research paper on reading skills

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

How the Science of Reading Informs 21st‐Century Education

The science of reading should be informed by an evolving evidence base built upon the scientific method. Decades of basic research and randomized controlled trials of interventions and instructional routines have formed a substantial evidence base to guide best practices in reading instruction, reading intervention, and the early identification of at-risk readers. The recent resurfacing of questions about what constitutes the science of reading is leading to misinformation in the public space that may be viewed by educational stakeholders as merely differences of opinion among scientists. Our goals in this paper are to revisit the science of reading through an epistemological lens to clarify what constitutes evidence in the science of reading and to offer a critical evaluation of the evidence provided by the science of reading. To this end, we summarize those things that we believe have compelling evidence, promising evidence, or a lack of compelling evidence. We conclude with a discussion of areas of focus that we believe will advance the science of reading to meet the needs of all children in the 21st century.

For more than 100 years, the question of how best to teach children to read has been debated in what has been termed the “reading wars”. The debate cyclically fades into the background only to reemerge, often with the same points of conflict. We believe that this cycle is not helpful for promoting the best outcomes for children’s educational success. Our goal in this paper is to make an honest and critical appraisal of the science of reading, defining what it is, how we build a case for evidence, summarizing those things for which the science of reading has provided unequivocal answers, providing a discussion of things we do not know but that may have been “oversold,” identifying areas for which evidence is promising but not yet compelling, and thinking ahead about how the science of reading can better serve all stakeholders in children’s educational achievements.

At its core, scientific inquiry is the same in all fields. Scientific research, whether in education, physics, anthropology, molecular biology, or economics, is a continual process of rigorous reasoning supported by a dynamic interplay among methods, theories, and findings. It builds understandings in the form of models or theories that can be tested. Advances in scientific knowledge are achieved by the self-regulating norms of the scientific community over time, not, as sometimes believed, by the mechanistic application of a particular scientific method to a static set of questions (National Research Council, 2002, p. 2).

What is the Science of Reading and Why are we Still Debating it?

The “science of reading” is a phrase representing the accumulated knowledge about reading, reading development, and best practices for reading instruction obtained by the use of the scientific method. We recognize that the accrual of scientific knowledge related to reading is ever evolving, at times circuitous, and not without controversy. Nonetheless, the knowledge base on the science of reading is vast. In the last decade alone, over 14,000 peer-reviewed articles have been published in journals that included the keyword “reading” based on a PsycINFO search. Although many of these studies likely focused on a sliver of the reading process individually, collectively, research studies with a focus on reading have yielded a substantial knowledge base of stable findings based on the science of reading. Taken together, the science of reading helps a diverse set of educational shareholders across institutions (e.g., preschools, schools, universities), communities, and families to make informed choices about how to effectively promote literacy skills that foster healthy and productive lives ( DeWalt & Hink, 2009 ; Rayner et al., 2001 ).

An interesting question concerning the science of reading is “Why is there a debate surrounding the science of reading?” Although there are certainly disputes within the scientific community regarding best practices and new areas of research inquiry, most of the current debate seems to settle upon what constitutes scientific evidence, how much value we should place on scientific evidence as opposed to other forms of knowledge, and how preservice teachers should be instructed to teach reading ( Brady, 2020 ). The current disagreement in what constitutes the scientific evidence of reading (e.g., Calkins, 2020 ) is not new. During the last round of the “reading wars” in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s these same issues were discussed and debated. Much of the debate focused on conflicting views in epistemology between constructivists and positivists on the basic mechanisms associated with reading development. Constructivists, such as Goodman (1967) and Smith (1971) , believed that reading was a “natural act” akin to learning language and thus emphasized giving children the opportunity to discover meaning through experiences in a literacy-rich environment. In contrast, positivists, such as Chall (1967) and Flesch (1955) , made strong distinctions between innate language learning and the effortful learning required to acquire reading skills. Positivists argued for explicit instruction to help foster understanding of how the written code mapped onto language, whereas constructivists encouraged children to engage in a “psycholinguistic guessing game” in which readers use their graphic, semantic, and syntactic knowledge (known as the three cuing system) to guess the meaning of a printed word.

Research clearly indicates that skilled reading involves the consolidation of orthographic and phonological word forms ( Dehene, 2011 ). Work in cognitive neuroscience indicates that a small region of the left ventral visual cortex becomes specialized for this purpose. As children learn to read, they recruit neurons from a small region of the left ventral visual cortex within the left occipitotemporal cortex region (i.e., visual word form area) that are tuned to language-dependent parameters through connectivity to perisylvian language areas ( Dehaene-Lambertz et al., 2018 ). This provides an efficient circuit for grapheme-phoneme conversion and lexical access allowing efficient word-reading skills to develop. These studies provide direct evidence for how teaching alters the human brain by repurposing some visual regions toward the shapes of letters, suggesting that cultural inventions, such as written language, modify evolutionarily older brain regions. Furthermore, studies suggest that instruction focusing on the link between orthography and phonology promote this brain reorganization (e.g., Dehaene, 2011 ). Yet, arguments between philosophical constructivists and philosophical positivists on what constitutes the science of reading and how it informs instruction remain active today (e.g., Castles et al., 2018 ). In a recent interview with Emily Hanford, Ken Goodman defended his advocacy for the three cuing system saying that the three-cueing theory is based on years of observational research. In his view, three cueing is perfectly valid, drawn from a different kind of evidence than what scientists collect in their lab and later he stated that “my science is different” ( Hanford, 2019 ).

As scientists at the Florida Center for Reading Research, we are often frustrated when what we view to be the empirically supported evidence base about the reading process are distorted or denied in communications directed to the public and to teachers. However, Stanovich (2003) posited that “in many cases, the facts are secondary—what is being denied are the styles of reasoning that gave rise to the facts; what is being denied is closer to a worldview than an empirical finding. Many of these styles are implicit; we are not conscious of them as explicit rules of behavior” (pp. 106-107). Stanovich proposed five different dimensions that represent “styles” of generating knowledge about reading. For our purposes, here, we focus on the first dimension: the correspondence versus coherence theory of truth. It hits at the heart of how people believe something to be true. People who believe that a real world exists independent of their beliefs, and that interrogating this world using rigorous principles to gain knowledge is a fruitful activity are said to subscribe to the correspondence theory of truth. In contrast, those who subscribe to the coherence theory of truth believe that something is “true” if the beliefs about something fit together in a logical way. In essence, something is true if it makes sense.

Stanovich believed these differing truth systems might lie at the heart of the disagreements surrounding the science of reading. One side shouting, “Look at this mountain of evidence! How can you not believe it?” and the other side shouting, “It doesn’t make sense! It doesn’t match up with our experiences! Why should we value your knowledge above our own?!” By approaching the science of reading from the perspective of the correspondence theory of truth, we consider how compelling evidence can be generated, what we believe is the compelling evidence, what we think lacks evidence, and what we think is promising evidence.

How We Build a Case for Compelling Evidence

Research is the means by which we acquire and understand knowledge about the world ( Dane, 1990 ) to create scientific principles. Relatively few scientists would argue with the importance of using research evidence to support a principle or to make claims about reading development and the quality of reading instruction. Where significant divergence often occurs is in response to policy statements that categorize research claims and instructional strategies into those with greater or lesser levels of evidence. This divergence is typically rooted in applied epistemology, which can be understood as the study of whether the means by which we study evidence are themselves well designed to lead to valid conclusions. Researchers often frame the science of reading from divergent applied epistemological perspectives. Thus, two scientists who approach the science of reading with different epistemologies will both suggest that they have principled understandings and explanations for how children learn to read; yet, the means by which those understandings and explanations were derived are often distinct.

The correspondence and coherence theories of truth described above are examples of explanations from contrasting epistemological perspectives. Consistent with these perspectives, researchers approaching the science of reading using a correspondence theory typically prioritize deductive methods, which embed hypothesis testing, precise operationalization of constructs, and efforts to decouple the researchers’ beliefs from their interpretation and generalization of empirical evidence. Researchers approaching the science of reading using a coherence theory of truth typically prioritize more inductive methods, such as phenomenological, ethnographic, and grounded theory approaches that embed focus on the meaning and understanding that comes through a person’s lived experience and where the scientist’s own observations shape meaning and principles (e.g., Israel & Duffy, 2014 ).

When the National Research Council published Scientific Research in Education (2002), a significant amount of criticism levied against the report boiled down to differences in epistemological perspectives. Yet, these genuine contrasts can often obscure contributions to the science of reading that derive from multiple applied epistemologies. Observational research, using both inductive (e.g., case studies) and deductive (e.g., correlational studies) approaches, substantively informs the development of theories and of novel instructional approaches (e.g., Scruggs et al., 2007 ). Public health research offers a useful parallel. As it would be unethical to establish a causal link from smoking cigarettes to lung cancer through a randomized controlled trial, that field instead used well-designed observational studies to derive claims and principles. These findings then informed later stages in the broader program of research, including randomized controlled trials of interventions for smoking cessation.

In the science of reading, principles and instructional strategies should indeed capitalize on a program of research inclusive of multiple methodologies. Yet, as the public health domain ultimately takes direction from the efficacy of smoking cessation programs, so too must the science of reading take direction from theoretically informed and well-designed experimental and quasi-experimental studies of promising strategies when the intention is to evaluate instructional practices. The use of experimental (i.e., randomized trials) and quasi-experimental (e.g., regression discontinuity, propensity score matching, interrupted time series) designs, in which an intervention is competed against counterfactual conditions, such as typical practice or alternative interventions, provides the strongest causal credibility regarding which instructional strategies are effective. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) of the Institute of Education Sciences (e.g., What Works Clearinghouse, 2020) and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015 ) are efforts by the US Department of Education to hierarchically characterize the levels of evidence currently available for instructional practices in education. The WWC uses a review framework, developed by methodological and statistical experts, for evaluating the quality and scope of evidence for specific instructional practices based on features of the design, implementation, and analysis of studies. Similarly, ESSA uses four tiers that focus on both the design of the study and the results of the study in which the tiers differ based on the quantity of evidence and quality of evidence supporting an approach. For both WWC and ESSA, quantity of evidence refers to the number of well-designed and well-implemented studies, and quality of evidence is defined by the ability of a study’s methods to allow for alternative explanations of a finding to be ruled out, for which the randomized controlled trial provides the strongest method.

As outlined above, the “science of reading” utilizes multiple research approaches to generate ideas about reading. Ultimately, the highest priority in the science of reading should be the replicable and generalizable knowledge from observational and experimental methods, rooted in a deductive research approach to knowledge generation that is framed in a correspondence theory of truth. In this manner, the accumulated evidence is built on a research foundation by which theories, principles, and hypotheses have been subjected to rigorous empirical scrutiny to determine the degree to which they hold up across variations in samples, measures, and contexts. In the following sections, we summarize issues related to the nature, development, and instruction of reading for which we believe the science of reading either has or has not yielded compelling evidence, identify what we believe are promising areas for which sufficient evidence has not yet accumulated, and suggest a number of areas that we believe will help move the science of reading forward, increasing knowledge and enhancing its positive impacts for a variety of stakeholders.

Compelling Evidence in the Science of Reading

In this section, we focus on a number of findings centrally important for understanding the development and teaching of reading in alphabetic languages. The evidence base provides answers varying across orthographic regularity (e.g., English vs. Spanish), reading subskill (i.e., decoding vs. comprehension), grade range or developmental level (e.g., early childhood, elementary, adolescence), and linguistic diversity (e.g., English language learners, dialect speakers).

There are large differences among alphabetic languages in the rules for how graphemes represent sounds in words (i.e., a language’s orthography). In languages like Spanish and Finnish there is a near one-to-one relation between letters and sounds. The letter-sound coding in these languages is transparent, and they have shallow orthographies. In other languages, most notably English, there is often not a one-to-one relation between letters and sounds. The letter-sound coding in these languages is opaque, and they have deep orthographies. Children must learn which words cannot be decoded based solely on letter-sound correspondence (e.g., two, knight, laugh) and learn to match these irregular spellings to the words they represent. Where a language’s orthography falls on the shallow-deep dimension affects how quickly children develop accurate and fluent word-reading skills ( Ellis et al., 2004 ; Ziegler & Goswami, 2005 ) and how much instruction on foundational reading skills is likely needed. Studies indicate that children learning to read in English are slower to acquire decoding skills (e.g., Caravolas et al., 2013 ). Ziegler et al. (1997) reported that 69% of monosyllabic words in English were consistent in spelling-to-phonology mappings and 31% of the phonology-to-spelling mappings were consistent. Thus, in teaching children to read in English, the “grain size” of phoneme, onset-rime, and whole word matters ( Ziegler & Goswami, 2005 ) and the preservation of morphological regularities in English spelling matters (e.g., vine vs. vineyard ).

Gough and Tunmer’s (1986) “simple view of reading” model, which is supported by a significant amount of research, provides a useful framework for conceptualizing the development of reading skills across time. It also frames the elements for which it is necessary to provide instructional support. The ultimate goal of reading is to extract and construct meaning from text for a purpose. For this task to be successful, however, the reader needs skills in both word decoding and linguistic comprehension. Weaknesses in either area will reduce the capacity to achieve the goal of reading. Decoding skills and linguistic comprehension make independent contributions to the prediction of reading comprehension across diverse populations of readers ( Kershaw & Schatschneider, 2012 ; Sabatini et al., 2010 ; Vellutino, et al., 2007 ). Results of several studies employing measurement strategies that allow modeling of each component as a latent variable indicate that decoding and linguistic comprehension account for almost all of the variance in reading comprehension (e.g., Foorman et al., 2015 ; Lonigan et al., 2018 ). The relative influence of these skill domains, however, changes across development. The importance of decoding skill in explaining variance in reading comprehension decreases across grades whereas the importance of linguistic comprehension increases (e.g., Catts et al., 2005 ; Foorman et al., 2018 ; García & Cain, 2014 ; Lonigan et al., 2018 ). By the time children are in high school linguistic comprehension and reading comprehension essentially form a single dimension (e.g., Foorman et al., 2018 ).

Children’s knowledge of the alphabetic principle (i.e., how letters and sounds connect) and knowledge of the morphophonemic nature of English are necessary to create the high-quality lexical representations essential to accurate and efficient decoding ( Ehri, 2005 ; Perfetti, 2007 ). Acquiring the alphabetic principle is dependent on understanding that words are composed of smaller sounds (i.e., phonological awareness, PA) and alphabet knowledge (AK). Both PA and AK are substantial correlates and predictors of decoding skills (e.g., Wagner & Torgesen, 1987 ; Wagner et al., 1994 ). Prior to formal reading instruction, children are developing PA and AK as well as other early literacy skills that are related to later decoding skills following formal reading instruction ( Lonigan et al., 2009 ; Lonigan et al., 1998 ; National Early Literacy Panel [NELP], 2008 ; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998 ). Reading comprehension takes advantage of the reader’s ability to understand language. In most languages, written language and spoken language have high levels of overlap in their basic structure. Longitudinal studies indicate that linguistic comprehension skills from early childhood predict reading comprehension at the end of elementary school ( Catts et al., 2015 ; Language and Reading Research Consortium & Chiu, 2018 ; Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2010 ; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002 ; Verhoeven & Van Leeuwe, 2008 ). The developmental precursors to skilled reading are present prior to school entry. Consequently, differences between children in the development of these skills forecast later differences in reading skills and are useful for identifying children at risk for reading difficulties.

