Month: October 2025

Identifying kids who need help learning to read isn’t as easy as A, B, C

by Anne Trafton |

In most states, schools are required to screen students as they enter kindergarten — a process that is meant to identify students who may need extra help learning to read. However, a new study by MIT researchers suggests that these screenings may not be working as intended in all schools.

The researchers’ survey of about 250 teachers found that many felt they did not receive adequate training to perform the tests, and about half reported that they were not confident that children who need extra instruction in reading end up receiving it.

When performed successfully, these screens can be essential tools to make sure children get the extra help they need to learn to read. However, the new findings suggest that many school districts may need to tweak how they implement the screenings and analyze the results, the researchers say.

“This result demonstrates the need to have a systematic approach for how the basic science on how children learn to read is translated into educational opportunity,” says John Gabrieli, the Grover Hermann Professor of Health Sciences and Technology, a professor of brain and cognitive sciences, and a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research.

Gabrieli is the senior author of the new open-access study, which appears today in Annals of Dyslexia. Ola Ozernov-Palchik, an MIT research scientist who is also a research assistant professor at Boston University Wheelock College of Education and Human Development, is the lead author of the study.

Boosting literacy

Over the past 20 years, national reading proficiency scores in the United States have trended up, but only slightly. In 2022, 33 percent of fourth-graders achieved reading proficiency, compared to 29 percent in 1992, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress reading report card. (The highest level achieved in the past 20 years was 37 percent, in 2017.)

In hopes of boosting those rates, most states have passed laws requiring students to be screened for potential reading struggles early in elementary school. In most cases, the screenings are required two or three times per year, in kindergarten, first grade, and second grade.

These tests are designed to identify students who have difficulty with skills such as identifying letters and the sounds they make, blending sounds to make words, and recognizing words that rhyme. Students with low scores in these measures can then be offered extra interventions designed to help them catch up.

“The indicators of future reading disability or dyslexia are present as early as within the first few months of kindergarten,” Ozernov-Palchik says. “And there’s also an overwhelming body of evidence showing that interventions are most effective in the earliest grades.”

In the new study, the researchers wanted to evaluate how effectively these screenings are being implemented in schools. With help from the National Center for Improving Literacy, they posted on social media sites seeking classroom teachers and reading specialists who are responsible for administering literacy screening tests.

The survey respondents came from 39 states and represented public and private schools, located in urban, suburban, and rural areas. The researchers asked those teachers dozens of questions about their experience with the literacy screenings, including questions about their training, the testing process itself, and the results of the screenings.

One of the significant challenges reported by the respondents was a lack of training. About 75 percent reported that they received fewer than three hours of training on how to perform the screens, and 44 percent received no training at all or less than an hour of training.

“Under ideal conditions, there is an expert who trains the educators, they provide practice opportunities, they provide feedback, and they observe the educators administer the assessment,” Ozernov-Palchik says. “None of this was done in many of the cases.”

Instead, many educators reported that they spent their own time figuring out how to give the evaluations, sometimes working with colleagues. And, new hires who arrived at a school after the initial training was given were often left on their own to figure it out.

Another major challenge was suboptimal conditions for administering the tests. About 80 percent of teachers reported interruptions during the screenings, and 40 percent had to do the screens in noisy locations such as a school hallway. More than half of the teachers also reported technical difficulties in administering the tests, and that rate was higher among teachers who worked at schools with a higher percentage of students from low socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds.

Teachers also reported difficulties when it came to evaluating students categorized as English language learners (ELL). Many teachers relayed that they hadn’t been trained on how to distinguish students who were having trouble reading from those who struggled on the tests because they didn’t speak English well.

“The study reveals that there’s a lot of difficulty understanding how to handle English language learners in the context of screening,” Ozernov-Palchik says. “Overall, those kids tend to be either over-identified or under-identified as needing help, but they’re not getting the support that they need.”

Unrealized potential

Most concerning, the researchers say, is that in many schools, the results of the screening tests are not being used to get students the extra help that they need. Only 44 percent of the teachers surveyed said that their schools had a formal process for creating intervention plans for students after the screening was performed.

“Even though most educators said they believe that screening is important to do, they’re not feeling that it has the potential to drive change the way that it’s currently implemented,” Ozernov-Palchik says.

In the study, the researchers recommended several steps that state legislatures or individual school districts can take to make the screening process run more smoothly and successfully.

“Implementation is the key here,” Ozernov-Palchik says. “Teachers need more support and professional development. There needs to be systematic support as they administer the screening. They need to have designated spaces for screening, and explicit instruction in how to handle children who are English language learners.”

The researchers also recommend that school districts train an individual to take charge of interpreting the screening results and analyzing the data, to make sure that the screenings are leading to improved success in reading.

In addition to advocating for those changes, the researchers are also working on a technology platform that uses artificial intelligence to provide more individualized instruction in reading, which could help students receive help in the areas where they struggle the most.

The research was funded by Schmidt Futures, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative for the Reach Every Reader project, and the Halis Family Foundation.

