Structured Literacy

A critical analysis of the implications of Structured Literacy for multilingual learners

Jill Kerper Mora
San Diego State University

This MoraModules webpage is an analysis of what is termed the Structured Literacy approach and the implications of this approach for language and literacy instruction for multilingual learners. I make the argument here that the definition of Structured Literacy offered by its proponents and researchers themselves is problematic for educators and academic researchers of multilingual learners. I draw this conclusion based on the types of recommendations that Structured Literacy advocates are making in the form of “do’s and don’ts” for instruction that will negatively impact multilingual learners by narrowing the focus of literacy instruction and impeding equitable access of more vulnerable students to effective literacy instruction. This is especially problematic for Spanish-English biliteracy learners and students who are classified as English Language Learners. Advocates of Structured Literacy (SLA) are adopting a posture toward literacy research that attempts to discredit and marginalize legitimate and valuable bodies of research from multiple disciplines that inform the knowledge base for effective literacy instruction for multilingual learners. I alleged that this is occurring due to a counter-productive ideological and political agenda that is coordinated to promote education policies that may negatively impact the literacy achievement of language minority students (Stemhagen & Nomi, 2021) These areas of research include the research base for miscue analysis and eye movement research (EMMA), which is triangulated with neuroscience research studies.

To state my position succinctly, the proponents of Structured Literacy are giving very bad advice to teachers of multilingual learners about how to teach reading and writing because they are naively ignoring or actively marginalizing and attempting to discredit several critically important areas of research on language and literacy instruction for multilingual learners.  It is time for the proponents of the Science of Reading and Structured Literacy to stop fighting the ghost of Whole Language. It is time for the SoR Movement to cease making false claims and misrepresentations of the research evidence base for strategies and practices associated with the legitimate theoretical framework and extensive data base for miscue analysis. It is time for the Structured Literacy advocacy community to renounce ad hominem attacks on the reputations and research of highly respected educators, such as Marie Clay, in an attempt to bolster their case for the effectiveness of their own preferred theoretical orientation and instructional approach. 

Key Features of the Structure Literacy Approach 

A notable element of how the advocates for Structured Literacy describe and define the approach is that they use comparison and contrast with “alternative approaches” and “typical literacy practices” (TLP) to differentiate Structured Literacy from other approaches to reading and writing instruction. The characteristics of Structured Literacy that they claim are lacking in other approaches are that SL is direct, explicit and systematic instruction. For example, Odegard (2020: 21) says this: “It cannot be stressed enough that providing children with explicit instruction that support the comprehension of written language is the ultimate goal of Structured Literacy.” Odegard identifies the intervention program Reading Recovery designed by Marie Clay as an “indirect, incidental approach to reading… not in alignment with Structured Literacy.” 

“All too often, children are expected to indirectly learn word structure through exposure to text. Instead of being directly taught, the instruction that is provided on word structure is incidental. That is to say that while engaged with a text a teacher might have a child focus on some aspect of a word that he or she struggles to understand. Or the teacher might ask the child to guess what the word might be based on the context of the word in the passage. Or the teacher might direct the child to look at a picture on the page and attempt to guess what the word might be based on the picture. This indirect, incidental approach to reading is indicative of varied approaches, one of which, Reading Recovery, is highlighted in this issue. These indirect, incidental approaches to reading instruction are not in alignment with Structured Literacy.” (p. 23)

Spear-Swirling (2019) defines the key features of Structured Literacy this way: 

Key features of SL approaches include (a) explicit, systematic, and sequential teaching of literacy at multiple levels—phonemes, letter–sound relationships, syllable patterns, morphemes, vocabulary, sentence structure, paragraph structure, and text structure; (b) cumulative practice and ongoing review; (c) a high level of student–teacher interaction; (d) the use of carefully chosen examples and nonexamples; (e) decodable text; and (f) prompt, corrective feedback… Explicit means that important skills and concepts are taught clearly and directly by the teacher; students are not expected to infer them simply from exposure or incidental learning. … Again, before teachers expect students to practice decoding specific phonics word patterns (e.g., short vowel words with consonant digraphs) in reading text, or to recognize specific irregular words in text, they directly teach those skills in isolation first. The teacher provides step-by-step demonstrations of skills and leads students in guided practice.

