Effectively Implementing the Science of Reading: Combining Science and Art

Over the past few years, the conversation around literacy instruction has shifted in many ways. Research has given us clearer guidance about how the reading brain works and what students need to become skilled readers. That clarity has been so incredibly helpful. It has helped many educators move away from guesswork and toward instruction grounded in evidence.

But somewhere along the way, a quiet tension has emerged.

Many educators now find themselves wondering:

If we know so much more about reading, why does teaching it sometimes feel harder than ever?

The answer isn’t a lack of research. It’s how we’ve learned to relate to it.

The Science Gives Us the Foundation

The science of reading has been critical in helping educators understand the core components of literacy and how they work together. Research has shown us that skilled reading relies on the integration of visual information (orthography), sound structures (phonology), and meaning (semantics). To support those systems, effective instruction intentionally targets phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and writing.

This research gave us something we desperately needed: structure.

For educators who were handed vague guidance or conflicting philosophies, the science of reading offered clarity. It gave us shared language and a framework for what matters most. We now know that we need: explicit instruction, systematic sequencing, cumulative practice, and response to student performance/understanding.

None of that is optional.

When Structure Becomes the Whole Story

The challenge arises when structure is treated as the entire instructional decision-making process instead of the foundation for it.

Research can tell us what skills students need and why those skills matter. What it cannot do is account for every student, every setting, and every instructional context. That work still belongs to us as educators. That’s where our professional judgement comes in.

When evidence-based practice is interpreted as rigid implementation, teachers are left with very little room to respond thoughtfully to students in front of them. Instruction can begin to feel scripted or disconnected, rather than responsive.

And this is often where frustration creeps in, not because educators doubt the science, but because they’re unsure how much flexibility they’re allowed to have within it.

The Art of Teaching Lives in the Decisions 

The art of teaching reading is not about abandoning research. It’s about using it well.

The art lives in decisions like:

• How much time to spend on a particular skill based on student data

• When to slow down, when to move forward, and when to spiral back

• How to adjust pacing for different groups or contexts

• How to keep students engaged without losing instructional integrity

Two educators can follow the same research-based framework and make different instructional choices, and both can be right, because their students are different.

This is not a weakness of evidence-based instruction. It’s a strength of professional practice.

Where This Matters Most

This balance between science and art becomes especially important when students don’t fit neatly into our traditional instructional models.

Some students have foundational skills but struggle to apply them consistently. Others make progress in structured lessons but falter when reading real classroom content. These students often don’t need more intensity or less support. They need instruction that helps them bridge what they know to what they’re expected to do.

When instruction is either fully scripted or completely unstructured, these students are often the ones who struggle most.

Honoring Both

Effective literacy instruction isn’t about choosing between science and art. It’s about holding both at the same time.

The science gives us the structure to teach what matters. The art allows us to respond to students with judgment, flexibility, and care. The art is also where our creativity can shine.

When we, as educators, are trusted to make decisions within a research-based framework, instruction becomes more responsive and more effective.

Literacy instruction works best when it’s grounded in evidence and guided by professional insight.

Want to dive deeper into this conversation?

On the SMARTER Literacy Podcast, Lindsey and I talk more about why effective literacy instruction requires both science and art, and how rigid interpretations of “fidelity” can quietly pull us away from professional judgment and joy.

🎧 Listen to the episode: Why Effective Literacy Instruction Requires Both Science and Art