A recent working paper found that improvements in third-grade reading accounted for about half of the later mathematics gains associated with a multi-year elementary literacy program.
Editorial Note
This article examines a recently posted education working paper analyzing whether improvements in reading may contribute to later mathematics achievement. The findings are based on a large randomized study, but the new analysis remains a working paper and should not be treated as the final word on how literacy instruction affects mathematics.
The study does not show that reading instruction can replace direct mathematics teaching. It suggests that stronger reading skills may help students understand mathematical language, interpret written problems and demonstrate knowledge more effectively.
A recent education working paper suggests that stronger elementary reading skills may support later mathematics achievement.
Researchers Joshua B. Gilbert and James S. Kim found that improvements in third-grade reading statistically accounted for approximately half of the fourth-grade mathematics gains associated with a multi-year, content-rich literacy program.
The finding is notable because the intervention was designed primarily to strengthen reading, vocabulary and science knowledge—not mathematics. Students who participated in the full program later performed better in math, and the researchers’ analysis identified improved reading as one important pathway connecting the literacy intervention to those gains.
The results do not mean that reading and mathematics are interchangeable. They suggest that students may be better prepared to solve mathematical tasks when they can understand directions, interpret academic language and identify relevant information accurately.
What the Study Found
The paper, “Mapping the Mechanisms of Interdisciplinary Learning Transfer from Reading to Math Achievement,” examined results from the Model of Reading Engagement, commonly known as MORE.
The original randomized trial involved 30 elementary schools and approximately 2,870 students. Schools were assigned to different versions of the program, allowing researchers to compare students who received the full multi-year intervention with those who received a more limited version.
Students in the full program participated in connected literacy and science instruction from first through third grade. The curriculum repeatedly returned to related ideas, vocabulary and informational texts so that students could build knowledge across several years rather than treating each grade as an isolated experience.
Earlier research found positive effects on science vocabulary, science reading, general reading comprehension and mathematics. Some of those gains remained visible during a fourth-grade follow-up.
The new paper focused on a narrower question: Why did a literacy intervention appear to improve later mathematics performance?
Reading Accounted for Part of the Math Gain
The researchers used mediation analysis to examine whether improvements in third-grade reading helped explain the program’s effect on fourth-grade mathematics.
Their statistical model estimated that stronger reading accounted for approximately half of the measured mathematics effect.
The indirect effect associated with reading was about 0.07 standard deviations, compared with a previously reported total mathematics effect of about 0.16 standard deviations. These are relatively modest effects, but they are meaningful because the intervention did not directly teach the mathematics measured by the later assessment.
The analysis does not prove that reading alone caused half of the improvement. Mediation models estimate whether changes in one measured outcome help explain changes in another. Other factors may also have contributed, including academic engagement, confidence, knowledge organization or skills not fully captured by the available assessments.
Still, the results provide evidence that general reading improvement was not merely happening alongside the mathematics gain. It appeared to be part of the pathway through which the program supported later performance.
Broad Reading Measures Appeared to Explain More of the Gain
One of the most important findings concerned the type of reading improvement connected to later mathematics performance.
The researchers found stronger evidence for broad standardized reading measures than for narrower measures of science-specific comprehension or background knowledge.
That does not mean subject knowledge was unimportant. MORE was built around connected science content, vocabulary and informational reading, and the broader intervention was designed to help students build knowledge over time.
However, the new analysis suggests that general reading proficiency may have been more directly connected to the measured mathematics gains than knowledge of the specific science topics taught in the program.
This distinction matters because mathematics assessments often require more than calculation. Students must understand written directions, follow multiple steps, interpret relationships among quantities and determine what a question is asking them to solve.
A student may understand the underlying mathematical concept but still struggle to demonstrate that knowledge when the language of the task is difficult.
Why Reading Can Affect Mathematics
Mathematics is often described as a subject based primarily on numbers, formulas and procedures. In practice, school mathematics also places substantial demands on reading comprehension.
Students must interpret words such as “difference,” “remaining,” “per,” “increase by,” “at least” and “no more than.” Each phrase can change the operation or reasoning required.
Word problems provide the clearest example, but reading demands appear throughout mathematics. Students may be asked to compare strategies, explain reasoning, analyze a graph or identify which information is relevant.
