science-of-reading-analyzer

name: science-of-reading-analyzer description: > Audits any reading lesson, curriculum material, decodable text, leveled reader, instructional strategy, or assessment against the Science of Reading evidence base. Trigger this skill whenever the user asks whether something is Science of Reading-aligned, wants to evaluate a reading program or curriculum, asks about phonics scope and sequence, wants to know if a strategy is evidence-based, mentions balanced literacy vs. structured literacy, asks about Scarborough's Reading Rope or the Simple View of Reading, wants to improve a reading lesson or intervention, or asks whether a text or approach is appropriate for a struggling reader. Also trigger when the user shares a reading lesson or passage and asks "is this good?", "does this follow the Science of Reading?", "what's missing?", or "how should I teach this differently?" Works with pasted lessons, uploaded documents, or verbal descriptions of instructional practice.

Science of Reading Analyzer

Purpose

Apply the Science of Reading evidence base to audit, improve, or design reading instruction and materials. This skill translates research into concrete, actionable classroom recommendations — and calls out practices that the evidence does not support, clearly and specifically.

The Science of Reading is not a program. It is a body of converging evidence from cognitive science, linguistics, and education research about how children learn to read. This skill draws from that evidence base, not from any single commercial program.

Theoretical Framework

Two models anchor every analysis:

Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990)

Reading Comprehension = Decoding × Language Comprehension

Both components are necessary; weakness in either limits reading ability. When analyzing any lesson, ask: Is this targeting decoding, language comprehension, or both? Is the lesson addressing the right component for this student's profile?

Scarborough's Reading Rope (2001)

Two braided strands:

Word Recognition (lower strand — becomes automatic)

• Phonological Awareness
• Decoding
• Sight Recognition

Language Comprehension (upper strand — becomes strategic)

• Background Knowledge
• Vocabulary
• Language Structures
• Verbal Reasoning
• Literacy Knowledge

Both strands must be developed. Instruction that focuses only on one strand produces readers with identifiable, predictable profiles of difficulty.

What You Need From the User

• The artifact to analyze (required): Lesson plan, curriculum excerpt, instructional strategy description, text, assessment, or program name
• Grade level and student population
• Context: Is this a core reading program (Tier 1), intervention (Tier 2/3), or independent practice material?
• Analysis focus (if specified): Does the user want a general audit, or are they specifically asking about one component?

Analysis Framework

Run through all applicable categories below. Not every category will be relevant to every artifact — use judgment about which sections to include.

1. Phonological and Phonemic Awareness

Questions to assess:

• Does the lesson include explicit phonological awareness work?
• Is PA instruction connected to print (phonemic awareness with letters)?
• Are tasks appropriate for the developmental level? (rhyme/alliteration → onset-rime → phoneme isolation → blending → segmenting → manipulation)
• Is PA instruction time-limited and purposeful (not used as a stand-alone activity beyond when students have mastered phoneme manipulation)?

Evidence verdict options:

• ✅ Aligned: Explicit, systematic PA embedded appropriately
• ⚠️ Partial: PA present but not connected to print, or at wrong level
• ❌ Not present: Missing for a grade level where it should be core
• 🔁 Unnecessary: PA instruction for students who have already mastered it

2. Phonics and Decoding

Questions to assess:

• Is phonics instruction explicit and systematic?
• Does the scope and sequence follow a logical progression? (simple → complex: CVC → blends/digraphs → vowel patterns → multisyllabic)
• Are students decoding with phonics patterns, or guessing from context/picture?
• Is the text decodable relative to what students have been taught?
• Are sight words (high-frequency irregular words) explicitly taught?
• Is there opportunity for word study, pattern recognition, and transfer to text?

Red flags that indicate non-SOR alignment:

• Three-cueing system (MSV): asking students to guess from meaning, structure, or visual cues rather than decoding the word
• "Skip it and come back" as a decoding strategy
• Leveled readers before sufficient phonics knowledge is established
• No phonics sequence or "word families" taught without underlying phonics logic

Scope and sequence benchmark (general — programs vary):

3. Fluency

Questions to assess:

• Is fluency practice included? (oral reading; timed/untimed)
• Is fluency practice purposeful — connected to comprehension — or just accuracy-focused?
• Is repeated reading used as a fluency-building strategy?
• Does the text used for fluency practice meet the decodability/readability threshold for this student?
• Is there explicit modeling of fluent reading with attention to prosody?

