Terminologically Speaking, the Reading Wars

Abstract

Shared understanding of what words mean is critical
for understanding and having meaningful discussion
within professional circles and between the profession
and the public. For over six decades, the term
reading wars has been used in scholarship and popular
media to describe debates about how to teach
reading. In this article, the authors report findings
from a terminological study of the term, including
the first recorded use of the term, changing debates
to which the term has referred over time, and ways
the term has been used in a variety of media. The
authors situate the term outside of the literacy field
and urge literacy professionals to exercise caution
when using the term.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=urpy20
Reading Psychology
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urpy20
Terminologically Speaking, the Reading Wars
Samuel DeJulio, Dixie D. Massey, Norman Stahl & James King
To cite this article: Samuel DeJulio, Dixie D. Massey, Norman Stahl & James King (06
Feb 2024): Terminologically Speaking, the Reading Wars, Reading Psychology, DOI:
10.1080/02702711.2024.2309342
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2024.2309342
Published online: 06 Feb 2024.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

READING PSYCHOLOGY
Terminologically Speaking, the Reading Wars
Samuel DeJulioa , Dixie D. Masseyb , Norman Stahlc and
James Kingd
aDepartment of Interdisciplinary Learning and Teaching, University of Texas at San Antonio,
San Antonio, Texas, USA; bSchool of Education, Seattle Pacific University, Seattle,
Washington, USA; cDepartment of Curriculum & Instruction, Northern Illinois University,
DeKalb, Illinois, USA; dTeaching and Learning, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida,
USA
ABSTRACT
Shared understanding of what words mean is critical
for understanding and having meaningful discussion
within professional circles and between the profes-
sion and the public. For over six decades, the term
reading wars has been used in scholarship and popu-
lar media to describe debates about how to teach
reading. In this article, the authors report findings
from a terminological study of the term, including
the first recorded use of the term, changing debates
to which the term has referred over time, and ways
the term has been used in a variety of media. The
authors situate the term outside of the literacy field
and urge literacy professionals to exercise caution
when using the term.
Since it first appeared in a 1961 newspaper headline, the use of the term
reading wars and the debates that it has signified have continued across
mass media, scholarly writings, and social media. In addition to its recur-
sive appearances, the term reading wars carries rhetorical weight. In
recent years there have been reports that the reading wars have ended,
but if true, there remains some disagreement about who ultimately came
out ahead. Phonics advocate Mark Seidenberg (2017) said that “the read-
ing wars are over, and science lost.” In 2020, journalist Sarah Mitchell
wrote, “The reading wars are over—and phonics won.” The contrast
between these two quotations is not a difference in stance or
https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2024.2309342
© 2024 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CONTACT Samuel DeJulio samuel.dejulio@utsa.edu Department of Interdisciplinary Learning
and Teaching, University of Texas at San Antonio, 1 UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249, USA.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 21 November
2023
Accepted 5 December
2023

2 S. DEJULIO ETAL.
interpretation of research, but the result of ambiguity in the way reading
wars is used and understood. The field of literacy has suffered from a
lack of clarity around the term reading wars and that has influenced how
people have understood (and misunderstood) the larger debate. In this
paper, we argue that specificity of terminology is important for literacy
professionals and, toward this end, we scrutinize the role of the term
reading wars within the field of literacy.
Unlike most of the discourse about the reading wars, our intent in this
paper is not to persuade readers to take one side or another in regard to
the teaching of reading. Instead, we hope to draw attention to the ways
in which reading wars as a term has been used, how this usage contrib-
utes to incomplete or inaccurate communication among literacy profes-
sionals, and to invite scholars and researchers in the field of literacy to
carefully consider how terms are used within our professional organiza-
tions. Our study was guided by the following questions: 1. What is the
history of the term reading war? and 2. How has the term been used
across time? To answer these questions, we used terminological method-
ology (Cabré, 1999; Cole, 1987) to focus on the term itself.
Terminology: The Systematic Study of Disciplinary Usage
According to Cole (1987), terminology is a systematic study of the labels
or designations of concepts (i.e., terms) in a particular discipline or field.
Terminological study is intended to help establish the boundaries of a
term, answering the question, “To what does the term refer and what is
excluded from the meaning for the purposes of precise and unambiguous
communication?” (Cabré, 1999; Riggs, 1993).
From a terminological perspective, a term itself has significance.
Professionals within disciplinary areas use delineated terminology to refer
to slots in reliable professional conceptual grids or schema. Cabré, (1999)
states that terminology “structures, produces, and reinforces knowledge of
the specialized work …terminology thus is the basis for the structure of
thematically specialized knowledge” (p. 43). In fact, “becoming a specialist
means acquiring the terminology which represents this knowledge struc-
ture” (Cabré, 1999, p. 44). However, as pointed out by Riggs (1993), the
opposite is also true. When terms are used in vague and general ways,
communication is lost, meaning is inferred or confused, and participants
who use ambiguous terms may themselves be devalued in professional
circles.
Studying a term requires understanding the ways in which the term
has been used across time, which allows the researcher to identify multi-
ple definitions of a term, and also the context(s) surrounding the uses of

READING PSYCHOLOGY 3
a term. This requires the inclusion of historical perspectives that ask not
only the definitions of the term, but who used it, and under what condi-
tions was it used. In this terminological study, we explore the meaning of
the term reading war, who has used the term, and for what purposes it
was used.
A Context of Controversy
The history of literacy education is populated with many controversies,
including who is taught, what is taught and for what purposes, how are
they taught, and what counts as evidence of literacy achievement (Balmuth,
1982; Evans, 2020; Monaghan, 2005, 2007; Smith, 1986). Arguably, one of
the most prevalent disagreements centers on the best approach for begin-
ning reading instruction.
Reading wars as a term is a relatively recent addition to the debate that
has existed for centuries. There is early evidence of such debate in the
writings of first-century Roman educator Quintilian, who argued for
teaching the names and shapes of the letters at the same time, rather than
the standard practices of doing so sequentially (Murphy & Wiese, 2016,
p. 16). Many centuries later, Horace Mann called for a whole word
approach rather than the spelling or phonics methods that were prevalent
in most nineteenth Century classrooms (e.g., Association of Masters of
the Boston Public Schools, 1844, p. 57). In fact, the issue of whether to
teach reading using whole words or through alphabetic analysis was even
debated at the 1886 meeting of American Association of Instructors of
the Blind (American Association of Instructors of the Blind, 1887, p. 80).
In modern history, the disagreement about the best methods for teach-
ing beginning reading are sometimes framed as three major eras, which
have been described by others (e.g., Pearson, 2004; Ravitch, 2001). In the
first era, the debate centered on the whole word method of reading (look-
say) or phonics instruction. In the second era, the debate focused on
whole language or phonics instruction. In the third and present era, the
debate has been phonics, under the moniker of “the Science of Reading”
(Shanahan, 2020) vs. other approaches, particularly balanced literacy. We
situate our study within these broader eras. We focus on the term reading
war and how it has been used within separate eras.
Methods
Conducting a terminological study includes finding the origin of the term
and tracing it across history. While we initially inspected books, newspa-
pers, and scholarly journals for the term reading wars, our search path

