










































Georgia Journal of Literacy 
2025, Vol. 47(2), pp. 22–38 
https://doi.org/10.56887/galiteracy.200 
ISSN: 2833-7611 

   
Practitioner Article 

   
 

 

CONTACT Dr. Sarah W. Sharpe, Assistant Professor, Department of Teacher Education, Leadership & Counseling, 
Columbus State University, Columbus, GA; email sharpe_sarah@columbusstate.edu (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-
5529-5334). 
 

Teaching Thinking for Reading: Merging 
Executive Function, Structured Literacy, and 
Asset-Based Practices 
 
Sarah W. Sharpe 
Columbus State University, Columbus, GA 

 
ABSTRACT 

Reading comprehension requires more than decoding; it requires strategic thinking. 
Yet many students, particularly those from historically marginalized backgrounds, 
are often labeled as struggling readers without attention to their cognitive assets or 
instructional gaps. This practitioner-based article explores how educators can 
intentionally teach thinking for successful reading by modeling executive function 
skills and comprehension strategies, fostering metacognition, and affirming students’ 
cultural knowledge and assets. Grounded in the science of reading and learning, this 
work draws on research on executive function, purposeful think-alouds, and asset-
based frameworks. This article offers practical, classroom-ready strategies for 
implementing structured literacy in ways that support comprehension, center student 
voice, and affirm diverse ways of knowing. Through teacher think-alouds, culturally 
responsive approaches, and student strategy reflection routines, this piece will show 
how educators can bridge the gap between decoding and comprehending while 
honoring the assets and brilliance students bring to the classroom. 

KEYWORDS 

reading 
comprehension; 
executive 
function; 
structured 
literacy; science 
of reading; asset-
based teaching; 
teacher think-
alouds; 
metacognitive 
reading 
strategies 

 
common issue educators observe is that some students demonstrate strong decoding skills 
but struggle to comprehend what they read (Oakhill et al., 2019). Research suggests that 
despite having adequate decoding skills, approximately 10% of students still struggle with 

reading comprehension (Landi & Ryherd, 2017; Taboada Barber et al., 2022). These students may 
read fluently (at a steady, conversational pace), yet be unable to explain the main idea or key details 
of the text. This pattern of performance is a characteristic of students with a specific reading 
comprehension deficit (S-RCD; Landi & Ryherd, 2017). S-RCD can result from several 
underlying factors, including limited background knowledge, poor vocabulary development, or 
underdeveloped executive function skills such as inferencing and monitoring for understanding. 
Regardless of the cause, it is critical for educators to focus on effectively modeling how to think 
while reading through explicit instruction and rich discussions. 
 Reading skills and strategies can be taught efficiently and successfully in early childhood 
and elementary settings when instruction is delivered in a clear, structured, and intentional manner 
(Rupley et al., 2009). However, while phonological awareness and phonics are often taught 
through explicit instruction, reading comprehension is not always approached with the same level 
of intentionality. Reading comprehension requires the integration of multiple linguistic and 
cognitive processes (Landi & Ryherd, 2017), necessitating explicit instruction for students. This 
article integrates the science of reading with the science of learning, emphasizing explicit, 
structured instruction paired with cognitive and metacognitive strategic teaching. Teachers can 

A 

mailto:sharpe_sarah@columbusstate.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5529-5334
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5529-5334


Sharpe 23 
 

   
 

model executive functions through think-alouds and affirm students’ backgrounds as they teach 
students how to think while reading. 
 Thinking for reading refers to the cognitive and metacognitive processes that readers 
engage in to make meaning from text. It goes beyond decoding individual words and involves 
strategic actions such as making inferences, generating predictions, asking questions, clarifying 
misunderstandings, and summarizing key ideas. These are processes that skilled readers use 
flexibly and intentionally (Keene & Zimmermann, 1997; Pressley, 2006). These strategies are 
closely tied to executive function, which encompasses a set of self-regulatory skills including 
working memory, cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control. These skills are essential for 
monitoring comprehension, adjusting strategies, and sustaining focus while reading (Baker, 2005; 
Cartwright, 2015).  
 Complementing executive function, structured literacy refers to a systematic and explicit 
approach to reading instruction, rooted in the science of reading (Moats, 2020). It emphasizes 
foundational skills such as phonological awareness, decoding, and word recognition, along with 
explicit instruction in syntax, morphology, and background knowledge to support language 
comprehension. To fully support all readers, particularly those who can decode fluently but 
struggle with meaning, structured literacy must be intentionally paired with instruction that 
cultivates executive function and thinking for reading. This integration is what enables students to 
become strategic, metacognitive, and self-regulated readers. 
 
Why This Matters for Equity 

Teaching students how to think while reading through an asset-based approach is a matter of 
educational fairness. Too often, students from historically marginalized backgrounds are 
overrepresented among those struggling with reading (U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2022). Although direct 
studies on marginalized students with S-RCD (poor comprehension despite good decoding) remain 
limited, these broader reading disparities suggest a likely overrepresentation of marginalized 
students within the S-RCD category.  
 Students’ reading disparities, as revealed in reports such as NCES (2022), are not 
necessarily due to innate deficits, but rather because instruction fails to honor their cultural 
knowledge or provide access to deeper meaning-making strategies. When teachers use think-
alouds to model executive functioning and engage students in rich, meaningful discussions related 
to their reading that build on their lived experiences, they empower all learners to become strategic, 
reflective readers. This work ensures that comprehension instruction is not a privilege reserved for 
high-achieving or affluent students, but a right for every learner. Equitable reading instruction 
affirms students’ identities and equips them with the cognitive tools to not only read text but to 
analyze, critique, and transform the world around them. 
 Addressing the comprehension crisis requires a shift in how we view reading success. 
Teaching phonics and decoding is necessary, but not sufficient. Students must also be taught how 
to think actively and strategically while reading. When comprehension is left to chance, or reserved 
for students with strong oral language or academic support at home, we risk widening opportunity 
gaps. Opportunity gaps reflect the systemic inequities in access to high-quality instruction, 
resources, and expectations that shape student achievement (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Ladson-
Billings (2006) further argues that these disparities stem from a long-standing education debt—
the accumulated historical, economic, and sociopolitical disadvantages that continue to undermine 
equitable outcomes for marginalized students. Addressing comprehension explicitly is one step 



24 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(2)  
 

   
 

toward repaying that debt. All students deserve explicit instruction in the cognitive processes that 
underpin understanding: making inferences, asking questions, monitoring comprehension, and 
drawing connections. By combining structured literacy with rich, asset-based comprehension 
instruction, every child can become not just a reader, but a thinker. 
 
