# data[].attributes.headline
McNamara, D. S., & Kendeou, P. (2011). Translating advances in reading comprehension research to educational practice. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4, 33-46. 

# data[].attributes.subject
McNamara, D. S., & Kendeou, P. (2011). Translating advances in reading comprehension research to educational practice. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4, 33-46. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Duke, N. K., Ward, A. E., & Pearson, P. D. (2021). The science of reading comprehension instruction. The Reading Teacher, 74, 663-672. International Literacy Association.

# data[].attributes.subject
Duke, N. K., Ward, A. E., & Pearson, P. D. (2021). The science of reading comprehension instruction. The Reading Teacher, 74, 663-672. International Literacy Association.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Reading Teacher - 2021 - Duke - The Science of Reading Comprehension Instruction.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Adams, M. J. (2011). Advancing our students' language and literacy: The challenge of complex texts. American Educator, 34(4), 4-11, 53. American Federation of Teachers.

# data[].attributes.subject
Adams, M. J. (2011). Advancing our students' language and literacy: The challenge of complex texts. American Educator, 34(4), 4-11, 53. American Federation of Teachers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Catts, H. W. (2021-2022). Rethinking how to promote reading comprehension. American Educator. American Federation of Teachers.

# data[].attributes.subject
Catts, H. W. (2021-2022). Rethinking how to promote reading comprehension. American Educator. American Federation of Teachers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It is February 2015, and I am at a national conference listening to a panel present the results of their research on improving reading comprehension. Several members of the panel, like myself and a few others in the room, are funded by the Institute of Education Sciences as part of the Reading for Understanding Initiative. This $120 million program supported six interconnected research teams in their efforts to improve reading achievement in the United States. ¹ Educators and policymakers had for some time been concerned about the performance of American children on tests of reading achievement. Over the last 20 years, only about a third of students have scored at the proficient level on the reading subtest of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). ² This assessment is administered biennially to a representative sample of fourth- and eighth-grade students (and every four years to 12th-graders) from across the nation. Somewhat better, though still troubling, levels of performance have also been reported on state-based reading tests, administered annually starting in third grade. The Reading for Understanding Initiative was intended to jump-start instruction in reading comprehension and significantly improve reading achievement on state and national assessments. In fact, it was described by program officials as the "moonshot" for reading comprehension.

Unfortunately, the preliminary results that the panel presented fell short of these expectations. The reported studies found that students receiving a variety of comprehension interventions made gains, compared with control groups, on assessments closely tied to the interventions-but they showed limited or no significant gains on standardized measures of reading comprehension. Needless to say, conference attendees were surprised and discouraged by these results.

Sitting in the back of the room, I clearly remember not being particularly alarmed by what the panel reported. As part of my work on the Reading for Understanding Initiative and earlier related projects, I had spent many hours thinking, studying, and talking with teachers and colleagues about reading comprehension. Through these efforts, I had come to recognize that the field's general approach to reading comprehension was shortsighted. We were treating reading comprehension as if it were a single construct that could be measured with one or more general reading tests and improved with a short-term intervention. At a deeper conceptual level, most researchers (including those funded by the Reading for Understanding Initiative) recognized that reading comprehension was multidimensional, but it had been common practice in education and research for some time to study, assess, and provide instruction as if comprehension were a skill, rather like swimming. If we teach someone to swim, they can soon transfer that skill to any body of water, whether it be a pool, lake, or ocean. But reading comprehension is not a skill someone learns and can then apply in different reading contexts. It is one of the most complex activities that we engage in on a regular basis, and our ability to comprehend is dependent upon a wide range of knowledge and skills.

The Comprehension as Skill Myth

How have we come to think of comprehension as a skill? I believe a major reason this has occurred is because we have talked and written about comprehension in the context of related skill-like abilities. Discussions about reading often include the topics of phonics, fluency, and related skills, such as phonemic awareness, together with comprehension. As an example, take the work of the National Reading Panel. ³ This panel of reading experts was convened by Congress to assess the effectiveness of different approaches to teaching reading. They examined a wide range of instructional approaches related to comprehension, but in overviews of their work, comprehension has been reduced to one of the "Big Five," along with phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and vocabulary. As such, it is depicted alongside these skills as one of the "pillars" of reading. In another common graphic, the word comprehension is displayed within a box similar in design (actually smaller) to boxes for other skill-like components of reading. Whereas such a consideration and depiction are thought to form a useful heuristic, it can give the false impression that comprehension is comparable to these skills in terms of its complexity and the way it is best taught and measured.

Furthermore, widely used approaches to teaching reading comprehension reinforce this view. ⁴ Comprehension has typically been taught through the use of strategies such as "find the main idea," "make a prediction," or "monitor your comprehension." These strategies are taught and practiced in order to gain automaticity, much like what is done with other skill-like behaviors. This, in turn, can lead us to believe that comprehension can be thought of in a similar manner to these other skills.

A More Accurate and Complex Model

Despite this common view about comprehension, several lines of enquiry have recognized the true complexity of reading comprehension for some time. Nearly 20 years ago, this complexity was captured by the RAND Reading Study Group. ⁵ This federally funded group was charged with developing a research agenda to address pressing issues in literacy. As part of their 2002 report, they conceptualized reading comprehension as a combination of factors within three different categories: the reader, the text, and the activity of reading.

The reader brings a set of cognitive abilities (such as attention, memory, and reasoning), language knowledge and skills, motivations and interests, and background knowledge to the task of reading. Readers vary considerably in these factors, and this variability impacts their comprehension. Considerable research attention has been focused on reader variables, and their impact on comprehension is well documented.

The text includes such elements as genre, topic, and complexity. Students encounter texts with different genres-such as narrative, descriptive, expository, or persuasive-and these texts vary in their subject matter and level of complexity. Although not emphasized in the RAND report from 2002, texts also now vary in their form. They may be in a paper or digital form, and the latter can be displayed on a variety of devices, such as a phone, tablet, or computer. Each of these forms imposes its own set of constraints and challenges on comprehension. The notion of multiple texts can also be added to this category to account for the fact that skilled readers often rely on more than one text for comprehension.

The activity refers to the task or purpose of reading. It is often argued that the purpose of reading is comprehension. But we actually seek to comprehend for a specific reason, be it to prepare for a test, evaluate the strengths of an argument, learn the rules of a game, or enjoy a magazine article or book. Each purpose brings unique knowledge and skills that must be acquired to be successful.

Importantly, the RAND Reading Study Group viewed these various elements interacting within a sociocultural context that involves factors such as where the reading occurs (e.g., school or home), how much support there is (e.g., individual, teacher- or caregiver-led, or group activity), and what cultural value is placed on reading by students' families, peers, racial and ethnic groups, and other groups that are central to the students' identities.

Taken together, it is easy to see how any one individual may have multiple levels of comprehension ability depending upon what they are reading and why they are reading it. As a result, comprehension cannot be reduced to a single notion because it is not a single ability.

The Role of Knowledge

Chief among the factors influencing reading comprehension is background knowledge. Research clearly shows that how much readers understand about the text's topic before they read it is a major factor in how much they understand while and after they read it. ⁶ Unfortunately, much of the efforts directed toward improving reading comprehension have neglected building background knowledge. (As discussed later, there are widely used strategies for "activating" background knowledge, but they do not necessarily develop new knowledge.) It was this neglect that first alerted me to the problems with the way we were thinking about reading comprehension.

In my graduate training, many years ago, I was introduced to the role of knowledge in reading comprehension. At that time, schema theory was a popular topic in research on human cognition and learning. A schema is an organized unit of knowledge that forms the foundation for many activities involving human thought. Richard Anderson, a professor of educational psychology, brought the notion of a schema to education and argued for its critical role in reading comprehension as well as learning in general. ⁷ He was among the first to convey to me the importance of teaching knowledge to improve comprehension.

In my psychology classes, I was introduced to a study that continues to be one of my favorites. The following passage, which was designed to be ambiguous, was read aloud to college students, and they were asked to recall as much as they could.

The procedure is actually quite simple. First you arrange things into different groups. Of course, one pile may be sufficient depending on how much there is to do. If you have to go somewhere else due to lack of facilities that is the next step, otherwise you are pretty well set. It is important not to overdo things. That is, it is better to do too few things at once than too many. In the short run this may not seem important but complications can easily arise. A mistake can be expensive as well. At first the whole procedure will seem complicated. Soon, however, it will become just another facet of life. It is difficult to foresee any end to the necessity for this task in the immediate future, but then one never can tell. After the procedure is completed one arranges the materials into different groups again. Then they can be put into their appropriate places. Eventually they will be used once more and the whole cycle will then have to be repeated. However, that is part of life. ⁸

Students given the topic of the passage beforehand quickly made sense of what they heard and recalled many details. (Those students were told, "The paragraph you will hear will be about washing clothes.") But those who heard the same passage without the topic were confused and recalled little. Of particular interest, a third group of students was given the topic after they heard the passage, but they too were confused and recalled little. Of course, it was not simply the topic but rather the knowledge associated with it that allowed the students to make sense of what they had heard-but only if this knowledge was available from the start.

It was studies like this, including similar ones involving reading rather than listening, that early on clearly demonstrated for me the importance of knowledge for comprehension. But somewhere along the line, educators and researchers-myself included-got distracted and failed to pay attention to its importance. It is not exactly clear how this happened. Perhaps it was a shift in focus to bottom-up models of reading that argued that meaning was contained within the text and that the reader's job was to extract it. Or maybe it was just that knowledge took too much time to teach, and it made more sense to focus on skills that could be taught quickly and applied across topics. Also, considering comprehension alongside skill-like aspects of reading probably distracted us from the role of knowledge.

But whatever the reason, knowledge has come back to the forefront in discussions of reading comprehension. Proponents such as E. D. Hirsch Jr., Daniel T. Willingham, and Natalie Wexler have written extensively about the role of knowledge in comprehension.* Their work and that of others ⁹ has begun to have an influence on research in reading comprehension, but change has been slow. Some of the projects in the Reading for Understanding Initiative did have knowledge as a central component, but the other projects paid only limited attention to knowledge in instruction and/or assessment. Limited attention also plagued other large-scale projects, such as those within the Striving Readers program. This program funded by the US Department of Education involved a set of 17 studies designed to improve reading comprehension in middle and high school students. ¹⁰ While materials did address different topics, there was no direct effort to build knowledge as part of the intervention or assessment. Again, it is not surprising that these studies only demonstrated small effects at best on improving reading comprehension.

What Knowledge Does for Comprehension

Why is knowledge so critical for comprehension? To begin with, it provides a framework for organizing incoming information and guides us as we read through a text. We better understand what the topic is and have expectations about where a passage may be going. By doing so, knowledge keeps us on track and prevents us from going down "blind alleys" in our understanding. This framework also gives us a place to anchor new information in memory and associate it with past knowledge. We use these building blocks of the new and the old to construct an initial understanding of what we are reading and then continuously revise and add to it as we move through a text. It is this integration of the new information in the text with what we already know that brings meaning to what we read.

Background knowledge also allows us to make inferences and fill in information that is not explicitly provided. Authors rarely tell us all we need to know in order to understand a text, so we need to fill in some of the details with our background knowledge. Knowledge also enables us to more easily recognize which of the multiple meanings of a word is appropriate for the context. For example, when reading a passage about baseball, knowing that the word pitcher refers to a person rather than an object could be critical for comprehension.

Knowledge is also essential for thinking. But in certain contexts these days, it is seen as secondary to thinking. Critical thinking has become the rage in education. All too often, teachers are urged to engage students in thinking deeply and critically about what they read as if these skills were independent of the topic; meanwhile, background knowledge is downplayed as if the specific information about a topic could be looked up on the internet when necessary. ¹¹ But it is the specific information that gives students something to think critically about-and our minds are surprisingly limited in how much new information they can take in at one time. Knowledge must accumulate over time to ensure a level of depth that allows for a critical analysis of the subject matter. We can't think logically about different approaches to government without knowing a lot about different forms of government. So, in this sense, knowledge is the most critical component of critical thinking.

Knowledge also allows us to make the most use of our working memory, where much of thinking takes place. There are limitations on how much information we can hold and think about simultaneously in working memory, and this amount is heavily influenced by knowledge. Knowledge coming from long-term memory places a much smaller burden on working memory than new knowledge coming from a text (or a speaker); it also leaves us with more capacity in working memory to think about things in novel ways. As a simple example, it is easier to remember the letter sequences USA, FBI, and NBC than PDQ, RJB, and FVO. When reading, the more information related to the topic we already have stored in long-term memory, the more deeply we can think about that topic-even as we read a passage that offers new information.

Finally, the relationship between knowledge and reading comprehension is reciprocal in nature. Not only does knowledge improve comprehension, but comprehension allows the reader to build new knowledge. Creating a coherent understanding of what one reads modifies the background knowledge that is available for subsequent reading comprehension either later in the same text or in future reading of related texts. ¹²

Implications for Instruction

It should be evident from my comments that improving reading comprehension is a complex process that requires multiple levels of instruction and practice. Clearly, building background knowledge that is both deep and broad is needed to lay the foundation for comprehension and for further knowledge acquisition. However, students also need high-quality reading instruction involving decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension strategies in order to best use their knowledge in different reading contexts and for different purposes.

For many years, the primary way knowledge has been addressed in the context of reading has been through activating background knowledge using strategies like prereading discussions, concept maps, and anticipation guides. These strategies can be effective-but they only work when the appropriate knowledge is available. Often, children will not have the requisite knowledge, or their knowledge will be impoverished or inaccurate. If inaccurate, this activation can actually be detrimental to comprehension.

Whereas knowledge activation has been widely viewed as a component of reading instruction, building knowledge often has not. In fact, instruction devoted to content knowledge has actually been replaced by other aspects of reading instruction. In most elementary schools, social studies and science instruction has been supplanted by English language arts (ELA) instruction. Surveys have shown that, on average, children in grades 1-4 receive only 2.3 hours of science instruction per week, whereas four times that amount is spent on ELA instruction teaching word-reading skills, comprehension strategies, and vocabulary. ¹³ The thinking has been that if we want children to improve their reading comprehension, we have to work on reading skills to achieve fluency before we can use reading to build knowledge. However, this false dichotomy between learning to read and reading to learn has not led to better reading achievement.

Recently, educators have begun to rethink reading instruction and consider how to better integrate knowledge acquisition with literacy in ELA instruction. ¹⁴ In these more integrated approaches, students build knowledge at the same time they are learning reading-related skills. This involves a concentrated effort to build rich and connected ideas about social studies, science, and other subjects during ELA lessons. Such instruction does not necessarily replace the science and social studies instruction that may be taking place at other times but rather supplements it. As with other content instruction, reading materials in an integrated ELA program are selected to build knowledge. Instead of reading, for example, about volcanoes one day and Rosa Parks the next, which has often been the case in ELA instruction, reading materials are arranged by topic in a logical and sequential manner and form an integrated, content-rich curriculum. In this way, knowledge is acquired and accumulated over time.

Such content-rich, connected instruction can be especially engaging and can draw children's interests to literacy and learning. Student engagement and learning can be further fostered by culturally responsive instruction. One example is a program called Readiness through Integrative Science and Engineering. ¹⁵ This program takes a home-to-school approach to connect new knowledge with culturally relevant knowledge concerning the people, places, and objects that students interact with on a daily basis. By understanding, appreciating, and connecting with this knowledge, learning can be especially enhanced for all children.

In an integrated literacy and knowledge-building curriculum, there should be a strong focus on teaching fundamental reading skills. Depending on the grade and specific skills taught, instruction in decoding, spelling, and fluency could comprise its own unit or be blended with discussion and activities designed to acquire and build content-area knowledge. Vocabulary, an important focus of ELA instruction, can be taught especially well within a content-rich, integrated curriculum. Novel words related to the content are excellent targets for instruction. These words are often repeated multiple times in a text, and their meanings are well supported by the context in which they occur. In addition, once learned, they become part of the knowledge base of the topic. General-purpose academic words, or what are sometimes referred to as Tier 2 words, also are learned more easily in a rich context. When these words are supported by content knowledge, the reader can use this knowledge to more easily infer their meaning. Also, a rich context can prove particularly helpful in learning words with multiple meanings, such as "bright" or "palm." ¹⁶

Content-rich materials are also excellent contexts in which to learn more about academic language. Written language is characterized by more complex grammar than spoken language, and students can benefit from explicit instruction in how this grammar works. Specifically, science texts tend to privilege nouns for compacting information, developing logical reasoning, and achieving precision. ¹⁷ For example, consider this text: "Asthma is a disorder in which the respiratory passages narrow significantly as a result of an allergen. This narrowing...." Here the author creates an abstract noun (i.e., "this narrowing") to represent the entire previous clause. Recognizing the referent of this abstract noun is critical to comprehension and, in cases like this, could benefit from explicit instruction. In other academic texts, students will be confronted with complex and elaborated noun phrases, rather than reduced ones, as well as challenging noun, adverbial, and adjectival clauses. For example, social studies texts use "noun clauses (e.g., 'Jefferson's next argument was that King George III had violated the colonists' rights by passing unfair laws and interfering with colonial governments'), adverbial clauses (e.g., 'Even before Washington reached Boston, the Patriots took action'), and adjectival clauses (e.g., 'He was influenced by the Enlightenment idea of the social contract, which states that governments and rulers must protect the rights of citizens') to pack a large amount of information." ¹⁸ Given this complexity, explicit instruction in how to unpack academic grammar could prove helpful to students in understanding informational texts.

Integrated approaches also can incorporate many of the same comprehension strategies employed in traditional ELA instruction. Some of these strategies, like inferencing and paraphrasing, are rather general and can be explicitly taught and used across various contexts. However, within an integrated approach, some strategies are best selected and taught based on their relevance to what is being read and for what purpose. The nature of texts and purposes for reading vary across subject matters, and thus, the strategies that may be most advantageous will vary as well.

