for concrete, tangible objects versus abstract, complex concepts that make up an array of associations in either or both languages. Another factor is the frequency of exposure to words as a determiner of the strength of the associative networks in each of the learners’ languages (Francis, et al., 2019; Li & Clariana, 2019). The brain research also supports the notion that there are distinct cerebral regions where Spanish semantics are stored in memory and another where English semantics are stored in a mental lexicon. The mental lexicon or collection of concept units of each language is activated to comprehend text by recognizable phonological (sounds) and orthographic (spellings) representations that the reader identifies by mapping language features onto print. The expanse of the mental lexicon is associated with vocabulary knowledge in both languages of bilingual learners (Nassaji, 2006; Oakhill et al., 2015).

Click here for an application of the duel-route model of of decoding to Spanish reading titled Three Aspects of a Word. This is extracted from Dr. Mora’s book Spanish Language Pedagogy for Biliteracy Programs (2016). 

Lexical Inferencing as a Word Recognition Strategy

The research base for lexical inferencing supports the notion that the larger context of text contributes to the construction of contextual meaning, where word meaning operates at the core of the relationship between reading comprehension and word learning (Cain, et al., 2001; Haastrup. 2009, Oakhill et al., 2015). An important construct in the research on inferencing is context, which must be clearly defined in any research study. A distinction must be made between linguistic context or language as “context” and other contextual factors associated with the readers vocabulary knowledge and knowledge of the world (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014).  These researchers propose a model of a Reading Systems Framework that focuses on the lexicon as the central connection between the word identification system and the comprehension system. They examine three classes of knowledge: linguistic knowledge, orthographic knowledge and general knowledge as distinct knowledge sources that to process text for comprehension through word-to-text integration. When researchers’ findings draw conclusions about “context” as a facilitator of comprehension, they must make the distinction between language and non-linguistic contexts factors.

Haastrup (2009) further articulates the construct of a systems framework in reading in terms of different text “levels” as stated here: 

“Reading comprehension in one’s L1 involves ongoing inferencing at different text levels. At the word level, due to the existence of homonyms and homographs and because many words have multiple meanings, even fluent L1 readers must continually make semantic inferences to determine which meaning of a familiar word is contextually appropriate or to infer an unknown additional meaning. Information from individual words interacts continuously with information from the larger context, the former contributing to construction of textual meaning, while the latter is necessary for accurate selection of the precise contextual meaning of a given word. In L2 reading, orthographic and underlying phonological word forms themselves may be unfamiliar, so that the reader must process the word form in addition to attempting to identify an appropriate meaning for it in the given context. In some cases, even the concept(s) underlying the word’s meaning may be unknown to the L2 reader, particularly if the word has no lexical or phrasal equivalent in the reader’s L1.” (p. 4)

Effective inferencing ability will enhance not only their reading fluency, but will also support their academic learning. While a reader’s primary purpose in attempting to comprehend a given word meaning is to aid in understanding the larger text, successful identification of a previously unknown word meaning may also lead to retention of new knowledge about that word. The process of reading comprehension and of lexical inferencing is in many ways similar for readers in their L1 and an L2; however, studies comparing L1 and L2 reading or lexical inferencing consistently show a marked advantage for L1 readers. This native speaker advantage appears to relate to L1 readers’ more efficient language processing skills in the text language as well as to their richer and more established linguistic, especially lexical and cultural knowledge. Such knowledge and abilities are reflected in measures of reading proficiency and vocabulary knowledge in the text language. The persistence of such an advantage even when L2 readers have very high levels of proficiency suggests that subtle L1-related factors may continue to influence L2 users’ performance over many years. (p. 5)

Scanlon and Anderson (2020) address the controversy surrounding the use of context cues for decoding words and comprehending text:

Some, noting the critical importance of phonics instruction in learning to read in an alphabetic writing system, take the position that students should attend only to alphabetic information in word-solving attempts. However, long-standing theories of the development of word-reading skills support the value of teaching students to use both alphabetic and contextual information in word solving in interactive and confirmatory ways. According to Hanford (2019), “cueing may actually prevent kids from focusing on words in the way they need to become skilled word readers” (para. 82). Instead, systematic phonics instruction has been advocated as the only way to be sure that students learn how to read words (Schwartz & Sparks, 2019). This position is taken despite the absence of research evidence indicating that teaching learners to use context as an assist in word solving, in addition to helping them develop skills with the alphabetic code, is counterproductive. (p. S19) We do not view the use of context and decoding within an either/or framework, but rather encourage the interactive and confirmatory use of both code- and meaning-based strategies during word solving, within an instructional approach that is also responsive to the needs of students as they develop skill with the alphabetic code.(p. S20)

Implications for Multilingual Learners’ Language and Literacy Instruction

What is defined as the Science of Reading encompasses many fields of research and research methodologies that contribute to educators’ knowledge base for the selection and implementation of approaches to literacy instruction. The key to effective literacy instruction for multilingual learners is for teachers to formulate a coherent, evidence-based theoretical orientation toward literacy and biliteracy instruction. Legitimate and effective approaches and strategies that have a solid empirical base in the multidisciplinary research in psycholinguistics, second language acquisition, second language reading and sociolinguistics must be utilized for instruction in word recognition and word solving for literacy instruction for emergent bilingual learners. These language-focused methods and approaches are utilized to support language learning as foundational to literacy learning. The construct of lexical prediction in the research literature addresses the controversy surrounding the term “guessing” in psycholinguistic research, especially the body of research on miscue analysis of Professor Kenneth Goodman (Goodman, 1971). 

REFERENCES Claim 4

Acha, J., Ibaibarriaga, G., Rodríguez, N., & Perea, M. (2024). Lexical and sublexical skills in children’s literacy. Journal of Literacy Research, 56(1), 6-26.

Ardila, A., & Cuetos, F. (2016). Applicability of dual-route reading models to Spanish. Psicothema, 28(1), 71-75.

Bernhardt, E. B. (1998). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical and classroom perspectives. Ablex.

Birch, B. M. (2007). English L2 reading: Getting to the bottom (Second ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Borzone de Manrique, A. M., & Signorini, A. (2000). Lectura y prosodia: una vía para el estudio del procesamiento cognitivo [Reading and prosody: A pathway to study cognitive processing]. Interdisciplinaria, 17(2), 95-117. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=18011322002

Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., Barnes, M. A., & Bryant, P. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference-making ability and their relation to knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 29(6), 850-859.

Castejón, L., González-Pumariega, & Cuetos, F. (2015). El desarrollo de la fluidez en la lectura de palabras en educación primaria: Un seguimiento longitudinal de seis años. [Development of word reading fluency along primary education: A six-year follow-up]. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 38(3), 842-871.

Cuetos, F., & Suárez-Coalla, P. (2009). From grapheme to word in reading acquisition in Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30(2009), 583-601.

Chun, E. (2020). L2 prediction guided by linguistic experience. English Teaching, 75, 79-103.

Chung, S. C., Chen, X., & Geva, E. (2019). Deconstructing and reconstructing cross-language transfer in bilingual reading development: An interactive framework. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 50, 149-161.

Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 277-299.

Defior, S., Jiménez-Fernández, G., Calet, N., & Serrano, F. (2015). Aprendiendo a leer y escribir en español: Además de la fonología, ¿qué otros procesos? [Learning to read and write in Spanish: Phonology in addition to which other processes?]. Estudios de Psicología, 36(3), 571-591. https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.2015.1078552

Dehaene, S. (2015). Aprender a leer: De las ciencias cognitivas al aula [Learning to read: From the cognitive sciences to the classroom]. Siglo Veintiuno Editores.

Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain: The new science of how we read. Viking Penguin.

Dong, Y., Gui, S., & Macwhinney, B. (2005). Shared and separate meanings in the bilingual mental lexicon. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8(3), 221-238.

Dufour, R., & Kroll, J. F. (1993). Matching words to concepts in two languages: A test of the concept mediation model of bilingual representation. Memory & Cognition, 23(2), 166-180.

Ehri, L. C. (2017). Orthographic mapping and literacy development revisited. In R. K. Parrila, K. Cain, & D. L. Compton (Eds.), Theories of reading development (pp. 127-145). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Ferreiro, E. (2009). The transformation of children’s knowledge of language units during beginning and initial literacy. In J. V. Hoffman & Y. M. Goodman (Eds.), Changing literacies for changing times: An historical perspective on the future of reading research, public policy, and classroom practices (pp. 61-75). Taylor & Francis Group.

Ferreiro, E. (2000). Entre la sílaba oral y la palabra escrita [Between the oral syllable and the written word]. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 23(89), 25-37.

Fumagalli, J., Barreyro, J. P., & Jaichenco, V. (2017). Fluidez lectora en niños: Cuáles son las habilidades subyacentes [Reading fluency of children: What are the underlying skills?]. Ocnos Revista de Estudios sobre Lectura, 16(1), 50-61. https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2017.16.1.1332

Flanigan, K. (2007). A concept of word in text: A pivotal event in early reading acquisition. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(1), 37-70.

Francis, W. S., Strobach, E. N., Penalver, R. M., Martínez, M., Gurrola, B. V., & Soltero, A. (2019). Word-context associations in episodic memory are learned at the conceptual level: Word frequency, bilingual proficiency, and bilingual status effects on source memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(10), 1852-1871.

Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 263-329.

Goodman, K. S. (1971). Decoding–From code to what? Journal of Reading, 14(7), 455-46.

Haastrup, K. (2009). Research on the lexical inferencing process and its outcomes. In M. B. Wesche & T. S. Paribakht (Eds.), Lexical inferencing in a first and second language: Cross-linguistic dimensions (pp. 3-30). Multilingual Matters.

Heilbron, M. A., Kristijan, Schoffelen, J.M., Hagoot, P., & de Lange, F. P. (2022). A hierarchy of linguistic predictions during natural language comprehension. PNAS Neuroscience Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, 119(32), e2201968119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2201968119

Kaan, E., & Grüter, T. (2021). Prediction in second language processing and learning. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Koda, K. (1994). Second language reading research: Problems and possibilities. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15(1994), 1-29.

Lázaro, M., Ruiz Gallego-Largo, T., Escalonilla, A., & Simón, T. (2021). Relación entre conciencia morfológica y destreza lectora: Un estudio con niños hispanohablantes [Relationship between morphological awareness and reading skills: A study with Spanish speaking children]. Revista Signos: Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada, 54(105), 32-53.

Li, P., & Clariana, R. B. (2019). Reading comprehension in L1 and L2: An integrative approach. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 50, 94-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.03.005

Mazoyer, B. M., Tzourio, N., Frak, V., Sytota A, Murayama, N., Levrier, O., Salamon, G., Dehaene, S., Cohen, L., & Mehler, J. (1993). The cortical representation of speech. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5(4), 467-479.

Marcos Miguel, N. (2020). Analyzing morphology-related strategies in Spanish L2 lexical inferencing: How do suffixes matter? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching IRAL, 58(3), 351-377.

Mora, J. K. (2024). Reaffirming multilingual educators’ pedagogical knowledge base. Multilingual Educator, February(CABE 2024 Edition), 12-14.

Mora, J.K. (2017). Literacy instruction methods in Spanish and in English: Same or different? Implications for biliteracy instruction. The Multilingual Educator, CABE 2017 Edition, 6-10.

Mora, J. K. (2016). Spanish language pedagogy for biliteracy programs. Montezuma Publishing.

Mora, J.K. (2001). Learning to spell in two languages: Orthographic transfer in a transitional Spanish/English bilingual program. In P. Dreyer (Ed.), Raising Scores, Raising Questions: Claremont Reading Conference 65th Yearbook (pp. 64-84). Claremont, CA: Claremont Graduate University

Nassaji, H. (2006). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and L2 learners’ lexical inferencing strategy use and success. The Modern Language Journal, 90(3), 387-401.

Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & McCarthy, D. (2015). Inference processing in children: The contributions of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge. In E. J. O’Brien (Ed.), Inferences during reading (pp. 140-159). Cambridge University Press.

Patterson, J. L., & Pearson, B. Z. (2022). Bilingual lexical development, assessment, and intervention. In B. A. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual language development and disorders in Spanish-English speakers (Third ed., pp. 119-148). Brookes Publishing.

Peña, E. D., Kester, E. S., & Sheng, L. (2022). Semantic development in Spanish-English bilinguals. In B. A. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual language development and disorders in Spanish-English speakers (Third ed., pp. 149-170). Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Perfetti, C. A., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22-37.

Pienemann, M. (Ed.). (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Potter, M. C., Kwok-Fai, S.,Von Eckardt, B., & Feldman, L. B. (1984). Lexical and conceptual representation in beginning and proficient bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 23-38.

Rolla, A., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. E. (2006). The role of language of instruction and vocabulary in English in the English phonological awareness of Spanish-English bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 229-246.

Raudszus, H., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2021). Use of morphological and contextual cues in children’s lexical inferencing in L1 and L2. Reading & Writing, 34, 1513-1538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10122-z

Samuels, S. J., & Flor, R. F. (1997). The importance of automaticity for developing expertise in reading. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 13(2), 107-121.

San Diego County Office of Education (2012). Common Core State Standards: English/Spanish Language Version. Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Scanlon, D. M., & Anderson, K. L. (2020). Using context as an assist in word solving: The contributions of 25 years of research on the Interactive Strategies Approach. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S19-S34.

Silva-Maceda, G., & Romero-Contreras, S. (2017). Leer rápido no siempre es igual a comprender: Cuando la velocidad no apoya la comprensión [Reading fast is not always the same as understanding: When speed does not support understanding]. Revista Costarricense de Psicología, 36(2), 123-144. https://doi.org/10.22544/rcps.v36i02.03

Signorini, A., & Borzone de Manrique, A. M. (2003). Aprendizaje de la lectura y escritura en español: El predominio de las estrategies fonológicas [Learning to read and spell in Spanish. The prevalence of phonological strategies]. Interdisciplinaria, 20(2), 5-30.

Sheriston, L., Critten, S., & Jones, E. (2016). Routes to reading and spelling: Testing the predictions of dual-route theory. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(4), 403-417.

Thonis, E. (1983). The English-Spanish Connection. Santillana.

Vernon, S. A., & Ferreiro, E. (1999). Writing development: A neglected variable. Harvard Educational Review, 69(4), 395-415.

Wesche, M. B., & Paribakht, T. S. (Eds.). (2009). Lexical inferencing in a first and second language: Cross-linguistic dimensions. Multilingual Matters.

 

 

SoR CLAIM 5

The Three-Cueing System (Orthography, Semantics, and Syntax) has been soundly discredited.

Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (2024). Fact-checking the Science of Reading: Opening up the conversation. Literacy Research Commons.

Please click on the title An Analysis of the Three-cueing System Controversy by Jill Kerper Mora for access to the document in a PDF. Please respect Dr. Mora’s copyright of this document. 

Jumping on the Science of Reading Banned Wagon

On May 10, 2023 Sarah Schwartz of Education Week published an update on the fate of “three-cueing” in Science of Reading mandates. Schwartz reports state legislatures in Arkansas, Louisiana and Indiana   “cueing” is now officially banned in public schools. See ‘Science of Reading’ Mandates (edweek.org)

“Most of these laws promote the adoption of evidence-based practices. But some legislation also bans methods that researchers have called into question. The new Indiana law takes aim at one particular instructional practice—a technique often referred to as “three cueing.”  … The term refers to one method for reading instruction and assessment that’s included in popular curriculum materials and often taught to teachers in preparation programs. It teaches that students can rely on multiple sources of information, or cues, to figure out words. They might look at the letters to sound the word out, but they could also rely on context or pictures to make a guess.  … Many reading researchers have warned against the practice, saying that it can discourage children from putting their phonics knowledge into practice and teach them to rely on ineffective strategies.”

The lack of identification of the “many reading researchers” who have warned against “cueing” and “three-cueing” that is allegedly a theoretical model of reading is itself problematic. This is because other researchers cannot challenge their claims since we are unable to access the empirical studies on which they allegedly base this “warning.” Nor can their fellow researchers dialogue with these “many reading researchers” to offer their own perspective on logical coherence of these warnings, which they allegedly base on scientific research themselves. So perhaps these “many reading researchers” are simply using the term “science” as a metaphor to lend credibility to their ideological assertions. 

AB 2222 (Rubio) Science of Reading introduced on February 7, 2024. This bill states that its purpose is …” to ensure compliance with effective means of teaching literacy, as defined, and adherence to the science [of] reading, as provided.” (p. 2). The bill defines the “science of reading” in Section 10, Sec. 60011(p. 19-20) to be added to the CA Education Code. Section (5) outlines the proposed prohibited that were included in the legislation.

“(b) “Science of reading” means an interdisciplinary body of scientifically based research that includes all of the following:
(5) Does not rely on any model for teaching word reading based on meaning, structure and syntax, and visual cues, including a three-cueing approach, with the exception of instruction to pupils who are identified as deaf or hearing impaired, as defined in paragraphs (3) and (5), respectively, of subdivision (c) of Section 17 300.8 of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations.”

Click here for Dr. Mora’s analysis of the problematic definition of the Science of Reading and the AB 2222 bans on instruction that the legislation proposed.

Lack of Definition of Terms

The importance of a consensus among researchers on the definition of labels, terms and constructs cannot be overstated. Pajares (1992) gives this definition of definitions: 

Definitions are basically conventions, general agreements among researchers that a particular term will represent a specific concept. …a reflection of these agreements and of paradigmatic assumptions they represent rather than of any basic and incontrovertible truth inherent in the constructions. A community of scholars engaged in the research of common areas with common themes has a responsibility to communicate ideas and results as clearly as possible, using common terms. For these reasons, it is important to use the terms consistently, accurately, and appropriately once their definitions have been agreed on. (p. 315)

The noun “cue” or “cues” and the verb “cueing” are used will multiple meanings in common parlance. However, these terms take on a different meaning when employed in descriptors for language and literacy construct and variables in scholarly academic research. Even more problematic is when journalists and others who lack expertise in scholarly research arrive at a definition of the term to use as a straw man argument in Reading War polemics. We identify three distinct definitions that are frequently employed: 1) Cueing is what language does. 2) Cueing is what readers do. 3). Cueing is what teachers do. The logical coherence and empirical validity of each of these definitions of “cueing” is examined below. 

Linguistics identifies and defines five or six language subsystems (cue sources): phonology, morphology, semantics, syntax, and pragmatics. Sometimes orthography (spelling) is considered a subsystem of language. Different researchers identify and investigate different subsystems of language using different labels (Babayiğit & Shapiro, 2020). For example, vocabulary and grammar are studied as components of language comprehension. Furthermore, these components are often further broken down into morphology and syntax to examine their contribution to the broader variables of vocabulary knowledge and grammatical skills. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of research studies based on the language subsystems that provide insights into the contributions of the components of language to decoding, word recognition and reading comprehension. This research is the deeper and broader study of how language works, called metalinguistics.