The Science of Reading Meets the Science of Learning  
In recent years, the science of reading has gained significant attention, with several states 
(including Georgia) mandating that K–5 educators utilize universal assessments and implement 
instructional strategies that align with structured literacy and the five fundamental pillars of 
reading. In fact, 40 states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation or policies 
requiring evidence-based reading instruction that emphasizes phonemic awareness, phonics, 
fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, including regular universal screening and the adoption 
of structured literacy curricula since 2013 (Schwartz, 2025). The science of reading refers to the 
body of research on best practices for teaching reading, specifically related to brain activities while 
reading (Moats, 2020). Technological advancements in brain imaging and statistical analysis have 
deepened our understanding of how students learn to read and respond to instruction. 
 Similarly, the science of learning is the body of research that studies learning from a 
multidisciplinary perspective, mainly drawing from neuroscience, psychology, and education. It 
investigates how people learn and how to design more effective learning environments, uncovering 
evidence-based principles that support long-term retention, conceptual understanding, knowledge 
transfer, and learner motivation (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 
2018). The science of reading and the science of learning highlight the importance of explicit, 
evidence-based instruction. While the science of reading focuses on how the brain learns to read, 
the science of learning explains how knowledge is retained, transferred, and applied. Together, 
they emphasize intentional instruction that supports deep comprehension and long-term learning. 
 Researchers such as Cartwright and Palian (2024) have demonstrated through meta-
analytic reviews that students with stronger reading-specific executive functions (including 
working memory, planning, organization, and cognitive flexibility) involved in shifting between 
ideas and integrating prior knowledge demonstrate significantly better outcomes in reading 
comprehension and fluency. Similarly, Berninger et al. (2017) found that abilities like inhibition 
(suppressing irrelevant information, impulses, or distractions when reading) and sustained 
switching attention (shifting attention between different aspects of reading and language in a 
literacy task) within language contexts uniquely support reading comprehension, indicating that 
students with stronger executive control are better able to manage competing cognitive demands 
during reading and writing. 
 Equally crucial as executive functions is self‑regulation, which is the ability to set goals, 
monitor progress, and persist through challenging tasks. Baker (1979) defines self-regulation as 
readers’ use of metacognitive strategies to monitor comprehension, detect confusion, and correct 
misunderstanding proactively, showing that such regulation supports effective reading behaviors. 
Guthrie and Wigfield (2004) demonstrate through their Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction 
framework that teaching students to set goals, self-initiate strategies, and sustain engagement 
significantly enhances strategy use, reading motivation, and comprehension outcomes. 
 Finally, metacognition, or thinking about one’s own thinking, plays a foundational role in 
reading proficiency. Metacognition includes metacognitive knowledge (awareness of strategies) 
and metacognitive regulation (planning, monitoring, and evaluating one’s cognitive activity) 
during learning tasks (Flavell, 1979). When teachers explicitly model these processes through 



Sharpe 25 
 

   
 

think-aloud demonstrations and scaffolded support, they enable students to internalize the 
cognitive habits of skilled readers (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). Meta‑analyses and classroom 
studies demonstrate that explicit instruction in planning, monitoring, and adjusting reading 
strategies leads to measurable gains in comprehension and vocabulary (Boulware‑Gooden et al., 
2007). 
 One essential instructional strategy for developing students’ executive functions, self-
regulation, and metacognition is explicit, teacher-led think-alouds. Think-alouds are an evidence-
based approach in which teachers verbalize their cognitive processes during reading to model the 
strategic thinking skilled readers use (Ness, 2016). This modeling provides students with clear, 
concrete demonstrations of how and when to apply comprehension strategies such as predicting, 
clarifying, questioning, and summarizing. According to Ness (2016), think-alouds are especially 
powerful because they reduce students’ cognitive load by externalizing the mental routines that 
proficient readers perform silently and automatically.  
 By making the invisible work of reading visible, teacher think-alouds reduce ambiguity 
and help learners internalize purposeful reading behaviors (Woods, 2020). For example, while 
reading a nonfiction passage, a teacher might pause and say, “Hmm, the heading says ‘Causes of 
Hurricanes,’ so I predict this section will explain how hurricanes form. I’ll keep reading to confirm 
whether that’s true.” This simple statement models the strategy of predicting, drawing on text 
features and prior knowledge, while also inviting students to adopt that same habit in their 
independent reading. Over time, with consistent exposure and guided practice, students begin to 
mirror these metacognitive behaviors, gaining greater control over their comprehension processes. 
 In reading instruction, it is critical to distinguish between skills and strategies. Skills such 
as decoding and recognizing high-frequency words are foundational and typically become 
automatic with repeated practice. These automatic processes are essential for fluent reading, but 
they do not guarantee comprehension. In contrast, strategies are deliberate, goal-oriented actions 
that readers actively choose and apply when they encounter a challenge or want to deepen 
understanding. These include actions like questioning the text, visualizing content, rereading, 
making inferences, and summarizing meaning. Skilled and proficient readers don’t rely on a single 
strategy—they draw from a flexible repertoire of strategies based on the demands of the text and 
their reading goals. 
 Understanding this distinction is vital because it clarifies the teacher’s role in 
comprehension instruction. While students often acquire skills through modeling and practice, 
strategies must be explicitly taught, modeled, and practiced in varied contexts. Teachers play a 
central role in developing students’ strategic reading behaviors by making their own thinking 
visible through think-alouds, providing guided practice, and gradually releasing responsibility to 
students. When teachers create environments that encourage students to monitor their thinking, 
select appropriate strategies, and reflect on their use, they empower students to become 
independent, metacognitive readers who can navigate complex texts with confidence and purpose. 
 As Keene and Zimmermann (1997) highlight, strategic reading involves intentional 
meaning-making rather than rote processing. Duke and Pearson (2002) also emphasized the 
teaching of “good reader” strategies through scaffolded, interactive instruction. Palincsar and 
Brown’s (1984) work on Reciprocal Teaching further supports this approach by advocating for 
structured strategy instruction through a gradual release model: the teacher first models the 
strategy, then supports students as they take increasing responsibility. Baker’s (1979, 2005) 
research also connects these strategies to self-regulation, showing that strategic readers are better 
able to monitor, adjust, and sustain engagement while reading. 



