Photo credit: hechingerreport.org
Nearly fifty years ago, a pivotal study revealed that many educators were neglecting the explicit teaching of reading comprehension. Once students acquired the ability to decode words, they often lacked guidance on how to interpret the meanings behind sentences and longer texts. While some learners grasped these skills intuitively, others struggled significantly.
Since that revelation, literacy researchers have developed a variety of strategies to enhance comprehension, yet educators continue to engage in discussions over which methods to prioritize. Despite ongoing research into reading comprehension, evidence suggests a range of effective teaching practices—from vocabulary expansion and nurturing background knowledge to leading discussions in class and supporting students in self-checking their understanding while reading.
Progress should have been made toward rectifying the issues identified decades ago. However, a recent study published in a 2025 issue of the peer-reviewed journal Scientific Studies of Reading indicates that very little of this evidence-based instruction has made its way into classrooms.
“It’s somewhat disheartening,” noted Philip Capin, an assistant professor of education at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education. “While there are ongoing debates regarding strategies versus content knowledge, what is often evident in classrooms lacks high-quality strategy teaching or the knowledge-building that is essential.”
Capin references several comprehension strategies including post-reading checks for understanding, pinpointing the author’s main argument, and summarizing prior readings. On the other hand, knowledge-building is crucial because readers are more likely to understand new content when they can relate it to their existing knowledge base.
Leading a team of eleven, Capin examined 66 studies that assessed reading instruction in real classroom settings over the past four decades. Most of these studies were conducted after the year 2000 and encompassed nearly 1,800 teachers. The analysis covered not just reading and English language arts classes but also subjects like science and social studies, with some studies involving extensive observation and transcription of classroom interactions.
Although these observations provided a glimpse into classroom dynamics, they fell short of explaining why evidence-based practices for reading comprehension were not widely adopted. Capin could not ascertain if recent interest in the science of reading had spurred improvements in comprehension instruction. Nevertheless, he identified several troubling trends.
Inadequate reading time
Teachers are often found to spend minimal time engaging students with actual text. “It’s quite clear that it’s challenging to enhance reading comprehension if students are not reading at all,” Capin remarked.
This lack of reading was particularly notable in science classrooms, where educators often favored PowerPoint presentations over text. In reading or English classes, while there was an increase, just 23 percent of instructional time was allocated to reading comprehension—an improvement from just 1 percent in 1978, but still insufficient.
Related: The buzz around teaching facts to boost reading is bigger than the evidence for it
A 2021 survey of middle school teachers aligned with these findings, indicating a significant lack of reading activities in classrooms. Seventy percent of science teachers reported spending less than six minutes a day on text, totaling less than 30 minutes a week. Only half of social studies teachers indicated that they spent more time on reading.
“It’s plausible that insufficient reading instruction contributes to further inadequate instruction,” Capin suggested. “Teachers often indicate that their students struggle with reading at grade level, leading them to avoid reading altogether.”
This creates a paradox; the lack of instructional time dedicated to reading stems from students’ difficulties with reading, yet without more reading practice, students cannot improve their skills.
Focus more on decoding than comprehension
According to Capin, the emphasis of reading instruction was largely on decoding skills, or the ability to read words accurately. Observations revealed that while teachers attempted to build content knowledge—especially in science and social studies—this effort was typically disconnected from engaging students in comprehending texts.
Related: Many kids can’t read, even in high school. Is the solution teaching reading in every class?
Capin maintained that his team’s definition of reading comprehension instruction centers on the ability to read and understand verbal text. This, while seemingly straightforward, faced critique from some knowledge-building advocates who contend that knowledge acquisition alone suffices for comprehension, regardless of the format used.
Superficial instruction methods
Capin stated that instead of implementing recommended evidence-based practices from educational guidelines, researchers observed “low-level” reading instruction. An example would be a scenario where a teacher asks a question, and students respond with a brief answer, like this:
Teacher: We just read about ancient Egypt. Who were the ancient Egyptian leaders?
Class: Pharaohs!
Then the teacher moves on without deeper exploration.
A more effective approach would involve probing students on the motivations of pharaohs or the reasons behind the construction of tombs.
Teachers often focused on confirming the accuracy of student answers, with only 18 percent of responses elaborating on or expanding students’ ideas.
Related: Learning science might help kids read better
Capin observed that in many instances, teachers lectured rather than fostering a dialogue that enables students to articulate their understanding or thoughts. Frequently, they read the material aloud, posed questions, and then answered them when student responses fell short. Facilitating discussions might bolster student comprehension.
He noted that some teachers asked generic comprehension questions, such as “What is the main point?” without tailoring those questions to fit the reading material. For instance, in fictional texts, understanding the main characters and their motivations may be more pertinent than the author’s broader thesis. Even when employing evidence-based strategies, the execution can be flawed.
Some educators are indeed conducting reading discussions in their classrooms. Capin mentioned observing a classroom where such discussions occurred recently. Nonetheless, he believes that high-quality comprehension instruction is not the norm due to the challenges it presents compared to teaching basic reading skills. Educators must address gaps in students’ skills and prior knowledge to ensure equitable participation. Teacher training programs often lack sufficient focus on evidence-based methods, and researchers might fall short in conveying these approaches effectively to educators. As a result, teachers face pressure to achieve high standardized test scores, which may lead them to favor lower-level comprehension strategies that promise immediate results.
“I also don’t wish to overstate that researchers possess all the answers when it comes to reading comprehension instruction,” Capin remarked. “We are significantly behind—around two decades—in our understanding of how to teach reading comprehension effectively compared to foundational reading skills.”
Interest in research surrounding the science of reading has surged nationally over the past five years, particularly following the release of the podcast “Sold a Story,” which underscored the importance of phonics instruction. It is to be hoped that significant improvements in comprehension instruction will not take another fifty years to materialize.
Source
hechingerreport.org