I suggest that Structured Literacy advocates’ concerns about literacy instruction that is direct, explicit and systematic can be addressed through theoretical frameworks and research in multiple disciplines that examine components and characteristics of effective literacy instruction from different perspectives, with attention to features of instruction that advance literacy learning for diverse populations of learners. In fact, it does not matter that advocates of Structured Literacy believe that Reading Recovery is not aligned with Structured Literacy. Reading Recovery is aligned with the theoretical framework and empirical research that undergirds the program, which may or may not be aligned with the cobbled-together Structured Literacy approach.  This evidence base includes neuroscience research (Marks. et al., 2022). Fletcher et al. (2021: 1249) propose the following: 

“We conclude that there is consistent evidence in support of explicitly teaching phonics as part of a comprehensive approach to reading instruction that should be differentiated to individual learner needs. The appropriate question to ask of a twenty-first century science of teaching is not the superiority of phonics versus alternative reading methods, including whole language and balanced literacy, but how best to combine different components of evidence-based reading instruction into an integrated and customized approach that addresses the learning needs of each child. Rather than minimizing the effects of phonics instruction, we should be thinking more about how individual learners are responding to the methods that are used and be prepared to change instructional approaches based on their response to instruction…

Although the term systematic phonics is widely used, it is instructive to think about what systematic really means and whether the NRP question of systematic phonics versus less systematic phonics is outmoded. In general, systematic refers to an organized structure—in this case, the organized structure for teaching the grapheme-phoneme correspondence rules. It is presumed that these rules are prescribed and often taught in an accepted sequence. However, the necessary sequence is not well established through research but rather derived from practices that provide ready access to reading words. Some students inferentially learn the pattern and rules through exposure to common word types; other students need more explicit instruction that is facilitated by an organized set of lessons. However, this organized sequence of lessons does not require that particular sound units be taught in any particular order as long as they are taught in ways that readily allow children to access print, words, and text.”

Of particular concern regarding the Science of Reading Movement that is promoting Structured Literacy is the condemnation of what is popularly termed “cueing” or “three-cueing.” This is a reference to the language cueing systems, also known as language subsystems, that are identified and describe in the common parlance of linguistics (Briceño & Klein, 2019; Halladay. 1978; Noguerón-Liu, 2020). Click here about the research base from applied linguistics, psycholinguistics and neuroscience regarding the role of the language subsystems in language and literacy instruction and assessment.

Approaches Do Not Teach: Teachers Teach

The notion that the Science of Reading favors certain approaches to reading instruction, or one particular approach over others is patently false. The Science of Reading Movement promotes an approach that is cobbled together based on multiple theoretical frameworks, most of which have been studied using experimental research methodology. See Paris (2005) for an explanation of the issues surrounding experimental studies of reading instruction. However, despite the limitations of certain research methods, many different approaches to literacy instruction based on legitimate and credible theoretical frameworks. These theoretical frameworks can be identified in the research literature according to their underlying cognitive constructs. Most importantly, certain instructional approaches may be more effective for different student populations with different characteristics and factors that impact their learning. This is what is called population validity of research studies. This reality raises the question of why the Science of Reading promotes a particular approach to instruction, claiming that this approach is “scientifically-based,” while marginalizing and attempting to delegitimize other approaches to literacy instruction. 

The Science of Reading Movement tends to frame the so-called Reading Wars around a debate about the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of three identified approaches: Whole Language, the Balanced Approach, and the Structured Approach. Consequently, the theoretical frameworks and research base for these three approaches have been placed under the scientific microscope. However, the narrowing of the attention paid to the wider range of approaches to literacy instruction has had the unfortunate effect of obscuring the productive discussion in education research of the population validity of different approaches. This is especially problematic for education of multilingual learners. It is also problematic that the Science of Reading Movement is fixated on discrediting the Whole Language approach. Whole Language is an approach that integrates multiple theoretical frameworks and research bases that are recognized as scientific in the academic education research community. In order to discredit Whole Language as an approach to literacy instruction, it would be necessary to discredit each and every one of the theoretical frameworks that are the foundations for the approach’s theoretical and empirical scientific research base. 

Dual language researchers and educators have no problem with having approaches such as Structured Literacy competing on equal footing in the marketplace of pedagogical knowledge with other approaches for adoption as the theoretical orientation of teachers. However, justifiably, we object when Structured Literacy is falsely claimed to be the only “scientifically-based” or “evidence-based” approach to literacy instruction for all students equally without regard to their linguistic and cultural characteristics. It is disingenuous and counter-productive for proponents of Structured Literacy to claim that other approaches and the strategies they support are not “research-aligned” or are not based on a credible theoretical framework, as do the critiques of Whole Language. (See quotations from Odegard (2020) and Spear-Swirling (2019) above.) 

Instructional Approaches for Multilingual Learners

Dual language educators who implement biliteracy instruction and English medium teachers of students classified as English Language Learners know that there are many methods and approaches to literacy instruction that are effective for multilingual learners. One of the most widely implemented approaches is the Metalinguistic Approach. This approach is based on multidisciplinary research in applied linguistics, psycholinguistics, second language acquisition, second-language reading, cross-linguistic transfer and literacy learning and teaching research from Spanish-speaking countries. See Ke, Zhang and Koda (2023) for a comprehensive review of the research literature on metalinguistic awareness in second language reading development.

