Myths About Reading

 

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.