The science of reading provides numerous clear answers about the type and focus of reading instruction for the subskills of reading, depending on where children are on the continuum of reading development and children’s linguistic backgrounds. Much of this knowledge is summarized in the practice guides produced by the Institute of Education Sciences ( Baker et al., 2014 ; Foorman et al., 2016a ; Gersten et al., 2007 , 2008 ; Kamil et al., 2008 ; Shanahan et al., 2010 ) and in meta-analytic summaries of research (e.g., Berkeley et al., 2012 ; Ehri, Nunes, Stahl et al., 2001 ; Ehri, Nunes, Willows et al., 2001 ; NELP, 2008 ; Therrien, 2004 ; Wanzek et al., 2013 , 2016 ). Whereas the practice guides list several best practices, here we emphasize those practices classified as supported by strong or moderate evidence based on WWC standards.

Since the publication of the Report of the National Reading Panel ( National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000 ) and supported by subsequent research (e.g., Gersten et al., 2017a ; Foorman et al., 2016a ), it is clear that a large evidence base provides strong support for the explicit and systematic instruction of the component and foundational skills of decoding and decoding itself. That is, teaching children phonological awareness and letter knowledge, particularly when combined, results in improved word-decoding skills. Teaching children to decode words using systematic and explicit phonics instruction results in improved word-decoding skills. Such instruction is effective both for monolingual English-speaking children and children whose home language is other than English (i.e., dual-language learners; Baker et al., 2014 ; Gersten et al., 2007 ) as well as children who are having difficulties learning to read or who have an identified reading disability ( Ehri, Nunes, Stahl et al., 2001 ; Gersten et al., 2008 ). Additionally, providing children with frequent opportunities to read connected text supports the development of word-reading accuracy and fluency as well as comprehension skills ( Foorman et al., 2016a ; Therrien, 2004 ).

Similarly, a number of instructional activities to promote the development of reading comprehension have strong or moderate supporting evidence. For younger children, teaching children how to use comprehension strategies and how to utilize the organizational structure of a text to understand, learn, and retain content supports better reading comprehension ( Shanahan et al., 2010 ). For older children, teaching the use of comprehension strategies also enhances reading comprehension ( Kamil et al., 2008 ) as does explicit instruction in key vocabulary, providing opportunities for extended discussion of texts, and providing instruction on foundational reading skills when children lack these skills; such instructional approaches are also effective for children with significant reading difficulties ( Berkeley et al., 2012 ; Kamil et al., 2008 ).

Lack of Compelling Evidence in the Science of Reading

In the above section, practices were highlighted that have sufficient evidence to warrant their widespread use. In this section, we address reading practices for which there is a lack of compelling evidence. Some practices have simply not yet been scientifically evaluated. Other practices have been evaluated, but either the evidence does not support their use based on the generalizability of the results or the studies in which they were evaluated were not of sufficient quality to meet a minimal standard of evidence (e.g., WWC standards). Although we lack sufficient space to present a comprehensive list of practices that do not have compelling evidence, we provide examples of practices that are commonplace and vary in the degree to which they have been scientifically studied.

Evidence-based decision making regarding effective literacy programs and practices for classroom use can be difficult. Often, there is no evidence of effectiveness for a program or the evidence is of poor quality. For instance, of the five most popular reading programs used nationwide (i.e., Units of Study for Teaching Reading, Journeys, Into Reading, Leveled Literacy Intervention and Reading Recovery; Schwartz, 1999) only Leveled Literacy Intervention and Reading Recovery, both interventions for struggling readers, have studies that meet WWC standards. The evidence indicates that there were mixed effects across outcomes for Leveled Literacy Intervention and positive or potentially positive effects for Reading Recovery (e.g., Chapman & Tunmer, 2016 ). Classroom reading programs are typically built around the notion of evidence-informed practices – teaching approaches that are grounded in quality research – but have not been subjected to direct scientific evaluation. As a consequence, it is currently impossible for schools to select basal reading programs that adhere to strict evidence-based standards (e.g., ESSA, 2015 ). As an alternative, schools must develop selection criteria for choosing classroom reading programs informed by the growing scientific evidence on instructional factors that support early reading development (e.g., Castles et al., 2018 ; Foorman et al.2017 ; Rayner et al., 2001 ).

Common instructional approaches that lack generalizable empirical support include such practices as close reading ( Welsch et al., 2019 ), use of decodable text ( Jenkins et al., 2004 ), sustained silent reading ( NICHD, 2000 ), multisensory approaches ( Birsh, 2011 ), and the three-cueing system to support word recognition development (Seidenberg, 2017). Some of these instructional approaches rest on sound theoretical and pedagogical grounds. For example, giving beginning readers the opportunity to read decodable texts provides practice applying the grapheme-phoneme relations they have learned to successfully decode words ( Foorman et al., 2016a ), thus building lexical memory to support word reading accuracy and automaticity (Ehri, this issue). However, the only study to experimentally examine the impact of reading more versus less decodable texts as part of an early intervention phonics program for at risk first graders found no differences between the two groups on any of the posttest measures ( Jenkins et al., 2004 ). Such a result does not rule out the possibility of the usefulness of decodable texts but rather indicates the need to disentangle the active ingredients of effective interventions to specify what to use, when, how often, and for whom.

Similarly, multisensory approaches (e.g., Orton-Gillingham) that teach reading by using multiple senses (i.e., sight, hearing, touch, and movement) to help children make systematic connections between language, letters, and words ( Birsh, 2011 ) are commonplace and have considerable clinical support for facilitating reading development in children who struggle to learn to read. However, there is little scientific evidence that indicates that a multisensory approach is more effective than similarly structured phonological-based approaches that do not include a strong multisensory component (e.g., Boyer & Ehri, 2011 ; Ritchey & Goeke, 2006 ; Torgesen et al., 2001 ). With further research, we may find that a multisensory component is a critical ingredient of intervention for struggling readers, but we lack this empirical evidence currently.

Instruction in reading comprehension is another area where despite some studies showing moderate or strong support (see section on compelling evidence) other practices are employed despite limited support for them (e.g., Boulay et al., 2015 ). The complexity of reading comprehension relies on numerous cognitive resources and background knowledge; as a result, intervention directed exclusively at one component or another is not likely to be that impactful. For example, research shows a clear relation between breadth and depth of vocabulary and reading comprehension ( Wagner et al., 2007 ). One implication of this relation is that teaching vocabulary could improve reading comprehension. Numerous studies have tested this implication using instructional approaches that vary from teaching words in isolation to practices that involve instruction in the use of context to learn the meaning of unfamiliar words. Instruction has also included strategies to determine meaning of words through word study and morphological analysis (e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2007 ; Lesaux et al., 2014 ). Although these practices have been effective in increasing vocabulary knowledge of the words taught, there is limited evidence of transfer to untaught words (as measured by standardized measures) or to improvement in general reading comprehension ( Elleman et al., 2009 ; Lesaux et al., 2010 ). Such findings do not mean that vocabulary instruction is not a useful practice; rather, by itself, it is not sufficient to improve reading comprehension. To make meaningful gains, intervention for reading comprehension likely requires addressing multiple components of language as well as teaching content knowledge (see next section) to make sizable gains.

Other instructional practices go directly against what is known from the science of reading. For example, the three-cueing approach to support early word recognition (i.e., relying on a combination of semantic, syntactic, and graphophonic cues simultaneously to formulate an intelligent hypothesis about a word’s identity) ignores 40 years of overwhelming evidence that orthographic mapping involves the formation of letter-sound connections to bond spelling, pronunciation, and meaning of specific words in memory (see Ehri, this issue). Moreover, relying on alternative cuing systems impedes the building of automatic word-recognition skill that is the hallmark of skilled word reading ( Stanovich, 1990 ; 1991 ). The English orthography, being both alphabetic-phonemic and morpho-phonemic, clearly privileges the use of various levels of grapheme-phoneme correspondences to read words ( Frost, 2012 ), with rapid context-free word recognition being the process that most clearly distinguishes good from poor readers ( Perfetti, 1992 ; Stanovich, 1980 ). Guessing at a word amounts to a lost learning trial to help children learn the orthography of the word and thus reduce the need to guess the word in the future ( Castles et al., 2018 ; Share, 1995 ).

Similarly, alternative approaches to improving reading skills for struggling readers often fall well outside the scientific consensus regarding sources of reading difficulties. Some of these approaches are based on the tenet that temporal processing deficits in the auditory (e.g., Tallal, 1984 ) and visual (e.g., Stein, 2019 ) systems of the brain are causally related to poor word-reading development. Although there is some evidence that typically developing and struggling readers differ on measures tapping auditory ( Casini et al., 2018 ; Protopapas, 2014 ) and visual (e.g., Eden et al., 1995; Olson & Datta, 2002 ) processing skill, there is little evidence to support the use of instructional programs designed to improve auditory or visual systems to ameliorate reading problems ( Strong et al., 2011 ). Further, interventions designed to decrease visual confusion (e.g., Dyslexie font) or modify transient channel processing (e.g., Irlen lenses) to improve reading skill for children with reading disability have also failed to garner scientific support ( Hyatt et al., 2009 ; Iovino et al., 1998 ; Marinus et al., 2016 ). Similarly, although use of video games to improve reading via enhanced visual attention is reported to be an effective intervention for children with reading disability ( Peters et al., 2019 ), studies of this supplemental intervention approach have not compared it to standard supplemental approaches. Finally, studies of interventions designed to enhance other cognitive processes, such as working memory, also lack evidence effectiveness in terms of improved reading-related outcomes (e.g., Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016 ).

Promising but Not (Yet) Compelling Evidence in the Science of Reading

There are many promising areas of research that are poised to provide compelling evidence to inform the science of reading in the coming years. As we do not have space to provide a comprehensive list, we highlight only a few promising areas in prevention research and elementary education research.

Promising Directions in Prevention Research

Research on the prevention of reading problems is critical for our ability to reduce the number of children who struggle learning to read. One area of prevention research that has great promise but needs more evidence is how to more fully develop preschoolers’ language abilities that support later reading success. Both correlational and experimental findings indicate that providing children with opportunities to engage in high-quality conversations, coupled with exposure to advanced language models, matters for language development ( Cabell et al., 2015 ; Dickinson & Porche, 2011 ; Lonigan et al., 2011 ; Wasik & Hindman, 2018). Yet, most programs have a more robust impact on children’s proximal language learning (i.e., learning taught words) than on generalized language learning as measured with standardized assessments ( Marulis & Neuman, 2010 ).

Promising studies that have demonstrated significant effects on children’s general language development elucidate potential points of leverage. First, improving the connection between the school and home contexts by including parents as partners can promote synergistic learning for children as language-learning activities in school and home settings are increasingly aligned (e.g., Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998 ). A second leverage point is increasing attention to children’s active use of language in the classroom to promote a rich dialogue between children and adults (e.g., Lonigan et al., 2011 ; Wasik & Hindman, 2018). A third leverage point is integrating content area instruction into early literacy instruction to improve language learning, for example, building children’s conceptual knowledge of the social and natural world and teaching vocabulary words within the context of related ideas (e.g., Gonzalez et al., 2011 ).

Promising Directions in Elementary Education Research

We present two promising areas in reading research with elementary-age students, one focused on improving linguistic comprehension and one focused on improving decoding, consistent with the simple view of reading.

The knowledge a reader brings to a text is the chief determinant of whether the reader will understand that text ( Anderson & Pearson, 1984 ). Thus, building knowledge is an essential, yet neglected, part of improving linguistic comprehension (Cabell & Hwang, this issue). Teaching reading is most often approached in early elementary classrooms as a subject that is independent from other subjects, such as science and social studies ( Palinscar & Duke, 2004 ). As such, reading is taught using curricula that do not systematically build children’s knowledge of the social and natural world. Instruction in reading and the content areas does not have to be an either/or proposition. Rather, the teaching of reading and of content-area learning can be simultaneously taught and integrated to powerfully impact children’s learning of both reading and content knowledge (e.g., Connor et al., 2017 ; Kim et al., 2020 ; Williams et al., 2014 ). This area of research is promising but not yet compelling, due to the small number of experimental and quasi-experimental studies that have examined either integrated content-area and literacy instruction or content-rich English Language Arts instruction in K-5 settings (approximately 31 studies). Through meta-analysis, this corpus of studies demonstrates that combining knowledge building and literacy approaches has a positive impact on both vocabulary and comprehension outcomes for elementary-age children ( Hwang et al., 2019 ). Further rigorous studies are needed that test widely used content-rich English Language Arts curricula (Cabell & Hwang, 2020, this issue); also required is new development of integrative and interdisciplinary approaches in this area.

There is also promising research on helping students to decode words more efficiently. It is widely accepted that students with reading difficulties often have underlying deficits in phonological processing (e.g., Brady & Schankweiler, 1991 ; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994 ; Torgesen, 2000 ; Vellutino et al., 1996 ) and these deficits are believed to disrupt the acquisition of spelling-to-sound translation routines that form the basis of early decoding-skill development (e.g., van IJzendoorn & Bus, 1994 ; Rack et al., 1992 ). For developing readers, decoding an unfamiliar letter string can result in either full or partial decoding. During partial decoding, the reader must match the assembled phonology from decoding with their lexical representation of a word ( Venezky, 1999 ). For example, encountering the word island might render the incorrect but partial decoding attempt, “izland”. A child’s flexibility with the partially decoded word is referred to as their “set for variability” or their ability to go from the decoded form to the correct pronunciation of a word. This skill serves as a bridge between decoding and lexical pronunciations and may be an important second step in the decoding process ( Elbro et al., 2012 ).

The matching of partial phonemic-decoding output is facilitated by the child’s decoding skills, the quality of the child’s lexical word representation, and by the potential contextual support of text ( Nation & Castles, 2017 ). Correlational studies indicate that students’ ability to go from a decoded form of a word to a correct pronunciation (their set for variability) predicts the reading of irregular words ( Tunmer & Chapman, 2012 ), regular words ( Elbro, et al., 2012 ), and nonwords ( Steacy et al., 2019a ). Set for variability has also been found to be a stronger predictor of word reading than phonological awareness in students in grades 2-5 (e.g., Steacy et al., 2019b ). Recent studies in this area suggest that children can benefit from being encouraged to engage with the irregularities of English ( Dyson et al., 2017 ) to promote the implicit knowledge structures needed to read and spell these complex words. Additional research suggests that set for variability training can be effective in promoting early word reading skills (e.g., Savage et al., 2018 ; Zipke, 2016 ). The work done in this area to date suggests that set for variability requires child knowledge structures and strategies, which can be developed through instruction, that allow successful matching of partial phonemic-decoding output with the corresponding phonological, morphological, and semantic lexical representations.

Where Do We Go Next in the Science of Reading?

Basic science research.

The science of reading has reached some consensus on the typical development of reading skill and how individual differences may alter this trajectory (e.g., Boscardin et al., 2008 ; Hjetland et al., 2019; Peng et al., 2019 ). Less is known about factors and mechanisms related to reading among diverse learners, a critical barrier to the field’s ability to address and prevent reading difficulty when it arises. Investigations with large and diverse participant samples are needed to improve understanding of how child characteristics additively and synergistically affect reading acquisition ( Hernandez, 2011 ; Lonigan et al., 2013 ). Insufficient research disentangles the influence of English-learner status for children who also have identified disabilities (Solari et al., 2014; Wagner et al., 2005 ). Greater attention to how language variation (e.g., dialect use) and differences in language experience affect reading development is crucial ( Patton Terry et al., 2010 ; Seidenberg & MacDonald, 2018; Washington et al., 2018). New realizations of the interaction between child characteristics and the depth of the orthography have also highlighted the importance of implicit learning in early reading ( Seidenberg, 2005 ; Steacy et al., 2019). Innovative cross-linguistic research is exploring how diverse methods of representing pronunciation and meaning within different orthographies, and children’s developing awareness of these methods, jointly predict reading skills (e.g., Kuo & Anderson, 2006 ; Wade-Woolley, 2016 ). Furthermore, a better understanding of the role of executive function, socio-emotional resilience factors, and biopsychosocial risk variables (e.g., poverty and trauma) on reading development is critical. Additional research like this, in English and across languages, is needed to develop effective instruction and assessments for all leaners.