Some of these strategies will be the common ones (e.g., mental imagery) identified by the National Reading Panel. Others will be more text- and task-specific metacognitive approaches to assist comprehension. For example, during a social studies lesson, students may be presented with an explanation or argument and asked to evaluate its validity. In such a case, students would benefit from explicit instruction and practice on how to identify a claim and judge the relevance, sufficiency, and accuracy of the evidence provided. Alternatively, science texts often provide a description of some object, animal, or process, and students are often tested on what they have learned from their reading. For such a task, students may benefit from being taught how to use a graphic organizer to summarize and categorize the information within different organizational structures. Students will also benefit from recognizing that a science text (from a trustworthy source) is an authoritative account and is different from texts in which the author's perspective is central, such as a poem or a historical figure's diary entry. This more nuanced approach to strategies becomes ever more important as students move through the grades and the comprehension skills needed are increasingly determined by the characteristics of the text and the activities carried out within the different disciplines. Nevertheless, knowledge of how disciplinary texts work, or what is called disciplinary literacy, can and should be part of instruction in the elementary grades. ¹⁹

There are now quite a few integrated, content-rich curricula being used across the country. Some of these programs are commercially available through curriculum publishers, such as Core Knowledge Language Arts and Wit & Wisdom, whereas others have been developed by researchers, such as Model of Reading Engagement. ²⁰ Some of these programs have been developed specifically to be used as part of ELA instruction. Others are truly integrated across the curriculum and operate instead of or in addition to ELA materials. There is also quite a bit of variability in the scope of literacy instruction within these programs. Nevertheless, a recent meta-analysis showed that when compared with traditional programs in which literacy and content instruction were provided separately, integrated, content-rich programs resulted in students scoring significantly better on vocabulary and comprehension (including on standardized measures of comprehension). Not surprisingly, significant gains were also made in the content taught. ²¹

Implications for Assessment

The multidimensional nature of reading comprehension presents a significant challenge for assessment. Because of the numerous factors in play, a reader's comprehension ability is more fluid than often thought. In other words, any one individual will have different levels of ability depending on what is read and for what purpose.

Perhaps the best demonstration of this variability and its impact on assessment comes from a study that included scores from 995 children who were administered four different standardized measures of reading comprehension. ²² The researchers found that the median correlation between the different tests was only .54, which was surprisingly low given that the tests purported to measure the same thing. In another analysis of the data, they identified children scoring in the lowest 10th percentile on each of the measures and compared the overlap of these groups across measures. Their results showed that, on average, only 43 percent of the children identified by one test as poor readers were also identified as poor readers on another test. In other words, the odds of any two tests diagnosing the same student as having a comprehension deficit were less than half. Further analyses showed that it was not just a problem of consistency at the lower end of the scale; there was just as much inconsistency in identifying children performing in the highest 10th percentile.

The inconsistency in the results of the different measures of reading comprehension was likely due in part to the poor reliability of these measures, something that is not uncommon for diagnostic measures of reading comprehension. On the other hand, the measures also differed in their formats, so that could have contributed to the variability. One measure employed a cloze task in which children read passages and filled in missing words. In the others, children read either passages or single sentences and then answered open-ended or multiple-choice questions. These formats are known to place different demands on reading-related processes, such as word reading, language ability, and working memory. ²³ Thus, children with different strengths and weaknesses in these processes would be expected to perform differently on the measures.

The content of the passages/sentences may also have added to the variability of the measures. That is, children were likely to have varied in their knowledge about the topics covered, and that could have influenced their performance. Such variability may be present not only across tests but also across passages within a test. For example, in the Reading for Understanding project that my colleagues and I carried out, students read four different passages from an informal reading inventory and answered open-ended questions. We observed considerable variability within students from one passage to another. It was not uncommon for a student to get nearly all the questions correct on one passage and most wrong on another. Whereas there may be several reasons for this variability, differences in background knowledge is a likely contributor.

Because of the variability due to passages, state- and national-level tests of reading use numerous passages that cover multiple topics. But, of course, this introduces the problem of these tests favoring students who have more knowledge about a broad range of topics than those with less knowledge. This has led E. D. Hirsch Jr. to argue that reading tests are actually knowledge tests in disguise. ²⁴

The fact that state and national reading tests are knowledge heavy introduces a further problem: performance on these tests will likely be more difficult to change in the short term, since knowledge acquisition is incremental in nature. Indeed, as I stated at the outset, American children's performance on NAEP has remained virtually unchanged for some time. This has been in spite of significant federal, state, and local efforts. For example, in North Carolina, the percentage of students failing to reach proficiency on state reading tests has remained largely unchanged, hovering above 50 percent, since 2013-14, when the state passed its K-3 Read to Achieve literacy act. ²⁵

Maybe the problem is not only the instructional practices teachers have been encouraged to use but also the way we are assessing comprehension. An alternative approach would be to teach children using an integrated literacy and content-rich curriculum and to test their ability to read and comprehend passages covered in that curriculum. In other words, offer a better match between instruction and assessment. Don't just test the skills and strategies that have been taught; test the specific content-area topics that have been taught. Such an approach would be fairer and more equitable for all involved. Teachers would have a clear idea of what content within which to imbed their literacy instruction. Students would have the opportunity to learn from content-rich curricula and be assessed based on what they learned in school (instead of what they may or may not have learned at home, over the summer, etc.). Also, because instruction would be better matched with assessment, there would be a greater opportunity for schools and districts to evaluate the progress they are making.

One approach that has attempted to better match instruction with assessment is being carried out within the guidelines of the Every Student Succeeds Act assessment pilot program. ²⁶ This program encourages local involvement in the development of the next generation of assessments. It allows states, with approval by the US Department of Education, to pilot new and innovative assessments in lieu of current state exams. Initially, this takes place in a small number of districts before moving on to statewide implementation. As of October 2021, five states have received approval to develop these assessments. Most notable, Louisiana has begun a multiyear process to offer a humanities assessment as an alternative to its English language arts and social studies assessments. ²⁷ The new humanities assessment draws from texts and topics that are included in the state's recommended curriculum. ²⁸ Thus, the content of the test is likely to be well matched with the instruction students receive.

A very limited pilot of this new assessment, LEAP 2025 Humanities, began in the 2018-19 school year, and then implementation was interrupted by the pandemic, ²⁹ so it will likely be several more years before researchers can evaluate the impact of this new approach. Of course, designing an assessment that is in keeping with current research on literacy development is just the first step. The extent to which the assessment will help enhance instructional practices depends on many related components, including meaningful professional development on how to use the results to inform teaching; time (appropriately allocated and compensated) for teachers to learn collaboratively as they adjust to the new assessment; genuine opportunities for all teachers to have a voice in providing feedback on the curriculum and assessment; and lower stakes tied to the assessment results such that teachers are not afraid to be innovative. In fact, one of the findings of the Reading for Understanding Initiative was that "a major roadblock to teacher uptake of new practices is the accountability infrastructure of reform movements. The more test scores matter, the less the likelihood that teachers will adopt novel teaching practices." ³⁰

Still, I am especially encouraged by Louisiana's efforts and am hopeful that other states and districts will also consider how to better align what is tested with what is taught. It is these types of programs, combined with integrated literacy and content-rich curricula, that I believe can better address comprehension. These programs move beyond characterizing comprehension as simply one of the "Big Five" and recognize its complexity and what it will take to help all children understand and learn from what they read. I look forward to attending future conferences where the results of these programs are presented.
Hugh W. Catts is a professor in the Florida State University School of Communication Science and Disorders and is affiliated with the Florida Center for Reading Research. The author of dozens of peer-reviewed articles and editor of several books, Catts has been engaged in research on language and literacy development for over four decades. Much of his work focuses on early identification and prevention of language-based reading disabilities and on reading comprehension assessment and intervention.
*For articles by Hirsch, Willingham, and Wexler on the importance of building knowledge, see the "Reading" section of American Educator's subject index. ( return to article)

Endnotes

1. P. Pearson et al., eds., Reaping the Rewards of the Reading for Understanding Initiative (Washington, DC: National Academy of Education, 2020), naeducation.org/reaping-the-rewards-of-reading-for-understanding-initiative.
2. National Assessment of Educational Progress, "National Achievement-Level Results," Grade 4, Nation's Report Card, 2019, nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/achievement/?grade=4.
3. National Reading Panel, Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction (Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child and Human Development, 2000).
4. D. T. Willingham and G. Lovette, "Can Reading Comprehension Be Taught," Teachers College Record (September 2014).
5. C. Snow, Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2002).
6. G. N. Cervetti and T. S. Wright, "The Role of Knowledge in Understanding and Learning from Text," in Handbook of Reading Research, ed. E. B. Moje et al. (Taylor and Francis Group, 2020).
7. R. Anderson, "Schema-Directed Processes in Language Comprehension," in Cognitive Psychology and Instruction, ed. A. Lesgold et al. (New York: Plenum, 1978).
8. J. Bransford and M. Johnson, "Contextual Prerequisites for Understanding: Some Investigation of Comprehension and Recall," Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11 (1972): 722.
9. For a review written by one of these pioneers, who in turn describes several others, see S. Neuman, "The Role of Knowledge in Early Literacy," Reading Research Quarterly 36, no. 4 (November 2011): 468-75.
10. B. Boulay et al., Summary of Research Generated by Striving Readers on the Effectiveness of Interventions for Struggling Adolescent Readers, NCEE-2016-4001 (Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, October 2015).
11. For a paper that addresses many of the widespread misconceptions about critical thinking, see D. T. Willingham, "How to Teach Critical Thinking," commissioned paper, Education: Future Frontiers (May 2019).
12. Pearson et al., Reaping the Rewards.
13. R. K. Blank, "What Is the Impact of Decline in Science Instructional Time in Elementary School?: Time for Elementary Instruction Has Declined, and Less Time for Science Is Correlated with Lower Scores on NAEP," prepared for the Noyce Foundation, 2012.
14. See, for example, the Knowledge Matters Campaign, knowledgematterscampaign.org, and Curriculum Matters, curriculummatters.org.
15. C. McWayne et al., "Incorporating Knowledge from Children's Homes and Communities," Young Children 75, no. 5 (December 2020): 20-26.
16. J. Gustafson, "Robust Vocabulary Instruction: Bringing Knowledge-Rich Curricula to Life," Achieve the Core, September 30, 2019.
17. Z. Fang, "Scientific Literacy: A Systematic Functional Linguistics Perspective," Science Education 89, no. 2 (March 2005): 335-47.
18. Y. Zhang, "Supporting English Language Learners in Social Studies: Language-Focused Strategies," Social Studies 108 (2017): 2.
19. C. Shanahan and T. Shanahan, "Does Disciplinary Literacy Have a Place in Elementary School?," The Reading Teacher 67, no. 8 (2014): 636-39.
20. J. Kim et al., "Improving Reading Comprehension, Science Domain Knowledge, and Reading Engagement Through a First-Grade Content Literacy Intervention," Journal of Educational Psychology 113, no. 1 (2021): 3-26.
21. H. Hwang, S. Cabell, and R. Joyner, "Does Cultivating Content Knowledge During Literacy Instruction Support Vocabulary and Comprehension in the Elementary School Years?: A Systematic Review," Reading Psychology, manuscript under review.
22. J. Keenan and C. Meenan, "Test Differences in Diagnosing Reading Comprehension Deficits," Journal of Learning Disabilities 47, no. 2 (2014): 125-35.
23. J. Keenan, R. Betjemann, and R. Olson, "Reading Comprehension Tests Vary in the Skills They Assess: Differential Dependence on Decoding and Oral Language," Scientific Studies in Reading 12, no. 3 (2008): 281-300.
24. E. D. Hirsch Jr., Why Knowledge Matters: Rescuing Our Children from Failed Educational Theories (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2016).
25. S. Koon, B. Foorman, and T. Galloway, "Identifying North Carolina Students at Risk of Scoring Below Proficient in Reading at the End of Grade 3," REL 2020-030 (Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast, August 2020).
26. Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. No. 114-95 (2015).
27. For the state's documents on the assessment, see "LEAP 2025 Humanities," Assessments, Louisiana Department of Education, louisianabelieves.com/resources/library/assessment.
28. Louisiana Believes, "Louisiana's Innovative Assessment Pilot National Update," Louisiana Department of Education, August 15, 2019.
29. Louisiana Believes, "Parent Guide to the LEAP 2025 Humanities Student Reports," Louisiana Department of Education, louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/assessment/parent-guide-to-leap-2025-humanities.pdf; and N. Munyan-Penney and C. Barone, "Innovative Assessment Pilot: Louisiana's LEAP 2025 Humanities Assessment," Education Reform Now, November 2020, edreformnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Louisiana-IADA-LEAP-2025-Humanities.pdf.
30. Pearson et al., Reaping the Rewards, 5.

[Illustrations by Jessie Lin]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rethinking How to Promote Reading Comprehension

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is February 2015, and I am at a national conference listening to a panel present the results of their research on improving reading comprehension. Several members of the panel, like myself and a few others in the room, are funded by the Institute of Education Sciences as part of the Reading for Understanding Initiative.

# data[].attributes.headline
Willingham, D. T. (2017, November 25). How to get your mind to read. New York Times. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Willingham, D. T. (2017, November 25). How to get your mind to read. New York Times. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | How to Get Your Mind to Read (Published 2017)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Comprehension depends on what you already know. Let’s start there.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hwang, H., Lupo, S. M., Cabell, S. Q., & Wang, S. (2021). What research says about leveraging the literacy block for learning. Reading In Virginia, XLII (2020-2021), 35-48.

# data[].attributes.subject
Hwang, H., Lupo, S. M., Cabell, S. Q., & Wang, S. (2021). What research says about leveraging the literacy block for learning. Reading In Virginia, XLII (2020-2021), 35-48.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Journal of the Virginia State Literacy Association

# data[].attributes.headline
Building Knowledge Podcast from Core Knowledge Foundation 

# data[].attributes.subject
Building Knowledge Podcast from Core Knowledge Foundation 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The end goal is to help you better understand and support children through their educational journey.

Building Knowledge

In each episode, our team will interview a member of the Core Knowledge community about a range of topics related to the American education system and the Core Knowledge approach to knowledge-based schooling.

Listen In

New episodes will be released each Tuesday, beginning March 22, 2022. Listen and subscribe on Spotify and iHeartRadio.

You can also listen to episodes of Building Knowledge on Buzzsprout.

Featured Episodes

Get a feel for the Building Knowledge podcast and the topics it covers through these featured episodes.

Interview with Dr. E.D. Hirsch, Jr. Part 1

Publish date: March 22, 2022
Interview with Dr. Dan Franck, Editorial Director for Core Knowledge Science (CKSci)

Publish date: April 5, 2022
Get in Touch With the Building Knowledge Team

Have a question about the podcast or a specific episode? Want to see the team cover a particular topic in the future? Let us know. Reach out to us through our contact form with any questions, comments or suggestions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Building Knowledge Podcast - Core Knowledge Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Building Knowledge podcast covers a range of topics around the Core Knowledge approach and American education system. Learn more and listen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Timothy Shanahan is a renowned expert on the teaching of literacy. This podcast addresses practical issues in teaching students to read and to read better.

Timothy Shanahan is a renowned expert on the teaching of literacy. This podcast addresses practical issues in teaching students to read and to read better.

1. What is Linguistic Comprehension in the Simple View of Reading?

What is Linguistic Comprehension in the Simple View of Reading?

The simple view of reading claims that reading comprehension is the product of decoding and linguistic comprehension. But what is linguistic comprehension and what does it matter in the classroom? This episode explores the meaning of linguistic comprehension.

2. On Climbing a Mountain: Four Ways NOT to Deal with Complex Text

On Climbing a Mountain: Four Ways NOT to Deal with Complex Text

These days teachers are told to teach reading with complex text. However, while they might have complex text in their classrooms or in their lessons, their approaches may undermine the benefits of complex texts. This episode cautions teachers to avoid four of these common errors.

New podcast

I am so happy that you have started this Podcast for your blogs. I track your blogs, but I have a hard time finding the time to read them. However, most every morning I listen to Podcasts on literacy so I am excited to add yours' to it. Thank you

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Timothy Shanahan is a renowned expert on the teaching of literacy. This podcast addresses practical issues in teaching students to read and to read better.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Be Informed. Be Empowered. Make a Difference.

Connect with educators and researchers across multiple disciplines via SPELLTalk, the FREE online professional discussion group dedicated to improving literacy through discussion of current research and evidence-based best practices.

> Network with researchers, administrators, practitioners, and other education professionals across multiple disciplines and across the globe.

> Ask questions, share your knowledge and ideas, and dialogue about current research and best practices for the assessment and teaching of written language: reading, writing, and spelling.

> Stay on top of current research. Youll receive daily (M-F) abstracts of recently published journal articles curated from a variety of scholarly journals concerned with the scientific study reading, writing, and spelling.

> Hone your professional skills through interprofessional dialogue, collaborations, and consultations across multiple disciplines concerned with language literacy learning.

Your SPELLTalk subscription is FREE, and you can unsubscribe anytime at the bottom of this page: http://mailman.listserve.com/listmanager/listinfo/spelltalk

Privacy note: Your name and email will only be used to subscribe you to SPELLTalk and related informational and marketing emails from SPELL-Links/Learning By Design. It will not be sold to third parties. You may unsubscribe from our mailing lists at any time by using the unsubscribe option included with each email you receive from us. Be sure to use the opt-out option that is unique to the mailing list from which you would like to be removed. You can view our complete Privacy Policy here https://learningbydesign.com/privacy-policy/

To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the SPELLTalk Archives. ( The current archive is only available to the list members.)

Subscribe to SPELLTalk by filling out the following form. You will be sent email requesting confirmation, to prevent others from gratuitously subscribing you. Once confirmation is received, your request will be held for approval by the list moderator. You will be notified of the moderator's decision by email. This is also a private list, which means that the list of members is not available to non-members.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Be Informed. Be Empowered. Make a Difference. Connect with educators and researchers across multiple disciplines via SPELLTalk, the FREE online professional discussion group dedicated to improving literacy through discussion of current research and evidence-based best practices. > Network with researchers, administrators, practitioners, and other education professionals across multiple disciplines and across the globe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TRLIL 2023 Lunch & Learn, Session 2 - Google Jamboard

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is developmental language disorder (DLD)?

Developmental language disorder (DLD) is one of the most common developmental disorders, affecting approximately 1 in 14 children in kindergarten.

Developmental language disorder (DLD) is a communication disorder that interferes with learning, understanding, and using language. These language difficulties are not explained by other conditions, such as hearing loss or autism, or by extenuating circumstances, such as lack of exposure to language. DLD can affect a child's speaking, listening, reading, and writing. DLD has also been called specific language impairment, language delay, or developmental dysphasia. It is one of the most common developmental disorders, affecting approximately 1 in 14 children in kindergarten. The impact of DLD persists into adulthood.