4 S. DEJULIO ETAL.
ultimately led us through Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok in order to trace
how the term was being used, who was using the term, and for what
purposes.
This was an ambitious task. Databases such as Academic Search and
Google Books helped us with more traditional print materials. Numerous
google searches helped us track blogs and other digital sources. Social
media presented its own unique challenge. Others who have studied a term
in social media have limited their study to a single platform and a specific
number of months (e.g., Evans, 2020; Supovitz, Daly, & Del Fresno, 2015).
We acknowledged from the outset that we would not find every single
usage of reading wars across all media sources. However, our intent was to
conduct an in-depth and systematic search across sources, and code these
references until we reached a point of saturation and repetition in our
codes, both within and across media. We did this in a series of three phases.
In Phase 1, Finding the Term, we conducted a general search using
JSTOR, All Academic, and EBSCOHost. We also used Google Scholar to
identify articles that we then accessed through our libraries. Next, we
began consulting experts in the field of information studies. To gain addi-
tional ideas and serve as a method of checking our searches, we each
consulted the research librarians at our institutions for suggestions of
databases to search popular press and media, as well as ways to limit, or
enhance searching with Boolean commands. Simultaneously, we posed the
question about the earliest use of the term to members of the Literacy
Research Association (LRA), members of the Reading Hall of Fame, and
other individuals who we emailed personally because of their familiarity
with literacy and its history. We began hand-searching books as far back
as Horace Mann and his writings in the 1800s.
As we gathered instances of the term, we coded who was using the
term, how the term was defined, and any other usage notes. An example
from our coding is presented in Table 1.
In Phase 2, Frequency of the Term, we continued our searches using
JSTOR, ProQuest, All Academic, EBSCOHost, and Google Scholar, but
we delimited the years to those prior to the articles we had already iden-
tified. For example, when searching “reading + war” and “reading war,”
and limiting the results to earlier than 1970, we found seven additional
results. Of the seven, only two of the results from 1969 used the term in
ways significant to our inquiry. The others were misdated or used the
words in different contexts or separate sentences (e.g. “reading. War …”).
In Phase 3, Social Media Usage of the Term, we broadened the search
to include social media. The need for social media emerged in searching
popular press in Phase 2. In our first finding using social media, we
noted a blurring of the lines between popular press and social media.

READING PSYCHOLOGY 5
Distinguishing blog entries from online printed editorials became point-
less based on our purposes. Additionally, we observed expanding use of
the term on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, as well as TikTok. We systemat-
ically documented social media usage through the end of 2022.
Guided by Social Media Learning Theory (O’Connor, Jolliffe, Stanmore,
Renwick, & Booth, 2018), we explored the interactions of the person/
poster, the environment, and the behavior. Additionally, we relied on the
patterns of other educators and researchers who have examined social
media to learn more about how educators participate in social media
(e.g., Hur & Brush, 2009; Supovitz et al., 2015; Xing & Gao, 2018) and
social media influences educators’ views around literacy concepts (e.g.,
Evans, 2020; Goodwin & Jiménez, 2020).
Findings
Our terminological approach resulted in two overarching findings. Finding
one describes how the referents in the war have shifted across time, from
the first documented use of the term “reading war” until the present
period. Our second finding focuses on ways in which the term has been
used in its discursive functions.
Finding 1: Reading Wars: Shifting Referents Across Time and
Media Type
Reading war(s) has consistently been used to describe a pedagogical debate
about methods of instruction for early reading, with phonics consistently
on one side of the recurring debates. The methods on the other side of the
debate have shifted with particular time periods and precipitating events. In
our analysis, we identified four major referents for reading wars: 1. Phonics
Table 1. Sample coding of sources.
Term Author
Position of
the Author
Definition of the
term
Purpose of the
term
Stimulus for the
term
“Reading Wars:
Endless
squabbles
keep kids
from getting
the help
they need.”
(Title of
article in
Chicago
Tribune,
1997)
Bonnie
Miller
Rubin
Newspaper
reporter
for
Chicago
Tribune,
reported
on health
and family
issues
Reading wars
defined as
disagreement
between
phonics and
whole
language
advocates
Title used for
hook and
attention–
reading wars
written in
large font; it
was not
used in the
rest of the
article
Learning
Disabilities
Association of
America held
its annual
conference in
Chicago prior
to the article
being
written.

6 S. DEJULIO ETAL.
vs Look-Say, 2. Phonics vs Whole Language, 3. Phonics vs Balanced Literacy,
and 4. The Science of Reading. We sometimes refer to these referents for
reading wars as reference periods to highlight the fact that reading wars has
been used to refer to debates that occurred over time (see “Context of
Controversy” section). However, we avoid using the term era to differenti-
ate our terminological treatment from the historical treatments of others
(e.g., Pearson, 2004; Shanahan, 2020).
Reference Period 1: Phonics vs. Look-Say (1961–1980)
Use of the term. The first usage of the term “reading war” came from out-
side the education world. In 1961 during the thick of the cold war, G. K.
Hodenfield, a newspaper journalist and former war correspondent during
WWII, used the term ‘reading war’ in the Los Angeles Times. Mr. Hodenfield
was an education correspondent for the Associated Press news service. His
article entitled “Look-Sayers Under Fire in Reading War” was picked up by
the Los Angeles Times, which published it on November 12, 1961.
Pushback to the look-say method by phonics advocates was evident
throughout the decade preceding Hodenfield’s article. One article, “The
Conflict Over Phonics is Still Raging,” referred to the “conflict over pho-
nics” and argued for the need for phonics for beginning reading instruc-
tion (Burrows, 1953). Two years later, Flesch published Why Johnny Can’t
Read, which similarly advocated for phonics instruction, but contrary to
Burrows, targeted readers outside of the teaching profession.
Hanson (1962), a superintendent of schools in Illinois, wrote “Let’s use
common sense to end the reading war” for an NEA publication. His
description furthered the war metaphor:
Ever since Mr. Flesch trumpeted that Johnny couldn’t read, the discussion
has moved further and further from discussion between scholars to crusade
and counter crusade between antagonists who seem to hate each other. The
professors donned armor and sallied forth from their ivory towers against
dragons in the first grade. (p. 41)
In this early period, the term reading war described the disagreement
between two pedagogical methods: learning to read with phonics and
learning to read with look-say, or a whole word method. The answer as
posed by Hodenfield (1961, 1962) and the sources he used was phonics
or more phonics.
Points of Inflection
Closer examination of each reference period uncovered at least one point
of inflection–an event or publication that changed the direction of the

READING PSYCHOLOGY 7
discussion about teaching children to read. We identified this point of
change based on frequency of citation by other sources.
In the first Reference Period, the publication of Why Johnny Can’t Read
(Flesch, 1955) occurred before the actual use of the term reading war.
However, we identified this as a significant point of inflection because it
was cited so frequently by those sources that did use the term reading
war. It moved the disagreements about how to teach beginning reading
from professional discussions to the public. The other significant point of
inflection was certainly Hodenfield’s coinage of the phrase reading war as
it established both a term and a metaphor that has demonstrated a sig-
nificant lifespan.
Sources of the Term
During this era, it was the newspapers that most often used the term
reading wars. Most professional sources acknowledged the debate but did
not label it a war. For example, Chall (1967) famously described the ten-
sion as a Great Debate, though she–as well as Bond & Dykstra (1967) in
their review of first grade methods–recommended code-emphases as the
best method but recognized good teachers are flexible and adaptive in
methods. William S. Gray, one of the major proponents and editors
behind the Dick and Jane whole-word method materials, referred to “con-
flicting assumptions” (Gray, 1969, p. 9).
One exception was Mortimer Smith (1969), who published a journal
article that referenced “the reading problem” and later referred to it as a
war. His use of reading wars described a pedagogical disagreement
between the whole word proponents and those who supported a code-
based approach. He highlighted Flesch’s book that had brought the war to
the public, a salvo unappreciated by academics. Smith sided with Flesch
and reiterated the use of war metaphors in his article. Still, between 1960
and 1990, Smith’s was the only reference to reading wars that appeared in
a scholarly journal that was intended for professors and those in schools
of education.
Reference Period 2: Phonics vs. Whole Language (1980 - late 1990s)
Use of the Term
A second reference period of the term reading wars was signaled by the
redefinition of who was fighting in the war. This time the contest was
between phonics and whole language and psycholinguistics. Itzkoff’s
(1986) “How we learn to read,” clearly described the new iteration of the
reading wars: “The phonics, decoding conservatives, saw psycholinguistics