A clearer understanding of child and contextual influences on the development of reading also will support improvements in how early and accurately children at risk for reading difficulties and disabilities are identified. Currently, numerous challenges remain in identifying children early enough to maximize benefits of interventions ( Colenbrander et al., 2018 ; Gersten et al., 2017b ). Investigators often use behavioral precursors or correlates of reading to estimate children’s risk for reading failure. Whereas this work has shown some promise ( Catts et al., 2015 ; Compton et al., 2006 , 2010 ; Lyytinen et al., 2015 ; Thompson et al., 2015 ), identification of risk typically involves high error rates, especially for preschoolers and kindergarteners who might benefit most from early identification and intervention. Similar challenges to accuracy have emerged when identifying older children with reading disabilities. Historically, this process has relied on discrepancy models (e.g., such as between reading skill and general cognitive aptitude), often yielding a just single comparison on which decisions are based (Waesche et al., 2011).

Challenges to identification for both younger and older children may be best met with frameworks that recognize the multifactorial casual basis of reading problems ( Pennington et al., 2012 ). Newer models of identification that combine across multiple indicators of risk derived from current skill, and that augment these indicators with other metrics of potential risk, may yield improved identification and interventions (e.g., Erbeli et al., 2018 ; Spencer et al., 2011). In particular, future research will need to consider and combine, while considering both additive and interactive effects, a wide array of measures, which may include genetic, neurological, and biopsychosocial indicators ( Wagner et al., 2019 ). Furthermore, more evaluation is needed of some new models of identification that integrate both risk and protective, or resiliency, factors, to see if these models increase the likelihood of correctly identifying those children most in need of additional instructional support (e.g., Catts & Petscher, 2020 ; Haft et al., 2016 ). Even if beneficial, it is likely that for early identification to be maximally effective, early risk assessments will need to be combined with progress monitoring of response to instruction ( Miciak & Fletcher, 2020 ). Of course, for such an approach to be successful, all children must receive high-quality reading instruction from the beginning and interventions need to be in place to address children who show varying levels of risk ( Foorman et al., 2016a ). Identifying children at risk and providing appropriate intervention early on has the potential to significantly improve reading outcomes and reduce the negative consequences of reading failure.

Intervention Innovations

Despite successes, too many children still struggle to read novel text with understanding, and intervention design efforts have not fully met this challenge ( Compton et al., 2014 ; Phillips et al., 2016 ; Vaughn et al., 2017 ). Greater creativity and integration of research from a broader array of complementary fields, including cognitive science and behavioral genetics may be required to deal with long-standing problems. For example, genetic information may have causal explanatory power; randomized trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of using such information to select and individualize instruction and intervention ( Hart, 2016 ).

The field would benefit from increased attention to the problem of fading intervention effects over time. Although there can be detectable effects of interventions several years after they are completed (e.g., Blachman et al., 2014 ; Vadasy et al., 2011 ; Vadasy & Sanders, 2013 ), invariably effect sizes reduce over time. A meta-analysis of long-term effects of interventions for phonemic awareness, fluency, and reading comprehension found a 40 percent reduction in effect sizes within one year post-intervention ( Suggate, 2016 ). Perhaps reading interventions with larger initial effects or sequential reading interventions with smaller but cumulating effects would be more resistant to fade-out.

Solutions to the problem of diminishing effects may be inspired by examples from other fields. The field of memory includes examples of content that appears immune from forgetting. This phenomenon has been called permastore ( Bahrick, 1984 ). For example, people only meaningfully exposed to a foreign language in school classes will still retain some knowledge of the language 50 years later. Additionally, expertise in the form of world-class performance appears to result from cumulative effects of long-term deliberate practice ( Ericsson, 1996 ), and skilled reading can be viewed as an example of expert performance ( Wagner & Stanovich, 1996 ). Informed by these concepts and by advances in early math instruction (e.g., Sarama et al., 2012 ; Kang et al., 2019 ), reading intervention studies should prioritize follow-up evaluations, including direct comparisons of follow-through strategies aimed at sustaining benefits from earlier instruction. For example, studies should evaluate booster interventions, professional development that better aligns cross-grade instruction, and how re-teaching and cumulative review may consolidate skill acquisition across time (e.g., Cepeda et al., 2006 ; Smolen et al., 2016 ).

Translational and Implementation Science

If the science of reading is to be applied in a manner resulting in achievement for all learners, the field must increase its focus on processes supporting implementation of evidence-based reading practices in schools. The field can leverage its considerable evidence-base to systematically investigate, with replication, both the effectiveness of reading instructional practices with diverse learners and to investigate processes that facilitate or prevent adoption, implementation, and sustainability of these practices (National Research Council, 2002; Schneider, 2018 ; Slavin, 2002 ). Research on these processes in educational contexts may be best facilitated by making use of methodological and conceptual tools developed within the traditions of translation and implementation science research ( Gilliland et al., 2019 ; Eccles & Mittman, 2006 ). For example, these frameworks can support studies on whether and how educators and policymakers use information about evidence to inform decision making (e.g., Farley-Ripple et al., 2018 ) and studies on how institutional routines may need to be adapted to best integrate new procedures and practices (e.g., scheduling changes in the school day; Foorman et al., 2016b ).

Reading research that uses translational and implementation science frameworks and methodologies will make more explicit the processes of adoption, implementation and sustainability and how these interact within diverse settings and with multiple populations ( Brown et al., 2017 ; Fixsen et al., 2005 , 2013 ). This work will be guided by new questions, not only asking “what works” but also “what works for whom under what conditions” and “what factors promote sustainability of implementation.” Innovative studies would adhere to rigorous scientific standards, prioritize hypothesis testing within a deductive, experimental framework, and leverage qualitative methodologies to systematically explore implementation processes and factors ( Brown et al., 2017 ). Results could iteratively inform the breadth of scientific reading research, including basic mechanisms related to reading and the development of novel assessments and interventions to support achievement among diverse learners in diverse settings ( Cook & Odom, 2013 ; Douglas et al., 2015 ; Forman et al., 2013 ).

There has recently been a resurgence of the debate on the science of reading, and in this article, we described the existing evidence base and possible future directions. Compelling evidence is available to guide understanding of how reading develops and identify proven instructional practices that impact both decoding and linguistic comprehension. Whereas there is some evidence that is either not compelling or has yet to be generated for instructional practices and programs that are widely used, the scientific literature on reading is ever-expanding through contributions from the fields education, psychology, linguistics, communication science, neuroscience, and computational sciences. As these additions to the literature mature and contribute to an evidence base, we anticipate they will inform and shape the science of reading as well as the science of teaching reading.

Acknowledgments

First author was determined by group consensus. Authors equally contributed and are listed and alphabetically. The authors’ work was supported by funding from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the Institute of Education Sciences (R305A160241, R305A170430, R305F100005, R305F100027, R324A180020, R324B19002) and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P50HD52120, P20HD091013, HD095193, HD072286).

