Myths
vs. Scientific Evidence in Reading Instruction
Reading
instruction has been particularly vulnerable to the proliferation of myths that
lack scientific support. These myths, while intuitive or popular, have
negatively impacted the effectiveness of educational practices. Below, we
analyze some of the most persistent myths and the scientific evidence that
refutes them, aiming to provide clarity and guide educators toward
evidence-based practices.
Debunking
erroneous beliefs surrounding reading instruction is essential to improve
educational practices. Teachers should base their strategies on solid
scientific evidence, setting aside intuitive but ineffective approaches. By
doing so, they ensure more effective and equitable learning for all students.
Myth 1:
Learning Styles (Auditory, Visual, or Kinesthetic) Improve Teaching
One of the
most widespread myths in education is the belief in learning styles. According
to this idea, adapting teaching methods to specific styles (auditory, visual,
or kinesthetic) improves learning outcomes. However, extensive research has
shown that this practice does not have a significant positive impact on reading
acquisition. For example, Pashler et al. (2008) conclude that there is no solid
evidence to support this theory. The widespread acceptance of this myth is due
to its seemingly intuitive logic, but it lacks robust empirical foundations
(Ruiz Martín, 2024).
One of the
most widespread myths in education is the belief in learning styles. According
to this idea, adapting teaching methods to specific styles (auditory, visual,
or kinesthetic) improves learning outcomes. However, extensive research has
shown that this practice does not have a significant positive impact on
learning.
Evidence
Against Learning Styles
Numerous
studies have refuted the validity of the learning styles theory. Pashler et al.
(2008) conducted a comprehensive review of the literature and concluded that
there is no solid evidence to support the idea that adapting instruction to
individual learning styles improves academic performance.
Riener and
Willingham (2010) argue that there are no specific and measurable learning
styles that can be used to improve education. They argue that there is no solid
scientific evidence to support the existence of learning styles. Instead of
focusing on identifying and adapting to these supposed styles, they suggest
that educators should focus on evidence-based teaching methods that are
effective for all students, regardless of their supposed learning styles.
Why Does
the Myth Persist?
Despite the
lack of scientific evidence, the belief in learning styles persists due to
several factors:
- Intuitive Logic: The idea that people learn
differently seems intuitively plausible.
- Personal Experience: Teachers may observe that some
students seem to prefer certain teaching methods.
- Educational Marketing: Many educational companies and
organizations promote the idea of learning styles, often for commercial
purposes.
Implications
for Teaching Practice
It is
crucial that teachers make decisions based on solid scientific evidence.
Instead of focusing on learning styles, it is more effective to implement
teaching strategies that have proven effective, such as:
- Explicit Instruction: Providing clear and structured
instructions.
- Spaced Practice: Distributing the practice of a
topic over time.
- Retrieval Practice: Encouraging the active recall
of information.
- Feedback: Providing timely and specific
feedback.
Myth 2:
The Dichotomy Between Whole Language and Phonics Methods
Another
recurring myth in reading instruction is the supposed opposition between whole
language and phonics methods. This myth suggests that only one of these
approaches can be effective, which has led to polarized debates and the
adoption of pedagogical practices that are not always based on scientific
evidence.
The
Reality: A Balanced Approach
Scientific
evidence, however, supports a balanced approach that combines the best of both
methods. Studies such as those by the National Reading Panel (2000) and Dehaene
(2013) emphasize that explicit and systematic instruction of phonemes, combined
with meaningful exposure to varied and relevant texts, is the most effective
approach to teach reading.
This
approach recognizes that reading is a complex process that involves both the
decoding of letters into sounds (phonics) and the understanding of the meaning
of words and texts (whole language). Phonics instruction provides students with
the tools necessary to decode unfamiliar words, while exposure to authentic and
meaningful texts allows them to develop vocabulary, comprehension, and more
advanced reading strategies.
The Role
of Phonics in the Initial Stages
Research
has shown that prioritizing phonics in the initial stages of reading
acquisition is fundamental. The brains of young children are especially
prepared to learn to associate the sounds of speech with letters and
orthographic patterns. Systematic and explicit phonics instruction allows
students to build a solid foundation for decoding, which in turn facilitates
access to the meaning of texts.