8 S. DEJULIO ETAL.
as a great challenger … Still, ‘Psycholinguistics is where reading is’’
(p. 48).
One significant development within this era was the attack on more
than just pedagogical approaches. During this time, the warring sides
became associated with particular names. Nicholson (1992) wrote, “This
review describes in detail the positions taken by both sides in the debate
and concludes that the Goodman/Smith theoretical position has not stood
the test of time” (p. 21).
Political interests were certainly part of this era. In 1986, California did
not allow state funds to be used to purchase texts that taught phonics or
spelling. Not long after, revisions to the NAEP tests and testing process
allowed comparisons of reading scores across states. California students
performed very poorly compared to other states, a harbinger of the end
of political support for the whole language approach. By the end of this
period, many were calling for an end to the war rhetoric and its argu-
ments (Calfee & Norman, 1998; Reutzel, 1998). Balanced literacy was pre-
sented as an approach that blended the best of phonics and whole
language.
Point of Inflection
Ken and Yetta Goodman (Goodman & Goodman, 1979) published
Learning to read is natural. This publication was part of their ongoing
presentations from earlier years (Goodman & Goodman, 1976), but it was
the publication that gathered them a broader audience. According to
Stahl, McKenna, & Pagnucco (1993) this was the pivotal moment when it
was suggested that learning to read is like learning to speak–both are
natural processes.
Sources of the Term
During this reference period, the term reading war was used across
many media types. Initially, literacy professionals described the dis-
agreements without using war language (e.g., Adams et al., 1991), but
by the middle of the 1990s, the term was clearly evidenced in literacy
journals.
Mainstream publications were also using the term reading wars,
revealed in Google Scholar searches. From 1985–1990, reading wars was
found in three instances. Between 1991 and 1995, the term was used 31
times. Usage grew steadily across the era. The term reading wars was also
becoming common in mainstream magazines and newspapers. Kantrowitz
& Hammill (1990) used the term as a hook in the title of a story pub-
lished in Newsweek.

READING PSYCHOLOGY 9
Reference Period 3: Phonics Vs. Balanced Literacy (late 1990s - 2018)
Use of the Term
Early in this era, balanced literacy was often posed as a solution to the
reading wars even while others, particularly from California and Texas,
were criticizing balanced literacy as being ineffective. For example, Leman
(1997) stated that on the surface everybody supports the construct of a
“balanced approach,” but conversely argued that a balanced approach
wasn’t actually happening in his coverage of California’s debates over
reading instruction for the Atlantic. In an editorial entitled “Intolerable
Ideologues” in the Victoria Advocate (Editors, 1999), the editors focused
on the Texas state adoption process. In explaining balanced literacy
instruction to the readership, the editors stated that “…the laudable idea
was to put an end to the Texas version of the so-called reading wars,
waged across the nation for decades by two extreme camps….” but this
approach had not ended in the desired results. The outcome was a shift
from a balanced literacy orientation to a primarily phonics approach
Point of Inflection
In the spring of 1998, the National Research Council released Preventing
Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998),
written by the 17- member Committee on the Prevention of Reading
Difficulties in Young Children. The members of this committee had taken
a deep dive into the extant literature to put forward a set of recommen-
dations for early literacy instruction. These recommendations drew from
a myriad of instructional approaches. Committee Chair Snow hoped that
the committee’s work would be a step toward ending the reading wars
that had been waged across the preceding 25 years and that it would sup-
port “a widely honored Pax Lectura” that focused on the needs and rights
of all children who were learning to read.
The report was quoted widely. Karen MacPherson (1998), a staff writer
for Block Communications, in the Toledo Blade wrote “Panel Urges End to
Reading Wars.” Similarly, the Register Guard (Editor, 1998) from Eugene,
Oregon, covered the findings as an editorial under the banner of “Ending
the ‘Reading Wars’: Synthesize Competing Methods, Experts Say.” The
Sarasota Herald-Tribune (Snow, 1998) featured an editorial entitled “An end
to the reading wars in sight: Holistic approach works.” Within the body of
the work was a quote from Catherine Snow, “The reading wars have been
a waste of time and effort” and she offered support for early literacy
instruction that drew from varied approaches and philosophies.
By 2000, the National Reading Panel’s (NRP) findings had been pub-
lished. Secretary of Education Richard Riley was quoted as saying that the

10 S. DEJULIO ETAL.
report was important because it was “further evidence that the reading
wars are over” (Associated Press, 2000, p. A7). Newspapers used his quote
or the term reading wars across the country. As an example, Gallagher
(2000), in the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, used the term as a section
head: “End of the Reading Wars.” She stated in her column “And in April,
this panel of distinguished experts pronounced an end to the reading
wars in the form of a report to the nation that will become the shot
heard’ round the classroom.”
Sources of the Term
During this era, the use of the term reading wars increased signifi-
cantly. In books, an Ngram search showed a pattern of increasing usage
of the term between the year 2000 and 2010. For example, an Ngram
of Google books revealed 6 books using the term from the year 2000,
9 books from 2005, and 15 books used the term in 2010. A similar
story was found in usage within scholarly texts from Google Scholar.
A search between 1996–2000 resulted in 277 hits, between 2001-2005
resulted in 135,000 hits, and 2006-2010 resulted in 147,000 results.
While not every single usage between 2001 - 2010 was verified as the
reading wars related to literacy instruction (e.g., “reading War and
Peace”), we verified the first several pages of results and noted that the
use of reading wars related to literacy instruction comprised most of
the search results.
By the middle of the era, the reading wars were found on social media.
Twitter joined the reading wars in September of 2008 when Lily Lauren
(2008), a self-described Melbourne Learner and Educator, tweeted “Battle
Lines” followed by the link to The Age, an Australian news outlet. The
tweet ended with “The reading wars.” Usage of the term exploded with
the sharing and retweeting popular on social media.
Terms such as evidence-based practice and research-based practice
were used in connection to what was needed for early reading instruction
(Dewitz & Graves, 2021). Over the course of the era, these terms gave
way to science, the science, and scientifically based reading. The Christian
Science Monitor (Mendez, 2004) described how New York City had aban-
doned a balanced reading approach in 49 schools to comply with the
requirements for grant applications associated with the phonics-oriented
Reading First initiative.
The use of science to support phonics has rekindled the “reading wars,” a
long smoldering debate … the swirl of ensuing questions range from what
“scientific based research” actually means to questions about links between
the publishers of commercial phonics programs and the Bush administra-
tion. (Mendez, 2004, para 8)

READING PSYCHOLOGY 11
Reference Period 4: Science of Reading (2018 - present)
Use of the Term
Here we emphasize that we identified a fourth reference period within
the third reading era. Within this reference period, balanced literacy was
still viewed as the opposing side, with some continued references to
whole language, or any method that isn’t based on the science of reading.
Additionally, science of reading and dyslexia became intertwined in
descriptions of the reading wars. Castles, Rastle, & Nation (2018) pub-
lished “Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to
expert,” presenting what they termed a “tutorial of the science of learning
to read.” Much of the science that was presented came from research
about children with dyslexia and published in journals connected to
dyslexia.
Lucy Calkins, creator of the Units of Study curriculum (2023), made
headlines in 2022 when she revised her popular literacy program to
include more of a phonics-focus. Social media and newspapers were quick
to point out the shift. Many extended the war metaphor, as in a blog
posted by the director of the Association of American Educators (Pratt,
2022). The title declared “Retreat in the Reading Wars.” Pratt wrote, “even
as the research has mounted, Dr. Calkins herself has remained mostly
immovable,” followed by “By conceding to learning science, Dr. Calkins
has done a great service to the young readers.”
In an additional example, the New York Times, Dana Goldstein (2022)
wrote an article entitled, “In the Fight Over How to Teach Reading, This
Guru Makes a Major Retreat.” This article, or at least the exact title, was
reposted on so many additional websites, blogs, and social media sites
that we could not accurately count, from the Center for Integrated
Training and Education (2022) to the Santa Cruz Parent (2022). Lucy
Calkins, like Kenneth and Yetta Goodman from the second reference
period, became a target for many pro-phonics writers, educators, and
likely anyone with a twitter account, to criticize and chastise. Her revi-
sions of a curriculum that had been around for decades was viewed as a
‘retreat’ and a new winner (phonics) was proclaimed by some.
Point of Inflection
In 2018, Emily Hanford’s Hard Words from American Public Media was
released on the Educate Podcast. In the podcast and in the accompanying
written version, Hanford quoted a variety of professionals who described
the history of the reading wars and how balanced literacy had become a
way to quiet the reading wars, as well as a way to teach a little bit of
phonics. Balanced literacy was criticized as not providing enough phonics.

