The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How Psychological Science Informs the Teaching of Reading
Abstract
This monograph discusses research, theory, and practice relevant to how children learn to read English. After an initial overview of writing systems, the discussion summarizes research from developmental psychology on children's language competency when they enter school and on the nature of early reading development. Subsequent sections review theories of learning to read, the characteristics of children who do not learn to read (i.e., who have developmental dyslexia), research from cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience on skilled reading, and connectionist models of learning to read. The implications of the research findings for learning to read and teaching reading are discussed. Next, the primary methods used to teach reading (phonics and whole language) are summarized. The final section reviews laboratory and classroom studies on teaching reading. From these different sources of evidence, two inescapable conclusions emerge: (a) Mastering the alphabetic principle (that written symbols are associated with phonemes) is essential to becoming proficient in the skill of reading, and (b) methods that teach this principle directly are more effective than those that do not (especially for children who are at risk in some way for having difficulty learning to read). Using whole-language activities to supplement phonics instruction does help make reading fun and meaningful for children, but ultimately, phonics instruction is critically important because it helps beginning readers understand the alphabetic principle and learn new words. Thus, elementary-school teachers who make the alphabetic principle explicit are most effective in helping their students become skilled, independent readers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research
Rayner, K. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 · Cited by 7,979
Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention.
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.1.1 · Cited by 5,902
A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.122 · Cited by 4,153
The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills
Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.192 · Cited by 3,303
Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material
Reicher, G. M. (1969) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0027768 · Cited by 1,252
Dyslexia: Cultural Diversity and Biological Unity
Paulesu, E., Démonet, J.-F., Fazio, F., McCrory, E., Chanoine, V., Brunswick, N., Cappa, S. F., Cossu, G., Habib, M., Frith, C. D., et al. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1057179 · Cited by 1,173
Alba, J. W., & Hasher, L. (1983) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.93.2.203 · Cited by 1,169
Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model.
Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A. M. (1996) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.103.3.518 · Cited by 947
Functional disruption in the organization of the brain for reading in dyslexia
Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Pugh, K. R., Fulbright, R. K., Constable, R. T., Mencl, W. E., Shankweiler, D. P., Liberman, A. M., Skudlarski, P., Fletcher, J. M., et al. (1998) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.95.5.2636 · Cited by 872
A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling, sound, and reading
van Orden, G. C. (1987) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03197716 · Cited by 867
Cited by
Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3 · Cited by 2,871
Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100618772271 · Cited by 1,297
Do “brain-training” programs work?
Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C. F., Hambrick, D. Z., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2016) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100616661983 · Cited by 1,183
What's meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading and reading comprehension.
Ouellette, G. P. (2006) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.554 · Cited by 1,027
Share, D. L. (2008) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584 · Cited by 1,022
Metadata
- Authors
- Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S.
- Venue
- Psychological Science in the Public Interest
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2001-11
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 31-74
- ISSN
- 1539-6053 (ISSN-L)
- 1529-1006
- OpenAlex
- W2146318343
- Cited by
- 928
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 36.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How Psychological Science Informs the Teaching of Reading. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1529-1006.00004
- The paper
- Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How Psychological Science Informs the Teaching of Reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.00004
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.