The Science of Reading (SOR) has completely changed the early-literacy landscape. It brought much-needed clarity and coherence to classrooms by grounding instruction in what research actually tells us about how kids learn to read. With the Simple View of Reading (SVR) and Scarborough’s Rope leading the way, teachers have embraced a more complete picture of literacy—one that lifts up both word recognition and language comprehension as essential parts of the equation.
This shift sparked a wave of more explicit, systematic, multisensory instruction in the early grades. And it worked. Kids became stronger decoders. Teachers doubled down on background knowledge and vocabulary because the research made it clear: comprehension is built on what students already know, not just on isolated reading “tricks.” Schools layered in interdisciplinary knowledge building, and the results were real.
Across the country, districts are seeing the payoff. When SOR practices sit alongside strong multisensory phonics programs, solid MTSS structures, and tight progress monitoring, early readers make impressive gains. We’re finally seeing evidence-based wins that honor both the science and the art of teaching.
But then comes the rub: once students move past second or third grade, the magic doesn’t automatically continue. Even with solid decoding and richer background knowledge, many upper-elementary and secondary students hit a wall. They can read the words—but they struggle to stay motivated, make meaning, and deeply understand what they’re reading. The Simple View, as useful as it is, doesn’t fully explain what’s going on.
That’s why SOR has to evolve. Older students need more than phonics-plus-knowledge. They need active self-regulation—the ability to monitor their understanding, manage their focus, and flexibly apply strategies as texts get harder. They also need the “bridging processes” that link word recognition to full-on comprehension: integrating vocabulary, syntax, discourse, and background knowledge while keeping track of characters, arguments, structures, and ideas. All of this unfolds within real contexts—texts, tasks, disciplines, and students’ sociocultural worlds.
And in secondary classrooms, another layer drops in: disciplinary literacy. Students must read like historians, scientists, literary critics, and mathematicians. Text type and task matter. Meaning-making becomes specialized.
This is the moment when the Science of Reading must grow into something more dynamic and multi-faceted: The Science of Secondary Reading™ (SoSR™).
S0SR digs deeper into what language comprehension really requires. It highlights the central role of active self-regulation and bridging processes as texts become denser, arguments become more complex, and the reading demands of school begin to splinter across disciplines. And it does all of this with an eye toward the realities today’s adolescents carry—the anxiety, fractured attention, identity development, and social isolation that come with being part of a constantly online, constantly evaluated generation.
If the Science of Reading helped us build strong early readers, the Science of Secondary Reading™ helps us build critical, resilient, and sophisticated readers and writers—ready to understand, question, and contribute to the world around them.
From the Simple View to the Active View to Secondary Literacy
The Active View of Reading (AVR), introduced by Nell Duke and Kelly Cartwright (2021), basically says: The Simple View was a great beginning, but not the whole story. AVR expands the SVR by highlighting three big insights from decades of reading research—insights that help us understand not just what reading is, but why some students struggle and what they need to succeed.
First, AVR reminds us that reading difficulties can come from more than just decoding issues or language comprehension gaps. Sometimes the challenge sits in the spaces between those two buckets—like when a student can read the words but can’t coordinate them into coherent meaning.
Second, AVR emphasizes that word recognition and language comprehension aren’t two neat, separate silos. They overlap—a lot. And in that messy middle are the “bridging processes” that help readers tie everything together: integrating vocabulary, syntax, background knowledge, attention, and text structure into one fluid reading experience.
And third, AVR elevates active self-regulation—the internal steering wheel that keeps a reader focused, strategic, and aware when meaning breaks down. These self-regulatory systems are not optional; they’re essential.
These insights matter in the early grades, but by the time students hit middle and high school, they become mission critical. Secondary readers have to make sense of dense disciplinary texts, juggle multiple perspectives, track complex arguments, and engage in real critical thinking. That requires more than decoding and vocabulary. It requires a coordinated system where active self-regulation, bridging processes, and language comprehension all work together—especially when the goal is not just to understand a text but to analyze, debate, and apply it.
At the same time, we can’t ignore that some learners still need explicit Tier 2 or Tier 3 structured literacy support—particularly students with dyslexia, language-based learning differences, interrupted schooling, or those new to English. For multilingual learners (MLLs), structured literacy must be differentiated: aligned with stages of language acquisition, culturally responsive, and designed to build both linguistic and cultural knowledge.
Strong interventions weave together phonology, sound-symbol associations, syllable work, and morphology with explicit instruction in syntax and semantics. It’s not just about teaching the code—it’s about helping students use the code to become confident, capable, culturally grounded readers who.
The AVR models adds these key systems to the reading equation:
- Active Self-Regulation – basically the reader’s “control center.” It’s the mix of strategies, motivation, and self-monitoring that helps a reader stay focused, notice when something doesn’t make sense, and actually do something about it. Decades of research (Cartwright et al., 2020; Connor et al., 2014; Hattie, 2023) show that these self-checking, keep-going systems are some of the strongest predictors of real comprehension—especially once texts get harder.
