Intro. [Recording date: July 8, 2025.]
Russ Roberts: Today is July 8th, 2025, and I have the pleasure of welcoming back Doug Lemov, a notable author and educational entrepreneur, who serves as the Chief Knowledge Officer at Teach Like a Champion. This esteemed organization focuses on professional development for teachers and the design of curricula. Doug has graced this program before; his last visit was in November 2016, where we delved into the topic of reading.
Today, our discussion will again center around reading, but through the lens of his latest work, co-authored with Colleen Driggs and Erica Woolway, titled Teach Like a Champion Guide to the Science of Reading. Welcome back to EconTalk, Doug.
Doug Lemov: Great to be here, Russ. Thanks for inviting me back.
Russ Roberts: This book serves as a valuable handbook for teachers, but its insights extend to anyone who engages with reading, including parents of young readers. Let’s kick things off with a critical issue you address in the book: what has gone awry in the teaching of reading in America in recent years. This includes the impactful reporting by Emily Hanford, an investigative journalist who explored this very topic in a podcast, which we will link to. What did she discover?
Doug Lemov: What Emily uncovered is truly tragic. I would argue her investigation stands as one of the most significant pieces of educational journalism in the 21st century. She revealed that many early reading programs in American schools—critical for teaching students to read—have been more influenced by ideology than by scientific evidence. Despite the wealth of knowledge we possess about how reading skills are developed, these programs largely ignored it.
For various reasons we can discuss, the most prevalent early reading programs opted for a whole language approach rather than systematic synthetic phonics, which teaches students to decode words and understand phonetic sounds. Instead, they encouraged students to “guess” words based on context or pictures. Unfortunately, this has led millions of students to struggle with reading.
Emily’s podcast elaborated on this issue in painstaking detail, garnering significant attention—ranking as one of the top five most downloaded podcasts in the United States in 2023. This led to legislative action, with around 20 states implementing laws mandating that early reading programs must be scientifically grounded.
However, this transformation has arrived two decades too late, given that the necessary research was available all along.
Russ Roberts: You mentioned that many programs were based on the whole language approach. What does that entail?
Doug Lemov: There were primarily two philosophies regarding how to learn to read. One approach, known as whole language, posits that if we introduce students to words and books and encourage their engagement with print, they will naturally learn to read. This method is more appealing for teachers because it seems to foster a natural learning environment.
Conversely, systematic synthetic phonics advocates for a deliberate teaching method that focuses on letter sounds, combinations, and their practical application. This approach often involves flashcard exercises, allowing students to sound out unfamiliar words.
The scientific consensus suggests that while some students can indeed learn to read intuitively, many cannot. This discrepancy isn’t linked to intelligence; rather, some children independently decipher the reading code through exposure, while others need explicit instruction to do so. Unfortunately, phonics instruction has often been dismissed as unnecessary or tedious, leading to the dominance of the whole language approach for a significant period.
The consequence of this educational misstep is stark: millions of children either failed to learn to read or associated reading with frustration, significantly impacting their educational journey. As Emily Hanford pointed out, the repercussions are vast—not just for individual families but also for educators who, tragically, have spent their careers teaching reading ineffectively. Confronting that reality can be painful.
Russ Roberts: I want to pivot to another aspect you explore—what I consider to be the fads that often sweep through educational departments. Various factors contribute to these fads: sometimes they are enticing simply because they are new, or perhaps they align with certain ideological beliefs. Other times, they may stem from a romanticized view of education that lacks grounding in reality.
To illustrate, I want to quote Dylan William, whom you reference:
The big mistake we have made in the United States is to assume that if we want students to be able to think, then our curriculum should give our students lots of practice thinking. This is a mistake because what our students need is more to think with.
This notion—that practicing thinking equates to actual learning—seems reasonable at first glance, yet it speaks to a utopian ideal about education that often leads us astray. Why is this perspective flawed?
Doug Lemov: Mark Seidenberg offers a compelling perspective that I reference in the book, stating, “Reading is a complex skill that intuition cannot easily penetrate.” Daniel Willingham adds that we’ve gained more insight into cognitive science in the last 25 years than in the preceding 2,500 years combined.
This highlights a troubling trend in education: we often rely on logic and intuition rather than scientific data. It seems alluring to assume that if we want students to think critically, providing them extensive opportunities to practice thinking will suffice. However, this perspective fails to appreciate the intricacies involved in learning to read.