What causes DLD?

DLD is a neurodevelopmental disorder. Neurodevelopmental disorders are caused by complex interactions between genes and the environment that change brain development. The exact causes of the brain differences that lead to DLD are unknown.

Neurodevelopmental disorders tend to run in families. Children with DLD are more likely than those without DLD to have parents and siblings who have also had difficulties and delays in language development. In fact, 50 to 70 percent of children with DLD have at least one family member with the disorder. In addition, other potentially related neurodevelopmental disorders, such as dyslexia or autism, are more common in the family members of a child with DLD.

Learning more than one language at a time does not cause DLD. The disorder can, however, affect both multilingual children and children who speak only one language. For multilingual children, DLD will impact all languages spoken by a child. Importantly, learning multiple languages is not harmful for a child with DLD. A multilingual child with DLD will not struggle more than a child with DLD who speaks only one language.

What are the symptoms of DLD?

A child with DLD often has a history of being a late talker (reaching spoken language milestones later than peers). Although some late talkers eventually catch up with peers, children with DLD have persistent language difficulties.

Younger children with DLD may:

Be late to put words together into sentences.

Struggle to learn new words and make conversation.

Have difficulty following directions, not because they are stubborn, but because they do not fully understand the words spoken to them.

Make frequent grammatical errors when speaking.

Symptoms common in older children and adults with DLD include:

Limited use of complex sentences.

Difficulty finding the right words.

Difficulty understanding figurative language.

Reading problems.

Disorganized storytelling and writing.

Frequent grammatical and spelling errors.

Language difficulties may be misinterpreted as a behavioral issue. For example, a child who struggles with language may avoid interactions, leading others to think that the child is shy. A child may not follow directions because they don't understand the instructions, but others may interpret this as misbehavior. A child who struggles to communicate may become frustrated and act out. When a child is struggling at home or in school, it is important to determine if language difficulties may be part of the problem.

How is DLD diagnosed?

If a doctor, teacher, or parent suspects that a child has DLD, a speech-language pathologist (a professional trained to assess and treat people with speech or language problems) can evaluate the child's language skills. The type of evaluation depends on the child's age and the concerns that led to the evaluation. In general, an evaluation includes:

Direct observation of the child.

Interviews and questionnaires completed by parents and/or teachers.

Assessments of the child's learning ability.

Standardized tests of current language performance.

These tools allow the speech-language pathologist to compare the child's language skills to those of same-age peers, identify specific difficulties, and plan for potential treatment targets.

Is DLD the same thing as a learning disability?

DLD is not the same thing as a learning disability. Instead, DLD is a risk factor for learning disabilities since problems with basic language skills affect classroom performance. This means that children with DLD are more likely to be diagnosed with a learning disability than children who do not have DLD. They may struggle with translating letters into sounds for reading. Their writing skills may be weakened by grammatical errors, limited vocabulary, and problems with comprehension and organizing thoughts into coherent sentences. Difficulties with language comprehension can make mathematical word problems challenging. Some children with DLD may show signs of dyslexia. By the time they reach adulthood, people with DLD are six times more likely to be diagnosed with reading and spelling disabilities and four times more likely to be diagnosed with math disabilities than those who do not have DLD.

Is DLD a lifelong condition?

DLD is a developmental disorder, which means that its symptoms first appear in childhood. This does not mean that, as children develop, they grow out of the problem. Instead, the condition is apparent in early childhood and will likely continue, but change, as they get older.

For instance, a young child with DLD might use ungrammatical sentences in conversation, while a young adult with DLD might avoid complex sentences in conversations and struggle to produce clear, concise, well-organized, and grammatically accurate writing.

Early treatment during the preschool years can improve the skills of many children with language delays, including those with DLD. Children who enter kindergarten with significant language delays are likely to continue having problems, but they and even older children can still benefit from treatment. Many adults develop strategies for managing DLD symptoms. This can improve their daily social, family, and work lives.

What treatments are available for DLD?

Treatment services for DLD are typically provided or overseen by a licensed speech-language pathologist. Treatment may be provided in homes, schools, university programs for speech-language pathology, private clinics, or outpatient hospital settings.

Identifying and treating children with DLD early in life is ideal, but people can benefit from treatment regardless of when it begins. Treatment depends on the age and needs of the person. Starting treatment early can help young children to:

Acquire missing elements of grammar.

Expand their understanding and use of words.

Develop social communication skills.

For school-age children, treatment may focus on understanding instruction in the classroom, including helping with issues such as:

Following directions.

Understanding the meaning of the words that teachers use.

Organizing information.

Improving speaking, reading, and writing skills.

Adults entering new jobs, vocational programs, or higher education may need help learning technical vocabulary or improving workplace writing skills.

What research does NIDCD support on DLD?

The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) supports a wide variety of research on the causes, symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment of DLD. For example, NIDCD funds research that seeks to understand how brain and learning patterns differ for children with DLD compared to children with typical language development. Other research focuses on understanding why socioeconomic disparities increase the risk of DLD in children from low-income families. NIDCD-supported scientists are also determining how to accurately diagnose DLD, especially in culturally diverse children who speak a variety of dialects or languages. The institute also funds research to ascertain, at a highly practical and specific level, the best ways to teach language to children with DLD, including how many times a language structure (e.g., using proper tense) should be practiced, how instructional sessions should be organized, and how often teaching should occur. NIDCD-supported programs are also researching how to coach parents or peers of children with DLD to support language growth at home or school.

The NIDCD maintains a directory of organizations providing information on the normal and disordered processes of hearing, balance, taste, smell, voice, speech, and language.

For more information, contact us at:

NIDCD Information Clearinghouse
1 Communication Avenue
Bethesda, MD 20892-3456
Toll-free voice: (800) 241-1044
Toll-free TTY: (800) 241-1055
Email: nidcdinfo@nidcd.nih.gov

NIH Pub. No. 22-DC-8194
October 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Developmental language disorder (DLD) is a communication disorder that interferes with learning, understanding, and using language. These language difficulties are not explained by other conditions, such as hearing loss or autism, or by extenuating circumstances, such as lack of exposure to language. DLD can affect a child's speaking, listening, reading, and writing.

# data[].attributes.headline
THE ROLE OF BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE AND LITERACY IN THE COMMUNITY WITH SUSAN NEUMAN, EDD

# data[].attributes.subject
THE ROLE OF BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE AND LITERACY IN THE COMMUNITY WITH SUSAN NEUMAN, EDD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dr. Danielle Scorrano: [00:00:00] Welcome to READ, the Research Education and ADvocacy podcast with me, your host, Danielle Scorrano. Before we talk more about READ, you are about to hear this amazing, inspiring leader in education. I am joined by Dr. Susan Neuman. Dr. Neuman, welcome to the READ Podcast.

Dr. Susan Neuman: Oh, it's so delightful to be here.

Dr. Danielle Scorrano: Oh, it's so delightful to have you. And for all of our READers tuning in, you know that we connect you with researchers, thought leaders and educators like Dr. Neuman, who share their work insights and expertise about education and child development. So we're both, I think, recording from New York City. We're New York City neighbors. Can you set the scene for us, Dr. Neuman, where are you today? How are you showing up to this conversation?

Dr. Susan Neuman: So I'm in my office, at NYU and surrounded by me are all these students who are graduating today. So it's a sea of purple. It's beautiful.

Dr. Danielle Scorrano: I hear you're the violets right? Yeah, that's right. A Violet. My [00:01:00] fiancé is an NYU grad and I was talking to him I guess yesterday, and he said, yeah, just tell her Go Violet. So when you mentioned the purple, I remember you know your mascot. Is it mascot? The mascot is the violets?

Dr. Susan Neuman: I guess so. You know, I always kid that if you look for NYU football team, look again, no mascot other than the flower.

Dr. Danielle Scorrano: Oh, I love that. And what a perfect day, right, to celebrate commencement, especially for educators. It always just grounds me in that sense of purpose. I'm sure for you it is too. So for those of you eager to learn about Dr. Neuman, she is a professor of teaching and learning at New York University, and you specialize in childhood education and early literacy development. Previously, Dr. Neuman has been a professor at the University of Michigan and has served as the US assistant Secretary for elementary and secondary education. In her role as assistant secretary, she established the Early [00:02:00] Reading First program, the Early Childhood Educator Professional Development Program, and was responsible for all activities in Title One of the Elementary and Secondary Act. She is also served on the IRA Board of Directors and other numerous boards of nonprofit organizations, and served as the co-editor of Reading Research Quarterly, the ILA flagship research journal. Her research and teaching interests include early childhood policy curriculum and early reading instruction from pre-kindergarten to grade three for children who live in poverty. Also, Dr. Neuman has received two lifetime achievement awards for research in literacy development and is a member of the Reading Hall of Fame and a fellow of the AERA or the American Educational Research Association.

She's written over 100 articles and authored and edited 12 books. I mean, I was getting so excited just reading all about your work and researching all you've done. I mean, I've learned from you for years since I joined an [00:03:00] education, and I'm so excited to talk to you as we read your formal bio. Can you tell us more about your area of expertise and more importantly, your story? What's your path in your professional career?

Dr. Susan Neuman: Well, my passion is about helping children, particularly those who've not had a fighting chance achieve in literacy. So I began as a fifth grade teacher in a small area in Vallejo, California.

And I went into that classroom and I said to the principal, how do I teach reading? The principal looked at me and say, oh my gosh, do I have a problem? And in fact, what I recognize is, despite the fact that I had schooling, I had my master's degree and whatever, I really didn't know how to teach reading. I didn't know how to help these children.

I loved them so much, but I didn't think I was doing. As well as I could for them. So I [00:04:00] went on into education. I got my doctorate in education and then I went on to teach at the higher ed institutions. And I love working with teachers, but I still maintained my passionate interest in helping young children learn how to read.

And one of the things that always strikes me, Is that many of these children, oh, the bulk of these children are just so bright and so willing to learn and eager to learn, but there are structural inequalities in our society that for some reason have just stopped their progress over time. So, Much of what I do is try to figure out what is going on in communities and how can we create additional supports so they can be successful.

So I work in school as well as out of school to try and make that happen for kids.

Dr. Danielle Scorrano: Yeah. Thank you for sharing [00:05:00] that. I actually started my career as a fifth grade teacher before I joined Winsward. And similar, I think, you know, when I've talked to people on the READ podcast and I've talked to other educators, there's this drive to want to do best for our kids and for teachers. It's really difficult to find that path where we could get the necessary resources. We talked a lot and guests on the READ podcast have talked about focusing on improving Higher Ed Institutions, improving pre-service programs, focusing on professional development. I also appreciate how you talked about targeting those structural inequalities.

I've talked to a number of researchers and in my own work understanding all of the community factors that may inhibit a child from being successful, even when all of our kids just so desperately want to read and achieve what isthe joy of reading and the joy of the written word.

So thank you for starting with that. With all of your experience from [00:06:00] reading education to education at large to policy, you are that researcher, that leader that encompasses the research education and the research advocacy.And I started this type of format in my episodes where we would focus on the research education link first. And so I would like to know more about your work in connecting research and education, starting with your work on the early literacy skills. And I'll sit a little side note, I was looking you up on Twitter a couple weeks ago, and I happened to just see a tweet from Dan Willingham about you, and it was actually from October, 2022.

And he says in his tweet, You: Science of Reading is not just phonics. I get it, but where do I start with comprehension, especially in early grades. Me: Did you know Susan Neuman at NYU has been working on this issue for years and he capitalizes years as YEARS, years! Of course. So you've been focusing on early literacy skills on this comprehensive framework, and how do you conceptualize the code focus skills and the meaning [00:07:00] focus skills that educators should be focusing on?

Dr. Susan Neuman: Well, that's an interesting question, and in fact, I just had a meeting before this podcast to talk about that. We know that children need code-based skills. It is absolutely critical. For these children, it is an opening to literacy development and being able to be independently reading on one's own, but that's only part of the story. The other part of the story is what we call language comprehension, and that has been a very amorphous term. In other words, it's hard to pin that down and I think Hollis Scarborough did a beautiful job years ago in talking about the reading rope, and essentially she said, this is what language comprehension is. It is vocabulary, it's background knowledge. It's the ability to use oral language development. In other words, oral language and [00:08:00] vocabulary are different things. It's being able to reason using language and I think that both of those skills are absolutely critical. You can't have one without the other. It's like love and marriage. And so what we want to see is we want to see equal amounts of attention devoted to those particular skills, both helping children decode and understand how decoding works, but also to understand what reading is all about and what language is the basis of reading. So those two are really important.

Dr. Danielle Scorrano: Thank you for outlining that. You said in the beginning that the meaning-focused skills with vocabulary, background knowledge and oral language are outlined, but it's still a little amorphous. Why do you think that is?

Dr. Susan Neuman: Because I think they're harder to measure. One of the things that I do with teachers is I say, first thing we need to understand oral [00:09:00] language. We need to talk with children and to engage them in conversation. The more they use language, the better they get at language. But oral language is often colloquial. We know that, for example, we will tend to use easier words when I'm communicating with you than book language, for example.

Vocabulary is often the language of schooling, and you'll notice that if you take an average book and you say, what words should I directly teach children? That's a very hard task. You can't really figure it out so easily, and even more so it's difficult to measure. The problem is that if you don't have that vocabulary, vocabulary and background knowledge are very tightly connected. So if I know words and I know their deep meaning of words, I'm likely to have some background knowledge about that and that will aid [00:10:00] comprehension. So one of the things I feel very strongly about is we've often attacked comprehension as a generic skill. You either have it or you don't, you know main idea, or you don't.

But the problem is that comprehension is so dependent on background knowledge and vocabulary so that it is a very particular skill, and as a result, we need to teach that content knowledge and background so that children can comprehend. It's tougher.

Dr. Danielle Scorrano: Right. Yeah, that's a good point. And I think background knowledge has, I don't want to say achieved the limelight. It is in the limelight in popular discourse right now. And truly it's been something that has needed and has been an area of focus and a lot of your research and a lot of research communities with the science of reading for decades. So, for those of us who are just, perhaps introduced to the importance of background knowledge and vocabulary through Twitter or popular [00:11:00] discourse, what are those things that you could share with them to better inform why they're so important, and how we really get to teaching background knowledge and vocabulary in the classroom?

Dr. Susan Neuman: Well, you raised really interesting questions. The first is, why is background knowledge so important? So, I'll give you an example from my own work. I can read a fourth grade science text. I can tell you that I may not comprehend it because I don't know very much about science. And so when I read it, I can read every word. I can basically read it fluently, in fact. But do I understand what I'm reading? Very often, not, it's fourth grade. What is wrong with me? Well, one of the reasons and one of the problems is I don't have the prerequisite knowledge that enables me to take that text and really understand it. And the problem about background knowledge is that many of our [00:12:00] children are coming to school with different levels of background knowledge.

So we just did a study in one of our schools and we did a study on the content knowledge and learning about insects. And it turns out that many of our children don't know that insects have three body parts, six legs. And as a result, they will often misconstrue a particular animal as an insect because they don't have the background knowledge that other children will have. And so the question is, how do we build it? And that has been the big question in much of the research. The easiest strategy, I say, is to read informational texts to children. So, reading informational text and reading narrative nonfiction texts, if we do that well, can build that background knowledge [00:13:00] for so many children, some of which have a great deal of knowledge, some of which have less so, but it builds a shared community and a shared body of knowledge from which we can all begin to build more comprehension and inferencing skills from that as well.

Dr. Danielle Scorrano: Yeah, that's a really good point. And I've read some your work, is that something that you talk a lot about is, content rich reading instruction and curriculum?

Dr. Susan Neuman: Right. There is no reason why we should give dribble to children. They deserve better. These children are so eager to learn.

So what we do with our World of Words curriculum that I developed is we stay on a particular topic for two or three weeks. So let's say we'll take the issue of wild weather. Children love wild weather, you know, all lizards and volcanoes and eruptions, they love it. [00:14:00] And so what we'll do is we'll do read aloud text in information, narrative non-fiction for two or three weeks.

By the time they're done, they really have a deep understanding of weather. They have many of the words so that they can converse about weather. And so what we're doing is creating a language that they can use to really develop concepts, comprehension, and then inference beyond the text.

Dr. Danielle Scorrano: Yeah, that's an interesting example. I like how you talked about your creating language because all of these facets of the science of reading, whether it's the code-based skills or the meaning-based skills are integrated in a language rich environment. I even drew the connection the underpinnings of cognitive science, that background knowledge is continuously making networks of schema, where we create these mental representations and tying [00:15:00] language to that. And so that's really exciting that you're focusing on two to three weeks on a topic to really continue to build that work What about vocabulary? So you said that background knowledge and vocabulary are very tied. So how do we continue, or how does this operationalize or become applied in the classroom?

Dr. Susan Neuman: Well, we're very careful in the vocabulary we teach. One the things that we know is that children will need explicit definitions of the words in which we are going to teach before they encounter the text. So one of the things we always tell teachers, I always tell teachers is we don't start by saying, what do you know about wild weather? Because what inevitably will happen is there's one child that will raise their hand aggressively, and all the other children will feel silent. Now, I have to tell you that as a very young child, I was very shy.

So I would [00:16:00] never have been that child to raise that hand. I would always keep my face down and just hunker. And a lot of our children do that. So what we do is before any kind of reading, we'll provide a couple of explicit definition. A cave, we're learning about a cave. A cave is a hole in the mountain. And so we give a very simple definition of a few words. We focus on nouns because nouns create mental imagery for children, right? So they can envision what a hole in a mountain might look like, and then we might have also pictures and sometimes videos. So we'll share some background knowledge that way with children.

Then when we begin to read, they begin to hear some of those words, and it becomes embedded in meaningful content. And then what we do toward. The end of [00:17:00] reading is we talk about it. We'll do turn and talk with the children and ask them what they've learned about caves and the holes in the mountains and what might be in those holes.

And so what we're doing is we're not focusing on many different words. We say about three words a session, but what we're trying to do is give them explicit meaning and then using that meaning in context and then getting children to talk about that. And it becomes their own at that point.

Dr. Danielle Scorrano: As you're saying the children are creating mental representations, I'm creating mental representations of the classrooms that you're describing. I love that. That reminded me of some of the work that we're doing in terms of helping teachers to decide whether they need to activate or build background knowledge with the students.