• Anderson RC, & Pearson PD (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In Pearson PD, Barr R, Kamil ML, & Mosenthal P (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (1st ed., pp. 255–291). New York: Longman. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baker S, Lesaux N, Jayanthi M, Dimino J, Proctor CP, Morris J, … Newman-Gonchar R (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014-4012) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/english_learners_pg_040114.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Bahrick HP (1984). Semantic memory content in permastore: Fifty years of memory for Spanish learned in school . Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 113 ,1–29. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.113.1.1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beck IL, & McKeown MG (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction . The Elementary School Journal , 107 ( 3 ), 251–271. DOI: 10.1086/511706 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berkeley S, Scruggs TE, & Mastropier MA (2012). Reading comprehension instruction for student with learning disabilities, 1995-2006: A meta-analysis . Remedial and Special Education , 31 , 423–436. 10.1177/0741932509355988 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birsh JR (2011). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills . Brookes Publishing Company. PO Box 10624, Baltimore, MD 21285. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blachman BA, Schatschneider C, Fletcher JM, Francis DJ, Clonan SM, Shaywitz BA, & Shaywitz SE (2004). Effects of intensive reading remediation for second and third graders and a 1-year follow-up . Journal of Educational Psychology , 96 ( 3 ), 444–461. doi: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.444 [ Google Scholar ]
• Blachman BA, Schatschneider C, Fletcher JM, Murray MS, Munger KA, & Vaughn MG (2014). Intensive reading remediation in grade 2 or 3: Are there effects a decade later? Journal of Educational Psychology , 106 ( 1 ), 46–57. doi: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/10.1037/a0033663 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boscardin CK, Muthén B, Francis DJ, & Baker EL (2008). Early identification of reading difficulties using heterogeneous developmental trajectories . Journal of Educational Psychology , 100 , 192–208. 10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.192 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boulay B, Goodson B, Frye M, Blocklin M, & Price C (2015). Summary of Research Generated by Striving Readers on the Effectiveness of Interventions for Struggling Adolescent Readers. NCEE 2016-4001 . National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyer N, & Ehri LC (2011). Contribution of phonemic segmentation instruction with letters and articulation pictures to word reading and spelling in beginners . Scientific Studies of Reading , 15 ( 5 ), 440–470. 10.1080/10888438.2010.520778 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brady S (2020). Strategies used in education for resisting the evidence and implications of the science of reading . The Reading Journal , 1 ( 1 ), 33–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brady SA, & Shankweiler DP (Eds.). (1991). Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown CH, Curran G, Palinkas LA, Aarons GA, Wells KB, Jones L, Collins LM, Duan N, Mittman BS, Wallace A, Tabak RG, Ducharme L, Chambers DA, Neta G, Wiley T, Landsverk J, Cheung K, & Cruden G (2017). An overview of research and evaluation designs for dissemination and implementation . Annual Review of Public Health , 38 , 1–22. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044215 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cabell SQ, Justice LM, McGinty AS, DeCoster J, & Forston L (2015). Teacher-child conversations in preschool classrooms: Contributions to children’s vocabulary development . Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 30 , 80–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.09.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Calkins L (2020). No one gets to own the term “The Science of Reading” . Retrieved from: https://readingandwritingproject.org/news/no-one-gets-to-own-the-term-the-science-of-reading [ Google Scholar ]
• Caravolas M, Lervåg A, Defior S, Málkova G,S, & Hulme C (2013). Different patterns, but equivalent predictors, of growth in reading in consistent and inconsistent orthographies . Psychological Science , 24 , 1398–1407. 10.1177/0956797612473122 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casini L, Pech-Georgel C, & Ziegler JC (2018). It's about time: Revisiting temporal processing deficits in dyslexia . Developmental Science , 21 ( 2 ), 1–14. DOI: 10.1111/desc.12530 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Castles A, Rastle K, & Nation K (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert . Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 19 ( 1 ), 5–51. 10.1177/1529100618772271 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Catts H, Adlof S, & Weismer SE (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 49 , 278–293. 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023) [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Catts H, Herrera S, Nielsen D, & Bridges, 2015. Early prediction of reading comprehension within the simple view framework . Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 28 , 1407–1425. 10.1007/s11145-015-9576-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Catts H, Hogan T, & Adlof S (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In Catts H & Kamhi A, A. (Eds.). Connections between language and reading disabilities . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum [ Google Scholar ]
• Catts HW, & Petscher Y (2020, March 25). A cumulative risk and protection model of dyslexia . 10.35542/osf.io/g57ph [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cepeda NJ, Pashler H, Vul E, Wixted JT, & Rohrer D (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis . Psychological Bulletin , 132 ( 3 ), 354–380. 10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chall J (1967). Learning to read: The great debate . New York: McGraw-Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chapman JW, & Tunmer WE (2016). Is Reading Recovery an effective intervention for students with reading difficulties? A critique of the i3 scale-up study . Reading Psychology , 37 ( 7 ), 1025–1042. 10.1080/02702711.2016.1157538 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Colenbrander D, Ricketts J, & Breadmore HL (2018). Early identification of dyslexia: Understanding the issues . Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools , 49 , 817–828. 10.1044/2018_LSHSS-DYSLC-18-0007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Compton DL, Fuchs D, Fuchs LS, & Bryant JD (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures . Journal of Educational Psychology , 98 , 394–409. [ Google Scholar ]
• Compton DL, Fuchs D, Fuchs LS, Bouton B, Gilbert JK, Barquero LA, Cho E, & Crouch RC (2010). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: Eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two-stage screening process . Journal of Educational Psychology . 102 , 327–340. 10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.394 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Compton DL, Miller AC, Elleman AM, & Steacy LM (2014). Have we forsaken reading theory in the name of “quick fix” interventions for children with reading disability? Scientific Studies of Reading , 18 ( 1 ), 55–73. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2013.836200 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Connor CMD, Dombek J, Crowe EC, Spencer M, Tighe EL, Coffinger S, … Petscher Y (2017). Acquiring science and social studies knowledge in kindergarten through fourth grade: Conceptualization, design, implementation, and efficacy testing of content-area literacy instruction (CALI) . Journal of Educational Psychology , 109 ( 3 ), 301–320. doi: 10.1037/edu0000128 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook BG, & Odom SL (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education . Exceptional Children , 79 , 135–144. 10.1177/001440291307900201 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dane FC (1990). Research methods (Vol. 120 ). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dehaene S (2011). The massive impact of literacy on the brain and its consequences for education . Human Neuroplascticity and Education , 117 , 19–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dehaene-Lambertz G, Monzalvo K, & Dehaene S (2018). The emergence of the visual word form: Longitudinal evolution of category-specific ventral visual areas during reading acquisition . PLoS biology , 16 ( 3 ), e2004103. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeWalt DA, & Hink A (2009). Health literacy and child health outcomes: a systematic review of the literature . Pediatrics , 124 ( Supplement 3 ), S265–S274. 10.1542/peds.2009-1162B [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dickinson DK, & Porche MV (2011). Relation between language experiences in preschool classrooms and children’s kindergarten and fourth-grade language and reading abilities . Child Development , 82 , 870–886. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01576.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Douglas NF, Campbell WN, & Hinckley J (2015). Implementation science: Buzzword or game changer? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 58 , S1827–S1836. doi: 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-15-0302. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dyson H, Best W, Solity J, & Hulme C (2017). Training mispronunciation correction and word meanings improves children’s ability to learn to read words . Scientific Studies of Reading , 1–16. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2017.1315424 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eccles MP & Mittman BS (2006). Welcome to implementation science . Implementation Science , 1 , 1–3. 10.1186/1748-5908-1-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eden GF, VanMeter JW, Rumsey JM, Maisog JM, Woods RP, & Zeffiro TA (1996). Abnormal processing of visual motion in dyslexia revealed by functional brain imaging . Nature , 382 ( 6586 ), 66–69. DOI: 10.1038/382066a0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues . Scientific Studies of Reading , 9 , 167–188. 10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning . Scientific Studies of Reading , 18 ( 1 ), 5–21. 10.1080/10888438.2013.819356 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC, Nunes SR, Stahl SA, & Willows DM (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis . Review of Educational Research , 71 , 393–447. 10.3102/00346543071003393 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehri LC, Nunes SR, Willows D,M, Schuster BV, Yaghoub-Zadeh Z, & Shanahan T (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis . Reading Research Quarterly , 36 , 250–287. 10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elbro C, de Jong PF, Houter D, & Nielsen A (2012). From spelling pronunciation to lexical access: A second step in word decoding? Scientific Studies of Reading , 16 ( 4 ), 341–359. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2011.568556 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elleman A, Lindo E, Morphy P, & Compton D (2009). The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis , Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 2 , 1–44. 10.1080/19345740802539200 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellis NC, Natsume I, Stavropoulou K, Hoxhallari L, van Daal VHP, Polyzoe N, et al. (2004). The effects of the orthographic depth on learning to read alphabetic, syllabic, and logographic scripts . Reading Research Quarterly , 39 , 438–468. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.39.4.5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erbeli F (2019). Translating research findings in genetics of learning disabilities to special education instruction . Mind, Brain, and Education , 13 ( 2 ), 74–79. 10.1111/mbe.12196 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erbeli F, Hart SA, Wagner RW, & Taylor J (2018). Examining the etiology of reading disability as conceptualized by the hybrid model . Scientific Studies of Reading , 22 ( 2 ), 167–180. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2017.1407321. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ericsson KA (1996). The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Every Student Succeeds Act (2015). Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015-2016) .
• Farley-Ripple, May H, Karpyn A, Tilley K, & McDonough K (2018). Rethinking connections between research and practice in education: A conceptual framework . Educational Researcher , 47 ( 4 ), 235–245. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fixsen D, Blase K, Metz A, & Van Dyke M (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs . Exceptional Children , 79 , 213–230. 10.1177/001440291307900206 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fixsen DL, Naoom SF, Blase KA, Friedman RM & Wallace F (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature . Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231). [ Google Scholar ]
• Flesch R (1955). Why Johnny can’t read - and what you can do about it . NY: Harper & Brothers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman B, Beyler N, Borradaile K, Coyne M, Denton C, Dimino J, …Wissel S (2016a). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/wwc_foundationalreading_070516.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman B, Dombek J, & Smith K (2016b). Seven elements important to successful implementation of early literacy intervention . New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development , 2016 ( 154 ), 49–65. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman BR, Koon S, Petscher Y, Mitchell A, & Truckenmiller A (2015). Examining general and specific factors in the dimensionality of oral language and reading in 4th–10th grades . Journal of Educational Psychology , 107 , 884–899. DOI: 10.1037/edu0000026 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman B, Petscher Y, Herrera S (2018). Unique and common effects of decoding and language factors in predicting reading comprehension in grades 1-10 . Learning and Individual Differences , 63 , 12–23. 10.1016/j.lindif.2018.02.011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foorman BF, Smith KG, & Kosanovich ML (2017). Rubric for evaluating reading/language arts instructional materials for kindergarten to grade 5 (REL 2016-219) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. [ Google Scholar ]
• Forman SG, Shapiro ES, Codding RS, Gonzales JE, Reddy LA, Rosenfield SA, Sanetti LMH, & Stoiber KC (2013). Implementation science and school psychology . School Psychology Quarterly , 28 , 77–100. 10.1037/spq0000019 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frost R (2012). Toward a universal model of reading . Behavioral & Brain Sciences , 35 , 263–279. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X11001841 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García JR, & Cain K (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which reader and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English . Review of Educational Research , 84 ( 1 ), 74–111. 10.3102/0034654313499616 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R, Baker SK, Shanahan T, Linan-Thompson S, Collins P, & Scarcella R (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades: A practice guide (NCEE 2007-4011) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/20074011.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R, Compton D, Connor CM, Dimino J, Santoro L, Linan-Thompson S, & Tilly WD (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. (NCEE 2009-4045) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/rti_math_pg_042109.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R, Jayanthi M, & Dimino J (2017a). Too much, too soon? Unanswered questions from national response to intervention evaluation . Exceptional Children , 83 , 244–254. 10.1177/0014402917692847 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R, Newman-Gonchar R, Haymond K, & Dimino J (2017b). What is the evidence base for Response to Intervention in reading in grades 1–3? (REL 2016-129) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED573686.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillam RB, Loeb DF, Hoffman LM, Bohman T, Champlin CA, Thibodeau L, … & Friel-Patti S (2008). The efficacy of Fast ForWord language intervention in school-age children with language impairment: A randomized controlled trial . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 51 ( 1 ), 97–119. 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/007) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilliland CT, White J, Gee B, Kreeftmeijer-Vegter R, Bietrix F, Ussi AE, Hajduch M, Kocis P, Chiba N, Hirasawa R, Suematsu M, Bryans J, Newman S, Hall MD, & Austin CP (2019). The fundamental characteristics of a translational scientist . ACS Pharmacology & Translational Science , 2 , 213–261. 10.1021/acsptsci.9b00022 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gonzalez JE, Pollard-Durodola S, Simmons DC, Taylor AB, Davis MJ, Kim M, & Simmons L (2011). Developing low-income preschoolers’ social studies and science vocabulary knowledge through content-focused shared book reading . Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness , 4 ( 1 ), 25–52. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2010.487927 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodman KS (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game , Literacy Research and Instruction , 6 ( 4 ), 126–135, 10.1080/19388076709556976 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gough PB, & Tunmer WE (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability . Remedial and Special Education , 7 , 6–10. 10.1177/074193258600700104 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haft SL, Myers CA, & Hoeft F (2016). Socio-emotional and cognitive resilience in children with reading disabilities . Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences , 10 , 133–141. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanford E (2019). At a loss for words: How a flawed idea is teaching millions of kids to be poor readers . Retrieved from: https://www.apmreports.org/story/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading [ Google Scholar ]
• Hart SA (2016). Precision education initiative: Moving toward personalized education . Mind, Brain, and Education , 10 ( 4 ), 209–211.doi: 10.1111/mbe.12109 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hernandez DJ (2011). Double jeopardy: How third-grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation . Annie E. Casey Foundation. https://files-eric-ed-gov.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/fulltext/ED518818.pdf https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1097/00011363-200501000-00004 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hwang H, Cabell SQ, White TG, & Joiner R (2019, December). A systematic review of the research on the effect of knowledge building in literacy instruction on comprehension and vocabulary in the elementary years. Presentation at the annual meeting of the Literacy Research Association , Tampa, FL. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hyatt KJ, Stephenson J, & Carter M (2009). A review of three controversial educational practices: Perceptual motor programs, sensory integration, and tinted lenses . Education & Treatment of Children , 32 ( 2 ), 313–342. doi: 10.1353/etc.0.0054 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Iovino I, Fletcher JM, Breitmeyer BG, & Foorman BR (1998). Colored overlays for visual perceptual deficits in children with reading disability and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Are they differentially effective? Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology , 20 ( 6 ), 791–806. DOI: 10.1076/jcen.20.6.791.1113 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Israel SE, & Duffy GG (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of Research on Reading Comprehension . New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jenkins JR, Peyton JA, Sanders EA, & Vadasy PF (2004). Effects of reading decodable texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring . Scientific Studies of Reading , 8 , 53–85. 10.1207/s1532799xssr0801_4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joyce E (2020, January 22). Scientific Racism 2.0 (SR2.0): An erroneous argument from genetics which inadvertently refines scientific racism . 10.35542/osf.io/f7jnh [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kamil ML, Borman GD, Dole J, Kral CC, Salinger T, & Torgesen J (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE #2008-4027) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/adlit_pg_082608.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Kang CY, Duncan GJ, Clements DH, Sarama J, & Bailey DH (2019). The roles of transfer of learning and forgetting in the persistence and fadeout of early childhood mathematics interventions . Journal of Educational Psychology , 111 , 590–603. 10.1037/edu0000297 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kershaw S & Schatschneider C (2012). A latent variable approach to the simple view of reading . Reading and Writing , 25 , 433–464. 10.1177/0741932518764833 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim JS, Burkhauser MA, Mesite LM, Asher CA, Relyea JE, Fitzgerald J, & Elmore J (2020). Improving reading comprehension, science domain knowledge, and reading engagement through a first-grade content literacy intervention . Journal of Educational Psychology . Advance online publication. 10.1037/edu0000465. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuo LJ, & Anderson RC (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-language perspective . Educational Psychologist , 41 , 161–180. 10.1207/s15326985ep4103_3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Language and Reading Research Consortium & Chiu YD (2018). The simple view of reading across development: Prediction of grade 3 reading comprehension from prekindergarten skills . Remedial and Special Education , 39 ( 5 ), 289–303. 10.1177/0741932518762055 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee JJ, Wedow R, Okbay A, Kong E, Maghzian O, Zacher M, … & Fontana MA (2018). Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a 1.1-million-person GWAS of educational attainment . Nature Genetics , 50 ( 8 ), 1112–1121.doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0147-3 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lesaux NK, Kieffer MJ, Faller SE, & Kelley JG (2010). The effectiveness and ease of implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools . Reading Research Quarterly , 45 ( 2 ), 196–228. 10.1598/RRQ.45.2.3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lesaux NK, Kieffer MJ, Kelley JG, & Harris JR (2014). Effects of academic vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from a randomized field trial . American Educational Research Journal , 51 ( 6 ), 1159–1194. 10.3102/0002831214532165 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Little CW, Haughbrook R, & Hart SA (2017). Cross-study differences in the etiology of reading comprehension: A meta-analytical review of twin studies . Behavior Genetics , 47 ( 1 ), 52–76. 10.1007/s10519-016-9810-6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Anthony JL, Phillips BM, Purpura DJ, Wilson SB, & McQueen J (2009). The nature of preschool phonological processing abilities and their relations to vocabulary, general cognitive abilities, and print knowledge . Journal of Educational Psychology , 101 , 345–358. 10.1037/a0013837 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Burgess SR, Anthony JL, & Barker TA (1998). Development of phonological sensitivity in two- to five-year-old children . Journal of Educational Psychology , 90 , 294–311. 10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.294 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan C, Burgess S, & Schatschneider C (2018). Examining the Simple View of Reading with elementary school children: Still simple after all these years . Remedial and Special Education , 39 ( 5 ), 260–273. 10.1177/0741932518764833 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Farver JM, Nakamoto J, & Eppe S (2013). Developmental trajectories of preschool early literacy skills: A comparison of language-minority and monolingual-English children . Developmental Psychology , 49 , 1943–1957. 10.1037/a0031408 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Farver JM, Phillips BM, & Clancy-Menchetti J (2011). Promoting the development of preschool children’s emergent literacy skills: A randomized evaluation of a literacy-focused curriculum and two professional development models . Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 24 , 305–337. doi: 10.1007/s11145-009-9214-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, & Whitehurst GJ (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in a shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds . Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 13 , 263–290. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(99)80038-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyytinen H, Erskine J, Hämäläinen J, Torppa M & Ronimus M (2015). Dyslexia-early identification and prevention: Highlights of the Jyvaskyla longitudinal study of dyslexia . Current Developmental Disorders Report , 2 , 330–338. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maher B (2008). Personal genomes: The case of missing heritability . Nature , 456 , 18–21. doi: 10.1038/456018a. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mancilla-Martinez J, & Lesaux N (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling readers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority children . Journal of Educational Psychology , 102 ( 3 ), 701–711. 10.1037/a0019135. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marinus E, Mostard M, Segers E, Schubert TM, Madelaine A, & Wheldall K (2016). A special font for people with dyslexia: Does it work and, if so, why? Dyslexia , 22 ( 3 ), 233–244. doi: 10.1002/dys.1527 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marulis LM, & Neuman SB (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young children’s word learning: A meta-analysis . Review of Educational Research , 80 ( 3 ), 300–335. doi: 10.3102/0034654310377087 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Melby-Lervåg M, Redick TS, & Hulme C (2016). Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of “far transfer” evidence from a meta-analytic review . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 11 ( 4 ), 512–534. doi: 10.1177/1745691616635612 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miciak J, & Fletcher JM (2020). The critical role of instructional response for identifying dyslexia and other learning disabilities . Journal of Learning Disabilities . Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0022219420906801 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nation K, & Castles A (2017). Putting the learning into orthographic learning . Theories of reading development , 148–168. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). National reading panel—Teaching children to read: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Pub. No. 00-4754) . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institute for Literacy (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel . Retrieved at https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf
• Neuman SB, & Kaefer T (2018). Developing low-income children’s vocabulary and content knowledge through a shared book reading program . Contemporary Educational Psychology , 52 , 15–24. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.12.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olson R & Datta H (2002). Visual-temporal processing in reading-disabled and normal twins . Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 15 ( 1-2 ), 127–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• Palinscar AS, & Duke NK (2004). The role of text and text-reader interactions in young children’s reading development and achievement . The Elementary School Journal , 105 ( 2 ), 183–197. doi: 10.1086/428864 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton-Terry N, Connor CM, Thomas-Tate S, & Love M (2010). Examining relationships among dialect variation, literacy skills, and school context in first grade . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 53 ( 1 ), 126–145. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0058) [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peng P, Fuchs D, Fuchs LS, Elleman AM, Kearns DM, Gilbert JK, … & Patton S III (2019). A longitudinal analysis of the trajectories and predictors of word reading and reading comprehension development among at-risk readers . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 52 , 195–208. 10.1177/00222194188090 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pennington BF, Santerre-Lemmon L, Rosenberg J, MacDonald B, Boada R, et al. (2012). Individual prediction of dyslexia by single versus multiple deficit models . Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 121 , 212–224. doi: 10.1037/a0025823 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perfetti C (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension . Scientific Studies of Reading , 11 ( 4 ), 357–383. 10.1080/10888430701530730 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perfetti CA (1992). The representation problems in reading acquisition. In Gough PB, Ehri LC, & Treiman R (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters JL, De Losa L, Bavin EL, & Crewther SG (2019). Efficacy of dynamic visuo-attentional interventions for reading in dyslexic and neurotypical children: A systematic review . Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews , 100 , 58–76. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.02.015 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Phillips BM, Connor CM, Lonigan CJ, Willis KB, & Crowe E (presented 2016, July). Supporting language and comprehension in second grade: Results from a Tier 2 efficacy trial. Presentation at Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading , Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Porto, Portugal. [ Google Scholar ]
• Protopapas A (2014). From temporal processing to developmental language disorders: Mind the gap . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 369 ( 1634 ), 20130090. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rack JP, Snowling MJ, & Olson RK (1992). The nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia: A review . Reading Research Quarterly , 27 ( 1 ), 28–53. doi: 10.2307/747832 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rayner K, Foorman BR, Perfetti CA, Pesetsky D, & Seidenberg MS (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading . Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 2 ( 2 ), 31–74. doi: 10.1111/1529-1006.00004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reutzel DR, Petscher Y, & Spichtig AN (2012). Exploring the value added of a guided, silent reading intervention: Effects on struggling third-grade readers’ achievement . The Journal of Educational Research , 105 ( 6 ), 404–415. 10.1080/00220671.2011.629693 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritchey KD, & Goeke JL (2006). Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham—based reading instruction: A review of the literature . The Journal of Special Education , 40 ( 3 ), 171–183. 10.1177/00224669060400030501 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabatini JP, Sawaki Y, Shore JR, & Scarborough HS (2010). Relationships among reading skills of adults with low literacy . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 43 , 122–138. 10.1177/0022219409359343 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarama J, Clements DH, Wolfe CB, & Spitler ME (2012). Longitudinal evaluation of a scale-up model for teaching mathematics with trajectories and technologies . Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness , 5 , 105–135. 10.3102/0002831212469270 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Savage R, Georgiou G, Parrila R, & Maiorino K (2018). Preventative reading interventions teaching direct mapping of graphemes in texts and set-for-variability aid at-risk learners . Scientific Studies of Reading , 22 ( 3 ), 225–247. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2018.1427753 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider M (2018, December 17). A more systematic approach to replicating research . Institute of Education Sciences. https://ies.ed.gov/director/remarks/12-17-2018.asp [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz S (2019, December). The most popular reading programs aren't backed by science . Retrieved from EDWeek https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2019/12/04/the-most-popular-reading-programs-arent-backed.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Scruggs TE, Mastropieri MA, & McDuffie KA (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research . Exceptional Children , 73 ( 4 ), 392–416. 10.1177/001440290707300401 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seidenberg MS (2005). Connectionist models of word reading . Current Directions in Psychological Science , 14 ( 5 ), 238–242. 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00372.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Selzam S, Dale PS, Wagner RK, DeFries JC, Cederlöf M, O’Reilly PF, … & Plomin R (2017). Genome-wide polygenic scores predict reading performance throughout the school years . Scientific Studies of Reading , 21 ( 4 ), 334–349.doi: 10.1080/10888438.2017.1299152 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seymour PH, Aro M, & Erskine JM (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in european orthographies . British Journal of Psychology , 94 ( 2 ), 143–174. doi: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/10.1348/000712603321661859 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shanahan T, Callison K, Carriere C, Duke NK, Pearson PD, Schatschneider C, & Torgesen J (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010-4038) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/readingcomp_pg_092810.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Share DL (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition . Cognition , 55 , 151–218. 10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slavin RE (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research . Educational Researcher , 31 , 15–21. 10.3102/0013189x031007015 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith (1971). Understanding Reading . New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smolen P, Zhang Y, & Byrne JH (2016). The right time to learn: mechanisms and optimization of spaced learning . Nature Reviews Neuroscience , 17 ( 2 ), 77–88. 10.1038/nrn.2015.18 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency . Reading Research Quarterly , 16 ( 1 ), 32–71. DOI: 10.2307/747348 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE (1990). Concepts in developmental theories of reading skill: Cognitive resources, automaticity, and modularity . Developmental Review , 10 ( 1 ), 72–100. 10.1016/0273-2297(90)90005-O [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE (1991). Word recognition: Changing perspectives. In Barr R, Kamil ML, Mosenthal PB, & Pearson PD (Eds.), Handbook of reading research , Vol. 2 (p. 418–452). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers . Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich (2003). Understanding the styles of science in the study of reading . Scientific Studies of Reading , 7 ( 2 ), 105–126, 10.1207/S1532799XSSR0702_1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stanovich KE, & Siegel LS (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model . Journal of Educational Psychology , 86 ( 1 ), 24–53. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.24 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steacy LM, Compton DL, Petscher Y, Elliott JD, Smith K, Rueckl JG, Sawi O, Frost SJ, & Pugh K (2019a). Development and prediction of context-dependent vowel pronunciation in elementary readers . Scientific Studies of Reading , 23 ( 1 ), 49–63. 10.1080/10888438.2018.1466303 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steacy LM, Wade-Woolley L, Rueckl JG, Pugh KR, Elliott JD, & Compton DL (2019b). The role of set for variability in irregular word reading: Word and child predictors in typically developing readers and students at-risk for reading disabilities . Scientific Studies of Reading , 23 ( 6 ), 523–532. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2019.1620749 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stein J (2019). The current status of the magnocellular theory of developmental dyslexia . Neuropsychologia , 130 , 66–77. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.03.022 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Storch S, & Whitehurst GR (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal, structural model . Developmental Psychology , 38 , 934–947 10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.934 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strong GK, Torgerson CJ, Torgerson D, & Hulme C (2011). A systematic meta-analytic review of evidence for the effectiveness of the 'fast ForWord' language intervention program . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 52 ( 3 ), 224–235. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02329.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suggate SP (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effect of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension analyses . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 49 , 77–96. 10.1177/0022219414528540 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tallal P (1984). Temporal or phonetic processing deficit in dyslexia? That is the question . Applied Psycholinguistics , 5 ( 2 ), 167–169. 10.1017/S0142716400004963 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Therrien WJ (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A meta-analysis . Remedial and Special Education , 25 , 253–261. 10.1177/07419325040250040801 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson PA, Hulme C, Nash HM, Gooch D, Hayiou-Thomas E & Snowling MJ (2015). Developmental dyslexia: Predicting risk . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 56 , 976–987. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12412 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torgesen JK (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 15 ( 1 ), 55–64. doi: 10.1207/SLDRP1501_6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torgesen JK, Alexander AW, Wagner RK, Rashotte CA, Voeller KK, & Conway T (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 34 ( 1 ), 33–58. doi: 10.1177/002221940103400104 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tunmer WE, & Chapman JW (2012). Does set for variability mediate the influence of vocabulary knowledge on the development of word recognition skills? Scientific Studies of Reading , 16 ( 2 ), 122–140. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2010.542527 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vadasy PF, Nelson JR, & Sanders EA (2011). Longer term effects of a tier 2 kindergarten vocabulary intervention for English learners . Remedial and Special Education , 34 , 91–101. 10.1177/0741932511420739 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vadasy PF, & Sanders EA (2013). Two-year follow-up of a code-oriented intervention for lower-skilled first graders: The influence of language status and word reading skills on third-grade literacy outcomes . Reading & Writing , 26 , 821–843. 10.1007/s11145-012-9393-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van IJzendoorn MH, & Bus AG (1994). Meta-analytic confirmation of the nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia . Reading Research Quarterly , 3 , 267–275. 10.2307/747877 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn S, Martinez LR, Wanzek J, Roberts G, Swanson E, & Fall AM (2017). Improving content knowledge and comprehension for English language learners: Findings from a randomized control trial . Journal of Educational Psychology , 109 , 22–34. 10.1037/edu0000069 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vellutino FR, Scanlon DM, Sipay ER, Small SG, Pratt A, Chen R, & Denckla MB (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability . Journal of Educational Psychology 88 , 601–638. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.601 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vellutino FR, Tunmer WE, Jaccard J, & Chen S (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development . Scientific Studies of Reading , 11 , 3–32. DOI: 10.1080/10888430709336632 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Venezky RL (1999). The American way of spelling: The structure and origins of American English Orthography . New York, NY: Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Verhoeven L, & van Leeuwe J (2008). Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: A longitudinal study . Applied Cognitive Psychology , 22 , 407–423. 10.1002/acp.1414 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wade-Woolley L (2016). Prosodic and phonemic awareness in children’s reading of long and short words . Reading and Writing , 29 , 371–382. 10.1007/s11145-015-9600-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, Edwards AA, Malkowski A, Schatschneider C, Joyner RE, Wood S, Zirps FA (2019). Combining old and new for better understanding and predicting dyslexia . New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development , 165 , 1–11. doi: 10.1002/cad.20289 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, Francis DJ, & Morris RD (2005). Identifying English language learners with learning disabilities: Key challenges and possible approaches . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 20 ( 1 ), 6–15. 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00115.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, Muse AE, & Tannenbaum KR (2007). Promising avenues for better understanding implications of vocabulary development for reading comprehension. In Wagner R. Muse A, Tannenbaum K (Eds). Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension . New York: Guilford Press. pp. 276–291. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, & Stanovich KE (1996). Expertise in reading. In Ericsson KA (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 189–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner RK, & Torgesen JK (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills . Psychological Bulletin , 101 , 192–212. 10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.192 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner R, Torgesen J, & Rashotte C (1994). Development of reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bidirectional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study . Developmental Psychology , 30 , 73–87. 10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.73 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J, Vaughn S, Scammacca N, Gatlin B, Walker MA, & Capin P (2016). Meta-analyses of the effects of Tier 2 type reading interventions in grades K-3 . Educational Psychology Review , 28 , 551–576. 10.1007/s10648-015-9321-7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J, Vaughn S, Scammacca NK, Metz K, Murray CS, Roberts G, & Danielson L (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after Grade 3 . Review of Educational Research , 83 , 163–195. 10.3102/0034654313477212 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wasik BA, & Hindman AH (2020). Increasing preschoolers’ vocabulary development through a streamlined teacher professional development intervention . Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 50 , 101–113. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.11.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Welsch JG, Powell JJ, & Robnolt VJ (2019). Getting to the core of close reading: What do we really know and what remains to be seen? Reading Psychology , 40 ( 1 ), 95–116. 10.1080/02702711.2019.1571544 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitehurst GJ & Lonigan CJ (1998). Child development and emergent literacy . Child Development , 69 , 848–872. 10.2307/1132208 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams JP, Pollini S, Nubla-Kung AM, Snyder AE, Garcia A, Ordynans JG, & Atkins JG (2014). An intervention to improve comprehension of cause/effect through expository text structure instruction . Journal of Educational Psychology , 106 , 1–17. doi: 10.1037/a0033215 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziegler J, & Goswami U (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory . Psychological Bulletin , 131 ( 1 ), 3–29. 10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ziegler J, Stone G, & Jacobs A (1997). What is the pronunciation for –ough and the spelling for /u/? A database for computing feedforward and feedback consistence in English . Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers , 29 ( 4 ), 600–618. 10.3758/BF03210615 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zipke M (2016). The importance of flexibility of pronunciation in learning to decode: A training study in set for variability . First Language , 36 ( 1 ), 71–86. doi: 10.1177/0142723716639495 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Relationships among students’ reading habits, study skills, and academic achievement in english at the secondary level.