The use of the term “cueing” psycholinguistic research refers to how language conveys and encodes meaning through the subsystems of language: phonology, morphology, semantics, syntax and pragmatics. The multiple definitions of “three-cueing” and a “three-cueing approach” make it difficult to determine exactly what is banned through these legislative initiatives. The many popularized definitions of the term “three-cueing system(s)” in the media and among some literacy researchers are at the heart of the controversy over the bans of the so-called “three-cueing approach.” Take for example this definition of “three-cueing” from the Albert Shanker Report (Neuman, et. al, 2023:8):

“Cueing systems in reading are the practices that aid in determining the meaning of unknown words. There are three cueing systems: grapho-phonetic cues (letters/sounds) s; /s/); syntactic cues (grammar); and semantics (comprehension). The view is that if one system fails, such as letters and sounds, the other systems might compensate, often leading students to use context, or guessing of words. The research evidence has shown that the approach does not give children the systematic and explicit teaching necessary for them to be able to make the connection between the spoken and the printed word.” (p. 8)

Through statements such as these, we can identify three variations on the definition of “three-cueing.” 1) Definition of the cueing systems as linguistic cueing as what language does through its subsystems; 2) Definitions of cueing systems as decoding strategies or what readers do; and 3) instructional cueing. In literacy research, a distinction is made between linguistic cueing, which is how language conveys meaning versus instructional cueing. Instructional cueing is both language and literacy pedagogy. If cueing is defined as what language does, then why would instruction for the purpose of teaching students about how language works be prohibited? A ban on instructional cueing is especially for multilingual learners who are developing second language proficiency If cueing is a collective of decoding strategies that readers use, how did they learn them and are they effective for decoding and comprehending authentic continuous text? If cueing is an instructional approach or strategy that teachers employ, then why are they limited to only three of the language subsystems? Or are teachers limited to cueing students during instruction to features of the subsystem of phonology as it is graphically represented through the alphabet? Goodman (1971) asserts that both oral language and written language are codes. For literate people, two code forms complement each other–a written code and an oral code. Written text is an encoded message from an author to a reader. Decoding written text must move the language use from language to meaning. It is an evidence-free assertion by SoR proponents that any one of the subsystems of language required for comprehension of oral language is not utilized or is unnecessary for comprehension of phonologically recoded language.  

An example of the problematic nature of the lack of definition of “three-cueing” is seen in Professor Claude Goldenberg’s rebuttal to the Fact-checking SoR by Tierney and Pearson  (2024). Goldenberg utilizes the same fallacious arguments as the many SoR proponents, characterized by a lack of definition of terms. In his alleged “improvement” on the claims of Dr. Tierney and Dr. Pearson, Goldenberg writes the term “cues” in quotation marks but does not define it explicitly, However, he implies that Three-Cueing (capitalized) is a strategy for identifying words that is not “explicit and reliable” but rather, these “cues” are “inadequate because they are not “equally helpful for identifying words.” According to Goldenberg, orthography is the most helpful of the three “cues” and is the “on-ramp” to accurate word recognition, while semantics and syntax are “other aspects of context playing supporting roles” in word recognition. Previously in Goldenberg’s “improvements” on Tierney and Pearson’s Claim 4, he asserts that sight words are “automatically identified without need to decode or use any “cues” because the reading knows the meaning of the sight word. For this argument, he cites Ehri (2020) in an article about orthographic mapping in sight word reading. Therefore, Goldenberg proposes a theory about decoding, orthographic mapping, and the use of grapho-phonics cueing that is incompatible with miscue analysis research (Goodman, 1999; Goodman, K., Goodman, Y. M., & Paulson, 2009; Smith, 1999). This large body of linguistic and psycholinguistic research identifies three categories of miscues. However, the research does not suggest that automatic and accurate decoding is possible without an orchestration of all of the subsystems of language. Nor does fluent decoding reflect a non-use or non-reliance on semantics and syntax, which are features of both oral and written language. 

Goldenberg’s improvements on the Tierney and Pearson claims do not obliterate the need for further fact-checking of the claims of Science of Reading researchers like Dr. Tierney and Dr. Pearson and Mora, et al. who have concluded that there is no scientific empirical research evidence to support the SoR proponents’ claim that “three-cueing” should be banned from teachers’ professional toolkit of literacy and biliteracy instructional strategies. Goldenberg claims that Reid Lyon’s Maxim 7 is “very… well, scientific.” However, he fails to acknowledge that there is no consensus among researchers on a definition of what is meant by a “Three-cueing System.” Nor is there a consensus about the existence of a “three-cueing approach” to literacy instruction that is or is not “direct, explicit and systematic” but rather, is “unpredictable and leaves much to chance” as Reid Lyon claims in his Maxim. Therefore, Goldenberg’s claim that “…”direct, systematic instruction is more likely than three-cueing to help more students acquire necessary reading skills” stands as yet another claim based on a false dichotomy that must be examined and debated among researcher peers and colleagues.

History of the Three-cueing Controversy

The first thing to understand about the three-cueing controversy is that it was fueled most recently by journalist Emily Hanford of American Public Media in her podcast series “Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went Wrong.” Emily Hanford of American Public Media has declared that teachers are teaching reading the wrong way because they are following “a disproven theory” of how students learn to read. Here are quotations from Emily Hanford’s Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong podcast that frame her argument against “three-cueing.”

“Teaching kids to read this way has become known as “three cueing.” It’s not a term Marie Clay used, as far as I know. But three cueing is based on her theory of how people read. An influential academic in the United States came up with the same basic theory at about the same time. The cueing theory provided justification for not teaching children how to sound out words…because the theory was that good readers don’t have to know how to do that. They have other ways to figure out what the words say.”

For Dr. Mora’s elaborated analysis of Emily Hanford’s argument, click here. Suffice it to say, Hanford’s sold educators and the public a story of her own that has resulted in state legislatures throughout the nation to ban educators from using what she called “three-cueing.” This successful media campaign against revered literacy scholars demonstrates the power of the media to distort and misrepresent decades of academic research that informs literacy instruction for millions of students. 

The concept of language itself as a cueing system made up of components or subsystems predates or is contemporary with the research of literacy educators like Marie Clay and Kenneth Goodman (Bloomfield, 1944; Carroll, 1966; Carton, 1971; Hanna et al., 1966).  Consider this description of language structures from the 1,721-page report titled Phonemes-graphemes as cues to spelling improvement (Hanna et al. 1966):

“Classifying the different structures of the many language systems in an effort to make explicit what language users know implicitly is one of the central undertakings of linguistic science. …these structural components of oral language include: 1) the phonetic reservoir from which a phonemic code is selected, 2) the phonemic base 3) the morphological base, that is the arrangement of phonemes into speech units which minimally express meaning, 4) the syntactic and grammatical base, that is, the arrangement of morphemes into syntactic patterns, and 5) the semantic base, which conveys meanings in terms of the conceptual system of a language community.” (p. 13)

“Classifying the different structures of the many language systems in an effort to make explicit what language users know implicitly is one of the central undertakings of linguistic science. …these structural components of oral language include: 1) the phonetic reservoir from which a phonemic code is selected, 2) the phonemic base 3) the morphological base, that is the arrangement of phonemes into speech units which minimally express meaning, 4) the syntactic and grammatical base, that is, the arrangement of morphemes into syntactic patterns, and 5) the semantic base, which conveys meanings in terms of the conceptual system of a language community.” (p. 13)

A Manufactured Controversy: Dr. Mora proposed three steps toward an understanding of the origins of the controversy over “three-cueing” and a “cueing system” or “cueing systems” (plural) in the interpretation and implementation of language and literacy research. The evolution of the concept of “cueing” among literacy scholars, here is viewed through three pivotal research articles that show how a research construct has become controversial. 

Step 1 Read Professor Ken Goodman’s “Psycholinguistics universals in the reading process” (1970). This is one of Goodman’s earlier and more comprehensive explanations of the concept of cueing. This article is important because it explains the rationale for this framing of the reading process based on how readers read regardless of the script the text is in. Goodman also emphasizes second/foreign language readers’ challenges. In his own words, Dr. Goodman describes how the concept of miscues emerged from his research: 

…. Just as young children learning to speak show their growing control over the grammar of their language by their “errors” … readers use the same process for producing their errors as they do for their accurate reading. By comparing their observed oral responses to the text with the expected responses that would appear accurate to a listener I had a continuous window on their reading. I could see the process of reading at work! … The errors my first subjects were making showed they were using their knowledge of language to make sense of the printed text. (p. v) But if I continued to use the term “error” teachers and other researchers might continue to think of them as simply wrong rather than resulting from the language strengths of the learners. In deciding to call them miscues, I did not coin the word “miscue.” I had already begun to talk about the cue systems of language. If language provides cues that readers use, then why not call these unexpected responses “miscues”? A simple definition of a miscue also emerged: A miscue is a point in reading where the expected response (ER) and the observed response (OR) are not the same. ER ≠ OR. Out of this work grew two assumptions that still underlie miscue analysis: 1) Miscues are never random. 2) Unexpected responses result from the same process as expected responses. Our goal was a better understanding of the reading process, a more complete theory of reading, and a taxonomy of miscue analysis appropriate to all readers.” (p. vi-vii)

Goodman, K. S. (1970). Psycholinguistic universals in the reading process. Journal of Typographic Research, 4(2 Spring), 103-11

Step 2 Read Professor P. David Pearson A psycholinguistic model of reading (1976). This is also an early application of Ken Goodman’s three-cueing notion, early in the stages of data collection on miscue analysis. Professor Pearson proposes a model of how error patterns in readers’ oral reading performance inform language arts activities where they practice using phonics in context. 

“Receivers of language input (listeners or readers) use a variety of sources of information as they read or listen. Most prominent and ubiquitous for the reader are semantic-associational information, syntactic information, and symbol-sound information. (p. 309) Real reading occurs when all three kinds of information are utilized in concert. Efficient readers maximize their reliance on syntactic and semantic information in order to minimize the amount of print to speech processing (call this decoding phonic or grapho-phonemic analysis) they have to do. They literally predict what is coming and get enough grapho-phonemic information to verify their predictions.” (p. 310)

“Now, how does the model help us? By implication, what is happening is that the skills activities are concentrating on phonic information only. Then the children are asked to use the knowledge they have acquired in conjunction with context, for example, semantic and syntactic information. But we don’t show them how to do that! There is a critical intermediate step left out: practicing the phonics skill in conjunction with semantic and syntactic information; in short, we need to expose them to phonics in context. One can go a step further and use a decision rule which says that we will value most highly those phonics skill activities which allow children to utilize the most semantic and syntactic information while they are “cracking the code.” Conversely, we will value least highly those phonics skill activities which are most isolated from context.” (p. 311)

Pearson, P. D. (1976). A psycholinguistic model of reading. Language Arts, 53(3), 309-314. 

Step 3 Read Marilyn Jager Adams (1998) article titled “The three-cueing system.” This article explains the resistance that Adams encountered when she started to use a Venn diagram of the three-cueing system (or systems), noting that she describes it/them in both singular and plural. The important thing to take away from this article is that the push-back that Adams got was from teachers who simply thought that the semantic and syntactic systems were obvious so why the big deal? In my opinion, this is an example of the monolingual assumption at work. 

“Thus by depicting the meaning of a text in the intersection of its semantic, syntactic, and graphophonic cues, the Venn diagram succinctly asserts that the meaning of a text depends on all three; all three of these types of information are necessary, all three must be properly processed, and not one of them can be safely ignored or finessed except at the risk of forfeiting or distorting the meaning of the text.(p. 75)

Goodman’s thesis, in short, is that instruction should be designed with sensitive awareness that as readers gain in skill, their active attention is devoted less and less to sounding out words and more and more to the higher-order nuances and import of the text. In this spirit, he also provides more insightful and sophisticated discussion of the kinds of support warranted than I have seen in any recent text. (p. 81) They (teachers) had been operating on the belief that the semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic cues were straightforward and familiar to children, and, because of this, were wholly available for use in finessing the graphophonemic system, which was complicated and unfamiliar. It had never occurred to them that there was much to teach or learn about the semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic cues involved in skillful reading. What I was saying must have been totally disorienting to these people.” (p. 89)

Again, the simplifications and distortions that the three-cueing system has suffered are uncharacteristic of the fate of written information. My hypothesis is, instead, that the three-cueing system principally has proliferated through inservice sessions, workshops, and conferences, and that it is through that process that its interpretation has been changed and its heritage forgotten. Such forums have become a common mode of inservice education in recent years. While the enthusiasm of teachers teaching teachers is commendable the short-term nature of such training presents a unique problem; it virtually assures that only the rudimentary elements of these theories can be presented. (p. 90)

Adams, M. J. (1998). The three-cueing system. In J. Osborn & F. Lehr (Eds.), Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning (pp. 73-99). The Guilford Press. 

These three articles together provide a coherent history of the early development of the controversy. I point out that this is an argument about the interpretation and implications of miscue analysis research, not a critique of the research itself. We also note that Marie Clay is never mentioned, so these articles refute the argument of Emily Hanford of American Public Media that Marie Clay came up with the idea. This blows a major premise of her “Sold a Story podcast out of the water.  

Please read this article by Jeffrey L. Williams of Ohio State University: Williams, J. L. (2024). Getting history right: The tale of three-cueing.  The Journal of Reading Recovery, 24, 17-28. 

Alternative Theories about Cueing

There are a number of alternative theories and interpretations about cueing and the “three-cueing approach” to reading instruction that are trotted out to justify the Science of Reading movement’s bans on certain reading instruction strategies. Although these theories do not actually rise to the level of established literacy theories that have a strong empirical evidence base, they have garnered wide popular support through media campaigns and support from some “big-name” researchers. There are at least five alternative theories that can be identified and named to argue for bans against “three-cueing” however it is defined: 1) The Overreliance Theory 2) The Indirect Instruction theory; 3) The Anti-guessing Theory 4) The Competing Subsystems Theory; 5) The Sequence of Word Recognition Theory 6) The Good Reader vs. Poor Reader Theory.

The Overreliance Theory: One evidence-free assertion is that the subsystems of language are in competition with each other. The alternative theory posits that when teachers prompt readers to pay attention to syntax or semantics, this detracts from their word recognition and decoding base on grapho-phonics and therefore, disrupts and hinders a more efficient “division of labor” where phonological decoding should be primary (Davis, Jones & Samuelson, 2021; Foorman, Breier & Fletcher, 2003; Goldberg & Goldenberg, 2022; Seidenberg, 2017). Obviously, a theory of “overreliance” on particular subsystems of language for decoding and comprehension in reading implies “under reliance” on one or the other(s), as well as a ideal level of “reliance” for readers to achieve the goals of reading. However, Foorman et al., (2003: 617) state the following: “[R]esearchers disagree on the degree of conscious attention to the phoneme-grapheme mappings needed by children learning an alphabetic orthography… a primary component of beginning reading instruction is to help children master the alphabetic system for the 86% of words that fit the system, to use other linguistic cues to aid in the recognition of the additional 10%, and to memorize the 4% of words that are true oddities.” Therefore, phonetic decoding only works with 86% of words in English, thus requiring the use of other linguistic and non-linguistic cues for word recognition 14% of the time. However, phonological recoding must produce language that is comprehensible and the ability to sound out and pronounce words does not eliminate the non-acoustic features of language that are required for linguistic comprehension (Goodman, 1971; Varga, 2021). 

SoR advocates complain about the three-cueing system Venn diagram because of its interpretation. For example, Professor Mark Seidenberg (2017: 310), criticizes the cueing schematic because it is “…open to many interpretations. In fact, it is compatible with every theory of reading. . . It is a Rorschach blot on which to project one’s beliefs about reading.” This complaint is surprising because most researchers believe that if a theoretical model of reading is compatible with every theory of reading, that indicates that it is a valid and widely applicable explanation of how reading (and how language) works. However, despite the ubiquitous compatibility of the description of language as a cueing system with subsystems that work in concert to signal meaning, Seidenberg postulates that “… the range of alternatives to one that works may be more effective than offering multiple cues. (p.303) Seidenberg proposes that 3-cueing is an “amorphous theory” that is based on the notion that children already know about syntax, semantics and graphophonics. However, because their knowledge is insufficient, “…the method jumps to teaching compensatory strategies.”  The view that cueing systems (subsystems of language) other than graphophonics are “compensatory” is not grounded in any research evidence on the nature of language (Halliday, 1993).  

In their book Fact-checking the Science of Reading: Opening up the conversation, Tierney and Pearson (2024) state the following:

“Reading requires an orchestration of various factors across words and sentences. It seems overly limiting to discredit the use of cueing systems based on what some might consider a restrictive assumption—that reading is entirely the accurate naming of words, rather than an act of meaning making that involves hypothesizing…We also find some of the arguments against cueing systems (i.e., the view that the use of context or syntactic, semantic or pragmatic cues, even when coupled with phonics, may detract from word learning) to require the out of hand dismissal of important lines of research.” (p. 65)

The Indirect Instruction Theory: Another alternative theory suggests that teacher’s prompting or cueing of subsystems of language other than grapho-phonics (phonology and orthography) are “direct” instruction, but that cueing of linguistic subsystems or non-linguistic cueing are “indirect” instruction and therefore “…leave too much to chance.” (Lyon, 2024) Reid Lyon lists this theory as a “maxim” meant to guide reading instruction. Maxim 7: Direct, systematic instruction helps students develop the skills they need to become strong readers. Indirect, three-cueing instruction is unpredictable in its impact on word reading and leaves too much to chance. (Lyon, 2024). Lyon’s (2024) claimed research studies that allegedly support his maxim fail to explain why instruction to raise readers’ awareness of how language conveys meaning through three of the subsystems of language is “indirect” instruction while teaching phonology and orthography is “direct” and “systematic” instruction. One might be inclined to believe that knowledge of how all subsystems of a larger system work interactively and in concert to accomplish the system’s purpose.

The problem with the notion that graphophonics instruction is “direct, systematic instruction” while instruction to develop metalinguistic awareness of how other subsystems of language work to convey meaning is “indirect and unpredictable” has no support through empirical evidence. The issue here is whether teachers use strategies that make readers’ implicit knowledge of how  language works, through both oral and written modalities, especially with second language learners (DeKeyser, 2003; Ellis, 2005). 

In a critique of Lyon’s position on direct, systematic phonics instruction, Strauss and Altweger (2007) make the following observations: 

Given the pervasive logographic character of English alphabetics, the burden of proof now clearly falls on those who would advocate intensive phonics instruction in the classroom to provide evidence that such instruction is the key to learning how to read. By definition, the entire logographic topography of English defies phonic regularity. Yet there is now a politically driven, renewed emphasis on intensive teaching of phonics. Such emphasis implicitly insists that, despite the hybrid character of English spelling-sound relationships, there is both theoretical plausibility and empirical justification in elevating one portion of the English lexicon to a privileged position. Neither, however, can be defended. (p. 309)

Lyon’s acontextual theory cannot explain how readers develop a special vocabulary of words they have only seen in print and have never heard. His theory assumes that every word of the written language has first become familiar to the reader as a spoken word. But every reader knows of words that are encountered only in print, and often is surprised to find out that the conventional pronunciation is not what he or she imagined it to be. Lyon’s theory is surprising precisely because it would require the suppression of otherwise quite natural mental processes. When a reader guesses at an upcoming, still unseen word, or at a word completely unrecognizeable from the spoken language, Lyon would have us believe that this quite natural strategy on the part of the reader should actually be suppressed in favor of phonics rules which, in this case, are of no benefit anyway. He is in favor of converting letters to sounds because of the supposed naturalness of spoken language and artificiality of written language. But he opposes the obvious naturalness of intelligent guessing based on the reader’s recruitment of contextual information. (p. 310-311) … We conclude that neither linguistic, neuroscientific, nor classroom research has demonstrated the superiority of intensive phonics over meaning-centered approaches to reading. (p. 299)

The Anti-guessing Theory: Another alternative theory about “cueing” is the notion that drawing emergent readers’ attention to linguistic (semantics, syntax) and non-linguistic cues (pictures, context) promotes “guessing” which is a strategy that struggling readers use but proficient readers do not, or at least should not use (Shanahan, 2020). 

