research literacy skills

• Why Research Literacy Matters

Teachers can benefit from having research literacy and at least a little knowledge of research design. How much one needs depends on personal goals.

A lot of teachers are feelers. They're intuitive types – sometimes very effective ones. They listen to their kids read and watch as they move up levels. They notice when kids start making connections and applying their knowledge. They're sensitive to these ‘aha moments’ and sensitive, too, to signs that kids aren’t understanding. They have an intuitive sense about what conditions promote their student’s learning from teaching practices to social dynamics. In short, they know what works in their classroom, even if it can’t be replicated by all teachers or with all populations. And they’re not going it alone. They share ideas with colleagues in the teaching lounge and attend trainings on new best practices.

So why research? One problem is that decisions that impact education are often made by those far removed from the classroom; public opinion is swayed by those outside education. Being more comfortable with research can mean being better able to take part in the dialogue.

Research literacy is part of what allows a person to respond in constructive ways to misconnection. Teachers may, for example, find themselves reading a lay person’s emphatic statement that there's no proof for the existence of learning disabilities. It can be helpful to know the facts and fallacies that statements are based on. People outside education may not distinguish between two scenarios: 1) a jurisdiction that allows diagnosis of learning disability without proof and 2) there being a lack of evidence for the existence of learning disability itself. True, diagnoses may be made without proof, and cost is one of the factors in determining how diagnoses are made. Still, there is ample evidence from neuroscience that basic skills reflect complex and specialized neural processes and that developmental abnormalities selectively impact particular skills.

Then there are the debates on reading that stretch across decades – sometimes termed reading wars. The John Hopkins University College of Education Best Evidence Library places programs as different in approach as Reading Recovery, Success for All, and Targeted Reading Intervention under the ‘strong evidence’ category ( http://www.bestevidence.org/reading/strug/top.htm ). Though there are bodies of research to back up different strategies and approaches, here again one may hear people oversimplify opposing ideological views, minimize evidence, and say, "There's no research" – essentially stating that those with other views are acting on a belief system for which there is no body of credible research.

Basic Resources for Using Educational Research

The National Education Association NEA has provided annotated links to a number of sites that can boost teacher’s research skill and comfort level ( http://www.nea.org/home/awareness-of-education-research-methods.htm ).

From the House of Commons Library in the UK, comes a statistics guide focused on spin: one focused not on research collection but how it’s used. More goes on than just ‘cherry picking’ of studies. Examples include citing facts without adequate context, drawing conclusions that overstep the facts presented, and using statistics and language for dramatic effect. Something as simple as expressing risk reduction as a percent can have a big effect on readers’ perceptions. When the data is small those percentages may not mean a lot.

The NEPC Think Twice Think Tank Review Project reviews research: what is sound and what may mislead policymakers ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/think-tank-review-project ).

Research literacy helps professionals respond to hot button issues. The NEA has provided a link to an older professional development course ( http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/NEA-Readings-in-Educational-Research.pdf ). Teachers can explore research through a perennial issue: class size. The data goes back about 35 years. Still, teachers get to move from awareness that class size affects their own morale to a consideration of the validity and impact of different types of research.

This is of course an area of continued debate. The National Education Policy Center has pointed to major methodological flaws in some class size research; a number for example, control for per-pupil costs when supposedly comparing the effects of different class sizes, even though staffing is responsible for the majority of costs school systems incur ( https://www.classsizematters.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/207632499-Pb-Class-Size.pdf ). The NEPC notes that certain types of research (e.g. cross-national studies) are less predictive of the results of policy change.

Qualitative Research

Some teachers have more of an affinity for qualitative research than quantitative research: research that takes into account actual classroom data that is too complex to reduce entirely to figures.

Action research may be of particular interest to practitioners. Action research is focused on generating quick solutions to problems close at hand. Teachers may already be engaged in it to some degree, but coursework can improve the ability to collect and analyze data.

Graduate Study

Teachers have many reasons to further their education – and many things to consider when selecting their programs. Those extra semester hours may boost their salary as well as allow them to increase their knowledge. One thing a teacher generally gets more of in a master's program than in an endorsement program: research.

The following are among the research-related courses that may be offered through a College of Education:

• Introduction to qualitative and quantitative research methodologies
• Surveys of research in particular sub-disciplines (e.g. literacy)
• Survey design
• Introductory, intermediate, and advanced statistics
• Independent research/ thesis

Programs of study that are heavy on research methodologies are generally designed for teachers who are considering primary careers outside the classroom (whether for a public school system or outside organization). They might, for example, have strong interest in research analysis or program design.

Even a master's program that is designed to deepen or broaden practitioner knowledge may include multiple research courses. One may, for example, complete a course in research trends in the particular discipline, an overview of research design, and a thesis or capstone project. Some programs that lead to initial licensure even include a thesis.

Colleges sometimes publish graduate student theses, offering potential students a glimpse of the diversity of issues and practices they can explore.

The following are from California State University-Northridge ( http://scholarworks.csun.edu/handle/10211.2/1407 ).

The following are from the Moravian College Master of Education program: ( https://www.moravian.edu/education/research/med-thesis ).

• Resources for Teachers
• Teacher Housing Programs and Incentives
• Teacher Loan Forgiveness Programs
• Online Teaching Endorsement
• Early Childhood Education Certification
• Alternative Teacher Certification
• Assessment Process for Prospective Teachers
• Teacher Advancement Opportunities
• Teacher Certification vs Endorsement
• First Day of School for Teachers
• Recent Articles
• Why Kindergartners Haven’t Lost a Year of School
• What a Policy Maker Learns from a Day as a Substitute
• Restorative Justice in the Schools
• Children Who Thrive in Online Learning: What Works and Why
• One-On-One Technology in the Classroom
• Keeping Things Moving: Classroom Management Considerations for the Covid-19 Era and Beyond
• Choosing In-Person or Online School: Racial Divides
• Trials of Teaching: Overcoming Back-to-School Challenges in a Changed World
• School Districts Implementing Virtual Learning Academies
• Student Substance Use Update
• The Missing Students of Covid-19
• Teachers in Low Income Schools: Supports and Incentives
• Education Trends: Change and Continuity
• Hot Issues for Teachers: Class Size
• Teaching in Dual Language Programs
• Montessori: An Option for Public School Teachers
• Teaching Inspiration: First Grade in Seattle
• Educating All Children
• Why Tough Schools Need More than Band-Aids
• Teaching Math or Science: Is the Shortest Path the Best?
• Teaching World Language and Immersion
• Teaching Issues: At Risk Boys and Gender Equity
• Security Guards in the Schools
• Recent Career Articles
• Teacher Side Jobs
• From Paraprofessional to Teacher
• Virtual Teaching Preparation: Programs and Certification

Research Literacy

A primer for understanding and using research, jeffrey s. beaudry and lynne miller.

• Chapter appendices featuring sample responses to the exercises. -->
• sample chapter
• about the authors Jeffrey S. Beaudry , PhD, is Professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Southern Maine. His interests include visual learning, assessment literacy, formative assessment, action research, science literacy, educational technology, and program evaluation. The author or coauthor of more than 20 journal articles and book chapters, Dr. Beaudry teaches research methods courses online and in blended media formats. Lynne Miller , EdD, is Professor Emerita of Educational Leadership at the University of Southern Maine, where she held the Walter E. Russell Chair in Education and Philosophy and directed the Southern Maine Partnership. An experienced teacher and leader in K-12 public schools and higher education, she is committed to linking theory and practice and to promoting research literacy for practitioners. Dr. Miller has authored or coauthored seven books and more than 50 articles. She continues to be engaged as a scholar and activist for equality in education. -->

Save 15% + Free Shipping on Online Orders!

• Offer does not apply to self-help & general interest titles.
• Applies only to prepaid online orders from the U.S., Canada, and other non-distributed countries , using promotional code SPRING2024 .
• Discount is applied to the suggested retail prices that we believe to be charged by retailers.
• You can take advantage of other special offers by entering a different promotional code in the shopping cart.
• You may return Guilford books (undamaged) within 30 days of receipt for a full refund.
• Not applicable to journal renewals.
• Offer expires May 30, 2024.

Free Shipping:

• Applies only to prepaid online orders from U.S. customers.
• Packages sent via USPS Media Mail. You may choose to pay for rush shipping instead.
• Shipping charges to Canada are a flat $10.00 per order via CanPar.

Teaching Research Literacy

At Grinnell College Libraries, we believe the term "research literacy" best defines our work of helping students learn the skills and concepts underlying successful academic inquiry.  To this end, we draw from a multifaceted base in our research literacy work:

From the  Grinnell College Mission Statement :

"The College aims to graduate women and men who can think clearly, who can speak and write persuasively and even eloquently, who can evaluate critically both their own and others' ideas, who can acquire new knowledge, and who are prepared in life and work to use their knowledge and their abilities to serve the common good."

From the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education

Grinnell’s librarians, faculty members and research tutors can help students consider and learn the following principles of academic research:

• Authority Is Constructed and Contextual
• Information Creation as a Process
• Information Has Value
• Research as Inquiry
• Scholarship as Conversation
• Searching as Strategic Exploration

And our own Statement on Research Literacy:

Research literacy is a set of interdisciplinary, transferable competencies that help individuals determine and diminish knowledge gaps. To be research literate is to know methods of inquiry, to possess effective research skills, to navigate all formats of publication fluently, to recognize one's personal limitations and how to overcome them, to know where to start, to discern when to consult a librarian or other expert for assistance, and to communicate ideas effectively. It includes the ability to articulate a research information need, to construct complex search statements, to assess the relevance and authority of found documents, and to be capable of synthesizing existing content in order to explore the parameters of her or his research question. Research literacy is the sum of the attributes required of lifelong learners.

The Librarians of Grinnell College seek to develop research literacy skills in concert with discipline-based learning. Librarians consult and collaborate with classroom faculty to help integrate research literacy competencies into courses and sequence research literacy skills throughout students' academic careers. Through this partnership, students will cultivate research literacy skills, use core resources, and search for information with increased facility, improving their performance in academic work and beyond.

We use cookies to enable essential services and functionality on our site, enhance your user experience, provide better service through personalized content, collect data on how visitors interact with our site, and enable advertising services.

To accept the use of cookies and continue on to the site, click "I Agree." For more information about our use of cookies and how to opt out, please refer to our website privacy policy.

The Palgrave Handbook of Teacher Education Research pp 1–26 Cite as

Developing a “Research Literacy Way of Thinking” in Initial Teacher Education: Students as Co-researchers

• Tone M. Eriksen 2 &
• Lisbeth M. Brevik   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2478-5677 2  
• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 06 December 2022

63 Accesses

1 Citations

Recent trends within teacher education have promoted the development of students’ research literacy during initial teacher education (ITE) and beyond. However, knowledge is lacking about how to operationalize research literacy and, in particular, how research literacy is implemented in ITE. This chapter discusses how research literacy can enrich ITE by allowing for the development of what has been coined here as “a research literacy way of thinking”.

Research literacy is herein conceptualized as more than an engagement with research through research-based education. The argument is that to enrich the understanding of how to develop research literacy in teaching and teacher education, emphasis should be placed on connecting research and education by actively engaging students in research, for instance, by inviting students to become co-researchers in ongoing projects as part of their education. Research literacy is outlined as a key construct before delving into research engagement , competence as continuum and co-research as key issues facing ITE researchers and practitioners. Together, these key issues are framed as “a research literacy way of thinking”. Used as an empirical lens, the co-research model is presented as a way to develop research literacy, comprising co-research in dissertations, in university seminars, as formative assessment and as data collection. This illustrates how “a research literacy way of thinking” has the potential to connect research and education by providing opportunities to develop situation-specific skills to connect student teachers’ dispositions and school performance during ITE.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Angouri, J. (2021). Reimagining research-led education in a digital age (The Guild Insight Paper No. 3). The Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities. https://doi.org/10.48350/156297

BERA-RSA. (2013). Research and the teaching profession – Building the capacity for a self-improving education system . https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/bera-rsa-research-teaching-profession-full-report-for-web-2.pdf https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/bera-rsa-research-teaching-profession-full-report-for-web-2.pdf

Blömeke, S., & Kaiser, G. (2017). Understanding the development of teachers’ professional competencies as personally, situationally, and societally determined. In D. J. Clandinin & J. Husu (Eds.), International handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 783–802). Sage.

Google Scholar  

Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J. E., & Shavelson, R. (2015). Beyond dichotomies: Competence viewed as a continuum. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223 , 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000194

Article   Google Scholar  

Borg, S. (2010). Language teacher research engagement. Language Teaching, 43 (4), 391–429.

Brevik, L. M. (2020, September 2). Utdanningsprisen 2020: Studenter som medforskere. Hvordan involvere masterstudenter i forskningsprosjekter og som medforfattere? [Lecture]. University of Oslo.

Brevik, L. M. (2022). Medforskning i lærerutdanningen [Co-research in teacher education]. Bedre Skole, 1 , 52–57.

Brevik, L. M., Blikstad-Balas, M., & Engelien, K. L. (2017). Integrating assessment for learning in the teacher education programme at the University of Oslo. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24 (2), 164–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2016.1239611

Brevik, L. M., Gunnulfsen, A. E., & Renzulli, J. (2018). Student teachers’ practice and experience with differentiated instruction for students with higher learning potential. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71 , 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.003

Brevik, L. M., Gudmundsdottir, G. B., Lund, A., & Strømme, T. A. (2019). Transformative agency in teacher education: Fostering professional digital competence. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86 , 102875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.07.005

Brevik, L. M., Reedy, G., Breivik, J., Thue, T., & Barreng, R. (2022, March 28). Driving pedagogical innovation . Circle U. [Café seminar] University of Oslo. https://www.uio.no/english/about/news-and-events/events/circle-u/circle-u-cafe-connecting-research-and-education.html

Brevik, L. M., & Rindal, U. E. (2020). Language use in the classroom: Balancing target language exposure with the need for other languages. TESOL Quarterly, 54 (4), 925–953. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.564

Bullock, S. M. (2016). Teacher candidates as researchers. In J. Loughran & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International handbook of teacher education (pp. 379–403). Springer Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cain, T. (2015). Teachers’ engagement with published research: Addressing the knowledge problem. Curriculum Journal, 26 (3), 488–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2015.1020820

Cain, T. (2016). Research utilization and the struggle for the teacher’s soul: A narrative review. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39 (5), 616–629. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1252912

Dagenais, C., Lysenko, L., Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Ramde, J., & Janosz, M. (2012). Use of research-based information by school practitioners and determinants of use: A review of empirical research. Evidence & Policy, 8 (3), 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426412X654031

Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40 (3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399

Evans, C., Waring, M., & Christodoulou, A. (2017). Building teachers’ research literacy: Integrating practice and research. Research Papers in Education, 32 (4), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2017

Groß Ophoff, J., & Rott, B. (2017). Educational research literacy. Journal for Educational Research Online, 9 (2), 5–10.

Gutman, M., & Genser, L. (2017). How pre-service teachers internalize the link between research literacy and pedagogy. Educational Media International, 54 (1), 63–76.

Han, J., & Schuurmans-Stekhoven, J. (2017). Enhancement of higher degree candidates’ research literacy: A pilot study of international students. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 26 , 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0324-z

Hargreaves, D. H. (1996). Teaching as a research-based profession: Possibilities and prospects. Teacher Training Agency.

Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry . Higher education academy. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/developing-undergraduate-research-and-inquiry

Jemsy, A. U. (2018). Educational research literacy: Meanings and components. Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 1 (1), 126–134.

Jenset, I. S., Klette, K., & Hammerness, K. (2018). Grounding teacher education in practice around the world: An examination of teacher education coursework in teacher education programs in Finland, Norway, and the United States. Journal of Teacher Education, 69 (2), 184–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117728248

Leat, D., Reid, A., & Lofthouse, R. (2015). Teachers’ experiences of engagement with and in educational research: What can be learned from teachers’ views? Oxford Review of Education, 41 (2), 270–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1021193

McGregor, S. L. T. (2018). Critical research literacy. In Understanding and evaluating research. A Critical Guide . SAGE Publications.

Menter, I., & Flores, M. A. (2021). Connecting research and professionalism in teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44 (1), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1856811

Rott, B., & Leuders, T. (2017). Mathematical competencies in higher education: Epistemological beliefs and critical thinking in different strands of pre-service teacher education. Journal for Educational Research Online, 9 (2017) 2 , 115–136. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:14899

Rueß, J., Gess, C., & Deicke, W. (2016). Forschendes Lernen und forschungsbezogene Lehre – empirisch gestützte Systematisierung des Forschungsbezugs hochschulischer Lehre. ZFHE, 11 (2), 23–44.

Shank, G., & Brown, L. (2007). Exploring educational research literacy (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203943786

Book   Google Scholar  

Tatto, M. T. (2015). The role of research in the policy and practice of quality teacher education: An international review. Oxford Review of Education, 41 (2), 171–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1017405

Tatto, M. T., & Furlong, J. (2015). Research and teacher education: Papers from the BERA-RSA inquiry. Oxford Review of Education, 41 (2), 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.101404

UNESCO. (2021, April 7). Literacy . https://en.unesco.org/themes/literacy

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Tone M. Eriksen & Lisbeth M. Brevik

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisbeth M. Brevik .

Section Editor information

University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Trevor Mutton

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Eriksen, T.M., Brevik, L.M. (2022). Developing a “Research Literacy Way of Thinking” in Initial Teacher Education: Students as Co-researchers. In: The Palgrave Handbook of Teacher Education Research . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59533-3_9-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59533-3_9-1

Received : 09 April 2022

Accepted : 04 July 2022

Published : 06 December 2022

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-59533-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-59533-3

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Education Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 15 March 2022

A review of academic literacy research development: from 2002 to 2019

• Dongying Li   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6835-5129 1  

Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education volume  7 , Article number:  5 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

16k Accesses

12 Citations

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

Academic literacy as an embodiment of higher-order language and thinking skills within the academic community bears huge significance for language socialization, resource distribution and even power disposition within the larger sociocultural context. However, although the notion of academic literacy has been initiated for more than twenty years, there still lacks a clear definition and operationalization of the construct. The study conducted a systematic review of academic literacy research based on 94 systematically selected research papers on academic literacy from 2002 to 2019 from multiple databases. These papers were then coded respectively in terms of their research methods, types (interventionistic or descriptive), settings and research focus. Findings demonstrate (1) the multidimensionality of academic literacy construct; (2) a growing number of mixed methods interventionistic studies in recent years; and (3) a gradual expansion of academic literacy research in ESL and EFL settings. These findings can inform the design and implementation of future academic literacy research and practices.

Introduction

Academic literacy as an embodiment of higher order thinking and learning not only serves as a prerequisite for knowledge production and communication within the disciplines but also bears huge significance for individual language and cognitive development (Flowerdew, 2013 ; Moje, 2015 ). Recent researches on academic literacy gradually moved from regarding literacy as discrete, transferrable skills to literacy as a social practice, closely associated with disciplinary epistemology and identity (Gee, 2015 ). The view of literacy learning as both a textual and contextual practice is largely driven by the changing educational goal under the development of twenty-first century knowledge economy, which requires learners to be active co-constructors of knowledge rather than passive recipients (Gebhard, 2004 ). Academic literacy development in this sense is considered as a powerful tool for knowledge generation, communication and transformation.

However, up-till-now, there still seems to lack a clear definition and operationalization of the academic literacy construct that can guide effective pedagogy (Wingate, 2018 ). This can possibly lead to a peril of regarding academic literacy as an umbrella term, with few specifications on the potential of the construct to afford actual teaching and learning practices. In this sense, a systematic review in terms of how the construct was defined, operationalized and approached in actual research settings can embody huge potential in bridging the gap between theory and practice.

Based on these concerns, the study conducts a critical review of academic literacy research over the past twenty years in terms of the construct of the academic literacy, their methods, approaches, settings and keywords. A mixed methods approach is adopted to combine qualitative coding with quantitative analysis to investigate diachronic changes. Results of the study can enrich the understandings of the construct of academic literacy and its relations to actual pedagogical practices while shedding light on future directions of research.

Literature review

Academic literacy as a set of literacy skills specialized for content learning is closely associated with individual higher order thinking and advanced language skill development (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008 ). Recent researches suggest that the development of the advanced literacy skills can only be achieved via students’ active engagement in authentic and purposeful disciplinary learning activities, imbued with meaning, value and emotions (Moje et al., 2008 ). Therefore, contrary to the ‘autonomous model’ of literacy development which views literacy as a set of discrete, transferrable reading and writing skills, academic literacy development is viewed as participation, socialization and transformation achieved via individual’s expanding involvement in authentic and meaningful disciplinary learning inquiries (Duff, 2010 ; Russell, 2009 ). Academic literacy development in this sense is viewed as a powerful mediation for individual socialization into the academic community, which is in turn closely related to issues of power disposition, resource distribution and social justice (Broom, 2004 ). In this sense, academic literacy development is by no means only a cognitive issue but situated social and cultural practices widely shaped by power, structure and ideology (Lillis & Scott, 2007 ; Wenger, 1998 ).

The view of literacy learning as a social practice is typically reflected in genre and the ‘academic literacies’ model. Genre, as a series of typified, recurring social actions serves as a powerful semiotic tool for individuals to act together meaningfully and purposefully (Fang & Coatoam, 2013 ). Academic literacy development in this sense is viewed as individual’s gradual appropriation of the shared cultural values and communicative repertoires within the disciplines. These routinized practices of knowing, doing and being not only serve to guarantee the hidden quality of disciplinary knowledge production but also entail a frame of action for academic community functioning (Fisher, 2019 ; Wenger, 1998 ). Therefore, academic literacy development empowers individual thinking and learning in pursuit of effective community practices.

Complementary to the genre approach, the ‘academic literacies’ model “views student writing and learning as issues at the level of epistemology and identities rather than skill or socialization” from the lens of critical literacy, power and ideology (Lea & Street, 1998 , p. 159). Drawing from ‘New Literacies’, the ‘academic literacies’ model approaches literacy development within the power of social discourse with the hope to open up possibilities for innovations and change (Lea & Street, 2006 ). Academic literacy development in this sense is regarded as a powerful tool for access, communication and identification within the academic community, and is therefore closely associated with issues of social justice and equality (Gee, 2015 ).

The notion of genre and ‘academic literacies’ share multiple resemblances with English for Academic Purposes (EAP), which according to Charles ( 2013 , p. 137) ‘is concerned with researching and teaching the English needed by those who use the language to perform academic tasks’. As can be seen, both approaches regard literacy learning as highly purposeful and contextual, driven by the practical need to ‘foregrounding the tacit nature of academic conventions’ (Lillis & Tuck, 2016 , p. 36). However, while EAP is more text-driven, ‘academic literacies’ are more practice-oriented (Lillis & Tuck, 2016 ). That is rather than focusing on the ‘normative’ descriptions of the academic discourse, the ‘academic literacies’ model lays more emphasis on learner agency, personal experiences and sociocultural diversity, regarded as a valuable source for individual learning and the transformation of community practices (Lillis & Tuck, 2016 ). This view of literacy learning as meaningful social participation and transformation is now gradually adopted in the approach of critical EAP (Charles, 2013 ).