And it sounds like in some of the definitions you're providing and the imagery and the videos, it's a great way to build background knowledge [00:18:00] and then motivate the students to create this engaging environment so that when they are interacting with the text that they've already have and build background knowledge through those visual images, through perhaps some notes on the board so that they can refer to in order to continue to activate the knowledge and then interact with the content that they're learning.

Dr. Susan Neuman: Can I just interrupt? I think you said it really well. Build and then activate rather than activate and then try to build later on. So the building is really important and then what you're doing is you're activating that extant knowledge, and that's really important.

Dr. Danielle Scorrano: Background knowledge is so interesting because there's so much that you could do with it and make lessons engaging by bringing the world to the students. The other question is, teachers have precious time in their reading instruction, so [00:19:00] what are some other implications for instruction that they should be really intentional about? What about something like distributed review or creating some intentional opportunities for more knowledge and language building?

Dr. Susan Neuman: Right. So you mentioned a couple of things that I want to highlight first. What we do is we vary teacher questioning, and we do it very deliberately. So in the beginning when we work with students, we often use a column response kind of technique. And what we'll do is we'll say, a cave is a hole in a mountain. What is a cave? A hole in the mountain. So what we want to do is get the children to talk a lot, to co-construct with us and we do it. I use my hand motion. My turn. Your turn in a very call and response technique. It's choral reading in some ways.

But then what we'll do is, we'll also at various points, carefully done, we'll [00:20:00] ask some questions to make sure that they really are understanding the topic. That going back to your notion of schema, that we're on the same schema with the students. And then at the end we ask open-ended questions. And we don't ask open-ended questions too early on because with open-ended questions, very often teachers will ask an open-ended question and the answer will be wrong. Our dear children, how they'll go off in various ways. And so what we'll do is we make sure that the open-ended questions that the children have enough background knowledge now to really ask and answer those open-ended questions in a way that is more targeted and really extends what they are learning.

So we're really careful about that. In addition, you mentioned review and one of the things that we note that's really important is that a lot of [00:21:00] times we as teachers teach and then we assume children know, but we neglect to review and then distribute that review over time. What we do is initially re review what we've learned, those three words, and then additional three more words. We'll review those words, and then what we'll do is space that review over time. So it might be over a month that we will introduce that word all over again and see that children are remembering it and developing an even more enriched understanding of that word. So, distributed review has been shown in research to have tremendous impact, and really leads from short-term memory to long-term memory and to deeper learning.

Dr. Danielle Scorrano: Yeah, I'm glad that you explained that. I think that's one powerful strategy that teachers [00:22:00] can use or an instructional implication beyond just what we see in reading, right? That point of distributed review is showing just how comprehensive reading instruction is - that you're pulling in reading, research and cognitive science and all these other elements to not only teach, but to support retention. And I think that's really powerful. I think it's one that's been really interesting for me, particularly with review and retention and as children continue to get older. But even in the example you cited, you are very intentional with how you can include that with younger children.

And the other piece that I wanted to highlight was the questioning piece. When I started teaching, I didn't learn that it had to plan questions or how to pre or even think, okay, I'll create a lesson plan, but I don't need to create my questions. And it wasn't until I came to Windward where I was taught how to be intentional with writing questions and comments [00:23:00] and thinking about what was going to facilitate discussion and comprehension and checking for understanding and incorporating vocabulary in a language-rich environment. And so these are the things I think that are really tangible for teachers.

Dr. Susan Neuman: Absolutely.

Dr. Danielle Scorrano: My other question though. Yeah, go ahead. I have so many questions, I'm so excited. The other piece you said, I want to return back to what you talked about in the beginning with your story. You had talked about one thing you're interested in is understanding was the structural inequalities and examining what's happening in the community. And so we spent a good part of the first part of this interview on educators and classroom implications, and I'd like to know more about your insights on the community. So let's start with families and caregivers. What should they be thinking about, particularly in early childhood to support literacy?

Dr. Susan Neuman: Well, I love those [00:24:00] questions because I often deal with, families and caregivers in community settings. So, I'm always on parents' side. I'm a parent myself. I know all the complexities of raising two wonderful children. But parents are very busy in this day and age, and so I think as a teacher we have to be aware that the parents are bringing their children, their loved ones to the classroom. These children are very loved, but parents may not have a great deal of time to work with them at home. And I think that we should be cognizant of that. They live in a busy world, and we need to respect these families in what they do.

I can talk about some of the things that we do to support families in communities. First, I think we recognize that all families live in [00:25:00] communities. And neighborhood is very important, has a very important role in children's development, and I think we underestimate that. We underestimate it because we think of the parent child relationship. But we don't often think about the parent child in the community, in the neighborhood relationship. So, for example, we've been focusing on the fact that many of our neighborhoods in poor communities have very limited access to books, especially during the summer months. We're coming up to summer and what we're finding is that many programs shut down. You know, head starts will close, and early programs will close for the summer, and many families are left with very few resources and very few opportunities to really help and engage their children. And so, one of the projects that we've been doing is to make sure that they are books in [00:26:00] communities and to work in various places in those communities. So some of you on this podcast might know about my work in laundromats. We know that parents, for example, bring their children to the mats two hours a week.

And so what we've done is we've created literacy related centers in laundromats to engage those children in literacy related activities. We bring in trusted messengers. Sometimes volunteers in the community, librarians who will read to children while their parents are doing laundry.

We recognize that parents are terribly busy, and they may not have opportunities to read to their kids, so we provide other strategies to do so. We also have programs in barbershops so that our little guys are, while they're getting their haircut, we have barbers who talk about literacy with their children and try to help them understand the importance of early schooling and why it's [00:27:00] important to read to kids and the importance of reading diverse stories, which have images of themselves in it. I have this notion of a 360 surround that children should be surrounded with books and print in their community. And this ensures that whether it's the grocery store, the laundromat, the bank, the car dealership children have access to print. And that goes a long way to really beginning the process of loving to read.

Dr. Danielle Scorrano: Yeah. Again, I'm like in a trance. I'm in this mental imagery of what you're describing in the community, and what I hear you talking about is it's an integrated approach. When I think about some of the work, we had spoken to Dr. Lakeisha Johnson a few months ago and she had cited ecological models and where I hear you saying is this ecological [00:28:00] framework to thinking about reading beyond a classroom. And that it's involved in the community, that there are systems of support for kiddos. And that brings me to some questions on research advocacy link, and that, READers and Dr. Neuman, is a part where we're focused on now. What we can do now as leaders in our community? What should policymakers be thinking about, spanning from the classroom to the community, to research institutions and perhaps institutions of higher education?

And I want to follow up with what you just talked about with this "360 surround," and my initial question was to myself, well, who's responsible for that? And then I started to think back, I said, okay, in this integrated approach, there are many different people, stakeholders who are responsible. It's not just one set of stakeholders, that it's many. Can you help me in my thinking understand how various stakeholders can be responsible? Or if [00:29:00] someone's listening to this and said, that's a great idea, how do they get started in something like that of these certain community programs?

Dr. Susan Neuman: Good question. I like your notion a lot about, it's a shared responsibility. It is not just about teachers in classrooms. I see teachers in New York City all the time, and they're doing a marvelous job on the whole, but they can't do it alone. They need support from our community and so, I think that one of the ways in which we started with laundromats and barbershops is they began to realize that what's good for business is good for the community.

If they can create family centered materials and approaches, the community will develop loyalty to that dealership or that barbershop or that laundromat. We have [00:30:00] parents who say that they come to a specific laundromat because they think the manager cares about them and their children. What we begin to do is we spread that word. We say what is good for the community is also good for business and we're beginning to get gain traction. The other thing that we've often underappreciated is our wonderful public librarians who are doing so much outreach in the community and really getting outside the public library itself and beginning to help and other establishments in the community. So I say the way to get started my perspective is to begin to realize that there are trade organizations that are trying to do good. Let's give them some good ideas to help them along.

So years ago, for example, JetBlue came to me and they said, we want to do good. We have a social [00:31:00] responsibility. We're an airline, but we're supposed to do something good, what could we do? And so we established vending machines that are in grocery stores with free books so that when parents are waiting in line to check out, they, oh my gosh, there's a book vending machine. I can get a book from my child. It's a feel good experience and it's also good for JetBlue, frankly. So I think that forging relationships with organizations is one way that we can begin to really make a difference.

Dr. Danielle Scorrano: Yeah. Oh, I love that. Those are some great examples. What about school leaders? And so, you and I are both sitting in New York City. I know that you are active across the country and world, frankly, on different policies in reading. But you know, it's not lost on me that we are sitting in a city that is putting a lot of attention into reading education. And I think [00:32:00] sometimes I feel like the whole world is watching New York, and that might just be like my own insular way of thinking about this, but it's true that the New York City DOE has hit headlines. So even just beyond policy in general, other cities that are looking towards New York and other states that have already made progress. So what should these school leaders in these cities be focusing on right now?

Dr. Susan Neuman: Well, you know, we've just done an analysis of 220 bills across the United States, all focused on reading reform right now. And I'd say, some exciting things are beginning to happen. I think that one of the things that we're recognizing is that evidence matters. And that we have a bulk of evidence on literacy, and we need to use it. We need to ensure that our children are getting the best programs, possible.

But one of the things that does scare me, Is that when I hear some people talk about [00:33:00] reading reform, I hear them talk about phonics, as if phonics were the vitamin pill that is going to change everything in life. And so I think what we have to do is be careful in our rhetoric to focus on and to recognize, as I said, the very beginning, that reading is comprehension. And if we only teach phonics, what we're going to do is we're going to be sadly behind. We're going to have spent a heck of a lot of money and not get the results we really want. So what I'm hoping for New York and what I'm hoping that our other cities follow is, I think we're beginning to recognize that reading is a comprehensive skill, that it is complex, that the teachers are working very hard at the science of reading and understanding that the many pillars of reading that [00:34:00] need to be addressed. I think we're also beginning to understand that some children will need additional supports.

Many of these bills also focus on the importance of culturally responsive instruction that is sensitive to the many wonderful identities and variations we have in our beautiful city. I think we are recognizing that language is so critically important and that we want our children, if we could, possibly be multilingual, not just bilingual, but multilingual, so learning from other languages to enhance our skills in language is ideal. Finally, I see that many of these bills that are coming out are more sensitive to parents and community, and they recognize that the community can and should help, and that parents [00:35:00] need to have a very vocal role in this reading reform. We can't do it without them, but we also need their expertise because they know their child best. And they can help us so dramatically in what we do. So I think, understanding that will be critical for policy.

Dr. Danielle Scorrano: Yeah, I like that last piece too. We've been doing a leadership series called LEAD on READ on the READ Podcast, and some of the insights I've been gaining are these qualities of empathy and compassion and bringing mutual respect and shared ownership, and celebrating all the expertise, like you said, into reading. And I appreciate that last piece too of the partnership work. Because it's not just one entity alone, it's this shared responsibility and frankly, like this, like we both said, shared expertise, shared efficacy, that we could support our kiddos.

And so thank you for talking about that. I'm so curious and so inspired by you [00:36:00] and all the work that you're doing, and so I would like in the last question to know more about what you're working on, that you're excited to share, that perhaps no one's really asking you that you're just like be on the lookout for this project. Or, where are you invested right now?

Dr. Susan Neuman: Well, I've invested a few things, but I guess one of the things I'm invested in, number one, is community. And we've talked a little bit about that, but I'm also invested in working in media. And I'm working with groups that are producing media that is much better than we've done in the past. In our work, we're doing eye tracking technology and using eye tracking technology to basically understand how children comprehend media and then to design the media in ways that really support children's learning. So one of the things we've learned is that, we call it a synergy, a theory of synergy, and [00:37:00] that many of our children will learn through print.

We're certainly hoping that print is very important in their lives, but sometimes offering other media like video really engages them in such a way and bring us these ideas together more vividly than before. So our theory of synergy is about using multiple media or using cross-platform learning to really enhance children's opportunity to learn and their joy in learning. I mean, these children are as you know, digital natives and they learn through those medias. Those are some of the things I'm interested in.

Dr. Danielle Scorrano: That is so exciting. I'm really looking forward to learning more about that as the project continues. Where can we learn more from you, Dr. Neuman? Where could we connect with you? How do we find you on this worldwide web of the internet?

Dr. Susan Neuman: Well, I probably, I do a little [00:38:00] Twitter. We have a website that I'm happy to share where we really tried to bring all of our work together. If I said, in essence what I do, it's really a content focused approach to literacy, where I think that learning and learning about literacy and learning about content is the answer to creating joy in learning generally. So we all want to be smart in this world and the best way to do it is to embrace both content and literacy together.

Dr. Danielle Scorrano: Yeah. Thank you so much. And I think what we, the two of us have, or at least what I'm learning from you is this continuing to engage in this active dialogue and this partnership across schools and communities and other leaders in the policy space. So I appreciate you bringing that to the forefront, really this active dialogue and this shared ownership.

Dr. Susan Neuman: Well, thank you. It's been fun to talk. I love talking about these issues.

Dr. Danielle Scorrano: [00:39:00] Yes. Me too, and it was so great to talk to you. Thank you so much for lending your time with us, Dr. Neuman.

Dr. Susan Neuman: Oh, I'm happy to do so.

Dr. Danielle Scorrano: Thank you and thank you all for listening to this episode of the READ podcast. To learn more from this episode or from any of our previous guests, you can access my free READ bookmarks, or top moments from each episode by visiting readpodcast.org.

I continuously strive to connect you with and learn from inspiring leaders like Dr. Neuman, and advocates in research and education. If you have any thoughts, questions, or ideas of topics and speakers, feel free to reach out via email at info@readpodcast.org. I also invite you to like, subscribe and share the READ Podcast with friends and colleagues, and you can also follow The Windward Institute's social media pages to find out more about upcoming speakers, episodes and events.

Dr. Neuman, I always have a sign off that says, until next time, READers, I would be honored if you said, until next time READers.

Dr. Susan Neuman: Until next [00:40:00] time, READers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
episode 45 - the role of background knowledge and literacy in the community with susan neuman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Episode 45 - The Role of Background Knowledge and Literacy in the Community with Susan Neuman, EdD - The Windward School

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. Danielle Scorrano: [00:00:00] Welcome to READ, the Research Education and ADvocacy podcast with me, your host, Danielle Scorrano. Before we talk more about READ, you are about to hear this amazing, inspiring leader in education. I am joined by Dr. Susan Neuman. Dr. Neuman, welcome to the READ Podcast.

# data[].attributes.headline
Rethinking Reading Comprehension with Hugh Catts Podcast 

# data[].attributes.subject
Rethinking Reading Comprehension with Hugh Catts Podcast 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You can find every episode of Melissa & Lori Love Literacy right here on this page starting with the most recent episodes. You can even search below for any guests or topics you are interested in to find all the episodes you want to listen to!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Melissa and Lori Love Literacy is a podcast for educators interested in learning more about the science of reading, knowledge building, and high-quality curriculum! Join Melissa and Lori as they tackle new ways of thinking about how to teach reading and writing. Guests include literacy researchers and experts, teachers and leaders, parents and advocates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Natalie Wexler, education journalist and author of "The Knowledge Gap," hosts the inaugural series of our new podcast, Reading Comprehension Revisited.

In six short (~30-minute) episodes, Natalie tackles crucial questions such as, why do students from low-income backgrounds typically score lower on reading tests? Why do improvements in the early grades fade out as students advance to higher levels? And most significantly, why haven't substantial investments in education reform delivered expected results?

The answer lies in a longstanding misunderstanding about reading comprehension itself, and how students learn to make meaning from texts. Over six episodes, you'll learn what research tells us about how children really learn to read, and you'll hear from educators from around the country as they share their experiences of embedding knowledge-building into their literacy instruction, and the powerful effects this change has had on their students.
Episode 1: "Kids were bored to death"
June 28, 2023 - Despite substantial investments in education reform, the US remains in the grip of a decades-long reading crisis. But why? With the help of teachers and researchers, host Natalie Wexler introduces the urgent need to revisit our approach to reading comprehension.
Episode 2: "A simple way of looking at a complex problem"
June 28, 2023 - Thanks to tireless efforts by researchers, advocates, and educators, the importance of systematically teaching decoding is finally being recognized. But, as you'll hear, there's far more to reading than decoding, and more we need to do to help our kids become truly literate.
Episode 3: "That cloud looks like an anvil"
July 5, 2023 - Abby Boruff, Deloris Fowler, and Kyair Butts teach different ages and subjects, in different parts of the country. When their schools adopted knowledge-building curricula they were skeptical, but the dramatic results they saw in their classrooms helped change their minds.
Episode 4: "Now they had something to write about"
July 12, 2023 - It's hard to read about a topic you don't have knowledge about, but it's virtually impossible to write about it. By having students write about content they're learning about, knowledge-building curricula boost both writing ability and learning in general.
Episode 5: "Everything was in silos"
July 19, 2023 - To become fully literate, many students need a curriculum that builds knowledge in a logical, coherent way across grade levels, and only a leader can put that kind of system in place. Meet Brent Conway and Dr. LaTonya Goffney, two leaders who did exactly that.
Episode 6: "Think what a better society we'll have"
July 26, 2023 - American education has a number of serious problems - and our failure to start building kids' knowledge early is a fundamental one. But there are ways to ensure that the growing trend toward knowledge-building curriculum takes root and spreads.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Natalie Wexler, education journalist and author of "The Knowledge Gap," hosts the inaugural series of our new podcast, Reading Comprehension Revisited. In six short (~30-minute) episodes, Natalie tackles crucial questions such as, why do students from low-income backgrounds typically score lower on reading tests?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Episode 40: Language basis of reading, dyslexia, and reading comprehension with Hugh Catts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Listen to this episode from SeeHearSpeak Podcast on Spotify. Episode 40: Language basis of reading, dyslexia, and reading comprehension with Hugh Catts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Connecting Word Meanings Through Semantic Mapping

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Semantic maps (or graphic organizers) help students, especially struggling students and those with disabilities, to identify, understand, and recall the meaning of words they read in the text.

# data[].attributes.headline
Wanted a Science of Reading Comprehension Movement by Robert Pondiscio

# data[].attributes.subject
Wanted a Science of Reading Comprehension Movement by Robert Pondiscio

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wanted: A Science of Reading Comprehension movement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Just in the nick of time for the last days of summer beach reading, there were a pair of big stories about reading instruction in TIME magazine and The New Yorker last month. That’s about as mainstream as media attention gets, and signals that maybe the tide really has turned on literacy instruction…

# data[].attributes.headline
Comprehension Skills or Strategies by Shanahan

# data[].attributes.subject
Comprehension Skills or Strategies by Shanahan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Comprehension Skills or Strategies | Shanahan on Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These days, the core reading programs do pretty much the same thing with the educational standards, with each standard being translated into a question type in lessons and assessments.