“Goodman (1967) was not the first to recommend this kind of guessing on the basis of minimum visual information, nor was he the first to do so without any instructional evidence showing that it conferred a learning advantage…Again, in Goodman’s (1967) case, his empiricism was sound. Readers, when distracted or struggling, try to compensate for this failure by inferring words that might make sense in context. However, no one has shown that teaching students to compensate in this way improves reading achievement, and other basic research has weakened the original claim because proficient readers look at pretty much every letter during reading, and where they look is not affected by semantics or syntax (Rayner, Binder, Ashby, & Pollatsek, 2001).” (p. S239)

The stance against “guessing” as a feature of fluent decoding and comprehension of text ignores the ample body of neuroscience and cognitive science research on linguistic prediction. It also fails to acknowledge Science of Reading research that names “prediction” as one of several decoding strategies that readers use (Ehri, 2017). The third strategy for reading unfamiliar words is by prediction. Readers use initial letters plus context cues in the sentence, the passage, or pictures to anticipate what the word might be. Once a word is predicted, then its pronunciation is matched to the spelling on the page to verify that the sounds fit the letters. (p. 128)

Actually, if the objectors to “guessing” as a reading process merely substitute the neurological term “guessing” for the neuroscience evidence of the ordinary linguistic process of prediction, the controversy surrounding “guessing” is resolved (Bonhage et al., 2015):

“It is widely agreed upon that linguistic predictions are an integral part of language comprehension. Yet, experimental proof of their existence remains challenging. Here, we introduce a new predictive eye gaze reading task combining eye tracking and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) that allows us to infer the existence and timing of linguistic predictions via anticipatory eye-movements. Word-specific predictions were specifically associated with more widely distributed temporal and parietal cortical systems, most prominently in the right hemisphere. Our results support the presence of linguistic predictions during sentence processing and demonstrate the validity of the predictive eye gaze paradigm for measuring syntactic and semantic aspects of linguistic predictions, as well as for investigating their neural substrates. Language comprehension involves the continuous decoding of highly structured sensory information within very short time. One way to efficiently handle the ensuing cognitive demands is to process language in a proactive way by relying on predictions, for example of upcoming words but also of structural features of the expected linguistic input. Predictive processing is believed to be a fundamental principle of brain function.” (p. 33-34)

There is a lack of empirical evidence to support the claim and ample evidence to refute the claim that “guessing” as linguistic prediction is not something that fluent, expert readers do and that struggling readers can be taught directly and explicitly to do to improve their reading fluency and comprehension. Educators of multilingual learners look to the body of research literature on metalinguistic awareness and metalinguistic skills instruction to inform literacy and biliteracy curriculum and instruction (Apel, 2022; Ke, et al., 2023; Yaden, et al., 2021). Yaden and colleagues state the problem this way:

“We argue that its singular focus limits the range of scientific inquiry, interpretation, and application to practice. Specifically, we address limitations of the science of reading as characterized by a narrow theoretical lens, an abstracted empiricism, and uncritical inductive generalizations derived from brain-imaging and eye movement data sources. Unfortunately, we believe that in many cases, the cloak of science has been employed to elevate the stature of SOR work and to promote the certainty and force of its advocates’ preferred explanations for what reading is and how it should be taught (e.g., Gentry & Ouellette, 2019; Schwartz & Sparks, 2019). What we suggested in this article is that the SOR, when so used in the reading wars, is not science at all in its fullest sense. It neglects an entire domain that influences and shapes human experience. It does so with an unmitigated confidence that evidence from one side of a binary can establish a final truth and that such a truth creates a single prescription for all instruction. Taking that stance, however, is outside the pale of science and dismisses work that has both merit on its own terms and a critical role in advancing the aims motivating reading research and instruction.” (p. s119 & p. S126)

A particularly strident attack on cueing strategies and the term’s alleged originator, Dr. Kenneth Goodman is found in the work of Yaavac Petscher and his colleagues at Florida State University (Petscher et al., 2020).  Note the “lost learning trial” that is, according to these researchers, a negative effect of readers’ “guessing” at words and thereby “using alternative cueing systems” that impede the “building of automatic word recognition skill.” 

“Constructivists, such as Goodman (1967) and Smith (1971), believed that reading was a natural act akin to learning language and thus emphasized giving students the opportunity to discover meaning through experiences in a literacy-rich environment (Goodman, 1967, p. 126) in which readers use their graphic, semantic, and syntactic knowledge (known as the three-cueing system) to guess the meaning of a printed word…Other instructional practices go directly against what is known from the science of reading. For example, isolating the three-cueing approach to support early word recognition (i.e., relying on a combination of semantic, syntactic, and graphophonic cues simultaneously to formulate an intelligent hypothesis about a word’s identity) ignores 40 years of overwhelming evidence that orthographic mapping involves the formation of letter–sound connections to bond the spelling, pronunciation, and meaning of a specific word in memory. (p. S272) Moreover, relying on alternative cueing systems impedes the building of automatic word recognition skill that is the hallmark of skilled word reading (Stanovich, 1990, 1991). The English orthography, being both alphabetic-phonemic and morphophonemic, clearly privileges the use of various levels of grapheme–phoneme correspondences to read words (Frost, 2012), with rapid context-free word recognition being the process that most clearly distinguishes good from poor readers (Perfetti, 1992; Stanovich, 1980). Guessing at a word amounts to a lost learning trial to help students learn the orthography of the word and thus reduce the need to guess the word in the future (Castles et al., 2018; Share, 1995).” (p. S272-273)

The Competing Subsystems Theory: This competition theory about cueing systems is frequently expressed using the terms “rather than” or “instead of” to convey the sense that readers who respond to semantic or syntactic cues in language do not engage in orthographic mapping. Contrarily, other researchers point out that a significant percentage of English words cannot be decoded correctly in isolation but must be used in a phrase or sentence for the meaning of the word to be signaled. Bowers & Bowers (2017) assert that 16% to 20% cannot accurately be decoded outside of the context of a sentence. Examples are words like bow (rhymes with toe) and bow (rhymes with how) or read (present tense) and read (past tense). Other examples of the need for using context for word recognition is where the stressed syllable of the word signals meaning (CONtract/conTRACT). In fact, although the meaning of nouns can be recognized in isolation, but verbs require the context of a sentence for readers to discern their meaning regarding tense, direct and indirect objects, types of action, etc. These researchers emphasize the importance of the language subsystem of morphology, which seems to be one cueing system that is infrequently banned, perhaps because morphology is a sublexical meaning cueing system. 

The Competing Subsystems Theory also postulates that the cueing systems other than graphophonics are merely back-up or failsafe systems that are available when word recognition is not achieved through orthographic mapping. This theory requires the assumption that phonological recoding does not require the reader to depend on syntax or grammar to comprehend words, sentences or discourse. This theory is clearly based on a monolingual assumption that the reader is a proficient native or near-native speaker of the language of the text (Share, 2008). This theory also discounts the role of metalinguistic awareness of morphology in decoding (Frost; 2012; Rastle, 2012).

The Sequence of Word Recognition Theory: This alternative theory of three-cueing is based on a definition of three-cueing as a sequence of steps or strategies that a teacher uses when a reader cannot “recognize” a word. The following is an example of one researcher’s rationale for banning the three-cueing “approach” (Goldenberg, 2024). 

“When it comes to “three-cueing,” the way it is typically defined involves teaching children to look at one of 3(ish) possible cues when trying to identify (“solve”) a word they don’t know by sight. The operationalizations vary, but three-cueing basically involves having children do one or more of the following in some order: Look at a picture, what would make sense, what’s the first letter and/or maybe another letter, does that word sound right there? Sometimes “MSV” – meaning, structures (or syntax), visual – is used. … Students were encouraged to decode unknown words by relying on their letter–sound knowledge and then cross-checking with meaning and pictures to confirm the identities of the words… : The better way uses letter-sound associations as the first step in recognizing a word you come to that you can’t read. In other words, letter-sound associations comes first; it is not one item in a menu of options.” 

There are several problems with this theory of “three-cueing.” The first problem is definitional. Goldenberg defines three-cueing as teacher behaviors or strategies that appear to be unrelated to a student’s oral reading performance, which then obfuscates the teacher’s judgment involved in determining the possible source of their inability to “recognize” a word (Briceño & Klein, 2019; Goodman, 1971; McGee et al., 2015). The “menu of options denies teachers’ professionalism in observing and assessing readers’ points of challenge in word recognition and overall comprehension of text. Clearly, the only source of readers’ inability to put meaning to a written word is not grapho-phonic knowledge. This view of word recognition ignores the learners’ extent of semantic knowledge of the concept that a word labels or the knowledge of syntax that the reader may require to associate a word’s meaning with its visual representation (spelling). Even when a second-language reader of the language of the text is able to sound out the word and arrive at an approximation of its oral rendition through orthographic mapping, this may not trigger comprehension because the reader does not know the word in his/her L2 (Joen & Yamashita, 2014). Multilingual learners who are learning to read in a language in which are not (yet) fully proficient are put at risk by requirements that a teacher make unfounded assumptions about emergent bilingual readers’ challenges and obstacles to comprehension of text (Carrell, 1991; Kabuto, 2016; Koda, 2012; Nassaji, 2014).

Another problematic aspect of the view of “three-cueing” as a sequence of steps that a teacher should (or should not) follow to achieve “word recognition” is the assumption that there is one set series of steps that in the brain required to produce recognition of a word’s meaning (Frost, 2012; Harm & Seidenberg, 2004; Perfetti & Stafura, 2014). A teacher must exercise professional judgment to determine, to the best of his/her ability whether a lack of, or misapplication of grapho-phonic knowledge is the source of a miscue or an inability of a reader to derive meaning from a word encountered in oral reading. It is the brain of the reader, not the teacher, that determines what route or pathway the reader utilizes associate the printed word with its meaning. The role of non-linguistic cues such as pictures or other graphics in enhancing comprehension should not be discounted out of a misguided theory that such cues detract from orthographic mapping (Apel, Henbest & Masterson, 2019;  Ehri, 2017). 

The Good Reader vs. Poor Reader Theory: This theory proposes that only poor readers rely on “context” to recognize words while good readers are not context dependent. Therefore, teaching “three-cueing” to emergent readers is teaching them to be poor readers because “context” strategies distract them from efficient word recognition, which reduces automaticity and fluency. (Ehri, 2020). There are several problems with this theory. First, there is a lack of definition of what is meant by “context” with a resulting lack of distinction between linguistic cues and non-linguistic cues. Let us not put the cart before the horse. Language cues meaning through its subsystems: Phonology, morphology, semantics, syntax and pragmatics. Phonology is also addressed through linguistic studies of phonetics and phonemics (Carroll, 1963).

Word recognition through phonetic decoding of the orthography of a language utilizes the rules and patterns of the alphabet to arrive at a mental pronunciation of a word. However, a word is not “recognized” until its meaning is triggered in the mental lexicon of the reader. Alphabetic decoding gives the reader access to his or her mental lexicon. According to Carton (1971: 50) cues can be categorized as intra-lingual, interlingual or extra-lingual. Inter-lingual or within-word decoding. Cues act as “markers” for readers to use “… for making reasonable, if probabilistic, guesses when coupled with other cues. Intra-lingual cues are useful in identifying the form class of novel words, reducing the possible number of inferences (guesses) that can be made based on the syntax of the language of the text at the phrase and sentence level of processing text. This is because syntax is the relationship between words, such as word order and the function of words within a sentence. For a comprehensive study of the way language cues meaning through phonology and how orthography captures these cues see Hanna, et al. (1966) titled Phoneme-grapheme correspondences as cues to spelling improvement. This 1,721 page report on orthographic cueing provides a description of how closely American English orthography approximates the alphabetic principle. 

Clearly there are differences between the way an expert or skilled reader approaches a text than does a novice or less skilled reader who is still in the process of learning to decode and comprehend text. An expert or adult reader usually reads for a distinct purpose and selects reading materials based on the desire to gain knowledge from what s/he has chosen to read. Therefore, the non-linguistic “context” of what is read is known to the reader. The reader may not encounter vocabulary or concepts that are unfamiliar and therefore may cause problems with word recognition that affect reading fluency and comprehension. These issues of the reader’s purpose and intent in reading a text as a communicative act with the author of the text is addressed in  psycholinguistic and neuroscience research under the theoretical framework of construction of meaning (Goodman, 2003; Strauss, 2011).

Adams (1980) describes this difference between skilled and non-skilled readers in the use of linguistic cues:

For the skilled reader, the processes involved in reading are so well learned and integrated that written information can flow almost automatically from sensation to meaning. As the letters of the text are identified, they simultaneously prime or set up expectations about the identities of the words to which they belong. As the words are identified, they prime the most probable syntactic and semantic structures. More generally, since the end products of each level of analysis are the elements for some other level, the information is naturally propagated upwards through the system, through increasingly comprehensive levels of analysis. … The other means of coping with visually unfamiliar words is that of using the syntactic and semantic constraints of the text to guess their identity. In this way, processing at higher levels may compensate for decoding difficulties. As was argued in the introduction, this is a normal aspect of skilled reading and recent studies suggest that even for young children, reading is, in part, a generative, top-down process. (p. 18)

This researcher questions whether any research methodology can detect a reader’s use of, much less his/her non-use of semantics and syntax for meaning construction. This is because language cannot be devoid of semantics and syntax, whether processed based on aural input or visual input from continuous authentic text (Nassaji, 2003; Traxler, 2023). It is highly likely that an expert reader is a native speaker or fully proficient non-native speaker of the language of the text. Consequently, researchers can usually assume that the expert reader is familiar with the syntax and grammar of the language of the text. The expert reader brings more general linguistic competence and conceptual world knowledge to the reading task at hand. The skilled reader has a greater ability to pay attention to concurrent linguistic cues and non-linguistic discourse and context cues while processing text where cues derive their usefulness when the reader brings to bear the full range of his/her experience and knowledge (Adams, 1980; Carton, 1971; Goodman, 1964; 1971; Hanna et al., 1966)

The Attack on Syntax

The word “cues” in literacy research means the signals that language provides through speech and written text to communicate meaning. Therefore, “cueing” is what language does, not what teachers do. Where there are “cues” in reading, there are also miscues. Miscues are mismatches between the exact words of the text and what the reader said in reading orally. The Science of Reading movement’s most frequently banned language subsystem is syntax. A review of many hundreds of research studies by fellow literacy scholars, syntax is a very important subsystem (cueing system) of language for students to know and be able to use for comprehending both oral and written language. In fact, the mandates promoted by the SoR movement seek to deprive teachers of language minority students of the pedagogical knowledge and skills that they need to support high levels of achievement for multilingual learners. Commercial language arts programs, methods, approaches, and strategies do not teach students to read and write. Teachers do. Here is what Huggins and Marilyn Adams (1980) had to say on the subject in 1980 (and still true today): 

“There are several aspects of syntax that children must acquire. First, they must learn how single words are combined to form larger syntactic units, such as a noun and a verb to make a sentence, or later, a determiner, an adjective, and a noun to make a noun phrase. Then they must learn simple syntactic rules, such as those used to generate the passive or the negative, which modify the order of constituents or introduce auxiliary verbs or function words where necessary. Later still, they must learn how single syntactic rules are combined to generate complex sentences. In addition to learning each construction, they must learn to restrict the construction to appropriate contexts… In spoken language, the prosodic pattern of what is said (pitch, stress, timing, and pauses) contains many clues about how spoken words should be grouped and how the resulting groups of words are related. In written language, this information is not explicit, except minimally as punctuation. … [Poor readers] seem not to understand the concept of a “sentence,” … but when shown explicitly what to do, they catch on very quickly. Thus, some of the difficulties faced by poor readers can perhaps be ascribed to the lack of instruction (as opposed to practice) in reading after a child has mastered word decoding skills. For, in addition to recognizing the words in a text, the reader must divine their syntactic function.” (p. 87-89)

Marilyn Jager Adams (1980:18-19) provides a comprehensive explanation of the implications of the differences between how oral language (speech) uses prosodic cues to syntax that are not completely represented in written language. 

“The interpretation of any utterance may be strongly guided by its real-world context and the tone and stress patterns of the speaker. Typically, none of these cues are present in written language. To the extent that the child has only the words and their interrelationships to work with syntactic competence is critical for reading. When speaking fluently, people tend to restrict pauses and breaths to syntactic boundaries. In addition, the durations of the spoken elements themselves vary reliably with the phrase structure of the utterance. Apparently, the listener depends on these temporal cues; when they are distorted, comprehension falls precipitously. Except for punctuation marks, written discourse provides no such cues. The segregation of phrasal and clausal units is left largely to the reader. The implication is again that reading presumes a level of syntactic proficiency that is not required for listening. (p. 18)

In view of the above, we may conclude that the processing differences between reading and listening do indeed extend beyond the level of word recognition. First, reading demands more syntactic sophistication than does listening. Second, whereas the syntactic structure of a spoken sentence is largely given to the listener through prosodic cues, the syntactic structure of a written sentence must, in large part, be discovered by the reader. Unless the reader can recover or construct the syntactic structure of the printed sentence, it doesn’t matter whether he has the syntactic competence to understand it.” (p. 19).

A contemporary researcher who affirms the description of linguistic cueing using the labels for structural categories from linguistic science is Linnea Ehri, although Ehri appears to oppose the idea that some subsystems of language “…govern all forms of word recognition” (Ehri, 2020: S46). 

“…beginning readers learn to read words from memory by amalgamating or bonding their various identities together to form single lexical units in memory. These identities include orthographic (spellings), phonological (pronunciations), morphological (word roots and affixes), syntactic (grammatical functions in sentences), and semantics (meanings), citing herself (Ehri 1978). … In order to bond spellings to syntactic and semantic identities, readers have to read words in context to where syntactic and semantic identities are activated when the spellings are seen. The few times a student reads a word, these connections are formed and stored in memory. Subsequently, when the word is seen, these connections are activated in memory to read the word.” (p. S46)

There are two problems with Ehri’s description of word recognition and semantics and syntax. First, Ehri argues that the “bonding” into the reader’s mental lexicon is a bonding to the word’s spelling or to its pronunciation, not its meaning. She also argues that until words are only recognized by their spelling when they are encountered in context, which apparently defined here as their linguistic context. This does not coincide with the psycholinguistic and neuroscience research about prediction and lexical access (Traxler, 2023). This research finds that prediction for word comprehension depends on the relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency and other cognitives skills (Cutting & Scarborough, 2006). Nonetheless, Ehri affirms the importance of the amalgamation of lexical units from multiple language subsystems, often referred to as cueing systems. 

