Credit: sanjeri / iStock
Share
April 14, 2025
Esther Quintero unpacks key insights from a recent Eyes On Reading event featuring Mark Seidenberg and Maryellen MacDonald, exploring how educators and researchers can work together to re-calibrate reading instruction and preserve the evolving, evidence-based progress of the literacy community.
Share
A unique gathering of educators, researchers, and advocates took place on March 1, 2025 at Planet Word in Washington, DC, as part of Emily Hanford’s Eyes On Reading series. This event featured Mark Seidenberg and Maryellen MacDonald under the provocative title, “What is Next for the Science of Reading?” The take-home message was undeniably powerful, though it may have left some educators searching for more specific connections to their classroom realities. I write this blog in the spirit of extending this conversation, as getting down to the specifics will depend on the joint work and ongoing dialogue between researchers and educators.
Seidenberg’s keynote argues that in our effort to teach reading explicitly and systematically, we may have overshot the mark—resulting in an overemphasis on certain competencies. He suggests that many typically developing children reach an “escape velocity” after cracking the code of reading, a point after which, systematic instruction may become unnecessary. Teaching these children “all the way to the moon” – Seidenberg said – may not only be inefficient but potentially counterproductive. Excessive direct instruction can crowd out opportunities to engage with authentic texts that foster the implicit learning needed for continued growth as a reader. While advocating for the science of reading and structured literacy, Seidenberg calls for a recalibration or dial back in contexts where a problem of ‘overteaching’ has popped up.
Maryellen MacDonald’s keynote was a good segue. She discussed how to encourage implicit learning by examining what lies between word reading and reading whole passages—namely, the sentence level. She described and exemplified how challenging reading a sentence can be for beginner readers, as students must navigate what she called an “odds game” with every word, making complex decisions about their meaning. Unlike spoken language, “book language” is denser, more descriptive, and structurally complex. Because students are less familiar with these patterns, they need extensive reading practice to master this odds game. MacDonald also acknowledged the added challenges of our current era, where technology and distractions compete for children’s attention. Her four actionable ideas were: more shared book reading at home, more authentic reading practice in the classroom, strategic use of audiobooks, and watching high-quality programming such as documentaries.
Teaching these children 'all the way to the moon' – Seidenberg said – may not only be inefficient but potentially counterproductive.
This presentation was fascinating because it ignited so many questions and because those questions; questions that really matter for students and educators alike. Most importantly, I believe educators are uniquely positioned to help solve them.
During the discussion, someone from the audience mentioned a “pendulum swing,” but Hanford pushed back on that analogy. I really appreciated her explanation that the metaphor isn’t entirely accurate, as the pendulum can be positioned differently—it doesn’t always swing between the same two extremes. I think this is a critical point; I’d like to believe that the field has moved in a positive direction, toward practices more closely aligned with the evidence base. Even as small adjustments remain necessary, these may feel more like soft swings between positions that are not only closer to each other but also closer to the science.
My hope is that teachers receive this message as a valuable addition to their understanding of reading science, not a contradiction. I share the room’s sentiment: educators must speak up when “overteaching” begins to undermine effective instruction. Yet, we also need context-specific conversations—about when to ease back, by how much, and for which students. The answer will often be it depends. This underscores the indispensable role of teacher knowledge in making these critical calls.
Ultimately, our progress in literacy depends on supporting and empowering those who can bridge the gap between the science—its principles and insights—and the programs and materials built upon that scientific foundation, on the one hand, and the students who benefit from them on the other.
Equally important, though perhaps less widely recognized, is the need for collective or shared professional autonomy as these decisions get made. Rather than being left to navigate these challenges on their own, teachers may build and draw on a common knowledge base, becoming a more unified, expert community. Ultimately, our progress in literacy depends on supporting and empowering those who can bridge the gap between the science—its principles and insights—and the programs and materials built upon that scientific foundation, on the one hand, and the students who benefit from them on the other.
In these challenging times, every aspect of the infrastructure sustaining our science of reading community is under threat. These attacks target not only research that may never be funded or completed, but also the very norms that have sustained us—norms that view science as ever-evolving, that value the interplay between practice and research, and that see improvement as a continuous journey driven by knowledge, dialogue, and inquiry. If you believe in the power of continuous learning and in a collaborative model where researchers and practitioners work together to help every student learn to read with more ease, then raise your voice against cuts, against the defunding of critical institutions like IES, and against the erosion of the knowledge and norms that sustain our vibrant SoR community.
Reading is a foundational skill necessary for virtually everything we do. It opens possibilities for all children to succeed—to learn and grow, to explore and imagine, to investigate and verify, and to lead fulfilling lives. Reading well instills confidence and helps reduce inequities. Join this communtiy and register for literacy webinars, learn new strategies, and find free teaching resources for preK-12 students.
Want to see more stories like this one? Subscribe to the SML e-newsletter!