In sum, all these approaches regard academic literacy development as multi-dimensional, encompassing both linguistic, cognitive and sociocultural practices (Cumming, 2013 ). However, up-till-now, there still seems to lack a clear definition and operationalization of the academic literacy construct that can guide concrete pedagogies. Short and Fitzsimmons ( 2007 , p. 2) provided a tentative definition of academic literacy from the following aspects:

Includes reading, writing, and oral discourse for school Varies from subject to subject Requires knowledge of multiple genres of text, purposes for text use, and text media Is influenced by students’ literacies in contexts outside of school Is influenced by students’ personal, social, and cultural experiences.

This definition has specified the main features of academic literacy as both a cognitive and sociocultural construct; however, more elaborations may be needed to further operationalize the construct in real educational and research settings. Drawing from this, Allison and Harklau ( 2010 ) and Fang ( 2012 ) specified three general approaches to academic literacy research, namely: the language, cognitive (disciplinary) and the sociocultural approach, which will be further elaborated in the following.

The language-based approach is mainly text-driven and lays special emphasis on the acquisition of language structures, skills and functions characteristic of content learning (Allison & Harklau, 2010 , p. 134; Uccelli et al., 2014 ), and highlights explicit instruction on academic language features and discourse structures (Hyland, 2008 ). This notion is widely influenced by Systemic Functional Linguistics which specifies the intricate connections between text and context, or linguistic choices and text meaning-making potential under specific communicative intentions and purposes (Halliday, 2000 ). This approach often highlights explicit consciousness-raising activities in text deconstruction as embodied in the genre pedagogy, facilitated by corpus-linguistic research tools to unveil structures and patterns of academic language use (Charles, 2013 ).

One typical example is data driven learning (DDL) or ‘any use of a language corpus by second or foreign language learners’ (Anthony, 2017 , p. 163). This approach encourages ‘inductive, self-directed’ language learning under the guidance of the teacher to examine and explore language use in real academic settings. These inquiry-based learning processes not only make language learning meaningful and purposeful but also help form more strategic and autonomous learners (Anthony, 2017 ).

In sum, the language approach intends to unveil the linguistic and rhetorical structure of academic discourse to make it accessible and available for reflection. However, academic literacy development entails more than the acquisition of academic language skills but also the use of academic language as tool for content learning and scientific reasoning (Bailey et al., 2007 ), which is closely connected to individual cognitive development, knowledge construction and communication within the disciplines (Fang, 2012 ).

Therefore, the cognitive or disciplinary-based approach views academic literacy development as higher order thinking and learning in academic socialization in pursuit of deep, contextualized meaning (Granville & Dison, 2005 ). This notion highlights the cognitive functions of academic literacy as deeply related to disciplinary epistemologies and identities, widely shaped by disciplinary-specific ways of knowing, doing and thinking (Moje, 2015 ). Just as mentioned by Shanahan ( 2012 , p. 70), ‘approaching a text with a particular point of view affects how individuals read and learn from texts’, academic literacy development is an integrated language and cognitive endeavor.

One typical example in this approach is the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) initiated by Chamot and O’Malley ( 1987 ), proposing the development of a curriculum that integrates mainstream content subject learning, academic language development and learning strategy instruction. This approach embeds language learning within an authentic, purposeful content learning environment, facilitated by strategy training. Another example is the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP model) developed by Echevarría et al. ( 2013 ). Sheltered instruction, according to Short et al. ( 2011 , p. 364) refers to ‘a subject class such as mathematics, science, or history taught through English wherein many or all of the students are second language learners’. This approach integrates language and content learning and highlights language learning for subject matter learning purposes (Allison & Harklau, 2010 ). To make it more specifically, the SIOP model promotes the use of instructional scaffolding to make content comprehensible while advancing students’ skills in a new language (Echevarría et al., 2013 , p. 18). Over the decade, this notion integrating language and cognitive development within the disciplines has gradually gained its prominence in bilingual and multilingual education (Goldenberg, 2010 ).

Complementary to the language and cognitive approach, the sociocultural approach contends literacy learning as a social issue, widely shaped by power, structure and ideology (Gee, 2015 ; Lea & Street, 2006 ). This approach highlights the role of learner agency and identity in transforming individual/community learning practices (Lillis & Scott, 2007 ). Academic literacy in this sense is viewed as a sociocultural construct imbued with meaning, value and emotions as a gateway for social access, power distribution and meaning reconstruction (Moje et al., 2008 ).

However, despite the various approaches to academic literacy teaching and learning, up-till-now, there still seems to be a paucity of research that can integrate these dimensions into effective intervention and research practices. Current researches on academic literacy development either take an interventionistic or descriptive approach. The former usually takes place within a concrete educational setting under the intention to uncover effective community teaching and learning practices (Engestrom, 1999 ). The later, on the contrary, often takes a more naturalistic or ethnographic approach with the hope to provide an in-depth account of individual/community learning practices (Lillis & Scott, 2007 ). These descriptions are often aligned to larger sociocultural contexts and the transformative role of learner agency in collective, object-oriented activities (Engeström, 1987 ; Wenger, 1998 ).

These different approaches to academic literacy development are influenced by the varying epistemological stances of the researcher and specific research purposes. However, all these approaches have pointed to a common conception of academic literacy as a multidimensional construct, widely shaped by the sociocultural and historical contexts. This complex and dynamic nature of literacy learning not only enables the constant innovation and expansion of academic literacy construct but also opens up the possibilities to challenge the preconceived notions of relevant research and pedagogical practices.

Based on these concerns, the study intends to conduct a critical review of the twenty years’ development of academic literacy research in terms of their definition of the academic literacy construct, research approaches, methodologies, settings and keywords with the hope to uncover possible developmental trends in interaction. Critical reflections are drawn from this systematic review to shed light on possible future research directions.

Through this review, we intended the address the following three research questions:

What is the construct of academic literacy in different approaches of academic literacy research?

What are the possible patterns of change in term of academic literacy research methods, approaches and settings over the past twenty years?

What are the main focuses of research within each approach of academic literacy development?

Methodology

The study adopts mixed methods to provide a systematic review of academic literacy research over the past twenty years. The rationale for choosing a mixed method is to integrate qualitative text analysis on the features of academic literacy research with quantitative corpus analysis applied on the initial coding results to unveil possible developmental trends.

Inclusion criteria

To locate academic literacy studies over the past twenty years, the researcher conducted a keyword search of ‘academic literacy’ within a wide range of databases within the realm of linguistic and education. For quality control, only peer-reviewed articles from the Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science) were selected. This initial selection criteria yielded 127 papers containing a keyword of ‘academic literacy’ from a range of high-quality journals in linguistics and education from a series of databases, including: Social Science Premium Collection, ERIC (U.S. Dept. of Education), ERIC (ProQuest), Taylor & Francis Online—Journals, Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts, Informa—Taylor & Francis (CrossRef), Arts & Humanities Citation Index (Web of Science), ScienceDirect Journals (Elsevier), ScienceDirect (Elsevier B.V.), Elsevier (CrossRef), ProQuest Education Journals, Sage Journals (Sage Publications), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, JSTOR Archival Journals, Wiley Online Library etc. Among these results, papers from Journal of Second Language Writing, Language and Education, English for Specific Purposes, Teaching in Higher Education, Journal of English for Academic Purposes and Higher Education Research & Development are among the most frequent.

Based on these initial results, the study conducted a second-round detailed sample selection. The researcher manually excluded the irrelevant papers which are either review articles, papers written in languages other than English or not directly related to literacy learning in educational settings. After the second round of data selection, a final database of 94 high-quality papers on academic literacy research within the time span between 2002 and 2019 were generated. However, considering the time of observation in this study, only researches conducted before October 2019 were included, which leads to a slight decrease in the total number of researches accounted in that year.

Coding procedure

Coding of the study was conducted from multiple perspectives. Firstly, the study specified three different approaches to academic literacy study based on their different understandings and conceptualizations of the construct (Allison & Harklau, 2010 ). Based on this initial classification, the study then conducted a new round of coding on the definitions of academic literacy, research methods, settings within each approach to look for possible interactions. Finally, a quantitative keywords frequency analysis was conducted in respective approaches to reveal the possible similarities and differences in their research focus. Specific coding criteria are specified as the following.

Firstly, drawing from Allison and Harklau ( 2010 ), the study classified all the researches in the database into three broad categories: language, disciplinary and sociocultural. While the language approach mainly focuses on the development of general or disciplinary-specific academic language features (Hyland, 2008 ), the disciplinary approach views academic literacy development as deeply embedded in the inquiry of disciplinary-specific values, cultures and epistemologies and can only be achieved via individual’s active engagement in disciplinary learning and inquiry practices (Moje, 2015 ). The sociocultural approach, largely influenced by the ‘academic literacies’ model (Lea & Street, 1998 ) contends that academic literacy development entails more than individual socialization into the academic community but is also closely related to issues as power, identity and epistemology (Gee, 2015 ; Lillis, 2008 ).

Based on this initial coding, the study then identified the research methods in all studies within each approach as either quantitative, qualitative or mixed method. Drawing from Creswell ( 2014 ), quantitative research is defined as ‘an approach for testing objective theories by examining the relationship among variables’ (p. 3) and is often quantified or numbered using specific statistical procedures. The use of this approach in academic literacy studies are often closely associated with corpus-driven text analysis, developmental studies, academic language assessment or large-scale intervention studies. This approach is particularly useful in unveiling the possible developmental effects of effective interventions but may fall short to account for the process of development which are often highly idiosyncratic and contextual. The use of qualitative methods can to some extent address this concern, as they often intend to explore deep contextualized meanings that individuals or groups ascribe to a social problem (Creswell, 2014 ). Drawing from the notion of literacy learning as a social practice, qualitative methods and especially linguistic ethnographies are highly encouraged in early academic literacy studies for their potential to provide detailed descriptions of a phenomenon through prolonged engagement (Lillis, 2008 ). In complementary, the use of mixed methods integrates both quantitative and qualitative data to ‘provide a more complete understanding of a research problem than either approach alone’ (Creswell, 2014 , p. 3). This approach embodies huge potentialities in academic literacy research as it can align teaching and learning processes with possible developmental outcomes, which not only preserves the contextualized and practice-oriented nature of academic literacy research but also makes their results generalizable.

Secondly, the study classified all the researches into two types: interventionistic and descriptive. The former entails an intentional pedagogical intervention with an aim to improve individual and community learning practices. The latter, however, tends to adopt a more naturalistic approach under an intention to unveil the complex and dynamic interactions between academic literacy development and the wider sociocultural context. These two approaches complement each other in academic literacy researches in real educational settings, serving distinct purposes.

Thirdly, for a closer inspection of the context of research, the study specifies three general research settings: English as a native language (ENL), English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) (Kirkpatrick, 2007 ). According to Kirkpatrick ( 2007 , p. 27), ‘ENL is spoken in countries where English is the primary language of the great majority of the population’ where ‘English is spoken and used as a native language’. ESL in contrast, ‘is spoken in countries where English is an important and usually official language, but not the main language of the country’ (Kirkpatrick, 2007 , p. 27). These are also countries that are previously colonized by the English-speaking countries, often with a diverse linguistic landscape and complicated language policies (Broom, 2004 ). Therefore, language choices in these countries are often closely connected to issues as power, identity and justice. Academic literacy development in this respect serves both to guarantee social resource distribution and to empower individuals to change. Finally, ‘EFL occurs in countries where English is not actually used or spoken very much in the normal course of daily life’ (Kirkpatrick, 2007 , p. 27). Within these settings, for example in China, English language education used to serve only for its own purposes (Wen, 2019 ). However, dramatic changes have been going on these days in pursuit of a language-content integrated curriculum to achieve advanced literacy and cognitive skills development. (Zhang & Li, 2019 ; Zhang & Sun, 2014 ).

Finally, the study conducted detailed keywords analysis in terms of their frequency within each approach (language, disciplinary and sociocultural). Based on these, the researcher then merged the raw frequencies of similar constructs for example: testing and assessment, teaching and pedagogy to get a better representation of the results. This analysis reveals the focus of research within each approach and helps promote further operationalization of the academic literacy construct.

The coding was conducted by two independent coders, with coder one in charge of the coding of all data, and coder two responsible for 30% of the coding of the total data. Coder one, also the main researcher trained coder two in terms of the coding procedures in detail with ample practices until the threshold of intercoder reliability was reached. Coder two then coded the remaining 30% of the data independently with an interrater reliability of over 80%. The coding was done on an excel worksheet which makes data access and retrieval readily available. The statistical software R was used for keywords frequency analysis.

Data analyses in the study mainly involve three parts: (1) specifying the construct and operationalization of the academic literacy research; (2) investigating the dynamic interactions among research approaches, methods and settings; (3) identifying the focus of research within each approach through keywords analysis. The following parts deal with these questions respectively.

Definition and operationalization of the academic literacy construct

The study extracted all the explicit definitions of academic literacy within each approach (language, disciplinary and sociocultural) and conducted detailed thematic analysis recategorizing them into different themes (see Table 1 ).

Table 1 shows that the definitions of academic literacy vary with respect to the different conceptualizations and epistemologies of academic literacy development within each approach. For instance, the language-based approach mainly defines academic literacy from two aspects: (1) language use in academic settings; and (2) language competence required for academic study (Baumann & Graves, 2010 ; Sebolai, 2016 ). The former takes a relatively narrow view of academic literacy development as learners’ gradual appropriation of the linguistic and rhetorical features of the academic discourse (Schleppegrell, 2013 ; Uccelli et al., 2014 ). The latter in complementary specifies academic literacy development for content learning purposes, entailing the kind of competence students need to possess for academic study (Kabelo & Sebolai, 2016 ). Academic language learning in this sense does not serve for its own sake but is considered as a tool for content learning and cognitive development. Overall, the language-based approach to academic literacy development lays much emphasis on the acquisition of academic language features which serves as a prerequisite for learners to examine and explore the meaning-making potential of the academic language (Schleppegrell, 2013 ).

The disciplinary-based approach on the other hand focuses on an integrated development of advanced language and cognitive skills within the disciplines, with language learning closely intertwined with the appropriation of disciplinary-specific values, cultures and practices. In this sense, academic literacy development is viewed as a dynamic process of higher-order language socialization in pursuit of deep, collaborative contextual meaning (Lea & Street, 2006 ). During this process, academic literacy development goes hand in hand with cognitive development and knowledge production within the disciplines, along with learners’ gradually expanding involvement with the disciplinary-specific ways of doing knowing and thinking (Granville & Dison, 2005 ). Other researches within this approach regard academic literacy development as more than language socialization but widely shaped and constrained by issues of power, epistemology and identity (Lea & Street, 1998 ). This definition is also widely used in the sociocultural approach, regarding academic literacy development as a sociocultural enterprise, widely related to the identification, reification and transformation of the social practices (Wenger, 1998 ).

The sociocultural approach also known as the ‘academic literacies’ model views literacy learning at the level of power struggle, structure reconstruction and social justice (Gee, 2015 ). Academic literacy development in this sense is not only a shared repertoire for individual access to social communities but also a tool for emancipation and transformation, which is object-oriented, practice-driven and value-laden (Lillis & Scott, 2007 ).

Academic literacy research approaches, methods and settings

The study also analyzed changes in the approaches, methods and settings of academic literacy research over the past twenty years. Table 2 and Fig.  1 in the following present the number of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies within the language-based, disciplinary-based and sociocultural approach respectively.

Methods approach interaction in academic literacy studies

Table 2 and Fig.  1 show that the research methods chosen tend to vary with the approaches. To begin with, the number of qualitative studies generally surpassed the quantitative ones in both the disciplinary and the sociocultural approach, especially in the latter where qualitative studies dominated. However, their numbers tended to decrease in the past five years giving way to the rising mixed method researches. This was particularly evident in the growing number of mixed-methods language and disciplinary studies observed after 2015, which can also be an indication of the emergence of more robust designs in relevant educational researches. Finally, while the sociocultural approach was mainly featured by qualitative research, research methods in the language approach were more evenly distributed, which can possibly be accounted by its relatively longer research tradition and more well-established research practices.

In addition, the study also specified changes in the number of descriptive and intervention studies each year (see Table 2 , Fig.  2 ). Results showed that: (1) generally there were more qualitative researches in both the intervention and descriptive approach compared to the quantitative ones, although their numbers decreased in the past five years, especially in terms of the number of qualitative intervention studies; (2) a growing number of mixed-methods intervention studies were perceived in recent years. The findings echoed Scammacca et al.’s ( 2016 ) a century progress of reading intervention studies, indicating the emergence of more ‘standard, structured and standardized group interventions’ with ‘more robust design’ compared to the previous ‘individualized intervention case studies’ (p. 780). This developmental trend can indicate a possible methodological shift towards more large-scale intervention studies in the future based on recursive and reflective pedagogical practices. For more detailed descriptions of the methods-approach interaction, the study further investigated changes in the number of descriptive and intervention studies within each approach (see Table 3 , Fig.  3 ).

Diachronic changes in academic literacy research methods

Methods-approach interaction in academic literacy studies

Table 3 suggests that while the sociocultural approach tended to be more descriptive, the language and disciplinary approaches were more likely to interventionist. Another developmental trend was a dramatic decrease in descriptive language studies after 2015, giving way to an evident increase in intervention studies. This phenomenon entails an intricate connection among academic literacy development, education and pedagogy, indicating that language socialization does not come naturally, and well-designed, explicit pedagogical interventions are often in need.

Furthermore, the study tracked diachronic changes in the settings of academic literacy research. Results show that among the 94 selected academic literacy researches, 81 take place in a higher education context, accounting for about 86% of the total. Only 10 out of the 13 remaining researches take place in secondary school settings and 3 in elementary school settings. These results suggest that up-till-now, discussions on academic literacy development are mainly restricted to higher education settings, closely linked to the learning of advanced language and thinking skills. However, future researches may also need to attend to academic literacy development in secondary or primary school settings, especially in face of the growing disciplinary learning demands for adolescents (Dyhaylongsod et al., 2015 ).

Finally, the study recorded the specific countries where academic literacy studies take place, among which South Africa stands as the highest with 22 studies amounting to 20.95% of the total, followed by the United States (17.14%), United Kingdom (12.38%), Australia (11.43%) and China (9.64%). These results suggest that academic literacy research most often take place in ENL or ESL settings with relatively long traditions of literacy teaching and learning, and prominent demands for academic literacy development within subject areas. In the meantime, the study attributes the high number of academic literacy research in the South African context to its complex linguistic realities and historical legacies, where literacy development is closely associated with issues of power, identity and equality (Broom, 2004 ; Lea & Street, 2006 ). Based on this, the study specified the approaches of academic literacy research within the ENL, ESL and EFL settings respectively (see Table 4 , Fig.  4 ).

Academic literacy research settings

Table 4 shows that while the ENL settings dominated most of the academic literacy researches, relevant studies in ESL and EFL settings gradually increased in recent years, indicating an expanding influence of the academic literacy construct in different educational settings. Another pattern was the observation of more balanced research approaches or more evenly distributed language, disciplinary and sociocultural researches in all three settings. This phenomenon suggests that there seems to be an increasing flexibility in academic literacy research in recent years under the intention to address specific contextual issues. All these developmental trends reinforce the notion of academic literacy as a multi-dimensional construct (Cumming, 2013 ).

Focus of academic literacy research

To investigate the focus of academic literacy research within each approach, the study conducted detailed keywords analysis in all studies (see Fig.  5 ). Results show that academic literacy development is a situated educational practice, closely linked to issues as content learning, teacher education, assessment and pedagogy. Another feature that stands out is the frequent appearance of ‘writing’ and its related practices, such as: academic writing, student writing etc. This phenomenon suggests that compared to reading, writing seems to share a greater emphasis in academic literacy research. This can possibly be accounted by the intricate connections among writing, language and content learning and the gradual shift of focus from learning to write to writing to learn in higher education settings (Prain & Hand, 2016 ).

Keywords analysis of academic literacy research

From Fig.  5 , it can be seen that different approaches share common and distinct research focuses. For instance, the disciplinary approach is mainly featured by content learning and the development of subject-matter knowledge and skills, with a close relation to situated educational practices as genre and pedagogy, disciplinary-specific teaching and learning, reading interventions and teacher education. The language approach on the other hand tends to be more text-oriented, focusing on the development of advanced cognitive and academic language skills, widely influenced by the notions of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and genre pedagogy. In addition, assessment and testing are also a key issue in the language-based approach, indicating that language testing practices today are still largely text-oriented, focusing on the acquisition of specific academic language skills. Finally, keywords analysis results in the sociocultural approach revealed its deeply held assumptions of academic literacy development as a situated, complex sociocultural practice. One emerging feature is its growing attention to multilingualism, multiculturalism and international students. In an era of rapid globalization and academic exchange, academic literacy development has gradually become a global issue as is manifested in a rapid expansion of international students in ENL countries (Caplan & Stevens, 2017 ). These students, however, often face double barriers in language and content learning, especially in terms of advanced literacy skills development required for content learning and inquiry (Okuda & Anderson, 2018 ). In this sense, more attentions are needed for the implementation and innovation of effective community learning practices.

Data analysis results in the study reveal that: (1) academic literacy development is a multidimensional construct (Cumming, 2013 ); (2) there is a growing number of mixed-methods intervention studies in recent years especially within the language approach; (3) a gradual expansion of academic literacy research in ESL and EFL settings is perceived with increasing attention to international and multilingual students. The following parts of the discussion and conclusion will provide detailed analyses on these aspects.

Definition and keywords analysis of the academic literacy studies reveal that academic literacy is a multidimensional construct, embodying both textual and contextual practices and bears huge significance for individual language and cognitive development. Drawing from this, future researches may need to cross the boundaries to integrate the language, disciplinary and sociocultural aspects of academic literacy development within a holistic view of literacy teaching and learning. In this respect, academic literacy development can widely draw from various research domains as language acquisition, language socialization, genre and pedagogy and critical literacy (Duff, 2010 ; Gee, 2015 ; Hyland, 2008 ; Lea & Street, 2006 ; Russell, 2009 ). Future researches may need to pay more attention to these multiple aspects which closely intertwine and mutually shape one another to serve for the innovation and design of effective practices.

