Introduction:

The teaching of climate education has undergone a change in recent years. We’ve seen a broad move away from the simplistic ‘for and against’ debates at global scale which characterized early discussions, and even some exam specifications and online resources. From the early stages of improving our understanding of the science and issues (Knight & Adger, 2015; Knight et al. 2021) and resources available (Rackley, 2019), we are increasingly seeing climate education in Geography classrooms as a synoptic and decision-making activity at the local scale (Hicks, 2019; Barton & Noyes, 2022). It is a core part of a wider sustainability strategy (DfE, 2022a), but the focus is often on the  ‘causes and impact of climate change’ (DfE, 2022a: Action Area 1), while sustainability and solutions are more loosely defined.

Research indicates that policy makers, school leaders and Geography teachers need to recognise the interests of staff and young people alike (Dunlop et al., 2022). Rather than focusing solely on the ‘net zero’ policy agenda and economic concerns (Dunlop & Rushton, 2022), it is important that we support young people to engage with decision making and participation at different scales.

Doing this is difficult. The global and regional variance in climate impacts is hugely complex, and we often have limited options for engaging with methods of solving climate change beyond analysis of the existing frameworks of the UNFCCC or COP mechanisms which are potentially policy-heavy. Teachers may be wary of discussions which breach political impartiality (DfE, 2022b), and seek more engaging methods of bringing the debates around the approach to solving climate change in to their classroom.

Here, we’ll look at the EN-ROADS Simulator as an opportunity to explore potential solution pathways at a range of scales with greater confidence and data. The model will be briefly described, and then we’ll explore ways that it might be practically used in the classroom to provoke meaningful debate about multi-scale approaches to solving climate change.

What is the EN-ROADS Simulator?

EN-ROADS is an evidence-informed, browser-based simulator for climate change solutions. It focuses on how changes in global GDP, energy efficiency, technological innovation, and carbon price influence carbon emissions, global temperature, and other factors (Chikofsky et al., 2022).

It is designed to provide a synthesis of the best available science on climate solutions and put it at the fingertips of non-specialist users through education, policy workshops and roleplaying games. These experiences enable people to explore the long-term climate impacts of global policy and investment decisions.

It is accessed via a web browser address (https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/), which allows free and simple access for any user. No registration, payment or particular software is required, making it ideal for use in schools with potential firewall or restrictions on installed software. The relatively simple interface conceals a rigorous and extensive evidence-informed platform of synthesis and data, with over 400 pages of referencing and standardization analysis available to support interested users (Siegel et al., 2022).

Accessing & Using the Simulator:

On access, the default setting of the simulator is ‘business as usual’, showing the global distribution of primary energy and the impact on global temperature trends. Figure 1 shows an example of what you would see on logging in.

Underneath the main output, you see eighteen different ‘sliders’ which represent actions that could be taken to bring about social, economic and environmental change. For each, you can move the slider using the mouse, or find further details and mechanics of the individual solution. You can also see related graphs which directly connect to the changes that occur from moving an individual slider. A drop down menu enables further control and insight in to this process. Any slider movement represents a decision to deviate from ‘business as usual’ scenarios, and the impacts are then observable through the output graphs.

There are over 100 different output graphs available in EN-ROADS. They show data from different parts of the global energy and climate system, and they update as you move sliders within EN-ROADS.

Figure 2 shows the options for adjusting the graph display, and are linked to different related themes and outputs.

After the energy distribution and global temperature default, the most popular option for an overview of impacts are the Kaya Graphs (Figure 3), which reflect the variables of the equation below created by Yoichi Kaya:

Global Population × GDP per Capita × Energy Intensity of GDP × Carbon Intensity of Energy = CO2 Emissions from Energy

They depict the drivers of growth in carbon dioxide emissions from energy, which reflects about two thirds of all greenhouse gas emissions (Chikofsky et al., 2022). To access the Kaya Graphs view, click on the “View” menu bar item and then “Kaya Graphs.”

How can you teach with this?

So, how can you make use of this simulator and resource to support learning and decision making with your students about the solutions to climate change?

Teacher use as a data set

The first option is simply to use it yourself as a resource to be regularly referred to in your classroom. The simulator can be used as a displayed resource at the front of the classroom to model potential solutions, or to show the potential impacts of decisions as part of a teacher-led discussion and exploratory sequence.