26 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(2)  
 

   
 

 Table 1 highlights key comprehension strategies every student should know. The table 
includes definitions, why the strategy matters, and classroom-based examples for each. 
 
Table 1: Key Comprehension Strategies and Classroom Examples 

Comprehension 
Strategy Definition Why it Matters Classroom Examples 

Predicting 

Making informed 
guesses about 
what will happen 
next based on text 
clues, prior 
knowledge, or text 
structure. 

Predicting sets a 
purpose for reading 
and keeps students 
actively engaged. 
 

● Before reading a historical fiction text, a student 
says, “I think the main character will join the 
Civil Rights protest because she’s angry about 
injustice.” 

● While reading a science article, a student 
predicts the outcome of an experiment based on 
prior knowledge. 

● A teacher models predicting by saying, “The 
author just described storm clouds rolling in. I 
predict something dramatic is about to happen.” 

Questioning 

Asking questions 
before, during, 
and after reading 
to clarify 
understanding and 
promote deeper 
thinking. 

Questioning fuels 
curiosity and 
promotes 
metacognition. 

● A student wonders, “Why did the character 
leave the house in the middle of the night?” 

● While reading an informational text, a student 
asks, “How does this relate to what we learned 
in science?” 

● During a think-aloud, the teacher models 
asking, “What is the author’s purpose in using 
this example?” 

Clarifying 

Pausing to resolve 
confusion by 
rereading, using 
context clues, or 
consulting outside 
resources. 

Clarifying 
empowers students 
to independently 
tackle challenging 
parts of a text. 

● A student rereads a paragraph slowly to 
understand unfamiliar vocabulary. 

● A teacher models clarifying by saying, “I’m not 
sure what ‘photosynthesis’ means, but the next 
sentence gives an explanation.” 

● A student uses a glossary or dictionary to clarify 
the meaning of a technical term. 

Summarizing 

Identifying and 
restating the most 
important ideas or 
events in a 
concise way. 

Summarizing builds 
comprehension, 
memory, and the 
ability to distinguish 
main ideas from 
details. 

● After reading a chapter, a student summarizes: 
“The main point was that pollution harms marine 
life.” 

● A teacher models summarizing a paragraph 
using a “Somebody-Wanted-But-So-Then” 
framework. 

● Students work in pairs to summarize a 
nonfiction article using sentence starters. 

Making 
Inferences 

Using text 
evidence and prior 
knowledge to 
draw conclusions 
not directly stated 
in the text. 

Inference-making is 
essential for 
understanding 
characters, themes, 
and author intent. 

● A student infers that a character is jealous even 
though it’s never directly stated. 

● While reading, the teacher thinks aloud: “The 
author didn’t say she was scared, but the way 
she clutched her bag tells me she was nervous.” 

● A student infers a cause-and-effect relationship 
between two events in a science article. 

Visualizing 

Creating mental 
images of the 
scenes, 
characters, or 
information 
described in the 
text. 

Visualizing 
enhances 
engagement and 
memory, particularly 
for narrative and 
descriptive texts. 

● A student says, “I can picture the forest in my 
mind—it’s dark and full of strange sounds.” 

● While reading poetry, students draw what they 
visualize based on sensory language. 

● A teacher models visualizing by saying, “I see a 
crowded market filled with bright colors and 
music.” 



Sharpe 27 
 

   
 

Monitoring 
Comprehension 

Being aware of 
one’s 
understanding 
during reading 
and adjusting 
strategies when 
confusion occurs. 

Skilled readers 
monitor their own 
comprehension and 
take action when 
meaning breaks 
down. 

● A student realizes they don’t understand a 
section and decides to reread it more slowly. 

● A teacher models, “Wait—I lost track of who’s 
speaking. Let me go back and clarify.” 

● A student switches strategies, like summarizing 
or visualizing, when comprehension falters. 

 
 Metacognitively developed readers are intentional and deliberate with the use of these 
strategies (Woods, 2020). By modeling these strategies through explicit think-alouds and gradually 
releasing responsibility, teachers support the development of students’ executive function, self-
regulation, and metacognitive awareness, all of which are critical for becoming independent, 
proficient readers. Think-alouds make the invisible cognitive processes of skilled readers visible, 
offering students concrete examples of how to plan, monitor, and adjust their thinking while 
reading. As Woods (2020) and Palincsar and Brown (1984) emphasize, these metacognitive 
strategies are more than tools for comprehension; they are essential for cultivating students’ ability 
to regulate their own learning, make purposeful decisions about strategy use, and sustain deep 
engagement with text. Ultimately, instruction that emphasizes strategic thinking through modeled 
practice helps students build the cognitive flexibility, focus, and confidence necessary for lifelong 
reading success. 
 