# data[].attributes.headline
Pamela Snow's Language (and literacy) House 

# data[].attributes.subject
Pamela Snow's Language (and literacy) House 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is an August 2020 update on this post, to link to a new open-access paper The Science of Language and Reading, published this week in Child Language Teaching and Therapy.

I have updated the graphic below, in line with the version that is in the above paper, and suggest you refer to the paper for a more detailed commentary on the model. Once again, you are welcome to use the Language House model; I simply request appropriate attribution.

*****

Greetings and a belated welcome to 2020. Things have been a bit quiet over here at The Snow Report, while I have been enjoying some long service leave in between professional roles. At the end of 2019, I concluded my term as Head of the La Trobe Rural Health School and tomorrow (January 28) I formally commence as Professor of Cognitive Psychology in the School of Education at La Trobe University. Happily, this role is based in my lovely adopted home-town, Bendigo.

I've been using this period of leave to attend to long-overdue writing tasks as well as preparing some of the presentations I'll be giving in 2020. This work has taken me back to my Language House model, a conceptual framework I have been using for some years in presentations, and have published previously on this blog.

I'd like to share an updated version with you here and would welcome feedback on its utility. There is a version of this model and associated commentary below under review for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and in the event that that is accepted, I will provide a link here in due course.

The basic principle with this schematic representation is that building up children's oral language skills (receptively and expressively) and later their reading, writing, and spelling skills, is akin to building a house, in the sense that both require strong foundations, and careful attention to structural integrity and inter-connectedness of component parts.

It's important to remember that this is a conceptual model, designed to help us think about a number of developmental processes that need to smoothly coalesce in infancy, early childhood, the school years, and throughout adolescence. It is not intended to provide definitive and exhaustive coverage of all aspects of early language, social-emotional well-being, and reading, writing, and spelling abilities.

We all know that when we build a house, we don't start with walls or the roof. When we build a house, we begin with foundations, but even more fundamentally than that, we need to think about the ground on which the foundations will be placed.

In this model, the solid ground is the social and emotional contexts in which infants and toddlers experience language use in the first two years of life. In ideal circumstances, children are nurtured by adult carers who display warm, responsive availability, providing prompt and reliable soothing, lots of close physical contact, eye-contact and use of "" when interacting with the infant. This sends strong signals to the infant and toddler that their world is, by and large, safe and reliable, and their needs, physical and emotional, will be met.

The development of a secure attachment style is an important outcome of warm, responsive parenting, and gives infants internal working models that they take with them throughout life, about how human relationships work. Secure attachment also assists with the development of empathy and the ability to understand another person's affective state, often through the linking of emotions with their verbal labels. It's much easier, as children move though childhood and adolescence, for them to manage emotions they can name and discuss, than for their emotional states to be undifferentiated but generally unpleasant. This is confusing and probably contributes to difficulties for troubled children and adolescents in deriving benefit from verbally-mediated interventions such as counselling. Sometimes, problems naming emotional states are so marked tha t alexithymia may be present. Word sleuths among you will know that the prefix "a" means "lack of"; "lexi" means word, and "thymia" refers to mood - so you can see where this term comes from. We have identified alexithymia as a prevalent problem for young people in the youth justice syste m, many of whom have severe maltreatment (abuse and/or neglect) histories.

So - starting with the solid solid ground of emotionally responsive and attuned carers, means that children are going to receive a great deal of verbally-mediated soothing and "serve and return " exchanges. These help to lay the foundations for emotional self-regulation, as well as for language development more generally. Both skill-sets are essential for success at school.

This leads us then to consideration of children's early language exposure in the first five years of life as the foundations of our house. Language development may be biologically natural, but it is not "set and forget". Parents and other adults spend a great deal of time interacting with their infants, toddlers, and pre-schoolers, reading to them, telling them stories, explaining how the world works, responding to their seemingly endless questions, and teaching them the subtle but sometimes confusing conventions associated with everyday conversation (turn-taking, topic management, giving enough information, how and when to interrupt, and so on). We also know that there is asocial gradient on which children and families sit with respect to early oral language exposure, so children don't arrive at school with equally well-developed oral language skills. In some cases, therefore, teachers need to accelerate the skills of children commencing school, so they can make up some lost ground and keep up with the curriculum.

It's important to remember, though, that here we are thinking about receptive and expressive language skills, remembering that receptive skills typically outperform expressive skills in the early years in particular. While vocabulary is the cornerstone of the metaphorical slab of granite that is the foundations for our house, it is not the whole story. It's also important to think about children's emerging discourse skills (conversation, narrative, expository and procedural), their use and understanding of increasingly complex syntactic structures (e.g. sentence embedding), and their development of phonology and morphology. It's convenient for us to think about these as separate entities, but of course in the rich and messy business of children's language development, they are inextricably related.

So - with the solid ground and foundations sorted, we can begin to think about for our house. As you can see, the walls are the ongoing development of prosocial interpersonal skills and the emergence of literacy (reading, writing and spelling) on school entry and beyond. The walls have a complementary relationship with each other, in the sense that developments on one side, contributes to developments on the other (in much the same way that a real house needs walls on more than one side in order to stay upright). This is perhaps most simply represented by the figure below, that reminds us that while oral language skills contribute to early reading success, so too, early reading success loops back to oral language skills. Children need to be exposed to more complex vocabulary and syntactic structures than typical everyday conversation affords, so those who do master reading early, have a lasting edge over those who do not. This is sometimes referred to as theMatthew Effect in early reading.

As noted above, I am describing literacy and prosocial interpersonal skills as conceptually separate for the purposes our our house metaphor, but they are strongly inter-connected. Nowhere is this more evident than in the fact that reading difficulties are over-represented in children who were identified with developmental language disorders in their pre-school years, and in the comorbidity between reading difficulties and social-emotional problems. Note too, that the walls of our house are represented in a brick pattern, meaning that the skills they represent on both sides they are built up and refined over many years.

When we consider prosocial interpersonal skills , we are thinking about children's developing capacity to use language to navigate the business of everyday life. School for example, has a strong social dimension, in which making and keeping friends is important for mental health, and oral language skills are central to children's success in this endeavour. Drawing on the ongoing scaffolding of parents and teachers, and hundreds of "serve and return" opportunities per day, children learn about what's OK and what's not OK in their particular culture with respect to how they use language, across a range of discourse genres (conversation, narrative, expository and procedural) at home and at school.

These discourse skills in turn, connect to children's understanding of the world and development of background knowledge, both of which are key to social and academic success. Daniel Willingham's 2012 article Why does family wealth affect learning? is a reminder to us about the social and human capital that assists children to make their way in the world, if they are fortunate enough to have parents who can provide access to these assets.

On the other side of our house, we have the transition to literacy in the early school years. As readers of this blog would be well aware, this is the part of our house which is subject to ongoing debate in academic and school circles. No-one seems to disagree with the contention that early oral language skills are the essential engine that children need to bring to school, so that they can engage with the highly verbally and text-mediated environment that is the school classroom.

However, there is, unfortunately a lack of consensus on some aspects of the approach that should be taken to early reading instruction. I've dealt with those tensions in multiple previous blog-posts and publications and won't dwell on them here. Rather, I will focus on the fact that there is broad agreement about the importance of phonemic awareness, ongoing vocabulary development, decoding ability, text exposure, and high-quality instruction (ideally delivered by teachers who are knowledgeable about the linguistic workings of the English writing system). Readers are referred to the Cognitive Foundations of Learning to Read for an understanding of how decoding and language comprehension need to work together in reading acquisition. Increasingly too, there is a strong and appropriate emphasis on explicit teaching of morphology and etymology, processes which can be introduced in the early stages of explicit and systematic phonics instruction (e.g. by talking about plural-s and past tense -ed and how their pronunciation changes as a consequence of their morpho-phonemic environment).

Now we can begin to think about the roof of the house, which is supported by a strong structural rafter, in the form of social and emotional well-being and social cognition skills. Social cognition refers to our ability as humans to "read the play" and to understand that what other people say and what they mean can be quite different things. I don't know whether humans are unique in their ability to play against their emotions, but it is certainly an aspect of our communication with each other that is complex for children and for people with many kinds of neurodisabilities (notably autism spectrum disorders) to master.

Being able to "read" social interactions and respond in ways which grease rather than grate on the cogs of social interaction is what ". This term unfortunately risks trivialising the skill-set that can be the difference between sink or swim in the workplace. These skills take many years to refine, and are supported by ongoing scaffolding and feedback from adults, as well as employers often refer to as "soft skills understandings gleaned from the reading that children and adolescents are ideally doing to deepen their understanding of the human condition. Children and adolescents who, for a variety of reasons are not readers, miss out on these additional insights about how people think, feel and react in everyday situations.

The
roof of our Language House, is, as with all houses, the last to materialise and rests on the structural supports that began with solid ground, strong foundations, sturdy walls and a supporting rafter. In turn, it completes these achievements by providing access to post-school training and education, as a means of being part of the social and economic mainstream.

The important thing to bear in mind in relation to the roof, is that estimates that in the next 10-20 years, jobs for unskilled workers are disappearing in first-world industrialised nations, as automation and artificial intelligence are increasingly doing work that was once done by unskilled workers. In fact, the the jobs of a staggering 40% of the workforce could be replaced by automation. Just think about your local supermarket and the so-called self check-out points (which ironically, at this stage, often still require human intervention, but give it time). Inescapably, t here is no faster express lane to unemployment and social and economic marginalisation than having low language and literacy skills, as Committee for Economic Development in Australia identified in 2011 by the Australian Industry Council .

The Language House is intended as a conceptual framework for tying together a number of the important and complex threads that contribute to healthy transitions for children and adolescents into adulthood, on a population basis.

It is designed to remind us that foundations are critical, but are not enough. For example, it's ideal that in their pre-school years, children are read to by parents. However, this in itself, will not turn a good talker into a good reader. It will promote vocabulary and background knowledge, both of which are are powerful drivers of early reading success, but on its own is not enough.

It is difficult to directly influence the quantity and quality of early language to which children are exposed in their pre-school home environments. We can, however, influence the nature and quality of early and ongoing instruction to which they are exposed at school. This is where we need to maximise our impact.

For many children, this makes the difference (metaphorically and perhaps even literally) between living in a structurally complete and aesthetically pleasing house, and being homeless.

***Please feel free to use this image of the Language House and associated commentary.

All I ask is appropriate attribution - thank you***.

(C) Pamela Snow (2020)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Updating the Language (and Literacy) House

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is an August 2020 update on this post, to link to a new open-access paper The Science of Language and Reading, published this week in Child Language Teaching and Therapy. I have updated the graphic below, in line with the version that is in the above paper, and suggest you refer to the paper for a more detailed commentary on the model.

# data[].attributes.headline
Resource Document on Comprehension by Meredith and David Liben from their Achieve the Core class on helping Older Struggling Readers

# data[].attributes.subject
Resource Document on Comprehension by Meredith and David Liben from their Achieve the Core class on helping Older Struggling Readers

# data[].attributes.headline
Background Knowledge and the Science of Reading webinar with Nell Duke, Sarah Schwartz, Katherine Tarca, and Shanti Elangovan 

# data[].attributes.subject
Background Knowledge and the Science of Reading webinar with Nell Duke, Sarah Schwartz, Katherine Tarca, and Shanti Elangovan 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Background Knowledge and the Science of Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What role does background knowledge play in building literacy skills? How can social studies instruction support the development of these skills through knowledge building?

# data[].attributes.headline
Minding the Gap Articles/Blogs by Natalie Wexler 

# data[].attributes.subject
Minding the Gap Articles/Blogs by Natalie Wexler 

# data[].attributes.body
Many on the topic of vocabulary, comprehension, standardized testing, etc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Full archive of all the posts from Minding the Gap.

# data[].attributes.headline
Student Motivation & Complex Text by Shanahan 

# data[].attributes.subject
Student Motivation & Complex Text by Shanahan 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I understand your claims that teaching students with grade level texts instead of instructional level texts increases children's opportunities to learn. However, what about children's emotional needs, self-esteem, motivation, and self-starting skills when text is challenging. Children who struggle with sight words or sounding out words who are given a hard piece of text will shut down and refuse to try or will act out in the classroom. I always thought that the purpose of avoiding frustration level texts was to avoid frustrating children who were trying to learn to read. What am I missing? RELATED: Teaching Students to Use Context Shanahan response:
You're not alone in your concerns for the motivational or affective aspects of teaching children to read with complex text. I'll provide an explanation of what they have figured out about these relationships in a moment. First, let me address a misconception that you appear to have.

The idea of having students reading grade level text or difficult text or even frustration level text has not been proposed for beginning readers. The state standards that require students to learn to read grade level texts do so for Grades 2 and up - not kindergarten or first grade. Likewise, all the research that has been done revealing the benefits of teaching students at grade level rather than instructional level were done in Grades 2 and up. There is no evidence that such an approach would be beneficial with younger readers, and there are some serious concerns about its potential value (Hiebert, 1999).

A major factor in text difficulty for young children is the decodability of the text. Students at that point are learning to recognize and use letters and spelling patterns to connect printed words to oral language. Teaching with more difficult texts from the start would mean working with texts that will have less accessible spelling patterns and less repetition of words that helps fix those patterns in memory. Teaching beginners with complex text would be counterproductive.

However, the research suggests that by grade 2, most students are likely to have those most basic decoding skills under their belts and that more challenging texts can be beneficial for learning. Perhaps young children would "shut down" if asked to read more difficult texts, but let's not find out. There appears to be no potential learning benefit to such an approach, so let's not go that way.

Given that from Grade 2 on, it is sensible to confront children with texts supposedly at their "frustration levels," we should be concerned about the motivational implications of that approach.

Researchers have long hypothesized that more difficult text placements would increase reading avoidance and reduce the amount of student reading. The claim has been that overly demanding instruction leads to misbehavior and inattention, and, consequently, to lowered learning and reading avoidance.

Students placed in more challenging texts do exhibit more behavior problems (Gambrell, Wilson, & Gantt, 1981; Gickling & Armstrong, 1978; Jorgenson, Klein, & Kumar, 1977; Treptow, Burns, & McComas, 2007). However, only one of these studies considered alternative explanations for this correlation. Gambrell and company observed that lower achieving students were more likely to be placed in what for them were challenging texts and to misbehave. However, these behavior problems were evident whether these students were taught from frustration or instructional level texts. The correlation was more due to who is placed in challenging text rather than the text placement itself.

Other evidence on this issue is somewhat mixed, but my overall take is that the research has not found clearly found text challenge to be a motivational problem. If it is, it has not yet been proven.

Studies on these issues have varied much in rigor and applicability. In one study, there were only 3 students and there were only 8 in another. Also, their findings were not based on reading alone, but on other tasks too (like workbook activities). Most importantly, I think, how they operationalized the instructional level differed. For example, in one of these studies, the frustration level students had to perform at lower than 80% accuracy in fluency - far below more traditional criteria and not especially convincing.

In a study of the impact of text placement on attitude towards reading (Roberts, 1976), 125 second- and third graders from 6 schools were examined. Fifty-seven percent of these students had been placed in frustration level texts for instruction. Despite this, student attitudes towards reading were as positive for these students as for those who were "appropriately placed."

Perhaps this should not be surprising given the levels of books that students evidently prefer reading independently. Studies have repeatedly report that students, even the best readers, tend to prefer texts at their frustration levels - presumably because of the appeal of the content and sophistication of the harder texts (Donovan, Smorkin, & Lomax, 2000; Fresch, 1995; Halladay, 2009).

Most of the research on this issue has been conducted with older students. How applicable these data are to the elementary grades is unknown, however I think at least some of the insights this research has generated should be considered.

Researchers have examined how interest and affect may be influenced by text placement during student reading (Fulmer & Tulis, 2013; Tullis & Fullmer, 2013). In these studies, it was theorized that, "demanding tasks can hinder students' motivation resulting in higher negative affect ... and lower interest and enjoyment" (Fulmer & Tulis, 2013, p. 13). To test this hypothesis sixth- and seventh graders read texts at and above their reading levels, and interest and affect were measured immediately before and after each reading. There were variations with the different passages but generally it was found that the better readers started out with greater interest in reading, but as they read the at-level text their interest declined. The opposite was true when they were asked to read more challenging texts. Student persistence more than text difficulty impacted engagement.

Yet, from these data, it seems unlikely student affect or motivation would vary consistently due to text levels which is consistent with modern motivation theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1991; Deci & Ryan, 1985).

Ninth graders in Germany were less motivated when required to read more difficult books in their literature classes (Locher, Becker, & Pfost, 2019). But the picture is more complicated than that. According to the students, at least part of this negative affect was due to grading procedures, competition for grades, and whether the texts were classical literature or contemporary literature. Likewise, there was no relationship between text difficulty and motivation when students were selecting texts for their own recreational reading, implicating student self-determination as well. In other words, the relationship between text level and affect was very complicated - and it is difficult to determine what is causing what.

Several studies with older students have found a greater amount of mind wandering during the reading of complex texts (Feng, D'Mello, & Graesser, 2013; Forrin, Risko, & Smilek, 2019; Mills, Graesser, Risko, & D'Mello, 2017; Mills, D'Mello, & Kopp, 2015), though there are also studies that have not been able to find that. In the ones that have, students appear to better able to control their attention when reading easier texts. This relationship disappears when students find the texts to be interesting (Fulmer, D'Mello, Strauss, & Graesser, 2015; Soemer, Idsardi, Minnaert, & Schiefele, 2019). One question this raises for me, is whether we should avoid asking students to read texts they find challenging so their minds won't wander, or if our instruction should focus on helping them to develop attentional control?

Other approaches to text difficulty and reader engagement have resulted in contradictory findings. Some studies report lower engagement in reading tasks (Guthrie, Klauda, & Ho, 2013), more reports of anxiety, anger, and boredom on the part of the students (Acee, et al., 2010); Efklides, 2002; Efklides & Petkaki, 2005; Pekrun, Goetz, Titz, & Perry, 2002), and less interest (Durik & Matarazzo). While others have found more reading engagement, deeper cognitive processing, and greater learning (Bjork & Bjork, 2011; Diemand-Yauman, Oppenheimer, & Vaughan, 2011; Linn, Chang, Chiu, Zhang, & McElhaney, 2011; McNamara & Kintsch, 1996).