Data analysis in the study also demonstrated the intricate connections between literacy learning and pedagogical interventions. The development of academic literacy does not come naturally, but often calls for explicit instruction and interventions to address situated learning needs (Shanahan, 2012 ). It is hoped that in the future larger-scale interventions with more rigorous designs are necessary in pursuit of more effective pedagogical practices (Scammacca et al., 2016 ). This assumption, however, are not in contradiction to the dynamic and contextual nature of academic literacy development, as more sophisticated designs can generally provide more detailed account of the practice-driven and contextualized learning processes which are often cyclical and recursive in nature.

Lastly, results of the study revealed a growing trend of academic literacy research in EFL settings especially with respect to English language learners and international students. Compared to the ENL and ESL settings, academic literacy research in EFL settings, although a relatively recent issue, embodies huge potentialities. Drawn by the demand to promote higher-order thinking and learning and the need to innovate traditional form-focused, skilled-based EFL pedagogy, the notion of academic literacy development as a disciplinary-based, socioculturally constructed, dynamic academic socialization process offers a sensible option for pedagogical innovation and curriculum development in these contexts. In this sense, the notion of academic literacy as a multidimensional construct has provided a possible solution to the long-standing problems concerning the efficacy the efficiency of EFL education, the alignment of language and content learning as well as the challenges in curriculum design and material development in EFL settings (Wen, 2019 ).

Conclusion and implication

Results of the study suggest a relatively straight-forward agenda for the development of effective academic literacy pedagogies. Firstly, the study revealed an intricate connection between academic literacy development and disciplinary-specific knowledge construction and inquiry activities. Academic literacy development is by no means only a textual issue, but agentive scaffolded learning activities that are meaningful, purposeful and authentic. Literacy activities such as reading and writing in this sense are often object-oriented to serve for real knowledge production and communicative needs. Therefore, effective academic literacy instruction often aligns language development with content learning within meaningful disciplinary and social inquiries.

Secondly, in an era of rapid globalization and communication, the development of academic literacy often takes a critical role in resource distribution and power reconstruction. This has also led to an increasing attention to academic literacy development of international students in multilingual contexts, who often face multiple challenges in learning disciplinary literacy. However, contrary to the traditional ‘deficit model’ seeking for a remediation for their relatively ‘disadvantaged’ language background, the notion of academic literacy highlighted the role of teacher and learner agency in the development of new pedagogical practices. These innovative approaches often acknowledge and build on students’ diverse language and cultural backgrounds to make literacy learning a cognitively meaningful and culturally valuable practice.

The study can shed light on future research from both an empirical and pedagogical perspective. From an empirical perspective, future research may need to pay more attention to the multidimensionality of the construct of academic literacy. As revealed in the current study, academic literacy development embodies multiple dimensions as language learning, cognitive development and social transformation. Future research may need to transcend the epistemological boundaries to seek for a more integrated definition of academic literacy in which language, cognitive and social development mutually transform one another. From a pedagogical perspective, an activity-based, integrated pedagogy should be proposed in academic literacy development. In the case, students generally use language to engage in authentic communication and practices relating not only to the advancement of disciplinary knowledge but also for the betterment of society. As it is through these practices that students’ engagement in complex meaning making and higher order thinking are ensured, and the internalization of language knowledge and transformation of social practices gradually occur.

The study also bears some limitations. Although it seeks to provide a comprehensive overview of the general trend, method and focus of academic literacy research for nearly two decades, it does not go deeper into specific studies of their findings and implications. Future studies can possibly narrow down their scope of investigation to delve deeper and provide a more thorough analysis of specific research findings.

Availability of data and materials

The studies reviewed can be referred from the reference citations in the supplementary materials.

Abbreviations

Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach

Data driven learning

English for Academic Purposes

English as a native language

English as a second language

Systemic Functional Linguistics

Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol

Allison, H., & Harklau, L. (2010). Teaching academic literacies in secondary school. In G. Li & P. A. Edwards (Eds.), Best practices in ELL instruction. The Guilford Press.

Google Scholar  

Anthony, L. (2017). Introducing corpora and corpus tools into the technical writing classroom through Data-Driven Learning (DDL). In J. Flowerdew & T. Costley (Eds.), Discipline-specific writing: Theory into practice. Routledge.

Bailey, A. L., Butler, F. A., Stevens, R., & Lord, C. (2007). Further specifying the language demands of school. In A. L. Bailey (Ed.), The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test. Yale University Press.

Basturkmen, H. (2017). Developing writing courses for specific academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew & T. Costley (Eds.), Discipline-specific writing: Theory into practice. Routledge.

Baumann, J. F., & Graves, M. F. (2010). What is academic vocabulary? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54 (1), 4–12.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bigelow, M., & Vinogradov, P. (2011). Teaching adult second language learners who are emergent readers. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31 , 120–136.

Broom, Y. (2004). Reading English in multilingual South African primary schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7 (6), 506–528.

Caplan, N. A., & Stevens, S. G. (2017). “Step out of the cycle”: Needs, challenges, and successes of international undergraduates at a U.S. University. English for Specific Purposes, 46 , 15–28.

Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1987). The cognitive academic language learning approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21 (2), 227–249.

Charles, M. (2013). English for academic purposes. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 137–155). Wiley-Blackwell.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . Sage.

Cumming, A. (2013). Multiple dimensions of academic language and literacy development. Language Learning, 63 (1), 130–152.

Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30 , 169–192.

Dyhaylongsod, L., Snow, C. E., Selman, R. L., & Donovan, M. S. (2015). Toward disciplinary literacy: Dilemmas and challenges in designing history curriculum to support middle school students. Harvard Educational Review, 85 (4), 587–608.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2013). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model . Pearson Education.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research . Cambridge University Press.

Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In R.M.R.-L.P. Yrjo Engestrom (Ed.), Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Fang, Z. (2012). Approaches to developing content area literacies: A synthesis and a critique. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56 (2), 103–108.

Fang, Z., & Coatoam, S. (2013). Disciplinary literacy: What you want to know about it. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56 (8), 627–632.

Fisher, R. (2019). Reconciling disciplinary literacy perspectives with genre-oriented Activity Theory: Toward a fuller synthesis of traditions. Reading Research Quarterly, 54 (2), 237–251.

Flowerdew, J. (2013). Introduction: Approaches to the analysis of academic discourse in English. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse. Routledge.

Gebhard, M. (2004). Fast capitalism, school reform, and second language literacy practices. The Modern Language Journal, 88 (2), 245–265.

Gee, J. P. (2015). Literacy and education . Routledge.

Goldenberg, C. (2010). Improving achievement for English learners: Conclusions from recent reviews and emerging research. In G. Li & P. A. Edwards (Eds.), Best practices in ELL instruction (pp. 15–44). The Guilford Press.

Granville, S., & Dison, L. (2005). Thinking about thinking: Integrating self-reflection into an academic literacy course. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4 , 99–118.

Halliday, M. A. K. (2000). An introduction to functional grammar . Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41 (4), 543–562.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching . Cambridge University Press.

Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23 (2), 157–172.

Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (2006). The “Academic Literacies” model: Theory and applications. Theory into Practice, 45 (4), 368–377.

Lillis, T. (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology, and “deep theorizing” closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication , 25 (3), 353–388.

Lillis, T., & Scott, M. (2007). Defining academic literacies research: Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4 (1), 5–32.

Lillis, T., & Tuck, J. (2016). Academic literacies: A critical lens on writing and reading in the academy. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 30–44). Routledge.

Lillis, T., & Turner, J. (2001). Student writing in higher education: Contemporary confusion, traditional concerns. Teaching in Higher Education , 6 (1), 57–68.

Moje, E. B. (2015). Doing and teaching adolescent literacy with adolescent learners: A social and cultural enterprise. Harvard Educational Review, 85 (2), 254–278.

Moje, E. B., Overby, M., Tysvaer, N., & Morris, K. (2008). The complex world of adolescent literacy: Myths, motivations, and mysteries. Harvard Educational Review, 78 (1), 107–154.

Okuda, T., & Anderson, T. (2018). Second language graduate students’ experiences at the writing center: A language socialization perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 52 (2), 391–413.

Prain, V., & Hand, B. (2016). Coming to know more through and from writing. Educational Researcher, 45 (7), 430–434.

Russell, D. R. (2009). Texts in contexts: Theorizing learning by looking at genre and activity. In R. Edwards, G. Biesta, & M. Thorpe (Eds.), Rethinking contexts for learning and teaching: Communities, activities and networks. Routledge.

Scammacca, N. K., Roberts, G. J., Cho, E., Williams, J., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S. R., et al. (2016). A century of progress: Reading interventions for students in grades 4–12, 1914–2014. Review of Educational Research , 86 (3), 756–800.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2013). The role of metalanguage in supporting academic language development. Language Learning, 63 (1), 153–170.

Sebolai, K. (2016). Distinguishing between English proficiency and academic literacy in English. Language Matters, 47 (1), 45–60.

Shanahan, C. (2012). How disciplinary experts read. In T. L. Jetlon & C. Shanahan (Eds.), Adolescent literacy in the academic disciplines: General principles and practical strategies. The Guilford Press.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78 (1), 40–59.

Short, D. J., Echevarría, J., & Richards-Tutor, C. (2011). Research on academic literacy development in sheltered instruction classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 15 (3), 363–380.

Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners—A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York . Alliance for Excellent Education.

Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in New Literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 52 (2), 77–91.

Uccelli, P., Barr, C. D., Dobbs, C. L., Galloway, E. P., Meneses, A., & Sanchez, E. (2014). Core academic language skills: An expanded operational construct and a novel instrument to chart school-relevant language proficiency in preadolescent and adolescent learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36 (5), 1077–1109.

Wen, Q. (2019). Foreign language teaching theories in China in the past 70 years. Foreign Language in China, 16 (5), 14–22.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity . Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Wingate, U. (2018). Academic literacy across the curriculum: Towards a collaborative instructional approach. Language Teaching, 51 (3), 349–364.

Zhang, L., & Li, D. (2019). An integrated development of students’ language and cognition under the CLIL pedagogy. Foreign Language Education in China, 2 (2), 16–24.

Zhang, L., & Sun, Y. (2014). A sociocultural theory-based writing curriculum reform on English majors. Foreign Language World, 5 , 2–10.

Zhao, K., & Chan, C. K. K. (2014). Fostering collective and individual learning through knowledge building. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 9 , 63–95.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere thanks to the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on the original manuscript.

The study was supported by the start up research funding for young scholars in Nanjing Normal University (No. 184080H202A135).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Foreign Languages, Nanjing Normal University, Wenyuanlu #1, Qixia District, Nanjing, 210023, Jiangsu, China

Dongying Li

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dongying Li .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Li, D. A review of academic literacy research development: from 2002 to 2019. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. 7 , 5 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00130-z

Download citation

Received : 20 September 2021

Accepted : 01 February 2022

Published : 15 March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00130-z

Information Literacy - Basic Research Skills (Withers)

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 65068

• Carol M. Withers with Bruce Johnson & Nathan Martin
• San Diego City College Library

The intent of this OER is twofold: to offer a free or low cost quality text to our students in a one-unit information literacy course and to offer a starting place to anyone who wishes to develop their own class or OER. It is intentional that this text is not San Diego City College specific because the skills we teach in our LIBS 101, and are reflected in this OER, are transferable skills. This allows students to take what they learn here and apply it to any information need in any environment: academia, careers, life-long learning, bar bets, or what have you. It is not an attempt to be a comprehensive book on information literacy, but rather a brief overview in support of this one-unit class.

Thumbnail: https://unsplash.com/photos/o0Qqw21-0NI

Six key research literacy skills every researcher should have

Presentation to the EIFL General Assembly 2018 on six research literacy skills every researcher should have in today’s research environment

You are here

About the resource.

This 50-minute presentation to the EIFL 2018 General Assembly in Doha, Qatar, focuses on six key research literacy skills for researchers.

Niamh Brennan, Programme Manager, Research Informatics at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, gave a presentation titled ‘The “EIFL Big 6” - 6 key research literacy skills every researcher should have’ discussed the following skills:

• Creating and using an ORCID identity: ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier that is used to distinguish researchers from each other and which should be included on research profiles, personal addresses and business cards, and cited when publishing journal articles.
• Maintaining more than one - at least two to three - research profiles, that are validated and current, including an institutional/university research profile (if it is available); an  ORCID profile; and / or a ‘portable’ bibliometric/impact profile (e.g. a Google Scholar profile).
• Skills in the use of metrics: Bibliometrics (citations, h- index etc.); an understanding of Altmetrics and the tools supporting ‘next generation metrics’ (news items, social media, references to policy papers, Wikipedia entries, etc); knowing how to track Open Research metrics.
• Understanding open access, copyright policies and how to make their work openly available.
• Knowing how to create Data Management Plans which support research data management.
• How to write an impact statement or case study focused on social, economic and cultural impact of the research.

Download the presentation  [PDF].

EIFL Programmes

Copyright and Libraries Programme Licensing Programme Open Access Programme EIFL General

SHARE / PRINT

EIFL PROGRAMMES

SIGN UP FOR EIFL'S BI-MONTHLY NEWSLETTER

This question confirms that you are a human visitor and prevents automated spam submissions.

The Importance of Research Literacy

Angela senders, the call for research literacy .

Research literacy allows us to partake in a larger conversation about which studies are needed to best advance naturopathic practice and further our professional development.

Evidence-informed practice: a holistic decision-making paradigm

Advancing the profession, an invitation, categorized under.

• Healthcare Perspectives

Heather Zwickey

Heather Zwickey, PhD, is a professor of immunology and chair of the Department of Health Sciences at the National University of Natural Medicine in Portland, Oregon. She launched the Helfgott Research Institute, which advances the science of natural medicine. Zwickey founded the school of graduate studies and developed masters programs in research, nutrition, and global health. Zwickey has received the Champion of Naturopathic Medicine Award from the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians. She currently leads a National Institutes of Health–funded clinical research training program focused on integrative medicine research and studies the gut-brain axis in neuroinflammation.

Andrew Erlandsen

• LeGuin UK. Staying awake: notes on the alleged decline of reading. Harper’s Magazine. February 2008. Available at: http://harpers.org/archive/2008/02/staying-awake/ . Accessed July 10, 2014.
• Herman PM, Poindexter BL, Witt CM, Eisenberg DM. Are complementary therapies and integrative care cost-effective? A systematic review of economic evaluations. BMJ Open. 2012 Sep 3;2(5). 
• Herman PM, Szczurko O, Cooley K, Seely D. A naturopathic approach to the prevention of cardiovascular disease: cost-effectiveness analysis of a pragmatic multi-worksite randomized clinical trial. J Occup Environ Med. 2014;56(2):171-176. 
•  Seely D, Szczurko O, Cooley K, et al. Naturopathic medicine for the prevention of cardiovascular disease: a randomized clinical trial. CMAJ. 2013;185(9):E409-E416. 
• Shinto L, Calabrese C, Morris C, et al. A randomized pilot study of naturopathic medicine in multiple sclerosis. J Altern Complement Med. 2008;14(5):489-496. 
• Ritenbaugh C, Hammerschlag R, Calabrese C, et al. A pilot whole systems clinical trial of traditional Chinese medicine and naturopathic medicine for the treatment of temporomandibular disorders. J Altern Complement Med. 2008;14(5):475-487. 
• Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71-72. 
• Gambrill E. Evidence-based (informed) macro practice: process and philosophy. J Evid-Based Soc Work. 2008;5(3-4):423-452. 
• Prasad V, Cifu A, Ioannidis JA. Reversals of established medical practices: evidence to abandon ship. JAMA. 2012;307(1):37-38. 
• Hayes M, Muhota J, Nguyen L, Nedrow A, Calabrese C, Shinto L. A framework for credentialing naturopathic physicians in academic health centers: Oregon Health and Science University. J Altern Complement Med. 2014;20(3):217-218. 
• World Health Organization. WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy: 2014-2023. Geneva: WHO; 2013.
• Privacy Policy
• DSAR Requests / Do Not Sell My Personal Info
• Terms of Use
• Events, Products & Services

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

How the Science of Reading Informs 21st‐Century Education

The science of reading should be informed by an evolving evidence base built upon the scientific method. Decades of basic research and randomized controlled trials of interventions and instructional routines have formed a substantial evidence base to guide best practices in reading instruction, reading intervention, and the early identification of at-risk readers. The recent resurfacing of questions about what constitutes the science of reading is leading to misinformation in the public space that may be viewed by educational stakeholders as merely differences of opinion among scientists. Our goals in this paper are to revisit the science of reading through an epistemological lens to clarify what constitutes evidence in the science of reading and to offer a critical evaluation of the evidence provided by the science of reading. To this end, we summarize those things that we believe have compelling evidence, promising evidence, or a lack of compelling evidence. We conclude with a discussion of areas of focus that we believe will advance the science of reading to meet the needs of all children in the 21st century.

For more than 100 years, the question of how best to teach children to read has been debated in what has been termed the “reading wars”. The debate cyclically fades into the background only to reemerge, often with the same points of conflict. We believe that this cycle is not helpful for promoting the best outcomes for children’s educational success. Our goal in this paper is to make an honest and critical appraisal of the science of reading, defining what it is, how we build a case for evidence, summarizing those things for which the science of reading has provided unequivocal answers, providing a discussion of things we do not know but that may have been “oversold,” identifying areas for which evidence is promising but not yet compelling, and thinking ahead about how the science of reading can better serve all stakeholders in children’s educational achievements.

At its core, scientific inquiry is the same in all fields. Scientific research, whether in education, physics, anthropology, molecular biology, or economics, is a continual process of rigorous reasoning supported by a dynamic interplay among methods, theories, and findings. It builds understandings in the form of models or theories that can be tested. Advances in scientific knowledge are achieved by the self-regulating norms of the scientific community over time, not, as sometimes believed, by the mechanistic application of a particular scientific method to a static set of questions (National Research Council, 2002, p. 2).

What is the Science of Reading and Why are we Still Debating it?

The “science of reading” is a phrase representing the accumulated knowledge about reading, reading development, and best practices for reading instruction obtained by the use of the scientific method. We recognize that the accrual of scientific knowledge related to reading is ever evolving, at times circuitous, and not without controversy. Nonetheless, the knowledge base on the science of reading is vast. In the last decade alone, over 14,000 peer-reviewed articles have been published in journals that included the keyword “reading” based on a PsycINFO search. Although many of these studies likely focused on a sliver of the reading process individually, collectively, research studies with a focus on reading have yielded a substantial knowledge base of stable findings based on the science of reading. Taken together, the science of reading helps a diverse set of educational shareholders across institutions (e.g., preschools, schools, universities), communities, and families to make informed choices about how to effectively promote literacy skills that foster healthy and productive lives ( DeWalt & Hink, 2009 ; Rayner et al., 2001 ).

An interesting question concerning the science of reading is “Why is there a debate surrounding the science of reading?” Although there are certainly disputes within the scientific community regarding best practices and new areas of research inquiry, most of the current debate seems to settle upon what constitutes scientific evidence, how much value we should place on scientific evidence as opposed to other forms of knowledge, and how preservice teachers should be instructed to teach reading ( Brady, 2020 ). The current disagreement in what constitutes the scientific evidence of reading (e.g., Calkins, 2020 ) is not new. During the last round of the “reading wars” in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s these same issues were discussed and debated. Much of the debate focused on conflicting views in epistemology between constructivists and positivists on the basic mechanisms associated with reading development. Constructivists, such as Goodman (1967) and Smith (1971) , believed that reading was a “natural act” akin to learning language and thus emphasized giving children the opportunity to discover meaning through experiences in a literacy-rich environment. In contrast, positivists, such as Chall (1967) and Flesch (1955) , made strong distinctions between innate language learning and the effortful learning required to acquire reading skills. Positivists argued for explicit instruction to help foster understanding of how the written code mapped onto language, whereas constructivists encouraged children to engage in a “psycholinguistic guessing game” in which readers use their graphic, semantic, and syntactic knowledge (known as the three cuing system) to guess the meaning of a printed word.

Research clearly indicates that skilled reading involves the consolidation of orthographic and phonological word forms ( Dehene, 2011 ). Work in cognitive neuroscience indicates that a small region of the left ventral visual cortex becomes specialized for this purpose. As children learn to read, they recruit neurons from a small region of the left ventral visual cortex within the left occipitotemporal cortex region (i.e., visual word form area) that are tuned to language-dependent parameters through connectivity to perisylvian language areas ( Dehaene-Lambertz et al., 2018 ). This provides an efficient circuit for grapheme-phoneme conversion and lexical access allowing efficient word-reading skills to develop. These studies provide direct evidence for how teaching alters the human brain by repurposing some visual regions toward the shapes of letters, suggesting that cultural inventions, such as written language, modify evolutionarily older brain regions. Furthermore, studies suggest that instruction focusing on the link between orthography and phonology promote this brain reorganization (e.g., Dehaene, 2011 ). Yet, arguments between philosophical constructivists and philosophical positivists on what constitutes the science of reading and how it informs instruction remain active today (e.g., Castles et al., 2018 ). In a recent interview with Emily Hanford, Ken Goodman defended his advocacy for the three cuing system saying that the three-cueing theory is based on years of observational research. In his view, three cueing is perfectly valid, drawn from a different kind of evidence than what scientists collect in their lab and later he stated that “my science is different” ( Hanford, 2019 ).

As scientists at the Florida Center for Reading Research, we are often frustrated when what we view to be the empirically supported evidence base about the reading process are distorted or denied in communications directed to the public and to teachers. However, Stanovich (2003) posited that “in many cases, the facts are secondary—what is being denied are the styles of reasoning that gave rise to the facts; what is being denied is closer to a worldview than an empirical finding. Many of these styles are implicit; we are not conscious of them as explicit rules of behavior” (pp. 106-107). Stanovich proposed five different dimensions that represent “styles” of generating knowledge about reading. For our purposes, here, we focus on the first dimension: the correspondence versus coherence theory of truth. It hits at the heart of how people believe something to be true. People who believe that a real world exists independent of their beliefs, and that interrogating this world using rigorous principles to gain knowledge is a fruitful activity are said to subscribe to the correspondence theory of truth. In contrast, those who subscribe to the coherence theory of truth believe that something is “true” if the beliefs about something fit together in a logical way. In essence, something is true if it makes sense.

Stanovich believed these differing truth systems might lie at the heart of the disagreements surrounding the science of reading. One side shouting, “Look at this mountain of evidence! How can you not believe it?” and the other side shouting, “It doesn’t make sense! It doesn’t match up with our experiences! Why should we value your knowledge above our own?!” By approaching the science of reading from the perspective of the correspondence theory of truth, we consider how compelling evidence can be generated, what we believe is the compelling evidence, what we think lacks evidence, and what we think is promising evidence.