This is, perhaps, where the ‘behind the scenes’ details may be most significantly deployed. The directive nature of teacher-led work allows you to alternate between different outputs and views – from the standard to the Kaya graphs, or to the specific details – and to drill deeper in to some of the specific mechanisms, costs or details that underpin the outcomes of variance.

For example, Figure 4 shows a sample of some of the detailed thinking behind the carbon pricing mechanism ‘lever’. It allows a more advanced group – perhaps an A Level class – to explore specific processes, market mechanisms, and the high-level thinking behind the lever. A teacher-led discussion could explore specific decisions or unpick some of the more complex mechanics for students who understand and explore Economics, or give further exemplification of specific policies from a GCSE Energy unit, or an Economic World discussion.

The depth and structural thinking that sit behind the simulator are ideally suited to teacher resource use, but perhaps more powerful structures result from student engagement and decision making about what sliders to change.

Decision Making Exercise – Short Activity

For a quick engagement with the simulator, it is likely that a whole class activity is most suitable as a decision-making exercise. Ideally, at the end of a sequence of learning looking at climate impacts and potential solutions, students can explore their ability to make quick decisions. The key outcomes are to understand the relative impacts of different decisions, and to be able to briefly evaluate a sense of comparison and success.

For this kind of activity, the key is to focus on the actions and the solution sliders. You may want to encourage groups to question each other, and think about the pragmatic or realistic consequences of making particular slider decisions, but each group is focusing on the relative effectiveness and ‘cost-benefit analysis’ of the slider and solutions, rather than how they interact.

Full Conference/Simulation-style Activity

The original intent of the EN-ROADS simulator is for more complex discussions and perspectives to be generated. Formal workshops (https://www.climateinteractive.org/the-en-roads-climate-workshop/) aim to replicate negotiation scenarios – simulating the Conference of the Parties, or similar international roundtable discussions. The simulations and workshops are intended to explore the impact of sliders, but to add a role-play element where negotiation and understanding perspective are just as critical for success. You may choose to contextualise the experience through the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties timelines (https://unfccc.int/timeline/) to show the actions that have already been taken.

For the workshop, groups are assigned roles to play: perhaps as countries, or as international bodies or non-governmental organisations. Instead of the singular goal for temperature, the objective is for the collective group to succeed through negotiation to the optimal outcome. You can choose to brief people in advance, or present the briefing materials as part of the conference workshop.

Doing this requires more set up and long-term development of resources, together with coherent discussions and classroom management, and likely more time than a regular lesson would permit. It works well for a drop-down day activity, or perhaps a conference or external day that overlaps with a Model UN extra-curricular group.

Resources are available to support the deployment of this activity (see references) which help teachers to build their confidence with leadership of the climate simulation and discussion of impacts. The resources are also excellent for understanding some of the wider teaching of climate change, even if you don’t intend to use the simulator!

Recommendations

Increasingly, teachers want to build their confidence with discussions of solutions to climate change. Here, the EN-ROADS simulator has been presented as a potential option to improve the evidence basis for solution-focused work in the classroom. The browser-based approach offers free and easily accessible engagement with expertly-curated and rigorously tested simulation models, and enable students and teachers to explore different outcomes and solutions to climate change with confidence and optimism.

Three approaches to solution-focused work have been explored: showing the range of ways in which the simulator and the accompanying resources and materials can be effectively used with students. Whether directly as a teacher resource, or in workshop or quick access form, the simulator and website resources offer an excellent bank of information and resources for schools and teachers to access.

We recommend that you try to make time to explore the website as an individual teacher, or perhaps even consider in a Department or Faculty meeting how the simulator and resources can be effectively incorporated in to a curriculum or sequence of learning. Further learning through the workshop resources can provide free professional development for teachers (or interested older students), and the learning platform enables certification and a formal training programme to be access for free by those with time and interest to do so.

The simulator offers mechanisms by which we can start to build hope for solutions in students. Understanding the options, and what impact they might have for the future of the planet is a way to address some of the concerns being raised by students (Dunlop et al., 2022) with a strong platform of evidence. It offers deeper insight in to global negotiations which can be hard to unpick from the outside, and optimism that good decisions can make real difference.

