Table of Contents
In 1995, students read books. In 2025, students read everything.
They analyze character development across eight seasons of a TV series. They follow complex storylines through multiple social media platforms. They decode layers of meaning in song lyrics and debate narrative choices in video games with the intensity of literary scholars.
But walk into most English classrooms, and we’re still teaching reading like it’s 1995.
We’re asking students to sit silently with individual books, choose from predetermined genre categories, and demonstrate comprehension through the same formats we used three decades ago. Meanwhile, outside our classroom walls, these same students are engaging in sophisticated, collaborative, multimodal text analysis every single day.
The disconnect isn’t just noticeable—it’s damaging our credibility as educators and limiting our effectiveness as literacy teachers.
Here’s what I’ve been thinking: What if the problem isn’t that students can’t engage deeply with texts? What if the problem is that we’re designing reading instruction for a world that no longer exists?
The 1995 Classroom (What We’re Still Doing)
Picture the “ideal” reading classroom from thirty years ago, and you’ll probably recognize elements that are still considered best practice today:
Silent individual reading dominated the landscape. Students sat quietly with books, processing texts internally, with minimal interaction or collaboration. The goal was personal connection between reader and text—an intimate, solitary experience.
Choice meant genre selection. We organized libraries by fiction, nonfiction, and poetry. Student choice meant picking between fantasy and realistic fiction, or choosing a biography instead of a novel. We thought variety in content would solve engagement problems.
One size fits all approaches ruled the day. Whether it was Sustained Silent Reading or literature circles, we implemented the same structure for every student, assuming that good teaching methods would work universally.
The 2025 Reality (How Students Actually Engage with Texts)
Technology was the enemy. Screens were distractions. “Real” reading happened with physical books. Digital text was considered lesser, and students who preferred multimedia content were seen as having shorter attention spans or lower academic ability.
Success looked like completion. We measured reading through pages read, books finished, and comprehension quizzes passed. The goal was consumption—getting through texts efficiently and demonstrating basic understanding.
None of this was wrong for its time. But here’s what we didn’t understand then: reading was already becoming fundamentally social, multimodal, and purpose-driven outside of school. We just couldn’t see it yet.
Fast-forward thirty years, and look at how the same students who “struggle with reading” are actually navigating complex information landscapes:
They read across symbol systems and contexts. Students decode meaning from images, videos, audio, interactive media, and traditional text—often simultaneously. They understand how different formats communicate different types of information and move fluidly between them to build comprehensive understanding.
They synthesize information from multiple sources. Whether they’re researching a topic they care about, following a news story, or trying to understand a cultural moment, students naturally gather information from various sources, evaluate credibility, and construct their own understanding from fragmented pieces.
They read for social and cultural positioning. Students analyze subtext in conversations, decode meaning in visual aesthetics, understand how language choices signal identity and belonging. They’re constantly reading the world around them to navigate social dynamics and cultural expectations.
They engage in critical media analysis. Students question motives behind advertising, analyze bias in news coverage, understand how algorithms shape what they see. They’re developing sophisticated skills for reading power structures, even if they don’t use academic language to describe it.
They create and communicate across multiple modes. Students remix content, create visual arguments, use humor and references to make complex points. They understand how different audiences require different approaches and adapt their communication accordingly.
They read with purpose and agency. When students are genuinely invested in understanding something—a social issue, a hobby, a relationship dynamic—they demonstrate incredible persistence in seeking out and synthesizing complex information from multiple sources.
This is sophisticated literacy work. It requires analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and communication across multiple symbol systems. But because it doesn’t look like traditional academic reading, we often miss it entirely.
The Gap (Why Our Methods Don’t Match Their Minds)
The problem isn’t that students have shorter attention spans or lower academic abilities. The problem is that we’re using 1995 methods to teach 2025 minds.
We’re designing for individual consumption in a collaborative world. While students naturally want to discuss, debate, and build meaning together, we still prioritize silent individual reading as the gold standard. We’ve accidentally positioned the social nature of reading as distraction rather than engagement.
We’re offering surface choices for identity-deep needs. When we ask students to choose between fiction and nonfiction, we’re missing the deeper question of how they naturally engage with texts. Some students read to connect emotionally. Others read to solve problems. Some need social processing. Others prefer analytical reflection. Genre preference doesn’t capture these fundamental differences in approach.
We’re treating technology as an enemy instead of an ally. Instead of helping students use digital tools strategically to enhance their thinking and engagement, we’re fighting a losing battle against the very platforms where sophisticated reading already happens.