How We Build a Case for Compelling Evidence

Research is the means by which we acquire and understand knowledge about the world ( Dane, 1990 ) to create scientific principles. Relatively few scientists would argue with the importance of using research evidence to support a principle or to make claims about reading development and the quality of reading instruction. Where significant divergence often occurs is in response to policy statements that categorize research claims and instructional strategies into those with greater or lesser levels of evidence. This divergence is typically rooted in applied epistemology, which can be understood as the study of whether the means by which we study evidence are themselves well designed to lead to valid conclusions. Researchers often frame the science of reading from divergent applied epistemological perspectives. Thus, two scientists who approach the science of reading with different epistemologies will both suggest that they have principled understandings and explanations for how children learn to read; yet, the means by which those understandings and explanations were derived are often distinct.

The correspondence and coherence theories of truth described above are examples of explanations from contrasting epistemological perspectives. Consistent with these perspectives, researchers approaching the science of reading using a correspondence theory typically prioritize deductive methods, which embed hypothesis testing, precise operationalization of constructs, and efforts to decouple the researchers’ beliefs from their interpretation and generalization of empirical evidence. Researchers approaching the science of reading using a coherence theory of truth typically prioritize more inductive methods, such as phenomenological, ethnographic, and grounded theory approaches that embed focus on the meaning and understanding that comes through a person’s lived experience and where the scientist’s own observations shape meaning and principles (e.g., Israel & Duffy, 2014 ).

When the National Research Council published Scientific Research in Education (2002), a significant amount of criticism levied against the report boiled down to differences in epistemological perspectives. Yet, these genuine contrasts can often obscure contributions to the science of reading that derive from multiple applied epistemologies. Observational research, using both inductive (e.g., case studies) and deductive (e.g., correlational studies) approaches, substantively informs the development of theories and of novel instructional approaches (e.g., Scruggs et al., 2007 ). Public health research offers a useful parallel. As it would be unethical to establish a causal link from smoking cigarettes to lung cancer through a randomized controlled trial, that field instead used well-designed observational studies to derive claims and principles. These findings then informed later stages in the broader program of research, including randomized controlled trials of interventions for smoking cessation.

In the science of reading, principles and instructional strategies should indeed capitalize on a program of research inclusive of multiple methodologies. Yet, as the public health domain ultimately takes direction from the efficacy of smoking cessation programs, so too must the science of reading take direction from theoretically informed and well-designed experimental and quasi-experimental studies of promising strategies when the intention is to evaluate instructional practices. The use of experimental (i.e., randomized trials) and quasi-experimental (e.g., regression discontinuity, propensity score matching, interrupted time series) designs, in which an intervention is competed against counterfactual conditions, such as typical practice or alternative interventions, provides the strongest causal credibility regarding which instructional strategies are effective. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) of the Institute of Education Sciences (e.g., What Works Clearinghouse, 2020) and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015 ) are efforts by the US Department of Education to hierarchically characterize the levels of evidence currently available for instructional practices in education. The WWC uses a review framework, developed by methodological and statistical experts, for evaluating the quality and scope of evidence for specific instructional practices based on features of the design, implementation, and analysis of studies. Similarly, ESSA uses four tiers that focus on both the design of the study and the results of the study in which the tiers differ based on the quantity of evidence and quality of evidence supporting an approach. For both WWC and ESSA, quantity of evidence refers to the number of well-designed and well-implemented studies, and quality of evidence is defined by the ability of a study’s methods to allow for alternative explanations of a finding to be ruled out, for which the randomized controlled trial provides the strongest method.

As outlined above, the “science of reading” utilizes multiple research approaches to generate ideas about reading. Ultimately, the highest priority in the science of reading should be the replicable and generalizable knowledge from observational and experimental methods, rooted in a deductive research approach to knowledge generation that is framed in a correspondence theory of truth. In this manner, the accumulated evidence is built on a research foundation by which theories, principles, and hypotheses have been subjected to rigorous empirical scrutiny to determine the degree to which they hold up across variations in samples, measures, and contexts. In the following sections, we summarize issues related to the nature, development, and instruction of reading for which we believe the science of reading either has or has not yielded compelling evidence, identify what we believe are promising areas for which sufficient evidence has not yet accumulated, and suggest a number of areas that we believe will help move the science of reading forward, increasing knowledge and enhancing its positive impacts for a variety of stakeholders.

Compelling Evidence in the Science of Reading

In this section, we focus on a number of findings centrally important for understanding the development and teaching of reading in alphabetic languages. The evidence base provides answers varying across orthographic regularity (e.g., English vs. Spanish), reading subskill (i.e., decoding vs. comprehension), grade range or developmental level (e.g., early childhood, elementary, adolescence), and linguistic diversity (e.g., English language learners, dialect speakers).

There are large differences among alphabetic languages in the rules for how graphemes represent sounds in words (i.e., a language’s orthography). In languages like Spanish and Finnish there is a near one-to-one relation between letters and sounds. The letter-sound coding in these languages is transparent, and they have shallow orthographies. In other languages, most notably English, there is often not a one-to-one relation between letters and sounds. The letter-sound coding in these languages is opaque, and they have deep orthographies. Children must learn which words cannot be decoded based solely on letter-sound correspondence (e.g., two, knight, laugh) and learn to match these irregular spellings to the words they represent. Where a language’s orthography falls on the shallow-deep dimension affects how quickly children develop accurate and fluent word-reading skills ( Ellis et al., 2004 ; Ziegler & Goswami, 2005 ) and how much instruction on foundational reading skills is likely needed. Studies indicate that children learning to read in English are slower to acquire decoding skills (e.g., Caravolas et al., 2013 ). Ziegler et al. (1997) reported that 69% of monosyllabic words in English were consistent in spelling-to-phonology mappings and 31% of the phonology-to-spelling mappings were consistent. Thus, in teaching children to read in English, the “grain size” of phoneme, onset-rime, and whole word matters ( Ziegler & Goswami, 2005 ) and the preservation of morphological regularities in English spelling matters (e.g., vine vs. vineyard ).

Gough and Tunmer’s (1986) “simple view of reading” model, which is supported by a significant amount of research, provides a useful framework for conceptualizing the development of reading skills across time. It also frames the elements for which it is necessary to provide instructional support. The ultimate goal of reading is to extract and construct meaning from text for a purpose. For this task to be successful, however, the reader needs skills in both word decoding and linguistic comprehension. Weaknesses in either area will reduce the capacity to achieve the goal of reading. Decoding skills and linguistic comprehension make independent contributions to the prediction of reading comprehension across diverse populations of readers ( Kershaw & Schatschneider, 2012 ; Sabatini et al., 2010 ; Vellutino, et al., 2007 ). Results of several studies employing measurement strategies that allow modeling of each component as a latent variable indicate that decoding and linguistic comprehension account for almost all of the variance in reading comprehension (e.g., Foorman et al., 2015 ; Lonigan et al., 2018 ). The relative influence of these skill domains, however, changes across development. The importance of decoding skill in explaining variance in reading comprehension decreases across grades whereas the importance of linguistic comprehension increases (e.g., Catts et al., 2005 ; Foorman et al., 2018 ; García & Cain, 2014 ; Lonigan et al., 2018 ). By the time children are in high school linguistic comprehension and reading comprehension essentially form a single dimension (e.g., Foorman et al., 2018 ).

Children’s knowledge of the alphabetic principle (i.e., how letters and sounds connect) and knowledge of the morphophonemic nature of English are necessary to create the high-quality lexical representations essential to accurate and efficient decoding ( Ehri, 2005 ; Perfetti, 2007 ). Acquiring the alphabetic principle is dependent on understanding that words are composed of smaller sounds (i.e., phonological awareness, PA) and alphabet knowledge (AK). Both PA and AK are substantial correlates and predictors of decoding skills (e.g., Wagner & Torgesen, 1987 ; Wagner et al., 1994 ). Prior to formal reading instruction, children are developing PA and AK as well as other early literacy skills that are related to later decoding skills following formal reading instruction ( Lonigan et al., 2009 ; Lonigan et al., 1998 ; National Early Literacy Panel [NELP], 2008 ; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998 ). Reading comprehension takes advantage of the reader’s ability to understand language. In most languages, written language and spoken language have high levels of overlap in their basic structure. Longitudinal studies indicate that linguistic comprehension skills from early childhood predict reading comprehension at the end of elementary school ( Catts et al., 2015 ; Language and Reading Research Consortium & Chiu, 2018 ; Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2010 ; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002 ; Verhoeven & Van Leeuwe, 2008 ). The developmental precursors to skilled reading are present prior to school entry. Consequently, differences between children in the development of these skills forecast later differences in reading skills and are useful for identifying children at risk for reading difficulties.

The science of reading provides numerous clear answers about the type and focus of reading instruction for the subskills of reading, depending on where children are on the continuum of reading development and children’s linguistic backgrounds. Much of this knowledge is summarized in the practice guides produced by the Institute of Education Sciences ( Baker et al., 2014 ; Foorman et al., 2016a ; Gersten et al., 2007 , 2008 ; Kamil et al., 2008 ; Shanahan et al., 2010 ) and in meta-analytic summaries of research (e.g., Berkeley et al., 2012 ; Ehri, Nunes, Stahl et al., 2001 ; Ehri, Nunes, Willows et al., 2001 ; NELP, 2008 ; Therrien, 2004 ; Wanzek et al., 2013 , 2016 ). Whereas the practice guides list several best practices, here we emphasize those practices classified as supported by strong or moderate evidence based on WWC standards.

Since the publication of the Report of the National Reading Panel ( National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000 ) and supported by subsequent research (e.g., Gersten et al., 2017a ; Foorman et al., 2016a ), it is clear that a large evidence base provides strong support for the explicit and systematic instruction of the component and foundational skills of decoding and decoding itself. That is, teaching children phonological awareness and letter knowledge, particularly when combined, results in improved word-decoding skills. Teaching children to decode words using systematic and explicit phonics instruction results in improved word-decoding skills. Such instruction is effective both for monolingual English-speaking children and children whose home language is other than English (i.e., dual-language learners; Baker et al., 2014 ; Gersten et al., 2007 ) as well as children who are having difficulties learning to read or who have an identified reading disability ( Ehri, Nunes, Stahl et al., 2001 ; Gersten et al., 2008 ). Additionally, providing children with frequent opportunities to read connected text supports the development of word-reading accuracy and fluency as well as comprehension skills ( Foorman et al., 2016a ; Therrien, 2004 ).

Similarly, a number of instructional activities to promote the development of reading comprehension have strong or moderate supporting evidence. For younger children, teaching children how to use comprehension strategies and how to utilize the organizational structure of a text to understand, learn, and retain content supports better reading comprehension ( Shanahan et al., 2010 ). For older children, teaching the use of comprehension strategies also enhances reading comprehension ( Kamil et al., 2008 ) as does explicit instruction in key vocabulary, providing opportunities for extended discussion of texts, and providing instruction on foundational reading skills when children lack these skills; such instructional approaches are also effective for children with significant reading difficulties ( Berkeley et al., 2012 ; Kamil et al., 2008 ).

Lack of Compelling Evidence in the Science of Reading

In the above section, practices were highlighted that have sufficient evidence to warrant their widespread use. In this section, we address reading practices for which there is a lack of compelling evidence. Some practices have simply not yet been scientifically evaluated. Other practices have been evaluated, but either the evidence does not support their use based on the generalizability of the results or the studies in which they were evaluated were not of sufficient quality to meet a minimal standard of evidence (e.g., WWC standards). Although we lack sufficient space to present a comprehensive list of practices that do not have compelling evidence, we provide examples of practices that are commonplace and vary in the degree to which they have been scientifically studied.

Evidence-based decision making regarding effective literacy programs and practices for classroom use can be difficult. Often, there is no evidence of effectiveness for a program or the evidence is of poor quality. For instance, of the five most popular reading programs used nationwide (i.e., Units of Study for Teaching Reading, Journeys, Into Reading, Leveled Literacy Intervention and Reading Recovery; Schwartz, 1999) only Leveled Literacy Intervention and Reading Recovery, both interventions for struggling readers, have studies that meet WWC standards. The evidence indicates that there were mixed effects across outcomes for Leveled Literacy Intervention and positive or potentially positive effects for Reading Recovery (e.g., Chapman & Tunmer, 2016 ). Classroom reading programs are typically built around the notion of evidence-informed practices – teaching approaches that are grounded in quality research – but have not been subjected to direct scientific evaluation. As a consequence, it is currently impossible for schools to select basal reading programs that adhere to strict evidence-based standards (e.g., ESSA, 2015 ). As an alternative, schools must develop selection criteria for choosing classroom reading programs informed by the growing scientific evidence on instructional factors that support early reading development (e.g., Castles et al., 2018 ; Foorman et al.2017 ; Rayner et al., 2001 ).

Common instructional approaches that lack generalizable empirical support include such practices as close reading ( Welsch et al., 2019 ), use of decodable text ( Jenkins et al., 2004 ), sustained silent reading ( NICHD, 2000 ), multisensory approaches ( Birsh, 2011 ), and the three-cueing system to support word recognition development (Seidenberg, 2017). Some of these instructional approaches rest on sound theoretical and pedagogical grounds. For example, giving beginning readers the opportunity to read decodable texts provides practice applying the grapheme-phoneme relations they have learned to successfully decode words ( Foorman et al., 2016a ), thus building lexical memory to support word reading accuracy and automaticity (Ehri, this issue). However, the only study to experimentally examine the impact of reading more versus less decodable texts as part of an early intervention phonics program for at risk first graders found no differences between the two groups on any of the posttest measures ( Jenkins et al., 2004 ). Such a result does not rule out the possibility of the usefulness of decodable texts but rather indicates the need to disentangle the active ingredients of effective interventions to specify what to use, when, how often, and for whom.

Similarly, multisensory approaches (e.g., Orton-Gillingham) that teach reading by using multiple senses (i.e., sight, hearing, touch, and movement) to help children make systematic connections between language, letters, and words ( Birsh, 2011 ) are commonplace and have considerable clinical support for facilitating reading development in children who struggle to learn to read. However, there is little scientific evidence that indicates that a multisensory approach is more effective than similarly structured phonological-based approaches that do not include a strong multisensory component (e.g., Boyer & Ehri, 2011 ; Ritchey & Goeke, 2006 ; Torgesen et al., 2001 ). With further research, we may find that a multisensory component is a critical ingredient of intervention for struggling readers, but we lack this empirical evidence currently.

Instruction in reading comprehension is another area where despite some studies showing moderate or strong support (see section on compelling evidence) other practices are employed despite limited support for them (e.g., Boulay et al., 2015 ). The complexity of reading comprehension relies on numerous cognitive resources and background knowledge; as a result, intervention directed exclusively at one component or another is not likely to be that impactful. For example, research shows a clear relation between breadth and depth of vocabulary and reading comprehension ( Wagner et al., 2007 ). One implication of this relation is that teaching vocabulary could improve reading comprehension. Numerous studies have tested this implication using instructional approaches that vary from teaching words in isolation to practices that involve instruction in the use of context to learn the meaning of unfamiliar words. Instruction has also included strategies to determine meaning of words through word study and morphological analysis (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2007 ; Lesaux et al., 2014 ). Although these practices have been effective in increasing vocabulary knowledge of the words taught, there is limited evidence of transfer to untaught words (as measured by standardized measures) or to improvement in general reading comprehension ( Elleman et al., 2009 ; Lesaux et al., 2010 ). Such findings do not mean that vocabulary instruction is not a useful practice; rather, by itself, it is not sufficient to improve reading comprehension. To make meaningful gains, intervention for reading comprehension likely requires addressing multiple components of language as well as teaching content knowledge (see next section) to make sizable gains.

Other instructional practices go directly against what is known from the science of reading. For example, 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 spelling, pronunciation, and meaning of specific words in memory (see Ehri, this issue). Moreover, relying on alternative cuing 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 morpho-phonemic, 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 children learn the orthography of the word and thus reduce the need to guess the word in the future ( Castles et al., 2018 ; Share, 1995 ).

Similarly, alternative approaches to improving reading skills for struggling readers often fall well outside the scientific consensus regarding sources of reading difficulties. Some of these approaches are based on the tenet that temporal processing deficits in the auditory (e.g., Tallal, 1984 ) and visual (e.g., Stein, 2019 ) systems of the brain are causally related to poor word-reading development. Although there is some evidence that typically developing and struggling readers differ on measures tapping auditory ( Casini et al., 2018 ; Protopapas, 2014 ) and visual (e.g., Eden et al., 1995; Olson & Datta, 2002 ) processing skill, there is little evidence to support the use of instructional programs designed to improve auditory or visual systems to ameliorate reading problems ( Strong et al., 2011 ). Further, interventions designed to decrease visual confusion (e.g., Dyslexie font) or modify transient channel processing (e.g., Irlen lenses) to improve reading skill for children with reading disability have also failed to garner scientific support ( Hyatt et al., 2009 ; Iovino et al., 1998 ; Marinus et al., 2016 ). Similarly, although use of video games to improve reading via enhanced visual attention is reported to be an effective intervention for children with reading disability ( Peters et al., 2019 ), studies of this supplemental intervention approach have not compared it to standard supplemental approaches. Finally, studies of interventions designed to enhance other cognitive processes, such as working memory, also lack evidence effectiveness in terms of improved reading-related outcomes (e.g., Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016 ).

Promising but Not (Yet) Compelling Evidence in the Science of Reading

There are many promising areas of research that are poised to provide compelling evidence to inform the science of reading in the coming years. As we do not have space to provide a comprehensive list, we highlight only a few promising areas in prevention research and elementary education research.

Promising Directions in Prevention Research

Research on the prevention of reading problems is critical for our ability to reduce the number of children who struggle learning to read. One area of prevention research that has great promise but needs more evidence is how to more fully develop preschoolers’ language abilities that support later reading success. Both correlational and experimental findings indicate that providing children with opportunities to engage in high-quality conversations, coupled with exposure to advanced language models, matters for language development ( Cabell et al., 2015 ; Dickinson & Porche, 2011 ; Lonigan et al., 2011 ; Wasik & Hindman, 2018). Yet, most programs have a more robust impact on children’s proximal language learning (i.e., learning taught words) than on generalized language learning as measured with standardized assessments ( Marulis & Neuman, 2010 ).

Promising studies that have demonstrated significant effects on children’s general language development elucidate potential points of leverage. First, improving the connection between the school and home contexts by including parents as partners can promote synergistic learning for children as language-learning activities in school and home settings are increasingly aligned (e.g., Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998 ). A second leverage point is increasing attention to children’s active use of language in the classroom to promote a rich dialogue between children and adults (e.g., Lonigan et al., 2011 ; Wasik & Hindman, 2018). A third leverage point is integrating content area instruction into early literacy instruction to improve language learning, for example, building children’s conceptual knowledge of the social and natural world and teaching vocabulary words within the context of related ideas (e.g., Gonzalez et al., 2011 ).

Promising Directions in Elementary Education Research

We present two promising areas in reading research with elementary-age students, one focused on improving linguistic comprehension and one focused on improving decoding, consistent with the simple view of reading.

The knowledge a reader brings to a text is the chief determinant of whether the reader will understand that text ( Anderson & Pearson, 1984 ). Thus, building knowledge is an essential, yet neglected, part of improving linguistic comprehension (Cabell & Hwang, this issue). Teaching reading is most often approached in early elementary classrooms as a subject that is independent from other subjects, such as science and social studies ( Palinscar & Duke, 2004 ). As such, reading is taught using curricula that do not systematically build children’s knowledge of the social and natural world. Instruction in reading and the content areas does not have to be an either/or proposition. Rather, the teaching of reading and of content-area learning can be simultaneously taught and integrated to powerfully impact children’s learning of both reading and content knowledge (e.g., Connor et al., 2017 ; Kim et al., 2020 ; Williams et al., 2014 ). This area of research is promising but not yet compelling, due to the small number of experimental and quasi-experimental studies that have examined either integrated content-area and literacy instruction or content-rich English Language Arts instruction in K-5 settings (approximately 31 studies). Through meta-analysis, this corpus of studies demonstrates that combining knowledge building and literacy approaches has a positive impact on both vocabulary and comprehension outcomes for elementary-age children ( Hwang et al., 2019 ). Further rigorous studies are needed that test widely used content-rich English Language Arts curricula (Cabell & Hwang, 2020, this issue); also required is new development of integrative and interdisciplinary approaches in this area.

There is also promising research on helping students to decode words more efficiently. It is widely accepted that students with reading difficulties often have underlying deficits in phonological processing (e.g., Brady & Schankweiler, 1991 ; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994 ; Torgesen, 2000 ; Vellutino et al., 1996 ) and these deficits are believed to disrupt the acquisition of spelling-to-sound translation routines that form the basis of early decoding-skill development (e.g., van IJzendoorn & Bus, 1994 ; Rack et al., 1992 ). For developing readers, decoding an unfamiliar letter string can result in either full or partial decoding. During partial decoding, the reader must match the assembled phonology from decoding with their lexical representation of a word ( Venezky, 1999 ). For example, encountering the word island might render the incorrect but partial decoding attempt, “izland”. A child’s flexibility with the partially decoded word is referred to as their “set for variability” or their ability to go from the decoded form to the correct pronunciation of a word. This skill serves as a bridge between decoding and lexical pronunciations and may be an important second step in the decoding process ( Elbro et al., 2012 ).

The matching of partial phonemic-decoding output is facilitated by the child’s decoding skills, the quality of the child’s lexical word representation, and by the potential contextual support of text ( Nation & Castles, 2017 ). Correlational studies indicate that students’ ability to go from a decoded form of a word to a correct pronunciation (their set for variability) predicts the reading of irregular words ( Tunmer & Chapman, 2012 ), regular words ( Elbro, et al., 2012 ), and nonwords ( Steacy et al., 2019a ). Set for variability has also been found to be a stronger predictor of word reading than phonological awareness in students in grades 2-5 (e.g., Steacy et al., 2019b ). Recent studies in this area suggest that children can benefit from being encouraged to engage with the irregularities of English ( Dyson et al., 2017 ) to promote the implicit knowledge structures needed to read and spell these complex words. Additional research suggests that set for variability training can be effective in promoting early word reading skills (e.g., Savage et al., 2018 ; Zipke, 2016 ). The work done in this area to date suggests that set for variability requires child knowledge structures and strategies, which can be developed through instruction, that allow successful matching of partial phonemic-decoding output with the corresponding phonological, morphological, and semantic lexical representations.

Where Do We Go Next in the Science of Reading?

Basic science research.

