How Can We Ensure That Every Child Will Learn to Read? The Need for a Global, Neurodevelopmental Perspective

By Nadine Gaab, PhD

Reading is a fundamental skill that not only gives access to knowledge and alternative points of view, but also provides the foundation for success in school and opens up vocational opportunities. Every child has the right to learn to read well, but in many countries, especially developing regions, there are unacceptably low levels of literacy. An estimated 750 million (approximately 10%) of the world’s adults are illiterate; two-thirds are female (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, n.d.). The most frequent causes of illiteracy and low literacy levels in adults are the following:

Lack of reading instruction as a child (e.g., lack of, or denial of, access to schools; inadequate reading instruction)
Difficult living conditions, including poverty
Parents with low educational attainment
Dropping out of school early (intentionally or forced)
Learning disabilities.

This article will primarily focus on economically developed countries and the need to identify children at-risk for reading disabilities early.

The development of basic reading skills is one of the primary goals of elementary education. Sadly, an estimated 66% of fourth graders in the United States are not reading at grade level. Among students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, this number is as high as 80% (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). It has been shown across various cultures and written languages that poor literacy skills are associated with serious psychological, clinical, and economic implications (e.g., Zheng, Erickson, Kingston, & Noonan, 2014; Terras, Thompson, & Minnis, 2009; Mugnaini, Lassi, Malfa, & Albertini, 2009; Idan & Margalit, 2014; Dougherty, 2003). For instance, self-perception of reading failure and negative response from others leave children vulnerable to feelings of shame, failure, and helplessness. Furthermore, struggling readers show an increased prevalence of anxiety and depression. As a result, antisocial behaviors may develop with long-standing consequences. These children are less likely to complete high school or pursue higher education, and they have increased risk for entering the juvenile justice system (e.g., Jimerson, Egeland, Sroufe, & Carlson, 2000). An investigation of attained income in adulthood in the United States revealed that children with a reading disability diagnosis in elementary school are 56% less likely to earn a high level of monetary income as an adult than their peers with average or above average reading skills (McLaughlin, Speirs, & Shenassa, 2014).

40–60% of children who have an older sibling or parent with dyslexia will develop problems with reading themselves.

The etiology of reading failure is multifaceted. Factors that can contribute to atypical reading development include (a) genetics, (b) atypical brain development, (c) atypical development of perception and cognition, and (d) suboptimal or adverse environmental conditions (including inadequate instruction) (for an overview, see Ozernov-Palchik, Yu, Wang, & Gaab, 2016). Developmental dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is characterized by deficits in single-word reading, as well as poor decoding and spelling skills. Prevalence is between 3–10%, depending on the language of instruction, and there is a strong familial component. For instance, it has been shown that 40–60% of children who have an older sibling or parent with dyslexia will develop problems with reading themselves (e.g., Pennington, 1991). Furthermore, results of research using neuroimaging have suggested that children who subsequently develop dyslexia enter school with a less optimal brain for learning to read (for a summary, see Ozernov-Palchik & Gaab, 2016). It is important to note that not all children who struggle to read qualify for a dyslexia diagnosis. Poor vocabulary and oral listening comprehension skills can also lead to problems with reading development, especially reading fluency and comprehension, with exactly the same implications for a child’s mental health as described above.

Scientific studies from around the world have shown that it is possible to identify children at risk for developing into struggling readers as early as preschool using screening methods.

It is therefore equally important to address these factors as early as possible. These deficits are often, but certainly not always, observed in children from low socioeconomic backgrounds or whose parents are English language learners.

Scientific studies from around the world have shown that it is possible to identify children at risk for developing into struggling readers as early as preschool using screening methods (for a review, see Snowling, 2013). However, in most countries, children must demonstrate a significant struggle to learn to read over a prolonged period of time (the so-called“wait-to-fail” approach) before (if at all) more intensive (quality and quantity) intervention strategies are discussed and eventually put into place. Paradoxically, many research studies have demonstrated stronger intervention effects in the first and second year of reading instruction for children at-risk than in the later grades (termed the dyslexia paradox; Ozernov-Palchik & Gaab, 2016).

Many research studies have demonstrated stronger intervention effects in the first and second year of reading instruction for children at-risk than in the later grades.

This early intervention effect is most likely due to heightened plasticity for brain networks supporting language in young children and the fact that a gap in vocabulary and background knowledge between subsequently good and struggling readers is still small (commonly referred to as the Matthew Effect in reading [Stanovich, 1986]). Research has demonstrated that reading ability determines how much you read and not the other way around (van Bergen et al., 2018), emphasizing the need to identify children who are at-risk for developing problems with reading acquisition as early as possible to stop the downward spiral.

Most importantly, we have the knowledge and skill to screen millions of children, and yet the rate of low literacy levels will not change if we do not implement adequate early intervention protocols and ensure high quality reading instruction.

Research has demonstrated that reading ability determines how much you read and not the other way around (van Bergen et al., 2018), emphasizing the need to identify children who are at-risk for developing problems with reading acquisition as early as possible to stop the downward spiral.

We want to move from a “failure” model to an early “support” model—from a deficit-focused to a preventive approach. This proactive support model will be paramount in preventing repeated failures in learning to read and the academic and psychosocial consequences of those failures. In addition to the development of screening tools that are highly scalable, this involves other factors:

Adequate teacher training
Access to vetted intervention strategies, curricula, lesson plans, etc. in the language of instruction
Trained professionals able to guide screening protocols and subsequent interventions.

