Active Engagement – The Prerequisite for Learning to Read

We often define skilled reading as the product of two key components: word recognition and language comprehension, a model long supported by the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). However, recent research suggests that this equation may be incomplete. Duke and Cartwright (2021) propose an Active View of Reading, which emphasizes that skilled reading also depends on students' active self-regulation, motivation, and engagement. In other words, if learners are not engaged, even the best phonics or comprehension instruction may fall flat.

This blog explores why active engagement is not just helpful—it is essential. Drawing on research in reading science, executive functioning, and child development, we’ll explore how engagement, self-regulation, and developmentally appropriate instruction must be in place to support the other strands of skilled reading.

Beyond the Rope: Why Engagement Must Come First

Scarborough’s (2001) Reading Rope has served as a visual metaphor for how word recognition and language comprehension intertwine to produce skilled reading. However, as Duke and Cartwright (2021) argue, students must be “actively engaged” in literacy tasks in order to effectively use these skills. This engagement encompasses attention, effort, motivation, and emotional readiness—factors that are often overlooked in reading instruction.

When students are dysregulated, distracted, or disconnected, their cognitive resources are compromised. Their working memory and attentional control—core to both decoding and understanding—are unavailable for learning (Best, Miller, & Naglieri, 2011). Without active engagement, the strands of the rope fray.

The Role of Self-Regulation and Executive Functioning

Engagement is closely tied to self-regulation, which includes a student’s ability to control emotions, attention, and behaviors in order to achieve goals (Zimmerman, 2000). In reading, self-regulation enables students to persist through difficult tasks, monitor comprehension, and shift strategies when needed (Cartwright, 2015).

Underlying self-regulation is executive functioning, a set of mental processes that includes cognitive flexibility, working memory, and inhibitory control (Diamond, 2013). Students with strong executive functioning are more likely to sustain attention during reading, remember what they’ve read, and flexibly adjust their thinking. These skills are predictive of reading comprehension and overall academic success (Best et al., 2011).

Teachers often misinterpret a lack of attention or task avoidance as disinterest or defiance, when in fact, students may lack the executive functioning capacity to fully engage (Cutting et al., 2009). Explicit instruction in these skills, paired with scaffolds such as timers, graphic organizers, and co-regulation routines, can increase students’ access to reading instruction.

Developmentally Appropriate Practice: Aligning Tasks with Readiness

Instruction must also be developmentally appropriate for engagement to occur. Tasks that are too difficult lead to frustration; tasks that are too easy result in boredom (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). In early childhood, developmentally appropriate literacy instruction includes play-based learning, movement, and short, sensory-rich experiences (National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC], 2020).

As students mature, engagement relies more on relevance, autonomy, and social connection. In upper elementary, students thrive on choice, peer collaboration, and authentic literacy tasks. In adolescence, engagement increases when instruction is connected to identity, purpose, and real-world issues (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000). If we want students to engage with texts, we must first meet them where they are—developmentally, emotionally, and cognitively.

Practical Strategies by Grade Band

K–2: Engage the Body and Emotions

• Use movement-based phonics (e.g., hand motions for sounds).

• Incorporate songs, visuals, and tactile materials.

• Teach co-regulation and attention-getting routines.

• Use frequent transitions to match short attention spans.

Grades 3–5: Build Relevance and Ownership

• Offer text choices connected to students’ interests.

• Use project-based literacy tied to science or social studies.

• Teach self-monitoring strategies (e.g., “Does this make sense?”).

• Integrate peer discussion and collaborative reading tasks.

Grades 6–8: Prioritize Purpose and Autonomy

• Use reading tied to real-world questions.

• Offer multiple ways to respond to texts (e.g., podcast, debate, editorial).

• Scaffold executive function (e.g., planner use, goal-setting).

• Allow students to co-create reading goals and book lists.

Conclusion

Reading instruction grounded in the Science of Reading must not only address what we teach, but also how students experience it. Engagement, motivation, and self-regulation are not fluff—they are foundational to literacy learning. As the Active View of Reading reminds us, skilled reading doesn’t happen without active participation.

If we want our students to become fluent, strategic, and joyful readers, we must first create the conditions in which they can focus, persist, and care. Before students can read, they must be ready—and want—to learn.

References

Best, J. R., Miller, P. H., & Naglieri, J. A. (2011). Executive function and academic achievement in elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 775–786. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023616

Cartwright, K. B. (2015). Executive skills and reading comprehension: A guide for educators. Guilford Press.

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Cutting, L. E., Materek, A., Cole, C. A. S., Levine, T. M., & Mahone, E. M. (2009). Effects of fluency, oral language, and executive function on reading comprehension performance. Annals of Dyslexia, 59(1), 34–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-009-0022-0

Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750

Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The active view of reading: Making sense of purposeful, flexible reading comprehension. Journal of Literacy Research, 53(4), 529–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X211040961

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research: Volume III (pp. 403–422). Lawrence Erlbaum.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2020). Developmentally appropriate practice: A position statement of the NAEYC. https://www.naeyc.org/resources/position-statements/dap

Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research (Vol. 1, pp. 97–110). Guilford Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press.