The science of reading has reached some consensus on the typical development of reading skill and how individual differences may alter this trajectory (e.g., Boscardin et al., 2008 ; Hjetland et al., 2019; Peng et al., 2019 ). Less is known about factors and mechanisms related to reading among diverse learners, a critical barrier to the field’s ability to address and prevent reading difficulty when it arises. Investigations with large and diverse participant samples are needed to improve understanding of how child characteristics additively and synergistically affect reading acquisition ( Hernandez, 2011 ; Lonigan et al., 2013 ). Insufficient research disentangles the influence of English-learner status for children who also have identified disabilities (Solari et al., 2014; Wagner et al., 2005 ). Greater attention to how language variation (e.g., dialect use) and differences in language experience affect reading development is crucial ( Patton Terry et al., 2010 ; Seidenberg & MacDonald, 2018; Washington et al., 2018). New realizations of the interaction between child characteristics and the depth of the orthography have also highlighted the importance of implicit learning in early reading ( Seidenberg, 2005 ; Steacy et al., 2019). Innovative cross-linguistic research is exploring how diverse methods of representing pronunciation and meaning within different orthographies, and children’s developing awareness of these methods, jointly predict reading skills (e.g., Kuo & Anderson, 2006 ; Wade-Woolley, 2016 ). Furthermore, a better understanding of the role of executive function, socio-emotional resilience factors, and biopsychosocial risk variables (e.g., poverty and trauma) on reading development is critical. Additional research like this, in English and across languages, is needed to develop effective instruction and assessments for all leaners.

A clearer understanding of child and contextual influences on the development of reading also will support improvements in how early and accurately children at risk for reading difficulties and disabilities are identified. Currently, numerous challenges remain in identifying children early enough to maximize benefits of interventions ( Colenbrander et al., 2018 ; Gersten et al., 2017b ). Investigators often use behavioral precursors or correlates of reading to estimate children’s risk for reading failure. Whereas this work has shown some promise ( Catts et al., 2015 ; Compton et al., 2006 , 2010 ; Lyytinen et al., 2015 ; Thompson et al., 2015 ), identification of risk typically involves high error rates, especially for preschoolers and kindergarteners who might benefit most from early identification and intervention. Similar challenges to accuracy have emerged when identifying older children with reading disabilities. Historically, this process has relied on discrepancy models (e.g., such as between reading skill and general cognitive aptitude), often yielding a just single comparison on which decisions are based (Waesche et al., 2011).

Challenges to identification for both younger and older children may be best met with frameworks that recognize the multifactorial casual basis of reading problems ( Pennington et al., 2012 ). Newer models of identification that combine across multiple indicators of risk derived from current skill, and that augment these indicators with other metrics of potential risk, may yield improved identification and interventions (e.g., Erbeli et al., 2018 ; Spencer et al., 2011). In particular, future research will need to consider and combine, while considering both additive and interactive effects, a wide array of measures, which may include genetic, neurological, and biopsychosocial indicators ( Wagner et al., 2019 ). Furthermore, more evaluation is needed of some new models of identification that integrate both risk and protective, or resiliency, factors, to see if these models increase the likelihood of correctly identifying those children most in need of additional instructional support (e.g., Catts & Petscher, 2020 ; Haft et al., 2016 ). Even if beneficial, it is likely that for early identification to be maximally effective, early risk assessments will need to be combined with progress monitoring of response to instruction ( Miciak & Fletcher, 2020 ). Of course, for such an approach to be successful, all children must receive high-quality reading instruction from the beginning and interventions need to be in place to address children who show varying levels of risk ( Foorman et al., 2016a ). Identifying children at risk and providing appropriate intervention early on has the potential to significantly improve reading outcomes and reduce the negative consequences of reading failure.

Intervention Innovations

Despite successes, too many children still struggle to read novel text with understanding, and intervention design efforts have not fully met this challenge ( Compton et al., 2014 ; Phillips et al., 2016 ; Vaughn et al., 2017 ). Greater creativity and integration of research from a broader array of complementary fields, including cognitive science and behavioral genetics may be required to deal with long-standing problems. For example, genetic information may have causal explanatory power; randomized trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of using such information to select and individualize instruction and intervention ( Hart, 2016 ).

The field would benefit from increased attention to the problem of fading intervention effects over time. Although there can be detectable effects of interventions several years after they are completed (e.g., Blachman et al., 2014 ; Vadasy et al., 2011 ; Vadasy & Sanders, 2013 ), invariably effect sizes reduce over time. A meta-analysis of long-term effects of interventions for phonemic awareness, fluency, and reading comprehension found a 40 percent reduction in effect sizes within one year post-intervention ( Suggate, 2016 ). Perhaps reading interventions with larger initial effects or sequential reading interventions with smaller but cumulating effects would be more resistant to fade-out.

Solutions to the problem of diminishing effects may be inspired by examples from other fields. The field of memory includes examples of content that appears immune from forgetting. This phenomenon has been called permastore ( Bahrick, 1984 ). For example, people only meaningfully exposed to a foreign language in school classes will still retain some knowledge of the language 50 years later. Additionally, expertise in the form of world-class performance appears to result from cumulative effects of long-term deliberate practice ( Ericsson, 1996 ), and skilled reading can be viewed as an example of expert performance ( Wagner & Stanovich, 1996 ). Informed by these concepts and by advances in early math instruction (e.g., Sarama et al., 2012 ; Kang et al., 2019 ), reading intervention studies should prioritize follow-up evaluations, including direct comparisons of follow-through strategies aimed at sustaining benefits from earlier instruction. For example, studies should evaluate booster interventions, professional development that better aligns cross-grade instruction, and how re-teaching and cumulative review may consolidate skill acquisition across time (e.g., Cepeda et al., 2006 ; Smolen et al., 2016 ).

Translational and Implementation Science

If the science of reading is to be applied in a manner resulting in achievement for all learners, the field must increase its focus on processes supporting implementation of evidence-based reading practices in schools. The field can leverage its considerable evidence-base to systematically investigate, with replication, both the effectiveness of reading instructional practices with diverse learners and to investigate processes that facilitate or prevent adoption, implementation, and sustainability of these practices (National Research Council, 2002; Schneider, 2018 ; Slavin, 2002 ). Research on these processes in educational contexts may be best facilitated by making use of methodological and conceptual tools developed within the traditions of translation and implementation science research ( Gilliland et al., 2019 ; Eccles & Mittman, 2006 ). For example, these frameworks can support studies on whether and how educators and policymakers use information about evidence to inform decision making (e.g., Farley-Ripple et al., 2018 ) and studies on how institutional routines may need to be adapted to best integrate new procedures and practices (e.g., scheduling changes in the school day; Foorman et al., 2016b ).

Reading research that uses translational and implementation science frameworks and methodologies will make more explicit the processes of adoption, implementation and sustainability and how these interact within diverse settings and with multiple populations ( Brown et al., 2017 ; Fixsen et al., 2005 , 2013 ). This work will be guided by new questions, not only asking “what works” but also “what works for whom under what conditions” and “what factors promote sustainability of implementation.” Innovative studies would adhere to rigorous scientific standards, prioritize hypothesis testing within a deductive, experimental framework, and leverage qualitative methodologies to systematically explore implementation processes and factors ( Brown et al., 2017 ). Results could iteratively inform the breadth of scientific reading research, including basic mechanisms related to reading and the development of novel assessments and interventions to support achievement among diverse learners in diverse settings ( Cook & Odom, 2013 ; Douglas et al., 2015 ; Forman et al., 2013 ).

There has recently been a resurgence of the debate on the science of reading, and in this article, we described the existing evidence base and possible future directions. Compelling evidence is available to guide understanding of how reading develops and identify proven instructional practices that impact both decoding and linguistic comprehension. Whereas there is some evidence that is either not compelling or has yet to be generated for instructional practices and programs that are widely used, the scientific literature on reading is ever-expanding through contributions from the fields education, psychology, linguistics, communication science, neuroscience, and computational sciences. As these additions to the literature mature and contribute to an evidence base, we anticipate they will inform and shape the science of reading as well as the science of teaching reading.

Acknowledgments

First author was determined by group consensus. Authors equally contributed and are listed and alphabetically. The authors’ work was supported by funding from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the Institute of Education Sciences (R305A160241, R305A170430, R305F100005, R305F100027, R324A180020, R324B19002) and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P50HD52120, P20HD091013, HD095193, HD072286).