A student who misreads a question may solve the wrong problem even when they possess the necessary mathematical skill. Stronger reading may therefore improve access to mathematics by helping students understand the task before applying a mathematical procedure.
This is an example of learning transfer—the use of knowledge or skills developed in one context to support performance in another.
Transfer across subjects is difficult to demonstrate. Educational programs often improve the exact skill they teach without producing clear gains elsewhere. That makes the connection between a literacy intervention and later mathematics performance especially noteworthy.
How the MORE Program Worked
MORE was not limited to isolated reading strategies. It combined literacy instruction with science content, vocabulary, writing and connected informational texts.
Students studied related concepts over several years. Topics included animal survival, scientific investigations and living systems. The curriculum was designed so that new ideas built upon earlier learning rather than beginning from the same starting point each year.
The program also included thematically connected reading during the summers following first and second grade.
This sustained structure may have helped students develop both reading skill and organized background knowledge. Instead of learning disconnected facts, students repeatedly encountered related concepts and language in new contexts.
The earlier study found that some reading and mathematics effects remained visible approximately 14 months after the intervention ended. That result suggests that sustained, coordinated instruction may produce more durable benefits than short-term programs that disappear after a few weeks or months.
It does not prove that every multi-year literacy program will produce the same outcome. It does support further examination of whether curriculum continuity across grade levels helps students apply learning more broadly.
What the Study Does—and Does Not—Show
The study supports the idea that stronger reading may help students perform better in mathematics. It does not show that schools should replace mathematics instruction with additional literacy lessons.
Students still need direct teaching in number sense, operations, fractions, measurement, geometry, problem-solving and mathematical reasoning. Reading skills cannot compensate for missing mathematical knowledge.
A student may understand every word in a fraction problem while lacking the conceptual knowledge needed to solve it. Another student may know the mathematical procedure but misunderstand the written directions. Both literacy and mathematics matter.
The study also does not establish that content-rich reading is the only effective way to improve cross-subject performance. It examined one intervention, one group of schools and one implementation period.
The strongest conclusion is more limited: students’ measured reading gains appeared to explain a substantial part of the later mathematics benefit associated with the program.
Practical Implications for Teachers
The study did not directly test specific classroom strategies, but its findings suggest several practical considerations.
Mathematics teachers can pay closer attention to the language demands of assignments and assessments. Before students begin a complex problem, teachers can identify unfamiliar terms, clarify the meaning of key phrases and ask students to restate the question in their own words.
Students can also be taught to identify what information is relevant, determine what the problem is asking and explain why a particular strategy fits the situation.
These practices should support mathematical reasoning rather than replace it. The purpose is not to turn every math lesson into a reading lesson. It is to remove avoidable language barriers that may prevent students from demonstrating what they know.
Literacy teachers can also support broader learning by using informational texts that require students to analyze relationships, sequence events, interpret evidence and explain cause and effect.
Those skills are useful across science, social studies and mathematics.
Practical Implications for Curriculum Leaders
Curriculum leaders should be cautious about treating academic subjects as completely isolated systems.
Reading instruction may create broader benefits when students develop strong comprehension skills and meaningful background knowledge. Mathematics instruction may become more accessible when teachers explicitly address the language used in problems and explanations.
This does not require eliminating subject-specific teaching. It requires stronger coordination.
Literacy programs can incorporate high-quality science and social-studies content. Mathematics materials can support students in understanding academic vocabulary without reducing the time devoted to mathematical concepts.
Districts may also benefit from examining whether curricula connect across grade levels. Repeatedly introducing unrelated topics may provide fewer opportunities for students to build durable knowledge and transfer earlier learning into more complex work.
A coordinated curriculum should help students use what they learned previously rather than constantly beginning again.
Important Limitations
The new analysis should be interpreted carefully.
First, it is available as an EdWorkingPaper. Working papers allow researchers to share findings before the complete academic publication process is finished. The analysis may continue to be reviewed or revised.
Second, mediation analysis identifies a plausible statistical pathway but does not prove that reading was the only cause of the mathematics gains. About half of the measured effect remained unexplained by the reading measures included in the model.