The reality is that any research that supports an instructional approach to literacy must be evaluated for its population validity (Artiles, et al., 2005; Moore & Klinger, 2014; Thorius & Sullivan, 2012). Thorius and Sullivan (2012:67-68) find that there is insufficient research evidence that bilingual learners language acquisition and literacy learning needs are addressed in general education and Tier 1 interventions. These authors describe the problem this way: 

“Several other concerns underscore the importance of this issue: (a) a lack of research attention to the role of culture and language in learning and instruction for ELLs (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005), (b) large variation in instructional approaches implemented with ELLs in general education classrooms (August & Shanahan, 2006), and (c) discrepancies between research on English language acquisition and these varied instructional approaches (August & Shanahan, 2006). These concerns necessitate consideration of the following question: When RTI is implemented with ELLs in ways that diverge from its fundamental principles, to what extent is this related to inadequate applied research?… This includes attending to the ways in which evidence-based, context-informed practices are considered within all tiers of intervention as opposed to decontextualized interventions that fail to account for local population, organizational, and community factors, or the quality of the curriculum and instruction provided in general education.”

Artiles and Klinger (2006:2188) report the following observations about the state of research evidence for interventions with English Language Learners: 

Recent studies suggest that ELLs were overrepresented in districts that served a sizable population of ELLs, particularly older students who had, by district criteria, limited proficiency in their first language and English (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005). Nevertheless, it was not clear what shaped these placement patterns; for example, was it due to lack of first-language proficiency, child poverty, literacy in first language, assessment procedures, referral bias, or lack of opportunity to learn in general education? Unfortunately, the research knowledge base on ELLs with special needs is rather thin. … A recurrent question raised in these discussions relates to the diagnosis of disabilities with this population—that is, how can practitioners differentiate between ELLs who struggle to learn because of a disability and ELLs who struggle to learn because of language acquisition issues?

Although there is more research available currently than in 2006-2014, the issues with assessment of multilingual learners with literacy learning challenges remain the same. Claims that the Structured Literacy approach is most effective for identifying and addressing the learning needs of disabled multilingual learners are not necessarily supported by multidisciplinary research. 


In this critique of the Science of Reading, I argue that Structured Literacy is found lacking in several of its foundational tenets and its research base as a preferred approach for literacy instruction with multilingual learners. I advise teachers who work with multilingual learners to avail themselves of the resources on the MoraModules website to deepen their understanding of the comprehensive scientific research base for biliteracy instruction. Do not accept ideological and ill-informed arguments that call into question the professional knowledge base of bilingual educators.


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

Artiles, A. J., & Klingner, J. K. (2006). Forging a knowledge base on English language learners with special needs: Theoretical, population, and technical Issues. Teachers College Record, 108, 2187–2194.

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.

Bowers, J. S. (2020). Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 681-705.

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

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.

Ebe, A. (2008). What eye movement and miscue analysis reveals about the reading process of young bilinguals. In A. D. Flurkey, E. J. Paulson, & K. S. Goodman (Eds.), Scientific realism in studies of reading (pp. 131-149). Routledge.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-369.

Fletcher, J. M., Savage, R., & Vaughn, S. (2021). A commentary on Bowers (2020) and the role of phonics instruction in reading. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 1249-1274.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold.

Haynes, C. W., Smith, S. L., & Laud, L. (2019). Structured literacy approahces to teaching written expression. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 45(3), 22-28.

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

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.

McGinty, A. S., Justice, L. M., Piasta, S. B., Kaderavek, J., & Fan, X. (2012). Does context matter? Explicit print instruction during reading varies in its influence by child and classroom factors. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 77-89.

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.

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.

Odegard, T. N. (2020). Structured Literacy is exemplified by an explicit approach to teaching. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 46(1), 21-23.

Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 184-2020.

Reutzel, D. R., Child, A., Jones, C. D., & Clark, S. K. (2014). Explicit instruction in core reading programs. The Elementary School Journal, 114(3), 406-430.

Spear-Swerling, L. (2019). Structured literacy and typical literacy practices: Understanding differences to create instructional opportunities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51(3), 201-211.

Stemhagen, K., & Nomi, B. C. (2021). Scientifically based research and teacher agency: Combating “conspiracies of certainty.” Democracy and Education, 29(2), 1-9.

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.

Thorius, K. K., & Sullivan, A. L. (2013). Interrogating instruction and intervention in RTI research with students identified as English Language Learners. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 29(1), 64-88.

You need to add a widget, row, or prebuilt layout before you’ll see anything here. 🙂