Dr. Mora’s Plea: In response to my colleagues and fellow researchers with whom I may have disagreements regarding our interpretation of research findings from the perspective of linguistics and psycholinguistics, I observe that many of them who support bans on “three-cueing” as a method, approach or strategy for instruction, I say this. The object of dispute here is whether or not language is viewed as a whole in processing print (ergo the term whole language) rather than viewing word recognition (often defined only as pronunciation) alone as the goal of reading. None of us appear to negate the value of linguistic categorizations of components or subsystems of language, from which many of us derive our understanding of how language conveys meaning. Therefore, I make a plea that we stop arguing over the vernacular terms “cue” and “cueing” stemming from the artificial creation of a “cueing method” or “cueing approach” or three-cueing” as a strawman argument against psycholinguistic research. It is a disservice to Professor Goodman and to literacy educators to reduce his thorough and detailed reading model down to three language cueing systems and the vernacular term “guessing.” According to Flurkey, et al. (2003) Ken Goodman published 131 research articles, 26 books and monographs, 86 book chapters and six research reports. Language and literacy researchers need to give credit where credit is due. We academic researchers must speak out against the mischaracterization and oversimplification of each other’s research.

Implications for Literacy Instruction for Multilingual Learners

In summary, the research in linguistics, psycholinguistics, second language acquisition and second language reading, as well as the research paradigm of metalinguistics are the foundations of the pedagogical knowledge base for literacy instruction for multilingual learners (Mora, 2024). The pedagogical knowledge base for L2 is informed by neuroscience research into the way language and print are processed in the bilingual brain (Gambi, 2021). The knowledge base for language teacher education as a transdisciplinary framework that reflects distinctive, yet compatible theoretical perspectives that together bridge the theory-practice divide. The view of pedagogical content knowledge as transdisciplinary justifies teachers’ opposition to critics who attempt to invalidate certain methods of inquiry and empirical databases for educating multilingual students. Research into the characteristics of effective literacy teaching provides a perspective on how teachers interpret and integrate theoretical models of literacy instruction to promote high levels of student achievement. Alternative theories about “cueing” and how language subsystems work are refuted by research on the bilingual. (Jasińska, et al., 2017; Kovelman, Baker & Petitto, 2008; Kroll & Bialystok, 2013; Marks, et al., 2022). 

“The acquisition and use of two languages embedded in a mental conceptual structure that is at the center of human thought and behavior necessarily results in a different configuration from that found for single language minds. Bilingualism alters the structure and function of the mind. As we will argue, bilingual minds are different not because bilingualism itself creates advantages or disadvantages, but because bilinguals recruit mental resources differently from monolinguals. The point is that a more comprehensive cognitive network is required for bilinguals, making both linguistic and cognitive processing proceed differently than they do for monolinguals. Reducing performance to a few measurable components fails to capture the most crucial outcome of the experience, namely, the reconfiguration of these networks.” (p. 1 & p. 3)

“What is even more surprising about the emerging picture of an open language system in which there are persistent cross-language influences is that these interactions are present for learners and for highly skilled bilinguals, they occur even when the two languages are markedly different in form, and they are observed at every level of language processing, from the lexicon and phonology to the grammar. The observation here, consistent with what we have seen in our review of cross-language lexical interactions, is that the grammar of each language is influenced by the bilingual’s experience with the other language. The evidence that we have reviewed and the rapidly emerging findings on the consequences of bilingualism make clear that the bilingual is indeed a mental juggler at all levels of language processing and that there are a host of consequences that result, many of which can be characterized as benefits.” (p. 16)

These interpretations of reading research overlook second language acquisition and second language reading research on the construct of lexical inferencing (Bernhardt, 1998; Ke, et al., 2023; Wesche, & Paribakht, 2009). Academic research into metalinguistic skills and lexical inferencing confirms the value of instruction in the subsystems of language to develop students’ explicit awareness of how language works as a coordinated system comprised of operational subsystems. In fact, wherever teachers encounter the term “awareness” as in phonological awareness or phonemic awareness, this refers to metalinguistic knowledge that enables speakers and readers to extract meaning from linguistic structures. In his research on the Simple View of Reading, Apel (2022) identifies metalinguistic skills as the “common thread” between decoding and linguistic comprehension. Furthermore, metalinguistic knowledge is key to cross-linguistic transfer for bilingual learners (Koda & Reddy, 2008; Mora & Dorta-Duque de Reyes, in press). Metalinguistic skills instruction makes learners’ implicit knowledge of how language works explicit to gain automaticity and control over the surface structure of language to access the deep structure, which is meaning (DeKeyser, 2003: Ellis, 2005). Metalinguistic awareness is the capacity to bring to consciousness the knowledge of the structural characteristics of language for their application by speakers and readers of their own language-processing activities for purposes of selection, coordination and control of inherent linguistic competencies (Gombert, 1992; Jiménez & Ortiz, 2000). 

Teachers’ knowledge of the structures and functions of the subsystems of language is invaluable in instruction and assessment. For instance, teachers use this knowledge for identifying the possible origin of readers’ miscues in their oral reading performance through the application of running records (Briseño and Klein; McGee, et al., 2015). Miscue analysis enables teachers to draw on students’ linguistic strengths by distinguishing language-related approximations from traditional reading errors. Second language acquisition research informed teachers’ ability to direct instruction toward enhancing L2 readers’ language proficiency and reading fluency (Baxter et al., 2021; Bernhardt, 1998; Birch, 2007; Carrell, 1991).

Conclusion

In the Executive Summary of Fact-checking the Science of Reading, Tierney and Pearson (2024:13) state the following: 

Claim 5. The three-cueing system has not been debunked; to the contrary, cueing systems are supported by empirical evidence and reading theory. We conclude that the SoR advocates and scholars have been too quick to dismiss the positive contributions of multiple cueing systems and the use of context in beginning reading. Cueing systems models advance the idea that as readers unlock word pronunciations and meanings on the way to comprehension, they consult multiple cues, or sources of knowledge, such as orthography, syntax, and semantics.

In conclusion, we multilingual educators must challenge attempts to narrow our knowledge base of coherent theoretical constructs and valid empirical databases based on spurious claims that this research is untrustworthy. Teachers must reaffirm the value of the transdisciplinary research that shapes our theoretical orientation toward literacy instruction and, in turn, our pedagogical practices to ensure that all students gain access to the linguistic and cognitive benefits of their multilingual repertoires. Most especially, multilingual educators must embrace the research on metalinguistic awareness and adopt a metalinguistic approach to language and literacy instruction for emergent bilingual learners. We must demand access to undistorted science and relevant empirical research that enhances our expertise for educating multilingual learners.   

SoR CLAIM 6

Learning to read is an unnatural act.

An argument about whether or not something is “natural” or “unnatural” hinges entirely on how the term “natural” is defined. I find this to be one of the more puzzling arguments coming from SoR gurus such as Reid Lyon (1998). This is because science is known as a systematic methodology for studying natural phenomena. This means that to declare reading to be “unnatural” would make the Science of Reading a science of the unnatural.

Here is a description of how the reading brain functions in children’s literacy learning by Don Holdaway (1986) from a book edited by David Yaden and Shane Templeton that supports the premise that literacy and literacy learning are in fact, natural.

“In alphabetic writing, each letter, rather than each word or name, is regarded as an irreducible entity… Young children have no experience of perceptions which have been reduced or abstracted into ultimately contrastive bits, such as letters. Indeed, even mature writers and readers seldom regard letters in this elemental way, although they have the competence to do so. Normally, however, they attend to complex wholes which have been integrated by the brain from the suggestively spaced and punctuated bits. The actual difficulties experienced by young children, especially under the influence of naïve and oversimplified instruction, strongly support the contention that the great modal leap from auditory to visual language presents predictable problems. …” (p. 88)

“Flexibly viewed by a reading brain, this file of bits forms a generally adequate bank of cues from which language can be recreated. By no stretch of the imagination is the print language: It is merely the potential for language—a highly suggestive husk. It is not surprising that the brain must provide much of the information from its own experience of language and the world in order to make the system yield sense.“ (p. 89)

Holdaway (1986) elaborates on the centrality of knowledge about language that is entailed in both language and literacy learning. Oral language acquisition and literacy learning both require the brain of the speaker/reader acquire a system of arbitrary symbols that signal meaning. The systems (referred to in linguistics as subsystems of language) in which both oral language and written language signal meaning are the same. The difference between the two resides in the modality in which language is delivered for the purposes of communication between interlocutors: auditorily through speech or visually through written text.  

“Considering that language depends on a system of quite arbitrary symbols, there is a sense in which all language is marvelously artificial, as there is sense in regarding that all human culture is artificial. If we are to use the term “natural” for any human behavior, we must use it to imply the distinctively human and enabling activities such as language and the learning of language without which the species would not be human….It would appear that the differences between learning spoken and written language may be accounted for most correctly and useful in terms of their modal differences rather than in terms of a spurious unnaturalness or artificiality… but there is no evidence to suggest that the principles of “natural” developmental learning do not apply to literacy, or will not operate efficiently if applied. Nor is there evidence that the teaching of literacy needs to be as curiously artificial as it has become, particularly in the last decade or more. “Natural learning” as eminently displayed in the mastery of speech, encompasses the great complexity of language, cognitively, emotionally, and neurologically. We cannot perfectly explain how we learn or engage in language, but the brain can be trusted to do it well when human curiosity and interactiveness are sustained in natural ways.” (p. 89-90)

Linguistically, the familiar, known world of young children is auditory, but they maintain cognitive clarity by an uncompromising closeness between concrete operations in the real world and their language development. Their style of learning is concrete and demands “hands-on” interaction with the real world. Our task is to help them see a reflection of those forms of intelligibility in the visual display of print.” (p. 92) 

Modality is an important concept for language and literacy educators to understand because there are different modalities for transmitting language to the brain. Oral language is transmitted to the brain through the auditory modality. But for a person who is deaf, language is transmitted through a visual modality. Sign language is language. A person who has been deaf from birth does not have access to an auditory modality for language. To someone who is blind, both the auditory and tactile modalities for language are available, but for a person who is both blind and deaf, like Helen Keller, the tactile senses, such as through finger spelling and Braile are the modality for transmission and processing of language in the brain.

Remember the scene in movie “The Miracle Worker” where Helen Keller’s teacher Anne Sullivan drags Helen out to the water pump to fill a pitcher because Helen had thrown the water in her teacher’s face during a temper tantrum. In the process of getting Helen to work the pump, Sullivan finger spells the word “water” in Helen’s hand. In that dramatic moment, Helen “gets it” that the finger spelling represents the word “water” for the actual object that she is sensing. This is the moment in which Helen Keller discovered language. The importance of this scene for language and literacy educators to think about is the concept of modality. Helen Keller could only process and learn language (and later to read and write) through a tactile modality. Anne Sullivan had worked for months with Helen teaching her the finger spelling of common objects in her environment: a glass, an apple, a doll, etc. But Helen was not connecting the symbolic representation of these objects with the finger-spelled word that named the object. Until she made this mental connection, Helen did not have the mental concept of language. If Helen Keller was able to learn to read and write language despite the fact that she could hear no sound nor visually capture language through grapho-phonics, then how can anyone argue that learning to read is unnatural?

SoR CLAIM 7

Balanced Literacy and/or Whole Language is responsible for the low or failing NAEP scores we have witnessed in the U.S. in the past decade.

Models of Reading

In the current debate regarding approaches to literacy instruction, one often sees the term the “three-cueing system model” of reading. I question the rationale behind considering the linguistic descriptors of subsystems of language that researchers such as Ken Goodman used to categorize miscues as a “model” of reading. The three categories of miscues that are used in miscue analysis (graphophonics, semantics and syntax) are components of written language. The underlying hypothesis behind this categorization is that miscues occur because a discrepancy or mismatch between a reader’s response to the language of a text and the actual written text may be explained by a lack of knowledge of how that particular subsystem of language works. In other words, a reader’s lack of graphophonetic knowledge, or semantic knowledge, or syntactic knowledge, is the possible cause of the miscue. The miscue is not caused by a “cueing system” but rather, the reader’s lack of knowledge of the cueing system is the proximal cause of the miscue. The use of “cueing systems” as categories of possible sources of miscues is important to keep in mind when we are assessing the logical coherence of claims against “three-cueing” as an instructional strategy, since categories are not strategies. It is also important to remember that the data on readers’ oral reading performance reveals both successful use of cueing systems (subsystems of language) and unsuccessful or incomplete use of cueing systems, all in pursuit of deriving meaning from language represented graphically in written text. 

There is no modern research that I know of that refutes or invalidates any aspect or component of Ken Goodman’s Transactional Sociopsycholinguistic Model of Reading (1970). Critics of his research find fault with his work for ideological reasons and other reasons that have nothing to do with the value of his comprehensive body of work in enhancing our understanding of how readers make meaning from text. Goodman states this foundational principle: “The reading process cannot be fractionated into sub-skills to be taught or sub-divided into code-breaking and comprehension without qualitatively changing it.” (Flurkey & Yu, 2003:252). Those who reject a database from systematic qualitative and quantitative analysis of reading behaviors are discounting a valuable and informative source of scientific knowledge about how language and literacy work without any scientific basis (Smith, 1999).

Ken Goodman has presented and explained his theories using a complex and comprehensive theoretical model that he calls a Transactional Sociopsycholinguistic Model of Reading. The model is based on the convergence of theories about reading from several disciplines, including linguistics, psycholinguistics, constructivism, cognitive theory, sociolinguistics, systemic functional grammar, neurocognitive theories and research and eye movement studies. Goodman’s greatest contribution is the database for his model from miscue analysis procedures from hundreds of readers. His database is a comprehensive and extensive base of systematic observations of reading behaviors. Consequently, it is not experimental research. Goodman’s theoretical model (Flurkey & Yu, 2003:55-56) describes 11 steps that are involved in a reader’s process of making meaning from text. Here is a paraphrased summary of these steps, which Goodman explains are not necessarily sequential, but that comprise a description of the processes involved in making meaning of text.

  1. The reader scans the text, left to right and down the page, line by line.
  2. The reader fixes at a point to permit eye focus, which creates a central and a peripheral field.
  3. The reader begins the selection process, picking up graphic cues, guided by prior choices and the reader’s knowledge, cognitive style and learned strategies.
  4. The reader forms a perceptual image based on cues that s/he sees and expects to see.
  5. The reader searches his/her memory for related syntactic, semantic, and phonological cues. Semantic analysis leads to selection of more graphic cues and to reforming the perceptual image.
  6. The reader makes a prediction or tentative choice consistent with the graphic cues.
  7. If no prediction is possible, the reader checks the perceptual input to gather more graphic cues.
  8. The reader makes a decodable choice from testing for semantic and grammatical acceptability within the context (language) of the text.
  9. If the tentative choice is not acceptable grammatically or syntactically, the reader regresses to locate the point of semantic or syntactic inconsistency, or the reader moves on in the text to find cues to reconcile the inconsistencies.
  10. If the choices are acceptable, decoding is extended and assimilated into prior meaning. Expectations are formed about input and meaning that lies ahead.
  11. The cycle continues, using both long-term and short-term memory.

See Flurkey and Yu, 2003, pages 56-57 for Figure 2-1 A Flow Chart of Goodman’s Model of Reading. This figure is a visual description of the 11 steps of the reading process.

Goodman authored 131 research articles, 26 books and monographs and 86 book chapters, along with six national research reports, several of which were funded by the U.S. Government (Flurkey &. Xu, 2003). Miscue analysis and eye movement research comprise a valuable empirical base for effective practices in reading and writing instruction and assessment that should not be disregarded based on the fallacious arguments of journalists in agenda-driven articles and podcasts. Miscue analysis and the knowledge base for Whole Language are science. To denigrate miscue analysis’s validity and utility for assessment and instruction of multilingual learners is contrary to science and prejudicial against the equity and access of these learners to effective literacy instruction.

The question for Goodman’s fellow researcher and practitioners is this: Do you believe that Goodman’s data base of direct observations of reading behaviors of readers during oral reading of real, authentic text is sufficient to support the elements of his theoretical model to render a valid explanation of how readers read to make meaning from text? Claims in the media and critics/opponents of Goodman’s research and the pedagogy that it has influenced are made that Goodman’s “theory” of reading has been “disproven” (MacPhee, et al., 2021). For this disproven theory claim to be true, every one of the theories on which Goodman based his theoretical model and all of the steps and elements of his model would have to have been disproven. Of course, the journalists who make this claim never cite an authoritative source for their proclamation because this claim is patently false. We researchers and educators challenge our fellow researchers, as well as Emily Hanford and other journalists, who claim that the entirety of the theoretical framework of Whole Language has been “disproven” or “debunked” to provide empirical data to refute each and every step of Goodman’s Model of Reading. Otherwise, their claims must be rejected.

Whole language does not fragment reading into isolated and disconnected subskills. Rather, WL emphasizes the holistic interrelationships between subsystems of language (aka: cueing systems) that are utilized by readers themselves to construct meaning from text. We must not allow uninformed, ideologically biased journalists to make sweeping false claims and fallacious arguments with the intent of scapegoating respected researchers who have informed and enhanced literacy instruction for many of our most vulnerable students and all literacy learners through their empirical scientific research.

Kabuto (2016) offers a perspective on the use of miscue analysis as an assessment tool with multilingual learners:

Miscue analysis is a diagnostic instrument that provides both quantitative and qualitative data on readers’ oral reading performances and retellings. The in-depth procedure allows for the extensive investigation of individual oral reading miscues in conjunction with other miscues at the sentence and text levels. …Miscue analysis can be a descriptive evaluative tool that does not privilege reading in English over reading in other languages. …These findings extend the current research on miscue analysis that calls for an awareness of readers’ reading patterns and proficiencies in both languages, rather than privileging one over another. …The use of miscue analysis was a culturally relevant assessment that provided a multidimensional perspective on the ways in which these readers constructed meaning. Very few reading assessments are able to move among the languages of the text, the languages of the readers, and the languages of the social context in which the assessment is embedded. Miscue analysis is an evaluative instrument capable of doing so. (p. 38-39)

An examination of miscue analysis as a research methodology, in conjunction with eye movement research and neuroscience research entails the broadest and most comprehensive evaluation of miscue analysis data base regarding its contribution to teachers’ knowledge base and theoretical orientation toward literacy instruction for all learners (Noguerón-Liu, 2020). Noguerón-Liu, 2020: S312-S313) states the following:

“One of the arguments for structured literacy is related to the three-cueing systems framework (meaning/semantic, structure/syntactic, and visual/graphophonic cues) that can be found in models of balanced literacy. “Structured literacy” proponents have argued that the use of semantic context (e.g., asking a student if a miscue makes sense) can be detrimental for students to decode independently; instead, when following a “structured literacy” approach, students should be encouraged to use their decoding skills first, not to guess words based on context (Kilpatrick, 2015). In this section, I caution against the implications of discrediting the three-cueing systems and a related assessment tool (miscue analysis using the semantic, graphophonic, and syntactic categories), by explaining how language-related theories, including translanguaging, can help expand miscue analytic approaches. For emergent bilinguals, an oral reading assessment is not just a literacy test; it is a language test, and its validity is compromised if the linguistic and bilingualism factors shaping the performance are not accounted for. Because miscue analysis is a qualitative categorization of errors, it can provide teachers with nuanced insights on both the language and (bi)literacy development of students.”

Teaching for Transfer in ELD and Dual Language Instruction

Teaching for transfer addresses the knowledge and skills that bilingual learners need to master to be proficient reader in both their languages. To enable students to transfer their knowledge of reading and writing across languages, teachers identify the language universals that apply equally to written text and meaning-making processes in both the target and partner languages. Teachers differentiate the language-specific and script-specific features of Spanish in contrast to English alphabetics and text. Contrastive analysis serves as a framework and guide for decision-making regarding aspects of curriculum and instruction such as the scope and sequence for literacy acquisition in each language, with a focus on teaching for cross-linguistic transfer (Verhoeven, Perfetti & Pugh, 2019).