References

Barton & Noyes (2022) COP26: You choose – climate change, Teaching Geography 47 (1), 8-10

Chikofsky et al. (2022) EN-ROADS User Guide, available online at: https://docs.climateinteractive.org/projects/en-roads/en/latest/guide/tutorial.html

Climate Interactive: Simulation Resources available online: https://www.climateinteractive.org/climate-action-simulation/leading-the-climate-action-simulation/#materials

Department for Education (2022a) Sustainability and Climate Change: A Strategy for the Education and Children’s Services Systems, accessed online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sustainability-and-climate-change-strategy/sustainability-and-climate-change-a-strategy-for-the-education-and-childrens-services-systems#action-area-1-climate-education , October 2022

Department for Education (2022b) Political Impartiality in Schools, guidance note published online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/political-impartiality-in-schools/political-impartiality-in-schools, accessed October 2022

Dunlop & Rushton (2022) Putting climate change at the heart of education: Is England’s strategy a placebo for policy?

Dunlop et al. (2022) Teacher and youth priorities for education for environmental sustainability: a co-created manifesto, British Educational Research Journal, 48 (5), 952-973

Hicks (2019) Climate change: bringing the pieces together, Teaching Geography, 44 (1), 20-23

Knight & Adger (2015) Climate Change – Emerging Scientific Issues, Teaching Geography, 40 (3)

Knight et al. (2021) Weather and Climate: A Teacher’s Guide, Royal Meteorological Society: Reading (available online: https://www.metlink.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/RMS_weather_and_climate_title_and_content.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0eCZD7q0oF4NYXAJqRqVtSWuo0E5Q15b_KFa-cCVfs1zyLOsVekfw8RHM, accessed October 2022)

Rackley (2019) Resources to teach the changing nature of climate and energy, Teaching Geography, 44 (2), 62-65

Siegel et al (2022) EN-ROADS Simulator Reference Guide, available online at: https://www.climateinteractive.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/En-ROADS_Reference_Guide_03_2022-2.pdf

One of the real joys of the work that I now do is exploring different pedagogies from disciplines that I’ve never encountered before. Here, I’d like to talk about something that I’ve seen in English pedagogy, and consider if – and how – we might want to conceptualise something similar for Geography.

Appleyard (1990) Theory of Reader Development.

In this model, Appleyard (1990) is setting out how individuals make progress as readers of literature. Each chapter represents Appleyard’s suggested stages of development: early childhood, later childhood, adolescence, college and beyond, and adulthood. At each stage, Appleyard describes the essence of the reader’s psychodynamic approach – rather than focusing on what they are reading, underpinned by different psychological and literary theories.

Appleyard’s theory of reader development, showing the progression from player, through hero, thinker and critic towards pragmatist. This diagram has Goodywn’s (1997) pedagogue adaptation added.

The five stages are:

Player: This is the stage where young children engage in make believe and story telling. The begin to learn what makes something a story, but they position themselves in stories they present – stories are mostly play.

Hero: This is the stage where a young person identifies with a hero in a story, or another character – they are swept up in the story. They might feel strongly about a character, not recognising they are a construct created by an author.

Thinker: This is the stage where a young person understands that characters are constructed, created by an author. They begin to be able to comment on how the writer has does this and the effect on the reader.

Critic/Interpreter: This is the stage where a reader can take different stances and apply different lenses to the literature they read. They engage critically. They might develop this through learning about different movements in literary criticism. This stage is needed for A-level and degree reading.

Pragmatist: A pragmatist is the adult reader, able to make selections as to what reading experience they want. You might have experienced this – you are reading and analysing texts for your course of study but once you have a break from studying, you might turn to texts you have read before for comfort or to fall in love with a character.

This model is widely adopted as an underpinning theory for how you can teach or encounter readership, for students and for readers in general. We can see how this might link to key phases of a National Curriculum sequence, or where we encounter components of learning, and this provides a useful framework for scholarship and for pedagogy alike.

A Geographical equivalent?

So, the logical question is whether there is a Geographical equivalent, and if so, what might it include? Based on Appleyard’s five stages, I’ve proposed the following:

Local Hero: in the first phase, the understanding of the world is grounded in place and personal experience. The initial stages of Geography are descriptive, about the world that the student knows – and almost exclusively that. The scale of the world is personal, and fairly local, and the engagement with it relatively descriptive in nature. Like Appleyard, this early Geography engagement places the student experience at the hero centre of the world.

