that theories must pay attention to the universal features of reading as well as those that develop from specific experiences with particular writing systems. Here, chapters provide overviews of alphabetic, alpha‐syllabic, and Chinese orthographies, and elsewhere in the book, reference is made to research emanating from different writing systems.
Part 5 considers reading disorders. As in the first edition, there are chapters on both developmental and acquired disorders of reading. In the current volume, there is more convergence between these two strands of research, both noting that selective deficits are rare in developmental as well as in acquired dyslexic populations. Importantly, there is an intimate relationship between reading and language as seen from the perspective of learning to read with a language or hearing impairment as well as in some acquired dyslexias. New to this model is consideration of cognitive models of comorbidity among dyslexia, mathematics disorder, and ADHD, underlining the interconnections between the cognitive and brain systems that underpin reading.
Finally, Part 6 is concerned with aetiology and considers both the biological and social factors that are associated with learning to read. The chapters take us from molecular genetics to the environment provided by parents, classrooms and neighborhoods. They remind us that reading is complex and that to understand it we need to consider genetic influences and their interaction with multiple environmental factors during development. It closes with a detailed review of the neural bases of reading and its development. Neuroimaging methods have expanded since the first edition of the handbook and an important development has been consideration of neuroimaging data in the context of both cognitive and developmental theories.
Although advances in knowledge are expected in an active research field, the rise of The Science of Reading as a movement aiming to use empirical evidence from scientific studies of reading to inform education and teacher knowledge, and to translate from the laboratory to the classroom was unanticipated by the first edition of this handbook. The International Literacy Association defines the Science of Reading as “a corpus of objective investigation and accumulation of reliable evidence about how humans learn to read and how reading should be taught.” Not every reading scientist is working on developmental issues and even fewer focus on the translation of research findings to practice. We believe it is important that research continues at a basic and “laboratory level.” However, knowledge gained from basic science can and should be used to inform instructional approaches – and this is the difficult part. Reading practitioners have an important role to play in partnership with researchers by providing vital expertise about classrooms, cultures, and contexts, factors often downplayed in cognitive models. It is only when these are understood that it will be possible to implement evidence‐based programs of literacy instruction that are sustainable in communities and cultures around the world.
As this second edition is published, it is tempting to forecast what developments might feature in a hypothetical third edition. Reading and writing go hand in hand, but it remains the case that scientific studies of reading are far more common than scientific studies of writing, and those studies of writing that exist focus heavily on spelling and much less so on sentence or discourse level writing. Learning to be literate demands that children write effectively as well as read, and there are theoretical reasons to consider the production demands of writing as critical to comprehension. We hope in the coming years that there will be more work on the science of writing and that this will be integrated with studies of reading.
We also predict more research that connects issues in learning to read with those studied in the context of skilled reading, both in terms of word reading and comprehension processes. There is certainly room for more theoretical connection, and for methodological and statistical approaches to be shared, including the exciting developments that will enhance our understanding of the genetic and neural underpinnings of reading. Individual differences in reading are already well‐represented in this edition. Nevertheless, important questions remain, not least when considering the role of linguistic, cultural, and contextual influences in the home and school environment. We also predict greater awareness of individual differences in adults.
Finally, as research connects across the lifespan, we might also consider the fate of people who leave school with low levels of literacy. Even in high‐income countries, approximately 20% of 15‐year‐olds do not attain the levels of literacy needed to allow them to participate effectively in life. These individuals are underrepresented in scientific studies of reading, and arguably too in terms of evidence‐informed adult education and support in the community.
Maggie Snowling, Charles Hulme, Kate Nation
2021
Acknowledgments
We thank all of the authors of this handbook who have given selflessly of their time to complete these chapters during the COVD‐19 pandemic. We have learned a great deal from the experience of editing and discussing their contributions. We thank Jenny Diment and Rhianna Watt for their invaluable support at all stages of the editorial process.
PART I Word Recognition
Word recognition is the foundation of reading; all other processes are dependent on it. If word recognition processes do not operate fluently and efficiently, reading will be at best highly inefficient. The study of word recognition processes is one of the oldest areas of research in the whole of experimental psychology (Cattell, 1886). In the opening chapter of this second edition of The Science of Reading, Perfetti and Helder provide a comprehensive overview of recent advances in the study of reading, with particular emphasis on skilled reading in adults. This chapter sets the stage for the chapters that follow. Guided by the analogy of reading as a rapidly moving stream, they use the Reading Systems Framework to show how different knowledge sources, including critical lexical knowledge, underpin the processes that take the reader from word identification to comprehension (and how these may be disrupted in reading disorders). In so doing they consider the range of methodologies that have been used to investigate reading processes, including neurophysiological measures and brain imaging, emphasizing that computational methods and language corpora together add precision to theoretical proposals.
The science of reading should not be specific to one language or one writing system. Perfetti and Helder highlight not only universals in reading processes, but also some of the patterns of variation found across the world’s orthographies. Together these suggest that writing systems evolve to accommodate properties of the languages they represent. Regarding reading acquisition they note that “…effective experience [in reading] in which children read words successfully and achieve comprehension—is the only certain path to establishing rapidly accessible orthographic representations.”
In the first edition of the book, two models that framed much subsequent research were considered: the dual‐route model and the connectionist framework, respectively, by Coltheart (2005) and Plaut (2005). In this edition, Seidenberg, Farry‐Thorn and Zevin consider theoretical models of word recognition with a critical appraisal of computational models of reading aloud. Reminding us that feedback between empirical data and theoretical models is a powerful way of investigating cognitive processes and generating hypotheses, they argue that the standard of proof required is high – that the behavior of the model should align with that of the reader. In addition, the model should accommodate data from multiple languages and different writing systems. Seidenberg et al. focus on learning to read in English where a significant challenge is to model reading across words that vary in the consistency of their spelling‐sound correspondences – an issue that can be addressed by including mappings between semantics, orthography and phonology.
One advantage of connectionist models is that as they learn, they become sensitive to orthographic consistencies inherent in the writing system and the knowledge that accrues is used to feedback and further refine representations