I recall an online exchange about teaching reading, where an emeritus education professor claimed that explicit reading instruction was unnecessary. He argued that just as children learn to speak naturally, reading should follow suit. Although this argument may sound logical, it is fundamentally flawed. Human beings have been speaking for approximately 250,000 years, which has led to the evolution of specific brain areas designed for language acquisition. Consequently, a child naturally mimics their parents and learns to speak with relative ease.
In contrast, reading has only been a skill for about 5,000 years. Our brains have not adapted specifically for reading; there’s no dedicated area for it. Thus, when we read, we’re repurposing parts of the brain intended for other functions, which makes reading a biologically secondary skill that demands deliberate instruction and methodology.
As a result, while it may seem logical to assume reading and language acquisition function similarly, the truth is they do not. Reading involves complex cognitive processes that require scientific understanding, not mere observation or intuition.
Interestingly, our book does not solely focus on phonics; rather, it emphasizes a broader lesson: we miseducated young people for 20 years about how to read by ignoring accessible scientific evidence. The same disappointing reality persists in grades three through twelve, where data indicate that even exceptional schools struggle to close the reading gap between students from low-income backgrounds and their more privileged peers. This is another area where the principles of reading science can guide us, yet our response has been disappointingly slow, with significant consequences.
Russ Roberts: This book transcends merely teaching how to sound out words; it delves into the intricate process of guiding students to comprehend and engage with written texts. This is a nuanced art form. While it may not be entirely scientific, we have empirical evidence and experiential knowledge that inform our understanding—though relying solely on personal experience can be precarious.
Doug Lemov: Experience, while valuable, should complement an understanding of cognitive science.
Russ Roberts: A significant insight you frequently emphasize is the importance of background knowledge. Why is background knowledge essential for reading fluency, which diverges from merely being able to read?
Doug Lemov: One prevalent belief in American reading instruction is that reading consists of a set of transferable skills. For instance, making inferences from a text. The typical approach in American schools is to practice making inferences by discussing what they are and how to make them. We might talk about the process of inference-making, suggesting that if we can teach this skill, students should be able to apply it universally to any text they encounter.
However, this assumption is flawed. Making inferences is inherently domain-specific and heavily reliant on background knowledge.
Take, for example, an influential study by Recht and Leslie involving a baseball passage. Students who understood baseball could infer meanings from sentences that would be entirely opaque to someone unfamiliar with the sport. When presented with a simple scenario about baseball, a reader with no background knowledge might completely miss the nuances, while someone with a solid understanding could easily interpret the subtleties of the narrative.
Another illustrative example I present in the book is: ‘The wooden box was heavy. She put her bear down. It was going to be hard to carry.’ From these sentences, we can create an entire narrative, deducing details about the character and the situation based on background knowledge.
Russ Roberts: In that case, we can infer that a little girl is struggling to manage a heavy box while carrying a stuffed bear. This leads us to draw conclusions about her size and strength, forming a coherent story from the text.
Doug Lemov: Exactly! You constructed meaning and made inferences based on your understanding. Even the pronoun ‘it’ in the last sentence could refer to either the box or the bear, yet your knowledge allowed you to deduce that ‘it’ refers to the box due to its weight. This showcases how background knowledge facilitates text comprehension.
Moreover, inferences are often specific to the context. Our cognitive faculties work best when we apply them to topics we are well-versed in. Asking someone to infer about a complex subject, like particle physics, without prior knowledge would likely yield poor results.
Russ Roberts: I once wrote a fascinating paper about the Battle of Waterloo when I was young, but my understanding was rudimentary at best.
Doug Lemov: It’s crucial to recognize that inferential reasoning is heavily influenced by background knowledge. One of the arguments we present is that spending time practicing inference-making is often misguided. Instead, we should focus on providing rich, engaging background knowledge to enhance students’ comprehension while reading.
I recall a mistake I made as a parent when I assigned my son Animal Farm without providing context about the Russian Revolution and the allegorical nature of the story. He diligently read it but ultimately interpreted it as merely a tale about talking animals, missing the deeper implications altogether.
Similarly, when teaching historical fiction, assuming that students grasp the context without explicitly discussing it can lead to significant misunderstandings. Without foundational knowledge about concepts like rationing during World War II, students may struggle to engage with the text meaningfully.
Russ Roberts: Another crucial insight revolves around opportunity costs. When we encounter unfamiliar terms, such as ‘Grand Marshal Ney,’ students might struggle to understand them fully. Their attempts to make sense of it can lead to confusion, and while they may think they are developing critical thinking skills, they are often just guessing without real comprehension.