• 1 Department of Education, School of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
• 2 Faculty of Education and Humanities, UNITAR International University, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia
• 3 Faculty of Education, Umm Al-Qura University, Mecca, Saudi Arabia
• 4 Department of English Language and Literature, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia

Introduction: Reading is an attempt to comprehend the writer’s message for personal growth and success in the relevant fields. Thus, psychologists consider it a multifaceted cognitive process of constructing meanings from texts. The present study was conducted to determine the relationships among students’ reading habits, study skills, and academic achievement in English at the secondary level in Punjab, Pakistan.

Methods: The ( n = 1614) students enrolled in the science section for the academic year 2019–2020 participated in this descriptive correlational survey, selected from 40 high schools in Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan, through a non-proportionate stratified random sampling technique. The Reading Habits Questionnaire (RHQ) and the Study Skills Scale (SSS) were used to collect data about students’ reading habits and study skills. At the same time, academic achievement was the students’ grades obtained in the ninth class in the subject of English that were determined by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE) Lahore in 2019. Students’ responses were analyzed through descriptive and inferential statistics.

Results: The results indicated that students have competent reading habits and study skills. The correlational findings showed a strong positive relationship among reading habits, study skills, and academic achievement in English, while moderate positive relationships between reading habits and academic achievement in English. However, regression analysis results were significant, while reading habits and study skills moderately predicted academic achievement.

Discussion: It is implicated that teachers should plan such assignments and tasks based on reflective thinking by considering the role of study skills in academic achievement. Moreover, teachers and school administrators could mutually create timetables for library lessons to build reading habits and study skills among learners.

1. Introduction

Knowledge gained through reading is vital for the cognitive, behavioral, and attitudinal development of learners ( He, 2014 ; Baffoe and Okae-Anti, 2020 ; Hassan et al., 2021 ) because it is a person’s ability to enhance information and comprehend the words effectively ( Sabbah, 2016 ; Al-Jarf, 2019 ). An individual reads for numerous reasons, i.e., knowledge development, recreation, joy, relaxation, and so on ( Whitten et al., 2016 ). However, Erguvan (2016) and Mirza et al. (2021) directed that reading is an active part of life that is not just about pleasure when needed. However, Chotitham and Wongwanich (2014) conjectured that reading helps to develop critical and judgmental thinking abilities used to solve problems by conceptualizing context. Hence, Erdem (2015) and Pretorius and Klapwijk (2016) quantified that reading is essential to success because it starts from the commencement of school and continues throughout the lifetime.

Fischer et al. (2015) , Oyewole (2017) , Al-Jarf (2019) recognized that the importance of reading in learning could not be ignored because it is an emancipatory tool that releases students’ academic frustration, ignorance, and destitution. Palani (2012) distinguished that reading is an instrument used to exchange information, while reading habit is an academic activity that enables students to benefit from reading materials. Therefore, Walia and Sinha (2014) specified that reading habits require complex skills, such as perceiving a message, skimming and scanning information, and understanding the context. Thus, compelling reading depends on readers’ behaviors, known as study skills that enable them to conceptualize the new knowledge effectively ( DiPerna and Elliott, 2000 ; Habibu and Ejembi, 2011 ; Gormley et al., 2018 ; Naqvi et al., 2018 ; Iheakanwa et al., 2021 ). While the effective study makes one narrate in their way using the stipulated meanings of the words and terms, the researchers take up for explanation and clarity ( Biyik et al., 2017 ).

According to the available literature, students’ reading habits and study skills have been of great importance for decades; while several deficiencies were found in previous studies, thus researchers considered few of them that are related to the study context. First, the researchers mainly focused on the influence of reading habits and study skills on academic achievement separately in Western countries ( Bhan and Gupta, 2010 ; Sabbah, 2016 ). A few addressed Eastern countries restricted to the university level ( Demir et al., 2012 ; Davarci, 2013 ; Dilshad et al., 2013 ; Erguvan, 2016 ; Alzahrani et al., 2018 ; Porkaew and Fongpaiboon, 2018 ; Thamarasseri, 2018 ; Ameyaw and Anto, 2019 ; Ehsan and Sultana, 2020 ; Tonka and Bakir, 2020 ; Mirza et al., 2021 ; Nguyen Thi Thu, 2022 ). However, students’ reading habits and study skills may be initiated from the school level enabling the individuals to grow in competence, comfort, and understanding of the audience. At the same time, previous researchers focused on university level students’ reading habits. Second, there are methodological identities that lead to dubious findings not confirming the influence of reading habits and study skills on academic achievement ( Goel, 2014 ; Lawrence, 2014 ; Quadir and Chen, 2015 ; Sherafat and Murthy, 2016 ; Ameyaw and Anto, 2018 ; Silverrajoo and Hassan, 2018 ; Balan et al., 2019 ; Hassan et al., 2021 ). In general, there is a scarcity of research aiming to determine the correlation between students’ reading habits and achievement through the role of study skills at any academic level. Finally, in Pakistan, few studies could explore reading habits as a singular variable of different groups of students ( Bajwa et al., 2011 ; Hussain and Munshi, 2011 ; Rasheed, 2012 ). Numerous researchers only examined the relationship between reading habits and academic achievement ( Bashir and Mattoo, 2012 ; Bibi et al., 2020 ; Ehsan and Sultana, 2020 ). Moreover, Fazal et al. (2012) only investigated the association between study skills and achievement. Thus, this research examines the relationship among students’ reading habits, study skills, and academic achievement in English as practiced at the secondary level in Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.

Lahore is the capital of Pakistan’s Punjab province. In terms of population, this is the second largest city in Pakistan. It is located in the northeastern part of Pakistan’s Punjab province. Lahore is one of the most cosmopolitan cities in Pakistan and is home to various cultures, traditions, and customs. Specifically, it provides researchers with opportunities to contextualize perspectives in light of academic processes and ethics.