12 S. DEJULIO ETAL.
Like Flesch’s Why Johnny Can’t Read, Hanford’s reporting was refer-
enced across sources. Barshay (2020), writing for the Hechinger Report
noted, “The reading wars are back, reignited by radio journalist Emily
Hanford of APM Reports, who in 2018 began arguing that too many
schools are ignoring the science of reading and failing to teach phonics.”
Scholarly sources also referenced Hanford’s work from 2018 and 2019 as
well, including in the Reading Teacher (e.g., Hiebert, 2022; Stouffer, 2021),
Reading Research Quarterly (e.g., Cervetti et al., 2020; Hoffman, Hikida,
& Sailors, 2020; MacPhee, Handsfield, & Paugh, 2021; Shanahan, 2020),
Reading Horizons (e.g., Sanden, MacPhee, Hartle, Poggendorf, &
Zuiderveen, 2022), and the Journal of Literacy Research (e.g., Bomer &
Maloch, 2019).
Sources of the Term
A significant reason why we identified a fourth reference period in the
literature was based on the use of reading wars as a term in digital media
platforms. As briefly illustrated with Goldstein’s article, the reposts of the
same article on a variety of sites can give an inflated sense of how prev-
alent the information is and make it very difficult to decipher if there is
one source article.
The usage of the term reading wars increased exponentially. Reading
wars spread throughout social media. This introduced a new phenomenon
when it came to term usage: the hashtag. For example, in a TikTok post
(LearnTeachRead, 2021) a nine-second video shows a teacher looking dis-
couraged. The background song is Kesha singing “Praying” with the audi-
ble lyric, “Some things, only God can forgive.” This was concluded with
three hashtags: #therightotread #scienceofreading #readingwars. The appeal
to phonics, via Science of Reading, is implied and layered with the pre-
sumed frustration of those “duped” by other approaches. How this person
defines the reading wars can only be inferred through the use of hashtags.
Taken together–the increased usage of digital platforms, the broader
audience, the introduction of additional terms such as the science of
reading and dyslexia, as well as the lack of context, all characterized a
new reference period. Reference of the reading wars with just a hashtag
make it difficult if not impossible to identify how reading wars are under-
stood by the users.
Patterns Across Reference Periods
In our search, we found that not only did the term vary in its reference
to changing debates across different time periods, it also varied in its
reference to different debates within the same time periods. It was clear

READING PSYCHOLOGY 13
that some sources across the decades continued to use definitions associ-
ated with previous time periods.
Figure 1 represents the four reading wars referents as shaded arrows.
The shading of the arrows changes, representing the waning intensity of
the debate over time. In the figure, a vertical line intersects referents 1-3,
demonstrating that at any point in time, reading wars could be used to
refer to multiple debates about reading. In that example, debates about
phonics versus look-say are no longer the primary referent, but they are
still present. As the arrows show, even when a referent has lost its inten-
sity, it never actually disappears, making the referents something of a
reading wars palimpsest. Tierney & Pearson (2021) metaphorically used
‘waves’ to describe this mixed movement across time. As a wave moves
forward and then recedes, it brings new things onto shore but also pulls
some things back into the waves. Similarly, the reference periods have a
sense of this back-and-forth movement of ideas and definitions.
The recursive, anachronistic use of terms in the profession and press is
itself an important finding as it underscores how the use of reading war has
evolved to mean many things to many different participants, and conse-
quently lacks the conciseness of a term useful in a professional field (Cabré,
1999). In fact, the term is sometimes used to refer to different debates
within the same source. For example, Finn & Porter-Magee (2013) wrote:
Part of the answer, of course, can be found in the fiercely fought “reading
wars” over such issues as “phonics versus ‘whole language.’” Never mind
that thirteen years ago the National Reading Panel—following and improv-
ing upon a path first marked by Jeanne Chall back in 1967—produced
solid proof that a strong early-reading program, the kind that works for the
vast majority of children, rests on five instructional “pillars.” The “reading
wars” continued regardless. (p. 3)
Figure 1. Visual representation of the four reading wars referents.

14 S. DEJULIO ETAL.
From this paragraph the authors consider the reading wars to include
the debate between phonics and whole language (Reference Period 2), but
also recognize that the war predates Chall’s (1967) work, well before the
emergence of whole language. The debate surrounding reading instruction
during Chall’s time was between phonics and the look-say method
(Reference Period 1).
In our search, we found that reading wars was often used to make
vague references that did not define who was “warring” or when this
conflict occurred. Instead, some authors used reading wars more globally
to describe any differences in pedagogical approaches and opinions
(Anderson, 2000). For example, Bowler (1999) wrote, “McGuffey’s editors
and publisher knew, nearly 14 decades ago, that there were Reading Wars
out there, and they took pains to cater to all sides, eclectically. That hasn’t
changed to this day.”
Finding 2: The Discursive Functions of the Term Reading Wars
In our first finding, we traced the origin of the term and described the
reference periods it has represented since it was coined. Our second find-
ing focuses on the ways in which people have used the term to perform
different discursive or rhetorical functions across different source types.
We identified six specific ways that the term has been used.
Reading Wars as a Reference Point
One of the ways in which reading wars has been used over the past six
decades is as a reference point. Some authors have used reading wars to
contextualize their argument or point of view, or to introduce a topic
about which they are writing. The use of reading wars as a reference
point was described as part of Finding 1.
Reading Wars as Topic/Explanation
Some authors have written about the reading wars as a topic of its
own. The article you are presently reading would fall under this cate-
gory. Writing about the reading wars as a topic is different from simply
using the term to provide context for another argument. In this case,
the topic is given considerable attention, as opposed to the brief
descriptions found when reading wars is used to merely provide con-
text. An example of this is P. David Pearson’s (2004) article, The
Reading Wars. Although Pearson only uses the term once (in the title),
and the word war once more in the manuscript, Pearson expansively