Beyond
the Dichotomy
It is
important to note that the dichotomy between whole language and phonics methods
is an oversimplification of reality. In practice, many teachers use an eclectic
approach that integrates elements of both methods, adapting them to the needs
and characteristics of their students.
Implications
for Teaching Practice
Scientific
evidence suggests that teachers should:
- Provide explicit and systematic
phonics instruction, including the identification and manipulation of
phonemes, the correspondence between letters and sounds, and spelling
rules.
- Expose students to a variety of
authentic and meaningful texts, which allow them to develop vocabulary,
comprehension, and reading strategies.
- Encourage students' interaction
with texts, through activities such as reading aloud, discussion, and
writing.
- Regularly assess students'
progress in reading and use the information to adapt instruction to their
individual needs.
By adopting
a balanced and evidence-based approach, teachers can help all students develop
the reading skills necessary to succeed academically and personally.
Myth 3:
Reading is a Natural Process
There is a
misconception that learning to read is a natural process, similar to the
development of speech or walking. This idea, while intuitive, does not
correspond to reality. Reading is a complex skill that requires explicit and
systematic instruction.
Reading
as an Acquired Skill
Unlike oral
language, which is acquired naturally through exposure to the environment,
reading is a human invention that requires formal learning. Our brains are not
"wired" to read in the same way that they are for speaking. Reading
involves the creation of new neural connections and the adaptation of
pre-existing brain areas to recognize and process written symbols.
The
Importance of Phonological Awareness
Phonological
awareness, the ability to identify and manipulate the sounds of language, is an
essential precursor to reading success. This ability allows children to
understand that words are composed of individual sounds (phonemes) and that
these sounds correspond to letters and graphemes. In their review of the
scientific literature, Valle-Zevallos et al. (2024) highlight that phonological
awareness activates specific areas of the brain related to word recognition and
reading fluency.
The Role
of Explicit and Systematic Instruction
Research
has shown that explicit and systematic instruction in phonological awareness
and phonics is fundamental to reading development. Children who receive quality
instruction in these areas are more likely to become competent and confident
readers. This instruction should include activities such as:
- Identifying and manipulating
phonemes (rhymes, alliteration, segmentation of words into sounds).
- Correspondence between letters
and sounds (graphemes and phonemes).
- Decoding words (joining sounds
to form words).
- Reading simple words and texts.
Implications
for Teaching Practice
Teachers
should be aware that reading is not a natural process and that it requires
planned and systematic instruction. It is important to:
- Assess the level of
phonological awareness of students.
- Provide explicit and systematic
instruction in phonological awareness and phonics.
- Use teaching methods based on
scientific evidence.
- Adapt teaching to the
individual needs of students.
- Foster motivation and interest
in reading.
Myth 4:
IQ is Related to Reading Difficulties
In the case
of dyslexia and other problems related to reading and writing, a harmful myth
is to associate these difficulties with a low IQ. This misconception, as noted
by the American Psychological Association (APA, 2024), has hindered early
diagnosis and appropriate interventions.
Dyslexia
and Intelligence
Dyslexia is
a learning disorder that affects a person's ability to read fluently and
accurately. It is not related to a person's general intelligence. In fact,
people with dyslexia may have an average or even above-average IQ.
Scientific
Evidence
The
scientific evidence is clear on this: reading difficulties are not an indicator
of low intelligence. Numerous studies have shown that children with average or
high intelligence may experience significant difficulties in learning to read
if they do not receive adequate support. This evidence underscores the
importance of separating reading difficulties from general intellectual
abilities.
Implications
of this Myth
Associating
reading difficulties with a low IQ can have negative consequences for children
who experience them. They may be wrongly labeled as "slow" or
"not very intelligent," which can affect their self-esteem and
motivation to learn. In addition, this myth can delay diagnosis and early
intervention, which can have a negative impact on their academic progress and
overall development.
The
Importance of Early Diagnosis and Intervention
It is
essential that educators and parents understand that reading difficulties are
not related to intelligence. Early diagnosis and appropriate intervention can
make a big difference in the life of a child with dyslexia or other reading
problems.