Decision making about English-medium and dual language program design involves a clear articulation of the role of language arts instruction in the students’ first or dominant language (Spanish or English) to establish and master foundational literacy skills and solidify students’ repertoire of cognitive meaning-making strategies (Mora, 2016). The systematic and explicit role of English language development or Spanish language development is also agreed-upon and described in curricular documents. English language development instruction (ELD) and Spanish language development instruction (SLD) support foundational literacy but also extend and expand on instruction concentrated on Lx language acquisition and academic vocabulary development. For effective decision making about literacy instruction in a dual language education context, teachers rely on their knowledge of contrastive linguistics and literacy pedagogy to design curriculum and conduct lesson planning to move students along an articulated continuum of knowledge and skills development to achieve full bilingualism and biliteracy.

Click here for more analysis of the controversies surrounding methods and approaches to instruction for emergent bilingual students. 

Click here for a description of Spanish reading methods and approaches (Mora, 2016). 

 

SoR CLAIM 8

Evidence from neuroscience research substantiates the efficacy of phonics-first instruction.

Dr. Steven Strauss, Ph.D. and M.D. says this about the neuroscience of reading (Strauss, 2013):

“Reading must be described within a meaning construction psychological paradigm. It is an executive process beyond the technical resolution capacity of fMRI. Its neuroanatomic basis lies in feed-forward cortical–subcortical tracts. Emerging concepts from the neuroscientific study of brain function both support and are supported by psycholinguistic research on the reading process. These concepts challenge the claim that brain imaging studies have demonstrated the primacy of phonological processing in reading. The emerging concepts from this research clearly indicate that the higher cortical structures control the transmission of information from the deeper structures. Eye movement analysis, a widely used reading research tool for over a century, simultaneously supports the emerging neuroscientific view of cortical control and the meaning construction model of reading. We conclude that emerging neuroscience provides evidence for the meaning construction view of reading, and that the transactional socio-psycholinguistic character of reading is an instantiation of the memory-prediction model of brain function.”

Neuroscience research provides scientific evidence to support interpretations of the process of constructing meaning from text (Goodman, Fries & Strauss, 2016). SoR researchers who challenge the validity of constructivist perspectives on reading in the brain fail to consult the body of neuroscience research on the construct of linguistic prediction (Kuperberg & Jaeger, 2016; Ryskin & Nieuwland, 2023). These researchers assert although review of the literature led us to the conclusion that different subfields and different researchers have critically different conceptions of what it means to predict during language comprehension that language comprehension is predictive. If literacy educators substitute the term “guessing” for “prediction” the controversy over “cueing” in reading is resolved. Consider this claim from Strauss, Goodman and Paulson (2009):

“In order to explain a range of puzzling facts, they are beginning to recognize that the higher structures of the brain, those involved with thought and reasoning, actually control the lower structures, those involved in collecting sensory input from the environment. This is contrary to traditional teaching in neurology, which instead sees sensory input as triggering the activation of higher, cortical structures. The emerging view is that the brain can first activate the higher structures, and only afterwards use the psychological entities generated by these structures to guide the selection of sensory input collected and made available by the deeper structures…. Eye movement analysis, a widely used reading research tool for over a century, simultaneously supports the emerging neuroscientific view of cortical control and the meaning construction model of reading. Since the most conspicuous motor behavior in silent reading is eye movement, studying it allows us to “see” the silent reading process. When combined with miscue analysis from oral reading, it is clear that cortical instructions tell the eyes where to look for cues from the signal, lexico-grammatical, and semantic levels of language. We conclude that emerging neuroscience provides evidence for the meaning construction view of reading, and that the transactional socio-psycholinguistic character of reading is an instantiation of the memory-prediction model of brain function.”

Dr. Strauss (2011) makes the logical connection between constructivism and neuroscience:

“There is a psychology that goes along with the view that readers visually fixate on each word, just as there is a psychology that goes along with the view that readers fixate selectively, building mental perceptions in the process of constructing meaning. The former, generally speaking, is called information processing cognitive psychology. The latter is called constructivist psychology… There is a neuroscience that goes along with each of these psychologies. And there is a philosophy of consciousness that also goes along with each of these psychologies. Of course, neuroscience studies more than the human brain, psychology studies more than reading, and reading has a cultural, social, and historical dimension that propels it beyond the reach of mere psychological reductionism. As a result, neuroscience, psychology, and reading have their own logical and methodological traditions. Not all of the results of one can be easily nestled inside the paradigms of the others. Even more, each has its own set of competing models. But because the sites of intersection of the three disciplines are certainly neither accidental nor arbitrary, they can be thought of as together constituting another well-demarcated reality — the neuropsychology of reading. Attempts to align neuroscience, psychology, and reading have been part of the modern history of these fields.” (p. 154)

“In reading, constructivist psychology relies on the notion that the act itself is a purposeful, non-automatic effort to make sense of print. The reader makes a decision to attend to this goal. It is a deliberate, purposeful decision. Therefore, making sense of print can be thougt of as the purposeful, goal-directed intention of the reader that is analogous to the speaker’s intention of conveying meaning. … Fundamentally, every newly constructed representation of meaning is simultaneously a prediction of what will come next, what counts as making sense. Incoming linguistic material provides evidence for or against the language user’s predictions. Tentative meanings are revised accordingly.” (p. 157)

Click here for a bibliography of studies on linguistic prediction. 

Bilingual Brain Research

The Bilingual Brain: Neuroscience has provided insights into how the brain processes written text as graphic alphabetic representations of language. Through advanced fMRI and other neuroimaging technologies, neuroscientists can map regions of the brain that are activated during oral and silent reading of text in different languages (Dehaene, 2014; Gil, 2019). A limitation of neuroscience research is that the brain research technology is unable to discern neurological pathways of text processing to support arguments in favor or against some theoretical models of reading that are foundational to certain approaches to literacy instruction (Strauss, 2005). Consequently, multilingual educators must view claims that neuroscience supports or rejects certain instructional strategies with skepticism. 

Neuroscience research tends to affirm advantages for literacy learning by bilingual learners (Kremin, 2019; Olulade,et al., 2016). For example, Kremin et al. (2019) report advantages in several reading subskills among Spanish as a heritage language speakers. These researchers describe those advantages validated through their research this way:

Models of monolingual literacy propose that reading acquisition builds upon children’s semantic, phonological, and orthographic knowledge. The relationships between these components vary cross-linguistically, yet it is generally unknown how these differences impact bilingual children’s literacy. A comparison between Spanish–English bilingual and English monolingual children (ages 6–13, N = 70) from the US revealed that bilinguals had stronger associations between phonological and orthographic representations than monolinguals during English reading. While vocabulary was the strongest predictor of English word reading for both groups, phonology and morphosyntax were the best predictors of Spanish reading for bilinguals. This comparison reveals distinct developmental processes across learners and languages, and suggests that early and systematic biliteracy exposure at home and through afterschool programs can influence children’s sound-to-print associations even in the context of language-specific(monolingual) reading instruction. These findings have important implications for bilingual education as well as theories that aim to explain how learning to read across languages has a positive impact on the acquisition of literacy.

Arredondo, et al. (2017) describe differences in the neurology of the bilingual brain with this summary of their research findings:

Bilingualism is a typical linguistic experience, yet relatively little is known about its impact on children’s cognitive and brain development. Theories of bilingualism suggest that early dual-language acquisition can improve children’s cognitive abilities, specifically those relying on frontal lobe functioning. While behavioral findings present much conflicting evidence, little is known about its effects on children’s frontal lobe development. Using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), the findings suggest that Spanish–English bilingual children (n = 13, ages 7–13) had greater activation in left prefrontal cortex during a non-verbal attentional control task relative to age-matched English monolinguals. In contrast, monolinguals (n = 14) showed greater right prefrontal activation than bilinguals. The present findings suggest that early bilingualism yields significant changes to the functional organization of children’s prefrontal cortex for attentional control and carry implications for understanding how early life experiences impact cognition and brain development. (p.1)

Importantly, neuroscience research on the bilingual brain also informs teacher education faculty who prepare teachers for multilingual students about how this population of students is not homogeneous (DeLuca et al., 2020; Fedeli, 2021). Fedeli et al. (2021) report that dual-language experiential factors produce distinct cerebral networks. First, they document that input that leads to activation of a single language system in monolinguals, simultaneously activates both language systems to produce simultaneous production and comprehension in bilinguals. These researchers also found differentially affected structural organization of linguistic pathways and the communication between regions of the brain relevant to language control based on environmental language factors: L2 exposure, L2 proficiency and L2 age of acquisition. Consequently, Fedeli et al. state this conclusion:

“Grouping heterogeneous linguistic profiles under a dichotomous condition may obscure, if not wash out, important, yet distinct facets of the bilingual experience, which is dynamic and complex at the individual level. Our study overcomes some methodological constraints of previous experiments and expands the knowledge about the neuroanatomical correlates of bilingual experience by providing new models of large-scale white matter organization in bilinguals.” (p. 11)

Click here for a list of references for first author and co-author research articles by Ioulia Kovelman on the bilingual brain.

Cross-linguistic Neuroscience Research

In their treatise of the future of cross-linguistic neuroscience research, Papadopoulos, et al. (2021) say this about the methodological challenges inherent in the field:

“Balancing the efforts to achieve cross-linguistic similarity is an equally important consideration in selecting phonological, morphological, and orthographic structures.For example, where languages have fundamentally different syllable structures, fully matching phonemic awareness measures may not be possible. It must be ensured that the resulting phonemic awareness measures estimate the same metalinguistic skill and are adequately valid and reliable. It is also important to weigh the importance of including language-specific items (e.g., the use of letters with diacritics in one language) that add to the measure’s ecological validity in question.” (p. S359)

“Whereas differences in the integration-related changes in brain correlates are easy to compare even without using a cross-linguistic design, proper neuroscientific answers to the impact of culture and education are impossible without cross-linguistic investigations. However, understanding of the impact of multifactorial changes in the literate brain remains opaque. However, no neuroscientific cross-linguistic studies have explored the development of orthography and its relation to phonology development. Therefore, the question that arises is what cross-linguistic neuroscience studies should look for. What should they focus on in order to contribute to developing new theoretical models, instruction, or intervention? The topics are different, but the methodological challenges are the same. Therefore, there is a need for change in methods, design, size, and scale of systematic investigations to advance, in turn, researchers’ methodological awareness.” (p. S363)

 

SoR CLAIM 9 (Analysis to be posted soon)

Sociocultural dimensions of reading and literacy are not crucial to explain either reading expertise or its development.

SoR CLAIM 10

Teacher education programs are not preparing teachers in the Science of Reading.

Science of Reading Research in Teacher Education: Examining the Claim

In their reading of the evidence for the claim about the adequacy of utilization of Science of Reading (SoR) research in teacher education, Tierney and Pearson (2024) conclude that the research used as the basis for evaluating teacher education fails to meet the standards of evidence-based practices that SoR claims to support. These authors observe that many SoR arguments against teacher education are based on simple transmission models of university methods courses and professional development. The SoR claim against university teacher credential preparation programs for all teachers occasionally includes a critique of university teacher preparation programs that specifically address preservice teachers of bilingual and multilingual learners and students who are classified as English learners (EL). This analysis of the SoR claim is based on transdisciplinary research that supports credential program standards and teaching performance expectations that are specific to the pedagogical knowledge base for teaching multilingual learners (Flores, et al., 2024; Mora, 2024; Solsana-Puig et al., 2024).

The core issue in examining the cogency of SoR advocates’ critique of teacher preparation for literacy instruction through university courses and professional development activities for inservice teachers is the sufficiency of the research classified as “Science of Reading” to provide a pedagogical knowledge base for literacy programs and instruction for linguistically and culturally diverse student populations. To address this core issue, Mora and colleagues representing the California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE) presented the rationale behind multilingual educators’ opposition to legislation in California, AB 2222 (Rubio) Science of Reading (Mora, et al., 2024). The proposed legislation sought to mandate teacher education programs and classroom teachers to “adhere to” and “align with” the Science of Reading. During this campaign against the SoR mandate, a coalition of parent advocacy organizations filed a complaint with the Commission on Accreditation in an attempt to have the Commission withdraw accreditation of a teacher education program based on objections to the content of reading methods courses syllabi, arguing that the required textbooks did not align with the Science of Reading. The controversy surrounding SoR as the basis for pedagogy for multilingual learners brought to the forefront the issues of population validity and applicability of literacy research paradigms for teacher preparation and professional development.

A common complaint against teacher education programs is that they do not prepare teachers with sufficient knowledge of linguistics to implement effective literacy instruction, most especially in phonemics and phonics. The professional development course called LETRS is based on Dr. Louisa Cook Moats’ book Speech to print: Language Essentials for Teachers (2001). In her introductory chapter one, titled ‘Why study language?’ Dr. Moats says this:

 “Seldom has language study been required for teachers… Literacy is an achievement that rests on all levels of linguistic processing, from the elemental sounds to the most overarching structures of text. … To help the teacher deliver successful instruction, this book of necessity contains a great deal of information about the lower levels of language (units smaller than the word, such as sounds, syllables, letters, and some morphemes) from which the higher levels (units larger than the word, such as phrases sentences, and paragraphs) are constructed. Language itself is the substance of instruction. Students without awareness of language systems will be less able to sound out a new word when they encounter it, less able to spell, less able to interpret punctuation and sentence meaning, and less able to learn new vocabulary words from context.” (p. 1-2)

Dr. Moats defines  the term “metalinguistic skill” as “… awareness of language structure itself.” In a column titled “Level of language”  Dr. Moats lists the subsystems of language: phonology, orthography, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and discourse structure. Based on these statements in her book, it is difficult to imagine that Dr. Moats would oppose teachers providing direct, explicit, individualized feedback to emergent readers on all these levels of language during students’ oral reading. This is why we all need to be concerned about teachers’ confusion and possible misunderstandings about the bans on  “cueing” coming from Science of Reading advocates. Dr. Moats also fails to recognize that dual language teachers must be knowledgeable about the linguistics of both languages that are taught as a second-language and used as a medium of instruction in language arts and the content areas in bilingual programs. See the description below of the importance of metalinguistics in language and literacy instruction for English language learners and emergent bilingual learners.

The National Council on Teacher Quality

 The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) is another source of sharp criticism of teacher education (Ellis, et al., 2023; Zeichner & Conklin, 2016). A framing of the criticisms of teacher education is provided by Zeicher and Conklin with this statement:

One notable characteristic of current debates about the future of teacher education in the United States is the distortion and misuse of research in order to justify efforts to deregulate and privatize teacher education. We also contend that the print news media has given disproportional attention to allegedly innovative non-college and university programs developed by educational entrepreneurs, and to organizations like the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) —attention that has served to inflate the public perception of these organizations and programs beyond what is warranted by the available evidence. The media has also reproduced in an uncritical way some of the claims about the poor quality of college and university teacher preparation and about the research on alternative pathways into teaching—claims that have been made based on blatant misrepresentations of research. The media’s role in uncritically reproducing a narrative of failure about university teacher education and promoting the success of new non-university programs (p. 5)

“In this standard, the NCTQ dismisses the entire field of research on multicultural teacher education as anecdotal. The misuse of research in this equity standard is representative of the ways in which NCTQ has manipulated research findings in its teacher education studies in an effort to legitimate itself as an arbitrator of the quality of teacher education programs, and to support its claims that university teacher education is broken. This selective use of evidence from particular studies to support a particular policy direction without regard to the complexities of the analysis of the studies would be a distortion of what the research as a whole shows.”

Bilingual Teacher Educators’ Peer Critiques

Occasionally, claims of inadequate attention to the Science of Reading in preparing teachers for literacy instruction for multilingual learners come from within the community of bilingual teacher educators and researchers (Goldenberg, 2023). Professor Goldenberg has made claims that some of his colleagues are propagating misinformation about SoR’s effectiveness with bilingual student populations. Specifically, he objects to the notion that the Science of Reading does not apply to English learner and emergent bilingual students. He accuses his bilingual teacher education colleagues of rejecting research because of opposition to SoR legislative mandates.  

“Controversies over how best to teach children to read go back many years. Most recently, two questions have emerged that leave teachers of English learners puzzled: First, does research on reading, sometimes referred to as “the science of reading,” include English learners, or is it based solely on English-speaking monolinguals? Second, do English learners, also known as emergent bilinguals, have a “bilingual brain” that requires a fundamentally different sort of reading instruction than monolingual students require? …First, reading research (whether called science of reading or something else) does apply to English learners. … Second, does the “bilingual brain” require a fundamentally different approach to teaching reading? No, it does not.”

Respectfully, Dr. Mora points out to Dr. Goldenberg that the English language arts (ELA) and English language development (ELD) curriculum framework and Common Core State Standards are themselves research based. It is reasonable to hold teachers accountable for adherence to curriculum standards, trusting in their research and evidentiary base. However, it is not reasonable nor feasible to hold teachers accountable to a singular body of research, most especially one that is focused on only one of the four domains of language and literacy instruction: Listening, speaking, reading and writing (Mora, 2006). Furthermore, the neuroscience of the bilingual brain clearly affirms that the pathways for language and literacy processing and comprehension in the brains of bilinguals are different from monolinguals  In fact, the variations in pathways for reading comprehension are attributable to bilingual experiential factors, which result in heterogeneity within the multilingual learner population (DeLuca, 2020; Fedeli, et al., 2021; Wagley, et al., 2022). The implication of this research is that differences in learning trajectories and language proficiency factors must be considered in preparing teachers for differentiating literacy instruction for multilingual learners in their first and second languages (Cummins, 2021; Mora, 2016).

Dual Language/ELD Teacher Preparation Standards

The salient issue in claims about the effectiveness of teacher education revolves around the research on best practices in bilingual teacher preparation, especially regarding research on literacy and biliteracy instruction (Alanís & Rodríguez, 200Hernández Sheets, et al., 2010; Pérez & Huerta, 2010, Snow, 2006). Standards for bilingual teacher certification and lists of competencies have been compiled by institutions and organizations with a stake in the professional development of bilingual teachers. These analyses of bilingual teachers’ attributes and competencies attempt to be comprehensive and thorough in categorizing and defining the knowledge, skills, abilities and attitudes of effective bilingual teachers articulated as standards for teacher certification. Dual Language Education of New Mexico published The National Dual Language Education Teacher Preparation Standards with the stated purpose “… to ensure that university preparation programs have the flexibility to be responsive to local and regional demographics and needs.” (Guerrero & Lachance, 2019, p. 10) These standards are aligned with the criteria for assessing the effectiveness of dual language teacher preparation programs promulgated by the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Preparation (CAEP). The standards are also aligned with other national standards established by organizations such as Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) and the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). The Dual Language Education of New Mexico national standards for DL teacher preparation augment the articulation of the requirements for administrator and teacher expertise and professionalism utilizes in many states for teacher credentialing programs.

The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2023) reiterates the connection between universal teaching performance standards and the competencies teachers must possess to earn a bilingual teaching credential. In addition, teachers of all students, including bilingual learners, are prepared to meet requirements for competencies for English language development and literacy instructions specified in the credential program standards (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2022).