Moreover, the time spent guessing detracts from other valuable learning opportunities. Providing brief excerpts or background information could significantly enhance comprehension and facilitate learning across texts.
Doug Lemov: Indeed. By building background knowledge, we not only enhance reading comprehension but also foster a more profound interest in the subject matter. Additionally, it levels the playing field, allowing all students to engage meaningfully with the text, regardless of their prior knowledge.
It’s crucial to note that guessing does not equate to critical thinking, a misconception that often permeates educational practices.
In vocabulary teaching, for instance, we frequently ask students to guess the meanings of words from context, thinking we are fostering critical thinking. Yet, this approach often leads to misunderstandings and missed opportunities for deeper learning.
A more effective strategy involves providing definitions and encouraging students to apply those definitions in various contexts. This approach not only clarifies meanings but also fosters critical thinking and discussion among peers.
Russ Roberts: This method is profoundly effective because it emphasizes understanding the nuances of language rather than merely memorizing definitions.
Russ Roberts: As someone currently learning a new language, I find that recognizing and remembering words like ‘exhilarated’ can be challenging. You may grasp the definition temporarily, but without proper reinforcement, it often slips away.
Doug Lemov: Indeed, we need extensive retrieval practice to solidify our learning. Cognitive science indicates that true learning reflects changes in long-term memory, requiring us to revisit and reinforce concepts over time.
Russ Roberts: Yet, even repeating a definition isn’t as powerful as engaging with it personally and finding examples from our own lives to illustrate it. That’s where the depth of understanding truly lies.
Doug Lemov: Absolutely. When we connect new concepts to personal experiences, we deepen our understanding. Research shows that students with a robust vocabulary and comprehension skills don’t just know more words; they understand them in greater depth. This depth of knowledge is crucial for effective reading comprehension.
Russ Roberts: Let’s shift our focus to the importance of reading whole books, both for young readers and adults. You advocate for group reading experiences, such as book clubs, emphasizing the powerful impact they can have. What makes reading whole books in a group so essential?
Doug Lemov: This is a vital argument, especially as the prevalence of students reading excerpts rather than entire books has become commonplace in schools. The medium does indeed influence the message; a book offers a nuanced, long-form exploration of ideas, contrasting sharply with the superficiality of tweets or social media posts.
For instance, I recently read Ian McEwan’s Atonement. The initial chapters were slow, but as I persisted, I began to grasp the deeper themes and character motivations, leading to a richer understanding of the narrative’s complexities. This journey illustrates how books encourage us to engage with and reflect on ideas over time.
Furthermore, the evolution of characters throughout a book mirrors our own capacity for growth. Reading allows us to experience this transformation, reinforcing the idea that understanding often requires sustained inquiry.
Russ Roberts: One might be tempted to think that ChatGPT can replace the need to read entire books by providing summaries, but that misses the point of reading.
Doug Lemov: Precisely. There’s extensive research indicating that stories have a unique cognitive advantage, enhancing our retention of information. Historically, storytelling has been a fundamental method for humans to share knowledge and cultural values.
As a species, our survival has often depended on learning from stories shared within groups, creating a communal bond and sense of identity. This collective experience fosters a deeper understanding of complex ideas and our shared human condition.
Russ Roberts: Indeed, the transformative power of reading goes beyond mere facts; it’s about sharing an intellectual journey that fosters empathy and wisdom.
Russ Roberts: I want to emphasize that we don’t read fiction or nonfiction solely for factual information. Engaging with a book is about the emotional and intellectual experience it provides. A mere summary, like a comic adaptation, fails to convey the depth and richness of the original work.
The true value of reading lies in the journey of understanding and experiencing complex characters and ideas. This profound connection cannot be summarized; it requires the time and effort that only sustained reading can provide.
Doug Lemov: I completely agree. It’s essential for parents, educators, and policymakers to recognize how infrequently students are reading entire books in school. A recent viral story highlighted a student at Columbia University who expressed surprise at being asked to read complete books, having never done so in high school.
This trend reflects broader changes in attention spans influenced by smartphones and social media, leading to a decline in students’ ability to concentrate for extended periods. As educators, we must counter this trend by encouraging sustained reading practices and fostering a love for literature.
Rebuilding students’ attentional capacity starts with dedicating time for uninterrupted reading, ideally in a communal setting. This approach not only enhances comprehension but also strengthens the social bonds that come from shared literary experiences.