Myth 5:
Screens vs. Paper in Reading Comprehension
The idea
that reading on screens negatively affects reading comprehension compared to
paper has some partial support. Recent studies, such as that by Clinton (2019),
indicate that paper may facilitate greater retention and comprehension of
complex texts due to factors such as tactile feedback and less visual
distraction. However, this effect may vary depending on the type of text and
environmental conditions, suggesting that the use of screens should not be
ruled out, but rather optimized in educational contexts.
Myth 6:
Reading Fast Guarantees Good Comprehension
Some people
believe that reading quickly is synonymous with good comprehension. However,
reading speed does not always correlate with comprehension. In fact, in many
cases, reading too quickly can hinder comprehension, especially when dealing
with complex texts or those with dense information.
Reading Speed and Comprehension
Reading
speed is the number of words a person can read per minute. While it is
important to read at an appropriate speed so as not to lose the thread of the
text, it is crucial to remember that the main objective of reading is to
understand the meaning of the text.
Myth 7:
Reading a Lot Automatically Improves Comprehension
It is
assumed that reading a lot guarantees good reading comprehension. However,
research indicates that comprehension is not an automatic result of exposure to
texts, but requires active processing strategies and explicit teaching of
metacognitive skills (National Reading Panel, 2000). While frequent reading can
favor the expansion of vocabulary and familiarization with grammatical
structures (Cain, 2022), it does not guarantee the ability to analyze, infer,
or synthesize complex information.
Reading
and Comprehension: Contrasted Evidence
Reading is
a skill that depends on two key factors: guided practice and intentional
development of strategies (Duke & Pearson, 2002). For example, studies show
that students exposed to large volumes of reading without specific instruction
in comprehension show limited progress compared to those who receive training
in techniques such as prediction, summarizing, or self-evaluation (Pressley,
2006). This suggests that the mere accumulation of reading hours does not
replace the need for structured pedagogical approaches.
Furthermore,
research on the "Matthew effect" in readers (Stanovich, 1986) reveals
that, without adequate strategies, students with initial difficulties may lag
behind, even if they read frequently. Deep comprehension requires prior
knowledge of the topic (Hirsch, 2003) and active monitoring of understanding
(Kamil et al., 2008), elements that are not acquired through mere repetition.
References
Asociación Americana de Psicología
(APA). (2024). Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (7th ed.).
Cain,
K. (2022). Children's Reading Comprehension Difficulties. In The Science of
Reading (eds M.J. Snowling, C. Hulme and K. Nation).
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119705116.ch14
Dehaene,
S. (2010). Reading in the Brain: The New Science of How We Read. Penguin
Publishing Group.
Duke,
N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2004). Effective Practices for Developing
Reading Comprehension (Issue January 2002).
https://doi.org/10.1598/0872071774.10
Hirsch
Jr., E. D. (2003). Reading Comprehension Requires Knowledge of the Words and
the World: Scientific Insights into the Fourth-Grade-Slump and the Nation’s
Stagnant Comprehension Scores. American Educator, 27, 10-29.
Kamil,
M. L., et al. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and
intervention practices. National Center for Education and Evaluation.
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc
Kirschner, P. A., & van
Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Do learning styles exist? Educational
Psychologist, 48(2), 68-75.
National
Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its
implications 1 for reading instruction. National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development.
National
Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching
children to read. U.S. Department of Education.
Pashler,
H., Mcdaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Concepts and Evidence. Psychological
Science, 9(3), 105–119. http://psi.sagepub.com/content/9/3/105.
Pressley,
M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced
teaching. Guilford Press.
Riener,
C., & Willingham, D. (2010). The Myth of Learning Styles. Change:
The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(5), 32–35.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2010.503139
Ruiz
Martín, C. (2024). Aprender
a aprender: Cómo desarrollar tu potencial de aprendizaje. Paidós
Educador.
Stanovich,
K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360-407.
Valle-Zevallos, María-Johana,
Mendez-Vergaray, Juan, & Flores, Edward. (2024). La conciencia fonológica y
su relación con la lectura: Revisión sistemática. Horizontes Revista de
Investigación en Ciencias de la Educación, 8(33), 1004-1021.
