Teachers Are All Along With The Science Of Learning But They Need Support

Unless you’ve been under a rock for the past few years, you’ve probably heard of the “Reading Wars”: disagreements about the best way to teach children to read. Are the two sides at odds? Evidence-based balanced learning, also known as the science of learning.

What is the difference between quantitative literacy and learning science?

As the names suggest, these methods vary in which skills students should focus on while learning to read. Where limited literacy uses a “whole language” approach that focuses on meaning and context, literacy focuses on foundational skills such as phonological awareness, phonics, language, and vocabulary. Literacy differs from balanced literacy in that it emphasizes foundational skills and uses clear, structured instruction to draw on research in psychology, linguistics, and psychology.

As of April 2024, 38 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws or implemented policies regarding evidence-based instruction. Since much of the previous teacher training had limited literacy, we wanted to know how teachers are adjusting to the transition to science literacy—and where they still need support.

Check out the results of our exclusive We Are Teachers survey and what it says about the state of the science of learning.

We conducted a survey of over 600 teachers who teach children to read.

Most of the teachers we interviewed:

• They are K-5 public first grade teachers
• Use science reading every day or a few times a week (84%)
• It says that learning science is most effective when you use a mix of small and large group instruction (80%).
• Do you agree or strongly agree that their school management supports the implementation of the science learning method (78%).

Here is what they told us.

Most teachers are completely on board with the science of learning.

When it comes to improving students’ reading and writing, many teachers are happy to switch to a science-based approach to learning. According to our survey data, 70% of teachers report that this method is very effective or somewhat effective in the classroom. The results speak for themselves: 90 percent of teachers whose schools use a science-based approach to learning have seen measurable improvements in their students’ reading skills since its implementation.

However, many teachers say they could use more support.

Despite their enthusiasm for the science of learning, many teachers feel unprepared and overwhelmed. Only 67% say they are very comfortable or comfortable teaching science, and a surprisingly low 13% feel adequately trained in all aspects of the approach. This gap in training leaves many teachers struggling to use this method effectively.

And, even with a given curriculum, many teachers use their time to find the resources they need to support their students.

Even with a structured curriculum, teachers devote extra time outside of school hours to get the resources they need to fill the gaps. According to research, 71% of science teachers spend 1 to 5+ hours per week looking for resources to supplement their schools’ curriculum.

Teachers reported that they could use more time, class materials, and adequate support for small group classes.

The teachers reported that although the scientific method of learning was successful, they struggled due to lack of time and resources. Many expressed a need for more differentiated materials, allowing them to meet the diverse needs of their students. In addition, they pointed to a lack of adequate support for small group tutoring classes, which are essential for helping students who need more focused attention.

Other things teachers need: smaller class sizes, better and more regular training, and parent reinforcement of science learning strategies.

Beyond time and materials, teachers are looking for structural changes to improve the success of this method. Smaller class sizes will help them provide individualized instruction, while better and more regular training will help them feel more confident in using a scientific approach to learning. The teachers also emphasized the importance of parental reinforcement at home, noting that students benefit when families do science learning strategies outside of school.

Still, teachers who have seen a full year or so of the science curriculum sing its praises.

Despite the challenges, teachers who have been using the science learning method for a year or more are optimistic about its impact. Many are seeing significant improvements in their reading skills and believe this method has the potential to close long-standing literacy gaps. Although more support is needed, the results so far are promising, and educators are eager to continue using this evidence-based approach.

Here are a few of the success stories that teachers have reported:

• Improved spelling and spelling comprehension
• Increased student awareness of morphology
• Improved reading and writing in general, which contributes to growth in other subject areas
• Few students need learning intervention
• Improved student writing
• Prospective students who transfer to higher education during the school year
• Works best with ELL and SpEd students

One powerful change we can implement? Start training teachers in early learning science.

Our survey shows that teachers are very interested in the science approach to learning and the positive impact it has on student learning. Many have seen measurable improvements in reading skills, which reinforces the effectiveness of this evidence-based approach. However, despite their optimism, teachers also highlighted the need for more support. From more training and classroom resources to more lesson planning time and smaller class sizes, it’s clear that curriculum change alone is not enough. But perhaps as these needs are addressed, educators can fully realize the potential of this powerful approach to transform literacy education.

Want more articles like this? Be sure to sign up for our newsletters!