Building Foundations, Unleashing Potential: The Science Behind Readify Live
The belief that it is “never too late to learn” is underpinned by the neuroscience of neuroplasticity—the brain’s remarkable, lifelong capacity to form new neural pathways in response to experience (Draganski et al., 2004). However, whilst possible, learning is most efficient and impactful when these strong neural foundations are laid early. My own educational journey is a testament to the consequences of missing these foundations. I struggled not because of my teachers, but because I lacked the core skills to build upon. I could not decipher a ‘complex sentence’ in English because my understanding of a ‘simple sentence’ was shaky. I found multiplication impossible because my recall of addition facts a skill known as computational fluency was slow and unreliable, a primary indicator of emerging mathematical difficulties (Geary, 2011).
This experience is unfortunately common. Research into literacy development shows that many students who fall behind have critical gaps in phonemic awareness, the ability to identify and manipulate individual sounds (phonemes) in spoken words. This skill is the most significant predictor of reading success (Kilpatrick, 2015). For example, a child who cannot hear that the word “cat” is made up of the sounds /c/, /a/, /t/ will struggle to map those sounds to letters, a process essential for reading and spelling. Pressed by crowded curricula, instruction often moves forward, leaving these gaps unaddressed. This leads to the Matthew Effect in reading: where early readers accelerate their learning by reading more, while struggling readers fall progressively further behind, creating a devastating achievement gap (Stanovich, 1986).
This is the very problem Readify Live exists to solve.
The pivotal moment in my own understanding, and the cornerstone of our methodology, is the principle of mastery learning (Guskey, 2007). This evidence-based approach requires learners to demonstrate a deep, conceptual understanding of a skill before advancing to the next, more complex one. At Readify Live, this means we unapologetically go back to the start.
- Real-Life Example (Literacy): We worked with Anya, an 8-year-old who hated reading aloud. She would guess words based on the first letter (“jungle” for “jump”) and her comprehension was poor. Instead of pushing her to read harder books, we went back to phonics fundamentals. We used tactile methods, like forming letters in sand, to solidify sound-letter correspondence. Within months, her decoding became automatic. She wasn’t just “barking at print”; she was reading for meaning, and her confidence soared. This aligns with the Simple View of Reading, which posits that reading comprehension is the product of decoding skills and linguistic comprehension (Gough & Tunmer, 1986).
- Real-Life Example (Numeracy): We tutored Leo, a 10-year-old who was failing math. He saw numbers as abstract symbols to be manipulated by mysterious rules. We went back to building his number sense. We used physical blocks to show that 7 x 8 is simply seven groups of eight. We played games that made “number bonds” to 10 automatic. This concrete-pictorial-abstract approach (Bruner, 1966) rebuilt his foundation. Within a term, he was not only keeping up in class but explaining concepts to his peers. (names have been changed)
While we excel at remediating such gaps, our primary mission is prevention. The National Early Literacy Panel (2008) confirmed that explicit instruction in skills like phonological awareness and phonics is crucial for preventing reading difficulties. Similarly, longitudinal studies show that early math knowledge is a more powerful predictor of later academic success than early reading skills or socio-emotional behaviours (Duncan et al., 2007).
Our preventative approach is built on this science:
- Early Literacy: Systematic, explicit phonics instruction and rich vocabulary building, creating what researchers call the “sooner, better” advantage (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997).
- Early Numeracy: Developing strong number sense through games and manipulatives to create a flexible understanding of numbers and their relationships (Griffin, 2004).
- Cognitive Development: Fostering critical thinking and creativity through guided play, which has been shown to enhance executive functions like working memory and cognitive flexibility—the brain’s management system (Diamond, 2012).
The evidence is clear: with the right, scientifically-informed instruction, a child’s potential is not fixed. The work of Carol Dweck (2006) on growth mindset demonstrates that when children understand their brains can grow and their abilities can be developed through dedication and hard work, they embrace challenges and achieve more. Your young child is a capable and powerful learner; even infants use sophisticated statistical reasoning to understand their world (Gopnik et al., 1999).
There is genuine hope for every child to achieve extraordinary things. However, we often unintentionally project our own academic anxieties and self-imposed limits onto them. By understanding the science of learning, we can break this cycle. Readify Live is committed to providing the evidence-based, foundational support that unlocks every child’s innate capacity for mastery, fostering not just academic success, but a lifelong love of learning.
Reference List
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Harvard University Press.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934–945.
Diamond, A. (2012). Activities and Programs That Improve Children’s Executive Functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(5), 335–341.
Draganski, B., Gaser, C., Busch, V., Schuierer, G., Bogdahn, U., & May, A. (2004). Neuroplasticity: changes in grey matter induced by training. Nature, 427(6972), 311–312.
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., … & Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428–1446.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
Geary, D. C. (2011). Cognitive predictors of achievement growth in mathematics: a 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1539–1552.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.
Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kuhl, P. K. (1999). The scientist in the crib: Minds, brains, and how children learn. William Morrow & Co.
Griffin, S. (2004). Building number sense with Number Worlds: a mathematics program for young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), 173–180.
Guskey, T. R. (2007). Closing achievement gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom’s “Learning for Mastery”. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(1), 8–31.
Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. John Wiley & Sons.
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. National Institute for Literacy.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407.
Readify Live 
Leave a comment