The bilingual teacher preparation program program’s curriculum ensures candidates are offered opportunities such as peer collaboration and other ways to learn, practice, and be assessed on the BTPEs, as well as to understand the complex theoretical and practical theories of the bilingual field (e.g., language acquisition theory and practice, bilingual and multilingual instructional approaches and methodologies, cultural products and respect for cultural traditions, English Language Development instruction, and content instruction and assessment using more than one language as the medium of communication and assessment). (p. 5)

Standards and competencies for bilingual teachers are based on the premise that dual language teachers share a set of general universal competencies that are foundational to effective teaching in all contexts with all populations of students (Mora & Grisham, 2001) . This analysis of teacher competencies focuses specifically on teaching for transfer of learning. Theories and principals of teaching for transfer of learning from general education research are applied by all effective teachers. These universal competencies for teaching for transfer of learning comprise a first tier of a three-tiered articulation of teacher expertise for multilingual instructional settings. A second tier of competencies is outlined for teachers of English language learners in English-medium classrooms, without regard to whether the teacher is bilingual in the students’ primary language (L1) or monolingual in English (L2) or whether teachers instruct linguistically homogeneous groups of students using their L1 as a medium of instruction. A third tier of competencies are articulated for teachers who use the students’ L1 as a medium of instruction in any of several bilingual education or dual language programs targeted for students who speak the same L1 and share common cultural characteristics. Effective bilingual teaching requires a high level of theoretical and technical knowledge of approaches, strategies and techniques for designing appropriate curricula, planning a sequence of lessons, organizing the classroom, utilizing and developing instructional materials, and grouping students for learning activities and tasks.

Click here for access to Dr. Mora’s California Teachers of English Learners (CTEL) Examination online study guide.

A Transdisciplinary Knowledge Base

The knowledge base of educating multilingual learners is the product of collaboration between researchers and practitioners to generate knowledge about best practices.  Empirical data serves to test theories that are foundational to instructional efficacy within particular school and classroom contexts for particular purposes. A metaphor for a knowledge base is the watershed of a river. (See Figure 1). The pedagogical knowledge base for multilingual learners literacy education is comprised of distinctive bodies of disciplinary knowledge for teaching (Shulman, 1987). Shulman (1987) expresses the need for teachers’ content-specific pedagogical knowledge base in these terms:

“When policymakers have sought “research-based” definitions of good teaching to serve as the basis for teacher tests or systems of classroom observation, the lists of teacher behaviors that had been identified as effective in the empirical research were translated into the desirable competencies for classroom teachers. They became items on tests or on classroom-observation scales. They were accorded legitimacy because they had been “confirmed by research.” While the researchers understood the findings to be simplified and incomplete, the policy community accepted them as sufficient for the definitions of standards.”(p. 6) …“The conception of pedagogical reasoning places emphasis upon the intellectual basis for teaching performance rather than on behavior alone. We have an obligation to raise standards in the interests of improvement and reform, but we must avoid the creation of rigid orthodoxies. We must achieve standards without standardization.” (p. 20)

Content-Specific Pedagogical Knowledge Base Research Literatures

A criterion for evaluating the legitimacy of research studies is population validity. This criterion determines the applicability of research findings to specific populations that may not share learning characteristics that permit research findings to be generalized to that population of students, such as multilingual learners. The fields of study that are entailed in teachers’ theoretical orientation toward literacy instruction for multilingual learners meet population validity criterion. Respect for population validity in research requires that biliteracy instruction be informed by research on monolingual speakers of both the languages of instruction (Artiles, et al., 2005; Noguerón-Liu, 2020; Moore & Klinger, 2014). The transdisciplinary research that forms the pedagogical knowledge base for language and literacy instruction of multilingual learners includes research on second language acquisition, second language reading, metalinguistics, cross-linguistic transfer facilitation, and sociocultural factors in literacy learning, as well as literacy instruction methods for languages other than English. All of these bodies of research together are essential to articulating the pedagogical knowledge base and to implementing high-quality curriculum and instruction for educating California’s population of linguistically and culturally diverse students (Mora, 2024).

Disciplinary knowledge empowers a teacher to engage in deep thinking about curriculum questions, such as what to teach and why with regard to the students’ characteristics, needs and experiential backgrounds. Johnson (2019) considers the knowledge base for language teacher education as a transdisciplinary framework that reflects distinctive yet compatible theoretical perspectives that together bridge the theory-practice divide. A transdisciplinary framework for the study of the interrelationship of multiple languages and literacy learning provides conceptual tools for thinking about teaching and learning.

“I offer some cautionary implications for language teachers and language teacher education. If language teachers are to conceptualize language competencies as complex, dynamic, and holistic; if they are to recognize language learning as semiotic learning, situated, mediated and socially gated; if they are to acknowledge language learning as involving identity, agency, power, ideologies, and emotions, all fundamental concepts of a transdisciplinary framework for SLA, then they need to feel comfortable and confident with the relative ambiguity that this framework poses on them and their language learners. Both language teachers and language learners will need to wrestle with the fact that there are no ‘right’ answers, only appropriate choices given certain contexts of use. (p. 173)

The fields of study that are entailed in teachers’ theoretical orientation toward literacy instruction for multilingual learners meet population validity criterion. Respect for population validity in research requires that English language development and biliteracy instruction be informed by research from linguistics (Halliday, 1993: Lems, et al., 2010) , psycholinguistics (Koda, 2008), second language acquisition (Cummins, 1989; Ellis, 2010), second language reading (Bernhardt, 1998), and metalinguistics (Ke, et al., 2023). Additionally, neuroscience research into cognition in the bilingual brain has contributed to teachers’ theoretical orientation toward literacy instruction for emergent bilingual and biliterate learners (Baxter, et al., 2021; Marks, et al., 2022). Research on teachers’ pedagogical knowledge about how reading and writing are learned and taught to monolingual speakers of Spanish and other non-English languages of instruction also contributes to effective language and literacy instructional models and approaches for linguistically diverse learners (Taboada, Mora & Vernon, 2005).

Click here for Dr. Mora’s web page on Lingustics for Teachers of Biliteracdy Emergent Bilingual Students.

First or Native Language Literacy Learning

There is a compendium of research findings that bilingual students showed higher levels of achievement in school when taught by teachers who understand and believe in the important role of primary language in literacy learning (Cummins, 2021). When a biliteracy program is based on a well-researched theoretical model, educators’ best efforts lead to sound implementation at the classroom level. Effective program implementation results from full and consistent classroom patterns of language use for affective and cognitive purposes that are consistent with program objectives. Where there is a careful articulation between theory and research and the components of programs for bilingual learners, this is termed “congruence.” Program guidelines must be clearly articulated and enacted based on sound pedagogical principles and supported by research evidence of their effectiveness. Educators are often required to implement decontextualized procedural models rather than a sound theoretical model for educating dual language learners. For example, research supports the notion that there exist literacy universals, which are knowledge and skills that apply equally to learning to read and write in any language, versus language-specific knowledge and skills that are required for learning the orthography and forms and features of a particular language (Dowling, 1986; Frost, 2012; Mora & Dorta-Duque de Reyes, in press).

A fully articulated Spanish language arts curriculum based on a coherent and comprehensive set of standards is based on sound theoretical and applied Spanish linguistics. Methods of teaching and instructional approaches for learning Spanish language and literacy must also be based on a thorough knowledge and understanding of Spanish linguistics. Teaching for transfer is an essential feature of effective DL program design and implementation since it is the reason that “double teaching” is not necessary and why successful bilingual learners are enabled and empowered for academic achievement. Teaching for transfer also supports multilingual students in affirming the intellectual and cultural traditions of their homes, communities and schools (Mora, 2016; Gersten et al., 2007).

Second Language Acquisition: Research in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) contributes a number of theoretical constructs to the multilingual pedagogical knowledge base. We consider how the multiple academic disciplines that contribute to the knowledge base for teaching multilingual learners are like tributaries that sustain practitioners’ expertise and professionalism. content knowledge as transdisciplinary justifies teachers’ opposition to critics. Learning a new, second, foreign or additional language (L2) may be simultaneous or sequential, depending on the linguistic and cultural circumstances of the emergent bilingual student. SLA research provides knowledge of a sequence of learning through developmental levels that enable teachers to assess L2 language proficiency’s correlation with variability in students’ outcomes in literacy learning. The reciprocity of L2 language and literacy learning is confirmed through research that disaggregates factors within the learner’s common underlying reservoir of cross-linguistic interdependence (Cummins, 2021). 

It is noteworthy that the development of literacy skills is somewhat slower at the lower levels of proficiency. Reading and writing skills begin to converge at a level four language proficiency, which usually is achieved after four to five years of exposure and instruction in the L2. However, once minimal oral skills have been established, students move quickly through the middle levels. An implication of these findings is an expected gain of one proficiency level per academic year with equivalent achievement in reading and writing is misleading. According to research on expected gains in English language proficiency over time (De Avila, 1997), ELs may not reasonably be expected to demonstrate on-grade-level performance on reading achievement tests until fourth or fifth grade or beyond. On the other hand, growth in oral proficiency is rapid, particularly listening skills. Consequently, the acquisition of English as a second language develops in a non-linear fashion. Therefore, according to these data, initial programmatic emphasis, at least at the elementary level, should be directed toward the development of beginning oral skills with modified and scaffolded instruction in reading and writing.

Second Language Reading Research: The knowledge base for literacy instruction for multilingual learners is further reinforced by investigations of L2 reading (Bernhardt, 1998). This field of inquiry is based on a multifactor theory that presupposes an interactive, multidimensional dynamic of literacy elements’ development along a continuum of L2 proficiency. Bernhardt attributes different error patterns (miscues) during oral reading performance in developing L2 literacy to readers’ risk-taking and to the increased potential for misusing and misunderstanding complex syntactic forms, which tend to decline as language proficiency increases (Kabuto, 2016). L2 reading research explores variables in text comprehension such as word recognition, vocabulary knowledge, syntax, phonology, and text structure through the perspective of language competencies as an integrative process, most frequently through the lens of psycholinguistics (Traxler, 2023). Miscue analysis assessments enable teachers to identify the interaction between students’ metalinguistic knowledge and their developing language proficiency by analyzing readers’ approximations or miscues in recognizing words based on their phono-graphemic and syntactic features (Briceño & Klein, 2019) . The operational hypothesis is that the language proficiency underlying cognitively demanding tasks, such as literacy and academic learning, is largely shared across languages, and therefore, linguistic competencies acquired in one language promote literacy development in another (Cummins, 2021). 

Psycholinguistics: The academic discipline of psycholinguistics is defined as the study of the relationship between language and thought (Traxler, 2023). Psycholinguistics informs the pedagogical knowledge base for language and literacy instruction for multilingual learners (Bialystok, 2001; Cohen-Cole, 2015; Frost, 2012; Goodman, 1969; Koda, 1994; Traxler, 2023). Although psycholinguistics research contributes greatly to theories and models of reading processes and literacy development, debates and controversies arose from this body of research in the 1960’s. One of the controversial theories derived from psycholinguistic research is the construct of inferencing and “guessing” in language production and oral reading. Cohen-Cole (2015) explains this phenomenon this way:

“Thus, from the most basic studies of word perception to the psycholinguistics of acquisition, production, and comprehension, academics of the 1960s were increasingly convinced that inference not only occurs but that it is essential to language. It is a process so important that language, at least the parts that matter, cannot occur without such guessing and hypothesis formation.” (p. 61)

Despite controversy over psycholinguistic theory and empirical data, bilingual educators embraced this body of research because of its focus on language processing and meaning construction as the core of children’s learning to read and write across languages and cultures (Escamilla & Andrade, 1992; Flores, 2009; Freeman, 1988). Flores (2009) describes the contribution of Kenneth and Yetta Goodman’s psycholinguistic research to the knowledge base for biliteracy instruction:

(1) The Goodman’s transactional sociopsycholinguistic theory of proficient reading is connected to how children “come to know” proficient reading through writing/reading in bilingual contexts; (2) The research makes visible children’s interpretation of written language as they are “coming to know” how the parts (cueing systems and universal strategies) work within the whole (proficient meaning making) in two languages; and (3) The research links sociocultural theory to Goodman’s sociopsycholinguistic reading theory and bilingual children’s psychogenesis of written language to literacy and biliteracy pedagogy. (p. 160)

Metalinguistics and Cross-linguistic Transfer:

The sub-field of metalinguistics examines interlingual relationships to discern the shared and unique contributions of awareness of the operations of defined subsystems of language in reading development and performance. Metalinguistics is often considered to be a sub-discipline of applied linguistics and psycholinguistics. Ke, et al. (2023) conducted a meta-analysis of empirical studies that identify multiple direct and indirect paths that connect metalinguistic awareness, reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge together as reading-related outcomes. These studies explain both shared metalinguistic awareness and language-specific metalinguistic awareness as empirical evidence of the extent of cross-linguistic transfer in literacy development. Koda’s Transfer Facilitation Model provides predictions on multiple factors that affect transfer of subskills in L2 reading and identifies conditions that promote cross-linguistic transfer. As Camps (2015) noted…

…[T]he basic difference between the linguistic and psycholinguistic perspectives on metalinguistic activity lies in the fact that linguists reduce the scope of the “metalinguistic” to “language about language”, while psycholinguists refer to “cognition about language”, which is an integral part of the subject’s cognitive activity. The importance of the psycholinguistic models that explain this “cognition about language” is that they offer means of accessing both the activity and metalinguistic knowledge. (p. 28)

Cross-linguistic transfer is a particular type of transfer of learning in bilingual/biliteracy contexts (Mora, 2016). There are several benefits to utilizing transfer of learning models and practice in designing dual language programs and planning instruction for biliteracy learning. Pertinent questions guide decision-making about transfer instruction, keeping in mind that students only learn to read once. What is meant by transfer of learning in a biliteracy context where students learn to speak, read and write as well as master academic content, in two languages? What knowledge and skills transfer? What types of transfer occur in dual immersion programs and biliteracy learning? What are the advantages of teaching for transfer? Does teaching for transfer need to be direct and explicit instruction or do students just “catch-on”? What knowledge and skills do teachers need to maximize transfer of learning?

Transfer of learning is a principle in general learning theory that has been the subject of much debate and research. Transfer of learning is operationally defined as the process and the extent to which past experiences affect learning and performance in a novel situation or context (Salomon & Perkins, 1989). If we did not transfer some of our skills and knowledge from prior learning, then each new learning situation would start from scratch. Definitions of transfer of learning invariably involve theories about what transfers and how transference takes place, the “what” and the “how” of transfer. Transfer theory proposes a set of learning conditions and features of performance and problem-solving tasks that facilitate the application of prior learning to new and different content or skill.

Cross-linguistic transfer is a particular type of transfer of learning in bilingual/biliteracy contexts. There are several benefits to utilizing transfer of learning models and practice in designing dual language programs and planning instruction for biliteracy learning. Pertinent questions guide decision-making about transfer instruction, keeping in mind that students only learn to read once. What is meant by transfer of learning in a biliteracy context where students learn to speak, read and write as well as master academic content, in two languages? What knowledge and skills transfer? What types of transfer occur in dual immersion programs and biliteracy learning? What are the advantages of teaching for transfer? Does teaching for transfer need to be direct and explicit instruction or do students just “catch-on”? What knowledge and skills do teachers need to maximize transfer of learning?

One factor that promotes transfer of learning is the similarity of learning conditions and features of the task in which the learner applies his/her knowledge and skills to a novel task. The benefits a student derives from prior learning when engaged in a novel situation, depend on the amount of practice or level of mastery of the original learning. The explicitness or “mindfulness” involved in learning promotes transference. Learners who develop self-monitoring or “metacognitive habits” that allow them to make analogies and apply overarching abstractions and generalizations from previous learning, are better able to apply past learning to new knowledge and skills, without regard to contextual specificity. Rules, principles, labels, schematic patterns, analogies, prototypes and categories are transferred in higher-order transfer processes. Phonics is an example of learning through analogy when students learn that words that are spelled alike usually are also pronounced the same, such as with onset and rime (Aquino-Sterling, 2015; Bowey, 1988; Downing, 1986). Currently, many literacy scholars recognize metalinguistics as a key component of effective literacy instruction for both monolingual and multilingual learners (Apel, 2022; García & Lang, 2018; Noquerón-Lui, 2020).

Neuroscience Research on the Bilingual Brain: Neuroscience has provided insights into how the brain processes written text as graphic alphabetic representations of language. Through advanced fMRI and other neuroimaging technologies, neuroscientists can map regions of the brain that are activated during oral and silent reading of text in different languages (Dehaene, 2014; Gil, 2019). A limitation of neuroscience research is that the brain research technology is unable to discern neurological pathways of text processing to support arguments in favor or against some theoretical models of reading that are foundational to certain approaches to literacy instruction (Strauss, 2005). Consequently, multilingual educators must view claims that neuroscience supports or rejects certain instructional strategies with skepticism. 

Neuroscience research tends to affirm advantages for literacy learning by bilingual learners (Kremin, 2019; Olulade,et al., 2016). For example, Kremin et al. (2019) report advantages in several reading subskills among Spanish as a heritage language speakers. These researchers describe those advantages validated through their research this way:

Models of monolingual literacy propose that reading acquisition builds upon children’s semantic, phonological, and orthographic knowledge. The relationships between these components vary cross-linguistically, yet it is generally unknown how these differences impact bilingual children’s literacy. A comparison between Spanish–English bilingual and English monolingual children (ages 6–13, N = 70) from the US revealed that bilinguals had stronger associations between phonological and orthographic representations than monolinguals during English reading. While vocabulary was the strongest predictor of English word reading for both groups, phonology and morphosyntax were the best predictors of Spanish reading for bilinguals. This comparison reveals distinct developmental processes across learners and languages, and suggests that early and systematic biliteracy exposure at home and through afterschool programs can influence children’s sound-to-print associations even in the context of language-specific(monolingual) reading instruction. These findings have important implications for bilingual education as well as theories that aim to explain how learning to read across languages has a positive impact on the acquisition of literacy.

Arredondo, et al. (2017) describe differences in the neurology of the bilingual brain with this summary of their research findings:

Bilingualism is a typical linguistic experience, yet relatively little is known about its impact on children’s cognitive and brain development. Theories of bilingualism suggest that early dual-language acquisition can improve children’s cognitive abilities, specifically those relying on frontal lobe functioning. While behavioral findings present much conflicting evidence, little is known about its effects on children’s frontal lobe development. Using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), the findings suggest that Spanish–English bilingual children (n = 13, ages 7–13) had greater activation in left prefrontal cortex during a non-verbal attentional control task relative to age-matched English monolinguals. In contrast, monolinguals (n = 14) showed greater right prefrontal activation than bilinguals. The present findings suggest that early bilingualism yields significant changes to the functional organization of children’s prefrontal cortex for attentional control and carry implications for understanding how early life experiences impact cognition and brain development. (p.1)

Importantly, neuroscience research on the bilingual brain also informs teacher education faculty who prepare teachers for multilingual students about how this population of students is not homogeneous (DeLuca et al., 2020; Fedeli, 2021). Fedeli et al. (2021) report that dual-language experiential factors produce distinct cerebral networks. First, they document that input that leads to activation of a single language system in monolinguals, simultaneously activates both language systems to produce simultaneous production and comprehension in bilinguals. These researchers also found differentially affected structural organization of linguistic pathways and the communication between regions of the brain relevant to language control based on environmental language factors: L2 exposure, L2 proficiency and L2 age of acquisition. Consequently, Fedeli et al. state this conclusion:

“Grouping heterogeneous linguistic profiles under a dichotomous condition may obscure, if not wash out, important, yet distinct facets of the bilingual experience, which is dynamic and complex at the individual level. Our study overcomes some methodological constraints of previous experiments and expands the knowledge about the neuroanatomical correlates of bilingual experience by providing new models of large-scale white matter organization in bilinguals.” (p. 11)

See more analysis of the implications of neuroscience research on the bilingual brain.