Whatever the relationship may be between being asked to read difficult text and affect, motivation, attitude, or behavior, it is not straightforward. There are many student, text, and task variables that play a role in all of this, and none of them consistently impacts motivation or engagement.

However, that doesn't mean that we should ignore the possibility that in each situation, with a given text, and a given child, text difficulty may exert some small impact upon motivation. That suggests the need for instructional adjustments.

(1) Explain to students what you're up to when you intentionally place them in texts they cannot already easily read. They need to know what the goals are and how they can recognize if they are improving in their ability to handle these texts. Give the students some sense of self determination.

(2) Students may balk at working with difficult texts in fear of failing. They need to develop trust and confidence in you that you won't let that happen. I very much like the idea of using the instructional level as an outcome rather than a starting point. What I mean by that is that if on Monday you begin working with a text that students read at a frustration level, that by Friday they should be able to read it with the levels of fluency and comprehension fit instructional level criteria.

(3) Remember that the teacher's job is to teach students how to read these texts successfully. Teaching with difficult text requires more than just having kids practice reading with some follow up questions. They need guidance in recognizing and making use of explicit vocabulary definitions that may exist in text, how to use context and morphology to determine the meanings of undefined words, how to break down sentences to enable comprehension, how to track cohesive ties through a text, and how to make sense of text structure, data presentation devices, and literary devices.

(4) Studies have shown that self-determination and interest can offset any anxiety raised by challenging text demands. Consider allowing for some student role in selecting text; perhaps present two or three challenging text alternatives that the group can choose among or consider topical interests when deciding what complex texts to present.

(5) Vary your routine. Not every instructional text must be equally hard. You might labor through one or two demanding shorter texts, followed by the reading of a relatively easier and longer one that will require less student persistence and teacher scaffolding.

(6) Divide a text up and take on parts of it rather than trying to digest it all in one bite.

(7) Smile, be encouraging. It couldn't hurt.
READ MORE ARTICLE HERE: Shanahan On Literacy's Blogs References
Acee, T. W., Kim, H., Kim, H., Kim, J., Chu, H.-N. R., Kim, M., et al. (2010). Academic boredom in under- and over-challenging situations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 17-27

Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M. Hough, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society ( pp. 56-64). New York: Worth Publishers.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper-Perennial.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

Diemand-Yauman, C., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Vaughan, E. B. (2011). Fortune favors the bold (and italicised): Effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition, 118, 111-115.

Donovan, C. A., Smolkin, L. B., & Lomax, R. G. (2000). Beyond the independent-level text: Considering the reader-text match in first graders' self-selections during recreational reading. Reading Psychology, 21, 309-333.

Durik, A. M., & Matarazzo, K. L. (2009). Revved up or turned off? How domain knowledge changes the relationship between perceived task complexity and task interest. Learning & Individual Differences, 19, 155-159.

Efklides, A. (2002). Feelings and judgments as subjective evaluations of cognitive processing: How reliable are they? Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 9, 163-184.

Efklides, A., & Petkaki, C. (2005). Effects of mood on students' metacognitive experiences. Learning and Instruction, 15, 415-431.

Feng, S., D'Mello, S., & Graesser, A. C. (2013). Mind wandering while reading easy and difficult texts. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20, 586-592.

Forrin, N. D., Risko, E. F., & Smilek, D. (2019). On the relation between reading difficulty and mind-wandering: a section-length account. Psychological Research, 83, 485-497

Fresch, M.J. (1995). Self-selection of early literacy learning. Reading Teacher, 49, 220-227.

Fulmer, S.M., D'Mello, S.K., Strain, A., & Graesser, A.C. Interest-based text preference moderates the effect of text difficulty on engagement and learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 98-110.

Fulmer, S. M., & Tulis, M. (2013). Changes in interest and affect during a difficult reading task: Relationships with perceived difficulty and reading fluency. Learning and Instruction, 27, 11-20.

Gambrell, L. B., Wilson, R. M., & Gantt, W. N. (1981). Classroom observations of task-attending behaviors of good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 400-404.

Gickling, E. E., & Armstrong, D. L. (1978). Levels of instructional difficulty as related to on-task behavior, task completion, and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 559-566.

Guthrie, J. T., Klauda, S. L., & Ho, A. N. (2013). Modeling the relationships among reading instruction, motivation, engagement, and achievement for adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 9-26

Halladay, J. L. (2009). Difficult texts and the students who chose them: The role of text difficulty in second graders' text choices and independent reading experiences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

Hiebert, E.H. (1999). Text matters in learning to read. The Reading Teacher, 52, 552-566.

Jorgenson, G. W., Klein, N., & Kumar, V. K. (1977). Achievement and behavioral correlates of matched levels of student ability and materials difficulty. Journal of Educational Research, 71, 100-103.

Linn, M. C., Chang, H., Chiu, J., Zhang, Z., & McElhaney, K. (2011). Can desirable difficulties overcome deceptive clarity in scientific visualizations? In A. Benjamin (Ed.), Successful remembering and successful forgetting: a Festschrift in honor of Robert A. Bjork (pp. 235-258). New York: Psychology Press.

Locher, F.M., Becker, S., & Pfost, M. (2019). The relation between students' intrinsic reading motivation and book reading in recreational and school contexts. AERA Open, 5(2), 1-14. doi: 10.1177/ 2332858419852041

McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch,W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288.

Mills, C., D'Mello, S. K., & Kopp, K. (2015). The influence of consequence value and text difficulty on affect, attention, and learning while reading instructional texts. Learning and Instruction, 40, 9-20.

Mills, C., Graesser, A., Risko, E., D'Mello, S. K. (2017). Cognitive coupling during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 872-833.

Pekrun, R., & Schutz, P. A. (2007). Where do we go from here? Implications and future directions for inquiry on emotions in education. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 313-331). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Roberts, T. (1976). 'Frustration level' reading in the infant school. Educational Research, 9, 41-44.

Soemer, A., Idsardi, H. M., Minnaert, A., & Schiefele, Ul. (2019). Mind wandering and reading comprehension in secondary school children. Learning and Individual Differences, 75.

Treptow, M. A., Burns, M. K., & McComas, J. J. (2007). Reading at the frustration, instructional, and independent levels: The effects on students' reading comprehension and time on task. School Psychology Review, 36, 159-166.

Tullis, M., & Fulmer, S. M. (2013). Students' motivational and emotional experiences and their relationship to persistence during academic challenge in mathematics and reading. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 35-46.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Won't Student Motivation Be Damaged If We Teach with Complex Text | Shanahan on Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Shanahan on Literacy explains about the topic Won't Student Motivation Be Damaged If We Teach with Complex Text? It discusses various affective factors that are important to consider in order to build effective relationships with learners. Read here to know more!

# data[].attributes.headline
How Background Knowledge Fits into the Science of Reading Webinar by EdWeek

# data[].attributes.subject
How Background Knowledge Fits into the Science of Reading Webinar by EdWeek

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.

Sponsor

Reading & Literacy Webinar

Remove Save to favorites Save to favorites

Print

It seems like an obvious statement: It's easier for readers to understand a text they already know something about. But this commonsense idea, backed by research, has big implications for reading instruction.

Studies have shown that students' background knowledge is a key predictor of their reading comprehension abilities-and that in some cases, strategically building students' knowledge of the world can help them become better readers.

In this webinar, we will discuss this research base and what implications it has for classroom practice. We'll also talk about how to build background knowledge in a culturally responsive way, with a specific focus on bilingual learners.

How can teachers grow students' academic vocabulary by building connections between new topics and the knowledge that children bring to the classroom?

Professor and Associate Dean for Research, Innovation and Partnerships, College of Education, University of Maryland

Associate Professor, Literacy, Language, and Culture, University of Michigan School of Education

Staff Writer, Education Week

For all webinars broadcast by Education Week after August 1, 2019, Certificates of Completion are available to all registered live attendees who attend 53 minutes or more of this webinar. Educators can download a PDF certificate verifying 1 hour of Professional Development credit. As with all professional development hours delivered, Education Week recommends each educator verify ahead of the webinar broadcast that the content will qualify for professional development in your school, district, county, or state with your supervisor, human resources professional, and/or principal or superintendent's office.

Education Week maintains sole editorial control over the selection of the guests and content for this virtual event.

References to products or services in the course of this webinar do not constitute endorsements by Education Week or Editorial Projects in Education.

A transcript will be available for download from the resource list within five business days after the event.

Your e-mail address may be used to communicate with you about your registration, related products and services, and offers sent to you directly from sponsors. Use of your personal information is otherwise protected according to our privacy policy.

Read More Read Less

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Get the latest education news delivered to your inbox daily.

Events

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Background Knowledge Fits Into the 'Science of Reading'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Join our webinar to learn research-backed strategies for enhancing reading comprehension and building cultural responsiveness in the classroom.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Reading Comprehension Blueprint by Nancy Lewis Hennessy 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Reading Comprehension Blueprint by Nancy Lewis Hennessy 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Nancy Lewis Hennessy M.Ed. (Author), Louisa Cook Moats Ed.D. (Foreword)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Reading Comprehension Blueprint: Helping Students Make Meaning from Text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Reading Comprehension Blueprint: Helping Students Make Meaning from Text [Hennessy M.Ed., Nancy Lewis, Moats Ed.D., Louisa Cook] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Reading Comprehension Blueprint: Helping Students Make Meaning from Text

# data[].attributes.headline
Inside the Massive Effort to Change the Way Kids are Taught to Read by Belinda Buscombe

# data[].attributes.subject
Inside the Massive Effort to Change the Way Kids are Taught to Read by Belinda Buscombe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As a teacher in Oakland, Calif., Kareem Weaver helped struggling fourth- and fifth-grade kids learn to read by using a very structured, phonics-based reading curriculum called Open Court. It worked for the students, but not so much for the teachers. "For seven years in a row, Oakland was the fastest-gaining urban district in California for reading," recalls Weaver. "And we hated it."

The teachers felt like curriculum robots-and pushed back. "This seems dehumanizing, this is colonizing, this is the man telling us what to do," says Weaver, describing their response to the approach. "So we fought tooth and nail as a teacher group to throw that out." It was replaced in 2015 by a curriculum that emphasized rich literary experiences. "Those who wanted to fight for social justice, they figured that this new progressive way of teaching reading was the way," he says.

Now Weaver is heading up a campaign to get his old school district to reinstate many of the methods that teachers resisted so strongly: specifically, systematic and consistent instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics. "In Oakland, when you have 19% of Black kids reading-that can't be maintained in the society," says Weaver, who received an early and vivid lesson in the value of literacy in 1984 after his cousin got out of prison and told him the other inmates stopped harassing him when they realized he could read their mail to them. "It has been an unmitigated disaster." In January 2021, the local branch of the NAACP filed an administrative petition with the Oakland unified school district (OUSD) to ask it to include "explicit instruction for phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension" in its curriculum.

Read More: The 100 Best Children's Books of All Time

Weaver and his co-petitioners-including civil rights, educational, and literacy groups-want schools to spend more time in the youngest grades teaching the sounds that make up words and the letters that represent those sounds. His petition is part of an enormous rethink of reading instruction that is sweeping the U.S. So far this year, five states have passed laws that require training for teachers in phonics-based reading techniques, adding to the 13 that passed such laws last year. And in May, New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced that elementary schools in the biggest district in the country would be required to adopt a phonics-based reading program.

The timing for such a dramatic change feels especially challenging. Elementary-school teachers are already having to recalibrate after two years of disruption; vicious fighting about public-health mandates as well as what kids should be taught about race and gender; and a widespread parental freak-out about how little their children have learned during the pandemic. Now the most fundamental skill that society asks them to pass along is also being completely shaken up.

But advocates say it cannot wait: in 2019, even before the pandemic upended instruction, only 35% of fourth-graders met the standards for reading proficiency set by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, an even lower number than in 2017. Only 21% of low-income students (measured by whether they qualify for free school lunch), 18% of Black students, and 23% of Hispanic students can be considered on track for reading by fourth grade. These numbers have been low for decades, but the pandemic has given the dismal results extra urgency. "There have been choices made where our children were not in the center," says Weaver. "We abandoned what worked because we didn't like how it felt to us as adults, when actually, the social-justice thing to do is to teach them explicitly how to read."

While reading is a foundational skill, it is not a natural one. Given enough time around other humans, the vast majority of youngsters will learn to walk upright and talk. For most children, however, recognizing that certain squiggles on a page or screen correspond to certain sounds requires painstaking instruction. In all, the 26 letters of the English alphabet can be combined to make about 44 sounds (depending on your accent). When those sounds are put together, they create 15,000 syllables and untold numbers of words. Ideally, children figure out what the letter string says at about the same moment a word they already know crystallizes into view. And after a couple of those aha moments, usually starting in first and second grade, when nicky reveals itself as nice or kahy-ef transforms into chief, the word seems to move into permanent memory. This is known as the simple view of reading: it's the product of a robust ability to decode letters, and a strong vocabulary.

There are many schools of thought on how best to aid this process, but the main contretemps has been about whether kids need to be taught how to sound out words explicitly or whether, if you give them enough examples and time, they'll figure out the patterns. The latter theory, sometimes known as whole language, says teaching phonics is boring and repetitive, and a large percentage of English words diverge from the rules. (Hello there, though, thought, through, trough and tough!) But if you immerse children in beautiful stories, they'll be motivated to crack the code, to recognize each word. The counterargument is that reading is as connected to hearing as it is to sight. It begins, phonics advocates say, with speech. This understanding, and the data that supports it, has become known as the science of reading.

Read More: Anti-'Critical Race Theory' Laws Are Working. Teachers Are Thinking Twice About How They Talk About Race

This debate was supposedly settled in 2000, when the National Reading Panel, a big group of literacy experts that examined hundreds of studies on what instruction kids need to read, released a report. It recommended explicit instruction in the things Weaver's petition asks for: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. This was a victory for the phonics camps. But it is one thing to declare a war is over and another to parcel out territory.

Thus was born the notion of balanced literacy, which was an attempt to correct the ship's course, rather than turn it around completely. Schools would introduce more instruction in the link between sounds and letters, but that could be sprinkled in with other methods teachers thought worked, like prompting kids to use context clues (including, say, pictures) when they came to a word they didn't know.

The net result, says Timothy Shanahan, a former director of reading for Chicago schools and an early-literacy expert who was on the panel, was that balanced literacy came to mean whatever anybody wanted it to. Schools did not have to buy expensive new curriculums. Districts did not have to retrain their teachers. Teachers could add some lessons on phonics, but they didn't have to hit reset on the way they taught. A 2019 survey of more than 600 elementary-school teachers by Education Week found that more than two-thirds used a balanced-literacy philosophy, although most also said they incorporated "a lot" of phonics. "The idea was each group would get some of what they wanted," says Shanahan. "I've got to admit, I always thought that was a bad idea. It seemed to me that you should just go with the research."

Reading scores did not improve much after balanced literacy was introduced, but they didn't plummet, either. Things might have stumbled along in much the same way, except that education departments around the country had begun to earn the ire of a particularly determined group: the parents of dyslexic children. People with dyslexia take much longer to sort out the connection between sound and symbol. The immersion method of teaching was simply not going to work for them. Pressure from these parents, plus some crusading journalism, a steady stream of research, impressive results from several school districts, and heightened concern about pandemic learning loss, have finally turned the tide back toward a stronger emphasis on phonics.

Dyslexia is not linked to intelligence; it has been described as an island of weakness surrounded by a sea of strength. It has no cure but can be overcome. So when some wealthy, well-educated parents found their otherwise typical children were not learning to read, they had questions for the school. These were met in many cases with the advice to read to them more. The parents then did what educated, wealthy people do when they feel slighted: they looked at the research, paid for expensive testing, called their representatives, and contacted their friends in the press.

Read More: Innovative Teachers 2022

What they found was that the methods many teachers were using were not supported by the data. They were supported by theories, observations, hopes, and, some would argue, a few guru-like figures. Just as most children, no matter how many times they've been in a car, still need to be taught to drive, most readers benefit from being explicitly taught how sounds and letters go together. This is true not just for dyslexics (who represent about 10% of all learners) but for the majority of readers.

Some of the data these parents uncovered comes from the world of neuroscience. Cognitive scientists have found that as a child reads a word, the networks in the brain associated with vision activate first, followed by the areas of the brain associated with speech. There are also subtle but detectable changes in the brain as children learn to read, primarily a growth in the fibers that connect the areas associated with speech and vision. French neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene, in his 2009 book Reading in the Brain, calls this area "the letterbox." His studies suggest that the brain never really learns to read a whole word, it just gets really, really fast at decoding. He believes that any type of learning that does not emphasize the sound of words is inefficient.

About a decade after his book was released, Emily Hanford, an education reporter at American Public Media-after being contacted by dyslexia activists-did a multipart audio documentary on why the National Reading Panel's recommendations and all the research were so blithely ignored. It was she who popularized the phrase the science of reading.

State legislatures, which have been getting an earful from dyslexia activists for years, have begun to act. From 2013 to Aug. 1, 30 states have passed laws or enacted new policies related to "evidence-based" reading instruction. Mississippi was one of the first, and in 2019 it became the only state in the nation to meaningfully improve its fourth-grade reading scores. The results were touted as the "Mississippi Miracle."

As the pandemic stretched on and children missed a lot of school, parents became increasingly worried about how their kids would catch up and looked for such a miracle. Kymyona Burk, who helped implement the changes in Mississippi and is now a policy fellow at think tank ExcelinEd, says she met "a lot of parents who may have been involved but not engaged. They would show up to PTA meetings and sign progress reports but didn't really understand what went on in the school." COVID-19 may have changed that. "To be at home and to sit beside your child, or to hear your child in the other room with virtual learning?" says Burk. "Parents learned a lot."

But even with the Holy Trinity of school change-legislatures, researchers, and activist parents-on the case, getting teachers to use new techniques has been an uphill battle. "Passing the law was the first step for us, and it was the easy thing," says Burk. What others tout as a miracle, she notes, was more like a slow climb, with steadfast funding, tireless messaging, and a top-to-bottom reorganization of the way Mississippi's youngest readers were taught. "The hardest part was convincing others who had done things a certain way for such a long time that we needed to make a shift. We had to make a shift in our instructional practices; we had to make a shift in the curricula that we were purchasing; and also we had to just really come to terms with the fact that there were so many of our teachers who had come through our education-preparation programs who still were not equipped to teach children who struggle how to read."

