Real Reading Requires Real Instruction: Why Accommodations Aren’t Enough

Timothy Shanahan’s recent blog post, Accommodating Reading Comprehension with Listening—Good Idea?, raises a critical concern: when schools and educators rely on listening comprehension or text-to-speech (TTS) as a substitute for direct reading instruction, they fail to address the root causes of students’ reading difficulties. While these accommodations may provide temporary access to content, they do not build the essential skills that students need to become proficient readers. This approach ultimately does a disservice to struggling readers by allowing deficits in decoding and reading comprehension to persist. Instead of bypassing these challenges, educators must implement evidence-based literacy instruction that directly targets students’ needs.

The Limitations of Listening Comprehension as a Replacement for Reading

Listening comprehension is a valuable skill that supports overall language development, but it is not a direct substitute for reading comprehension. Research consistently demonstrates that skilled reading requires the integration of decoding, fluency, and comprehension skills (Hoover & Gough, 1990). The Simple View of Reading posits that reading comprehension is the product of both decoding ability and linguistic comprehension. If a student struggles with decoding, merely providing auditory access to text does not strengthen the neural pathways necessary for proficient reading. In fact, over-reliance on listening comprehension can widen the gap between strong and weak readers, as it fails to develop the orthographic mapping and phonemic awareness required for independent reading (Ehri, 2014).

Text-to-Speech Technology: A Band-Aid, Not a Cure

Text-to-speech tools have gained popularity as a support for students with reading difficulties, particularly those with dyslexia. While these tools may help students access content in the short term, they do not teach foundational literacy skills. The problem is that TTS does not improve decoding or word recognition and may even discourage students from engaging in the effortful process of reading. If struggling readers are continually given TTS rather than explicit instruction, they are less likely to develop automaticity in word recognition—a critical factor in reading fluency and comprehension (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974).

Evidence-Based Practices for Building Strong Readers

Rather than relying on accommodations that circumvent the reading process, educators must prioritize structured literacy approaches that have been proven effective for all students, particularly those with reading difficulties. The following instructional practices are essential:

1. Explicit and Systematic Phonics Instruction
   • Research shows that systematic phonics instruction significantly improves decoding skills and reading achievement, particularly in early elementary grades (National Reading Panel, 2000). Programs that teach letter-sound correspondences, syllable types, and decoding strategies enable students to build word recognition skills.
2. Phonemic Awareness Training
   • Phonemic awareness—the ability to recognize and manipulate individual sounds in words—is a foundational skill for reading (Kilpatrick, 2015). Students who struggle with phonemic awareness benefit from direct instruction (with print) that includes segmenting, blending, and manipulating sounds (Clemens et al, 2021).
3. Fluency Development
   • Fluency is not just about reading quickly but about reading with accuracy, automaticity, and prosody. Repeated readings, choral reading, and guided oral reading with feedback help build fluency (Rasinski, 2012).
4. Vocabulary and Background Knowledge Building
   • Strong readers rely on a robust vocabulary and content knowledge to make meaning from text. Explicit vocabulary instruction and exposure to complex texts across disciplines strengthen reading comprehension (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2013).
5. Comprehension Strategy Instruction
   • Teaching students to use evidence-based strategies such as summarizing, questioning, and making inferences fosters deeper comprehension. Direct instruction in these strategies helps students develop metacognitive awareness while reading (Duke & Pearson, 2002).

Conclusion

Accommodations such as listening comprehension and text-to-speech have a place in supporting access to content, but they must not replace evidence-based reading instruction. When educators rely too heavily on these tools, they fail to address the underlying reading deficits that hinder long-term academic success. Instead, schools should invest in structured literacy approaches that explicitly teach decoding, fluency, and comprehension skills. If the goal is to develop independent, proficient readers, then the focus must remain on providing high-quality, research-backed instruction—not simply offering workarounds that mask the problem.

By prioritizing evidence-based literacy instruction, we can ensure that all students, regardless of their initial reading difficulties, gain the skills they need to read proficiently and confidently. Anything less is an educational disservice that limits their long-term opportunities and success.

References:

1. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. Guilford Press.
2. Clemens, N., Solari, E., Kearns, D. M., Fien, H., Nelson, N. J., Stelega, M., Burns, M., St. Martin, K., & Hoeft, F. (2021). They say you can do phonemic awareness instruction “in the dark,” but should you? A critical evaluation of the trend toward advanced phonemic awareness training. PsyArXiv.
3. Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. (2002). Effective Practices for Developing Reading Comprehension. In Alan E. Farstrup & S. Jay Samuels (Eds.), What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association, Inc.
4. Ehri, L. C. (2013). Orthographic Mapping in the Acquisition of Sight Word Reading, Spelling Memory, and Vocabulary Learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5–21.
5. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2(2), 127–160.
6. Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. Wiley.
7. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293–323.
8. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. U.S. Department of Education.
9. Rasinski, T. V. (2012). Why reading fluency should be hot! The Reading Teacher, 65(8), 516–522.
10. Shanahan, T. (2025). Accommodating Reading Comprehension with Listening—Good Idea? Shanahan on Literacy. ​  
11. Wood, S. G., Moxley, J. H., Tighe, E. L., & Wagner, R. K. (2018). Does use of text-to-speech and related read-aloud tools improve reading comprehension for students with reading disabilities? A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(1), 73–84.