Theoretical Orientation to Literacy Instruction

The role of research in the preparation of teachers of multilingual learners is to enable teacher candidates to formulate their own perspective on what instructional approaches and strategies will best address the learning characteristics of emergent bilingual students. Research into the characteristics of effective literacy teaching provides a perspective on how teachers interpret and integrate theoretical models of literacy instruction to promote high levels of student achievement. A valuable construct that expresses the operation of the transdisciplinary knowledge base is theoretical orientation (TO). DeFord (1985) developed a questionnaire, the Theoretical Orientation toward Reading Profile (TORP), that places teachers along a continuum of pedagogical perspectives toward reading instruction based on their response patterns. This study found that teachers of known theoretical orientation who were observed during reading instruction exhibited response patterns on the questionnaire that were consistent and predictable in relation to their classroom teaching behaviors. The research on theoretical orientation validates the notion that teachers’ planning and in-the-moment decision-making about literacy instruction within the context of their professional assignments are grounded in their interpretation of their pedagogical knowledge base. A coherent theoretical enables teachers to articulate a rationale for the choices of instructional approaches and formulate a “toolkit” of strategies and learning activities.

The theoretical foundations of a teacher’s orientation toward literacy instruction informs and guides his/her decision-making in the following spheres of instructional planning and implementation Deford, 1985):

  1. Goals that teachers set for the classroom reading program.
  2. Behaviors teachers perceive as reflecting “good” reading behavior.
  3. Procedures, materials and information teachers use for instructional diagnosis.
  4. The weighting teachers give various pieces of diagnostic information.
  5. Materials teachers select and use for instruction in the program.
  6. The environment teachers perceive to be most conducive to reading growth.
  7. Criteria teachers use to determine growth in reading.

Theoretical Orientation of Teachers in Mexico

As a bilingual teacher educator and researcher, Dr. Mora has conducted and presented research internationally, primarily in Mexico where she lived for seven years and was Resident Director of the California State University Mexico BCLAD Credential Program in Querétaro in 2003-2005. During her time as Resident Director, she conducted research of Mexico’s education reforms of the Programa de Español of the Secretaría de Educación Pública in San Miguel de Allende and Querétaro. This research study was in collaboration with lead investigator, Diane Sharken Taboada from the University of California at Berkeley and Sofía Vernon of la Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro (UAQ).  Taboada, et al. (2005) conducted a study of how teachers implemented constructivist reforms in the Mexico National Reading Program. We found that teachers demonstrated congruence with the meaning-making, constructivist theoretical model of the  national curriculum in their instructional practices in first-grade classrooms. Systematic exploration of the role of teachers’ theoretical orientation in a mandated literacy program confirmed that congruence between a coherent knowledge base and teachers’ utilization of effective instructional approaches and strategies produces positive learning outcomes for students.

The TORIS questionnaire was developed to survey Mexican teachers to determine their level of knowledge and belief in the theoretical foundations of MNRP that they are required to implement at the classroom level. The survey included 15 questions to determine teachers’ demographic and professional development characteristics and features of their teaching contexts (urban, rural, multilingual, etc.). Teachers were asked to quantify the extent of their professional preparation in the Mexico National Reading Program approach and materials. The TORIS survey population included 242 Mexican elementary school teachers in schools, 114 teachers in the state of Guanajuato and 128 teachers in the state of Querétaro. Forty-six percent described their school as urban, while 54% taught in schools in a rural setting. Ninety-seven percent held either a normalista degree from a government-run teachers’ preparatory high school or a licenciatura, which is equivalent to a bachelor’s degree in education in the United States. Only three percent held a master’s degree. The majority of the teachers had earned their teaching degree after 1987. Sixty-three percent taught first or second grade (primer ciclo), with an average of six years teaching experience at this level of instruction. Overall, the teachers averaged 16 years of teaching experience, with the range from teachers in year one of their careers to 42 years in teaching, with 64% having completed one to three workshops on the MNRP.

The Mexico national literacy program study researchers concluded that Mexican teachers cannot be clearly identified with any one of the particular approaches to reading instruction as they are described to date in the research literature. Rather, they have melded and combined theoretical principles and pedagogical strategies into a coherent understanding of effective literacy instruction. This is similar to what literacy educators in the United States refer to as a “balanced approach” that includes teaching strategies drawn from multiple models of the reading process and literacy pedagogy. In other words, Mexico’s literacy educators may have, in fact, “constructed” a unique constructivist approach to teaching Spanish reading and writing in their nation’s public schools. The observation data and interviews together point to a strong relationship between teachers’ ability to describe their knowledge of the program, to articulate notions of constructivist theory and their delivery of instruction aligned with the theoretical foundations of the Mexico national reading program. The Taboada, Mora and Vernon study affirmed the history of literacy methods reforms in Mexico and other Spanish-speaking countries during the period of the 1990’s and 2000’s based on psycholinguistic and constructivist theory and research (Muñoz-Mancilla, 2017; Suárez, et al., 2014). The implications of these reforms are observed in transnational research of Spanish language and literacy pedagogy (Goldenberg, et al., 2014; Jiménez et al., 2014). The research literature on the language and literacy instruction for monolingual Spanish speakers and Spanish-English emergent biliteracy learners contributes extensively to the design of Spanish language arts instruction in biliteracy/dual language programs in the United States (Mora, 2016).

Science of Reading Research in Multilingual Learner Literacy Education

In summary, the claim that teacher education programs that not preparing teachers for literacy instruction of multilingual learners due to inadequate coverage of science of reading research in coursework and practicum experiences is not supported by the research. Certainly, much more can and should be done to prepare preservice teachers for addressing the academic needs of linguistically diverse student populations. However, there are research-based standards that articulate the body of pedagogical knowledge necessary for preservice and inservice professional development for dual language teachers and mainstream, English-medium teachers of language minority students. It is not advisable for legislators to set education policies or pass laws that require teacher educators to focus coursework and field experiences for teacher credential candidates who are acquiring competencies for language and literacy instruction based on a singular body of research literature, in this case, the Science of Reading. Teacher educators are accountable for preparing teachers to implement instruction to meet the state’s curriculum standards, which are based on transdisciplinary research that encompasses multiple academic disciplines.

The population validity of research studies is an issue that cannot be discounted because student populations are not homogeneous. Although the assumption is correct that learning to read and write involves much knowledge-building, skills acquisition and functional processes regardless of students’ classification as monolingual or emergent bilingual learners. However, the orthographic systems and learning trajectories of different languages demand the application of different methods and approaches to address the linguistics of students’ native, dominant or second language in instructing multilingual learners. Furthermore, literacy acquisition for bilingual learners involves the interaction of two languages in the brain. The more teachers understand how the bilingual brain functions, based on knowledge stemming from neuroscience research, the more effective teachers can be in addressing and accommodating the learning characteristics of linguistically diverse students. Teacher educators, who are themselves researchers, must contribute to and utilize the pedagogical knowledge base derived from transdisciplinary research to prepare teachers for schools and classrooms in our multilingual and multicultural society.

REFERENCES Claim 10

Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. (2007). Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language representation and control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 242-275.

Alvarado, J. M. P., Aníbal, Fernández, M. P., & Jiménez, V. (2015). Análisis de los componentes en la adquisición de la lectura en castellano: Una aplicación del modelo logístico lineal [Component analysis of Spanish reading process: an application of the linear logistic test model]. Suma Psicológica, 22(3), 45-52. 

Arredondo, M. M., Hu, X.-S., Satterfield, T., & Kovelman, I. (2017). Bilingualism alters children’s frontal lobe functioning for attentional control. Developmental Science, 20, e12377.

Apel, K. (2022). A different view on the Simple View of Reading. Remedial and Special Education, 43(6), 434-447.

Aquino-Sterling, C. R., & Rodríguez-Valls, F. (2016). Developing teaching-specific Spanish competencies in bilingual teacher education: Toward a culturally, linguistically and professionally relevant approach. Multicultural Perspectives, 18(2), 73-81.

Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 283-300.

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-minority Children and Youth. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Aydarova, E. (2021). Building a one-dimensional teacher: Technocratic transformations in teacher education policy discourses. Educational Studies, 57(6), 670-689.

Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy and cognition. Cambridge University Press.

Bowey, J. A. (1988). Metalinguistic ability and early reading achievement. Applied Pscyholinguistics, 9(4), 367-383.

Briceño, A., & Klein, A. F. (2019). A second lens on formative reading assessment with multilingual students. The Reading Teacher, 72(5), 611-621. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1774

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2023). Bilingual authorization educator preparation preconditions, program standards, and bilingual teaching performance expectations.  Retrieved from https://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/stds-prep-program

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2022). Literacy standard and teaching performance expectations for preliminary multiple subject and single subject credentials.  Retrieved from https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/educator-prep/standards/ms-ss-literacy-standard-tpes.pdf?sfvrsn=eea226b1_12

Camps, A. (2015). Metalinguistic activity in language learning. In T. Ribas, X. Fontich, & O. Guasch (Eds.), Grammar at School: Research on Metalinguistic Activity in Language Education (pp. 25-41). Peter Lang S.A.

Catalano, T., & Hamann, E. (2016). Multilingual pedagogies and pre-service teachers: Implementing “language as a resource” orientations in teacher education programs. Bilingual Research Journal(3-4), 263-278.

Coady, M., Miller, M. D., Jing, Z., Olszewska, A., De Jong, E., Yilmaz, T., Heffington, D., Lopez, M., & Ankeny, R. (2020). Can English learner teacher effectiveness be observed? Validation of an EL-modified framework for teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 54(1), 173-200.

Cohen-Cole, J. (2015). The politics of psycholinguistics [  ]. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 51(1), 54-77.

Cummins, J. (2021). Rethinking the education of multilingual learners: A critical analysis of theoretical concepts. Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (1989). Language and literacy acquisition in bilingual contexts. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 10(1), 17-31.

Cummins , J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. American Education Research Journal, 49(2), 222-251.

Downing, J. (1986). Cognitive clarity: A unifying and cross/cultural theory of language awareness phenomena in reading. In D. B. Yaden & S. Templeton (Eds.), Metalinguistic awareness and beginning literacy: Conceptualizing what it means to read and write. Heinemann.

De Avila, E. (1997). Setting expected gains for non and limited English proficient students. Arlington, VA: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

DeLuca, V., Segaert, K., Mazaheri, A., & Krott, A. (2020). Understanding bilingual brain function and structure changes? U bet! A unified bilingual experience trajectory model. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 56, 100930.

Ellis, C., Holston, S., Drake, G., Putman, H., Swisher, A., & Peske, H. (2023). Teacher prep review: Strengthening elementary reading instruction. National Council on Teacher Quality. https://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Teacher_Prep_Review_Strengthening_Elementary_Reading_Instruction

Escamilla, K., & Andrade, A. (1992). Descubriendo la Lectura: An application of Reading Recovery in Spanish. Education and Urban Society, 24(2), 212-226.

Farrell, T. S. C. (2015). Promoting teacher reflection in second language education: A framework for TESOL professionals. Routledge.

Fedeli, D., Del Maschio, N. S., Simone, Rothman, J., & Abutalebi, J. (2021). The bilingual structural connectome: Dual-language experiential factors modulate distinct cerebral networks. Brain and Language, 220(104978), 1-11.

Fitzharris, L., Jones, M. B., & Crawford, A. (2008). Teacher knowledge matters in supporting young readers. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 384-394.

Flores, B. M. (2009). The sociopsychogenesis of literacy and biliteracy: How Goodman’s transactional theory of reading proficiency impacts biliteracy development and pedagogy: Essays in tribute to Ken and Yetta Goodman. In P. L. Anders (Ed.), Defying convention, inventing the future in literacy research and practice (pp. 160-172). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Flores, B. M., Flores, R., Bobadilla, A., Noriega, A. V., & Gustafson-Corea, J. (2024). CABE’s critical effective literacy/biliteracy pedagogy framework. Multilingual Educator(CABE 2024 Edition), 7-11. 2024ME-Final-web.pdf (gocabe.org)

Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397-417.

Freeman, Y. S. (1988). Do Spanish methods and materials reflect current understanding of the reading process? The Reading Teacher, 41(7), 654-662.

Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 263-329.

García, G. E., & Lang, M. G. (2018). The link between standards and dual language teachers’ Spanish literacy instruction and formative assessments. Bilingual Research Journal, 41(2), 167-186.

Gil, J. M. (2019). Lectoescritura como sistema neurocognitivo [Reading and writing as a neurocognitive system]. Educación y Educadores, 22(3), 422-447.

Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective language instruction for English Learners in the elementary grades: A Practice Guide. The Institute of Education Sciences. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides

Goldenberg, C. (2023). Research must guide how we teach English learners to read. EdSource, May 18. https://edsource.org/2023/research-must-guide-how-we-teach-english-learners-to-read/690904

Goldenberg, C., Tolar, T. D., Reese, L., Francis, D. J., Bazán, A. R., & Mejía-Arauz, R. (2014). How important is teaching phonemic awareness to children learning to read in Spanish? American Education Research Journal, 51(3), 604-633.

Goodman, K. S. (1969). Analysis of oral reading miscues: Applied psycholinguistics. Reading Research Quarterly, 5(1), 9-30.

Guerrero, M. D. L., Joan R. (2019). The national dual language education teacher preparation standards. Dual Language of New Mexico La Fuente Press.

Hernández Sheets, R., Bustos Flores, B., & Riojas Clark, E. (2010). A bilingual education teacher preparation model. In F. B. Bustos, S. R. Hernández, & C. E. Riojas (Eds.), Teacher preparation for bilingual student populations: Educar para transformar. Taylor & Francis Group.

Jiménez, J. E., & O’Shanahan, I. (2008). Enseñanza de la lectura: De la teoría y la investigación a la práctica educativa. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 45(5), 1-22.

Jiménez, J. E., Rodríguez, C., Suárez, N., O’Shanahan, I., Villadiego, Y., Uribe, C., Villalobos, J. Á., & Rodas, P. (2015). Teachers’ implicit theories of learning to read: A cross-cultural study in Ibero-American countries. Reading & Writing, 28, 1355-1379.

Johnson, E. M. (2019). Exemplary reading teachers’ use of instructional scaffolds with emergent bilinguals: How knowledge and context shape their choices. TESOL Quarterly, 53(1).

Johnson, K. E. (2019). The relevance of a transdisciplinary framework for SLA language teacher education. The Modern Language Journal, 105(19), 167-174.

Kabuto, B. (2016). A socio-psycholinguistic perspective on biliteracy: The use of miscue analysis as a culturally relevant assessment tool. Reading Horizons, 56(1).

Kremin, L. V., Arredondo, M. M., Hsu, L. S.-J., Satterfield, T., & Kovelman, I. (2019). The effects of Spanish heritage language literacy on English reading for Spanish-English bilingual children in the US. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 192-206.

Koda, K. (1994). Second language reading research: Problems and possibilities. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15(1994), 1-29.

Muñoz Mancilla, M. (2017). Evolución de los procesos de alfabetización en México: De silabarios a prácticas sociales de lenguaje [Evolution of the processes of literacy in Mexico: From syllabaries to social language practices]. Trayectorias Humanas Trascontinentales, 2(2017).

McGee, L. M., Kim, H., Nelson, K. S., & Fried, M. D. (2015). Change over time in first graders’ strategic use of information at point of difficulty in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(3), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.98

Moore, B. A., & Klinger, J. K. (2014). Considering the needs of English Language Learner populations: An examination of the population validity of reading intervention research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(5), 391-408.

Mora, J. K. (2024). Reaffirming multilingual educators’ pedagogical knowledge base. Multilingual Educator, February(CABE 2024 Edition), 12-14. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mBA1WE4mSYbQkT0M9n4J79U6y_2MeUeJ/view?usp=sharing

Mora, J. K. (2016). Spanish language pedagogy for biliteracy programs. Montezuma Publishing.

Mora, J.K. (2000). Staying the course in times of change: Preparing teacher for language minority education. Journal of Teacher Education, (51) 1, 345-357.

Mora, J.K. (2006). Differentiating instruction for English Learners: The four-by-four model. In T.A. Young & N. L. Hadaway (Eds.). Supporting the literacy development of English Learners: Increasing success in all classrooms (pp. 24-40). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Mora, J. K., & Dorta-Duque de Reyes, S. (In press). Biliteracy and cross-cultural teaching: A framework for standards-based transfer instruction in dual language programs. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.

Mora, J. K., & Grisham, D. (2001). !What deliches tortillas! Preparing teachers for literacy instruction in linguistically diverse classrooms. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(4), 51-70.

Noguerón-Liu, S. (2020). Expanding the knowledge base in literacy instruction and assessment: Biliteracy and translanguaging perspectives from families, communities, and classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S307-S318.

Olulade, O. A., Jamal, N. I., Koo, D. S., Perfetti, C. A., & LaSasso, C. (2016). Neuroanatomical evidence in support of the bilingual advantage theory. Cerebral Cortex, 26(July), 3194-3204.

Ortiz, A. A., Robertson, P. M., & Wilkinson, C. Y. (2018). Language and literacy assessment record for English Learners in bilingual education: A framework for instructional planning and decision-making. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 62(4), 250-265.

Pérez, B., & Huerta, M. E. (2010). Dynamic biliteracy: Teacher knowledge and practice. In F. B. Bustos, S. R. Hernández, & C. E. Riojas (Eds.), Teacher preparation for bilingual student populations: Educar para transformar (pp. 115-130). Taylor & Francis Group.

Petitto, L. A. (2009). New discoveries from the bilingual brain and mind across the life span: Implications for education. Mind, Brain and Education, 3, 185-197.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15( 2), 4-14.

Sleeter, C. (2014). Toward teacher education research that informs policy. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 146-153.

Snow, C. (2006). Cross-cutting themes and future research directions. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-minority Children and Youth (pp. 631-651). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Solsana-Puig, J., Son, M., & Rodriguez-Valls, F. F. (2024). Assessment of bilingual teachers in California: Exploring the complexities of a changing policy landscape. CCTE Fall 2024 Research Monograph, 25-42.

Stairs-Davenport, A. (2023). “Where do I start? Inquiry into K-12 mainstream teachers’ knowledge about differentiating instruction for ELLs in one U.S. school district. Education Inquiry, 14(2), 163-177.

Strauss, S. L. (2005). The linguistics, neurology, and politics of phonics: Silent “E” speaks out. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Suárez, N., Rodríguez, C., O’Shanahan, I., & Jiménez, J. E. (2014). ¿Qué teorías sobre el aprendizaje de la lectura se atribuyen los profesores que enseñan a leer con diferente metodología [What theories of learning to read do teachers attribute their different methodologies for reading instruction?]. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 4(1), 55-65.

Taboada, D. S., Mora, J.K., & Vernon, S (2005, December). Early literacy instruction in Mexico: Finding congruence between theory and practice. Presented at the 55th annual National Reading Conference, Miami, FL. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6792238.

Turkan, S., De Oliveira, L. C., Lee, O., & Phelps, G. (2014). Proposing a knowledge base for teaching academic content to English language learners: Disciplinary linguistic knowledge. Teachers College Record, 116(March), 1-30.