READING PSYCHOLOGY 15
focuses on the debate between phonics and whole language. Interestingly,
the author does not explicitly define the reading wars. Instead, the
reader is left to infer that the reading wars refers to the debate between
whole language and phonics-based approaches to teaching beginning
reading. Further, Pearson does not use reading wars as a term to con-
textualize a separate topic or argument. Rather, the reading wars is the
topic about which he is writing. Another point of note is that the use
of reading wars as a topic of its own tends to be found in professional
sources, such as Pearson’s (2004) journal article or Jenifer Jasinski
Schneider’s (2016) book chapter, rather than newspapers or sources
meant for the public.
In a much shorter fashion Dee (2022) offered a similar usage of the
reading wars as a topic in her tweet that read, “Not just online but in the
actual newspaper too.” The accompanying image was a photo of the Irish
Times newspaper proclaiming the headline “The reading wars: What is
the best way to teach kids?” The tweet made no reference to the author’s
specific opinions. Instead, the author’s tweet documented how common
the topic of reading wars had become.
Reading Wars as a Hashtag
Within the Fourth Era, we noted a different usage of reading wars.
Common on social media were a series of hashtags without definitions.
The appearance of the term reading wars in a hashtag (i.e., #readingwars)
often occurs in posts that do not use the term anywhere else in neither
the audio nor the visual content.
The hashtags served as a communicative function in three different
ways. First, the hashtag serves the purpose of affiliating with a specific
group. For example, Pamela Snow’s Tweet (Snow, 2019) 4/5/19 read:
Memo to Education academics around the world Earth globe europe-africa:
There is a *science* to the teaching of reading. Please share it with pre-ser-
vice teachers. We have all the knowledge we need to end the #ReadingWars
for the benefit of all children @Kathy_Rastle #DSFconf
In this tweet, the post aligns with the Dyslexia SPELD Foundation
(DSF). This foundation sponsors the DSF conference for literacy profes-
sionals and educators. The #DSF hashtag appears across multiple years.
This continuity identifies the #readingwars as a way to affiliate with a
particular group’s platform and position.
Hashtags also serve the function of linking related posts. Using the
term reading wars in a hashtag connects the content of the post to all
other posts using the hashtag. Therefore, understanding what #read-
ingwars means is recognizing the content to which it is connected. In

16 S. DEJULIO ETAL.
other words, what co-occurs with the hashtag #readingwars? In our
search, we recognized the science of reading, both as a hashtag (i.e., #sci-
enceofreading) and as a general topic, as a common companion to #read-
ingwars. These posts seldom described debates in reading or provided a
historical overview of reading debates. More often, the posts were designed
to show the superiority of or promote phonics-based (i.e., science of read-
ing) approaches, as well as links for allegiances.
Other uses of the #readingwars was for entertainment, especially satire.
For example, Vuong (2022), an elementary teacher, created a two-minute
video on TikTok that mocked Calkins’ Units of Study. His title (This cur-
riculum has failed so many students) revealed his opinion, while his
actions in the video emphasized what he thought was ridiculous, embed-
ded in his parody of a read aloud. Nowhere in the video was the term
reading wars mentioned, yet a string of 10 separate hashtags included
#teachersfollowteachers, #unitsofstudy and #readingwars. The video had
over 6,000 likes and nearly 2,500 shares.
Reading wars as Metaphor
The previous sections described the ways reading wars has been used to
label some of the historical debates about beginning instruction. However,
the term has also been used as more than a label. It has been used as a
metaphor for a variety of purposes.
One obvious way that the term reading war has been used is meta-
phorically in that we don’t expect the physical violence of war. Thus, to
study reading wars from a terminological position, we also consider its
use as a metaphor. According to Lakoff & Johnson (1980), using a met-
aphor is an act of “understanding and experiencing one thing in terms
of another” (p. 5). War metaphors can be effective because of the cul-
turally specific, well-defined schema for war. This highly structured
knowledge is shared within many cultures. A war metaphor can be con-
strued as a systematic mapping in the language used to talk about a
concept.
The use of a war metaphor can frame a topic in a way that creates the
appearance of particular needs, goals, solutions, and divisions. For exam-
ple, differentiated use of the words discussion, debate, or war might sug-
gest a scaling of differences in the desire or willingness to find common
ground. A war metaphor can frame the participants as enemy combatants
and replace goals of generative debate with the defeat of one’s foes. A war
metaphor can also create the appearance of a crisis. Such framing can use
the currency of fear to secure support or funding, which makes war met-
aphors particularly useful as political tools.

READING PSYCHOLOGY 17
Using Reading Wars as a Hook
One of the most common ways the term reading wars has been used has
been to hook the reader. The authors of articles with reading war hooks
may sometimes be members of the profession, but the use of reading
wars as a hook is not evidence of its use as a professional term.
This is evident in its initial use by G. K. Hodenfield as a newspaper
headline (“‘Look-Sayers’ Under Fire in Reading War”) in 1961. Since
then, reading war often appears in headlines, titles, abstracts, or intro-
ductions as a way of capturing the reader’s interest. The use of reading
wars as a hook can be effective because wars, by their very nature, are
compelling, for the reasons we detailed earlier. A debate about reading
might not raise any eyebrows, but a war, that is certainly something to
pay attention to.
The use of reading wars as a hook does not preclude other uses, such
as its use as a reference. Although the term might be used as a reference
for debates about reading (described earlier), the fact that it is used spar-
ingly, often only once at the beginning of the text, suggests it is used for
more than simply naming particular reading debates. An example of the
use of reading wars as a hook can be found in the title of a San Francisco
Chronicle article, The reading wars return: Bay Area schools grapple with
phonics versus sight words approach (Tucker, 2022). The use of reading
wars is found only once in the title (though “Wars of Reading” is used
once more in the body of the article). Further, reading war is never
defined. Similarly, the_brain_trainer_lady (2022) titled her TikTok video
“My eloquent argument for the reading wars debate.” Reading wars was
used only in the title and not in the video or in the hashtags.
Reading wars as Persuasion/Argument
In addition to the use of reading wars as a hook, we found two additional
ways in which reading wars was used for persuasion: as a call for an end
to the reading wars, and as a call to arms. The first instance of using
reading war for persuasion was found in an article by Earl Hanson in
1962. Hanson used the term in the title, "Let’s Use Common Sense to
End the Reading War.” Hanson’s use of the metaphor was a plea to stop
fighting about approaches to reading. Hanson’s suggestion was to find
peace in balance, something that others would echo across the decades
into the current century. We found that most often, calls to end the read-
ing wars typically suggest balanced approaches. A recent example of this
is an article by Castles et al. (2018), titled “Ending the Reading Wars:
Reading Acquisition from Novice to Expert.” Similar to Hanson, the
authors argue for the need for balance to end the reading wars that have
“plagued” the field for decades (p. 6).

18 S. DEJULIO ETAL.
In spite of the usefulness of the metaphor to call for an end to fight-
ing, it can also be used as a call to arms. War metaphors can motivate
people to take or support policies or campaigns (e.g., rallying the public
to get behind the war on drugs or the war on terror). In a sense, war
metaphors can themselves serve as a weapon of war, or at the very least,
a recruitment tool. By framing a debate as a war, an author positions the
two sides of the debates as adversaries, not as colleagues seeking consen-
sus through thoughtful debate.
Reading Wars in Professional Discourse
Much like the use of reading wars in the popular press and media detailed
above, in professional writing and publications, reading wars was most
frequently used as an “attention grabber,” appearing in either the title or
first paragraph, or both. Interesting is Pearson’s (2004) comment, “When
research travels to the land of policy, often only the headlines make the
journey, leaving the details and the nuance behind” (p. 238). The irony
here is that the manuscript we quote is one of the few that do not exploit
the “glitz” of reading wars. As one of the outliers in this case, Pearson
and the other outlier manuscript authors (Budiraharjo, 2012; Collins,
2022; Goldenberg, 2020; Kim, 2008; Soler, 2016; Yaden, Reinking, &
Smagorinsky, 2021) present careful depictions of the conditions, causes,
outcomes for reading practice based on embracing the reading wars, as
well as other ideologies, as guides. Of these, Pearson’s treatment of read-
ing wars includes chronological depiction, providing a partial history of
the term reading wars. In addition, Pearson considers political influences,
changes in teaching both before and after reading war attention, and at
several points in time. Most importantly, ideological backing for the dif-
ferent engagement in reading war discourses are considered by Pearson.
Similarly, Budiraharjo (2012) presents a contrast between educational pol-
icy and democracy in a tracing of the historical events creating the read-
ing wars when he states “reading wars involve a set of complex ideas,
representing a number of battlegrounds in ideology, epistemology, theo-
ries of learning, knowledge base to support and/or inform classroom
practice, and teacher role” (p. 166).
Discussion
Our goals for this study were to describe the history of the term reading
wars and to determine how the term has been used in professional and
popular media. In keeping with terminological methodology, our purpose
was to draw attention to the ways the term has been used in order to