Mississippi retrained all its teachers using LETRS (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling), an intensive training module that takes them all the way back to understanding the sounds in speech, what is known as phonemic awareness. Many states have followed suit. But retraining busy teachers takes a while and doesn't necessarily change what they do in the classroom. "There are tens of thousands of schools in the United States, and nobody really monitors what goes on in those schools," says Shanahan, who in nonpandemic times visits 40 or 50 schools a year. "A lot of times the teachers have no idea that they're not teaching things that are beneficial to the kids."

Even if the teachers are equipped to teach a new way, they need the support of their principals and superintendents. Stacy Pim, an elementary reading specialist in Virginia, began to use more of her instruction time to teach first-grade students letter-sound correspondence in the fall of 2020, after she noticed that in prior years, the skills of first-graders at her school had not improved. "By the time they got to second grade, we were having a whole classroom of children who were below grade level," she says. Moreover, because of the pandemic learning gaps, she felt her students were not able to tackle the work that the curriculum was offering. But, she says, her administrator told her she needed to stay with her school's balanced-literacy program. Feeling stuck, and with her own kids to deal with, she resigned. (Only 18 months later, in April 2022, Virginia enacted new "evidence-based" teacher-training regulations.)

Pim was not alone. The pandemic was extremely hard on teachers, typically nurturing, underpaid souls who got into the profession because they wanted to help others. Recent surveys have showed a sharp uptick in those wanting to leave the profession early. Making matters worse, the discussion about reading quickly became like so many others in education: less about children and improving techniques and more about finger-pointing and blame. It also became politicized, since it was mostly progressive states that used methods that leaned toward child-led learning and more conservative ones that embraced the traditional phonics-heavy methods.

Read More: Public Schools Are Struggling to Retain Black Teachers. These Ex-Teachers Explain Why

When Kari Yates, a former school principal and literacy manager in Minnesota who used the balanced-literacy-based Reading Recovery program to help struggling readers, heard that teachers in her district were going to have LETRS training, she thought she'd check it out. "I don't think I anticipated going into it that I was going to be as triggered as I was," says Yates. The language used seemed to belittle the work of those like her who had toiled for years to teach children to read using less phonics-forward methods.

Yates' friend and writing partner Jan Burkins had also heard about this so-called science of reading and started looking at research to debunk it. Instead, she too became increasingly convinced that Emily Hanford's reporting was right. "We began to realize, Oh, there are some things that we've been doing that actually make it harder for children to learn to read," she says. "And there are some relatively simple ways to shift some practices that make it easier." Burkins and Yates wrote a new book, Shifting the Balance, to try to build a bridge between the two camps. It is selling well, but the duo are wary of its success because it leaves them open to attacks from both sides. "People I've had great respect for in the field are being really criticized," says Yates.

The two write that they had to make a pact not to give in to defensiveness as they discussed why approaches such as the use of leveled readers (which predict what kinds of stories children should be reading) should be discarded in favor of decodable texts (which give them a lot of opportunities to practice sound-letter correspondence) as well as the problems with what's known as cueing, where teachers get children to ask a lot of questions about the word they're stuck on, rather than just sounding out. "Moving away from a model of reading that is strategic to one that is more aligned with what we know from the inside out about what the brain is doing when we're reading, it's a big, hard thing for teachers," says Burkins.

The difficulty of getting teachers fully on board is one of the reasons Shanahan is wary of saying the change is here to stay. "This [shift] happens with some regularity in this field," he says. "I've been doing this for more than 50 years, and this is about the third one I've been through." This time is a little different, he acknowledges, because more mainstream media outlets have taken an interest in something that is usually the preserve of academia. And this is the first pendulum swing in the era of social media. A Facebook group called The Science of Reading-What I Should Have Learned in College has more than 165,000 members, most of them aggrieved parents or bewildered and angry teachers.

Hanford's reporting laid the blame for the neglect of a foundational reading practice largely at two doors: curriculum publishers, which market programs that critics say are not supported by science; and schools of education, which are slow to change the way they teach teachers to teach reading. It singled out Irene Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell's Leveled Literacy Intervention, which is used by about 43% of K-2 teachers in the U.S. and suggests that students can get information about words from sources other than the letters, and Lucy Calkins' Units of Study for Teaching Reading, which is used by 14%, including, until recently, Oakland schools. (An OUSD spokesperson says it adopted a new curriculum in May 2021 and is also examining new phonics programs.)

Four years after Hanford's first story on the issue ran, those things too are finally changing-a little. Calkins, the founding director of the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project at Columbia University and a prominent figure in the field of early reading, added more emphasis on the explicit teaching of phonics to her most recent version of the curriculum, although her critics contend it's not enough. Fountas and Pinnell remain holdouts, saying in a recent series of blog posts that their work has been mischaracterized. None of these authors agreed to be interviewed.

It's probably too soon to accurately assess the impact of the pandemic on children's learning. A McKinsey report found that students in 2021 were about four months behind in reading compared with nonpandemic years. The Brookings Institute found a 15% increase in the gaps in reading proficiency between students at the wealthiest and most impoverished schools. A study out of the Netherlands found that even a relatively short eight-week lockdown led to a learning loss of a fifth of a year. But it's not all bad news. A lot of states are using their federal COVID-19 relief funds to buy new curriculum, retrain teachers, and hire literacy coaches. One of them, Tennessee, recently announced that its 2022 fourth-grade reading scores surpassed pre-pandemic levels, though still only about 40% met or exceeded standards.

Read More: From Teachers to Custodians, Meet the Educators Who Saved A Pandemic School Year

The stakes couldn't be higher. Fourth grade is a key moment in a child's education. Until then, as the old saying goes, children are learning to read; after that they're reading to learn. If they can't, things head south. A 2011 study from the Annie E. Casey Foundation found that students who don't read proficiently by the end of third grade are four times as likely to eventually drop out of school as those who do.

Not every child needs systematic instruction in phonics. Some can figure out the patterns for themselves. And phonics instruction alone is not enough. But the past several decades seem to have proved that a more intense focus on the letter sounds hurts nobody, and the many children who need it flounder without it. There are no panaceas in education. Even the most science-steeped curriculum will not help if it is not implemented thoughtfully, with support from principals, literacy coaches, school-district officials, and the public purse. "The schools, we're just not doing a good enough job," says Shanahan. "Let's start right there."

Teachers have every reason to feel sore about the training they didn't receive and the children they therefore couldn't help. But they don't have time to look back. "Here's the lament," says Weaver, who is still in discussions with OUSD. "The lament is that when we started using new materials, the kids weren't learning how to read, and to explain that, rather than looking at our materials and what we were doing, we focused on the kids and said, 'Something's wrong with them. Something's wrong with our community. They're too traumatized or too broken. Their families aren't good enough. They're poor.' We explained the lack of learning in those terms, as opposed to saying, 'Wait a second, what are we doing? And what did we do when things were working?'"
CORRECTION AUG 13, The original version of this story misspelled the name of an elementary reading specialist in Virginia. She is Stacy Pim, not Stacey.
Contact us at letters@time.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Massive Effort to Change the Way Kids Are Taught to Read

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"A lot of times the teachers have no idea that they're not teaching things that are beneficial to the kids"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hundreds of thousands of teachers have used this highly practical guide to help K-12 students enlarge their vocabulary and get involved in noticing, understanding, and using new words. Grounded in research, the book explains how to select words for instruction, introduce their meanings, and create engaging learning activities that promote both word knowledge and reading comprehension. The authors are trusted experts who draw on extensive experience in diverse classrooms and schools. Sample lessons and vignettes, children's literature suggestions, "Your Turn" learning activities, and a Study Guide for teachers enhance the book's utility as a classroom resource, professional development tool, or course text. The Study Guide can also be downloaded and printed for ease of use (www.guilford.com/beck-studyguide).

New to This Edition
*Reflects over a decade of advances in research-based vocabulary instruction.
*Chapters on vocabulary and writing; assessment; and differentiating instruction for struggling readers and English language learners, including coverage of response to intervention (RTI).
*Expanded discussions of content-area vocabulary and multiple-meaning words.
*Many additional examples showing what robust instruction looks like in action.
*Appendix with a useful menu of instructional activities.

See also the authors' Creating Robust Vocabulary: Frequently Asked Questions and Extended Examples , which includes specific instructional sequences for different grade ranges, as well as Making Sense of Phonics, Second Edition: The Hows and Whys , by Isabel L. Beck and Mark E. Beck, an invaluable resource for K-3.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bringing Words to Life: Robust Vocabulary Instruction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Amazon.com: Bringing Words to Life: Robust Vocabulary Instruction: 9781462508167: Isabel L. Beck, Margaret G. McKeown, Linda Kucan: Books

# data[].attributes.headline
LANGUAGE AND READING COMPREHENSION WITH MINDY BRIDGES, PHD, CCC-SLP

# data[].attributes.subject
LANGUAGE AND READING COMPREHENSION WITH MINDY BRIDGES, PHD, CCC-SLP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Danielle Scorrano: Welcome to the READ Podcast, Dr. Mindy Bridges.

Dr. Mindy Bridges: I am so thrilled to be here.

Danielle Scorrano: I am thrilled to be here too. I feel like we have somehow been connecting through the universe not knowing for the past, maybe two and a half years. And finally, we get a chance to talk to each other and I'm just so excited to hear what comes of this conversation.

Dr. Mindy Bridges: I think we could talk all afternoon.

Danielle Scorrano: I think we can too. Why don't we start with your story? I want to learn more about your profession, your passions, even some of the impacts that you've made so far in your career that you're most proud to share with our listeners.

Dr. Mindy Bridges: Okay. Sure. So I am a speech pathologist, speech language pathologist by background and I feel like that's a really important for people to know about me because I really I think that my connection and understanding of language as it relates to reading is a strength of mine. And also what makes me so passionate about this field. I was a practicing speech language pathologist for seven years. I did not think I would [00:01:00] be a researcher. I was always interested in research, but I didn't, I thought it was not the career path for me, but I worked in everywhere from adult rehab to child, early childhood centers and throughout that whole setting and different groups of people, individuals with difficulties, I was always interested in reading.

So, how do kids learn to read? Why do adults who were able to read, why do they lose that? So, of course, I ended up going back to school. I was lucky I was in the Kansas City area and Dr. Hugh Catts happened to be just right down the street, and I was lucky enough to be his mentee for years at the University of Kansas. I was there when Tiffany Hogan was there. She's a good friend of mine and another one of his mentees, my academic sister. My academic family is strong and I really, while I was there, I really just came to love the connection between language and reading, both kids who do well at it, but also those kids who struggle. So I'm interested in all aspects of reading, both word reading and comprehension, but I have a particular interest in reading comprehension- both prevention and [00:02:00] intervention.

Danielle Scorrano: Mmm, as you were talking and you mentioned Dr. Catts and Dr. Hogan, my first response was how casual. And then I started thinking about the Avengers, I've been getting into the MCU series recently. And I could just picture all of you as some Avengers team taking over the world of reading. So I just had to start with that.

Dr. Mindy Bridges: You know when you're in a situation and you don't realize how amazing it is, because you're just in the middle of it? When I look back just having that time to really sit and learn and talk to those two in like great detail was just really some of the best, really best times of my career thus far. And I'm lucky to collaborate with both of them still.

Danielle Scorrano: Yeah, we'll have a lot of the research that you have been collaborating with them, as well as some of your recent studies on the READ Podcast, our website, which I'm looking forward to sharing with our READers.

Dr. Mindy Bridges: Yeah, I think one of the things you asked me about is what I'm most proud of or something that I'm most impactful, one of the things that I did that I feel most proud of. I think [00:03:00] I really like hearing from either past students or past teachers or speech pathologists who've worked on a research project that I was on. I like hearing them say that they're doing something in the field and it's working. So I have this kind of set of narrative, storybook interventions that actually we developed for a grant that Dr. Catts, Hugh, and Diane Nielson from the school of education and I had years ago. It was an RTI study with kindergarteners, and as part of that study, we developed a narrative and vocabulary intervention related to books. So every unit was around a popular book and I've continued that. I've written out like 40 different lesson plans and they use them in the department. I've got some pilot data. I haven't done a lot with it yet because I just, there's only so much I can do. But the people that I know that are using those out in the field are really enjoying them, and they're seeing student outcomes, but I think also they're learning. The best thing I ever learned was one of the school districts that I shared these narrative lessons with during the in-service that I gave to [00:04:00] the whole district, they're writing their own now.

So they have learned, they've kind of split up and every teacher and speech pathologists in the elementary schools are each taking a book every year and they're writing a new unit based on kind of what set up. And I just, that makes me really, that makes me really proud, and that's why I do this.

Danielle Scorrano: I want to hear more about your collaborative work. And you had mentioned just now how you have teachers and SLPs writing lesson plans together, which I know is something that I'm really interested in, and probably if we were to continue talking through the end of the day until you pick your daughter up from school, will probably be the thing that we want that I think we would talk about the most. I want to focus when you talked about with language and reading comprehension, because I fundamentally believe, and the research supports that language is that mediating thing that governs truthfully everything that we do, especially in the classroom. And when I think about understanding reading development, I'm drawn to the two seminal frameworks, Gough and Tunmer's Simple View of Reading and [00:05:00] Scarborough's Reading Rope, both have this element of language, language comprehension, and as a teacher, it seems so elusive. Like what does language even mean? What does language comprehension even mean? Is it the way that my students are just understanding the words that are coming my mouth? Or is it something that is much broader again, back to MCU reference, are we going through multiple worlds or dimensions? I don't know. But what are these factors of language that actually contribute to reading development and specifically with reading comprehension, as we see it?

Dr. Mindy Bridges: Right. So I love that you talked about both the simple view and of the Scarboroughs Reading Rope. And I'll talk about that more in a minute in terms of communicating to teachers, but really when we think about the areas of language that really related to reading comprehension, we have things that are the form of language, how we kind of use language and that would include morphology and syntax, so how we put sentences together, how we use morphological endings to express either a new word or express the type of word that you're using. Also, [00:06:00] we have content is really important. Vocabulary is key. And this is, I think the one area of language that teachers really understand, you know, they understand. I think that vocabulary is really important and they're incorporating that. I think they have a lot of questions about how to choose words, but we know that that's really important. And then also the use of language, right? So more that pragmatic language and that's where narrative language comes in there and if language is very related to our ability to comprehend.

So the more research has shown that the more that you know about the components of narratives, so that's there was a plot and there's characters that drive it and there has to be some sort of resolution. The more that we know about that, the better reader we are, at least with a narrative text, I love to talk to teachers who are, and parents, by the way, who have questions about language. I love to use Scarborough's Rope and show them that strand, because I think, when we talk about reading comprehension, I can say, when you're doing any of these things, when you're talking about vocabulary, when you're teaching, even these rules of grammar, when you're talking about background, increasing background knowledge or [00:07:00] making inferencing, you're actually helping reading comprehension. Right? So all, I think, I think that's kind of an aha moment sometimes for teachers and for parents. Teachers, you know, want to know what they can do to help reading comprehension as if it's this kind of set skill. And it's really, it's not really a set skill. It's a, it's something that we do that involves a lot of different components of language and word reading, of course. So I'm showing them that strand, I think really helps them understand the components, but it's tricky, right? Like I'm a speech pathologist. I studied this extensively for six years and I'm still learning, you know, more and more about it every year. So I understand why it's kind of this complex and tricky thing to wrap your head around.

Danielle Scorrano: Yeah. And I'd like to dig deeper into reading comprehension, if I can, because. I taught at Windward for a number of years before my role at the Windward Institute and I actually was doing the podcasts as I was in eighth grade teacher, because I wanted to dig into topics like this. [00:08:00] And, you know, I, in, in thinking about reading comprehension, you're right, it seems on the surface, like this discrete set of skills yet, it's more global than that. And I know, speaking of Dr. Hugh Catts, he had written an article recently. I think it was an American educator about how we misconceive or miss conceptualize reading comprehension. So why and how is it so complex? Let's dig deeper into this. I'd like to know more.

Dr. Mindy Bridges: Yeah, I mean, I wish I could give you all the answers. That article is amazing. If people haven't read it, I highly encourage them to read it. And I've been hearing Hugh talk about this for years. I think my favorite line from that article is that comprehension can't be reduced to a single notion because it's not a single ability. Right? We talk about reading comprehension, kind of like word reading and word reading is kind of a discrete skill, right? You can, you can tell if a child can decode or not. Comprehension has so many facets and pieces involved in it, and we don't know what is most important for [00:09:00] what age, grade or what level. Right? So I'm actually, I'm working on a couple of studies looking at kids in the upper elementary and adolescents. And that's one of the things we're doing is we're trying to see what the structure of reading comprehension is across time. Right? So it might be that in sixth grade, vocabulary and inferencing is, you know, the driving, I'm just making this up, but the driving force of comprehension, but maybe in older kids, it's more, there's more, things like motivation coming into play and background knowledge. Of course, we know that background knowledge is huge. If you don't know a lot about what you're reading, you're not going to be able to comprehend it, no matter how great your vocabulary is.

Danielle Scorrano: Yeah, definitely. So you talked about, in your research looking at students at upper elementary or across developmental ages, perhaps there are more important reasons or markers of reading comprehension. I would imagine then too, there's a lot of facets that would lead to difficulty in reading comprehension.[00:10:00]

I have students that are exceptional decoders that are so automatic and fluent in their word level reading, and I'm actually thinking of a student I had number of years ago, who was perhaps the best decoder I'd ever taught. He could, he was automatic. He was fluent. He read with expression. And yet even in the most literal questions I was asking, I had to scaffold literal questions.

And to me the, I mean, for those of you that know scaffolding and literal versus inferential higher level questions, you would probably think, wow, how did she do that? And this is not a testament to myself, but really in terms of looking at him, it was really hard for him to comprehend what was on the page down to identifying main character versus supporting character. And so I guess my question is how do we then know that as a teacher and perhaps what are those key components of screening and intervention in your work have you [00:11:00] found are maybe best practice or effective practice in helping to support a child like that?