• Anderson RC, & Pearson PD (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In Pearson PD, Barr R, Kamil ML, & Mosenthal P (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (1st ed., pp. 255–291). New York: Longman. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baker S, Lesaux N, Jayanthi M, Dimino J, Proctor CP, Morris J, … Newman-Gonchar R (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014-4012) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/english_learners_pg_040114.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Bahrick HP (1984). Semantic memory content in permastore: Fifty years of memory for Spanish learned in school . Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 113 ,1–29. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.113.1.1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beck IL, & McKeown MG (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction . The Elementary School Journal , 107 ( 3 ), 251–271. DOI: 10.1086/511706 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berkeley S, Scruggs TE, & Mastropier MA (2012). Reading comprehension instruction for student with learning disabilities, 1995-2006: A meta-analysis . Remedial and Special Education , 31 , 423–436. 10.1177/0741932509355988 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birsh JR (2011). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills . Brookes Publishing Company. PO Box 10624, Baltimore, MD 21285. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blachman BA, Schatschneider C, Fletcher JM, Francis DJ, Clonan SM, Shaywitz BA, & Shaywitz SE (2004). Effects of intensive reading remediation for second and third graders and a 1-year follow-up . Journal of Educational Psychology , 96 ( 3 ), 444–461. doi: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.444 [ Google Scholar ]
• Blachman BA, Schatschneider C, Fletcher JM, Murray MS, Munger KA, & Vaughn MG (2014). Intensive reading remediation in grade 2 or 3: Are there effects a decade later? Journal of Educational Psychology , 106 ( 1 ), 46–57. doi: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/10.1037/a0033663 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boscardin CK, Muthén B, Francis DJ, & Baker EL (2008). Early identification of reading difficulties using heterogeneous developmental trajectories . Journal of Educational Psychology , 100 , 192–208. 10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.192 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boulay B, Goodson B, Frye M, Blocklin M, & Price C (2015). Summary of Research Generated by Striving Readers on the Effectiveness of Interventions for Struggling Adolescent Readers. NCEE 2016-4001 . National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyer N, & Ehri LC (2011). Contribution of phonemic segmentation instruction with letters and articulation pictures to word reading and spelling in beginners . Scientific Studies of Reading , 15 ( 5 ), 440–470. 10.1080/10888438.2010.520778 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brady S (2020). Strategies used in education for resisting the evidence and implications of the science of reading . The Reading Journal , 1 ( 1 ), 33–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brady SA, & Shankweiler DP (Eds.). (1991). Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown CH, Curran G, Palinkas LA, Aarons GA, Wells KB, Jones L, Collins LM, Duan N, Mittman BS, Wallace A, Tabak RG, Ducharme L, Chambers DA, Neta G, Wiley T, Landsverk J, Cheung K, & Cruden G (2017). An overview of research and evaluation designs for dissemination and implementation . Annual Review of Public Health , 38 , 1–22. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044215 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cabell SQ, Justice LM, McGinty AS, DeCoster J, & Forston L (2015). Teacher-child conversations in preschool classrooms: Contributions to children’s vocabulary development . Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 30 , 80–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.09.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Calkins L (2020). No one gets to own the term “The Science of Reading” . Retrieved from: https://readingandwritingproject.org/news/no-one-gets-to-own-the-term-the-science-of-reading [ Google Scholar ]
• Caravolas M, Lervåg A, Defior S, Málkova G,S, & Hulme C (2013). Different patterns, but equivalent predictors, of growth in reading in consistent and inconsistent orthographies . Psychological Science , 24 , 1398–1407. 10.1177/0956797612473122 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casini L, Pech-Georgel C, & Ziegler JC (2018). It's about time: Revisiting temporal processing deficits in dyslexia . Developmental Science , 21 ( 2 ), 1–14. DOI: 10.1111/desc.12530 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Castles A, Rastle K, & Nation K (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert . Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 19 ( 1 ), 5–51. 10.1177/1529100618772271 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Catts H, Adlof S, & Weismer SE (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 49 , 278–293. 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023) [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Catts H, Herrera S, Nielsen D, & Bridges, 2015. Early prediction of reading comprehension within the simple view framework . Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 28 , 1407–1425. 10.1007/s11145-015-9576-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Catts H, Hogan T, & Adlof S (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In Catts H & Kamhi A, A. (Eds.). Connections between language and reading disabilities . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum [ Google Scholar ]
• Catts HW, & Petscher Y (2020, March 25). A cumulative risk and protection model of dyslexia . 10.35542/osf.io/g57ph [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cepeda NJ, Pashler H, Vul E, Wixted JT, & Rohrer D (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis . Psychological Bulletin , 132 ( 3 ), 354–380. 10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chall J (1967). Learning to read: The great debate . New York: McGraw-Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chapman JW, & Tunmer WE (2016). Is Reading Recovery an effective intervention for students with reading difficulties? A critique of the i3 scale-up study . Reading Psychology , 37 ( 7 ), 1025–1042. 10.1080/02702711.2016.1157538 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Colenbrander D, Ricketts J, & Breadmore HL (2018). Early identification of dyslexia: Understanding the issues . Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools , 49 , 817–828. 10.1044/2018_LSHSS-DYSLC-18-0007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Compton DL, Fuchs D, Fuchs LS, & Bryant JD (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures . Journal of Educational Psychology , 98 , 394–409. [ Google Scholar ]
• Compton DL, Fuchs D, Fuchs LS, Bouton B, Gilbert JK, Barquero LA, Cho E, & Crouch RC (2010). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: Eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two-stage screening process . Journal of Educational Psychology . 102 , 327–340. 10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.394 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Compton DL, Miller AC, Elleman AM, & Steacy LM (2014). Have we forsaken reading theory in the name of “quick fix” interventions for children with reading disability? Scientific Studies of Reading , 18 ( 1 ), 55–73. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2013.836200 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Connor CMD, Dombek J, Crowe EC, Spencer M, Tighe EL, Coffinger S, … Petscher Y (2017). Acquiring science and social studies knowledge in kindergarten through fourth grade: Conceptualization, design, implementation, and efficacy testing of content-area literacy instruction (CALI) . Journal of Educational Psychology , 109 ( 3 ), 301–320. doi: 10.1037/edu0000128 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook BG, & Odom SL (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education . Exceptional Children , 79 , 135–144. 10.1177/001440291307900201 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dane FC (1990). Research methods (Vol. 120 ). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dehaene S (2011). The massive impact of literacy on the brain and its consequences for education . Human Neuroplascticity and Education , 117 , 19–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dehaene-Lambertz G, Monzalvo K, & Dehaene S (2018). The emergence of the visual word form: Longitudinal evolution of category-specific ventral visual areas during reading acquisition . PLoS biology , 16 ( 3 ), e2004103. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeWalt DA, & Hink A (2009). Health literacy and child health outcomes: a systematic review of the literature . Pediatrics , 124 ( Supplement 3 ), S265–S274. 10.1542/peds.2009-1162B [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dickinson DK, & Porche MV (2011). Relation between language experiences in preschool classrooms and children’s kindergarten and fourth-grade language and reading abilities . Child Development , 82 , 870–886. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01576.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Douglas NF, Campbell WN, & Hinckley J (2015). Implementation science: Buzzword or game changer? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 58 , S1827–S1836. doi: 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-15-0302. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dyson H, Best W, Solity J, & Hulme C (2017). Training mispronunciation correction and word meanings improves children’s ability to learn to read words . Scientific Studies of Reading , 1–16. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2017.1315424 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eccles MP & Mittman BS (2006). Welcome to implementation science . Implementation Science , 1 , 1–3. 10.1186/1748-5908-1-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eden GF, VanMeter JW, Rumsey JM, Maisog JM, Woods RP, & Zeffiro TA (1996). Abnormal processing of visual motion in dyslexia revealed by functional brain imaging . Nature , 382 ( 6586 ), 66–69. DOI: 10.1038/382066a0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues . Scientific Studies of Reading , 9 , 167–188. 10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning . Scientific Studies of Reading , 18 ( 1 ), 5–21. 10.1080/10888438.2013.819356 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC, Nunes SR, Stahl SA, & Willows DM (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis . Review of Educational Research , 71 , 393–447. 10.3102/00346543071003393 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC, Nunes SR, Willows D,M, Schuster BV, Yaghoub-Zadeh Z, & Shanahan T (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis . Reading Research Quarterly , 36 , 250–287. 10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elbro C, de Jong PF, Houter D, & Nielsen A (2012). From spelling pronunciation to lexical access: A second step in word decoding? Scientific Studies of Reading , 16 ( 4 ), 341–359. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2011.568556 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elleman A, Lindo E, Morphy P, & Compton D (2009). The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis , Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 2 , 1–44. 10.1080/19345740802539200 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellis NC, Natsume I, Stavropoulou K, Hoxhallari L, van Daal VHP, Polyzoe N, et al. (2004). The effects of the orthographic depth on learning to read alphabetic, syllabic, and logographic scripts . Reading Research Quarterly , 39 , 438–468. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.39.4.5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erbeli F (2019). Translating research findings in genetics of learning disabilities to special education instruction . Mind, Brain, and Education , 13 ( 2 ), 74–79. 10.1111/mbe.12196 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erbeli F, Hart SA, Wagner RW, & Taylor J (2018). Examining the etiology of reading disability as conceptualized by the hybrid model . Scientific Studies of Reading , 22 ( 2 ), 167–180. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2017.1407321. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ericsson KA (1996). The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Every Student Succeeds Act (2015). Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015-2016) .
• Farley-Ripple, May H, Karpyn A, Tilley K, & McDonough K (2018). Rethinking connections between research and practice in education: A conceptual framework . Educational Researcher , 47 ( 4 ), 235–245. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fixsen D, Blase K, Metz A, & Van Dyke M (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs . Exceptional Children , 79 , 213–230. 10.1177/001440291307900206 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fixsen DL, Naoom SF, Blase KA, Friedman RM & Wallace F (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature . Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231). [ Google Scholar ]
• Flesch R (1955). Why Johnny can’t read - and what you can do about it . NY: Harper & Brothers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman B, Beyler N, Borradaile K, Coyne M, Denton C, Dimino J, …Wissel S (2016a). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/wwc_foundationalreading_070516.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman B, Dombek J, & Smith K (2016b). Seven elements important to successful implementation of early literacy intervention . New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development , 2016 ( 154 ), 49–65. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman BR, Koon S, Petscher Y, Mitchell A, & Truckenmiller A (2015). Examining general and specific factors in the dimensionality of oral language and reading in 4th–10th grades . Journal of Educational Psychology , 107 , 884–899. DOI: 10.1037/edu0000026 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman B, Petscher Y, Herrera S (2018). Unique and common effects of decoding and language factors in predicting reading comprehension in grades 1-10 . Learning and Individual Differences , 63 , 12–23. 10.1016/j.lindif.2018.02.011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman BF, Smith KG, & Kosanovich ML (2017). Rubric for evaluating reading/language arts instructional materials for kindergarten to grade 5 (REL 2016-219) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. [ Google Scholar ]
• Forman SG, Shapiro ES, Codding RS, Gonzales JE, Reddy LA, Rosenfield SA, Sanetti LMH, & Stoiber KC (2013). Implementation science and school psychology . School Psychology Quarterly , 28 , 77–100. 10.1037/spq0000019 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frost R (2012). Toward a universal model of reading . Behavioral & Brain Sciences , 35 , 263–279. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X11001841 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García JR, & Cain K (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which reader and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English . Review of Educational Research , 84 ( 1 ), 74–111. 10.3102/0034654313499616 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R, Baker SK, Shanahan T, Linan-Thompson S, Collins P, & Scarcella R (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades: A practice guide (NCEE 2007-4011) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/20074011.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R, Compton D, Connor CM, Dimino J, Santoro L, Linan-Thompson S, & Tilly WD (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. (NCEE 2009-4045) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/rti_math_pg_042109.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R, Jayanthi M, & Dimino J (2017a). Too much, too soon? Unanswered questions from national response to intervention evaluation . Exceptional Children , 83 , 244–254. 10.1177/0014402917692847 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R, Newman-Gonchar R, Haymond K, & Dimino J (2017b). What is the evidence base for Response to Intervention in reading in grades 1–3? (REL 2016-129) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED573686.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillam RB, Loeb DF, Hoffman LM, Bohman T, Champlin CA, Thibodeau L, … & Friel-Patti S (2008). The efficacy of Fast ForWord language intervention in school-age children with language impairment: A randomized controlled trial . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 51 ( 1 ), 97–119. 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/007) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilliland CT, White J, Gee B, Kreeftmeijer-Vegter R, Bietrix F, Ussi AE, Hajduch M, Kocis P, Chiba N, Hirasawa R, Suematsu M, Bryans J, Newman S, Hall MD, & Austin CP (2019). The fundamental characteristics of a translational scientist . ACS Pharmacology & Translational Science , 2 , 213–261. 10.1021/acsptsci.9b00022 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gonzalez JE, Pollard-Durodola S, Simmons DC, Taylor AB, Davis MJ, Kim M, & Simmons L (2011). Developing low-income preschoolers’ social studies and science vocabulary knowledge through content-focused shared book reading . Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness , 4 ( 1 ), 25–52. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2010.487927 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodman KS (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game , Literacy Research and Instruction , 6 ( 4 ), 126–135, 10.1080/19388076709556976 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gough PB, & Tunmer WE (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability . Remedial and Special Education , 7 , 6–10. 10.1177/074193258600700104 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haft SL, Myers CA, & Hoeft F (2016). Socio-emotional and cognitive resilience in children with reading disabilities . Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences , 10 , 133–141. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanford E (2019). At a loss for words: How a flawed idea is teaching millions of kids to be poor readers . Retrieved from: https://www.apmreports.org/story/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading [ Google Scholar ]
• Hart SA (2016). Precision education initiative: Moving toward personalized education . Mind, Brain, and Education , 10 ( 4 ), 209–211.doi: 10.1111/mbe.12109 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hernandez DJ (2011). Double jeopardy: How third-grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation . Annie E. Casey Foundation. https://files-eric-ed-gov.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/fulltext/ED518818.pdf https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1097/00011363-200501000-00004 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hwang H, Cabell SQ, White TG, & Joiner R (2019, December). A systematic review of the research on the effect of knowledge building in literacy instruction on comprehension and vocabulary in the elementary years. Presentation at the annual meeting of the Literacy Research Association , Tampa, FL. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hyatt KJ, Stephenson J, & Carter M (2009). A review of three controversial educational practices: Perceptual motor programs, sensory integration, and tinted lenses . Education & Treatment of Children , 32 ( 2 ), 313–342. doi: 10.1353/etc.0.0054 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Iovino I, Fletcher JM, Breitmeyer BG, & Foorman BR (1998). Colored overlays for visual perceptual deficits in children with reading disability and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Are they differentially effective? Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology , 20 ( 6 ), 791–806. DOI: 10.1076/jcen.20.6.791.1113 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Israel SE, & Duffy GG (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of Research on Reading Comprehension . New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jenkins JR, Peyton JA, Sanders EA, & Vadasy PF (2004). Effects of reading decodable texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring . Scientific Studies of Reading , 8 , 53–85. 10.1207/s1532799xssr0801_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joyce E (2020, January 22). Scientific Racism 2.0 (SR2.0): An erroneous argument from genetics which inadvertently refines scientific racism . 10.35542/osf.io/f7jnh [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kamil ML, Borman GD, Dole J, Kral CC, Salinger T, & Torgesen J (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE #2008-4027) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/adlit_pg_082608.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Kang CY, Duncan GJ, Clements DH, Sarama J, & Bailey DH (2019). The roles of transfer of learning and forgetting in the persistence and fadeout of early childhood mathematics interventions . Journal of Educational Psychology , 111 , 590–603. 10.1037/edu0000297 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kershaw S & Schatschneider C (2012). A latent variable approach to the simple view of reading . Reading and Writing , 25 , 433–464. 10.1177/0741932518764833 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim JS, Burkhauser MA, Mesite LM, Asher CA, Relyea JE, Fitzgerald J, & Elmore J (2020). Improving reading comprehension, science domain knowledge, and reading engagement through a first-grade content literacy intervention . Journal of Educational Psychology . Advance online publication. 10.1037/edu0000465. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuo LJ, & Anderson RC (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-language perspective . Educational Psychologist , 41 , 161–180. 10.1207/s15326985ep4103_3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Language and Reading Research Consortium & Chiu YD (2018). The simple view of reading across development: Prediction of grade 3 reading comprehension from prekindergarten skills . Remedial and Special Education , 39 ( 5 ), 289–303. 10.1177/0741932518762055 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee JJ, Wedow R, Okbay A, Kong E, Maghzian O, Zacher M, … & Fontana MA (2018). Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a 1.1-million-person GWAS of educational attainment . Nature Genetics , 50 ( 8 ), 1112–1121.doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0147-3 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lesaux NK, Kieffer MJ, Faller SE, & Kelley JG (2010). The effectiveness and ease of implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools . Reading Research Quarterly , 45 ( 2 ), 196–228. 10.1598/RRQ.45.2.3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lesaux NK, Kieffer MJ, Kelley JG, & Harris JR (2014). Effects of academic vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from a randomized field trial . American Educational Research Journal , 51 ( 6 ), 1159–1194. 10.3102/0002831214532165 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Little CW, Haughbrook R, & Hart SA (2017). Cross-study differences in the etiology of reading comprehension: A meta-analytical review of twin studies . Behavior Genetics , 47 ( 1 ), 52–76. 10.1007/s10519-016-9810-6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Anthony JL, Phillips BM, Purpura DJ, Wilson SB, & McQueen J (2009). The nature of preschool phonological processing abilities and their relations to vocabulary, general cognitive abilities, and print knowledge . Journal of Educational Psychology , 101 , 345–358. 10.1037/a0013837 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Burgess SR, Anthony JL, & Barker TA (1998). Development of phonological sensitivity in two- to five-year-old children . Journal of Educational Psychology , 90 , 294–311. 10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.294 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan C, Burgess S, & Schatschneider C (2018). Examining the Simple View of Reading with elementary school children: Still simple after all these years . Remedial and Special Education , 39 ( 5 ), 260–273. 10.1177/0741932518764833 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Farver JM, Nakamoto J, & Eppe S (2013). Developmental trajectories of preschool early literacy skills: A comparison of language-minority and monolingual-English children . Developmental Psychology , 49 , 1943–1957. 10.1037/a0031408 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Farver JM, Phillips BM, & Clancy-Menchetti J (2011). Promoting the development of preschool children’s emergent literacy skills: A randomized evaluation of a literacy-focused curriculum and two professional development models . Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 24 , 305–337. doi: 10.1007/s11145-009-9214-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, & Whitehurst GJ (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in a shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds . Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 13 , 263–290. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(99)80038-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyytinen H, Erskine J, Hämäläinen J, Torppa M & Ronimus M (2015). Dyslexia-early identification and prevention: Highlights of the Jyvaskyla longitudinal study of dyslexia . Current Developmental Disorders Report , 2 , 330–338. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maher B (2008). Personal genomes: The case of missing heritability . Nature , 456 , 18–21. doi: 10.1038/456018a. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mancilla-Martinez J, & Lesaux N (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling readers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority children . Journal of Educational Psychology , 102 ( 3 ), 701–711. 10.1037/a0019135. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marinus E, Mostard M, Segers E, Schubert TM, Madelaine A, & Wheldall K (2016). A special font for people with dyslexia: Does it work and, if so, why? Dyslexia , 22 ( 3 ), 233–244. doi: 10.1002/dys.1527 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marulis LM, & Neuman SB (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young children’s word learning: A meta-analysis . Review of Educational Research , 80 ( 3 ), 300–335. doi: 10.3102/0034654310377087 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Melby-Lervåg M, Redick TS, & Hulme C (2016). Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of “far transfer” evidence from a meta-analytic review . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 11 ( 4 ), 512–534. doi: 10.1177/1745691616635612 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miciak J, & Fletcher JM (2020). The critical role of instructional response for identifying dyslexia and other learning disabilities . Journal of Learning Disabilities . Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0022219420906801 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nation K, & Castles A (2017). Putting the learning into orthographic learning . Theories of reading development , 148–168. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). National reading panel—Teaching children to read: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Pub. No. 00-4754) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institute for Literacy (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel . Retrieved at https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf
• Neuman SB, & Kaefer T (2018). Developing low-income children’s vocabulary and content knowledge through a shared book reading program . Contemporary Educational Psychology , 52 , 15–24. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.12.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olson R & Datta H (2002). Visual-temporal processing in reading-disabled and normal twins . Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 15 ( 1-2 ), 127–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• Palinscar AS, & Duke NK (2004). The role of text and text-reader interactions in young children’s reading development and achievement . The Elementary School Journal , 105 ( 2 ), 183–197. doi: 10.1086/428864 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton-Terry N, Connor CM, Thomas-Tate S, & Love M (2010). Examining relationships among dialect variation, literacy skills, and school context in first grade . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 53 ( 1 ), 126–145. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0058) [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peng P, Fuchs D, Fuchs LS, Elleman AM, Kearns DM, Gilbert JK, … & Patton S III (2019). A longitudinal analysis of the trajectories and predictors of word reading and reading comprehension development among at-risk readers . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 52 , 195–208. 10.1177/00222194188090 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pennington BF, Santerre-Lemmon L, Rosenberg J, MacDonald B, Boada R, et al. (2012). Individual prediction of dyslexia by single versus multiple deficit models . Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 121 , 212–224. doi: 10.1037/a0025823 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perfetti C (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension . Scientific Studies of Reading , 11 ( 4 ), 357–383. 10.1080/10888430701530730 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perfetti CA (1992). The representation problems in reading acquisition. In Gough PB, Ehri LC, & Treiman R (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters JL, De Losa L, Bavin EL, & Crewther SG (2019). Efficacy of dynamic visuo-attentional interventions for reading in dyslexic and neurotypical children: A systematic review . Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews , 100 , 58–76. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.02.015 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Phillips BM, Connor CM, Lonigan CJ, Willis KB, & Crowe E (presented 2016, July). Supporting language and comprehension in second grade: Results from a Tier 2 efficacy trial. Presentation at Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading , Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Porto, Portugal. [ Google Scholar ]
• Protopapas A (2014). From temporal processing to developmental language disorders: Mind the gap . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 369 ( 1634 ), 20130090. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rack JP, Snowling MJ, & Olson RK (1992). The nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia: A review . Reading Research Quarterly , 27 ( 1 ), 28–53. doi: 10.2307/747832 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rayner K, Foorman BR, Perfetti CA, Pesetsky D, & Seidenberg MS (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading . Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 2 ( 2 ), 31–74. doi: 10.1111/1529-1006.00004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reutzel DR, Petscher Y, & Spichtig AN (2012). Exploring the value added of a guided, silent reading intervention: Effects on struggling third-grade readers’ achievement . The Journal of Educational Research , 105 ( 6 ), 404–415. 10.1080/00220671.2011.629693 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritchey KD, & Goeke JL (2006). Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham—based reading instruction: A review of the literature . The Journal of Special Education , 40 ( 3 ), 171–183. 10.1177/00224669060400030501 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabatini JP, Sawaki Y, Shore JR, & Scarborough HS (2010). Relationships among reading skills of adults with low literacy . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 43 , 122–138. 10.1177/0022219409359343 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarama J, Clements DH, Wolfe CB, & Spitler ME (2012). Longitudinal evaluation of a scale-up model for teaching mathematics with trajectories and technologies . Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness , 5 , 105–135. 10.3102/0002831212469270 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Savage R, Georgiou G, Parrila R, & Maiorino K (2018). Preventative reading interventions teaching direct mapping of graphemes in texts and set-for-variability aid at-risk learners . Scientific Studies of Reading , 22 ( 3 ), 225–247. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2018.1427753 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider M (2018, December 17). A more systematic approach to replicating research . Institute of Education Sciences. https://ies.ed.gov/director/remarks/12-17-2018.asp [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz S (2019, December). The most popular reading programs aren't backed by science . Retrieved from EDWeek https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2019/12/04/the-most-popular-reading-programs-arent-backed.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Scruggs TE, Mastropieri MA, & McDuffie KA (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research . Exceptional Children , 73 ( 4 ), 392–416. 10.1177/001440290707300401 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seidenberg MS (2005). Connectionist models of word reading . Current Directions in Psychological Science , 14 ( 5 ), 238–242. 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00372.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Selzam S, Dale PS, Wagner RK, DeFries JC, Cederlöf M, O’Reilly PF, … & Plomin R (2017). Genome-wide polygenic scores predict reading performance throughout the school years . Scientific Studies of Reading , 21 ( 4 ), 334–349.doi: 10.1080/10888438.2017.1299152 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seymour PH, Aro M, & Erskine JM (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in european orthographies . British Journal of Psychology , 94 ( 2 ), 143–174. doi: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/10.1348/000712603321661859 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shanahan T, Callison K, Carriere C, Duke NK, Pearson PD, Schatschneider C, & Torgesen J (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010-4038) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/readingcomp_pg_092810.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Share DL (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition . Cognition , 55 , 151–218. 10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slavin RE (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research . Educational Researcher , 31 , 15–21. 10.3102/0013189x031007015 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith (1971). Understanding Reading . New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smolen P, Zhang Y, & Byrne JH (2016). The right time to learn: mechanisms and optimization of spaced learning . Nature Reviews Neuroscience , 17 ( 2 ), 77–88. 10.1038/nrn.2015.18 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency . Reading Research Quarterly , 16 ( 1 ), 32–71. DOI: 10.2307/747348 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE (1990). Concepts in developmental theories of reading skill: Cognitive resources, automaticity, and modularity . Developmental Review , 10 ( 1 ), 72–100. 10.1016/0273-2297(90)90005-O [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE (1991). Word recognition: Changing perspectives. In Barr R, Kamil ML, Mosenthal PB, & Pearson PD (Eds.), Handbook of reading research , Vol. 2 (p. 418–452). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers . Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich (2003). Understanding the styles of science in the study of reading . Scientific Studies of Reading , 7 ( 2 ), 105–126, 10.1207/S1532799XSSR0702_1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE, & Siegel LS (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model . Journal of Educational Psychology , 86 ( 1 ), 24–53. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.24 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steacy LM, Compton DL, Petscher Y, Elliott JD, Smith K, Rueckl JG, Sawi O, Frost SJ, & Pugh K (2019a). Development and prediction of context-dependent vowel pronunciation in elementary readers . Scientific Studies of Reading , 23 ( 1 ), 49–63. 10.1080/10888438.2018.1466303 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steacy LM, Wade-Woolley L, Rueckl JG, Pugh KR, Elliott JD, & Compton DL (2019b). The role of set for variability in irregular word reading: Word and child predictors in typically developing readers and students at-risk for reading disabilities . Scientific Studies of Reading , 23 ( 6 ), 523–532. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2019.1620749 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stein J (2019). The current status of the magnocellular theory of developmental dyslexia . Neuropsychologia , 130 , 66–77. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.03.022 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Storch S, & Whitehurst GR (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal, structural model . Developmental Psychology , 38 , 934–947 10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.934 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strong GK, Torgerson CJ, Torgerson D, & Hulme C (2011). A systematic meta-analytic review of evidence for the effectiveness of the 'fast ForWord' language intervention program . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 52 ( 3 ), 224–235. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02329.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suggate SP (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effect of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension analyses . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 49 , 77–96. 10.1177/0022219414528540 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tallal P (1984). Temporal or phonetic processing deficit in dyslexia? That is the question . Applied Psycholinguistics , 5 ( 2 ), 167–169. 10.1017/S0142716400004963 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Therrien WJ (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A meta-analysis . Remedial and Special Education , 25 , 253–261. 10.1177/07419325040250040801 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson PA, Hulme C, Nash HM, Gooch D, Hayiou-Thomas E & Snowling MJ (2015). Developmental dyslexia: Predicting risk . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 56 , 976–987. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12412 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torgesen JK (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 15 ( 1 ), 55–64. doi: 10.1207/SLDRP1501_6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torgesen JK, Alexander AW, Wagner RK, Rashotte CA, Voeller KK, & Conway T (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 34 ( 1 ), 33–58. doi: 10.1177/002221940103400104 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tunmer WE, & Chapman JW (2012). Does set for variability mediate the influence of vocabulary knowledge on the development of word recognition skills? Scientific Studies of Reading , 16 ( 2 ), 122–140. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2010.542527 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vadasy PF, Nelson JR, & Sanders EA (2011). Longer term effects of a tier 2 kindergarten vocabulary intervention for English learners . Remedial and Special Education , 34 , 91–101. 10.1177/0741932511420739 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vadasy PF, & Sanders EA (2013). Two-year follow-up of a code-oriented intervention for lower-skilled first graders: The influence of language status and word reading skills on third-grade literacy outcomes . Reading & Writing , 26 , 821–843. 10.1007/s11145-012-9393-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van IJzendoorn MH, & Bus AG (1994). Meta-analytic confirmation of the nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia . Reading Research Quarterly , 3 , 267–275. 10.2307/747877 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn S, Martinez LR, Wanzek J, Roberts G, Swanson E, & Fall AM (2017). Improving content knowledge and comprehension for English language learners: Findings from a randomized control trial . Journal of Educational Psychology , 109 , 22–34. 10.1037/edu0000069 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vellutino FR, Scanlon DM, Sipay ER, Small SG, Pratt A, Chen R, & Denckla MB (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability . Journal of Educational Psychology 88 , 601–638. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.601 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vellutino FR, Tunmer WE, Jaccard J, & Chen S (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development . Scientific Studies of Reading , 11 , 3–32. DOI: 10.1080/10888430709336632 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Venezky RL (1999). The American way of spelling: The structure and origins of American English Orthography . New York, NY: Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Verhoeven L, & van Leeuwe J (2008). Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: A longitudinal study . Applied Cognitive Psychology , 22 , 407–423. 10.1002/acp.1414 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wade-Woolley L (2016). Prosodic and phonemic awareness in children’s reading of long and short words . Reading and Writing , 29 , 371–382. 10.1007/s11145-015-9600-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, Edwards AA, Malkowski A, Schatschneider C, Joyner RE, Wood S, Zirps FA (2019). Combining old and new for better understanding and predicting dyslexia . New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development , 165 , 1–11. doi: 10.1002/cad.20289 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, Francis DJ, & Morris RD (2005). Identifying English language learners with learning disabilities: Key challenges and possible approaches . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 20 ( 1 ), 6–15. 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00115.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, Muse AE, & Tannenbaum KR (2007). Promising avenues for better understanding implications of vocabulary development for reading comprehension. In Wagner R. Muse A, Tannenbaum K (Eds). Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension . New York: Guilford Press. pp. 276–291. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, & Stanovich KE (1996). Expertise in reading. In Ericsson KA (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 189–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, & Torgesen JK (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills . Psychological Bulletin , 101 , 192–212. 10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.192 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner R, Torgesen J, & Rashotte C (1994). Development of reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bidirectional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study . Developmental Psychology , 30 , 73–87. 10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.73 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J, Vaughn S, Scammacca N, Gatlin B, Walker MA, & Capin P (2016). Meta-analyses of the effects of Tier 2 type reading interventions in grades K-3 . Educational Psychology Review , 28 , 551–576. 10.1007/s10648-015-9321-7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J, Vaughn S, Scammacca NK, Metz K, Murray CS, Roberts G, & Danielson L (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after Grade 3 . Review of Educational Research , 83 , 163–195. 10.3102/0034654313477212 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wasik BA, & Hindman AH (2020). Increasing preschoolers’ vocabulary development through a streamlined teacher professional development intervention . Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 50 , 101–113. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.11.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Welsch JG, Powell JJ, & Robnolt VJ (2019). Getting to the core of close reading: What do we really know and what remains to be seen? Reading Psychology , 40 ( 1 ), 95–116. 10.1080/02702711.2019.1571544 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitehurst GJ & Lonigan CJ (1998). Child development and emergent literacy . Child Development , 69 , 848–872. 10.2307/1132208 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams JP, Pollini S, Nubla-Kung AM, Snyder AE, Garcia A, Ordynans JG, & Atkins JG (2014). An intervention to improve comprehension of cause/effect through expository text structure instruction . Journal of Educational Psychology , 106 , 1–17. doi: 10.1037/a0033215 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziegler J, & Goswami U (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory . Psychological Bulletin , 131 ( 1 ), 3–29. 10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziegler J, Stone G, & Jacobs A (1997). What is the pronunciation for –ough and the spelling for /u/? A database for computing feedforward and feedback consistence in English . Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers , 29 ( 4 ), 600–618. 10.3758/BF03210615 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zipke M (2016). The importance of flexibility of pronunciation in learning to decode: A training study in set for variability . First Language , 36 ( 1 ), 71–86. doi: 10.1177/0142723716639495 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Skip to content

Your source for improving outcomes for students with literacy-related disabilities, including dyslexia.

Get Started

A Path to Success

For Parents & Families

Help your child read and write with practical ideas and strategies based on what works.

For Schools & Districts

Find evidence-based approaches and effective professional development to screen, identify, and teach students with literacy-related difficulties.

For State Agencies

Develop and implement state and local structures and procedures to address challenges that students with literacy-related difficulties face in learning.

The Literacy Playground for Kids & Families!

Explore Topics

View more Topics

Explore Tools & Resources

Improving literacy briefs.

Research summaries and infographics written by our experts.

Implementation Toolkits

Practical help for implementing recommended literacy practices.

MTSS-R Implementation Guide

Step-by-step guide to implementing multi-tiered systems of support in reading (MTSS-R).

Resource Repository

Recommended websites, downloads, and videos from reliable sources.

State of Dyslexia

Dyslexia legislation and related initiatives in the U.S.A.

Videos & Webinars

Pragmatic discussions and presentations from our experts that explore literacy topics.

Academic Screening Tools Chart Selector

Academic screeners based upon personalized search criteria.

Ask an Expert

Our experts answer your literacy-related questions.

Literacy Skill Checklist

Personalized resources aligned with literacy skills for beginning readers.

Learning Literacy Glossary

Key literacy terms with definitions.

News & Announcements

March is National Reading Month

March is National Reading Month, a celebration that encourages reading every day and promotes the value of reading. This month, we’re sharing information about our resources for families and educators, and how you can use these resources to increase awareness and use of evidence-based literacy instruction in your school and community.

Engaging Families in Literacy Education to Support Students with Disabilities

Register now for this Reading the Room webinar where a panel will discuss ways to engage families in literacy education to support students with disabilities. Event date:  April 9, 2024 

Celebrating Black History Month Through Literacy

In this month’s newsletter, we’re celebrating Black History Month with a collection of resources that explore diversity considerations in literacy instruction and celebrate Black history and culture. We encourage you to look for opportunities to include these resources throughout the year and across your curriculum!

The research reported here is funded by awards to the National Center on Improving Literacy from the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, in partnership with the Office of Special Education Programs (Award #: S283D160003). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of OESE, OSEP, or the U.S. Department of Education. Copyright © 2024 National Center on Improving Literacy. https://improvingliteracy.org

The National Center on Improving Literacy is a partnership among literacy experts, university researchers, and technical assistance providers, with funding from the United States Department of Education.

In Partnership with:

Can a New Reading Assessment Tool Help Improve Literacy Rates?

Commentary / 12 April 2024

The Rapid Online Assessment of Reading (ROAR) bridges the lab, the classroom, and the community

In order to understand this article, long ago you went through the laborious (and heroic) process of learning to read . You began by mastering decoding skills—matching sounds to letters, and recognizing words. From there, you conquered comprehension skills, recognizing that words form sentences that create paragraphs like this one. This is an oversimplification, and there are many steps involved in each of these stages, but from a developmental perspective, reading is an iterative skill that builds on mastering previous skills and knowledge.

What if you had missed learning a fundamental skill along the way? And what if none of your teachers or caregivers recognized that gap before you moved on to the next school year? Reading, and learning itself, would become a source of frustration and heartache for you and those trying to teach you. If there were no intervention, your issues would compound—reading skills in early elementary school are predictive of a wide range of outcomes, including high school graduation, college attendance, socioeconomic status, likelihood of encountering the criminal justice system, and long-term health. 

In the U.S., approximately two thirds of students are reading below grade level, and the statistics are particularly distressing among Black, Hispanic, and low-income students. 

In addition, it’s estimated that about 10–15% of children have persistent struggles with reading due to dyslexia. How can we get teachers and administrators the tools they need to meaningfully improve the prospects of the more than 33 million kids who need help with reading?

The Rapid Online Assessment of Reading (ROAR), a project of the Stanford University Reading & Dyslexia Research Program and a recipient of Stage 2: Test Solutions funding from Stanford Impact Labs, is an online assessment platform and research project that aims to make reading assessment free, fun to take, and useful for teachers, administrators, and researchers. 

“Our overarching vision is to create a bridge between research and practice—as we work to develop more efficient and rigorously validated measures of reading development,” said Jason D. Yeatman , Associate Professor of Education and Pediatrics and the ROAR Program Director. “We want to make sure this research stays grounded in real-world problems faced by teachers and administrators and reflects the true diversity of learners at each stage of development. It’s a new model that bridges the lab, classroom, and community.”

