Powerful Together: The Science of Reading and Project Based Learning

As a high school English teacher, I spent countless hours wondering why some of my students arrived in ninth grade still struggling with basic reading skills. I watched brilliant minds wrestle with texts that should have been accessible to them, and I’ve seen the frustration in their eyes when they couldn’t decode or make sense of words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs that their peers read effortlessly. That journey led me deep into the research on how we actually learn to read, what experts call the "science of reading."

The science of reading isn’t just another educational buzzword. It’s decades of research from cognitive scientists, neuroscientists, and education researchers who’ve used brain imaging, controlled studies, and long-term data to figure out how our brains process written language. What they’ve discovered challenges some long-held beliefs about reading instruction and gives us concrete, evidence-based strategies that can transform how we teach literacy at every grade level and in the context of project-based learning.

Understanding the Science: How Reading Really Works

When I first dug into the science of reading, I was struck by the fact that reading isn’t a natural process like speaking. Humans are biologically wired for oral language, but reading is an invented skill. Our brains literally have to make themselves connect the symbols on a page with the sounds and meanings we know from spoken language. As important as it is for parents to read to their kids, most of us don’t learn to read by osmosis. We need to be explicitly taught.

Research shows skilled reading depends on two essential components working together: word recognition and language comprehension. This is captured in the Simple View of Reading: Reading Comprehension = Word Recognition × Language Comprehension. Both matter. If one is missing, comprehension falls apart.

Word recognition itself has several layers. Phonemic awareness, the ability to hear and play with individual sounds in spoken words, is foundational. Phonics instruction systematically connects letters and sounds, while sight word recognition helps students instantly identify high-frequency words that don’t follow typical spelling patterns. Research shows that many older readers still have gaps in these basics.

Language comprehension is just as complex, covering vocabulary, background knowledge, grammar and syntax, and genre knowledge. I’ve realized that a lot of students who can technically decode still struggle because they don’t know the words or concepts well enough to fully understand.

Fluency ties these skills together, allowing students to read with speed, accuracy, and expression. When I watch students slowly sound out every word, I know their mental energy is stuck in decoding, leaving little left for comprehension.

Scarborough’s Rope, designed by researcher Hollis Scarborough, shows how all these strands of reading weave together. A strong rope depends on every strand being solid. If one strand, like vocabulary, is weak, the rope as a whole isn’t as strong as it could be.  Another conceptualization of the different aspects of reading, particularly in the context of a project, is our version of The Simple View of Reading, based on the work of Gough and Turner (1986).

Applying the Science in Elementary Classrooms

Elementary teachers are on the front lines of reading instruction, and the science of reading gives them a clear roadmap. I’ve seen fantastic classrooms where teachers build phonemic awareness through playful activities such as clapping syllables, rhyming games, or segmenting and blending sounds. These aren’t “drill-and-kill” exercises, but fun, interactive ways to build critical pathways in the brain.

Structured phonics instruction is taught step by step, introducing letter-sound relationships in a logical order. This allows students to start blending sounds into words quickly. Nothing beats the joy of a kindergartner realizing they can read “cat.” Following a schoolwide sequence also prevents gaps as kids move up and helps interventionists know exactly where to focus.

Teachers who embrace the science of reading also put a premium on oral language and vocabulary. They read aloud often, lead rich discussions, and directly teach new words.  In project-based learning, these practices come alive when, for example, students prepare for interviews with community members as part of a local history project. Teachers can frontload key vocabulary, model questioning techniques, and create space for students to practice academic language in authentic conversations.

Fluency practice has evolved, too. Instead of the old round-robin reading that often embarrassed kids, teachers now use choral reading, partner reading, and repeated readings of familiar texts. They understand fluency isn’t just speed. It’s about building automaticity so students can focus on meaning.

The Science of Reading in Secondary and Content-Area Classrooms

I used to think reading instruction was finished by high school. How wrong I was. The science of reading shows that adolescents still need explicit support as texts get more complex and discipline-specific.