READING PSYCHOLOGY 19
provide opportunities for clarification and communication (Do we as a
field have a shared understanding of this term?) as well as to promote
reflection (Is this term helpful for research and instruction?). We believe
our findings offer two clear contributions to the literacy field, as well as
invitations for our field to carefully reflect on how the terms that we use
define our field.
First, we discovered the term reading wars has been commonly
introduced into the lexicon from outside the field of literacy. We
found that the term, while certainly related to the literacy field, is not
part of the professional terminology. Despite its appearance across a
range of source types over the past half century, documented uses of
the term does not suggest professional usage, but rather a layman’s
term that is found in texts and conversations related to literacy edu-
cation and research. The term was originally used in a newspaper by
a former war correspondent. The term continues to be used by jour-
nalists and others outside the profession to describe something within
the profession. This usage phenomenon has been observed with differ-
ent topics related to education, including the increased attention to
Science of Reading (Shanahan, 2020) and the Common Core Standards
(Supovitz, Kolouch, & Daly, 2020). Specifically, Supovitz et al. (2020)
found that #commoncore was used significantly more by a small group
of influencers who were outside of the profession. Similarly, and spe-
cific to social media platforms, Deaton (2015) noted that social media
platforms encourage and reward imitative behavior. The debates about
early reading instruction are certainly part of the professional sphere,
but the term itself does not have the specificity to be of particular use
to literacy professionals. In fact, the ambiguity of reading wars is more
likely to obfuscate than provide clarity of meaning for members of the
profession.
Secondly, the term reading wars does not refer to a single disagree-
ment or debate. Rather, it can refer to at least four debates within three
separate eras in which the topic is the same (best ways to teach early
reading) but the disagreeing sides differ. These debates, as they are con-
stituted outside the bounds of professional literacy, share some similari-
ties. However, there are also crucial differences. For example, the initial
debate between the look-say method and phonics is not the same debate
that existed in later decades between whole language and phonics.
Conflating look-say with whole language only serves to add confusion,
which does little to promote thoughtful professional debate. This is
another example of what Shanahan (2023) refers to as the “plague of
vagueness” that inhibits progress in the field. Vagueness is exactly what
terminological approaches to professional language use seek to avoid.

20 S. DEJULIO ETAL.
In this terminological study (Cabré, 1999), we have situated the term
reading wars in relation to the literacy profession and caution literacy
professionals to consider the influence of the term on the profession itself.
We argue that the term offers little as a professional term and that it has
the potential to frame debates about reading in falsely binary ways that
are counterproductive. We maintain that literacy professionals should
consider whether the term provides sufficient clarity to serve any purpose
within the field, and, to resist or rebut the use of the term reading wars.
Although members of the profession cannot control the public discourse,
literacy professionals can shape the discourse within the profession and
serve as models for productive talk about literacy practices, both in
schools and in homes. If literacy professionals really want to end the
reading wars, a good first step would be addressing the term itself.
Terminologist Riggs (1993) noted that the varied, confusing, and even
contradictory use of terms comes not only from usage in scholarly work;
instead, multiple, and confusing definitions of terms are often “com-
pounded by journalists, politicians and other writers in ordinary language
who often borrow words from technical writing to serve non-scholarly
purposes. Thereby, they add new meanings to them, often, poorly defined
and loaded with affective, usually pejorative, connotations” (Riggs, 1993,
p. 198). This has been the case with reading wars. Key (1995) offers argu-
ments like those of Riggs regarding social science. The intense circulation
of information, linked to socio-political and technical evolution, is asso-
ciated with distributing side effects e.g., deceitful popularization, ideolog-
ical use of the facts of science, wrongly oriented debates, obstruction of
the channels of communication (literally and metaphorically) caused by
excess and confusion, collective neurosis created by partisan and even
hazardous selection of information (p. 21). In this regard, reading wars
has been used as a proxy to further users’ political agenda. To return to
a more prescriptive accounting, and in summary agreement with Cabré
(1999), Pearson (1998) suggests that subject area specialists must delimit
both the concept and the term used to represent it within a field.
We agree.
We argue that literacy professionals have a responsibility to exercise
caution in using the term. When the term is used, literacy professionals
should consider the implications of its use. If, for example, the term is
being used to reference debates about reading, the author should consider
whether the term offers sufficient clarity for the reader. Literacy profes-
sionals must also consider how the term might be framing the debates
about reading and how opposing sides react to each other. There is little
literacy professionals can do to control whether journalists use the term
to grab headlines or if someone uses the term as a hashtag. However,

READING PSYCHOLOGY 21
when the term is used, literacy professionals can clarify what is meant by
the term, can reframe the debates to promote approaches that allow for
a rigorous exchange of ideas, and reject the demonization of those with
whom one disagrees.
Despite our recommendation for literacy professionals to exercise cau-
tion in using the term, we believe there is value in what reading wars
offer as a metaphor. Understanding the relationship between power and
war can serve as a useful lens to understand the current debates over
reading and what literacy professionals can (and cannot) do. One side
wants power. The other side has power. The warring sides attempt to take
power, retain power, leverage power, diminish the power of the other, or
hinder the ability of their adversary to access or leverage their power.
Through the lens of war, the reading wars can, at times, be better
understood as a struggle over power, rather than a disagreement about
beginning reading instruction. What does this mean for literacy profes-
sionals? Calls to end the reading wars, while well-intentioned, ignore the
fact that for some people, the debates are not about reading, but about
power; power which can influence textbooks, platforms for marketing
products, reputations for securing speaking engagements, and publishing
research. For others, the reading wars are simply part of a larger set of
culture wars that also deal in situated power but little to do with reading
practice.
The language used in the reading wars can thus be understood as part
of the war, be it the accouterment or the very weapons with which the
war is fought. The rhetorical use of the term war itself creates emotional
and political power. Since the continuing debate on reading instruction
goes beyond simple pedagogies within the literacy community, it is not
surprising that the term reading wars has become standard components
within the titles of articles or in the first sentences of the text, as effective
hooks to pull in ever so many different audiences. There can be no debate
that the term has had considerable influence that leads individuals who
might not have any interest in reading pedagogy to read (or listen) about
these bellicose issues as presented in popular media. Additionally, terms
such as science of reading or balanced literacy can be understood not as
innocuous terms, but rather as the rhetorical heavy artillery that gave one
side the strategic upper hand.
Understanding reading debates through the lens of war and power is
important for literacy professionals. The continuing debate serves as a
reminder that literacy research is not merely about knowledge. Literacy is
a resource produced and consumed both within the war and because of
the war. For those who see the reading wars as a debate over the best
way to teach reading, literacy research offers an end to the reading wars.