Research note: Fluency instruction is frequently under-emphasized in both core programs and interventions. Cold reads alone do not build fluency — supported repeated reading with feedback does (Samuels, 1979; NRP, 2000).

4. Vocabulary

Questions to assess:

• Are Tier 2 words (academic vocabulary useful across contexts) explicitly pre-taught? (Beck, McKeown & Kucan, 2013 tier framework)
• Are words taught to depth (definition + examples + non-examples + usage)?
• Is morphology used as a vocabulary tool for Tier 3 domain-specific words?
• Does the lesson return to vocabulary words in multiple contexts?
• Is vocabulary connected to the text's content, not taught in isolation?

Research note: Incidental exposure to vocabulary through reading does not close vocabulary gaps for students who are already behind. Explicit, robust vocabulary instruction is required (Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986).

5. Reading Comprehension

Questions to assess:

• Is there explicit instruction in comprehension strategies (not just practice)? (Summarizing, questioning, visualizing, monitoring, connecting — Pressley, 2006)
• Are students taught to use text structure as a comprehension tool?
• Is background knowledge activated before reading and built during reading?
• Are questions at multiple cognitive levels (literal, inferential, evaluative)?
• Is there discussion that requires students to cite textual evidence?

Critical distinction: Comprehension strategy instruction is not the same as comprehension assessment. Having students answer questions does not teach comprehension. Explicit strategy instruction does.

6. Writing Connection

Questions to assess:

• Does the lesson include any writing-to-read or read-to-write component?
• Is spelling instruction (encoding) connected to decoding instruction? (Moats, 2005 — spelling and reading share phonological and orthographic knowledge)

7. Text Quality and Appropriateness

For any text included in the lesson:

• Is the text decodable relative to what students have been taught?
• Is the text at an appropriate instructional level for the lesson's purpose?
• Does the text offer rich vocabulary and syntax worth studying?
• Does the text connect to students' lives and represent diverse experiences?

Leveled readers vs. decodable texts: Leveled readers are appropriate for independent reading and language comprehension work. For phonics practice, decodable texts aligned to the taught scope and sequence are required. Conflating these purposes is a common source of instruction misalignment.

Output Format

Section 1: Quick Audit Summary

SCIENCE OF READING ALIGNMENT AUDIT
Artifact: [lesson/text/program name]
Grade Level: [X] | Context: [Core / Intervention / Independent practice]
Analyzed by: edu-skills / science-of-reading-analyzer

COMPONENT         STATUS     NOTES
Phonol. Awareness [✅/⚠️/❌/—]  [brief note]
Phonics/Decoding  [✅/⚠️/❌/—]  [brief note]
Fluency           [✅/⚠️/❌/—]  [brief note]
Vocabulary        [✅/⚠️/❌/—]  [brief note]
Comprehension     [✅/⚠️/❌/—]  [brief note]
Writing/Encoding  [✅/⚠️/❌/—]  [brief note]

OVERALL ALIGNMENT: [Strong / Partial / Misaligned]

Section 2: Strengths

What is working and why. Evidence-specific.

Section 3: Concerns

What conflicts with the SOR evidence base. Named clearly, without euphemism. Include the specific research concern, not just the observation.

Section 4: Recommendations

Concrete, prioritized changes. Ordered by impact. For each recommendation:

• What to add, change, or remove
• Why (brief evidence rationale)
• A practical implementation example

Section 5: Resources

Point to relevant references for deeper learning. Draw from references/sor-research-base.md for citable sources.

Balanced Literacy vs. Structured Literacy — A Note

If the user asks about this debate, respond factually:

The term "balanced literacy" describes a broad instructional approach that blends whole-language and phonics elements. Research syntheses including the National Reading Panel (2000) and subsequent meta-analyses have found that systematic, explicit phonics instruction produces significantly stronger outcomes for word reading than approaches that do not include it — particularly for students at risk for reading difficulties (Ehri et al., 2001).

The term "structured literacy" (International Dyslexia Association) describes instruction that is explicit, systematic, sequential, cumulative, multisensory, and diagnostic — the approach supported by the convergent SOR evidence base.

These are not equivalent approaches. The evidence does not treat them as equally effective for students with reading difficulties.

Reference Files

• references/sor-research-base.md — Citable SOR research: key studies, meta-analyses, and foundational researchers with summaries
• references/red-flag-practices.md — Non-SOR-aligned practices with research citations explaining why each is problematic

Read these when the user needs citations for professional advocacy, parent communication, or curriculum adoption decisions.