New MIT initiative seeks to transform rare brain disorders research

by Rubina Veerakone |

More than 300 million people worldwide are living with rare disorders — many of which have a genetic cause and affect the brain and nervous system — yet the vast majority of these conditions lack an approved therapy. Because each rare disorder affects fewer than 65 out of every 100,000 people, studying these disorders and creating new treatments for them is especially challenging.

Thanks to a generous philanthropic gift from Ana Méndez ’91 and Rajeev Jayavant ’86, EE ’88, SM ’88, MIT is now poised to fill the gaps in this research landscape. By establishing the Rare Brain Disorders Nexus — or RareNet — at MIT’s McGovern Institute, the alumni aim to convene leaders in neuroscience research, clinical medicine, patient advocacy, and industry to streamline the lab-to-clinic pipeline for rare brain disorder treatments.

“Ana and Rajeev’s commitment to MIT will form crucial partnerships to propel the translation of scientific discoveries into promising therapeutics and expand the Institute’s impact on the rare brain disorders community,” says MIT President Sally Kornbluth. “We are deeply grateful for their pivotal role in advancing such critical science and bringing attention to conditions that have long been overlooked.”

Building new coalitions

Several hurdles have slowed the lab-to-clinic pipeline for rare brain disorder research. It is difficult to secure a sufficient number of patients per study, and current research efforts are fragmented since each study typically focuses on a single disorder (there are more than 7,000 known rare disorders, according to the World Health Organization). Pharmaceutical companies are often reluctant to invest in emerging treatments due to a limited market size and the high costs associated with preparing drugs for commercialization.

Méndez and Jayavant envision that RareNet will finally break down these barriers. “Our hope is that RareNet will allow leaders in the field to come together under a shared framework and ignite scientific breakthroughs across multiple conditions. A discovery for one rare brain disorder could unlock new insights that are relevant to another,” says Jayavant. “By congregating the best minds in the field, we are confident that MIT will create the right scientific climate to produce drug candidates that may benefit a spectrum of uncommon conditions.”

Guoping Feng, the James W. (1963) and Patricia T. Poitras Professor in Neuroscience and associate director of the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT, will serve as RareNet’s inaugural faculty director. Feng holds a strong record of advancing studies on therapies for neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism spectrum disorders, Williams syndrome, and uncommon forms of epilepsy. His team’s gene therapy for Phelan-McDermid syndrome, a rare and profound autism spectrum disorder, has been licensed to Jaguar Gene Therapy and is currently undergoing clinical trials. “RareNet pioneers a unique model for biomedical research — one that is reimagining the role academia can play in developing therapeutics,” says Feng.

Image of SHANK3 therapy correctly finding its way to dendrites. Image: Guoping Feng
An early version of a gene therapy for SHANK3 mutations — linked to a rare brain disorder called Phelan-McDermid syndrome — correctly finds its way to neurons. Image: Feng lab

RareNet plans to deploy two major initiatives: a global consortium and a therapeutic pipeline accelerator. The consortium will form an international network of researchers, clinicians, and patient groups from the outset. It seeks to connect siloed research efforts, secure more patient samples, promote data sharing, and drive a strong sense of trust and goal alignment across the RareNet community. Partnerships within the consortium will support the aim of the therapeutic pipeline accelerator: to de-risk early lab discoveries and expedite their translation to clinic. By fostering more targeted collaborations — especially between academia and industry — the accelerator will prepare potential treatments for clinical use as efficiently as possible.

MIT labs are focusing on four uncommon conditions in the first wave of RareNet projects: Rett syndrome, prion disease, disorders linked to SYNGAP1 mutations, and Sturge-Weber syndrome. The teams are working to develop novel therapies that can slow, halt, or reverse dysfunctions in the brain and nervous system.

These efforts will build new bridges to connect key stakeholders across the rare brain disorders community and disrupt conventional research approaches. “Rajeev and I are motivated to seed powerful collaborations between MIT researchers, clinicians, patients, and industry,” says Méndez. “Guoping Feng clearly understands our goal to create an environment where foundational studies can thrive and seamlessly move toward clinical impact.”

“Patient and caregiver experiences, and our foreseeable impact on their lives, will guide us and remain at the forefront of our work,” Feng adds. “For far too long the rare brain disorders community has been deprived of life-changing treatments — and, importantly, hope. RareNet gives us the opportunity to transform how we study these conditions and to do so at a moment when it’s needed more than ever.”

 

MIT cognitive scientists reveal why some sentences stand out from others

by Anne Trafton |

“You still had to prove yourself.”

“Every cloud has a blue lining!”

Which of those sentences are you most likely to remember a few minutes from now? If you guessed the second, you’re probably correct.

According to a new study from MIT cognitive scientists, sentences that stick in your mind longer are those that have distinctive meanings, making them stand out from sentences you’ve previously seen. They found that meaning, not any other trait, is the most important feature when it comes to memorability.

Greta Tuckute, a former graduate student in the Fedorenko lab. Photo: Caitlin Cunningham

“One might have thought that when you remember sentences, maybe it’s all about the visual features of the sentence, but we found that that was not the case. A big contribution of this paper is pinning down that it is the meaning-related space that makes sentences memorable,” says Greta Tuckute PhD ’25, who is now a research fellow at Harvard University’s Kempner Institute.