22 S. DEJULIO ETAL.
For those who see the reading wars as a struggle for power, literacy
research is just another weapon in the war. This suggests that literacy
professionals must be prepared to recognize and address when research is
being weaponized and attempt to reframe debates about reading. Debates
about the best way to teach reading are only slightly less certain than
death and taxes. However, within the literacy field there is no reason
these debates must continue to be “a war.”
Acknowledgments
We thank Tim Shanahan and Rob Tierney for their thoughtful feedback during
the preparation of this manuscript.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Samuel DeJulio http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5165-3907
Dixie D. Massey http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0071-4559
Norman Stahl http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7691-1551
James King http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0324-2059
References
Adams, M. J., Allington, R. L., Chaney, J. H., Goodman, Y. M., Kapinus, B. A.,
McGee, L. M., … Williams, J. P. (1991). Beginning to read: A critique by lit-
eracy professionals and a response by Marilyn Jager Adams. The Reading
Teacher, 44(6), 370–395. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/20200674
American Association of Instructors of the Blind. (1887). Proceedings of the ninth
biennial meeting of the American association of instructors of the blind.
Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Anderson, K. (2000, June 18). The reading wars: Understanding the debate over
how best to teach children to read. Los Angeles Times Book Review. https://ssrn.
com/abstract=935776
Associated Press. (2000, April 14). Teach reading both ways, panelists urge.
Arizona Daily Star, A7.
Association of Masters of the Boston Public Schools. (1844). Remarks on the sev-
enth annual report of the hon. Horace Mann, Secretary of the Massachusetts
Board of Education. Boston, MA: CC Little and J. Brown.
Balmuth, M. (1982). The roots of phonics: A historical introduction. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Barshay, J. (2020). Four things you need to know about the new reading wars.
Hechinger Report. Retrieved from https://hechingerreport.org/four-things-you-
need-to-know-about-the-new-reading-wars/

READING PSYCHOLOGY 23
Blight, D. W. (2021, June 9). The fog of history wars. The New Yorker. Retrieved
from https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-fog-of-history-wars
Bomer, R., & Maloch, B. (2019). Lessons for leaders on the preparation of liter-
acy educators. Journal of Literacy Research, 51(2), 259–264. doi:10.1177/108629
6X19833779
Bond, G. L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-
grade reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2(4), 5–126.
doi:10.2307/746948
Bowler, M. (1999, September 4). McGuffey’s tales still make a good read. The
Vindicator, A4.
Brown, G. T. (2014). AsTTle–A national testing system for formative assessment:
How the national testing policy ended up helping schools and teachers. In A
developmental and negotiated approach to school self-evaluation. Bingley, UK:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Budiraharjo, M. (2012). Reading wars: An overview of the US educational policy.
Language and Language Teaching Journal, 15(01), 163–174. doi:10.24071/
llt.2012.150103
Burrows, A. T. (1953). The conflict over phonics is still raging. The Reading
Teacher, 6(5), 12–17. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/20196728
Cabré, M. T. (1999). Terminology: Theory, methods, and applications. John
Benjamins.
Calfee, R. C., & Norman, K. A. (1998). Psychological perspectives on the early
reading wars: The case of phonological awareness. Teachers College Record: The
Voice of Scholarship in Education, 100(2), 242–274. doi:10.1177/016146819810000202
Calkins, L. (2023). Units of study. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cameron, L. (2010). The discourse dynamics framework for metaphor. In L. Cameron
& R. Maslen (Eds.), Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social
sciences, and the humanities (pp. 77–94). Sheffield, UK: Equinox.
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading
acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A
Journal of the American Psychological Society, 19(1), 5–51. doi:10.1177/
1529100618772271
Center for Integrated Training and Education. (2022). Embrace of phonics … In
the fight over how to teach reading, this guru makes a major retreat. Retrieved
from https://www.citeprograms.com/embrace-of-phonics-in-the-fight-over-how-
to-teach-reading-this-guru-makes-a-major-retreat/
Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Palincsar, A. S., Afflerbach, P., Kendeou, P.,
Biancarosa, G., … Berman, A. I. (2020). How the reading for understanding
initiative’s research complicates the simple view of reading invoked in the science
of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S161–S172. doi:10.1002/rrq.343
Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Cole, W. (1987). Terminology: Principles and methods. Computers and Translation,
2(2–3), 77–87. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/25469904 doi:10.1007/
BF02274438
Collins, J. (2022). The reading wars in situ. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of
the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 13(1), 85–100. doi:10.1075/
prag.13.1.04col
Deaton, S. (2015). Social learning theory in the age of social media: Implications
for educational practitioners. I-Manager’s Journal of Educational Technology,
12(1), 1–6. doi:10.26634/jet.12.1.3430

24 S. DEJULIO ETAL.
Dee. (2022). Not just online, but in the *actual* newspaper too (image of Irish
Times newspaper showing the headline The Reading Wars) Tweet [Twitter].
Retrieved from https://twitter.com/tremendous_fun/status/160023336086066380
8?s=20&t=SUCvdyh1ERcJ0rNAjFp6QQ
Dewitz, P., & Graves, M. F. (2021). The science of reading: Four forces that mod-
ified, distorted, or ignored the research finding on reading comprehension.
Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S131–S144. doi:10.1002/rrq.389
Editor. (1998, March 21). Ending the ‘reading wars’: Synthesize competing meth-
ods, experts say [Editorial]. Register Guard, 16A.
Editors. (1999, November 4). Intolerable ideologues [Editorial]. Victoria Advocate,
11A.
Evans, A. D. (2020). A discourse analysis of the science of reading through the
lens of a social media Twitter hashtag (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Arkansas at Little Rock).
Finn, C. E., & Porter-Magee, K. (2013). Foreword and summary. In T. Shanahan (Ed.),
Common core in the schools: A first look at reading assignments. Columbus, OH:
Fordham Institute. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED598733.pdf
Flesch, R. (1955). Why Johnny can’t read and what you can do about it. New
York, NY: Harper & Row.
Gallagher, M. (2000, May 6). It’s time to return classrooms to teachers. Spartanburg
Herald-Journal, A14.
Goldenberg, C. (2020). Reading wars, reading science, and English learners.
Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S131–S144. doi:10.1002/rrq.340
Goldstein, D. (2022). In the fight over how to teach reading, this guru makes a
major retreat. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.
com/2022/05/22/us/reading-teaching-curriculum-phonics.html
Goodman, K. S. (1998). In defense of good teaching: What teachers need to know
about the reading wars. Grandview Heights, OH: Stenhouse Publishers.
Goodman, K. S., & Goodman, Y. M. (1979). Learning to read is natural. In L.B.
Resnick and P.A. Weaver, (Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading (pp. 137–
155). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goodman, K. S., & Goodman, Y. M. (1976). learning to read is natural. Conference
on theory and practice of beginning reading instruction. Pittsburgh, PA: University
of Pittsburgh, learning Research and Development Center. ERIC, 155–621
Goodwin, A. P., & Jiménez, R. T. (2020). The science of reading: Supports, critiques,
and questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), s7–S16. doi:10.1002/rrq.360
Gray, W. S. (1969). The teaching of reading and writing:An international survey
(enlarged ed.) UNESCO. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/
pf0000002929
Hanford, E. (2018). Hard words: Why aren’t kids being taught to read? APM
Reports. Retrieved from https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2018/09/10/hard-
words-why -american-kids-arent-being-taught-to-read
Hanford, E. (2019). At a loss for words: How a flawed idea is teaching millions
of kids to be poor readers. APM Reports. Retrieved from https://www.
apmreports.org/episode/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading
Hanson, E. H. (1962). Let’s use common sense to end the reading war. NEA
Journal, 51(2), 41–44.
Hiebert, E. H. (2022). When students perform at the below basic level on the
NAEP: What does it mean and what can educators do? The Reading Teacher,
75(5), 631–639. doi:10.1002/trtr.2082