Carrie Townley-Flores , Director of Research & Partnerships with ROAR, says, “Stanford Impact Labs funding has helped us tremendously in terms of scaling. We’re in a labor-intensive phase that requires simultaneous work on refining the technology and building relationships with partners so we can iterate the best tool possible and ultimately help as many kids as we can.” 

Improving and Expanding Assessment

ROAR improves on traditional reading assessment in a number of ways. It’s easy to administer, and it has validated assessments for years K–12. By offering a variety of test options, it provides more detailed and reliable results than other standardized assessments and the validation studies underlying the assessments are published in open-access, peer-reviewed scientific journals. Additionally, it’s free, which allows more schools to access the program and encourages flexibility with testing. For example, it makes it easy to test a middle school or high school student for foundational skills, which are typically not assessed after third grade. Students also report it is fun to engage with -- which goes a long way.

Ryland Adzich, project manager for ROAR at San Francisco City Academy (SFCA), a small private school of 60 kids who live in the city's notoriously under-resourced Tenderloin district, said that when SFCA administered the ROAR for the first time in the fall of 2023, students loved it. “The ROAR is set up like a video game, where a character like a monkey or a lion talks to you and guides you through the test. To the students, it felt like a fun, interactive game. This helped promote a positive testing environment where students could perform at their best.”

Adzich also added, “The test is also available in Spanish, and given that more than half our students are Hispanic, we had a handful take the ROAR in Spanish. This allowed us to see that these students don’t have trouble with reading skills, they need a different kind of support. We also tested our middle school kids and identified some areas of struggle that surprised us.” 

SFCA will be administering tests again, along with a new test on letters for younger kids, in the spring of 2024. Using the data from the two testing rounds, along with support from ROAR research coordinators, SFCA’s teachers and administrators will then decide how to implement interventions into the curriculum for the following school year. 

Creating a Virtuous Feedback Cycle

“Our research-practice partnership model brings collaborators into each stage of the research process and it has allowed us to bring innovations to stakeholders much faster than the typical laboratory research model,” said Yeatman. 

“Key to this process is sharing data with the schools and getting feedback from them on the tool so we can iterate and improve on what we’re offering,” said Townley-Flores. For example, the ROAR team recently created interactive score reports to be even more customizable and user friendly. “We got a lot of feedback from schools about what data would be useful and how best to visualize it. This feedback was critical to how we rebuilt the reporting system.”

Feedback to the lab has also resulted in the development of new assessment modules (e.g., letters, morphology), and is expanding the reach of the tool. Rebecca Sutherland , Associate Director of Research with Reading Reimagined, one of ROAR’s partners, explained, “ROAR is going to partner with an expert in Black American English to undertake a rigorous and innovative item analysis to reduce the tests' bias. Too often, standardized literacy assessments unreasonably penalize dialect speakers and underestimate their language and reading skills. This will be a game changer, showing the wider reading assessment field that linguistic bias reduction can and should be done.” 

Through this virtuous feedback cycle, ROAR is looking to continue to improve the tool with the goal of reaching 500,000 students within two years and seeing measurable improvement in reading proficiency, including reduced racial, ethnic, and economic achievement disparities in schools that use ROAR, within 5 to 10 years.

Share this Commentary

Information Literacy Awards Announced at Joint Event

The University of Texas Libraries and the Center for Skills and Experience Flags in the Undergraduate College celebrated the 2023 Undergraduate Writing and Research Awards on April 4, 2024.

The event was co-hosted by Dr. Lorraine Haricombe, Vice Provost and Director of the UT Libraries, and Dr. Richard Reddick, Dean of the Undergraduate College, with honors presented to the recipients of the UT Libraries' Signature Course Information Literacy Award and the Center for Skills and Experience Flags' Writing Flag Awards.

The Signature Course Information Literacy Award recognizes outstanding achievements in information literacy and research skills within the Signature Courses. Winners demonstrated exceptional abilities in identifying necessary information, conducting thorough research, critically analyzing findings, and synthesizing them with proper attribution into innovative projects.

This year's first-place recipient of the Signature Course Information Literacy Award is Joshua Maxwell, nominated by Dr. Adam Rabinowitz. Maxwell's paper, "Insights from the Study of Sword Combat in the Iliad," from UGS 302: Tales from the Trojan War, impressed the adjudicators with its meticulous examination of primary and secondary sources. Dr. Rabinowitz praised Maxwell's adeptness in reconciling conflicting interpretations within the secondary scholarship, underscoring his exemplary research skills.

Courtney Adams emerged as the second-place winner, nominated by Dr. Christy Erving, for her paper "Blackface: History and Implications on Black Health" from UGS 302: Black Health Matters. Dr. Erving commended Adams for her unconventional yet compelling exploration of the connections between historical blackface practices and contemporary health experiences among Black Americans. Adams surpassed expectations by skillfully integrating academic sources and crafting a coherent argument.

All award-winning papers, including those from previous years, are accessible at Texas ScholarWorks .

Congratulations to Joshua Maxwell, Courtney Adams, and all the talented student awardees for their remarkable achievements in research and writing.

• Open access
• Published: 10 April 2024

Development of an index system for the scientific literacy of medical staff: a modified Delphi study in China

• Shuyu Liang 2   na1 ,
• Ziyan Zhai 2   na1 ,
• Xingmiao Feng 2 ,
• Xiaozhi Sun 1 ,
• Jingxuan Jiao 1 ,
• Yuan Gao 1   na2 &
• Kai Meng   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1467-7904 2 , 3   na2  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  397 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

118 Accesses

Metrics details

Scientific research activity in hospitals is important for promoting the development of clinical medicine, and the scientific literacy of medical staff plays an important role in improving the quality and competitiveness of hospital research. To date, no index system applicable to the scientific literacy of medical staff in China has been developed that can effectively evaluate and guide scientific literacy. This study aimed to establish an index system for the scientific literacy of medical staff in China and provide a reference for improving the evaluation of this system.

In this study, a preliminary indicator pool for the scientific literacy of medical staff was constructed through the nominal group technique ( n  = 16) with medical staff. Then, two rounds of Delphi expert consultation surveys ( n  = 20) were conducted with clinicians, and the indicators were screened, revised and supplemented using the boundary value method and expert opinions. Next, the hierarchical analysis method was utilized to determine the weights of the indicators and ultimately establish a scientific literacy indicator system for medical staff.

Following expert opinion, the index system for the scientific literacy of medical staff featuring 2 first-level indicators, 9 second-level indicators, and 38 third-level indicators was ultimately established, and the weights of the indicators were calculated. The two first-level indicators were research literacy and research ability, and the second-level indicators were research attitude (0.375), ability to identify problems (0.2038), basic literacy (0.1250), ability to implement projects (0.0843), research output capacity (0.0747), professional capacity (0.0735), data-processing capacity (0.0239), thesis-writing skills (0.0217), and ability to use literature (0.0181).

Conclusions

This study constructed a comprehensive scientific literacy index system that can assess medical staff's scientific literacy and serve as a reference for evaluating and improving their scientific literacy.

Peer Review reports

Due to the accelerated aging of the population and the growing global demand for healthcare in the wake of epidemics, there is an urgent need for medicine to provide greater support and protection. Medical scientific research is a critical element in promoting medical science and technological innovation, as well as improving clinical diagnosis and treatment techniques. It is the main driving force for the development of healthcare [ 1 ].

Medical personnel are highly compatible with clinical research. Due to their close interaction with patients, medical staff are better equipped to identify pertinent clinical research issues and actually implement clinical research projects [ 2 ]. Countries have created favorable conditions for the research and development of medical personnel by providing financial support, developing policies, and offering training courses [ 3 , 4 ]. However, some clinical studies have shown that the ability of most medical staff does not match current health needs and cannot meet the challenges posed by the twenty-first century [ 5 ]. It is clear that highly skilled professionals with scientific literacy are essential for national and social development [ 6 ]. Given the importance of scientific research in countries and hospitals, it is crucial to determine the level of scientific research literacy that medical personnel should possess and how to train them to acquire the necessary scientific research skills. These issues have significant practical implications.

Scientific literacy refers to an individual's ability to engage in science-related activities [ 7 ]. Some scholars suggest that the scientific literacy of medical personnel encompasses the fundamental qualities required for scientific research work, encompassing three facets: academic moral accomplishment, scientific research theory accomplishment, and scientific research ability accomplishment [ 8 ]. The existing research has focused primarily on the research capabilities of medical staff. According to Rillero, problem-solving skills, critical thinking, communication skills, and the ability to interpret data are the four core components of scientific literacy [ 9 ]. The ability to perform scientific research in nursing encompasses a range of abilities, including identifying problems, conducting literature reviews, designing and conducting scientific research, practicing scientific research, processing data, and writing papers [ 10 ]. Moule and Goodman proposed a framework of skills that research-literate nurses should possess, such as critical thinking capacity, analytical skills, searching skills, research critique skills, the ability to read and critically appraise research, and an awareness of ethical issues [ 11 ]. Several researchers have developed self-evaluation questionnaires to assess young researchers' scientific research and innovative abilities in the context of university-affiliated hospitals (UHAs) [ 12 ]. The relevant indicators include sensitivity to problems, sensitivity to cutting-edge knowledge, critical thinking, and other aspects. While these indicators cover many factors, they do not consider the issue of scientific research integrity in the medical field. The lack of detailed and targeted indicators, such as clinical resource collection ability and interdisciplinary cooperation ability, hinders the effective measurement of the current status of scientific literacy among medical staff [ 12 ]. In conclusion, the current research on the evaluation indicators of scientific literacy among medical personnel is incomplete, overlooking crucial humanistic characteristics, attitudes, and other moral literacy factors. Therefore, there is an urgent need to establish a comprehensive and systematic evaluation index to effectively assess the scientific literacy of medical staff.

Therefore, this study utilized a literature search and nominal group technique to screen the initial evaluation index and subsequently constructed an evaluation index system for medical staff's scientific research literacy utilizing the Delphi method. This index system would serve as a valuable tool for hospital managers, aiding them in the selection, evaluation, and training of scientific research talent. Additionally, this approach would enable medical personnel to identify their own areas of weakness and implement targeted improvement strategies.

Patient and public involvement

Patients and the public were not involved in this research.

Study design and participants

In this study, an initial evaluation index system was developed through a literature review and nominal group technique. Subsequently, a more comprehensive and scientific index system was constructed by combining qualitative and quantitative analysis utilizing the Delphi method to consult with experts. Finally, the hierarchical analysis method and the percentage weight method were employed to empower the index system.

The program used for this study is shown in Fig.  1 .

Study design. AHP, analytic hierarchy process

Establishing the preliminary indicator pool

Search process.

A literature search was performed in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang, PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases to collect the initial evaluation indicators. The time span ranged from the establishment of the database to July 2022. We used a combination of several MeSH terms in our searches:(("Medical Staff"[Mesh] OR "Nurses"[Mesh] OR "Physicians"[Mesh])) AND (("Literacy"[Mesh]) OR "Aptitude"[Mesh]). We also used several Title/Abstract searches, including keywords such as: Evaluation, scientific literacy, research ability.

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1)The subjects were nurses, medicial staff and other personnel engaged in the medical industry; (2) Explore topics related to scientific literacy, such as research ability, and literature that can clarify the structure or dependency between indicators of scientific literacy; (3) Select articles published in countries such as China, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada; (4) Research published in English or Chinese is considered to be eligible. The exclusion criteria are as follows: (1) indicators not applicable to medical staff; (2) Conference abstracts, case reports or review papers; (3) Articles with repeated descriptions; (4) There are no full-text articles or grey literature. A total of 78 articles were retrieved and 60 were retained after screening according to inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The research was conducted by two graduate students and two undergraduate students who participated in the literature search and screening. The entire research process was supervised and guided by one professor. All five members were from the fields of social medicine and health management. The professor was engaged in hospital management and health policy research for many years.

Nominal group technique

The nominal group technique was introduced at Hospital H in Beijing in July 2022. This hospital, with over 2,500 beds and 3,000 doctors, is a leading comprehensive medical center also known for its educational and research achievements, including numerous national research projects and awards.

The interview questions were based on the research question: What research literacy should medical staff have? 16 clinicians and nurses from Hospital H were divided into 2 equal groups and asked to provide their opinions on important aspects of research literacy based on their positions and experiences. Once all participants had shared their thoughts, similar responses were merged and polished. If anyone had further inputs after this, a second round of interviews was held until no new inputs were given. The entire meeting, including both rounds, was documented by researchers with audio recordings on a tape recorder.

Scientific literacy dimensions

Based on the search process, the research group extracted 58 tertiary indicators. To ensure the practicality and comprehensiveness of the indicators, the Nominal group technique was used on the basis of the literature search. Panelists summarized the entries shown in the interviews and merged similar content to obtain 32 third-level indicators. The indicators obtained from the literature search were compared. Several indicators with similar meanings, such as capture information ability, language expression ability, communication ability, and scientific research integrity, were merged. Additionally, the indicators obtained from the literature search, such as scientific research ethics, database use ability, feasibility and analysis ability, were added to the 15 indicators. A total of 47 third-level indicators were identified.

Fengling Dai and colleagues developed an innovation ability index system with six dimensions covering problem discovery, information retrieval, research design, practice, data analysis, and report writing, which represents the whole of innovative activity. Additionally, the system includes an innovation spirit index focusing on motivation, thinking, emotion, and will, reflecting the core of the innovation process in terms of competence [ 13 ]. Liao et al. evaluated the following five dimensions in their study on scientific research competence: literature processing, experimental manipulation, statistical analysis, manuscript production, and innovative project design [ 14 ]. Mohan claimed that scientific literacy consists of four core components: problem solving, critical thinking, communication skills, and the ability to interpret data [ 15 ].

This study structured scientific literacy into 2 primary indicators (research literacy and research competence) and 9 secondary indicators (basic qualifications, research ethics, research attitude, problem identification, literature use, professional capacity, subject implementation, data processing, thesis writing, and research output).

Using the Delphi method to develop an index system

Expert selection.

This study used the Delphi method to distribute expert consultation questionnaires online, allowing experts to exchange opinions anonymously to ensure that the findings were more desirable and scientific. No fixed number of experts is required for a Delphi study, but the more experts involved, the more stable the results will be [ 16 ]; this method generally includes 15 to 50 experts [ 17 ]. We selected clinicians from several tertiary hospitals in the Beijing area to serve as Delphi study consultants based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) they had a title of senior associate or above; (2) they had more than 10 years of work experience in the field of clinical scientific research, and (3) they were presiding over national scientific research projects. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) full-time scientific researchers, and (2) personnel in hospitals who were engaged only in management. To ensure that the selected experts were representative, this study selected 20 experts from 14 tertiary hospitals affiliated with Capital Medical University, Peking University, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and the China Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine according to the inclusion criteria; the hospitals featured an average of 1,231 beds each, and 9 hospitals were included among the 77 hospitals in the domestic comprehensive hospital ranking (Fudan Hospital Management Institute ranking). The experts represented various specialties and roles from different hospitals, including cardiology, neurosurgery, neurology, ear and throat surgery, head and neck surgery, radiology, imaging, infection, vascular interventional oncology, pediatrics, general practice, hematology, stomatology, nephrology, urology, and other related fields. This diverse group included physicians, nurses, managers, and vice presidents. The selected experts had extensive clinical experience, achieved numerous scientific research accomplishments and possessed profound knowledge and experience in clinical scientific research. This ensured the reliability of the consultation outcomes.

Design of the expert consultation questionnaire

The Delphi survey for experts included sections on their background, familiarity with the indicator system, system evaluation, and opinions. Experts rated indicators on importance, feasibility, and sensitivity using a 1–10 scale and their own familiarity with the indicators on a 1–5 scale. They also scored their judgment basis and impact on a 1–3 scale, considering theoretical analysis, work experience, peer understanding, and intuition. Two rounds of Delphi surveys were carried out via email with 20 experts to evaluate and suggest changes to the indicators. Statistical coefficients were calculated to validate the Delphi process. Feedback from the first round led to modifications and the inclusion of an AHP questionnaire for the second round. After the second round, indicators deemed less important were removed, and expert discussion finalized the indicator weights based on their relative importance scores. This resulted in the development of an index system for medical staff scientific literacy. The questionnaire is included in Additional file 1 (first round) and Additional file 2 (second round).

Using the boundary value method to screen the indicators

In this study, the boundary value method was utilized to screen the indicators of medical staff's scientific literacy, and the importance, feasibility, and sensitivity of each indicator were measured using the frequency of perfect scores, the arithmetic mean, and the coefficient of variation, respectively. When calculating the frequency of perfect scores and arithmetic means, the boundary value was set as "mean-SD," and indicators with scores higher than this value were retained. When calculating the coefficient of variation, the cutoff value was set to "mean + SD," and indicators with values below this threshold were retained.

The principles of indicator screening are as follows:

To evaluate the importance of the indicators, if none of the boundary values of the three statistics met the requirements, the indicators were deleted.

If an indicator has two aspects, importance, feasibility, or sensitivity, and each aspect has two or more boundary values that do not meet the requirements, then the indicator is deleted.

If all three boundary values for an indicator meet the requirements, the research group discusses the modification feedback from the experts and determines whether the indicator should be used.

The results of the two rounds of boundary values are shown in Table  1 .

Using the AHP to assign weights

After the second round of Delphi expert consultations, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was used to determine the weights of the two first-level indicators and the nine second-level indicators. The weights of the 37 third-level indicators were subsequently calculated via the percentage weight method. The AHP, developed by Saaty in the 1980s, is used to determine the priority and importance of elements constituting the decision-making hierarchy. It is based on multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) and determines the importance of decision-makers' judgments based on weights derived from pairwise comparisons between elements. In the AHP, pairwise comparisons are based on a comparative evaluation in which each element's weight in the lower tier is compared with that of other lower elements based on the element in the upper tier [ 18 ].

AHP analysis involves the following steps:

Step 1: Establish a final goal and list related elements to construct a hierarchy based on interrelated criteria.

Step 2: Perform a pairwise comparison for each layer to compare the weights of each element. Using a score from 1 to 9, which is the basic scale of the AHP, each pair is compared according to the expert’s judgment, and the importance is judged [ 19 , 20 ].

Yaahp software was employed to analyze data by creating a judgment matrix based on the experts' scores and hierarchical model. The index system weights were obtained by combining the experts' scores. The percentage weight method used experts' importance ratings from the second round to calculate weights, ranking indicators by importance, calculating their scores based on frequency of ranking, and determining weighting coefficients by dividing these scores by the total of all third-level indicators' scores. The third-level indicator weighting coefficients were then calculated by multiplying the coefficients [ 21 ].

Data analysis

Expert positivity coefficient.

The expert positivity coefficient is indicated by the effective recovery rate of the expert consultation questionnaire, which represents the level of expert positivity toward this consultation and determines the credibility and scientific validity of the questionnaire results. Generally, a questionnaire with an effective recovery rate of 70% is considered very good [ 22 ].

In this study, 20 questionnaires were distributed in both rounds of Delphi expert counseling, and all 20 were effectively recovered, resulting in a 100% effective recovery rate. Consequently, the experts provided positive feedback on the Delphi counseling.

Expert authority coefficient (CR)

The expert authority coefficient (Cr) is the arithmetic mean of the judgment coefficient (Ca) and the familiarity coefficient (Cs), namely, Cr =  \(\frac{({\text{Ca}}+{\text{Cs}})}{2}\) . The higher the degree of expert authority is, the greater the predictive accuracy of the indicator. A Cr ≥ 0.70 was considered to indicate an acceptable level of confidence [ 23 ]. Ca represents the basis on which the expert makes a judgment about the scenario in question, while Cs represents the expert's familiarity with the relevant problem [ 24 ].

Ca is calculated on the basis of experts' judgments of each indicator and the magnitude of its influence. In this study, experts used "practical experience (0.4), "theoretical analysis (0.3), "domestic and foreign peers (0.2)" and "intuition (0.1)" as the basis for judgment and assigned points according to the influence of each basis for judgment on the experts' judgment. Ca = 1 when the basis for judgment has a large influence on the experts, and Ca = 0.5 when the influence of the experts' judgment is at a medium level. When no influence on expert judgment was evident, Ca = 0 [ 25 ] (Table  2 ).

Cs refers to the degree to which the expert was familiar with the question. This study used the Likert scale method to score experts’ familiarity with the question on a scale ranging from 0 to 1 (1 = very familiar, 0.75 = more familiar, 0.5 = moderately familiar, 0.25 = less familiar, 0 = unfamiliar). The familiarity coefficient for each expert (the average familiarity for each indicator) was calculated. The average familiarity coefficient was subsequently computed [ 26 ].

The Cr value of the primary indicator in this study was 0.83, and the Cr value of the secondary indicator was 0.82 (> 0.7); hence, the results of the expert consultation were credible and accurate, as shown in Table  3 .

The degree of expert coordination is an important indicator used to judge the consistency among various experts regarding indicator scores. This study used the Kendall W coordination coefficient test to determine the degree of expert coordination. A higher Kendall W coefficient indicates a greater degree of expert coordination and greater consistency in expert opinion, and P  <  0.05 indicates that the difference is significant [ 26 ]. The results of the three-dimensional harmonization coefficient test for each indicator in the two rounds of the expert consultation questionnaire were valid ( p  <  0.01 ), emphasizing the consistency of the experts' scores. The values of the Kendall W coordination coefficients for both rounds are shown in Table  4 .

Basic information regarding the participants

The 20 Delphi experts who participated in this study were predominantly male (80.0%) rather than female (20.0%). In addition, the participants’ ages were mainly concentrated in the range of 41–50 years old (60.0%). The majority of the experts were doctors by profession (85.0%), and their education and titles were mainly doctoral degree (90.0%) and full senior level (17.0%). The experts also exhibited high academic achievement in their respective fields and had many years of working experience, with the majority having between 21 and 25 years of experience (40.0%) (Table  5 ).

Index screening

The boundary value method was applied to eliminate indicators, leading to the removal of 6 third-level indicators in the first round. One of these, the ability to use statistical software, was associated with a more significant second-level indicator involving data processing, which was kept after expert review. Six indicators were merged into three indicators due to duplication, and 5 third-level indicators were added, resulting in 2 primary indicators, 10 secondary indicators, and 43 third-level indicators.

In the second round of Delphi expert consultation, 5 third-level indicators were deleted, as shown in Additional file 3 , and only one third-level indicator, "Scientific spirit", remained under the secondary indicator "research attitude". The secondary indicator "Research attitude" was combined with "Research ethics" and the third-level indicator "Scientific spirit" was also considered part of "Research ethics". After expert discussion, these were merged into a new secondary indicator "Research attitude" with three third-level indicators: "Research ethics", "Research integrity", and "Scientific spirit". The final index system included two primary indicators, nine secondary indicators, and thirty-eight third-level indicators, as shown in Additional File 3 .