It is important to note that inadequate reading instruction can also cause problems with reading acquisition and can exacerbate an at-risk child’s struggle to learn to read. Despite the fact that a wealth of research—at least for the English language—has answered many of the open questions surrounding adequate reading acquisition and its best practices (Castles, Rastle, & Nation, 2018), there is an ongoing public debate on how children are best taught to learn to read. Sadly, this knowledge is only slowly being implemented in educational settings and global educational policies, which often lack a neurodevelopmental perspective.

Alarmingly, research on the best practices for teaching reading are only performed in a handful of languages and rarely in bilingual children. In order to decrease the gap in literacy levels between economically well-developed countries and the rest of the world, we need to start investigating best practices for reading acquisition for all written languages, including bilingualism, and disseminate that information to educators on the ground.

It is unlikely that we will entirely eliminate illiteracy in the near future. Most children at risk for staying illiterate are in need of large-scale global policy changes in order to give them access to (high quality) schools and basic necessities they need in order to live up to their full potential. Nevertheless, in order to reduce low literacy levels, we also need to make sure that all of the following factors are considered:

Need for reading curricula to be in line with the current state of scientific knowledge—which is often not the case
Design of multilingual, culturally appropriate, bias-free, easily accessible, easy-to-administer, and affordable screening tools that can reliably identify which children have a heightened risk to develop into struggling readers
Leveraging of technology to screen, intervene, and teach reading globally (especially given the high rates of adults who own a smartphone globally)
Development of evidence-based intervention strategies for young children across all written languages.

Tackling these challenges will reduce the severe psychological, clinical, and economic implications that can accompany low literacy levels and a child’s struggle to learn to read—and, most importantly, will maximize the joy of learning to read.

Author disclosures: Nadine Gaab is the developer of the Boston Early Literacy Screener (www.bostonearlyliteracyscreener.com).

References

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. doi:10.1177/1529100618772271

Dougherty, C. (2003). Numeracy, literacy and earnings: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Economics of Education Review, 22(5), 511–521. doi:10.1016/S0272-7757(03)00040-2

Idan, O., & Margalit, M. (2014) Socioemotional self-perceptions, family climate, and hopeful thinking among students with learning disabilities and typically achieving students from the same classes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(2),136–152. doi:10.1177/0022219412439608

Jimerson, S., Egeland, B., Sroufe, L., & Carlson, B. (2000). A prospective longitudinal study of high school dropouts: Examining multiple predictors across development. Journal of School Psychology, 38(6), 525–549. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(00)00051-0

McLaughlin, M. J., Speirs, K. E., & Shenassa, E. D. (2014). Reading disability and adult attained education and income: Evidence from a 30-year longitudinal study of a population-based sample. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(4), 374–386. doi:10.1177/0022219412458323

Mugnaini, D., Lassi, S., La Malfa, G., & Albertini, G. (2009). Internalizing correlates of dyslexia. World Journal of Pediatrics, 5(4), 255–264. doi:10.1007/s12519-009-0049-7

National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). The Nation’s Report Card: A first look: 2017 mathematics and reading. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov

Ozernov-Palchik, O., & Gaab, N. (2016). Tackling the “dyslexia paradox”: Reading brain and behavior for early markers of developmental dyslexia. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 7(2), 156–176. doi:10.1002/wcs.1383

Ozernov-Palchik, O., Yu, X., Wang, Y., & Gaab, N. (2016). Lessons to be learned: How a comprehensive neurobiological framework of atypical reading development can inform educational practice. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 10, 45–58. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.05.006

Pennington, B. F. (1991). Reading disabilities: Genetic and neurological influences. Boston, MA: Kluwer.

Snowling, M. J. (2013). Early identification and interventions for dyslexia: A contemporary view. Journal of Research in Special Education Needs, 13(1), 7–14. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2012.01262.x

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–406.

Terras, M. M., Thompson, L. C., & Minnis, H. (2009). Dyslexia and psycho‐social functioning: An exploratory study of the role of self‐esteem and understanding. Dyslexia, 15(4), 304–327. doi:10.1002/dys.386

UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved February 8, 2019, from http://uis.unesco.org/en

van Bergen, E., Snowling, M. J., de Zeeuw, E. L., van Beijsterveldt, C. E. M., Dolan, C. V., & Boomsma, D. I. (2018). Why do children read more? The influence of reading ability on voluntary reading practices. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 59(11), 1205–1214. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12910

Zheng, C., Erickson, A. G., Kingston, N. M., & Noonan, P. M. (2014). The relationship among self-determination, self-concept, and academic achievement for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(5), 462–474. doi:10.1177/0022219412469688

More Articles for IDA From Nadine Gaab

It’s a Myth That Young Children Cannot Be Screened for Dyslexia!

Dr. Gaab, Ph.D, is an Associate Professor of Pediatrics at Boston Children’s Hospital and the Harvard Medical School and a member of the faculty at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. She received a PhD in Psychology from the University of Zurich in Switzerland. She did postdoctoral training with John Gabrieli, Gary Glover, and Paula Tallal at Stanford University and MIT. Her current research within the Laboratories of Cognitive Neuroscience at Boston Children’s Hospital focuses on auditory and language processing in the human brain and its applications for the development of typical and atypical language and literacy skills.

We encourage sharing of Examiner articles. If portions are cited, please make appropriate reference. Articles may not be reprinted for the purpose of resale. Permission to republish this article is available from info@dyslexia.org.

Share This:

By Nadine Gaab, PhD