Traxler, M. J. (2023). Introduction to psycholinguistics (Second Ed.). Wiley Blackwell.

Villegas, A. M., SaizdeLaMora, K. M., Adrian D., & Mills, T. (2018). Preparing future mainstream teachers to teach English Language Learners: A review of the empirical literature. The Educational Forum, 82(2), 138-155.

Wagley, N., Marks, R. A., Bedore, L. M., & Kovelman, I. (2022). Contributions of bilingual home environment and language proficiency on children’s Spanish-English reading outcomes. Child Development, 93, 881-899.

Zeichner, K., & Conklin, H. G. (2016). Beyond knowledge ventriloquism and echo chambers: Raising the quality of the debate in teacher education. Teachers College Record, 118(120305), 1-38.

Zúñiga, C. E. (2019). Supporting “pedagogical” Spanish language competencies: Bilingual Teacher Education en la Frontera. Teacher Education Quarterly, 46(3), 79-98. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26746051

 

REFERENCES

Adams, M. J. (1998). The three-cueing system. In J. Osborn & F. Lehr (Eds.), Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning (pp. 73-99). The Guilford Press. 

Adams, M. J. (1980). Failures to comprehend and levels of processing in reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education (pp. 11-32). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Anthony, J. L., Solari, E. J., Williams, J. M., Schoger, K. D., Zhang, Z., Branum-Martin, L., & Francis, D. J. (2009). Development of bilingual phonological awareness in Spanish-Speaking English language learners: The roles of vocabulary, letter knowledge, and prior phonological awareness. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(6), 535-564.

Alegría, J., & Carrillo, M. S. (2014). La escritura de palabras en castellano: Un análisis comparativo [Learning to spell words in Spanish: A comparative analysis]. Estudios de Psicología, 35(1), 476-501.

Apel, K. (2022). A different view on the Simple View of Reading. Remedial and Special Education, 43(6), 434-447.

Apel, K., Henbest, V. S., & Masterson, J. (2019). Orthographic knowledge: Clarifications, challenges, and future directions. Reading & Writing, 32, 873-889.

Ardasheva, Y., Tretter, T. R., & Kinny, M. (2012). English language learners and academic achievement: Revisiting the threshold hypothesis. Language Learning, 62(3), 768-812.

Babayiğit, S., & Shapiro, L. (2020). Component skills that underpin listening comprehension and reading comprehension in learners with English as first and additional language. Journal of Research in Reading, 43(1), 78-97.

Baxter, P., Bekkering, H., Dijkstra, T., Droop, M., Hurk, M. V., & Leone, F. (2021). Grounding second language vocabulary instruction in cognitive science. Mind, Brain, and Education, 15(1), 24-34.

Bernhardt, E. B. (1998). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical and classroom perspectives. Ablex.

Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading: Consolidating the Linguistic Threshold and the Linguistic Interdependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 15-34.

Birch, B. M. (2007). English L2 reading: Getting to the bottom (Second ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bloomfield, L. (1942). Linguistics and reading. The Elementary English Review, 19(4), 123-130.

Bonhage, C. E., Mueller, J. L., Friederici, A. D., & Fiebach, C. J. (2015). Combined eye tracking and fMRI reveals neural basis of linguistic predictions during sentence comprehension. Cortex ScienceDirect, 68, 33-47.

Briceño, A., & Klein, A. F. (2019). A second lens on formative reading assessment with multilingual students. The Reading Teacher, 72(5), 611-621.

Brown, J., Goodman, K. S., & Marek, A. M. (1996). Studies in miscue analysis: An annotated bibliography. International Reading Association.

Carrell, P. L. (1991). Second language reading: Reading ability or language proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 121-134.

Carroll, J. B. (1963). The study of language: A survey of linguistics and related disciplines in America. Harvard University Press.

Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the Reading Wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science, 19(1), 5-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618786959

Carton, A. S. (1971). Inferencing: A process in using and learning language. In P. Pimsleur & T. Quinn (Eds.), The psychology of second language learning (pp. 45-58). Cambridge University Press.

Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Palincsar, A., Afflerbach, P., Kendeou, P., Biancarosa, G., Higgs, J., Fitzgerald, M. S., & Berman, A. I. (2020). How the Reading for Understanding Initiative’s research complicates the Simple View of Reading invoked in the Science of Reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(51), S161-S172.

Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). Effective reading programs for Spanish-dominant English Language Learners (ELLs) in the elementary grades: A synthesis of Research. American Education Research Journal, 82(4), 351-395.

Cho, E., Capin, P., Roberts, G., Roberts, G. J., & Vaughn, S. (2019). Examining sources and mechanisms of reading comprehension difficulties: Comparing English learners and non-English learners within the Simple View of Reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(6), 982-1000.

Chun, E. (2020). L2 prediction guided by linguistic experience. English Teaching, 75, 79-103.

Cummins, J. (2021). Rethinking the education of multilingual learners: A critical analysis of theoretical concepts. Multilingual Matters.

Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 277-299.

Davis, D., Jones, J. S., & Samuelson, C. (2021). Is it time for a hard conversation about cueing systems and word reading in teacher education? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 37(4), 301-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2020.1792813

De Avila, E. (1997). Setting expected gains for non and limited English proficient students. Arlington, VA: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education

DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313-348). John Wiley & Sons.

Ehri, L. C. (2020). The science of learning to read words: A case for systematic phonics instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S45-S60.

Ehri, L. C. (2017). Orthographic mapping and literacy development revisited. In R. K. Parrila, K. Cain, & D. L. Compton (Eds.), Theories of reading development (pp. 127-145). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 5-21.

Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141-172.

Fabiano-Smith, L., & Goldstein, B. A. (2010). Phonological acquisition in bilingual Spanish-English speaking children. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 53(February), 160-178.

Fedeli, D., Del Maschio, N. S., Simone, Rothman, J., & Abutalebi, J. (2021). The bilingual structural connectome: Dual-language experiential factors modulate distinct cerebral networks. Brain and Language, 220(104978), 1-11.

Flurkey, A. D., & Xu, J. (Eds.). (2003). On the revolution of reading. The selected writings of Kenneth S. Goodman. Heinemann.

Flores, B. M. (2009). The sociopsychogenesis of literacy and biliteracy: How Goodman’s transactional theory of reading proficiency impacts biliteracy development and pedagogy: Essays in tribute to Ken and Yetta Goodman. In P. L. Anders (Ed.), Defying convention, inventing the future in literacy research and practice (pp. 160-172). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Foorman, B. R., Breier, J., & Fletcher, J. M. (2003). Interventions aimed at improving reading success: An evidence-based approach. Developmental Neuropsychology, 24(2&3), 613-639.

Foorman, B. R., & Petscher, Y. (2018). Decomposing the variance in reading comprehension to review the unique and common effects of language and decoding. Journal of Visualized Experiments, 140(October), e58557. https://doi.org/10.3791/58557

Francis, N. (2011). Bilingual competence and bilingual proficiency in child development. MIT Press.

Francis, W. S., Strobach, E. N., Penalver, R. M., Martínez, M., Gurrola, B. V., & Soltero, A. (2019). Word-context associations in episodic memory are learned at the conceptual level: Word frequency, bilingual proficiency, and bilingual status effects on source memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(10), 1852-1871.

Fraser, B. J. (1987). Syntheses of educational productivity research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(2), 147-252.

Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 263-329. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11001841

Goldberg, M., & Goldenberg, C. (2022). Lessons learned: Reading Wars, Reading First, and a way forward. The Reading Teacher, 75(5), 621-630. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2079

Goldenberg, C. (2024, May 23). Commentary: To improve how California students read, we must get past confusion and misinformation. EdSource. Comment. Retrieved August 10, 2024, from https://edsource.org/2024/to-improve-how-california-students-read-we-must-get-past-confusion-and-misinformation/712688

Goldenberg, C. (2024). What “Science of Reading” are Tierney and Pearson actually fact-checking. Literacy Research Commons.   

Gombert, J. E. (1992). Metalinguistic Development. Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Gambi, C. (2021). The role of prediction in second language vocabulary learning. In E. Kaan & T. Grüter (Eds.), Prediction in second language processing and learning (pp. 187-206). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Goodman, K. S. (1971). Decoding–From code to what? Journal of Reading, 14(7), 455-462.

Goodman, K. S. (1964). The linguistics of reading. The Elementary School Journal, 64(7), 355-361.

Goodman, K. S. (1970). Psycholinguistic universals in the reading process. Journal of Typographic Research, 4(2 Spring), 103-11.

Goodman, K. (2003). Reading, writing and written texts: A transactional sociopsycholinguistic view. In A. D. Flurkey & J. Xu (Eds.), On the revolution of reading: Selected writings of Kenneth S. Goodman (pp. 3-45). Heinemann.

Goodman, K., Fries, P. H., & Strauss, S. L. (2016). Reading‒The grand illusion: How and why people make sense of print. Routledge.

Goodrich, J. M., & Lonigan, C. J. (2016). Lexical characteristics of Spanish and English words and the development of phonological awareness skills in Spanish-speaking language-minority children. Reading & Writing, 29, 683-704.

Haastrup, K. (2009). Research on the lexical inferencing process and its outcomes. In M. B. Wesche & T. S. Paribakht (Eds.), Lexical inferencing in a first and second language: Cross-linguistic dimensions (pp. 3-30). Multilingual Matters.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5(2), 93-116.

Hanna, P. R., Hanna, S., Hodges, R. E., & Rudolf, E. H. (1966). Phoneme-grapheme correspondences as cues to spelling improvement. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review, 111(3), 662-720.

Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. H. (1990). The Simple View of Reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127-160.

Hoover, W. A., & Tunmer, W. E. (2018). The Simple View of Reading: Three assessments of its adequacy. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 304-312.

Holdaway, D. (1986). The visual face of experience and language: A metalinguistic excursion. In D. B. Yaden & S. Templeton (Eds.), Metalinguistic awareness and beginning literacy: Conceptualizing what it means to read and write (pp. 79-114). Heinemann.

Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The Simple View of Reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127-160.

Huggins, A. W. F., & Adams, M. J. (1980). Syntactic aspects of reading comprehension. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education (pp. 87-112). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jasińska, K. K., Berens, M. S., Kovelman, I., & Petitto, L. A. (2017). Bilingualism yields language-specific plasticity in left hemisphere’s circuitry for learning to read in young children. Neuropsychologia, 98(2017), 34-45.

Jeon, E. H., & Yamashita, J. (2014). L2 reading comprehension and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 64(1), 160-212.

Jiménez, R. T., García, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 90-112.

Jiménez, J. E., & Ortiz, M. R. (2000). Metalinguistic awareness and reading acquisition in the Spanish language. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 3(001), 37-46.

Jasińska, K. K., Berens, M. S., Kovelman, I., & Petitto, L. A. (2017). Bilingualism yields language-specific plasticity in left hemisphere’s circuitry for learning to read in young children. Neuropsychologia, 98(2017), 34-45.

Jorm, A. F., & Share, D. L. (1983). Phonological recoding and reading acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 4, 103-147.

Kabuto, B. (2016). A socio-psycholinguistic perspective on biliteracy: The use of miscue analysis as a culturally relevant assessment tool. Reading Horizons, 56(1).

Ke, S. E., Zhang, D., & Koda, K. (2023). Metalinguistic awareness in second language reading development. Cambridge University Press.

Koda, K. (2012). Development of second language reading skills: Cross-linguistic perspectives. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 303-318). Taylor & Francis Group.

Koda, K. (2004). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge University Press.

Koda, K. (2008). Impacts of prior literacy experience on second language learning to read. In K. Koda & A. M. Zehler (Eds.), Learning to Read Across Languages (pp. 68-96). Routledge.

Koda, K., & Reddy, P. (2008). Cross-linguistic transfer in second language reading. Language Teaching, 41(4), 497-508.

Kovelman, I., Din, M. S.-U., Berens, M. S., & Petitto, L. A. (2015). “One glove does not fit all” in bilingual reading acquisition: Using the age of first bilingual language exposure to understand optimal contexts for reading success. Cogent Education, 2: 1006504, 1-12.

Kovelman, I., Baker, S. A., & Petitto, L. (2008). Bilingual and monolingual brains compared: A functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation of syntactic processing and a possible “neural signature” of bilingualism. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(1), 153-169.

Kroll, J. F., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Understanding the consequences of bilingualism for language processing and cognition. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 1-21. https://doi.org/doi:10.1080/20445911.2013.799170

Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 11(1), 32-59.

Lems, K., Miller, L. D., & Soro, T. M. (2010). Teaching reading to English language learners: Insights from linguistics. The Guilford Press.

Lyon, G. R. (1998). Why reading is not a natural process. Educational Leadership, 55(6), 14-18.

Lyon, R. G. (2024). 10 Maxims: The research support–What we’ve learned so far about how children learn to read. https://readinguniverse.org/article/explore-teaching-topics/big-picture/10-maxims-the-research-support

Marks, R. A., Satterfield, T., & Kovelman, I. (2022). Integrated multilingualism and bilingual reading development. In J. MacSwan (Ed.), Multilingual perspectives on translanguaging (pp. 201-223). Multilingual Matters.

McGee, L. M., Kim, H., Nelson, K. S., & Fried, M. D. (2015). Change over time in first graders’ strategic use of information at point of difficulty in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(3), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.98

Mora, J. K. (2024). Reaffirming Multilingual Educators’ Pedagogical Knowledge Base. Multilingual Educator, 2024 (CABE Conference Edition), 12-14.

Mora, J. K. (2023). To cue or not to cue: Is that the question? Language Magazine, June, 18-20.

Mora, J. K. (2016). Spanish language pedagogy for biliteracy programs. Montezuma Publishing.

Mora, J.K. (2001). Learning to spell in two languages: Orthographic transfer in a transitional Spanish/English bilingual program. In P. Dreyer (Ed.), Raising Scores, Raising Questions: Claremont Reading Conference 65th Yearbook (pp. 64-84). Claremont, CA: Claremont Graduate University.

Mora, J. K., & Dorta-Duque de Reyes, S. (2025). Biliteracy and cross-cultural teaching: A framework for standards-based transfer instruction in dual language programs. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Nassaji, H. (2006). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and L2 learners’ lexical inferencing strategy use and success. The Modern Language Journal, 90(3), 387-401.

Nassaji, H. (2003). L2 vocabulary learning from context: Strategies, knowledge sources, and their relationship with success in L2 lexical inferencing. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 645-670.

Neuman, S. B., Quintero, E., & Reist, K. (2023, July). Reading reform across America: A survey of state legislation. Albert Shanker Institute. https://www.shankerinstitute.org/sites/

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.

Papadopoulos, T. C., Csépe, V., Aro, M., Diakidoy, I.-A., & Thierry, O. (2021). Methodological issues in literacy research across languages: Evidence from alphabetic orthographies. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S351-S370.

Patberg, J. P., Dewitz, P., & Samuels, S. J. (1981). The effect of context on the size of the perceptual unit used in word recognition. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13(1), 33-47.

Pearson, P. D. (1976). A psycholinguistic model of reading. Language Arts, 53(3), 309-314.

Perfetti, C. A., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22-37.

Petscher, Y., Cabell, S. Q., Catts, H. W., Compton, D. L., Foorman, B. R., Hart, S. A., Lonigan, C. J., Phillips, B. M., Schatschneider, C., Steacy, L. M., Terry, N. P., & Wagner, R. K. (2020). How the Science of Reading informs 21st-century education. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S267-S282.

Petitto, L. A., Berens, M. S., Kovelman, I., Dubins, M. H., Jasinska, K. K., & Shalinsky, M. (2012). The “perceptual wedge hypothesis” as the basis for bilingual babies’ phonetic processing advantage: New insights from fNIRS brain imaging. Brain and Language, 121(2), 130-143.

Rastle, K. (2012). Rethinking phonological theories of reading. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(5), 303-304. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x12000246

Raudszus, H., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2021). Use of morphological and contextual cues in children’s lexical inferencing in L1 and L2. Reading & Writing, 34, 1513-1538

San Diego County Office of Education (2012). Common Core State Standards: English/Spanish Language Version. Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Seidenberg, M. S. (2017). Language at the speed of sight: How we read, why so many can’t, and what can be done about it. Basic Books.

Seidenberg, M. S. (2013). The science of reading and its educational implications. Language Learning & Development, 9(4), 331-36.

Shanahan, T. (2020). What constitutes a Science of Reading instruction? Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S235-S247. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.349

Share, D. (2008). On the anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 584-615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584

Share, D. (2004). Orthographic learning at a glance: On the time course and developmental onset of self-teaching. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87, 267-298.

Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151-218.

Smith, F., & Goodman, K. S. (2008). “On the psycholinguistic method of teaching reading” revised. Language Arts, 86(1), 61-65.

Smith, F., & Goodman, K. S. (1971). On the psycholinguistic method of teaching reading. The Elementary School Journal, 71(4), 177-181.

Strauss, S. L. (2013). We need a paradigm shift in research on reading and dyslexia: Fundamental problems with fMRI studies of written language processing. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 333, e579-e628.

Strauss, S. L. (2011). Reading theory, constructivist psychology, and emerging concepts in neuroscience: Implications for a model of human consciousness. Functional Neurology, Rehabilitation, and Ergonomics, 1(1), 147-161.

Strauss, S. L. (2009). Towards a sociopsychoneuro-linguistic model of reading. In P. L. Anders (Ed.), Defying convention, inventing the future in literacy research and practice: Essays in tribute to Ken and Yetta Goodman (pp. 18-36). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Strauss, S. L., & Altweger, B. (2007). The logographic nature of English alphabetics and the fallacy of direct intensive phonics instruction. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 7(3), 299-319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798407083664

Strauss, S. L., Goodman, K. S., & Paulson, E. J. (2009). Brain research and reading: How emerging concepts in neuroscience support a meaning construction view of the reading process. Educational Research and Review, 4(2), 021-033.

Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (2024). Fact-checking the Science of Reading: Opening up the conversation. Literacy Research Commons. https://literacyresearchcommons.org

Thompson, K. D. (2017). English learners’ time to reclassification: An analysis. Educational Policy, 31(3), 330-363.

Traxler, M. J. (2023). Introduction to psycholinguistics (Second ed.). Wiley Blackwell.

Umansky, I. M., & Reardon, S. (2014). Reclassification patterns among Latino English learner students in bilingual, dual immersion, and English immersion classrooms. American Education Research Journal, 51(5), 879-912.

Valdés, G., Menken, K., & Castro, M. (Eds.). (2015). Common Core bilingual and English language learners: A source for educators. Caslon Publishing.

Varga, S. (2021). The relationship between reading skills and metalinguistic awareness. Gradus, 8(1), 52-57.

Wesche, M. B., & Paribakht, T. S. (Eds.). (2009). Lexical inferencing in a first and second language: Cross-linguistic dimensions. Multilingual Matters.

Williams, J. L. (2024). Getting history right: The tale of three-cueing. The Journal of Reading Recovery, 24, 17-28.

Yaden, D. B., & Templeton, S. (Eds.). (1986). Metalinguistic awareness and beginning literacy: Conceptualizing what it means to read and write. Heinemann.

Zoeller, E., & Briceño, A. (2022). An asset-based practice for teaching bilingual readers. The Reading Teacher, 76(1), 92-96.

Zutell, J., & Allen, V. (1988). The English spelling strategies of Spanish-speaking bilingual children. TESOL Quarterly, 22(2), 333-340.