A New Brain Study Finds Reading is a Complex, Flexible Process- Implications for the Social Media version of SOR by Dr. Sam Bommarito.

A new and important study has recently been released. It is a meta-analysis of studies on the brain and its functions. Overall, the study reports data from 3031 subjects and 5444 activation peaks in a total of 163 experiments.  I briefly discussed this study in one of my latest blogs. However, now that I’ve had a chance to really look over it, I realized that this study has the potential to be a real game-changer in our thinking about how we should conduct our literacy instruction. Here is a summary of what the study was about. It is taken from the website of Dr ASKY. “Dr ASKY” refers to a LinkedIn company profile and associated individuals, including the owner, Dr. Asif Sohrab, who is an MD doctor, entrepreneur, and science communicator. This page has over 11 M followers. Here is a LINK to the quote below. Here is a link to the main Facebook page for ASKY  LINK..

Additionally, here is the link to the study that the Dr. ASKY site is analyzing: LINK. The name of that study is The ‘reading’ brain: Meta-analytic insight into functional activation during reading in adults by Sabrina Turker, Beatrice Fumagall, Philipp Kuhnke. & Gesa Hartwigsen.

My thoughts about this analysis: Of special importance in these remarks is the observation that the brain reconfigures itself depending on how complex reading is. For instance, when comparing nonsense pseudo-words, the regions accessed are the ones the SOR folks always discuss —the regions for sounding unfamiliar words. However, the evidence supports the theory that the brain uses two routes depending on familiarity. THE BRAIN ACCESSES REAL WORDS USING THE PARTS OF THE BRAIN THAT ENGAGE MEMORY AND MEANING. So, there is more to reading real words than simply storing the code. As a teacher, I think it follows that there is more to reading than simply breaking the code. In addition, silent reading invokes more than the reader simply listening to themselves sounding out words. In fact, during silent reading, the brain actually suppresses vocalization. My take as a teacher is that silent reading comprehension involves more than just listening comprehension. That calls into question SOR’s definitions of comprehension.

The Dr. Askey site goes on to criticize the fact that the common tasks used in many of the brain studies don’t fully capture the natural reading brain’s activity. It suggests that understanding these differences could enhance our understanding of reading difficulties, such as dyslexia.

MIKE DROP

The current situation on social media seems to have evolved into an “us/them” winner-take-all battle about the issue of the best ways to teach reading. The two sides are SOR (as presented in social media) and Balanced Literacy. The dialogue involves defending one side or the other. The SOR side claims that it’s all “settled science” and that SOR should replace Balanced Literacy completely. The dialogue is often contentious. The goal of the Social Media version of SOR seems to be to eliminate Balanced Literacy permanently. The fact that Balanced Literacy means many different things to many different people leaves things open to the use of strawman arguments based on Balanced Literacy at its weakest or arguments based on a complete misunderstanding of what Balanced Literacy is.

One possible outcome of this new study could be that the dialogue could become even more divisive. The study contains research-based information that directly challenges some of the interpretations of Brain Research that form the underpinnings of the media-based SOR’s point of view. Especially since we are at a time in our country’s history when many view individuals with a different point of view as evil. The potential is there for this trend to rip apart our nation.

I want to propose a different path. It is apparent that science isn’t as settled as some claimed. To resolve that, we could ask a new set of questions. Where do both sides seem to agree? Let’s do what P.D. Pearson suggested and focus on practices instead of sides. I’d like to hear from all of you about places where you think we might agree. I’ll go first and suggest that I think we can all agree that some form of systematic phonics should be a part of any literacy program. So should the teaching of comprehension strategies. That means students should learn to internalize and apply these strategies. Finally, there is a growing belief from all sides that the use of the reading/writing connection should be included in literacy lessons.   Are there practices on which we can all agree? Do you have others? I’m hoping to hear from you either through the blog or on Facebook. BTW, if you have programs you like, rather than suggest the complete program, instead pick out the practices within the program that research demonstrates are effective and be ready to discuss which students might be effective for. It’s time to find some common ground.

Dare to Dream!

Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the middle taking flak from all sides)

Copyright 2025 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.

PS If you found the blog through Facebook or Twitter, please consider following it to ensure you won’t miss future posts.  Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.