Third, the intervention was implemented in a specific group of schools. Results may differ in districts with different curricula, student populations, training, staffing or implementation quality.
Part of the earlier trial also occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, including online implementation during third grade. That context may affect how broadly the findings apply.
Schools should therefore avoid treating one study as a universal mandate. The paper provides promising evidence that supports further research and thoughtful curriculum design.
Key Takeaways
A recent analysis of a large randomized elementary-school study found that improvements in third-grade reading statistically accounted for approximately half of the fourth-grade mathematics gains associated with the MORE literacy program.
Broad reading measures appeared to explain more of the mathematics benefit than narrower measures of science-specific comprehension or background knowledge.
The study does not suggest replacing direct mathematics instruction with reading instruction. It indicates that students may perform better in math when they can understand academic language, interpret written tasks and organize information effectively.
The findings also support closer coordination among literacy, mathematics, science and grade-level curriculum planning.
Because the analysis is a working paper and does not explain the entire mathematics effect, additional research is still needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the study find?
Researchers estimated that improvements in third-grade reading accounted for approximately half of the positive effect that a multi-year literacy program had on fourth-grade mathematics achievement.
How many students participated in the original trial?
The earlier randomized study involved approximately 2,870 students across 30 elementary schools.
What is the MORE program?
The Model of Reading Engagement is a content-rich literacy program that connects reading, vocabulary and science learning across multiple elementary grades.
Does reading instruction replace math instruction?
No. Students still need direct mathematics instruction. Stronger reading may help them understand and respond to mathematical tasks more effectively.
Why can reading affect math performance?
Many mathematics tasks require students to understand directions, vocabulary, written scenarios and relationships among pieces of information.
Has the study been peer reviewed?
The new analysis is currently available as an EdWorkingPaper and may continue to be reviewed and refined.
Final Thoughts
Schools often separate reading and mathematics because they involve different standards, content and instructional methods. Student learning, however, does not always remain inside those boundaries.
When students become stronger readers, they may be better prepared to understand mathematical language, interpret complex questions and demonstrate knowledge that might otherwise remain hidden behind comprehension difficulties.
That does not reduce the importance of direct mathematics teaching. It strengthens the case for an education system in which academic subjects support one another.
The broader lesson is that learning is connected. Improving a student’s ability to understand language may expand what that student can access across the entire school day.
Support New To Education
New To Education publishes independent reporting and analysis on education research, teaching, curriculum, student achievement, school policy and developments affecting educators and families.
Readers can support this work by sharing our articles, joining the New To Education community, subscribing to updates and exploring the educational and professional services available through our platform.
https://www.newtoeducation.com
Related Articles
What the Latest Education Research Says About Learning, Teachers and AI in Schools
https://www.newtoeducation.com/view-blog/what-the-latest-education-research-says-about-learning-teachers-and-ai-in-schools-6a6825ab75ed0
New Education Research Finds Traditional and Digital Toys Can Strengthen Children’s Learning
https://www.newtoeducation.com/view-blog/new-education-research-finds-traditional-and-digital-toys-can-strengthen-childrens-learning-6a5767dc2b084
New York City Promotes Nearly Every Student Despite Widespread Test Struggles
https://www.newtoeducation.com/view-blog/new-york-city-promotes-nearly-every-student-despite-widespread-test-struggles-6a65ef87a8cde
Teach Fewer Words More Deeply: A TESOL Approach to Vocabulary That Sticks
https://www.newtoeducation.com/view-blog/teach-fewer-words-more-deeply-a-tesol-approach-to-vocabulary-that-sticks-6a3686a745bb6
Sources
EdWorkingPapers — Mapping the Mechanisms of Interdisciplinary Learning Transfer from Reading to Math Achievement
https://edworkingpapers.com/ai26-1376
Full Working Paper — Gilbert and Kim, 2026
https://edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai26-1376.pdf
EdWorkingPapers — Time to Transfer: Long-Term Effects of a Sustained and Spiraled Content Literacy Intervention in the Elementary Grades
https://edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai23-769.pdf
Harvard Center for Education Policy Research — Model of Reading Engagement and READS Lab
https://cepr.harvard.edu/projects/more-model-reading-engagement