Storyteller: in the second phase, the Geographer is process focused, and learning ‘how things work’. This requires conceptual understanding of time scale and process, and may see some spatial process development. We might see the synthesis of space, scale and time, to help generate explanation clarity (e.g. showing multiple phases of a coastal landform on the same diagram) which creates a relatively singular or linear explanation sense in the student.

Us vs “Them”: in the third phase, the Geographer is able to compare and look for differences between places or examples. We may see this in a ‘place’ case study, or something similar – e.g. the NC studies of “a comparative location”. This is still grounded in personal experience relative to an undefined or unexperienced and tentative ‘other’, and there is likely to be an implicit ‘othering’ that takes place as part of this comparison. There may start to be a tentative global scale of process and ideas. This feels like the top end of KS3 or first part of KS4 in experience for many students, where they have a sense of differences and places, but not quite got the experience or empathy to bring them together, or have a coherent sense of representation and their role in co-constructing the narrative of other.

Evaluative Observer: in the fourth phase, the Geographer is able to judge and evaluate and hold comparative opinions. They are able to provide some relative importance or understanding of connections and synthesis. As they move through the end of GCSE towards their A Level experience, the student is able to generate judgements based on a range of information and selected engagement with the world, and show some sophistication in their understanding as we move towards early undergraduate experiences. This is still a relatively abstract and impersonal conceptualisation, and the Geographer does not play an active role in understanding or evaluating their own lens or structuralist approach in constructing their world view.

Synoptic Pragmatist: finally, the Geographer is able to recognise the construction of the discipline and narrative, and brings threads and components together fluently to construct sophisticated meaning. They are likely to have a stronger sense of ontology and epistemology, and be able to deconstruct their own lens in exploring the worldview and approach they have to understanding and their judgement about the world. It’s possible that they will also have accelerated through this phase by travel or increased personal experience of the world, but this is not necessarily the same as the theoretical and disciplinary consciousness that are developed through systematic and critical reading.

Reflections:

I think this type of thinking helps teachers and Geographers to reflect and develop the students and their experience. Having a sense of perspective, and where in the journey the ‘Geographers’ in front of us might be helps us to help them move through their disciplinary engagement and learning. Thinking about the concepts and topic knowledge only helps us so far; how do we support and develop their progress and development through the wider world of becoming better Geographers!

I do believe that this is a good tool to have in our consideration; but I’m not sure if these are the right five building blocks and themes. I’ve not read extensively on this conceptual development, and I’d be keen to have feedback and thinking shared about how we could collectively build on this further!

Appleyard, J. (1990).  Becoming a reader: The experience of fiction from childhood to adulthood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 

Literacy is the ability to communicate in all forms for all purposes. If we are literate, we have the reading, writing and oracy skills and knowledge needed for success in life.​

As Geographers, the multidisciplinary nature of our subject means that we need to build confidence in a range of different areas. We want our pupils to read and write fluently, but we’ll also want them to have spatial, numeracy and graphical skills to function as Geographers – but for now, I just want to reflect on literacy.

We know it’s important, especially for our pupils. The ECF recommends that teachers should work to develop pupils’ literacy by:

• Demonstrating a clear understanding of systematic synthetic phonics, particularly if teaching early reading and spelling.
• Supporting younger pupils to become fluent readers and to write fluently and legibly.
• Teaching unfamiliar vocabulary explicitly and planning for pupils to be repeatedly exposed to high-utility and high-frequency vocabulary in what is taught.
• Modelling reading comprehension by asking questions, making predictions, and summarising when reading.
• Promoting reading for pleasure (e.g. by using a range of whole class reading approaches and regularly reading high-quality texts to children).
• Modelling and requiring high-quality oral language, recognising that spoken language underpins the development of reading and writing

And yet, there’s not much published literature that is Geography specific. Even if you reflect on the OFSTED Subject Research Review, the only reference to ‘literacy’ in the OFSTED guidance is in terms of “spatial literacy”.  It’s an interesting reflection – Walshe’s chapter in The Handbook of Secondary Geography seems to be the most Geography specific writing I can find!