- Bridging Processes – the behind-the-scenes mental work that connects word recognition to full-on meaning making. It’s the flexible, switch-on/switch-off stuff: coordinating decoding with vocabulary, syntax, and ideas so reading feels smooth and connected rather than like two separate tasks. These “bridge skills” help readers move from sounding out the words to actually understanding the story or argument.
- Revisions to Language Comprehension – all the meaning-making tools readers bring with them. This includes cultural and content knowledge—the life experiences, school learning, and community wisdom that shape what readers notice and understand. It also includes Theory of Mind, our ability to read people’s thoughts, feelings, and intentions. Together, these help readers make deeper inferences, track characters’ motivations, and connect what the text says to how humans actually think and behave.
Bridging the Science: From AVR to SOSR
The Science of Secondary Reading™ (SoSR), an action research inquiry through Mimi & Todd Press in partnership with the Core Collaborative Learning Network, extends Duke and Cartwright’s Active View of Reading (AVR) into the middle and high school years, offering educators practical strategies to help students become independent, motivated, and metacognitive readers who can understand, think deeply, and act intentionally when engaging with rich, complex texts across the disciplines.
Research demonstrates that:
- Self-regulation fosters independence and comprehension repair through feedback and goal setting (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995).
- Motivation drives persistence, volume, and transfer of comprehension strategies (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000).
- Fluency bridges decoding and comprehension by freeing working memory for deep reasoning (Rasinski, 2017).
- Cultural Knowledge greatly influences comprehension processes. Individuals may comprehend information better when they are culturally familiar with the information, that is, when they have the appropriate cultural schemata (Altarriba & Forsythe, 1993).
- Theory of Mind supports empathy and inference-making, enabling critical reading (Kendeou et al., 2016).
Together, these findings reinforce Duke and Cartwright’s central insight: reading is not a linear process—it is dynamic, multidimensional, and active. The SOSR framework uses this understanding within a continuum of support that honors the success of SOR and extends its principles through secondary pedagogy.
Structured literacy helps students access text. The Active View helps them understand it. The Science of Secondary Reading™ helps them use it.
What SOSR Is
The Science of Secondary Reading™ is both a book and a movement—the next evolution in literacy practice. It unites the evidence-based practices supported by the Science of Reading with the cognitive, motivational, and cultural dimensions of the Active View of Reading. Moreover, it acknowledges text and multi-media diversity, differences in task and purpose based on discipline, as well as the challenges students face in self-regulation in an age of disconnection, trauma, and anxiety.
It guides educators to:
- Strengthen Motivation and Self-Regulation through metacognitive routines for feedback, reflection, and goal setting.
- Engagement through discourse to solidify comprehension and support listening and argumentation while fostering an inclusive and collaborative environment.
- Apply Disciplinary Literacy to teach how experts read, write, and reason in each content area.
- Foster Critical Literacy so students analyze, empathize, and connect ideas across perspectives.
- Develop Theory of Mind to create the conditions that build perspective-taking which fosters both analytical thinking and supports social-emotional learning.
- Integrate Structured Literacy into MTSS frameworks to ensure equitable access.
- Differentiate Structured Literacy for Multilingual Learners, aligning phonics and morphology with oral language and vocabulary development.
SOSR is evidence-based yet deeply human-centered—grounded in learning science and the belief that literacy is an act of identity, belonging, and purpose.
🚫 What SOSR Isn’t
- It isn’t a scripted program or an anti-SOR stance.
- It isn’t sequential—it’s simultaneous: active self regulation, decoding, bridging processes, and comprehension work together in every act of reading.
- It isn’t just for ELA—it’s for all disciplines, wherever literacy and reasoning intersect.
The Framework: Three Interconnected Strands
- Cognitive Science – self-regulation and fluency as engines of comprehension.
- Disciplinary Literacy – reading, writing, and reasoning as discipline-specific practices.
- Critical Literacy – analyzing power, bias, and perspective to foster civic voice and empathy.
Together, these create a system where literacy is not only about accuracy—it’s about agency and understanding.
Why It Matters
Adolescents are not just readers of text—they are readers of systems, communities, and identities. The Science of Secondary Reading™ equips educators to help students:
- Navigate complex texts across disciplines.
- Strengthen metacognition and motivation.
- Build empathy through the theory of mind and critical inquiry.
- Read to learn—and to actively engage in a democratic society.
Moving Forward Together
Mimi & Todd Press, in partnership with The Core Collaborative, is thrilled to share the forthcoming release of The Science of Secondary Reading™: Getting Teens to Read, Think, and Engage—a book built to help schools bring together the big three: structured literacy, disciplinary literacy, and genuine learner agency.
This project reflects a shared vision—one shaped by the best of what research tells us, the lived expertise of teachers who make literacy happen every day, and a deep belief that reading isn’t just an academic skill. It’s the heartbeat of democratic life. When young people can read critically, think independently, and engage with the world around them, they’re not just better students—they’re better citizens.
