Reading shortcuts for children may be popular, but the research doesn’t back them up

This year marks the UK’s National Year of Reading, which aims to rebuild good reading habits and enjoyment as child and adolescent reading declines year on year.

Reading enjoyment is at its lowest level for two decades, according to the National Literacy Trust’s annual survey. This matters because books expose children to a broader and richer vocabulary than everyday conversation, giving them access to words and language patterns they are less likely to hear.

Researchers do not point to a single cause for the decline, but studies suggest a mix of competing activities, weaker reading motivation and limited access to books that match children’s interests. This decline brings with it a sense of urgency, but also a risk because quick fixes often do not align with research.

We do have strong evidence about one crucial ingredient. Children need to learn how print represents speech sounds and practise decoding until word reading becomes accurate and fluent. That’s why phonics – the teaching of letter-sound relationships to help children sound out written words – is embedded in early literacy instruction. Phonics isn’t the whole of reading (comprehension is also key), but it is a necessary foundation. Importantly, it isn’t a shortcut: it takes time, practice and good teaching.

So where do shortcuts come in? Alongside the teaching methods we know help children to read, parents and teachers are often encouraged to try commercial products, online trends and social media campaigns that promise faster progress. But do they work? Here are five popular shortcuts and what the research suggests.

1. Bypassing phonics: an unhelpful avoidance strategy

When phonics isn’t working for a child, a common suggestion is an “alternative”: memorising whole words, relying on pictures or guessing from context cues (multi-cueing). However, when children are encouraged to bypass decoding words, they are not developing a reliable method for reading new words independently.

Reviews of intervention research indicate phonics training can improve decoding and word reading for poor readers. In other words, if a child is struggling with learning to read, the answer is usually more explicit teaching and guided practice in matching sounds to letters, not strategies that avoid it.

2. Coloured overlays: comfort is not the same as improved reading

Coloured overlays are transparent coloured sheets placed over a page and are often promoted as a way of reducing “visual stress” and making reading easier, especially for children with dyslexia. However, numerous studies and a systematic review have shown that the research does not support coloured lenses/overlays as a treatment for reading difficulty.

This doesn’t mean visual discomfort should be ignored. Headaches, glare sensitivity or unusual visual symptoms merit clinical attention. But it does mean overlays shouldn’t be treated as a primary intervention for decoding, fluency or comprehension, and there is no good evidence of meaningful improvements in reading outcomes for dyslexic children.

3. Turn on the subtitles: exposure isn’t the same as practice

Turning on subtitles while watching TV gives additional exposure to print that we might expect to improve reading. However, a recent study with year 2-3 children showed that six weeks of TV viewing with subtitles did not result in gains in reading fluency beyond the improvement seen in children generally.

One likely reason is that children who are not yet fluent readers often don’t look at the subtitles when they are watching TV enough for them to function as reading practice. Why would you look at the text at the bottom of the screen if you can’t make sense of it? But even when they do, “book language” includes rarer vocabulary and more complex grammar than everyday speech, so books still add something extra.

4. Specialist fonts: spacing can help, ‘dyslexia fonts’ less so

Dyslexia-friendly fonts are specially designed typefaces that aim to make letters easier to tell apart, often by changing their shape, weight or spacing. They are appealing because they’re easy to implement. But when studies measure reading objectively, specialist typefaces typically don’t deliver the improvements implied.

Research comparing specialist and standard typefaces (while controlling spacing between words and letters) tends to find little or no meaningful advantage for word or passage reading. Formatting such as larger print, more generous spacing and shorter line lengths can sometimes make text easier to navigate visually and therefore more comfortable to read.

But this should not be viewed as a substitute for instruction that builds decoding and fluency. And specialist typefaces have no impact on comprehension either – which, after all, is the ultimate goal of reading.

5. ‘Bionic’ reading: bold claims, weak evidence

Bionic reading (bolding the beginnings of words) has spread rapidly online with claims that bolding helps guide readers’ eyes to the relevant part of a word which “lets the brain centre complete the word”, which in turn increases reading speed. However, research doesn’t support these claims: bionic formatting does not reduce reading times compared with standard text in well-controlled experiments, nor does it improve comprehension. Some readers may prefer the format of bionic reading, but preference is not evidence of improved reading skill.

So what does work?

The key distinction is between changes that make reading feel easier and changes that make reading better. Adjustments such as font, spacing or subtitles may support access or enjoyment for some children, but they don’t replace the slow and necessary work of building fluent word reading.

For children struggling with decoding or reading accuracy, we have known what works best for many years now. Teach decoding explicitly, practise it in texts that match what’s been taught, build fluency with short frequent practice, and teach spelling alongside reading. And if progress is slow, increase the dose (more time, more guidance) rather than looking to alternative methods.

This is a particularly difficult message for parents of children with dyslexia or other reading difficulties, who desperately want to help their child with what they find hardest. But it is crucial that we don’t promote myths or interventions that are not backed up by evidence.

As a rule of thumb, if it seems too good to be true, it most likely is. Learning to read in English is really hard and it takes time. As much as we might wish otherwise, there’s no quick fix.

Holly Joseph does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.