In this blog post, I want to look at some of the theory and thinking, and call for a better strategic and curricular understanding of disciplinary literacy in our subject – and ask where and why this exists to support Geography teachers.

Literacy Theory: Scarborough’s Reading Rope

While we are all teachers of literacy – in the development of vocabulary, reading and writing in our subjects – we are clearly not all experts in the stages and development of literacy and the principles behind it. We build on the amazing work of our Key Stage 2 colleagues, and focus on supporting our Secondary Geography students to develop their skills further in our subject.

In 2001, literacy specialist Hollis Scarborough proposed a model for the ‘strands’ needed to develop literacy and reading skills. The “reading rope” model helps teachers to understand and visualise the components needed to build fluency, and to see where their subject contributes.

Some of these concepts and ideas may already be familiar to you from your classroom. You’ll probably have introduced new words to pupils as part of a new topic, or as you develop through from KS3 to KS4. I am comfortable with the fact that I did some of this work as a Geography teacher, or as a Head of Department, but I don’t think I ever really saw a coherent overview of it in this same way. There are two different dimensions of this to explore.

First, how do we do some of the specific individual activities on the left?

Second, how do we make progress through time on the arrows? How do we make this increasingly automatic – and how do we use our understanding of cognitive science principles to help? How do we make this increasingly strategic – and use some of the curriculum planning principles from Gardner (2022) – to embed this development in our medium- and long-term planning?

Why do we need to develop vocabulary?

One of the top strategies outlined by the EEF is to focus on the development of ‘disciplinary literacy’ – the specific set of vocabulary, reading and writing skills associated with our subject. You may sometimes see this referred to as ‘Tier 2’ vocabulary (you can read this optional blog as an excellent introduction to the principles of how it applies to Geography).

If you have a look at the vocabulary associated with the GCSE Geography specification, you can see just how significant a task the ‘vocabulary’ element of the Geography curriculum becomes. One of the biggest challenges of the new-specification GCSE Geography content for teachers and students alike is the sheer volume of content providing cognitive overwhelm.

You can see how it’d be easy to just use all of your learning hours teaching the expected vocabulary for the GCSE course – and that’s without any understanding of theories, processes, or case studies and context. And we haven’t included the skill development; whether Geographical and fieldwork skills, writing and explaining skills, or being able to respond in exam conditions – all of which require repetition and spaced practice.

For learners with any additional challenges – whether that’s in terms of neurodiversity, additional learning needs, or English as an Additional Language – this is a huge structural obstacle to accessing great Geography.

Developing Vocab: How do you do this practically?

There are a number of techniques that can be used to help you teach new vocabulary to pupils in any subject setting. One of the most popular and effective is the ‘Frayer Model’, based on a template developed to help organise understanding of a new term or complex vocabulary choice.

Reflecting on this short introduction to the Frayer Model, written by English teacher Alex Quigley – author of ‘Closing the Reading Gap’, leads us to consider:

• What are the advantages of teaching in Geography using the Frayer Model?
• What are the disadvantages of teaching in Geography using the Frayer Model?
• Is the cost-benefit assessment worth it for Geography? Why? Why not?

A modified Frayer model, from the Texas Alliance for Geographic Education (2014), shows the way you could potentially extend this to link to physical Geography, process or landscapes, for example. Does this solve the challenges of cost benefit for Geography?

While I think I’d definitely endorse the value and structure of the Frayer Model in principle, it’s clear that teaching every single Tier 2 vocabulary term would be unworkable in terms of teaching hours. This is where we need to get more deliberate in terms of our curriculum choices, or consider solutions which might help us develop this beyond the classroom.

For example, in this blog post, Abdurrahman Perez talks about the focus on keywords and command words at GCSE and A Level with his Geography class. You can see how this systematic approach embeds the routine in to the day to day of your lessons – and even make it fun!

In other places, together with the systematic approach in lessons, a number of schools and thinkers have experimented with a ‘flipped learning’ approach to vocabulary. Here, pupils are set structured homework to learn vocabulary. You can see Jo Facer (2016)’s early reflections on this approach from Michaela Community School, which uses flashcards and vocab books. 

