The Why and How of Research and the Science of Reading

Tim Shanahan

Blast from the Past: This blog first posted on November 3, 2018, and was reposted in revised form on March 14, 2026. The original title was, “The Whys and Hows of Research and the Teaching of Reading.” As you can see, I’ve retitled it. The term “science of reading” is both widely used and widely misunderstood today, so I have provided considerable revision here – though the overall points are the same. If you want to see the original, it is linked at the bottom (along with the more than 50 comments it elicited).

I talk a lot about research in this space.

I argue for research-based instruction and policy.

I point out a dearth of empirical evidence behind some instructional schemes, and champion others that have been validated or verified to my satisfaction.

Some readers are happy to find out what is “known,” and others see me as a killjoy because the research findings don’t match well with what they claim to “know.”

Members of this latter group are often horrified by my conclusions. They often are certain that I’m wrong because they read a book for teachers that had lots of impressive citations contradicting my claims. Sometimes these days, it doesn’t even take that. A few nasty assertions on X can do the trick.

I’m often challenged with statements like, “I thought that was part of the science of reading.”  

What is clear from these exchanges is that many educators, legislators, journalists, and parents don’t know what research is, why we should rely on it, or how to interpret research findings. That, perhaps, is not surprising but it does make these very important people susceptible to groundless claims and false promises.

Research is used to try to answer a question, solve a problem, or figure something out. It requires the systematic and formal collection and analysis of empirical data – using methods able to provide the kind of answer being sought. That means not all research can be used to provide a valid answer to all questions. Even with that, research can never prove something with 100 percent certainty. It is useful for reducing uncertainty, for increasing the likelihood that we will get something right – it cannot guarantee it.

“Systematic and formal” means that there are rules or conventions for how data in a research study should be handled; the rigor of these methods is what makes the data trustworthy and allows research to reduce uncertainty. If a researchers want to compare the effectiveness of two instructional approaches, they must make sure the groups to be taught are equivalent at the beginning. Without that we can’t be sure which method did best. Likewise, we are more likely to trust a survey that defines its terms, or an anthropological study that immerses the observer in the environment for a long period of time.

Research reports do much more than just report the results or outcomes of a study, but they explain—preferably in detail—how those results were obtained. Most people may find such detailed description of methods to be mind-numbingly boring, but it is that detail that allows us to determine what a study really means and how much weight to place on it.

Here are some simple guidelines to remember.

READ MORE...