The findings support the hypothesis that sentences with distinctive meanings — like “Does olive oil work for tanning?” — are stored in brain space that is not cluttered with sentences that mean almost the same thing. Sentences with similar meanings end up densely packed together and are therefore more difficult to recognize confidently later on, the researchers believe.

“When you encode sentences that have a similar meaning, there’s feature overlap in that space. Therefore, a particular sentence you’ve encoded is not linked to a unique set of features, but rather to a whole bunch of features that may overlap with other sentences,” says Evelina Fedorenko, an MIT associate professor of brain and cognitive sciences (BCS), a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research, and the senior author of the study.

Tuckute and Thomas Clark, an MIT graduate student, are the lead authors of the paper, which appears in the Journal of Memory and Language. MIT graduate student Bryan Medina is also an author.

Distinctive sentences

What makes certain things more memorable than others is a longstanding question in cognitive science and neuroscience. In a 2011 study, Aude Oliva, now a senior research scientist at MIT and MIT director of the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, showed that not all items are created equal: Some types of images are much easier to remember than others, and people are remarkably consistent in what images they remember best.

In that study, Oliva and her colleagues found that, in general, images with people in them are the most memorable, followed by images of human-scale space and close-ups of objects. Least memorable are natural landscapes.

As a follow-up to that study, Fedorenko and Oliva, along with Ted Gibson, another faculty member in BCS, teamed up to determine if words also vary in their memorability. In a study published earlier this year, co-led by Tuckute and Kyle Mahowald, a former PhD student in BCS, the researchers found that the most memorable words are those that have the most distinctive meanings.

Words are categorized as being more distinctive if they have a single meaning, and few or no synonyms — for example, words like “pineapple” or “avalanche” which were found to be very memorable. On the other hand, words that can have multiple meanings, such as “light,” or words that have many synonyms, like “happy,” were more difficult for people to recognize accurately.

In the new study, the researchers expanded their scope to analyze the memorability of sentences. Just like words, some sentences have very distinctive meanings, while others communicate similar information in slightly different ways.

To do the study, the researchers assembled a collection of 2,500 sentences drawn from publicly available databases that compile text from novels, news articles, movie dialogues, and other sources. Each sentence that they chose contained exactly six words.

The researchers then presented a random selection of about 1,000 of these sentences to each study participant, including repeats of some sentences. Each of the 500 participants in the study was asked to press a button when they saw a sentence that they remembered seeing earlier.

The most memorable sentences — the ones where participants accurately and quickly indicated that they had seen them before — included strings such as “Homer Simpson is hungry, very hungry,” and “These mosquitoes are — well, guinea pigs.”

Those memorable sentences overlapped significantly with sentences that were determined as having distinctive meanings as estimated through the high-dimensional vector space of a large language model (LLM) known as Sentence BERT. That model is able to generate sentence-level representations of sentences, which can be used for tasks like judging meaning similarity between sentences. This model provided researchers with a distinctness score for each sentence based on its semantic similarity to other sentences.

The researchers also evaluated the sentences using a model that predicts memorability based on the average memorability of the individual words in the sentence. This model performed fairly well at predicting overall sentence memorability, but not as well as Sentence BERT. This suggests that the meaning of a sentence as a whole — above and beyond the contributions from individual words — determines how memorable it will be, the researchers say.

Noisy memories

While cognitive scientists have long hypothesized that the brain’s memory banks have a limited capacity, the findings of the new study support an alternative hypothesis that would help to explain how the brain can continue forming new memories without losing old ones.

This alternative, known as the noisy representation hypothesis, says that when the brain encodes a new memory, be it an image, a word, or a sentence, it is represented in a noisy way — that is, this representation is not identical to the stimulus, and some information is lost. For example, for an image, you may not encode the exact viewing angle at which an object is shown, and for a sentence, you may not remember the exact construction used.

Under this theory, a new sentence would be encoded in a similar part of the memory space as sentences that carry a similar meanings, whether they were encountered recently or sometime across a lifetime of language experience. This jumbling of similar meanings together increases the amount of noise and can make it much harder, later on, to remember the exact sentence you have seen before.

“The representation is gradually going to accumulate some noise. As a result, when you see an image or a sentence for a second time, your accuracy at judging whether you’ve seen it before will be affected, and it’ll be less than 100 percent in most cases,” Clark says.

However, if a sentence has a unique meaning that is encoded in a less densely crowded space, it will be easier to pick out later on.

“Your memory may still be noisy, but your ability to make judgments based on the representations is less affected by that noise because the representation is so distinctive to begin with,” Clark says.

The researchers now plan to study whether other features of sentences, such as more vivid and descriptive language, might also contribute to making them more memorable, and how the language system may interact with the hippocampal memory structures during the encoding and retrieval of memories.

The research was funded, in part, by the National Institutes of Health, the McGovern Institute, the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, the Simons Center for the Social Brain, and the MIT Quest Initiative for Intelligence.