True Literacy: 3 Areas of Focus to Improve Reading Instruction
Dr. Michael Hart's three areas for improving reading instruction, leadership, teacher training and the science of reading, checked against recent evidence.
Improving reading instruction depends on leadership and teacher preparation. What a 2026 NCTQ review and morphology research show.
In this 2019 video column, Dr. Michael Hart names three areas of focus for improving reading instruction: leadership, teacher training and integrating the science of reading. A new section after Hart’s text checks each against recent evidence.
In this installment of the True Literacy video column, Dr. Michael Hart shares his thoughts on the importance of establishing systemic processes ahead of intervention.
He asks leadership to take more of a critical role in bringing program awareness to the forefront by focusing on communicating a vision that keeps teachers engaged and supported. The support for teachers should come in the form of better training and collaboration that is backed by recent evidence-based research for better results.
Finally, he introduces the concept of “crossing the chasm,” which asks educators to reexamine how we are approaching the teaching of reading. Through the integration of the science of reading into already established programs and professional development practices, educators may gain an edge in tackling some of the complexities surrounding proficiency.
As you watch the video, reflect on these three areas of focus to improve reading instruction:
1. Leadership and systemic processes―Leaders should educate themselves on identifying learning issues, as well as gain knowledge on how to treat problems. This provides a context for understanding why it’s so important to create the systemic processes in schools that set the foundation for successful interventions to be implemented.
Reflection question: As a leader, how much do you know about learning challenges and what are you doing currently to become more knowledgeable? How are you communicating the importance of this knowledge to your faculty?
2. Teacher training, support, and collaboration―In the past, there was too much focus on phonological processing at the expense of other cognitive processes that are imperative to teaching children to read. Specifically, there needs to be a focus on morphology and orthography. Teacher training and support should be established from recent evidence-based research that helps identify all the different pieces that go into making an effective reader.
Reflection question: How are you providing ongoing teacher training and support to improve literacy instruction? What training or collaboration have you sought out personally?
3. “Crossing the chasm” by integrating the science―What we now know about the science of reading must be integrated into university programs and professional development. Teaching reading is very complex, and it takes time to be proficient, much less masterful. The content is there, but we need to do a better job of integrating it into the areas where school personnel become trained.
Reflection question: Dyslexia education is a complex effort, and it’s important to frequently remind ourselves to be patient and compassionate for ourselves and others as we work through the process. In what ways can you do this in 2020?
Head on over to trueliteracy.in for more in-depth analysis and information.
Improving reading instruction in 2026: leadership, teacher preparation and what the evidence on morphology shows
Dr. Michael Hart’s three areas of focus, shared in this 2019 True Literacy video column, are a good outline for improving reading instruction: leaders who understand learning difficulties and build systems before intervention, teacher training that draws on current research, and the work of getting that research into university programs and professional development. This section checks each of the three against evidence published since, with particular attention to Hart’s call for more focus on morphology and orthography, and ends with questions a school leader can use.
Leaders and systems: what they need to know
Hart asks leaders how much they know about learning challenges and how they communicate it to faculty. The edCircuit Science of Reading Guide, which the original article links, covers the research base for leaders in detail, so this section does not repeat it. In practical terms, a leader who wants a system in place before interventions begin needs three things: a way to screen all students, agreed responses when a student falls behind, and a shared understanding among staff of how reading is taught at each grade.
Teacher preparation: where the gap has been
Hart’s second and third areas concern training. The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) publishes regular reviews of how well elementary teacher preparation programs cover reading. In its June 9, 2026 review, covering more than 700 programs, 53 percent earned an A, up from 26 percent in 2023, and the share earning an F fell by 14 percentage points to 21 percent. NCTQ measures programs against five core components of scientifically based reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.
The same review shows how much of the gap remains. Forty-seven percent of programs fell short on at least one component, 20 percent teach methods that contradict research, such as three-cueing, and about 60 percent give English learners fewer than two instructional hours on reading. About half give struggling readers, including students with dyslexia, fewer than two hours. NCTQ grades programs against its own criteria, so the percentages describe how programs score on that rating system. The figures still support Hart’s point that the content exists and has not yet reached everywhere teachers are trained. They also mean that a district hiring new teachers cannot assume each one arrives knowing the research, which makes ongoing training the school’s job. The edCircuit article Five Tips to Deliver PD That Supports Reading Instruction is a starting point for planning it.
What the research says about morphology and orthography
Hart says earlier practice leaned too heavily on phonological processing and that teachers need more focus on morphology (the study of word parts such as prefixes, roots and suffixes) and orthography (the spelling system). The NCTQ list above shows that phonemic awareness and phonics are still core components, so the point is best read as adding to them and not as replacing them.
The research on morphological instruction supports adding it, with moderate expectations. A 2010 meta-analysis by Amanda Goodwin and Soyeon Ahn in Annals of Dyslexia combined 17 controlled studies of children with literacy difficulties. The overall effect was d = 0.33, a small to moderate gain. By outcome, the effects were d = 0.40 for morphological awareness and vocabulary, 0.24 for reading comprehension and 0.20 for spelling. There was no significant effect on decoding, and fluency showed a negative effect of d = -0.28. The study is now more than fifteen years old, and it covered students with difficulties and not all learners. Its message is that teaching word parts can help vocabulary and understanding of words, and it should not replace explicit instruction in decoding and fluency. A 2024 meta-analysis by Colenbrander and colleagues in Educational Psychology Review, listed in an Australian Catholic University research record, pooled 28 studies and, as its abstract describes, found small to moderate effects on reading and spelling, larger for trained than untrained words, and no clear evidence of an effect on reading comprehension. Together the two reviews support adding morphology as a modest part of a reading program.
Questions for a school leader
- Do all staff share a common description of how reading is taught? Ask teachers in adjacent grades to describe how they teach decoding and word meaning. Differences point to training needs.
- What did new teachers learn about reading in their preparation? Ask them, and ask what they would like more help with, especially for English learners and students with dyslexia.
- Where does word study fit in the schedule? Morphology instruction can be added to vocabulary and spelling time with prefixes, roots and suffixes, and it should be checked against student results.
- How is progress measured? A screening and progress-monitoring plan lets a school see whether a change helps, instead of relying on impressions.
- Is training continuing? Hart’s reflection question, about what training and collaboration educators have sought out themselves, applies to administrators as well.
Hart closes with a note about patience and compassion in dyslexia education. A school can act on that by explaining its reading plan to families in plain language, and by saying clearly what support a child will receive and how progress will be reported.
Related reading
More on Literacy and Reading