Final index system with weights

The weights of the two primary indexes, research literacy and research ability, were equal. This was determined using the hierarchical analysis method and the percentage weight method based on the results of the second round of Delphi expert consultation (Table  6 ). The primary indicator of research literacy encompasses the fundamental qualities and attitudes medical staff develop over time, including basic qualifications and approach to research. The primary indicator of research ability refers to medical professionals' capacity to conduct scientific research in new areas using suitable methods, as well as their skills needed for successful research using scientific methods.

In this study, the Delphi method was employed, and after two rounds of expert consultation, in accordance with the characteristics and scientific research requirements of medical staff in China, an index system for the scientific literacy of medical staff in China was constructed. The index system for medical staff's scientific literacy in this study consists of 2 first-level indicators, 9 second-level indicators, and 38 third-level indicators. Medical institutions at all levels can use this index system to scientifically assess medical staff's scientific literacy.

In 2014, the Joint Task Force for Clinical Trial Competency (JTF) published its Core Competency Framework [ 27 ]. The Framework focuses more on the capacity to conduct clinical research. These include principles such as clinical research and quality practices for drug clinical trials. However, this framework does not apply to the current evaluation of scientific literacy in hospitals. Because these indicators do not apply to all staff members, there is a lack of practical scientific research, such as information about the final paper output. Therefore, the experts who constructed the index system in this study came from different specialties, and the indicators can be better applied to scientific researchers in all fields. This approach not only addresses clinical researchers but also addresses the concerns of hospital managers, and the indicators are more applicable.

The weighted analysis showed that the primary indicators "research literacy" and "research ability" had the same weight (0.50) and were two important components of scientific literacy. Research ability is a direct reflection of scientific literacy and includes the ability to identify problems, the ability to use literature, professional capacity, subject implementation capacity, data-processing capacity, thesis-writing skills, and research output capacity. Only by mastering these skills can medical staff carry out scientific research activities more efficiently and smoothly. The ability to identify problems refers to the ability of medical staff to obtain insights into the frontiers of their discipline and to identify and ask insightful questions. Ratten claimed that only with keen insight and sufficient sensitivity to major scientific issues can we exploit the opportunities for innovation that may lead to breakthroughs [ 28 ]. Therefore, it is suggested that in the process of cultivating the scientific literacy of medical staff, the ability to identify problems, including divergent thinking, innovative sensitivity, and the ability to produce various solutions, should be improved. Furthermore, this study included three subentries of the secondary indicator "research attitude", namely, research ethics, research integrity, and scientific spirit. This is likely because improper scientific research behavior is still prevalent. A study conducted in the United States and Europe showed that the rate of scientific research misconduct was 2% [ 13 ]. A small survey conducted in Indian medical schools and hospitals revealed that 57% of the respondents knew that someone had modified or fabricated data for publication [ 28 ]. The weight of this index ranked first in the secondary indicators, indicating that scientific attitude is an important condition for improving research quality, relevance, and reliability. Countries and hospitals should develop, implement, and optimize policies and disciplinary measures to combat academic misconduct.

In addition, the third-level indicator "scheduling ability" under the second-level indicator "basic qualification" has a high weight, indicating that medical staff attach importance to management and distribution ability in the context of scientific research. Currently, hospitals face several problems, such as a shortage of medical personnel, excessive workload, and an increase in the number of management-related documents [ 29 , 30 ]. These factors result in time conflicts between daily responsibilities and scientific research tasks, thereby presenting significant obstacles to the allocation of sufficient time for scientific inquiry [ 31 ]. Effectively arranging clinical work and scientific research time is crucial to improving the overall efficiency of scientific research. In the earlier expert interviews, most medical staff believed that scientific research work must be combined with clinical work rather than focused only on scientific research. Having the ability to make overall arrangements is essential to solving these problems. The high weight given to the second-level index of 'subject implementation capacity', along with its associated third-level indicators, highlights the challenges faced by young medical staff in obtaining research subjects. Before implementing a project, researchers must thoroughly investigate, analyze, and compare various aspects of the research project, including its technical, economic, and engineering aspects. Moreover, potential financial and economic benefits, as well as social impacts, need to be predicted to determine the feasibility of the project and develop a research plan [ 32 ]. However, for most young medical staff in medical institutions, executing such a project can be challenging due to their limited scientific research experience [ 33 ]. A researcher who possesses these skills can truly carry out independent scientific research.

The weights of the second-level index "research output capacity" cannot be ignored. In Chinese hospitals, the ability to produce scientific research output plays a certain role in employees’ ability to obtain rewards such as high pay, and this ability is also used as a reference for performance appraisals [ 34 ]. The general scientific research performance evaluation includes the number of projects, scientific papers and monographs, scientific and technological achievements, and patents. In particular, the publication of papers is viewed as an indispensable aspect of performance appraisal by Chinese hospitals [ 35 ]. Specifically, scientific research papers are the carriers of scientific research achievements and academic research and thus constitute an important symbol of the level of medical development exhibited by medical research institutions; they are thus used as recognized and important indicators of scientific research output [ 36 ]. This situation is consistent with the weight evaluation results revealed by this study.

The results of this study are important for the training and management of the scientific research ability of medical personnel. First, the index system focuses not only on external characteristics such as scientific knowledge and skills but also on internal characteristics such as individual traits, motivation, and attitudes. Therefore, when building a research team and selecting and employing researchers, hospital managers can use the index system to comprehensively and systematically evaluate the situation of researchers, which is helpful for optimizing the allocation of a research team, learning from each other's strengths, and strengthening the strength of the research team. Second, this study integrates the content of existing research to obtain useful information through in-depth interviews with medical staff and constructs an evaluation index system based on Delphi expert consultation science, which comprehensively includes the evaluation of the whole process of scientific research activities. These findings can provide a basis for medical institutions to formulate scientific research training programs, help medical personnel master and improve scientific research knowledge and skills, and improve their working ability and quality. Moreover, the effectiveness of the training can also be evaluated according to the system.

In China, with the emergence of STEM rankings, hospitals pay more and more attention to the scientific research performance of medical personnel. Scientific literacy not only covers the abilities of medical personnel engaged in scientific research, but also reflects their professional quality in this field. Having high quality medical personnel often means that they have excellent scientific research ability, and their scientific research performance will naturally rise. In view of this,,medical institutions can define the meaning of third-level indicators and create Likert scales to survey medical staff. Based on the weights assigned to each indicator, comprehensive scores can be calculated to evaluate the level of scientific literacy among medical staff. Through detailed data analysis, they can not only reveal their shortcomings in scientific research ability and quality, but also provide a strong basis for subsequent training and promotion. Through targeted inspection, we can not only promote the comprehensive improvement of the ability of medical staff, but also promote the steady improvement of their scientific research performance, and inject new vitality into the scientific research cause of hospitals.

Limitations

This study has several limitations that need to be considered. First, the participants were only recruited from Beijing (a city in China), potentially lacking geographical diversity. We plan to select more outstanding experts from across the country to participate. Second, the index system may be more suitable for countries with medical systems similar to those of China. When applying this system in other countries, some modifications may be necessary based on the local context. Last, While this study has employed scientific methods to establish the indicator system, the index system has yet to be implemented on a large sample of medical staff. Therefore, the reliability and validity of the index system must be confirmed through further research. In conclusion, it is crucial to conduct further detailed exploration of the effectiveness and practical application of the index system in the future.

This study developed an evaluation index system using the Delphi method to assess the scientific literacy of medical staff in China. The system comprises two primary indicators, nine secondary indicators, and thirty-eight third-level indicators, with each index assigned a specific weight. The index system emphasizes the importance of both attitudes and abilities in the scientific research process for medical staff and incorporates more comprehensive evaluation indicators. In the current era of medical innovation, enhancing the scientific literacy of medical staff is crucial for enhancing the competitiveness of individuals, hospitals, and overall medical services in society. This evaluation index system is universally applicable and beneficial for countries with healthcare systems similar to those of China. This study can serve as a valuable reference for cultivating highly qualified and capable research personnel and enhancing the competitiveness of medical research.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Coloma J, Harris E. From construction workers to architects: developing scientific research capacity in low-income countries. PLoS Biol. 2009;7(7):e1000156. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000156 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Brauer SG, Haines TP, Bew PG. Fostering clinician-led research. Aust J Physiother. 2007;53(3):143–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0004-9514(07)70020-x .

The L. China’s research renaissance. Lancet. 2019;393(10179):1385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30797-4 .

Hannay DR. Evaluation of a primary care research network in rural Scotland. Prim Health Care ResDevelop. 2006;7(3):194–200. https://doi.org/10.1191/1463423606pc296oa .

Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, Evans T, et al. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet. 2010;376:1923–58.

Xie Y, Wang J, Li S, Zheng Y. Research on the Influence Path of Metacognitive Reading Strategies on Scientific Literacy. J Intell. 2023;11(5):78. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11050078 . PMID: 37233327; PMCID: PMC10218841.

Pang YH, Cheng JL. Revise of scientific research ability self-evaluation rating scales of nursing staff. Chin Nurs Res. 2011;13:1205–8. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-6493.2011.13.040 .

Zhang J, Jianshan MAO, Gu Y. On the cultivation of scientific research literacy of medical graduate students. Continu Med Educ China. 2023;15(3):179–82. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-9308.2023.03.043 .

Rillero P. Process skills and content knowledge. Sci Act. 1998;3:3–4.

Google Scholar  

Liu RS. Study on reliability and validity of self rating scale for scientific research ability of nursing staff. Chinese J Pract Nurs. 2004;9:8–10. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1672-7088.2004.09.005 .

Moule P, Goodman M. Nursing research: An introduction. London, UK: Sage; 2013.

Xue J, Chen X, Zhang Z, et al. Survey on status quo and development needs of research and innovation capabilities of young researchers at university-affiliated hospitals in China: a cross-sectional survey. Ann Transl Med. 2022;10(18):964. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-22-3692 .

Fanelli D, Costas R, Fang FC, et al. Testing hypotheses on risk factors for scientific misconduct via matched-control analysis of papers containing problematic image duplications. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019;25(3):771–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0023-7 .

Liao Y, Zhou H, Wang F, et al. The Impact of Undergraduate Tutor System in Chinese 8-Year Medical Students in Scientific Research. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:854132. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.854132 .

Mohan L, Singh Y, Kathrotia R, et al. Scientific literacy and the medical student: A cross-sectional study. Natl Med J India. 2020;33(1):35–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-258X.308242 .

Jorm AF. Using the Delphi expert consensus method in mental health research. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2015;49(10):887–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867415600891 .

Xinran S, Heping W, Yule H, et al. Defining the scope and weights of services of a family doctor service project for the functional community using Delphi technique and analytic hierarchy process. Chinese Gen Pract. 2021;24(34):4386–91.

Park S, Kim HK, Lee M. An analytic hierarchy process analysis for reinforcing doctor-patient communication. BMC Prim Care. 2023;24(1):24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-023-01972-3 . Published 2023 Jan 21.

Zhou MLY, Yin H, et al. New screening tool for neonatal nutritional risk in China: a validation study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(4):e042467. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042467 .

Wang K, Wang Z, Deng J, et al. Study on the evaluation of emergency management capacity of resilient communities by the AHP-TOPSIS method. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(23):16201. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316201 .

Yuwei Z, Chuanhui Y, Junlong Z, et al. Application of analytic Hierarchy Process and percentage weight method to determine the weight of traditional Chinese medicine appropriate technology evaluation index system. Chin J Tradit Chinese Med. 2017;32(07):3054–6.

Babbie E. The practice of social research. 10th Chinese language edition. Huaxia Publisher, 2005: 253–4.

Liu W, Hu M, Chen W. Identifying the Service Capability of Long-Term Care Facilities in China: an e-Delphi study. Front Public Health. 2022;10:884514. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.884514 .

Zeng G. Modern epidemiological methods and application. Pecking Union Medical College Union Press, 1996.

Geng Y, Zhao L, Wang Y, et al. Competency model for dentists in China: Results of a Delphi study. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0194411. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194411 .

Cong C, Liu Y, Wang R. Kendall coordination coefficient W test and its SPSS implementation. Journal of Taishan Medical College. 2010;31(7):487–490. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-7115.2010.07.002 .

Sonstein S, Seltzer J, Li R, et al. Moving from compliance to competency: a harmonized core competency framework for the clinical research professional. Clin Res. 2014;28(3):17–23.

Madan C, Kruger E, Tennant M. 30 Years of dental research in Australia and India: a comparative analysis of published peer review literature. Indian J Dent Res. 2012;23(2):293–4. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9290.100447 .

Siemens DR, Punnen S, Wong J, Kanji N. A survey on the attitudes towards research in medical school. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-10-4 .

Solomon SS, Tom SC, Pichert J, Wasserman D, Powers AC. Impact of medical student research in the development of physician-scientists. J Investig Med. 2003;51(3):149–56. https://doi.org/10.1136/jim-51-03-17 .

Misztal-Okonska P, Goniewicz K, Hertelendy AJ, et al. How Medical Studies in Poland Prepare Future Healthcare Managers for Crises and Disasters: Results of a Pilot Study. Healthcare (Basel). 2020;8(3):202. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8030202 .

Xu G. On the declaration of educational scientific research topics. Journal of Henan Radio & TV University. 2013;26(01):98–101.

Ju Y, Zhao X. Top three hospitals clinical nurse scientific research ability present situation and influence factors analysis. J Health Vocational Educ. 2022;40(17):125–8.

Zhu Q, Li T, Li X, et al. Industry gain public hospital medical staff performance distribution mode of integration, exploring. J Health Econ Res. 2022;33(11):6-82–6.

Sun YLL. Analysis of hospital papers published based on performance appraisal. China Contemp Med. 2015;22(31):161–3.

Jian Y, Wu J, Liu Y. Citation analysis of seven tertiary hospitals in Yunnan province from 2008 to 2012. Yunnan Medicine. 2014;(6):700–704.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all who participated in the nominal group technique and two rounds of the Delphi study.

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (72074160) and the Natural Science Foundation Project of Beijing (9222004).

Author information

Shuyu Liang and Ziyan Zhai contributed equally to this work and joint first authors.

Kai Meng and Yuan Gao contributed equally to this work and share corresponding author.

Authors and Affiliations

Aerospace Center Hospital, No. 15 Yuquan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100049, China

Xiaozhi Sun, Jingxuan Jiao & Yuan Gao

School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, No.10 Xitoutiao, Youanmenwai Street, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100069, China

Shuyu Liang, Ziyan Zhai, Xingmiao Feng & Kai Meng

Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 119 South Fourth Ring West Road, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100070, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

S.L. and Z.Z. contributed equally to this paper. S.L. took charge of the nominal group technique, data analysis, writing the first draft and revising the manuscript; Z.Z. was responsible for the Delphi survey, data analysis, and writing of the first draft of the manuscript; XF was responsible for the rigorous revision of Delphi methods; X.S. and J.J. were responsible for the questionnaire survey and data collection; Y.G. contributed to the questionnaire survey, organization of the nominal group interview, supervision, project administration and resources; and K.M. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, writing—review; editing, supervision, and project administration. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yuan Gao or Kai Meng .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study involved human participants and was approved by the Ethical Review Committee of the Capital Medical University (No. Z2022SY089). Participation in the survey was completely voluntary, and written informed consent was obtained from the participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., supplementary material 3., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Liang, S., Zhai, Z., Feng, X. et al. Development of an index system for the scientific literacy of medical staff: a modified Delphi study in China. BMC Med Educ 24 , 397 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05350-0

Download citation

Received : 25 October 2023

Accepted : 26 March 2024

Published : 10 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05350-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Medical staff
• Scientific literacy
• Evaluation indicators

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Today's news
• Reviews and deals
• Climate change
• 2024 election
• Fall allergies
• Health news
• Mental health
• Sexual health
• Family health
• So mini ways
• Unapologetically
• Buying guides

Entertainment

• How to Watch
• My Portfolio
• Stock Market
• Biden Economy
• Stocks: Most Actives
• Stocks: Gainers
• Stocks: Losers
• Trending Tickers
• World Indices
• US Treasury Bonds
• Top Mutual Funds
• Highest Open Interest
• Highest Implied Volatility
• Stock Comparison
• Advanced Charts
• Currency Converter
• Basic Materials
• Communication Services
• Consumer Cyclical
• Consumer Defensive
• Financial Services
• Industrials
• Real Estate
• Mutual Funds
• Credit Cards
• Balance transfer cards
• Cash-back cards
• Rewards cards
• Travel cards
• Personal Loans
• Student Loans
• Car Insurance
• Options 101
• Good Buy or Goodbye
• Options Pit
• Yahoo Finance Invest
• Fantasy football
• Pro Pick 'Em
• College Pick 'Em
• Fantasy baseball
• Fantasy hockey
• Fantasy basketball
• Download the app
• Daily fantasy
• Scores and schedules
• GameChannel
• World Baseball Classic
• Premier League
• CONCACAF League
• Champions League
• Motorsports
• Horse racing
• Newsletters

New on Yahoo

• Privacy Dashboard

Yahoo Finance

Asean foundation unveils research findings on digital literacy, spotlighting the digital divide across the region.

SINGAPORE , April 11, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- The ASEAN Foundation, with support from Google.org , unveiled research findings on digital literacy at the ASEAN Regional Symposium: Unveiling Insights into the Region's Digital Literacy, held on March 20, 2024 , in Bangkok . Titled "One Divide or Many Divides? Underprivileged ASEAN Communities' Meaningful Digital Literacy and Response to Disinformation," the study delves into the digital engagement of underprivileged ASEAN communities. It examines their knowledge, skills, experiences, and responses to disinformation with the aim of establishing a baseline understanding of digital literacy's role in recognizing and responding to disinformation within these communities.

This research is one of the flagship programs of the ASEAN Digital Literacy Programme (ASEAN DLP), following the successful empowerment of over 190,000 individuals across ASEAN with essential digital literacy skills. The ASEAN DLP includes direct outreach by the ASEAN Youth Advisory Group, which actively mobilizes the campaign through various social media channels, engaging 3,000 people through onsite activities and reaching over 900,000 on social media. It has also launched an e-learning platform addressing misinformation,   www.DigitalClassASEAN.org .

"As the latest ASEAN Digital Literacy Programme research concludes, the ASEAN Foundation invites strategic stakeholders to attend and discuss the study reports and findings. This research covered quantitative survey and qualitative data collection from all 10 ASEAN member states. We are presenting it at this symposium so attendees can listen to insights and recommendations from each member country and have in-depth discussions with country researchers. We hope this research will help bridge the digital divide in the ASEAN region and create a more inclusive and safer digital space," said Dr. Piti Srisangnam, Executive Director of ASEAN Foundation.

According to the report, levels of critical thinking and privacy protection competence vary widely across ASEAN member states. Notably, Thailand exhibits the lowest percentage of individuals with high critical thinking skills, at 25%, contrasting with neighboring Cambodia's impressive 62.2%. The Philippines is behind in privacy protection competence, with only 17.42% of individuals possessing high competence, while Singapore excels with 54.37%. Singapore consistently ranks highly in global innovation indices. While Singapore's economic growth has fluctuated over the years, it experienced a significant increase in 2021. However, disparities persist in computer access, particularly among seniors and low-income households, limiting full digital participation. False information online poses a threat to trust and social cohesion, leading to government actions like the POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act).

The research identified several factors contributing to the complexities of digital inequality in Singapore . These include social and cultural factors such as social support networks, access to technology, and cultural attitudes towards technology use. Additionally, psychological factors such as individual motivations, cognitive abilities, and personality traits influence digital engagement. Lastly, material capital, referring to financial resources and their role in facilitating access to and utilization of digital technologies, was also found to be a significant factor.

The report underscores the importance of information literacy in the digital era, focusing on critical thinking and source evaluation skills. Suggested strategies to bridge the digital divide include initiatives like the Silver Infocomm Junctions program for seniors, integrating computer science into the school curriculum, and fostering social support networks among communities and families for guidance on digital technologies. Ensuring equitable access to resources, including affordable devices and reliable internet connectivity, remains crucial. Collaborative efforts are necessary to cultivate a more inclusive digital society and address persistent disinformation challenges, with a focus on continuous education and awareness campaigns.

With the release of these groundbreaking findings, the ASEAN Foundation aims to spark meaningful discussions and foster collaborative efforts among stakeholders to address the multifaceted digital literacy challenges facing the ASEAN region. Its goal is to strengthen community resilience against mis/disinformation through comprehensive digital literacy programs and stakeholder engagement, taking into consideration infrastructure disparities, socio-cultural influences, and varying government initiatives across ASEAN.

As Marija Ralic , Lead for Google.org APAC , said, "We are proud to support the ASEAN Foundation in empowering people across the region with crucial media literacy and online safety skills. Google.org's dedication to fostering digital safety aligns perfectly with the ASEAN Foundation's mission to empower ASEAN communities through digital literacy which will contribute to digitally resilient ASEAN." Previously, Google.org supported the ASEAN Foundation with a $1.5 million grant to aid the implementation of ASEAN DLP from 2022 to 2 024.

The ASEAN Regional Symposium was also attended by the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the ASEAN Foundation, representatives from Google.org, representatives from the ASEAN Secretariat, local implementing partners of ASEAN DLP, ASEAN entities, think tanks and digital literacy experts in the region. The  symposium concluded with a panel discussion on "From Divide to Empowerment: Strategies for Inclusive Digital Literacy in ASEAN." that discussed empowerment strategies towards inclusive digital literacy, especially among the underprivileged communities in A SEAN .

About the ASEAN Foundation

Three decades after ASEAN was established, ASEAN leaders recognised that there remained inadequate shared prosperity, ASEAN awareness, and contact among people of ASEAN. It was out of this concern that ASEAN leaders established the ASEAN Foundation during ASEAN's 30th Anniversary Commemorative Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 15 December 1997 .

The ASEAN Foundation is an organization by and for the people of ASEAN. The Foundation exists because of one vision: to build a cohesive and prosperous ASEAN Community. As an ASEAN body, the Foundation is tasked to support ASEAN mainly in promoting awareness, identity, interaction, and development of the people of ASEAN. For more info about the ASEAN Foundation, visit www.aseanfoundation.org .

About Google.org

Google.org, Google's philanthropic arm, brings the best of Google to help solve some of humanity's biggest challenges by combining funding, product donations, and technical expertise to support underserved communities and improve opportunities for everyone. It engages nonprofits, social enterprises, and civic entities who make a significant impact on the communities they serve, and whose work has the potential to produce scalable, meaningful change.

View original content: https://www.prnewswire.com/apac/news-releases/asean-foundation-unveils-research-findings-on-digital-literacy-spotlighting-the-digital-divide-across-the-region-302116360.html

SOURCE ASEAN Foundation