If I were back in the classroom, I’d spend more time on morphology, how prefixes, suffixes, and roots build meaning. When students learn that “biodegradable” = “bio” (life) + “degrade” (break down) + “able” (capable of), they can confidently tackle tough words.

I’d also be more intentional about building background knowledge. If students were launching a project to explore how themes of love and conflict show up across cultures and time, I wouldn’t assume they already understand ideas like arranged marriages, family honor, or the role of social class in relationships. I’d build that context first through mini-lessons, paired readings from different time periods, and class discussions. That way, when students create their own modern stories, dramatic performances, or multimedia projects, they can connect their work to a deeper understanding of human experiences across history.

Content-area teachers have even bigger opportunities. Science teachers can explicitly teach how to read lab procedures. Math teachers can help students break down word problems. Social studies teachers can show students how to analyze primary sources and political cartoons differently than timelines or amendments.

In project based learning, these reading opportunities become even more authentic. Science teachers might guide students in interpreting field notes or environmental reports as part of a community-based research project. Math teachers could help students read and make sense of statistical charts or financial documents while designing a proposal to improve a school resource. Social studies teachers might teach students how to navigate historical archives or local census records when investigating how their community has changed over time. In each case, students aren’t just practicing reading strategies in isolation—they’re applying them to meaningful, real-world work.

When secondary teachers collaborate with the science of reading in mind, they help students keep growing as readers, which is critical for college, careers, and life.

Integrating the Science of Reading with Project-Based Learning

As someone who loves project based learning, I used to worry that the structured nature of the science of reading might clash with the open-ended nature of PBL. I’ve learned the opposite is true. The science of reading actually strengthens PBL by giving students the skills they need to dive into complex, real-world work.

Teachers who blend SOR with PBL weave explicit reading instruction right into projects. For example, when students research environmental issues for a community project, that’s the perfect time to teach critical vocabulary, practice fluency through echo reading, and explore how to evaluate scientific sources. These lessons aren’t add-ons. They’re essential to the project.

Teachers can also smooth out challenges within projects by pre-teaching vocabulary, building background knowledge, or using graphic organizers when students tackle dense primary sources. This ensures every student can access the material, no matter their current reading level.

Vocabulary instruction feels more authentic in PBL. When students create public service announcements about mental health, words like “stigma,” “resilience,” and “therapeutic” come up naturally in their research. Teachers can explicitly teach these terms, and students apply them right away.

And PBL’s collaborative nature supports literacy, too. Teachers might group students strategically, pairing someone who’s strong at decoding with someone who excels at research, so everyone contributes and everyone grows.

Recognizing these connections made me realize that understanding the Science of Reading is integral to project planning. The graphic below illustrates how explicit reading instruction can be woven into each phase of the Project Learning Experience. You can download this one-page from the ACP store to support your own project planning and literacy integration.

Download this resource from our store here

Moving Forward: Embracing Evidence-Based Practice in PBL

The science of reading has reshaped how I think about literacy instruction. It helps me identify exactly why students struggle and how to support them. Instead of assuming a student just doesn’t like reading, I can tell whether they need help with decoding, vocabulary, background knowledge, or text structure.

This approach doesn’t make teaching less creative. It makes it more effective.

Evidence-based reading strategies open the door for deeper engagement with literature, complex projects, and confident expression of ideas.

At the end of the day, we owe it to our students to ground our teaching in the best research we have. The science of reading gives us that foundation. Whether we’re teaching kindergartners their first sounds or high schoolers analyzing Shakespeare, this research lights the way forward and helps every student build the literacy skills they need to succeed in school and beyond.

---

References:

Gough, Philip B., and William E. Tunmer. “Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability.” Remedial and Special Education, vol. 7, no. 1, Jan.–Feb. 1986, pp. 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104. Accessed 8 Feb. 2026.

Staake, Jill. “Scarborough’s Reading Rope: How Kids Learn to Be Fluent Readers.” We Are Teachers, 20 Aug. 2025, www.weareteachers.com/scarboroughs-rope/. Accessed 8 Feb. 2026.

---

At ACP, we are committed to transparency in our content creation. Learn more in our AI Policy.