Asset-Based Teaching: Centering Students’ Cultural Knowledge  
Although teacher-led think-alouds are widely recognized as an effective instructional strategy for 
modeling metacognitive processes and supporting reading comprehension, there is a limited body 
of research on this instructional approach that centers on diverse student populations, particularly 
Black students, emergent bilinguals, and other historically marginalized learners. Woods (2020) 
notes in her examination of teacher think-aloud instruction that few studies have explored how 
these practices are implemented in classrooms serving culturally and linguistically diverse 
students. Similarly, Lindo (2006) found that Black students are significantly underrepresented in 
reading intervention research, highlighting a critical gap in the literature and underscoring the need 
for more inclusive, equity-centered inquiry. To maximize their effectiveness, think-alouds should 
not be delivered as decontextualized scripts, but instead should reflect and incorporate students’ 
cultural knowledge and lived experiences. Embedding students’ assets into teacher-led think-
alouds not only makes instruction more meaningful but also affirms their identities and promotes 
equity in literacy learning.  
 Asset-based teaching (ABT) focuses on harnessing students’ innate strengths and 
community resources, rather than centering on deficits or remediation (Kretzmann & McKnight, 
1993). In educational settings, ABT has been linked with improvements in student confidence, 
agency, and motivation (Flint & Jaggers, 2021). Furthermore, core characteristics of effective ABT 
include inclusive, culturally informed, linguistically responsive, and reflective instructional 
practices (Mein, 2018). Across broader community development and educational paradigms, ABT 
aligns with principles of appreciative inquiry, social capital, and participatory development by 
emphasizing community assets as bases for growth (Mathie & Cunningham, 2003). When 
classrooms emphasize strengths and cultural wealth over deficits, they foster more engaged, 
empowered, and equitable learning environments for diverse learners (Flint & Jaggers, 2021; 
Mein, 2018). Within education, ABT is not a singular approach, but instead reflected in multiple 
pedagogical frameworks, such as culturally responsive teaching, culturally relevant pedagogy, and 



28 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(2)  
 

   
 

culturally sustaining pedagogy, which each interpret and enact asset-based principles in distinct 
yet overlapping ways. 
 ABT aligns with frameworks such as Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 
1995), Culturally Responsive Teaching (Gay, 2018), and Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (Paris, 
2012). While each one has unique components and emphases, they all share the goal of affirming 
students’ identities and leveraging their cultural knowledge as academic resources in students’ 
learning. Readers seeking deeper theoretical distinctions between each framework can refer to the 
original works. 
 Particularly, Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) highlights using students’ cultural 
knowledge, prior experiences, and learning styles to make instruction more meaningful and 
effective. Gay (2018) identifies five essential elements of CRT: (1) developing a strong knowledge 
base about cultural diversity, (2) integrating diverse cultural perspectives and content into the 
curriculum, (3) demonstrating genuine care and cultivating inclusive learning communities, (4) 
communicating effectively with students from a variety of cultural backgrounds, and (5) adapting 
instructional practices to be responsive to students’ cultural experiences. The instructional 
framework (Sharpe, 2022) introduced in this article draws on CRT principles to ensure that 
comprehension strategy instruction is both culturally affirming and cognitively rigorous. 
 While teacher-led think-alouds are widely recognized as a powerful approach to support 
reading comprehension and model metacognitive thinking (Ness, 2017; Pressley & Afflerbach, 
1995), they are often implemented in ways that overlook the diverse cultural and linguistic 
experiences students bring to the classroom. Findings from a mixed-methods study examining 
teacher think-aloud practices (Woods, 2020), along with the development of a practitioner-
informed framework for culturally responsive think-aloud instruction (Sharpe, 2022), indicate that 
while many educators value think-alouds, they often use them as scripted walkthroughs of 
strategies rather than as authentic opportunities to connect with students’ identities and lived 
experiences. The framework proposes that teachers must be intentional, not only in how they 
model strategies such as predicting, inferring, and clarifying, but also in how they embed students’ 
cultural knowledge, home language, and prior experiences into their verbal reasoning. When 
delivered in this way, think-alouds shift from procedural tools to relational and cognitively 
engaging practices that foster affirmation and deeper comprehension. 
 Research consistently demonstrates that students benefit from hearing how skilled readers 
think aloud in real time to make sense of texts (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983), as well as from 
adequate opportunities to practice reading and applying taught strategies (Duke & Pearson, 2002). 
However, as Gay (2018) argues, cognition and learning are inherently shaped by cultural context. 
Thus, reading strategies must be taught in ways that reflect students’ discourse patterns, values, 
and meaning-making processes. Hammond (2015) extends this notion by advocating for 
“culturally responsive information processing,” which invites teachers to support students’ higher-
order thinking by leveraging cultural schema and linguistic assets. When think-alouds are 
grounded in this asset-based stance, students are more likely to engage deeply and internalize 
strategic behaviors (Sharpe, 2022; Woods, 2020). In contrast, generic or decontextualized think-
alouds, while technically accurate, often fail to resonate with learners, limiting their impact. 
 Sharpe’s (2022) Culturally Responsive Think-Aloud Instructional Model (see Figure 1) 
addresses this gap by blending explicit strategy modeling with components of metacognition, 
cognition, self-regulation, and culturally responsive teaching. The model emphasizes 
metacognition by making students’ thinking visible and reflective, guiding them to monitor their 
comprehension, adjust strategies, and plan ahead. Cognition is addressed through the intentional 



Sharpe 29 
 

   
 

modeling of strategy use, such as predicting, questioning, and summarizing, embedded within 
meaningful, grade-appropriate texts. Self-regulation is cultivated through opportunities for 
students to set goals, evaluate their understanding, and persist through complex texts. Just as 
important, the culturally responsive component ensures that texts, language, and modeled thinking 
reflect and affirm students’ identities, experiences, and cultural knowledge. This integrated 
approach supports not only what students learn, but also how and why they engage with reading 
in purposeful, personally meaningful ways. 
 
Figure 1: Culturally Responsive Think-Aloud Instructional Model (CRTAIM) 

 
Note. From “Think-Aloud Reading Instruction Through a Culturally Responsive Teaching Lens” (Sharpe, 2022). 
 
 While the present author could not locate empirical studies involving direct observation or 
data collection on the impact of integrating asset-based approaches with structured literacy, there 
is emerging literature that supports this conceptual blending. For example, Sanchez et al. (2024) 
examine culturally sustaining pedagogy within the context of early literacy instruction and the 
Science of Reading. They provide theoretically grounded, practice-based strategies for integrating 
multilingual learners’ linguistic and cultural assets into foundational literacy instruction. Their 
work illustrates how structured literacy principles can be aligned with culturally sustaining 
approaches to better serve diverse learners. 
 Similarly, Gunner (2023) outlines a classroom model that incorporates culturally 
responsive practices, such as student-authored sentences and texts tied to students’ interests, within 
explicit phonics and phonemic awareness instruction. While not a formal study, Gunner shares 
anecdotal evidence pointing to increased student engagement, enjoyment, and ownership of 
learning. 
 Additionally, Pittman et al. (2024) present an empowered language approach, a culturally 
responsive framework designed to support African American students’ oral and written expression 
through bidialectal awareness. The article offers pedagogical guidance grounded in sociolinguistic 
research and classroom application. By affirming students’ linguistic identities and explicitly 
teaching Standard American English as a secondary dialect, the authors advocate for instruction 



30 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(2)  
 

   
 

that is both academically rigorous and culturally affirming, principles that align with asset-based, 
strategic reading instruction. 
 Clausen‑Grace and Kelley (2008) describe the Metacognitive Teaching Framework (MTF) 
as a four‑stage, apprenticeship model for building strategic, reflective readers. Beginning with 
explicit teacher think‑alouds and structured strategy instruction, the framework transitions through 
guided practice toward students’ independent application of comprehension strategies, 
specifically, predicting, making connections, questioning, visualizing, and summarizing. 
Critically, the MTF embeds self-assessment, goal-setting, and metacognitive reflection, enabling 
students to monitor and control their own reading development. 
 The MTF components align with the Culturally Responsive Think-Aloud Instructional 
Model (CRTAIM) shown in Figure 1 (Sharpe, 2022), which focuses on metacognitive modeling 
through think-alouds. However, it is missing culturally responsive teaching that affirms students’ 
identities and promotes agency. While the MTF is not explicitly framed within asset-based 
pedagogy, its intentional support for student reflection, discussion, and strategic independence 
reinforces the premise that structured literacy instruction can be enriched when paired with 
practices that center the learner’s voice, culture, and thinking processes. 
 The successes and discoveries in the aforementioned literature relied on key instructional 
components: metacognition, where students reflect on their thinking processes; cognition, where 
students actively process and make sense of information; and self-regulation, where students plan, 
monitor, and adjust their reading behaviors. Culturally responsive teaching (CRT) principles, such 
as validating cultural schema, providing cognitive scaffolds, and creating opportunities for dialogic 
learning, enhance these processes by making learning relevant, relational, and rigorous (Gay, 
2018; Hammond, 2015). When instruction weaves together structured literacy’s systematic 
supports with CRT’s emphasis on cultural affirmation and cognitive engagement, educators create 
conditions for all students, not just a select few, to become empowered, strategic readers. 
 By integrating explicit comprehension strategy instruction with culturally responsive 
pedagogy, CRTAIM positions think-alouds as tools for both academic development and identity 
affirmation. Rather than solely demonstrating how to monitor understanding, well-designed think-
alouds reveal to students that their ways of speaking, thinking, and interpreting are meaningful in 
academic spaces. This approach reframes reading as a process that draws from and builds upon 
who students are, not just what they know. When enacted with intentionality and cultural 
relevance, think-aloud instruction becomes more than a literacy technique; it becomes a pathway 
toward equity, engagement, and empowered learning. 
 
Strategies for Teaching Thinking While Reading 
The following instructional strategies are essential components of a comprehensive framework for 
promoting metacognition and strategic reading among all learners. Each is grounded in evidence-
based practice and contributes to the development of self-aware, engaged readers capable of 
monitoring and regulating their own comprehension. Ranging from explicit teacher modeling to 
peer collaboration and culturally affirming text selection, these strategies work together to support 
both the cognitive and affective dimensions of reading. By intentionally integrating these 
approaches into daily instruction, educators can scaffold student thinking, foster independence, 
and build stronger connections between learners and the texts they encounter. 
 
 
 



Sharpe 31 
 

   
 

Teacher Think-Alouds 

Teacher think-alouds are an evidence-based instructional strategy in which educators verbalize 
their cognitive processes before, during, and after reading to model how skilled readers make 
meaning from text (Ness, 2016; Woods, 2020). This practice makes metacognitive strategies, like 
predicting, clarifying, and monitoring comprehension, visible and accessible, helping students 
internalize the habits of proficient, strategic readers (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). 
 
Context example: While reading aloud, the teacher pauses and says, “When the author describes 
the character as standing tall and smiling, I’m thinking that she feels proud and confident. That 
helps me understand how she is changing in this part of the story.” 
 
Cognitive Scaffolds 

Cognitive scaffolds are tools that support students’ strategic thinking by providing visual or verbal 
cues to guide comprehension (Moats, 2020; Pressley, 2006). Examples include question stems, 
anchor charts, and graphic organizers, which help students organize their thoughts, monitor their 
understanding, and engage more independently with complex texts. 
 
Context examples: The teacher provides a bookmark with a list of question stems such as “I 
wonder…” and “This reminds me of…”. During independent reading, a student uses the prompt 
“I wonder…” to write, “I wonder why the main character didn’t tell anyone about the problem.” 
 
Student Self-Talk & Reflection 

Promoting student self-talk and reflection helps cultivate metacognition and self-regulation—key 
components of executive function (Baker, 2005; Woods, 2020). Through practices such as 
reflective journaling and “What was I thinking?” protocols, students learn to monitor their 
comprehension, articulate their thinking processes, and adjust strategies when meaning breaks 
down. 
 
Context example: After reading, students write in their journals: “When the character ran away, 
I thought about what I would do in that situation. That helped me realize why he was so nervous.” 
 
Culturally Responsive Texts  

Culturally responsive texts affirm students’ cultural identities and experiences, making 
comprehension more meaningful and accessible (Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 1995). When 
students see themselves and their communities reflected in what they read, they are more likely to 
engage with the text, activate background knowledge, and connect strategically to content. 
 
Context example: A teacher selects a text that reflects her students’ family and community 
experiences. During discussions, students share how their own traditions or challenges connect to 
the characters, deepening their understanding of the text and the author’s purpose. 
 
Collaborative Reading Tasks  

Collaborative reading tasks promote comprehension through peer dialogue and shared strategy use 
(Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Paris, 2012). When students engage in activities like partner reading 



32 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(2)  
 

   
 

or explaining strategies to a peer, they deepen understanding through social interaction, clarify 
misunderstandings, and practice metacognitive talk in an authentic context. 
 
Context example: Students work in pairs to reread a paragraph and ask each other, “What do you 
think the author meant here?” One student says, “I think the character felt left out because nobody 
listened to her,” while the other adds, “Yeah, and that’s why she decided to speak up.” 
 
Classroom Vignettes and Examples 
Below are three classroom vignettes that illustrate practical ways teachers can implement the 
Culturally Responsive Think-Aloud Instructional Model (CRTAIM; Sharpe, 2022), using selected 
strategies to teach students how to think while reading. As you read each scenario, consider how 
the teacher makes cognitive processes visible, affirms students’ identities, and models strategic 
reading behaviors. Each vignette offers a glimpse into how intentional, asset-based instruction can 
foster deeper comprehension and more engaged, reflective readers. 
 
Vignette 1: Ms. Torres and the Power of Prediction  

Ms. Torres, a White, monolingual fifth-grade teacher, teaches in a culturally and linguistically 
diverse classroom with many Latinx and multilingual students. She’s intentionally selected The 
First Rule of Punk by Celia C. Pérez for today’s read-aloud, having spent time learning about her 
students’ interests and identities through classroom surveys and family connection letters. 
 “Before we start,” she says, holding the book and pointing to the cover, “I want to share 
why I chose this story. I know some of you have shared during morning meetings that your families 
value both tradition and self-expression, and that sometimes those can feel at odds. This book 
reminded me of your stories.” 
 She directs students’ attention to the anchor chart labeled “What Good Readers Do Before 
Reading”, which includes sentence stems like “I wonder if…” and “I predict…” Then, she models 
her thinking: “Looking at this cover, I see a girl wearing a punk outfit, skulls in the background, 
and the words, Always remember to be yourself. I predict she’s going to find her own voice, even 
if others don’t always understand it.” 
 As Ms. Torres reads aloud, she pauses to verbalize her reasoning: “When Malú says her 
mom wants her to be a ‘proper senorita,’ I think about how hard it must feel to balance family 
expectations with wanting to be yourself. I don’t share Malú’s cultural background, but this part 
helps me imagine what it’s like.” 
 Students then engage in a collaborative reading strategy, using their own experiences to 
connect to the text. Later, they respond in journals using the prompt: “What was I thinking 
when...?” One student writes, “When Malú’s mom said she should be more proper, I thought about 
when my mom tells me to speak Spanish with my cousins. It’s hard sometimes, but I get it.” 
 By listening carefully and choosing texts and language that resonate with her students, Ms. 
Torres models both strategic thinking and cultural humility, allowing her students to see their 
identities reflected and honored in the literacy space. Her teaching approach illustrates how 
teaching thinking while reading can go beyond comprehension strategy instruction to include 
cultural empathy. Additionally, she bridges metacognitive awareness with asset-based teaching, 
demonstrating that thinking about reading can also involve thinking about whose stories, 
experiences, and backgrounds are valued and made visible. 
 
 



Sharpe 33 
 

   
 

Vignette 2: Mr. Johnson and the Anchor Chart for Questioning 

Mr. Johnson is a Black fourth-grade teacher, serving a predominantly Black American student 
population in the community in which he grew up. During a lesson, he stood beside a large anchor 
chart labeled “Thinking While We Read: DURING Reading Questions.” It featured question stems 
like, “Why might the character feel this way?” and “What is the author really trying to show?” 
 Today’s text was Crown: An Ode to the Fresh Cut by Derrick Barnes. Before reading, Mr. 
Johnson said, “Y’all remember how we talked about barbershop culture and how important that is 
in many of our communities? Well, this book celebrates that, and I’m going to model how I ask 
questions that help me really understand what the author is trying to say beneath the surface.” 
 As he read the first page, he paused: “It says, ‘You came in as a lump of clay, a blank 
canvas, a slab of marble.’ That’s some powerful language. I’m thinking, why does the author use 
art metaphors to describe the boy?” He pointed to the chart. “That’s me asking a question to dig 
deeper.” 
 After reading, Mr. Johnson asked students to work in pairs for a dialogic conversation, 
using the sentence stem, “This part made me think…” and to practice asking questions as they read 
the text. As students shared, he circulated the classroom and encouraged them to connect the text 
to their lived experiences. While reading, one student asked herself, “Why does the author describe 
the haircut as ‘fresh’?” In a separate student pair, another student reflected on his similar lived 
experiences, saying aloud, “When the boy felt fresh after his haircut, it made me think of when my 
uncle says, ‘Look good, feel good.’” 
 To close the lesson, Mr. Johnson asked students to share one to two thoughts or questions 
that occurred to them as they read the text. A student shared, “While reading, I was thinking that 
this book made me feel proud. I didn’t know books talked about stuff like this.” 
 By modeling how to ask questions during reading tasks, prompting students to pause and 
reflect on their thinking while reading, and encouraging students to make connections with the 
text, Mr. Johnson demonstrates to students that reading should be a mentally engaging task. He 
also reaffirms his students’ culture and experiences by using a text that reflects their identities. 
Through the questioning strategy, not only does this strengthen students’ comprehension, but it 
also further develops their critical thinking skills by learning to make meaning beyond the surface 
level of texts. The collaborative inquiry enables students to connect their lived experiences with 
their peers and the book characters, transforming reading into an act of reflection, connection, and 
cultural pride. 
 
Vignette 3: Mr. Halbrook and Reading with a Plan 

Mr. Halbrook, a White, mid-career third-grade teacher, teaches in a school where the majority of 
students are multilingual and learning English as a second language. He has been working on 
strengthening his culturally responsive practice by attending professional development sessions, 
engaging in community events, and reading student-authored reflections about identity. Today, 
he’s reading The Name Jar by Yangsook Choi and plans to model both comprehension strategies 
and executive functioning. 
 He begins by pointing to the board, where the day’s goal is written: 
 “Today, I will monitor my thinking while reading to understand the character’s decisions 
and identity.” 
 “I want to show you how I make a plan for reading and what I do when I feel distracted or 
stuck,” he tells the class. 



34 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(2)  
 

   
 

 Before opening the book, he reflects aloud: “I’ve never moved to a new country or had 
people mispronounce my name, but I’ve read your family stories and learned how important names 
and identity are to many of you. I’m going to read this book with the goal of understanding how 
Unhei feels, and I’ll stop to check my understanding along the way.” 
 He gestures toward a class anchor chart titled “Plan → Monitor → Adjust” and begins 
reading. “Okay, Unhei’s classmates are teasing her name. That would make anyone feel upset. I’m 
going to pause and ask myself, ‘What is she thinking right now, and why might she consider 
changing her name?” He writes his thoughts on a sticky note: She wants to fit in, but what will she 
lose if she hides her name? 
 Later, students complete a graphic organizer that tracks the character’s feelings and 
decisions. Mr. Halbrook encourages them to use the “What was I thinking?” protocol in their 
reflections. One student writes, “I was thinking how I feel when people mess up my name, too. I 
liked how the teacher understood how names can be hard but still important.” 
 Even though Mr. Halbrook does not share his students’ cultural or linguistic backgrounds, 
he models curiosity, intentionality, and respect towards the diversity in his classroom. By using 
cognitive scaffolds, goal setting, and identity-centered reading, he demonstrates how any teacher 
can make strategic, culturally responsive instruction meaningful for every learner. Using students’ 
lived experiences as both cognitive and cultural tools for meaning-making, he transforms his 
comprehension instruction into both an intellectual and identity-affirming activity.  
 
Conclusion 
Teaching students how to think while reading is ultimately an act of empowerment. When we shift 
our literacy practices from a focus on compliance, answering surface-level questions, or 
completing reading tasks, to a focus on cognition, we invite students to engage deeply, question 
critically, and make meaning on their own terms. As Geneva Gay (2018) reminds us, culturally 
responsive teaching is not just about content, but about cultivating intellectual capacity and agency. 
Zaretta Hammond (2015) builds on this by asserting that instruction must develop independent 
learners who can process, analyze, and act on information. By teaching thinking as a core part of 
reading instruction, we move beyond rote performance and toward liberatory, equity-centered 
pedagogy, one where all students are equipped not just to read the word, but to read and reshape 
the world. 
 
Implications for Future Research 
The integration of structured literacy, executive function, and asset-based practices into a unified 
instructional framework offers a promising direction for equitable reading comprehension 
instruction. However, the effectiveness of this integrated approach, particularly the Culturally 
Responsive Think-Aloud Instructional Model (CRTAIM; Sharpe, 2022), has not yet been 
examined through rigorous, empirical research. While current literature supports each component 
independently, few studies investigate their combined impact on student outcomes, especially in 
culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. 
 To address this gap, the author plans to implement the framework in teacher preparation 
and K–5 classroom settings to examine how it supports student engagement, strategy use, and 
comprehension development. Mixed-methods studies will be designed to gather insight into both 
student outcomes and the instructional experiences of teachers. For example, quantitative data may 
track changes in students’ reading strategy use, comprehension performance, and executive 
functioning, while qualitative data may help explain how teachers adapt and enact the model. 



Sharpe 35 
 

   
 

Action research conducted in collaboration with classroom teachers will also provide valuable, 
practice-centered feedback for ongoing refinement. 
 Longitudinal research could further explore the lasting effects of culturally responsive 
comprehension instruction, particularly in supporting students’ self-regulation, cognitive 
flexibility, and higher-order thinking over time. Given the underrepresentation of historically 
marginalized students in reading comprehension intervention studies, future research must 
intentionally center the voices and experiences of Black students, emergent bilinguals, and other 
groups who have often been excluded from such work. 
 Ultimately, sustained inquiry and practitioner collaboration will be critical to determining 
how models like this can be scaled, sustained, and adapted across contexts. This work represents 
not only an instructional shift but a broader call for equity-driven literacy research that affirms 
student identities and advances reading as a cognitive, cultural, and justice-oriented practice. 
 
Acknowledgments 
The author used ChatGPT to help generate ideas for the vignettes. The vignettes were subsequently 
adapted, edited, and reviewed by the author to ensure accuracy and alignment with the article’s 
purpose. 
 
References 
Baker, L. (1979). Comprehension monitoring: Identifying and coping with text confusions. 

Reading Research Quarterly, 15(4), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/108629679095
47342 

Baker, L. (2005). Developmental differences in metacognition: Monitoring and control of 
comprehension. In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch 
(Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and 
professional development (pp. 61–79). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://psycnet.
apa.org/record/2005-07525-004 

Barnes, D. (2017). Crown: An ode to the fresh cut. Agate Publishing. 
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Cook, C. R., & Nagy, W. (2017). Relationships of attention and 

executive functions to oral language, reading, and writing skills and systems in middle 
childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(4), 434–449. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415617167 

Boulware‑Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., & Joshi, R. M. (2007). Instruction of 
metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary achievement of 
third‑grade students. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1598/
RT.61.1.7 

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

Cartwright, K. B., & Palian, S. R. (2024). Considering roles of executive functions in the science 
of reading: A meta‑analysis highlighting promises and challenges of reading‑specific 
executive functions. Educational Psychologist, 59(4), 263–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00461520.2024.2418392 

Choi, Y. (2003). The name jar. Dragonfly Books. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/10862967909547342
https://doi.org/10.1080/10862967909547342
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-07525-004
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-07525-004
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415617167
https://doi.org/10.1598/%E2%80%8CRT.61.1.7
https://doi.org/10.1598/%E2%80%8CRT.61.1.7
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2024.2418392
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2024.2418392


36 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(2)  
 

   
 

Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2009). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. 
In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading 
instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). International Reading Association. https://faculty.
washington.edu/smithant/DukeandPearson.pdf 

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0003-066X.34.10.906 

Flint, A. S., & Jaggers, W. (2021). You matter here: The impact of asset-based pedagogies on 
learning. Theory Into Practice, 60(5), 397–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2021.
1911483 

Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). Teachers 
College Press. 

Gunner, C. (2023, July 31). Student‑structured literacy. Goyen Literacy Fellowship Blog. 
https://www.goyen.io/blog/student-structured-literacy  

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 (Vol. 3, pp. 
403–422). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., Scafiddi, 
N. T., & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through 
concept-oriented reading Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403–423. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.403 

Hammond, Z. L. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain. Corwin Press. 
Hudson, A., Moore, K. A., Han, B., Koh, P. W., Binks-Cantrell, E. S., & Joshi, R. M. (2021). 

Elementary teachers’ knowledge of foundational literacy skills: A critical piece of the 
puzzle in the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S287–S315. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.408 

Keene, E. O., & Zimmermann, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a 
reader’s workshop. Heinemann. 

Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path 
toward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets. ACTA Publications. 

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding 
achievement in U. S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12. https://doi.org/
10.3102/0013189X035007003 

Landi, N., & Ryherd, K. (2017). Understanding specific reading comprehension deficit: A review. 
Language and Linguistic Compass, 11(2), e12234. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12234 

Lindo, E. J. (2006). The African American presence in reading intervention experiments. Remedial 
and Special Education, 27(3), 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270030301 

Lipnevich, A. A., Preckel, F., & Roberts, R. D. (2014). Psychosocial skills and school systems in 
the 21st century: Theory, research, and practice. In A. A. Lipnevich, & J. S. Kaufman 
(Eds.), Non-cognitive skills in education (pp. 1–13). Springer. 

https://faculty.washington.edu/smithant/DukeandPearson.pdf
https://faculty.washington.edu/smithant/DukeandPearson.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2021.1911483
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2021.%E2%80%8C1911483
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2021.%E2%80%8C1911483
https://www.goyen.io/blog/student-structured-literacy
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.403
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.408
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.3102/0013189X035007003
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.3102/0013189X035007003
https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12234
https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270030301


Sharpe 37 
 

   
 

Mathie, A., & Cunningham, G. (2003). From clients to citizens: Asset-based community 
development as a strategy for community-driven development. Development in Practice, 
13(5), 474–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/0961452032000125857 

Mein, E. (2018). An asset-based approach to literacy teaching in diverse classrooms. Literacy 
Today, 36(2), 24–25. 

Moats, L. C. (2020). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should 
know and be able to do (2nd ed.). American Federation of Teachers. 
https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/moats.pdf 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). How people learn II: 
Learners, contexts, and cultures. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/
24783 

Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & Elbro, C. (2019). Reading comprehension and reading comprehension 
difficulties. In D. Kilpatrick, R. Joshi, & R. Wagner (Eds.), Reading development and 
difficulties (pp. 83–115). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26550-2_5 

OpenAI. (2025, July 19) ChatGPT (Feb 11 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.
openai.com/ 

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and 
comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. 
https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1 

Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and 
practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X1244
1244 

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. 
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-
476X(83)90019-X 

Pérez, C. C. (2017). The first rule of punk. Viking. 
Pittman, R. T., O’Neal, L., Wright, K., & White, B. R. (2024). Elevating students’ oral and written 

language: Empowering African American students through language. Education Sciences, 
14(11), 1191. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14111191 

Rupley, W. H., Blair, T. R., & Nichols, W. D. (2009). Effective reading instruction for struggling 
readers: The role of direct/explicit teaching. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25(2–3), 125–
138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560802683523 

Sanchez, L., Terrazas, C., & Marek, M. (2024). The science of reading and culturally sustaining 
early literacy for multilingual learners. Texas Association for Literacy Education 
Yearbook, 11, 1–12. Texas Association for Literacy Education. https://eric.ed.gov/
?id=EJ1452337 

Schwartz, S. (2025, July 22). Which states have passed ‘science of reading’ laws? What’s in them? 
Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/which-states-have-passed-
science-of-reading-laws-whats-in-them/2022/07  

https://doi.org/10.1080/0961452032000125857
https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/moats.pdf
https://doi.org/10.17226/24783
https://doi.org/10.17226/24783
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26550-2_5
https://chat.openai.com/
https://chat.openai.com/
https://chat.openai.com/
https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X1244%E2%80%8C1244
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X1244%E2%80%8C1244
https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90019-X
https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90019-X
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14111191
https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560802683523
https://eric.ed.gov/%E2%80%8C?id=EJ1452337
https://eric.ed.gov/%E2%80%8C?id=EJ1452337
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/which-states-have-passed-science-of-reading-laws-whats-in-them/2022/07
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/which-states-have-passed-science-of-reading-laws-whats-in-them/2022/07


38 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(2)  
 

   
 

Sharpe, S. W. (2022). Think‑aloud reading instruction through a culturally responsive teaching 
lens. Literacy Matters: The Journal of the Palmetto State Literacy Association, 22(Winter), 
32–37. https://user-23310503727.cld.bz/Literacy-Matters-Winter-2022/32/ 

Taboada Barber, A., Klauda, S.  L., Wang, W., Cartwright, K. B., & Cutting, L. E. (2022). 
Emergent bilinguals with specific reading comprehension deficits: A comparative and 
longitudinal analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0022219420983247 

U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 
Statistics. (2022). NAEP Report Card: 2022 NAEP reading assessment—Highlights from 
the 2022 assessment. The Nation’s Report Card. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/
highlights/reading/2022 

 
 
Received: August 12, 2025 | Accepted: October 9, 2025 | Published: December 12, 2025 

https://user-23310503727.cld.bz/Literacy-Matters-Winter-2022/32/
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420983247
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1177/0022219420983247
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1177/0022219420983247
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/%E2%80%8Chighlights/reading/2022
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/%E2%80%8Chighlights/reading/2022

	Why This Matters for Equity
	The Science of Reading Meets the Science of Learning
	Table 1: Key Comprehension Strategies and Classroom Examples

	Asset-Based Teaching: Centering Students’ Cultural Knowledge
	Figure 1: Culturally Responsive Think-Aloud Instructional Model (CRTAIM)

	Strategies for Teaching Thinking While Reading
	Teacher Think-Alouds
	Cognitive Scaffolds
	Student Self-Talk & Reflection
	Culturally Responsive Texts
	Collaborative Reading Tasks

	Classroom Vignettes and Examples
	Vignette 1: Ms. Torres and the Power of Prediction
	Vignette 2: Mr. Johnson and the Anchor Chart for Questioning
	Vignette 3: Mr. Halbrook and Reading with a Plan

	Conclusion
	Implications for Future Research
	Acknowledgments
	References