READING PSYCHOLOGY 25
Hodenfield, G. K. (1961). ‘Look-sayers’ under fire in reading war. Los Angeles
Times G2. Proquest Historical Newspapers.
Hodenfield, G. K. (1962, December 16). How should they learn to read? Chicago
Dai ly Tribu ne, E3. https://login.libweb.lib.utsa.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.
com/historical-newspapers/how-should-they-learn-read/docview/182930806/se-
2?accountid=7122
Hoffman, J. V., Hikida, M., & Sailors, M. (2020). Contesting science that silences:
Amplifying equity, agency, and design research in literacy teacher preparation.
Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S255–S266. doi:10.1002/rrq.353
Holdenfield, G. K., & Stinnett, T. M. (1961). The education of teachers: Consensus
and conflict. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hur, J. W., & Brush, T. A. (2009). Teacher participation in online communities:
Why do teachers want to participate in self-generated online communities of
K-12 teachers? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(3), 279–303.
doi:10.1080/15391523.2009.10782532
Itzkoff, S. W. (1986). How we learn to read.Ashfield, MA: Paideia.
Kantrowitz, B., & Hammill, R. (1990). Fall/Winter. The reading wars. Newsweek,
116(10), 8–11.
Kim, J. S. (2008). Research and the reading wars. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(5), 372–
375. doi:10.1177/003172170808900514
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by University of Chicago Press.
Lauren, L. (2008). Battle lines. [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/
Lilylauren/status/913420199?s=20&t=x_Ih1f5XdsrPM0vvCPdiUA
LearnTeachRead. (2021). The research is clear. So why are we still debating?
#therighttoread #scienceofreading #readingwars [video]. TikTok. Retrieved
from https://www.tiktok.com/@learnteachread/video/6948183088790834437?is_
from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7176121981590570542
Lemann, N. (1997, November 1,). The reading wars. The Atlantic, 280(5). https://
www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/11/the-reading-wars/376990
MacPhee, D., Handsfield, L. J., & Paugh, P. (2021). Conflict or conversation? Meta
portrayals of the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S145–
S155. doi:10.1002/rrq.384
MacPherson, K. (1998, March 19). Panel of experts straddles fence on reading
wars. Toledo Blade, 3.
Mendez, T. (2004, January 29). Reading choices narrow for schools with federal
aid. Christian Science Monitor, 12.
Mitchell, S. (2020, November 30). The reading wars are over—and phonics won.
Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/the-reading-
wars-are-over-and-phonicshas-won-20201127-p56ioj.html
Monaghan, E. J. (2005). Learning to read and write in colonial America. Amherst,
MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Murphy, J. J., & Wiese, H. C. (Eds.). (2016). Quintilian on the teaching of speaking
and writing: Translations from Books One, Two, and Ten of the "Institutio ora-
toria". Carbondale, IL: SIU Press.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based as-
sessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction. (National Institute of Health Pub. No. 00-4769). Washington,
DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Nicholson, T. (1992). Reading wars: A brief history and an update. International
Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 39(3), 173–184. doi:10.1080/
0156655920390302

26 S. DEJULIO ETAL.
O’Connor, S., Jolliffe, S., Stanmore, E., Renwick, L., & Booth, R. (2018). Social
media in nursing and midwifery education: A mixed study systematic review.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 74(10), 2273–2289. doi:10.1111/jan.13799
Pearson, J. (1998). Terms in context. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
doi:10.1075/scl.1
Pearson, P. D. (2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 216–252.
doi:10.1177/0895904803260041
Pratt, M. (2022). Retreat in the reading wars. Association of American Educators’
Blog. Retrieved from https://www.aaeteachers.org/index.php/blog/2275-retreat-
in-the-reading-wars
Ravitch, D. (2001). Left back: A century of battles over school reform. New York,
NY: Simon and Schuster.
Reutzel, D. R. (1998). Commentary: On balanced reading. The Reading Teacher,
52(4), 322–324. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/20202072
Riggs, F. (1993). Social science terminology: Basic problems and proposed solu-
tions. In H. Sonneveld & K. Loening (Eds.) Terminology: Applications in inter-
disciplinary communication (pp. 195–222). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Rovegno, I., & Bandhauer, D. (2013). Elementary physical education. Burlington,
MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Sanden, S., MacPhee, D. A., Hartle, L., Poggendorf, S., & Zuiderveen, C. (2022).
The status of phonics instruction: Learning from the teachers. Reading Horizons,
61(1), 69–92.
Santa Cruz Parent. (2022). In the fight over how to teach reading, this guru
makes a major retreat. Retrieved from https://santacruzparent.com/in-the-fight-
over-how-to-teach-reading-this-guru-makes-a-major-retreat/
Schneider, J. J. (2016). The reading wars. In The inside, outside, and upside downs
of children’s literature: From poets and pop-ups to princesses and porridge (p. 159–
198). Tampa, FL: University of South Florida. doi:10.5038/9780977674411.ch6
Seidenberg, M. (2017). Language at the speed of sight: How we read, why so many
can’t, and what can be done about it. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Shanahan, T. (2020). What constitutes a science of reading instruction? Reading
Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S235–S247. doi:10.1002/rrq.349
Shanahan, T. (2023). How do you know if it really is the science of reading? [web
log]. Retrieved from https://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/blog/how-do-you-
know-if-it-really-is-the-science-of-reading?fbclid=IwAR2eTkUyLtyOWVRnqz2qI
2LsfxFz_iT7v1EucpGcrfMJLxI6yhU0uh_1wtQ#sthash.B6ghJt9j.otqqXMpD.dpbs
Smith, M. (1969). The reading problem. The American Scholar, 38(3), 431–440.
Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/41209679
Smith, N. B. (1986). American reading instruction. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Snow, C. E. (1998, September 21). An end to the reading wars is in sight
[Editorial]. Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 10A.
Snow, C., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in
young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Snow, P. (2019). Memo to education academics around the world Earth globe Europe-
Africa: There is a *science* to the teaching of reading. Twitter. [Thumbnail link to
ppt from DSF conference]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/PamelaSnow2/status/1
114352890821271552?s=20&t=rjbtU20wJHiM3B5nQF_e5g

READING PSYCHOLOGY 27
Soler, J. (2016). The politics of the teaching of reading. PROSPECTS, 46(3–4),
423–433. doi:10.1007/s11125-017-9415-8
Stahl, S. A., McKenna, M. C., & Pagnucco, J. R. (1993). The effects of whole-lan-
guage instruction: An update and a reappraisal. Educational Psychologist, 29(4),
175–185. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2904_1
Stouffer, J. (2021). Seeking middle ground: Analyzing running records from the
top and bottom. The Reading Teacher, 74(6), 769–784. doi:10.1002/trtr.2012
Supovitz, J. A., Kolouch, C., & Daly, A. J. (2020). The social psychology of ho-
mophily: The collective sentiments of education advocacy groups. Teachers
College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 122(6), 1–32. doi:10.1177/
016146812012200603
Supovitz, J., Daly, A., & Del Fresno, M. (2015). #Commoncore Project. Retrieved
from http://www.hashtagcommoncore.com
Temmerman, R. (2000). Towards new ways of terminological description: The so-
cio-cognitive approach. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
the_brain_trainer_lady. (2022). Throwing my hat in for SOR #scienceofreading
#phonemicawareness [Video] Tiktok. Retrieved from https://www.tiktok.com/@
the_brain_trainer_lady/video/7055348044359028014?is_from_webapp=
1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7176121981590570542
Tierney, R., & Pearson, P. D. (2021). A history of literacy education: Waves of
research and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Tucker, J. (2022). The reading wars return: Bay Area schools grapple with phonics
versus sight words approach. Retrieved from https://www.sfchronicle.com/
bayarea/article/reading-wars-17259317.php
Vuong. (2022). This curriculum has failed so many students. video [TikTok].
Retrieved from https://www.tiktok.com/@teamvuong/video/7175767937855294763
Xing, W., & Gao, F. (2018). Exploring the relationship between online discourse
and commitment in Twitter professional learning communities. Computers &
Education, 126, 388–398. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.010
Yaden, D. B., Jr, Reinking, D., & Smagorinsky, P. (2021). The trouble with bina-
ries: A perspective on the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly,
56(S1), S119–S129. doi:10.1002/rrq.402
Zhang, F., & Hu, J. (2009). A study of metaphor and its application in language
learning and teaching. International Education Studies, 2(2), 77–81. doi:10.5539/
ies.v2n2p77