A number of other schools have turned to technology solutions to systematise this for their pupils. You might like to look at blogs from Carousel Learning (Adam Boxer, Science) or Quizlet (David Preece, Geography) as examples of how this can be done. Pupils can access flashcards and quizzes in multiple formats from different devices, and have access to standardised vocab lists which provide a consistent (and exam-spec) appropriate definition. Some platforms allow you to set up classes and structures which dovetail with your own learning platforms, or set and monitor pupils progress directly. Clearly, there’s a cost-benefit discussion to be had about creating these mechanisms and spending money on subscriptions, but they can offer a technological solution to vocabulary learning which can mitigate some of the ‘classroom time’ concerns of the Frayer Model.

Clearly, it’s important to have a longer-term discussion and vision in mind for these activities. They are structures which need to be carefully thought out, considered and embedded over a curriculum.

Developing Vocab: How do you do this strategically?

When we looked at the vocabulary list for AQA’s GCSE, we saw that there were huge numbers of terms that were expected for GCSE students. We described some of the impact on student workload, time and cognitive load of teaching that, even with excellent strategies like we’ve just outlined.

So, how do we resolve that? I think the key is in the strategic arrow of Scarborough’s Reading Rope – the thread of connection between our previous work in Key Stage 3, and perhaps the wider contexts – to make the development of this vocabulary an explicit strategy that we adopt through curriculum planning.

Try a brief thought experiment, which I think will illustrate the need for this strategic work. If you go through the vocabulary list from the GCSE specification again, consider sorting the words in to one of three categories:

• Words you’d expect a KS3 student in your school context to know or understand as part of their regular curriculum
• Words you’d expect a KS3 student in your school context to have learned in their Geography lessons prior to starting their GCSE course
• Words that you’d anticipate deliberately having to teach a KS4 student

Of course, it’s likely that the words will be associated with specific topics from the course. You wouldn’t teach tectonics terms in an urban unit, for example – so you may want to group them together to provide some kind of cohesive vocabulary unit that you’d want to associate with some topics.

Immediately, you should be able to see the importance of the long-term perspective here. We’d estimate that a substantial proportion of your vocab list from KS4 is actually taught and embedded from Key Stage Three curriculum thinking. This is why it’s so vital to have a joined-up approach to your curriculum intent and implementation, and to build on the approaches Gardner (2022) talks about in sequencing of skills and connective threads.

If you find that there isn’t a big overlap with KS3, it’s perhaps worth reflecting on either the topic choices and curricular thread between KS3 to 4 OR reflecting on whether your KS3 curriculum is ambitious enough to support the aspiration of great Geography at Key Stage 4!

We also recognise the role that wider cultural capital, or our colleagues in other subjects and Departments might be able to play in supporting our development of vocabulary in our pupils. Working together with other Departments and subjects can be a really powerful way to build curriculum coherence, and understand what our pupils are seeing in different places.

It can also be critical in highlighting misconceptions: sometimes we see that words have different meaning in other subjects, and it’s really helpful to be able to plan ahead and avoid the misconceptions that it can generate. As ever, teaching is a team sport – how can you make use of your colleagues, other Departments and literacy leads to get the best outcomes for your own pupils?

Reflections:

I can definitely remember teaching vocab as part of the classroom experience, and thinking about the topic-specific vocabulary that I wanted my students to know. I was a big fan of Quizlet, and seeing how that all helped with exported definitions – particularly for GCSE – was really helpful for me. I definitely taught students how to analyse sources, or how to write differently as we progressed through the course, but it was always under the label of “exam skills” rather than literacy.

But I don’t think I ever thought about the structured and disciplinary approach like this. Scarborough’s reading rope helps to clarify some of the techniques that we might use in the day to day classroom, but I don’t think I’d ever thought about the strategic and curricular dimension of it in quite such stark terms. Perhaps this is just me? Maybe other schools have a curriculum which does map their vocab, and knows when students will first encounter words, and how that will sequence and build up over time – but I’m not sure.

There’s a lot about developing literacy, and a lot of great advice, but so little of it seems to be discipline specific. Colleagues in other subjects have expressed similar thoughts – so I’m curious to unpick and understand some of the challenges here. Is it not high leverage enough? Is it not something we have enough expertise or training in? I’m curious and grateful to hear thoughts and perspectives!

References:

Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for research in early literacy. New York: Guilford Press. Available online (accessed Sep 2022)