An Anatomy of the SoR: A Systematic Review of the Conceptualizations and Instrumental Uses of the Science of Reading.
Saved in:
| Title: | An Anatomy of the SoR: A Systematic Review of the Conceptualizations and Instrumental Uses of the Science of Reading. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | McLean, Cheryl1 (AUTHOR) cheryl.mclean@gse.rutgers.edu, Gallagher, Tiffany2 (AUTHOR), Hattan, Courtney3 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Reading Research Quarterly (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.). Apr2026 Supplement 1, Vol. 61, p1-16. 16p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Literacy education, *Education policy, *Reading comprehension, *Phonics, *Educational equalization, *Literacy, *Multilingualism |
| Abstract: | In this systematic review, evolving conceptualizations and instrumental uses of the "science of reading" (SoR) in educational literature from 2017 to 2025 were investigated. Amid renewed discussions reminiscent of historical "reading wars," the SoR has emerged as a dominant discourse in literacy education, shaped by media, policy, and scholarly engagement. Drawing on 121 researcher and practitioner‐oriented articles analyzed through a PRISMA‐informed review and coding process, we identified seven conceptualizations of the SoR, ranging from narrow phonics‐based definitions to broader, multifaceted interpretations encompassing comprehension, equity, multilingualism, and sociocultural contexts. The study reveals that while over 90% of articles acknowledge narrow interpretations, nearly half also present broader perspectives, highlighting tensions and complexities within the field. Authors frequently use the SoR to introduce articles, frame arguments, and validate pedagogical models, with 93.8% employing multiple uses. The findings also underscore a disconnect between research and practitioner publications, with nuanced definitions more prevalent in scholarly work. This divergence has implications for policy, curriculum, and instructional practices, as these various portrayals in discourse risk marginalizing diverse literacy needs. This review calls for a fourth Reading Research Quarterly special issue to critically examine how the SoR shapes educational mandates, practices, and politics. Given the dual role of the SoR as both a construct and a rhetorical tool, the study emphasizes the need for ongoing critical inquiry into the politicization of the SoR and its impact on literacy education, advocating for inclusive and evidence‐informed approaches to reading instruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Reading Research Quarterly (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | In this systematic review, evolving conceptualizations and instrumental uses of the "science of reading" (SoR) in educational literature from 2017 to 2025 were investigated. Amid renewed discussions reminiscent of historical "reading wars," the SoR has emerged as a dominant discourse in literacy education, shaped by media, policy, and scholarly engagement. Drawing on 121 researcher and practitioner‐oriented articles analyzed through a PRISMA‐informed review and coding process, we identified seven conceptualizations of the SoR, ranging from narrow phonics‐based definitions to broader, multifaceted interpretations encompassing comprehension, equity, multilingualism, and sociocultural contexts. The study reveals that while over 90% of articles acknowledge narrow interpretations, nearly half also present broader perspectives, highlighting tensions and complexities within the field. Authors frequently use the SoR to introduce articles, frame arguments, and validate pedagogical models, with 93.8% employing multiple uses. The findings also underscore a disconnect between research and practitioner publications, with nuanced definitions more prevalent in scholarly work. This divergence has implications for policy, curriculum, and instructional practices, as these various portrayals in discourse risk marginalizing diverse literacy needs. This review calls for a fourth Reading Research Quarterly special issue to critically examine how the SoR shapes educational mandates, practices, and politics. Given the dual role of the SoR as both a construct and a rhetorical tool, the study emphasizes the need for ongoing critical inquiry into the politicization of the SoR and its impact on literacy education, advocating for inclusive and evidence‐informed approaches to reading instruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 19362722 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/rrq.70095 |