2. Literature review

2.1. reading habits.

Rosli et al. (2018) suggested that reading is an attempt to comprehend the writer’s message, while Alnahdi and Aftab (2020) stated that it is a gateway to all other information, which may lead to understanding the world outside the text. Hence, Al-Jarf (2021) and Dadzie (2008) asserted that reading is a multifaceted cognitive process of comprehending words written in a textual form that allows readers to enhance their knowledge for personal growth and academic success. Moreover, Ogeyik and Akyay (2009) ; Erguvan (2016) , Mirza et al. (2021) stated that reading is just a method of communication between the writer and the reader. Thus, Bhan and Gupta (2010) and Baron (2017) assumed that reading is the art of decoding and interpreting messages from various written materials such as books, magazines, journals, newspapers, dictionaries, encyclopedias, pamphlets, and diaries. Hassan et al. (2021) stated that reading habits influence reading materials, activities, time duration, place of reading, and reader motivation. In this study, reading habits are considered to be the students’ reading preferences, interest in reading, attitude toward reading, and reading problems during study at the secondary level.

2.2. Study skills

Study skills are the readers’ inclination toward organizing, highlighting, reviewing, reciting, and using devices, flashcards, etc. to comprehend new knowledge effectively ( DiPerna and Elliott, 2000 ; DiPerna, 2006 ; Rozalski, 2008 ; Madhavi et al., 2014 ; Sabbah, 2016 ). While reading habit is the frequency, a reader regularly reads ( Winne, 2013 ). Moreover, study skills are the students’ intellectual practices to process new information effectively and efficiently, while reading habits are considered a psychological trait of one’s personality ( Farrington et al., 2012 ; Pillai, 2012 ; Mansor et al., 2013 ; Shahidi et al., 2014 ; Ameyaw and Anto, 2018 ; Rosli et al., 2018 ). Thus, the concept of study skills is different from reading habits. This research defines study skills as secondary school students’ approaches to comprehending new knowledge.

2.3. Reading habits and academic achievement

Horbec (2012) and Singh (2011) determined a significant positive relationship between students’ reading habits and academic achievement. Hence, Issa et al. (2012) explored that students’ reading patterns vary and have a moderately significant influence on academic success, while Bashir and Mattoo (2012) examined that academic performance is dependent on the level of students’ study habits; thus, reading habits influence on future success, which was confirmed by Owusu-Acheaw and Larson (2014) through quantitative measures. Chotitham and Wongwanich (2014) found a moderate positive relationship between students’ study habits and achievement. However, Lawrence (2014) rejected the association between students’ academic achievement and study habits, and Goel (2014) confirmed that study habits do not influence academic performance. Therefore, Schwabe et al. (2015) , Quadir and Chen (2015) concluded through a quantitative correlational study that heavy reading habits significantly impact reading efficiency; the longer the reading time, the better the results. Malik and Parveen (2016) discovered significant differences in low- and high-academic achievers’ attitudes toward study habits. They determined that high achievers are more concentrated and exhibited better study habits, good time management skills, and punctuality compared to low achievers. In the meantime, Sherafat and Murthy (2016) directed that study habits facilitate learners toward higher achievement because of their significant connections with academic achievement. Consequently, Silverrajoo and Hassan (2018) revealed divergent findings that students’ reading methods have a negative and weak relationship with academic achievement.

Ameyaw and Anto (2018) recognized the importance of reading styles in students’ learning and found that reading styles affect students’ performance. Meanwhile, Alzahrani et al. (2018) verified that students’ reading styles significantly impact their performance. Dolmaz and Kaya (2019) discovered that students’ creative writing skills are affected by their reading styles. Moreover, Balan et al. (2019) determined that students’ purpose of reading significantly affected their performance, as Annamalai and Muniandy (2013) suggested that academic performance is based on students’ reading purpose. Hence, Whitten et al. (2016) and Fatiloro et al. (2017) discovered that reading habits significantly assist students in learning and enhancing their performance. Bibi et al. (2020) examined that students’ study habits were significantly positively associated with achievement. Ehsan and Sultana (2020) predicted that reading habits significantly increase students’ performance. Moreover, Hassan et al. (2021) found a significant correlation between secondary school students’ reading habits and their reading achievement and concluded that reading habits significantly contribute to academic achievement. Thus, Nguyen Thi Thu (2022) revealed that reading habits have a significant role in the development of students writing performance.

On the other hand, by designing a correlational study, Tonka and Bakir (2020) found a negative relationship between reading anxiety and reading habits. Thus, they concluded that reading anxiety plays a role in students’ performance and reading habits. Similarly, Alnahdi and Aftab (2020) found a significant negative association between study habits and academic stress, reading habits, and academic achievement. The researchers measured all the variables through a questionnaire consisting of four scales and 43 items.

2.4. Study skills and academic achievement

Nouhi et al. (2009) determined that study skills have a significant positive association with academic success measured through a closed-ended questionnaire confirmed by Awang and Sinnadurai (2011) through an experimental study. Meanwhile, Hassanbeigi et al. (2011) and Sabbah (2016) verified that study skills are critical for academic success because they positively correlate with academic achievement found through a descriptive correlational survey using a study skills scale. Hence, Fazal et al. (2012) suggested that higher academic achievers use a wide range of study skills than low achievers, while there was a weak correlation between study skills and academic success. Furthermore, Demir et al. (2012) revealed through an experimental study that students’ study skills had a considerable influence on performance which was also confirmed by Wernersbach et al. (2014) from an experimental study. In both of the studies, researchers measured study skills through closed-ended items. Moreover, they also discovered that study skills significantly impact students’ academic self-efficacy. Nonetheless, Tahamtani et al. (2017) and Naqvi et al. (2018) revealed a weak negative link between achievement and study habits through quantitative measures that were rejected by Gormley et al. (2018) , who found a significant positive impact of study skills on achievement.

Several gaps were found in already conducted studies; first, the researchers mainly focused on the influence of reading habits and study skills on academic achievement separately in Western countries, while few addressed this phenomenon in Eastern countries. However, the investigation was restricted to university level students. Second, methodological identities lead to dubious findings not confirming this phenomenon. Finally, in Pakistan, few studies could explore reading habits as a singular variable of different groups of students. At the same time, some researchers only examined the relationship between reading habits and academic achievement. Thus, this study aimed to develop our understanding of the relationship between students’ reading habits, study skills, and academic achievement in English.

2.5. Summary

Reading is an attempt to comprehend the writer’s message for personal growth and success. Thus, psychologists consider it a multifaceted cognitive process of constructing meaning from texts. Bhan and Gupta (2010) stated that reading is the art of decoding and interpreting messages from the content of the written material that is often carried out in magazines, journals, newspapers, books, dictionaries, encyclopedias, pamphlets, diaries, and so on. While reading habits are the degree to which a reader engages in reading while studying skills to gain knowledge. Reading habits assist students in learning more, whereas study skills encourage them to understand new information effectively. Both reading habits and study skills influence students’ academic performance.

Based on literature insights, the following hypotheses are formulated:

Hypothesis (H 1 ): A significant relationship exists between students’ reading habits and their academic achievement in English language comprehension .

Hypothesis (H 2 ): A significant relationship exists between stqudents’ study skills and their academic achievement in English language comprehension.

3.1. Design

A research design is comprised of numerous elements (i.e., research paradigm, research approach, research design, and data collection method that provide guidelines for carrying out the study ( Creswell and Clark, 2017 ; Myers, 2019 ), while a correlational research design is used to determine the relationship between two or more than two variables ( Cohen et al., 2018 ). Thus, a correlational research design of a quantitative approach (positivism paradigm) was used. At the same time, a cross-sectional survey method was applied to collect data about studied variables (i.e., reading habits, study skills, and academic achievement in English).

3.2. Sample

The sample comprised 10th-grade students enrolled in district Lahore’s public sector high schools for the academic year 2019–2020. The inclusion criteria were those students who enrolled in the science section only. During the data collection, the total number of active students in both sections (i.e., science and arts) of 10th grade was 36,847 enrolled at 334 high schools in district Lahore ( Government of Punjab [GOP], 2019 ). While in the science section, the active students were 17,028, considered an accessible population of this study. A total of 1,800 (900 boys and 900 girls) were selected from 40 high schools through a non-proportionate random sampling technique that was 10.57% of the accessible population, which shows the sample was normally distributed. Out of 1,800 selected students, 1,619 participated as respondents because 181 students had not passed the subject English in the ninth-grade annual examination conducted by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE) Lahore. Three students declined to participate in this survey, while two could not complete the questionnaires. Therefore, the final sample consisted of n = 1,614 secondary school students.

3.3. Instruments

Two instruments were used, i.e., the Reading Habits Questionnaire (RHQ) and Study Skills Scale (SSS), to collect data about students’ reading habits and study skills.

Reading Habits Questionnaire (RHQ): The researchers developed a paper and pencil student self-report RHQ based on Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and the social-cognitive theory of self-regulated learning strategies ( Pintrich et al., 1993 ; Duncan and McKeachie, 2005 ; Duncan et al., 2007 ). Ajzen’s (1991) TPB suggests that socio-psychological characteristics of a person’s behavior, such as reading, influence reader proximal behaviors ( Stokmans, 1999 ; Miesen, 2003 ; Van Schooten et al., 2004 ), while the social-cognitive theory of self-regulating learning strategies suggested that students’ reading habits are meta-cognitively and behaviorally active in a student’s learning process to achieve goals ( Eccles and Wigfield, 2002 ). The classical test theory model was utilized to develop RHQ, which initially consisted of 44 closed-ended items. Each item was constructed on a 5-point Likert-type agreement scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), which means developing level reading habits to advance level reading habits. However, content validity was ensured by five education and assessment experts to validate the content coverage, language appropriateness, and usability of RHQ at the secondary level. Moreover, a pilot study was conducted on 250 students selected purposively from the target population to confirm unidimensionality among items and scales through exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 23 software. Four subscales of RHQ (i.e., preferences for reading, interest in reading, attitude toward reading, and reading problems) were constructed during EFA. In contrast, nine items (two to three from each subscale) were deleted because their factor loading values (λ) were less than 0.5. In an analysis of items, reliability was also determined through Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.821) value which was statistically acceptable. Psychometric evidence shows that RHQ was reliable for determining students’ reading habits. Improved RHQ consisted of 35 items based on four subscales, i.e., preferences of reading (10 items), interest in reading (nine items), attitude toward reading (nine items), and reading problems (seven items).

Study Skills Scale (SSS): The researchers adopted the SSS from Academic Competence and Evaluation Scale, developed by DiPerna and Elliott in 2000. The validity, as well as reliability of SSS, was confirmed by numerous researchers ( Kettler et al., 2014 ; Strunk, 2014 ; Anthony and DiPerna, 2018 ) and concluded that SSS is a standardized scale to measure study skills. The SSS consisted of 11 items that were also constructed on a 5-point Likert-type frequency scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (almost always) which means developing level to advance level skills ( DiPerna and Elliott, 2000 ). The SSS was also administered to 250 students to ensure reliability through Cronbach’s alpha tests and found a value of α = 0.874 that was suitable to measure study skills in the local context (Pakistan).

Academic Achievement: Students’ marks obtained in ninth grade in the subject of English were asked them that determined by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE) Lahore in 2019. Their obtained scores in the subject of English were considered an academic achievement of students.

3.4. Data collection and analysis

After getting consent from the district education administration officer, the researchers personally gained permission from the selected schools’ principals and class teachers for data collection. All the selected students were informed in their classes about the study purpose and given the right to withdraw from the study at any time before data analyses. RHQ and SSS administration occurred over 8 weeks during mid of the September to mid of November 2019 academic year. Before administering the instruments, participants were informed about the confidentiality procedures. Moreover, the researchers encouraged them to respond honestly and told them to write about their obtained marks in ninth grade in English. After collecting the questionnaires, the researchers quickly scanned the participants’ responses about missing answers, and the students were asked to complete the responses in the questionnaire. A total of 1,614 participants provided valuable responses about their reading habits and study skills. The response rate was 89.6%, acceptable in social sciences research for quantitative data. Students’ responses about reading habits and study skills were analyzed by applying descriptive statistics (i.e., mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis) and inferential statistics (i.e., Pearson r test and regression test) through SPSS version 25 software.

4.1. Descriptive statistics on students’ reading habits and study skills

The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to check the normality of data. At the same time, the skewness and kurtosis values indicated that data were normally distributed because skewness and kurtosis were between –2 and + 2, which was suitable for parametric statistics ( George, 2011 ; Albers, 2017 ; Mishra et al., 2019 ). Table 1 indicates that students give more preferences to reading than their attitude toward reading, interest in reading, and reading problems as M = 4.13, SD = 0.486; M = 3.91, SD = 0.616; M = 3.68, SD = 0.676; and M = 3.57, SD = 0.813, respectively. Students also thought they were facing reading problems because English was not their native language as M = 3.68; SD = 0.813. Overall, results revealed that students have permissive and desired reading habits and study skills as M = 3.88, SD = 0.455 and M = 3.85, SD = 0.602.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of reading habits and study skills.

4.2. Inferential statistics on students’ reading habits, study skills, and academic achievement in English

The Pearson product–moment correlation analysis was applied to test null hypotheses, i.e., whether there are significant relationships among students’ reading habits, study skills, and academic achievement in English.

4.3. Hypotheses testing

Refer to Table 2 for the intercorrelation of variables among reading habits subscales, overall reading habits, and study skills; there were moderate-to-high positive correlations among variables. For reading habits, study skills, and academic achievement in English, students’ reading habits were significantly and positively correlated as r = 0.314–0.721. A value of r = (±) 0.3–0.7 exhibits a moderate-to-high correlation between variables ( Akoglu, 2018 ; Schober et al., 2018 ). Results also reveal higher positive correlations between reading habits and study skills while moderate positive correlations between reading habits and academic achievement in English as r = 0.848 and 0.584, respectively. Moreover, there was a higher positive correlation between study skills and academic achievement in English as r = 0.721. Thus, it is revealed that students’ reading habits and study skills are positively associated with academic achievement in English.

Table 2. Intercorrelations matrix and relationships among students’ reading habits, study skills, and academic achievement in English.

Since the hypotheses “there is a significant relationship between students’ reading habits and academic achievement in English, and there is a significant relationship between students’ study skills and academic achievement in English” were accepted because moderate-to-strong positive relationships were found among students’ reading habits, study skills, and academic achievement in English.

A regression analysis was conducted to explore whether students’ reading habits and study skills predict academic achievement in English. Students’ reading habits and study skills served as independent variables, while students’ academic achievement in English served as dependent variables. The regression analysis results were significant. The unique individual predictor for students’ academic achievement in English interested in reading and attitude toward reading. These two sub-factors of reading habits significantly predicted 42 and 43% of the variance, respectively.

In contrast, the numeric regression does not considerably reveal the remaining two sub-factors (preferences of reading and reading problems). However, students’ reading habits accounted for 44% of the variance, and study skills accounted for 48% of the variance. Refer to Table 3 for unstandardized betas, standard errors, standardized betas, and adjusted R 2 . The independent variables in these analyses are moderately correlated and predict academic achievement because the variance inflation factor (VIF) estimation was below 5.0 in regression.

Table 3. Summary of regression analyses, with 95% confidence intervals, of students’ reading habits and study skills predicting academic achievement in English.