We’re measuring completion rather than transformation. While we count pages and quiz comprehension, students are looking for reading experiences that matter—that change how they see themselves and their world.
The result? Students learn to perform “school reading” while keeping their real reading lives separate. They show up with surface compliance while their authentic engagement happens elsewhere.
What 2025 Reading Instruction Actually Looks Like
So what does it mean to teach reading like it’s 2025? It’s not about abandoning everything we know about literacy education—it’s about adapting our approaches to work with student realities instead of against them.
Identity-aware design means understanding not just what students like to read, but how they naturally approach texts. Some students are analytical processors who want to dig deep into craft and meaning. Others are social connectors who read for relationships and emotional resonance. Still others are strategic thinkers who engage most fully when they understand the purpose behind their reading. When we design for these different approaches, we get authentic engagement instead of polite compliance.
Strategic AI integration means using technology to amplify our professional insights rather than replace them. Instead of banning ChatGPT, we teach students to use it as a thinking partner—to generate discussion questions, explore different interpretations, or research background information that deepens their understanding. We help them develop judgment about when AI enhances their thinking and when it shortcuts the very cognitive work they need to practice.
Social architecture means building classroom communities that echo the best parts of how reading actually works in the world. We create structures for collaborative meaning-making, peer recommendation, and shared discovery. We design discussion protocols that draw on different types of thinking and give multiple ways to contribute.
Multiple pathways means offering choice that goes deeper than genre selection. We create different ways to engage with the same content—analytical, creative, social, reflective—so students can bring their authentic approaches while still meeting rigorous academic goals.
Process over product means valuing the development of thinking rather than just the demonstration of completion. We design assessments that make thinking visible and give students language to understand their own growth as readers and thinkers.
This isn’t about making reading “fun” or “easy.” It’s about making it meaningful—designing experiences so compelling that students want to engage their full intellectual capacity rather than just going through the motions.
Present-Tense Examples
Here’s what this looks like in practice:
Reading conferences become diagnostic conversations where we understand not just what students are reading, but how they’re approaching it. Instead of asking generic questions like “How do you like your book?” we ask targeted questions based on how they naturally engage: “What patterns are you noticing in the author’s choices?” for analytical readers, or “How are you connecting to the main character’s situation?” for emotional processors.
Discussion protocols serve multiple reader types within the same conversation. Some students contribute by analyzing textual evidence. Others share personal connections. Still others ask probing questions or offer alternative interpretations. Everyone has a way to participate authentically while the academic rigor remains high.
AI-assisted customization helps us differentiate strategically without creating thirty different lesson plans. We use tools to generate discussion questions tailored to different reader types, create varied project options that appeal to different engagement styles, or provide reading recommendations based on individual student patterns rather than just reading level or genre preference.
Choice structures honor the reality that students need different things from their reading experiences. Instead of unlimited choice that can overwhelm decision-making, we offer curated options that serve different purposes: books for emotional connection, books for analytical challenge, books for identity exploration, books for pure enjoyment.
The goal isn’t to completely overhaul everything we’re doing—it’s to make strategic adjustments that honor how reading actually works for different types of people in the current moment.
Why This Matters Now
The stakes have never been higher. Reading statistics continue to decline not because students can’t read, but because we’re failing to connect school reading with the sophisticated text engagement they’re already doing.
When we teach reading like it’s 2025, we’re not just improving test scores—we’re helping students see themselves as readers, thinkers, and meaning-makers. We’re preparing them for a world where the ability to navigate complex, multimodal information and collaborate in building understanding will be essential skills.
And perhaps most importantly, we’re reclaiming our role as literacy educators who design meaningful learning experiences rather than just managing compliance with outdated systems.
Ready to Experiment?
Teaching reading like it’s 2025 starts with understanding the readers who are already in your classroom. Not just their reading levels or genre preferences, but their natural approaches to engaging with texts and ideas.
Want to map your students’ reading identities? Get the (free) Reader Identity Quiz and Toolkit
Curious about building social reading architecture? Read: What Marvel Fans Teach Us About Sustained Engagement →
Ready to move beyond surface-level choice? Read: Why Choice Reading Isn’t Enough (And What Actually Is) →
The future of literacy education isn’t about choosing between tradition and innovation. It’s about building on what we know about how humans learn while adapting to how humans actually live and think in the present moment.
Your students are already sophisticated readers. It’s time our instruction reflected that reality.
