When Science of Reading Policy Meets Classroom Reality: The Nonsense Word Problem

by Lisa Dewing-Birno and Luis Lopez

A central feature of many Science of Reading (SoR)-aligned curricula is the use of nonsense words: pronounceable letter strings that do not correspond to actual English vocabulary (e.g., mig, lat, rost). Nonsense word reading tasks are widely used in early literacy assessment to measure a student’s ability to decode unfamiliar words using knowledge of letter-sound correspondences (Compton et al., 2006; National Center on Intensive Intervention, 2021). Research shows that performance on nonsense word reading tasks is a strong predictor of future reading success, especially in the early grades (Fuchs et al., 2001; Rashotte et al., 1999). However, the research base for using nonsense words as an instructional tool is much weaker and more contested. Most literacy experts caution against overusing nonsense words in classroom instruction, especially with multilingual learners and older students (Ehri, 2022; Lesaux et al., 2006). For emergent bilinguals and students from diverse linguistic backgrounds, excessive focus on nonsense words can be particularly problematic. Instead, emergent bilinguals benefit most from instruction that connects decoding to meaning, leverages their existing language knowledge, and builds oral vocabulary (August & Shanahan, 2006; Goldenberg, 2020).

As educators committed to student-centered literacy instruction, we have observed troubling patterns in how SoR legislation is implemented: often rigidly, without regard to students’ linguistic backgrounds, demonstrated proficiencies, or the critical distinction between assessment and instruction. Such implementation can result in decontextualized lessons that separate literacy from meaning-making, overlook multilingual learners’ linguistic repertoires, and diminish the meaningful, communicative purposes of reading. Additionally, it can lead to misinterpreting students’ learning needs by looking at isolated data points and consuming valuable time that could be devoted to authentic reading engagement. These tensions reveal a central dilemma: while reading legislation seeks to strengthen instruction through evidence-based practices, pressures to comply with standardized mandates can constrain teachers’ decision-making and their responsiveness to the diverse learners in their classrooms.