5. Discussion

Reading habit is a crucial aspect of creating a literate society because it helps to shape personality, develop creative and critical thinking abilities, and enhance knowledge ( Palani, 2012 ; Mansor et al., 2013 ; Fischer et al., 2015 ; Bano et al., 2018 ; Rosli et al., 2018 ; Al-Jarf, 2019 ; Wu et al., 2019 ; Hassan et al., 2021 ). At the same time, study skills are the readers’ strategies to process new information effectively ( Kuterbach, 2012 ; Anthony and DiPerna, 2018 ; Abid et al., 2021 ). Both reading habits and study skills are interdependent and influence students’ academic performance as well as future success ( Demir et al., 2012 ; Wernersbach et al., 2014 ; Tahamtani et al., 2017 ; Alzahrani et al., 2018 ; Ameyaw and Anto, 2018 ; Gormley et al., 2018 ; Balan et al., 2019 ; Dolmaz and Kaya, 2019 ; Ehsan and Sultana, 2020 ). Therefore, this study is designed to examine relationships among students’ reading habits, study skills, and academic achievement at the secondary level in Lahore, Pakistan. Lahore is one of the cosmopolitan cities of Pakistan and a hub of many cultures, traditions, and customs. Regarding the academic processes and ethics, it provides opportunities for researchers to contextualize the perspectives accordingly. Reading habits have been and are still being taught in schools, colleges, and universities through model reading by teachers, parents, or elders of the families. In addition, the reading and recitation of fold tales and poems get to gathers like at Pak Tea House, Lawrence Garden, Quaid-e-Azam Library, and so on, while formal schools books, extra reading exercises, and reading and writing competitions at the school level are prepared through a variety of book reading within the context of the particular objective. The results of normality tests indicated that the data were normality distributed and suitable to apply parametric statistics. The descriptive findings also showed that students have more preferences for reading than their attitude toward reading, interest in reading, and reading challenges. These results support the finding of numerous researchers (e.g., Pehlivan et al., 2010 ; Mansor et al., 2013 ; Owusu-Acheaw and Larson, 2014 ; Haliru et al., 2015 ; Erguvan, 2016 ; Krashen, 2016 ; Kulatunga, 2016 ; Loan and Shah, 2017 ; Ameyaw and Anto, 2018 ; Porkaew and Fongpaiboon, 2018 ; Mirza et al., 2021 ) who found that students give more preference to read academic content from textbooks and other reading materials (i.e., newspaper, storybooks, poetry, novel, magazines, cartoons, comics, sports, etc.). Rasheed (2012) determined that reading habits play a substantial essential role in developing positive attitudes toward reading. However, Maiyo and Siahi (2015) revealed that higher achievers had better reading habits than low achievers. Students prefer reading online because they can easily read content from the internet material in this technological age, so they prefer reading online ( Dollah et al., 2017 ). Thus, Molotja and Themane (2018) found that students’ reading habits may enhance through global reading strategies and problem-solving strategies. Moreover, it is found that students have competence in reading habits and study skills. These results are also in line with the findings of previous studies, e.g., Dadzie (2008) , Ogeyik and Akyay (2009) , Bhan and Gupta (2010) , and Issa et al. (2012) , and Sabbah (2016) revealed that the majority of the students read books to pass the exams that why they have good reading habits. Furthermore, it is determined that students also possess the competence level of study skills that confirmed the study conducted by numerous researchers (i.e., DiPerna, 2004 , 2006 ; Rozalski, 2008 ; Kuterbach, 2012 ; DuPaul and Stoner, 2014 ; Anthony and DiPerna, 2018 ; Abid et al., 2021 ).

Furthermore, researchers also concluded from correlational results that there were moderate-to-significant positive correlations among reading habits, study skills, and academic achievement in English. In the literature review, it is seen that these findings are consistent with the results of Singh (2011) , Horbec (2012) , Issa et al. (2012) , Sabbah (2016) , Ameyaw and Anto (2018) , Hassan et al. (2021) . They found a positive relationship between reading habits and academic achievement, while reading habits influence students’ academic performance. Moreover, some researchers determined a moderate relationship between reading habits and academic success (e.g., Chotitham and Wongwanich, 2014 ; Kutay, 2014 ; Owusu-Acheaw and Larson, 2014 ; Alzahrani et al., 2018 ; Adigun et al., 2021 ; Nguyen Thi Thu, 2022 ). Sherafat and Murthy (2016) directed that study habits facilitate learners toward higher achievement because of their significant connections with academic achievement, that confirmed by Bibi et al. (2020) . In contrast, few researchers found different results due to participants’ different selection procedures and contextual differences (i.e., purposive sample method, content, reading material, culture, etc.). For example, Lawrence (2014) ; Goel (2014) , Alnahdi and Aftab (2020) revealed no significant correlation between students’ academic achievement and study habits. At the same time, Silverrajoo and Hassan (2018) found that students’ reading styles have a negative, weak relationship with academic achievement. Findings regarding study skills: e.g., Nouhi et al. (2009) , Awang and Sinnadurai (2011) , Hassanbeigi et al. (2011) , Maiyo and Siahi (2015) , Gormley et al. (2018) revealed a significant positive connection between study skills and academic success, whereas Demir et al. (2012) and Wernersbach et al. (2014) found study skills have a considerable influence on performance that support the present study findings. However, few researchers found a negative correlation between study skills and academic performance ( Fazal et al., 2012 ; Tahamtani et al., 2017 ; Naqvi et al., 2018 ). Furthermore, researchers determined in this study students’ reading habits have positive correlations with study skills. Thus, reading habits and study skills directly correlate with their academic achievement in English. In addition, it is also revealed that reading habits and study skills moderately predict students’ academic achievement. Annamalai and Muniandy (2013) suggested that academic performance is based on students’ reading habits. Whitten et al. (2016) and Fatiloro et al. (2017) revealed that reading habits significantly help students learn more to enhance their academic performance. Ehsan and Sultana (2020) predicted that reading habits significantly improve students’ academic performance.

6. Conclusion

Reading habits and study skills differ in conceptual understanding. Reading habits are the degree to which readers regularly read, whereas study skills are the ability to comprehend new information effectively. Both reading and study habits influence students’ academic performance. It is concluded that the collected data were normally distributed. The descriptive findings about reading habit sub-constructs indicated that students give more preferences to reading than their attitude toward reading, interest in reading, and reading problems. Simultaneously, they have competent reading habits and study skills. Furthermore, it is found that there are moderate-to-strong positive correlations among reading habits, study skills, and academic achievement in English. Thus, it is concluded that reading habits and study skills directly correlate with academic achievement in English. In addition, it is also revealed that reading habits and study skills moderately predict students’ academic achievement.

7. Implications for practice

It is determined that students prefer reading to their attitude toward reading, interest in reading, and challenges and have competent reading habits and study skills. Thus, it is suggested that teachers plan such assignments and tasks based on reflective thinking ( Aslam et al., 2021 ), so students have to visit the school library to read more academic material to accomplish assigned tasks through extensive reading. Students’ reading habits and study skills have a moderate-to-strong connection with their academic achievement in English. So school administrations design a timetable by consulting with teachers, allowing students to spend at least an hour in the library regularly. In contrast, the library should have up-to-date reading material, exciting storybooks, and stock which attract students. In addition, parents can also engage their children in constant reading at home by providing related textbook materials and allowing them to watch educational television programs to gain the essence of reading habits and study skills.

8. Limitations and implications for future research

There are several limitations to this study. First, this study was conducted on secondary school students by selecting a sample from the Lahore district of Punjab, Pakistan. Therefore, future studies may include participants from other districts of Punjab and other provinces of Pakistan to increase the generalizability of results. Second, longitudinal studies are needed to explore the change in students reading habits and study skills over time. To enhance reading habits and study skills, interventional studies may build lifelong reading habits and study skills among learners to make a scholarly society. Last but not least, future researchers may explore parent’s role in developing their children’s reading habits and study skills by selecting participants from diverse populations. Cultural factors would affect students’ reading habits; thus, Pakistan’s unique culture should be considered a potential theoretical explanation in future.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants or their legal guardian/next of kin.

Author contributions

NA presented the main idea and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. SA contributed to conducting the methodology. SA, AA, and TK were involved with the revisions and proofreading. All authors contributed to the article revisions and approved the submitted version.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Deanship of Scientific Research at Umm Al-Qura University for supporting this study by Grant Code: 22UQU4280253DSR01.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Abid, N., Ali, R., and Akhter, M. (2021). Exploring gender-based difference towards academic enablers scales among secondary school students of Pakistan. Psychol. Sch. 58, 1380–1398. doi: 10.1002/pits.22538

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Adigun, I. O., Oyewusi, F. O., and Aramide, K. A. (2021). The impact of Covid-19 pandemic lockdown on reading engagement of selected secondary school students in Nigeria. Interdiscip. J. Educ. Res. 3, 45–55. doi: 10.51986/ijer-2021.vol3.01.05

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Akoglu, H. (2018). User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turkish J. Emerg. Med. 18, 91–93. doi: 10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Albers, M. J. (2017). Introduction to quantitative data analysis in the behavioral and social sciences. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, doi: 10.1002/9781119290384

Al-Jarf, R. (2021). Collaborative mobile ebook reading for struggling EFL college readers. IOSR J. Res. Method Educ. 11, 32–42.

Google Scholar

Al-Jarf, R. (2019). Quality in teaching reading to high school students. Eurasian Arabic Stud. 5, 36–62.

Alnahdi, A. S., and Aftab, M. (2020). Academic stress, study habits and academic achievement among university students in Jeddah[Special Issue]. Int. J. Psychosoc. Rehabil. 24, 97–104. doi: 10.37200/IJPR/V24SP1/PR201138

Alzahrani, S. S., Soo Park, Y., and Tekian, A. (2018). Study habits and academic achievement among medical students: A comparison between male and female subjects. Med. Teach. 40, 1–9. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2018.1464650

Ameyaw, S. K., and Anto, S. K. (2018). Read or perish: Reading habits among students and its effect on academic performance: A case study of eastbank senior high school-accra. Libr. Philos. Pract. 1–23. Available online at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1748

Ameyaw, S., and Anto, S. K. (2019). Gender variation in reading habits in schools in Moland: A case study of Asantekwaa SDA Junior High School. Eur. J. Educ. Stud. 6, 250–264. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3473923

Annamalai, S., and Muniandy, B. (2013). Reading habit and attitude among Malaysian polytechnic students. Int. Online J. Educ. Sci. 5, 32–41.

Anthony, C. J., and DiPerna, J. C. (2018). Piloting a short form of the academic competence evaluation scales. Sch. Ment. Health 10, 314–321. doi: 10.1007/s12310-018-9254-7

Aslam, S., Hali, A. U., Zhang, B. H., and Saleem, A. (2021). The Teacher Education Program’s Impact on Preservice Teachers’ Reflective Thinking in Pakistan. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Open, doi: 10.1177/21582440211055724

Awang, M., and Sinnadurai, S. K. (2011). A study on the development of strategic tools in study orientation skills towards achieving academic excellence. J. Lang. Teach. Res. 2, 60–67. doi: 10.4304/jltr.2.1.60-67

Baffoe, G. A., and Okae-Anti, A. (2020). Reading habits of selected communication educators in Ghana. J. Educ. Pract. 11, 45–51.

Bajwa, N., Gujjar, A., Shaheen, G., and Ramzan, M. (2011). A comparative study of the study habits of the students from formal and non-formal systems of education in Pakistan. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2, 175–186.

Balan, S., Katenga, J. E., and Simon, A. (2019). Reading habits and their influence on academic achievement among students at Asia pacific international university. Abstr. Proc. Int. Scholars Conf. 7, 1490–1516. doi: 10.35974/isc.v7i1.928

Bano, J., Jabeen, Z., and Qutoshi, S. B. (2018). Perceptions of teachers about the role of parents in developing reading habits of children to improve their academic performance in schools. J. Educ. Educ. Dev. 5, 42–59. doi: 10.22555/joeed.v5i1.1445

Baron, N. S. (2017). Reading in a digital age. Phi Delta Kappan 99, 15–20. doi: 10.1177/003172171773418

Bashir, I., and Mattoo, N. H. (2012). A study on study habits and academic performance among adolescents (14-19) years. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Tomorrow 1, 1–5.

Bhan, K. S., and Gupta, R. (2010). Study habits and academic achievement among the students belonging to scheduled caste and non-scheduled caste group. J. Appl. Res. Educ. 15, 1–9.

Bibi, A., Naseer, N., and Habib, Z. (2020). Study habits of students and academic achievement: A correlational study. Glob. Educ. Stud. Rev. 5, 114–122. doi: 10.31703/gesr.2020(V-III).12

Biyik, M. A., Erdogan, T., and Yildiz, M. (2017). The examining reading motivation of primary students in the terms of some variables. Int. J. Prog. Educ. 13, 31–49.

Chotitham, S., and Wongwanich, S. (2014). The reading attitude measurement for enhancing elementary school students’ achievement. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 116, 3213–3217. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.737

Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education , 8th Edn. Milton Park: Routledge.

Creswell, J. W., and Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dadzie, P. S. (2008). Reading for education: The roles of libraries. Ghana Libr. J. 20, 1–14. doi: 10.4314/glj.v20i1.33978

Davarci, N. (2013). An investigation on the evaluation of the relationship between the reading habits of 8th grade elementary school students and their habits of computer-internet usage [Unpublished master thesis]. Nigeria: University of Nigeria.

Demir, S., Kilinc, M., and Dogan, A. (2012). The effect of curriculum for developing efficient studying skills on academic achievements and studying skills of learners. Int. Electron. J. Elem. Educ. 4, 427–440.

Dilshad, M., Adnan, A., and Akram, A. (2013). Gender differences in reading habits of university students: An evidence from Pakistan. Pak. J. Soc. Sci. (PJSS) 33, 311–320.

DiPerna, J. C. (2004). Structural and concurrent validity evidence for the academic competence evaluation scales-college edition. J. Coll. Couns. 7, 64–72. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-1882.2004.tb00260.x

DiPerna, J. C. (2006). Academic enablers and student achievement: Implications for assessment and intervention services in the schools. Psychol. Sch. 43, 7–17. doi: 10.1002/pits.20125

DiPerna, J. C., and Elliott, S. N. (2000). Academic competence evaluation scales. Psychol. Corp. doi: 10.1037/t14965-000

Dollah, W. A. K. W., Fakeh, S. S. K. W., Kamal Rafedzi, E. R., Ibrahim, A., Rahim, H., Masron, M. Z. A., et al. (2017). Inculcating reading habits among secondary school students. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 4, 407–421.

Dolmaz, M., and Kaya, E. (2019). The effect of 7th grade students’ reading habits and their academic achievement in social studies and Turkish courses on their creative writing skills. Int. Online J. Educ. Sci. 11, 168–183. doi: 10.15345/iojes.2019.01.012

Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., et al. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Dev. Psychol. 43, 1428–1446. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428

Duncan, T. G., and McKeachie, W. J. (2005). The making of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educ. Psychol. 40, 117–128. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4002_6

DuPaul, G. J., and Stoner, G. (2014). ADHD in the schools: Assessment and intervention strategies , 3rd Edn. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Eccles, J. S., and Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 53, 109–132. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153

Ehsan, T., and Sultana, N. (2020). Predicting the role of study habits in academic achievement: A study of university students in Punjab. Pak. J. Educ. 37, 95–112. doi: 10.30971/pje.v37i1.1410

Erdem, A. (2015). A research on reading habits of university students: Sample of Ankara University and Erciyes University. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 174, 3983–3990. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1145

Erguvan, D. (2016). ’Students’ attitudes towards extensive and intensive reading and ‘instructors’ motivational strategies. Arab World Eng. J. (AWEJ) 7, 136–150.

Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T. S., Johnson, D. W., et al. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners. The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical literature review. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Fatiloro, O. F., Adesola, O. A., Hameed, B. A., and Adewumi, O. M. (2017). A survey on the reading habits among colleges of education students in the information age. J. Educ. Pract. 8, 106–110.

Fazal, S., Hussain, S., Majoka, M. I., and Masood, S. (2012). The role of study skills in academic achievement of students: A closer focus on gender. Pak. J. Psychol. Res. 27, 37–51.

Fischer, L., Hilton, J., Robinson, T. J., and Wiley, D. A. (2015). A multi-institutional study of the impact of open textbook adoption on the learning outcomes of post-secondary students. J. Comput. High. Educ. 27, 159–172. doi: 10.1007/s12528-015-9101-x

George, D. (2011). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple study guide and reference, 17.0 update , 10th Edn. London: Pearson Education.

Goel, U. (2014). Comparative study of study habits in relation to academic achievement of senior secondary school students. Gyanodaya J. Prog. Educ. 7, 18–25. doi: 10.5958/2229-4422.2014.00004.8

Gormley, M. J., Pinho, T., Pollack, B., Puzino, K., Franklin, M. K., Busch, C., et al. (2018). Impact of study skills and parent education on first-year GPA among college students with and without ADHD: A moderated mediation model. J. Atten. Disord. 22, 334–348. doi: 10.1177/1087054715594422

Government of Punjab [GOP] (2019). Census of school education department. Lahore: Government of Punjab.

Habibu, I., and Ejembi, S. (2011). The role of schools and public libraries in promoting reading habit among children and adolescents in Nigeria. Inf. Knowl. Manag. 1, 33-40.

Haliru, R. A., Abdulkarim, M., Mohammed, A. D., and Dangani, B. U. (2015). An assessment of reading habit among secondary school students in Kaduna metropolis. J. Hum. Soc. Sci. 20, 12–17.

Hassan, I., Latiff Azmi, M. N., Muhamad, S. N., and Abdullah, A. T. H. (2021). Reading habits and their correlation with reading achievement among ESL learners in selected Malaysian secondary schools. Arab World Eng. J. (AWEJ) 12, 385–399. doi: 10.24093/awej/vol12no3.27

Hassanbeigi, A., Askari, J., Nakhjavani, M., Shirkhoda, S., Barzegar, K., Mozayyan, M. R., et al. (2011). The relationship between study skills and academic performance of university students. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 30, 1416–1424. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.276

He, M. (2014). “Extensive reading and students’ academic achievement: A case study,” in Exploring EFL fluency in Asia , eds T. Muller, J. Adamson, P. S. Brown, and S. Herder (Berlin: Springer), 231–243. doi: 10.1057/9781137449405_14

Horbec, D. (2012). The link between reading and academic success. Eng. Aust. 47, 58–67.

Hussain, I., and Munshi, P. (2011). Identifying reading preferences of secondary school students. Creat. Educ. 2, 429–434. doi: 10.4236/ce.2011.25062

Iheakanwa, J. U., Obro, S., and Akpochafo, W. P. (2021). Reading ability, study habits and students’ academic performance in social studies. Libr. Philos. Pract. 1–21. Available online at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/5675

Issa, A. O., Aliyu, M. B., Akangbe, R. B., and Adedeji, A. F. (2012). Reading interests and habits of the federal polytechnic, OFFA, students. Int. J. Learn. Dev. 2, 470–486. doi: 10.5296/ijld.v2i1.1470

Kettler, R. J., Elliott, S. N., DiPerna, J. C., Bolt, D. M., Reiser, D., and Resurreccion, L. (2014). Student and teacher ratings of academic competence: An examination of cross-informant agreement. J. Appl. Sch. Psychol. 30, 338–354. doi: 10.1080/15377903.2014.950442

Krashen, S. (2016). “Compelling reading and problem-solving: The easy way (and the only way) to high levels of language, literacy, and life competence,” in Proceedings of the epoch making in english language teaching and learning twenty-fifth international symposium on english teaching, english teachers , Taipei, 115–125.

Kulatunga, R. K. (2016). A study on understanding the reading habits and library usage of under graduate students (2007/2008 batch) of Uva Wellassa University of Sri Lanka. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Badulla: Uva Wellassa University of Sri Lanka.

Kutay, V. (2014). A survey of the reading habits of Turkish high school students and an examination of the efforts to encourage them to read [Doctoral dissertation]. Loughborough: Loughborough University.

Kuterbach, J. M. (2012). A model of academic enablers and academic performance among postsecondary learners [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Pennsylvania: Penn State University.

Lawrence, A. S. (2014). Relationship between study habits and academic achievement of higher secondary school students. Online Submission 4, 143–145. doi: 10.15373/2249555X/June2014/43

Loan, F. A., and Shah, R. (2017). Survey of the literature reading habits and preferences of adolescents: A study of a public school in India. Libr. Inform. Sci. Res. Electron. J. 27, 80–96.

Madhavi, S., Naidu, S., Krishnaveni, A., and Kiran, P. (2014). Study skills assessment among medical undergraduates-where they stand. J. Dent. Med. Sci. 13, 16–19. doi: 10.9790/0853-131031619

Maiyo, J., and Siahi, E. A. (2015). Study of the relationship between study habits and academic achievement of students: A case of Spicer Higher Secondary School, India. Int. J. Educ. Admin. Pol. Stud. 7, 134–141. doi: 10.5897/IJEAPS2015.0404

Malik, M., and Parveen, N. (2016). Study habits and academic achievement: A comparative analysis of the high and low academic achievers. Bahria J. Prof. Psychol. 15, 46–54.

Mansor, A. N., Rasul, M. S., Abd Rauf, R. A., and Koh, B. L. (2013). Developing and sustaining reading habit among teenagers. Asia Pac. Educ. Res. 22, 357–365. doi: 10.1007/s40299-012-0017-1

Miesen, H. W. J. M. (2003). Predicting and explaining literary reading: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Poetics 31, 189–212. doi: 10.1016/S0304-422X(03)00030-5

Mirza, Q., Pathan, H., Khatoon, S., and Hassan, A. (2021). Digital age and reading habits: Empirical evidence from Pakistani Engineering University. TESOL Int. J. 16, 210–231.

Mishra, P., Pandey, C. M., Singh, U., Gupta, A., Sahu, C., and Keshri, A. (2019). Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data. Ann. Card. Anaesth. 22, 67–72. doi: 10.4103/aca.ACA_157_18

Molotja, T. W., and Themane, M. (2018). Enhancing learners’ reading habits through reading bags at secondary schools. Read. Writ. 9, 1–9. doi: 10.4102/rw.v9i1.185

Myers, M. D. (2019). Qualitative research in business and management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Naqvi, S., Chikwa, G., Menon, U., and Al Kharusi, D. (2018). Study skills assessment among undergraduate students at a private university college in Oman. Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci. 9, 139–147. doi: 10.2478/mjss-2018-0034

Nguyen Thi Thu, H. (2022). The effects of reading habits on writing performance: A case study at Van Lang University. Int. J. TESOL Educ. 2, 105–133. doi: 10.54855/ijte.22247

Nouhi, E., Shakoori, A., and Nakhei, N. (2009). Study habits and skills, and academic achievement of students in Kerman University of medical sciences. J. Med. Educ. 12, 77–80. doi: 10.22037/jme.v1213,4.1249

Ogeyik, M. C., and Akyay, E. (2009). Investigating reading habits and preferences of student teachers at foreign language departments. Int. J. Lang. Soc. Cult. 28, 72–78.

Owusu-Acheaw, M., and Larson, A. G. (2014). Reading habits among students and its effect on academic performance: A study of students of Koforidua polytechnic. Libr. Philos. Pract. 1, 1–22.

Oyewole, O. (2017). Impact of poor reading culture among selected secondary school students in Owo local government area of Ondo state, Nigeria. Dev. Country Stud. 7, 88–101.

Palani, K. K. (2012). Promoting reading habits and creating a literate society. J. Arts Sci. Commerce 3, 90–94.

Pehlivan, A., Serin, O., and Serin, N. B. (2010). Determining reading interests and habits of candidate teachers (TRNC Sample). Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 9, 869–873. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.251

Pillai, S. K. (2012). An empirical study on study habits of X standard students in Nagarkovil district. Res. Expo Int. Multidiscip. Res. J. 2, 15–27.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., and McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educ. Psychol. Meas. 53, 801–813. doi: 10.1177/0013164493053003024

Porkaew, K., and Fongpaiboon, A. (2018). Effects of extensive reading on Thai tertiary ‘students’ reading attitudes. Arab World Eng. J. (AWEJ) 9, 207–219. doi: 10.24093/awej/vol9no1.15

Pretorius, E. J., and Klapwijk, N. M. (2016). Reading comprehension in South African schools: Are teachers getting it, and getting it right? Per Linguam 32, 1–20. doi: 10.5785/32-1-627

Quadir, B., and Chen, N. S. (2015). The effects of reading and writing habits on learning performance in a blog learning environment. Asia Pac. Educ. Res. 24, 635–644. doi: 10.1007/s40299-014-0210-5

Rasheed, S. (2012). ’ Children’s reading habits: A study of Lahore city. Pak. J. Inform. Manag. Libr. 5, 412–437.

Rosli, N. A., Razali, N. F., Zamil, Z. U. A., Noor, S. N. F. M., and Baharuddin, M. F. (2018). The determination of reading habits among students: A concept. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 7, 791–798. doi: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i12/3710

Rozalski, M. E. (2008). Practice, practice, practice: How to improve students’ study skills. Beyond Behav. 17, 17–23.

Sabbah, S. (2016). The effect of study habits on English language achievement. Arab World Eng. J. (AWEJ) 7, 238–257.

Schober, P., Boer, C., and Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth. Analg. 126, 1763–1768. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864

Schwabe, F., McElvany, N., and Trendtel, M. (2015). The school age gender gap in reading achievement: Examining the influences of item format and intrinsic reading motivation. Read. Res. Q. 50, 219–232. doi: 10.1002/rrq.92

Shahidi, F., Dowlatkhah, H. R., Avand, A., Musavi, S. R., and Mohammadi, E. (2014). A study on the quality of study skills of newly-admitted students of Fasa University of Medical Sciences. J. Adv. Med. Educ. Prof. 2, 45–50.

Sherafat, R., and Murthy, C. V. (2016). A study of study habits and academic achievement among secondary and senior secondary school students of Mysore city. Int. J. Indian Psychol. 3, 161–170. doi: 10.25215/0302.055

Silverrajoo, P., and Hassan, A. (2018). Relationship between study habits and academic achievement among health science students. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 8, 763–780. doi: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i7/4418

Singh, Y. G. (2011). Academic achievement and study habits of higher secondary students. Int. Ref. Res. J. 3, 27–42.

Stokmans, M. J. W. (1999). Reading attitude and its effect on leisure time reading. Poetics 26, 245–261. doi: 10.1016/S0304-422X(99)00005-4

Strunk, T. A. (2014). An exploration of the relationships between academic enablers and middle school achievement [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Pennsylvania: Penn State University.

Tahamtani, T., Jalil, K., Hosseini, M., and SoltaniArabshahi, K. (2017). Correlation of study habits with academic achievement among students attending the national medical science Olympiad. J. Adv. Med. Educ. 3, 19–23.

Thamarasseri, I. (2018). Cognitive styles, study habits and academic achievement of students of Central University of Kashmir. Stud. Home and Commun. Sci. 12, 9–20. doi: 10.31901/24566780.2018/12.1-2.335

Tonka, H., and Bakir, S. (2020). The examination of the relationship between the secondary school students’ habit of reading and their reading anxiety. J. Educ. Issues 6, 293–313. doi: 10.5296/jei.v6i1.16986

Van Schooten, E., De Glopper, K., and Stoel, R. D. (2004). Development of attitude toward reading adolescent literature and literary reading behavior. Poetics 32, 343–386. doi: 10.1016/j.poetic.2004.07.001

Walia, P. K., and Sinha, N. (2014). Changing trend in reading habits of teenagers in Delhi: An impact assessment of demographic and environmental variables. Libr Rev. 63, 125–137. doi: 10.1108/LR-03-2013-0038

Wernersbach, B. M., Crowley, S. L., Bates, S. C., and Rosenthal, C. (2014). Study skills course impact on academic self-efficacy. J. Dev. Educ. 37, 14–33.

Whitten, C., Labby, S., and Sullivan, S. L. (2016). The impact of pleasure reading on academic success. J. Multidiscip. Grad. Res. 2, 48–64.

Winne, P. H. (2013). “Learning strategies, study skills, and self-regulated learning in postsecondary education,” in Higher education: Handbook of theory and research , ed. M. Paulsen (Berlin: Springer), 377–403. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5836-0_8

Wu, L., Valcke, M., and Van Keer, H. (2019). Factors associated with reading comprehension of secondary school students. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 19, 34–47. doi: 10.12738/estp.2019.4.003

Keywords : reading, reading habits, study skills, academic achievement, secondary school students

Citation: Abid N, Aslam S, Alghamdi AA and Kumar T (2023) Relationships among students’ reading habits, study skills, and academic achievement in English at the secondary level. Front. Psychol. 14:1020269. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1020269

Received: 16 August 2022; Accepted: 09 January 2023; Published: 27 January 2023.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2023 Abid, Aslam, Alghamdi and Kumar. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Developing Reading Skills through Effective Reading Approaches

International Journal of Social Science and Humanities, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2019, pp. 35-40

6 Pages Posted: 18 Mar 2019

Md. Ruhul Amin

NPI University of Bangladesh

Date Written: February 05, 2019

The research paper explores that how the students can develop their reading skills by using effective reading approaches. It is acknowledged that the reading comprehension is one of the most important parts in the English curriculum in all education level of Bangladesh. It is observant that teaching reading approaches are considered as an important procedure to develop the skills of the Bangladeshi students. In Bangladesh most of the teachers do not have the idea of teaching reading approaches. For this reason, the teachers should need to enhance their skills, knowledge and gathering proper idea about effective reading approaches as well as need to prepare themselves to utilize their practical experiences and knowledge on to their students. So the prime purpose of this study to show the effective reading approaches in order to develop student‟s reading skills in English. From June to December in 2018, an action research has been applied to a number of 40 students at higher secondary level in Manikganj, Bangladesh. The most important question of the study is "could the reading approaches help student's English reading comprehension studies?" The outcome of the study specifies that students who have been tutored about the reading strategies have a development to a great level.

Keywords: Reading, English Reading Approaches, develop, predicting, proficiency

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Md. Ruhul Amin (Contact Author)

Npi university of bangladesh ( email ).

173/3. Narangai, Manikganj, Bangladesh Dhaka, 1800 Bangladesh +8801787774331 (Phone)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, pedagogy ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Anthropology of Education eJournal

Linguistic anthropology ejournal.

• International
• Education Jobs
• Schools directory
• Resources Education Jobs Schools directory News Search

Functional Skills Reading Walkthrough P1

Subject: English

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Lesson (complete)

Last updated

24 August 2024

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

This lesson was designed for learners studying Functional Skills English level one or level two. The lesson offers a walk through a reading assessment paper (part one) which comprises of a range of questions that come up in the real exam.

If you enjoyed this lesson then please check out our shop for lots more lessons and resources.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource: