Suppose the foundations page is the “what,” this page is more of the “why is this all so complicated?” post. Honestly, literacy growth in the middle years is a bit of a wild beast that I am still attempting to tame.

By middle school, we often expect students to read independently, write clearly, discuss thoughtfully, and handle increasingly complex texts in every subject. The trouble is, literacy growth does not depend on one single skill suddenly clicking into place. It depends on a whole mix of factors: knowledge, vocabulary, motivation, self-regulation, discussion, text structure, and whether our students feel safe enough to try in the first place (feeling safe goes beyond the physical classroom, but with their peers, with you, etc.). Duke and Cartwright (2021) argue that comprehension depends not only on word recognition and language comprehension, but also on bridging processes and active self-regulation. Shanahan (2020) similarly reminds us that strong literacy instruction should be grounded in evidence across multiple components, not reduced to phonics alone. 

Motivation and engagement matter more than we sometimes admit

Students are far more likely to grow when literacy feels meaningful, manageable, and worth doing. If the teacher doesn’t seem excited about a lesson, the students won’t either- similarly, if the teacher doesnt make emphasis of important milestones, students won’t know to recognize them. That sounds obvious, but it is easy to forget when students are avoiding tasks, staring at the ceiling, or insisting they are “just bad at reading.” From my studies at Queen’s University, where I am completing a Childhood literacy diploma, I have learned that students are more engaged when tasks have a real purpose, some room for voice, and enough support that the task does not feel impossible or overwhelming (Boscolo & Gelati, 2019). Confidence matters. So does classroom culture. When students expect failure, they often avoid the very reading and writing practice they need most. 

A few small shifts can help. Tell students why they are reading or writing before they begin. Build in choice where you can, topic, text, partner, or response format. Break larger tasks into smaller steps so students can actually experience success before giving up. Most importantly, treat literacy as communication and thinking, not just evaluation (Boscolo & Gelati, 2019). 

Background knowledge helps students make meaning

Sometimes students are not struggling because they are lazy or careless. Sometimes the bridge just is not there yet. Duke and Cartwright (2021) describe bridging processes as the moves that connect word reading and language comprehension, including inference and the use of background knowledge. When students do not know enough about a topic, time period, vocabulary set, or context, comprehension can fall apart quickly. That is why older students can sometimes read fluently aloud and still not understand much of what they have just read. 

This is where teachers can do a lot with very practical moves. Pre-teach a few key ideas before reading. Use images, maps, short clips, timelines, or anticipation guides. Ask yourself, “What would a reader need to know before this text makes sense?” That one question alone can improve instruction quite a bit.

Vocabulary and morphology are not extras

Students cannot fully access texts if they do not understand the language in which those texts are written. Graves (2016) emphasizes rich language experiences, direct teaching of words, word-learning strategies, and word consciousness as key parts of vocabulary growth. Morphology matters too because morphemes carry meaning and support decoding, spelling, and vocabulary development (Apel & Werfel, 2014; Henry, 2019). In the middle years, this becomes even more important because school language gets more abstract, more academic, and more discipline-specific. 

A few useful reminders here: teach fewer words, but teach them more deeply. Revisit them across reading, discussion, and writing. Pause to notice interesting word choices in authentic texts. Teach roots, prefixes, and suffixes in ways that feel age-respectful, not babyish. Secondary students may look old enough to know word-learning strategies already, but many have never actually been taught how to use context, morphology, or reference tools effectively (Graves et al., 2018). 

Comprehension depends on active reading, not just word calling

This is one of the strongest ideas that I have been taught during my time at Queen’s, and honestly, it is one of the most important when it comes to literacy instruction.

Reading words is not the same thing as understanding a text. Students may decode accurately but miss pronoun references, connectives, appositives, text structure, or the larger meaning of a passage. Letchford and Rasinski (2021) argue that pronoun resolution matters because readers must identify the correct referent to understand who is speaking, acting, or being described. Mesmer and Rose-McCully (2018) similarly show that sentence-level structures such as anaphora, connectives, and appositives are essential for building meaning across a text. 

This is also where active self-regulation becomes a major factor. Duke and Cartwright (2021) highlight the importance of monitoring comprehension, noticing confusion, and using strategies to repair meaning when it breaks down. That is especially important for students with attention difficulties, anxiety, executive functioning challenges, or weak confidence as readers. Helpful teacher moves include asking, “Who does this refer to?”, naming signal words like however and because, and modelling what to do when meaning slips away. 

Discussion helps students think their way into understanding

Talk is not something that happens after learning. Very often, it is part of the learning. McElhone (2019) emphasizes that purposeful text-based discussion helps students deepen and transform their thinking. Nash (2019) also highlights the value of structured partner talk and low-risk speaking opportunities. Students often make sense of a text by paraphrasing, clarifying, questioning, and hearing how others interpret the same passage. 

That means discussion needs structure. Think-pair-share can lower the social risk of participation. Sentence starters can help students speak in academic language without inventing it from scratch. Reciprocal teaching roles, predictor, questioner, clarifier, summarizer, can make comprehension talk feel more manageable and purposeful (McElhone, 2019; Nash, 2019).  Now my only struggle is encouraging resistant classes to begin discussions!

Text structure gives students a map

Sometimes students get lost in a text not because they cannot read it, but because they do not know how it is built.

Authors Oakhill, Cain, and Elbro (2015) make a strong case that text structure knowledge supports comprehension because it helps readers anticipate how ideas are organized and connected. Narrative and informational texts work differently, and students do not always absorb those patterns naturally. Therefore, explicit instruction in signal words, common structures, and graphic organizers can help students identify main ideas and relationships across a text (Oakhill et al., 2015). 

This is one of those areas where very small teaching shifts can make a big difference.

  • Name the structure before students read.
  • Use one consistent organizer for each structure type.
  • Teach signal words directly.
  • Ask students how the text is organized, not just what it says.

Classroom conditions shape growth too

This part matters just as much as the academic pieces. Literacy cannot be separated from the realities students bring with them. Anxiety, shame, previous failure, trauma, attention, and uneven participation all shape whether students can engage with literacy tasks at all. What looks like disengagement is often overwhelm, confusion, or years of accumulated frustration rather than simple defiance. That makes classroom culture a literacy factor, not just a behaviour factor. 

That means support needs to be normal, not stigmatizing. Routines should be predictable. Scaffolds should be age-respectful. Asking for help, rereading, and saying “I’m confused” should be treated as smart reader behaviours, not failures. In middle years classrooms, that kind of humane support can make a real difference in whether students are willing to keep trying. 

References

Apel, K., & Werfel, K. (2014). Using morphological awareness instruction to improve written language skills. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(4), 251–260.

Boscolo, P., & Gelati, C. (2019). Motivating writers. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & M. Hebert (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the Simple View of Reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S25–S44.

Graves, M. F. (2016). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. Teachers College Press.

Graves, M. F., Schneider, S., & Ringstaff, C. (2018). Empowering students with word-learning strategies: Teach a child to fish. The Reading Teacher, 71(5), 533–543.

Henry, M. K. (2019). Morphemes matter: A framework for instruction. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, Spring 2019, 23–26.

Letchford, L., & Rasinski, T. (2021). Moving beyond decoding: Teaching pronoun resolution to develop reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 75(2), 233–240.

McElhone, D. (2019). Text talk: Engaging students in productive text-based discussion. International Literacy Association.

Mesmer, H. A., & Rose-McCully, M. M. (2018). A closer look at close reading: Three under-the-radar skills needed to comprehend sentences. The Reading Teacher, 71(4), 451–461.

Nash, R. (2019). Incorporating structured conversations. In The interactive classroom: Practical strategies for involving students in the learning process (3rd ed.). Corwin.

Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & Elbro, C. (2015). Understanding and teaching reading comprehension: A handbook. Routledge.

Shanahan, T. (2020). What constitutes a science of reading instruction? Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S235–S247.