Dr. Mindy Bridges: So, let me make sure I, are you asking kind of what the best screening or testing or how then once, you know, someone has a difficulty what to do with those kids?

Danielle Scorrano: I guess all of it. So let's, let's scaffold it for our readers. So let's talk, let's talk about screening and intervention first. So I know that, that's a great up question. I can sometimes go down like a story and then I ask seven questions in one. So let's start with looking at kids from dyslexia to DLD, developmental language disorders, it's a spectrum. So what do we do first in terms of screening for reading difficulties? And you may want to talk a little bit about RTI, but let's, let's just talk about what it means for screening and the research you've been doing.

Dr. Mindy Bridges: Sure. So screening usually occurs in an RTI framework, which is early in the identification and prevention framework where you kind of screen kids to see who might be at [00:12:00] risk, give them extra support and then move on from there. Screening for kids for word reading, we are really good at figuring that out. So we can look at things like phonological awareness or non-word fluency. We have lots of things that are really good, good, quick and dirty identifiers of kids who might struggle to read words. Reading comprehension, we are still learning. There are some things out there obviously still decoding is important, right? Because you have to be able to decode, but we know things like vocabulary, so how, how many words, and not, not only how many, but the breadth or the depth of their knowledge. If they can talk a little bit more about those words. There's some really interesting work coming from some speech pathologists actually, around narrative language. So Trina Spencer and Doug Peterson have some really great screening measures. And progress monitoring measures around narrative language that have shown to be a really good predictor of later both language and reading comprehension, because those go hand in hand. Tiffany Hogan has got a really nice screener that they're [00:13:00] working on to try and identify young kids at risk for reading comprehension.

But it's hard to find, it's hard to get a good screening measure for language that has a really good, sensitivity and specificity, meaning it's going to pull out the kids who are really at most in need, but not over-identify the kids. So we're, you know, we're still working on that, but all of those language components are really what we need to be looking at to find those kids who are going to be struggling at reading comprehension.

Danielle Scorrano: So what would that look like in terms of, uh, let's say early, if I have a child coming in for a parent or for an educator, what would be those markers that would cause maybe some pause for my child who maybe is entering preschool or kindergarten that they may need some more attention or more intervention.

Dr. Mindy Bridges: So I would say low vocabulary, so, you know, struggling with that. Grammar actually for those young kids is actually a pretty good predictor of later reading [00:14:00] difficulties. It's particularly comprehension. Being able to retell a story is actually a really nice indicator, both looking at, that also that allows you to see if they're getting the main components, but also you can look at more of the micro level, so what kind of sentence structure are they using? Are they including important details? So really, those are the highlights of some things that you really want to be looking for, to try and grab those kids that might be at risk.

Danielle Scorrano: Hmm, that's good. Those are good information. But I think I, when talking about these markers, I think it's always good for parents and guardians and educators to hear because you know, you might be looking at a child that has having difficulty, and you're wondering if they are in need of more services. So I really appreciate that, that list. Now, as we move from screening to intervention, the terms I hear a lot are RTI response to intervention, and then MTSS, which is multi-tiered Systems of Support. Where does intervention fall on these two categories, and how do you conceptualize these two as [00:15:00] same and different?

Dr. Mindy Bridges: Yeah. So I think RTI and MTSS, I think they're not interchangeable, but they do have a lot of things in common. So they're both kind of multi-tiered systems that include assessment and intervention, right. They both include evidence-based instruction. When we talk about RTI, we're really talking about trying to make sure that you have good quality tier one instruction, so good classroom instruction.

That's actually one of the best things about RTI, this whole discussion about this multi-tier framework is it put the emphasis on, are we actually giving kids a curriculum that's evidence-based and is moving most of the kids. Right? If you have a classroom that 50% of the kids are struggling, that's probably not, that's probably your tier one, your primary classroom instruction is just not cutting it, right, either whether it was curriculum or what have you. Then within that regular classroom environment, you periodically screen all kids. And it's usually done three times a year, sometimes four and the screenings are [00:16:00] quick, right? They're not meant to be diagnostic. They're meant to pick up kids who are at risk. And these might be looking at a narrative language, you know, quick measure looking at non-word reading fluency. There's a variety of these. And then those kids that are considered to be at risk get put into kind of the supplemental instruction or intervention. You're not doing anything different with those kids. They're just, they often just need more dosage, more time, but then the kids who continue to struggle in that, you know, evidence they're getting the best evidence-based tier one classroom instruction. They're getting an extra dose of good intervention.

Kids are still struggle, those are kids that typically the need of kind of more of a diagnostic assessment procedure. And they usually get one-on-one. These are kids that are really struggling and need something, maybe a little different at that point. So they need the dosage, but they might need some sort of intervention that's a little, a little bit more attuned to what their struggles are. MTSS includes RTI, but it's really includes more of the whole school. So it includes things like professional development [00:17:00] for teachers, behavioral support systems. So it includes kind of the whole school, often parent support type thing. So, so it includes RTI, but encompasses so much more.

Danielle Scorrano: I like how you brought that down actually could picture, you know, it's interesting. I could, I'm speaking to a speech language pathologist, I felt like as you were talking, I was creating a graphic organizer in my mind. It was just, listening to you, it was just so easy to understand, university professor as well, but thank you for that.

And as I asked this next question, perhaps related to RTI, MTSS, and particularly teachers, I want to avoid that I'm not necessarily making an overall assumption about the field of education. However, I have spoken to people, some people in education, whether it's leaders or teachers, who may make the assumption, for example, that a child diagnosed with a developmental language disorder or a child with dyslexia, is [00:18:00] a special education challenge or special education circumstance as opposed to something that is occurs across the spectrum across all areas of education. So when you talked about MTSS as a school based system, you can see how everyone is involved in not only educating the child that have that IEP or that diagnosed learning disability, but it involves all areas of the culture.

And then for RTI, it's a spectrum. You are focusing on good tier one instruction, moving the children that need the extra support into a way that you're identifying and providing that extra intervention and support, maybe more dosage. And so I think that's really important people think in a binary way or not, but just to remind everyone about how much of a all encompassing spectrum it really is and that when we're educating children with learning disabilities, we are certainly educating our entire [00:19:00] population, and for good tier one instruction, not only does it benefit all kids, but it's absolutely necessary for children who need the extra support. Would that being said, when we think of language then, right, good classroom language is important for all kids.

And I want to get to the study that you sent me yesterday, the 20 21 study that you coauthored with Shane Piasta and others. And when I think of teacher knowledge and teacher skills, for example, a lot of the work that I've been reading about is this teacher knowledge and skills of the structure of reading, word level reading. And in this study, and we'll share it on the READ Podcast webpage, you and your colleagues focused on teacher knowledge of language structures of language specifically. So what are those key pieces that you can share with educators and families, leaders who listened to read about what needs to be, what teachers need to know and to be able to use in the skills we [00:20:00] need to have in order to help support the language of all children, specifically children with language-based learning disabilities.

Dr. Mindy Bridges: Yeah. The things that I think about a lot, and so this study, I'll, I'll tell you about the language areas first, and then I'll tell you what motivated this study. So, I think teachers and parents, anyone who wants to educate children need to know about just general language development first of all, that there, there are milestones and there's also overlap, right? So we need to know that not all kids will progress in the same way, but there are some milestones where we can start to worry about children if they're falling behind morphology and syntax, right? So the structure of words and the structure of sentences. Can kids put together more complex sentences with lots of clauses and can they understand sentences that people give them with lots of clauses? Another area that we know is really important as vocabulary, right? Kids need to hear lots of words in lots of different contexts, and they need to learn relationships between [00:21:00] words. Okay. It's really important that we teach, words in the context of other interesting words.

Narrative language, and they keep talking about narrative language, but I do want to say also that expository text structure is also really important and we can talk about that a little bit more. And then, pragmatics and how we use language is really important. Right? So knowing, that kind of has to do a little bit with storytelling. And then in this particular study, we also asked teachers about their knowledge of a multilingual learners, right, because that's a really important topic right now. And so through all of my career, I'm always thinking about how teachers are, how educators are, talking, speaking in classrooms to young kids or elementary kids or older kids.

Right. And what do they know about language, maybe teachers who aren't using this kind of quality language, what we would like to see, maybe they don't know all of these, these concepts about language. And, and there's been a lot of studies looking at professional development of teachers, but the thing is we don't have a common metric to see what teachers alert. Right? So every study [00:22:00] kind of uses their own metric based on kind of what the professional development was, which is great. But I really wanted to know it would be great if we had all these professional development programs with language going on and we had one common metric that said, what did teachers actually learn?

But also I just kind of want to know what do early childhood and early elementary teachers know about language. We don't really know. There's studies that show that for instance, in preschools, there's not a high quality of language instruction going on, but we don't really know what teacher's knowledge is. So that's really, my colleagues from Ohio State, it was led by Shane Piasta, we developed a survey or, a test if you will, to look to see what the across those areas. So, you know, language or general language, morphology, syntax, vocabulary, narrative, we developed this survey and kind of tested the validity of it with pre-education teachers, early childhood teachers and the speech pathologists to see what teachers knew and actually if speech pathology students knew more than [00:23:00] about language, which I hope they do because that's the focus of their, their studying. And we just had a preliminary study. We're going to do some more validation work on it, but it provided us some really information, really interesting information about what pre-service early childhood teachers know and don't know about language. I wasn't surprised at the area of language they knew most about. Can you guess? Yeah. Vocabulary.

Danielle Scorrano: I mean, I read the study, so I wish I could have given, maybe I should go back and give a little pause so that when people are listening, they could say, Ooh, let me guess, let me guess.

Dr. Mindy Bridges: Say it again.

Danielle Scorrano: It's vocabulary, right? It was that. Yeah.

Dr. Mindy Bridges: Yes. So vocabulary, they knew the most about. Can you guess what? Maybe, I don't know if we, it in the paper, what maybe was the hardest for our pre-service teachers or where they got the lowest score.

Danielle Scorrano: I think I have a guess, but let me go back into it. Hold on READers. This will be really fun. Um, I think in the paper you said that they knew actually surprisingly more about the language development and multi-lingual [00:24:00] learners, because that seems to be a growing population. I'm going to guess narrative language.

Dr. Mindy Bridges: Narrative language and syntax. Those were both really close. Um, and it's really interesting to me, actually, stories are such a important part of classroom education, right. But every time I go and do in-services with school districts, that is one of the areas that they really struggle in terms of knowing how to teach it and how to, how do we assess it and how to, um, assess what kids know about it. Right. And so that's been really interesting to me because it seems like this disconnect. So teachers often take like a child literacy, like a course about children's books. Right. But they don't get a course about how to teach narrative language, using those books that they learned about, which I find just really interesting.

Danielle Scorrano: I do too, because I, I taught prior to Windward and my first day at Windward was learning what the elements of a story grammar frame were and embedding my [00:25:00] questioning and my language around that, which I had no idea. And part of my pre-service education was in social studies education, where again, learning now I should have known about narrative structure, because think about the, the, the rich language that was in social studies textbooks. But with that being said, were any of those findings actually surprising to you?

Dr. Mindy Bridges: Not really. I mean, I, I was pleasantly happy with some of the scores overall. And not that again, not that I'm saying that I think teachers don't know anything about language. They, do you, there's so many things that a classroom teacher has to know. It's one of the hardest jobs, I think, in the, in the world, quite frankly, especially in the last two years. But no, I, I wasn't, I was, I was very happy that SLPs, we, our students, you know, scored pretty high. That made me a little bit nervous actually. But now I don't think so. Um, I haven't dug into the items, so I'm excited to really look at those and see where I [00:26:00] think there's probably going to be across both populations some difficulty.

Danielle Scorrano: Yeah. And it's interesting that you mentioned that., I think what it really shows is this, not even the onus or where the blame is, but where future directions of resources need to be invested in more, and actually going back to the study when you talked about even differences in types of coursework, the number of coursework, and whether that actually was a factor, I found it interesting that you commented about the role of experiential learning over coursework. So can you tell us a little bit more about why that might have been, why you looked at coursework and what the role of experiential learning and types of application would support knowledge building?

Dr. Mindy Bridges: Right. I think we did maybe have some expectations that the number of courses might strengthen individuals score on this test, but you know, it really comes down to what was actually being taught in the, in that course. Right. And I think a lot of courses, [00:27:00] maybe don't kind of fully explain or discuss language in the way that I think we should whereas I think when you're out there in a field study or you're out there in a practicum, one, you have to learn what you have. There's some things that you just, you learn more about kids' language because you're hearing it, right? There's one, it's one thing to read about what a group of three to five year olds are going to say in terms of sentence, sentence structure, but then to be in the middle of it.

But also I think, I'm hoping that some of the people that did better had really good supervisors, had really good field, field study experiences where they saw a master teacher, who knew this, who knew how to do that quality focus instruction, who knew how to pick up a book.

First of all, choosing a book, even choosing the book to read in the classroom, there are some strategies, you know, there's some things to really look at taught, you know, picked up a book that had really rich vocabulary that had a narrative structure that knew when to stop and make connections between what the kids already knew in terms of vocabulary. Hopefully some of those experiences are what was driving, you know, kind of that maybe, why that made a [00:28:00] difference. I mean, that's, that's my hope anyway.

Danielle Scorrano: Yeah. And what is fascinating to me about language knowledge and language competencies for educators, and we'll get into speech language pathologist, because I'm so excited about it, is at least in my perspective, as I'm looking at reading education at large, how we teach it in word level reading, you could say, oh, here's a good tier one program to help with phonics instruction.

Oh, here. Here's what we call a core reading program. And when we look at core reading program, this, the good core reading programs almost have these language, these elements of language instruction embedded. But it's, it's not like you can, it's not like you can say, okay, this is going to be a package program about how to teach good language.

It's something that needs to be taught. The theory needs to be taught. And the application, the practice, the being taught under a skilled supervisor, observing you teach appropriate [00:29:00] questioning or how to give feedback to a child who has working memory deficit. It's, it's more, I don't want to say elusive, but it's not something that you could point to.

Just one thing, one tangible thing. And that's what fascinates me about language. And when I talk about resources, where do we then put our resources into providing better teacher preparation or better professional development? Which brings me to speech language pathologists. You are a speech language pathologist, and in the university level, still dedicating your research, work into it. And at Windward, we have speech language pathologists on staff that are not giving direct services to students. They're observing teachers and providing professional development. And so in where you sit in your professional career, is there a promise? Is this possible everywhere else? And can you share with our READ listeners, just why or how beneficial it is for a speech language pathologist to be [00:30:00] that expert leader in a school working directly with teachers?

Dr. Mindy Bridges: I mean, yes, I could talk about this for, oh, we said an afternoon, for a week. I always point out to SLPs that we are often the most knowledgeable person about some of these components in the school. Right. So we might know, we, we might know more about vocabulary because we've had, you know, lots of coursework related to not just how to teach vocabulary, but, but developmental progression of vocabulary and how to make all these different connections. We certainly know more probably about narrative language. You know, we, we give standardized narrative language tests. We know how to look at story retells and look to see all these different components of things. We're often one of the most knowledgeable people about certain components, and I think that overlooking our expertise and what we can bring as collaborators. Right? Because we're not, we aren't the only people who know these things. And in fact, there's lots of things we don't [00:31:00] know. I think it's really interesting how people in schools sometimes get in their comfort, their comfort zone.

So I SLPs often say like, I don't, I shouldn't have decoding or word reading for instance, but then I'll say, well, who do you think knows the most about phonological awareness or phonology, or at least who knows just as much? We do. I mean, we learn about that in lots of our courses. And then I have teachers who will say like, well, I don't feel like I can, I don't know how to choose a, an appropriate vocabulary word, for instance. Well, sure. You know, you, you definitely do you see how, how kids learn? So I think it's interesting how people get kind of in their lanes. And that's one of the things I actually like about RTI. I'm going to bring that back. RTI makes all of the kids, all of our kids, instead of the kids who are struggling, your kids and the kids in the regular education class, your kids, it's making us try to instruct all of the kids together.

And so I think sLPs. I think we could provide direct service. I've seen SLPs provide tier two intervention, for [00:32:00] instance. I think we have lots of possibilities as interventionists, but I also think we can just be, like you said, collaborators. I think we can provide support. I love when schools, I'm so excited when schools include an SLP on their curriculum, you know the curriculum. If they're picking a new English language arts curriculum, or even science or social studies, having an SLP as a part of that, I think is so important. I just, I think that the problem comes sometimes is that we're not always sure how to go about doing that. Right. And not just we as a profession, but schools in general.

And it's not always clear when we should be leaders and when we should be collaborators in the school. And I think that's something that we're working on. And I think that my national profession, I think, needs to work on it, but I think schools are, are, trying to, to figure that out. I've seen some schools who embrace their SLP and they're like at an important and critical part of their literacy instruction team. And then I've seen some schools where I asked the principal, like, [00:33:00] have you asked the SLP about that? And they're like, why would I do that? You know? I mean, so it's, it's, it's, it's really interesting, but I think we have so much potential to play such a crucial role in being part of the team.

Danielle Scorrano: Yeah. And even just serve as maybe like instructional coaches on some level. And in the first part of the interview, I'd asked you about studies and work that you're passionate about and what you're most proud of. And you did mention a study or series of studies that you said that the teachers and the SLPs were working on these lesson plans together. So tell me, tell me a little bit more about that. I mean, clearly you have an educator, a teacher, and an SLP working together on lesson plans. And so how did that even come about?

Dr. Mindy Bridges: I mean that wasn't even a study, sadly. That is just a school district that I used to consult with as an RTI specialist, as an RTI consultant and I worked with buildings, whole buildings [00:34:00] on how to increase literacy skills and they had a specific interest in reading comprehension. And so I, they originally, when I started to do the trainings, they wanted only the teachers to attend. I said, well, I want all the educators to be there. And I taught them, I showed them this, these kinds of narrative interventions that we used and it was, they really took it from there. So, I don't have, I sadly don't have data on this. I've seen it. I've gone back into the schools and I have firsthand knowledge of them continuing to do this. We have a preschool that our actual speech language pathology, master students now, they're going out in the field and they're doing these narrative interventions and the preschools. And as part of their learning program, they're learning how to write these lesson plans so that they can go out and share them in the schools that they then go out and work in. So I don't have, I sadly don't have data. It's on my list of grants to write.

Danielle Scorrano: Yeah. I would be fascinated. I'm like, as soon as you start, as you get the grant and you start your studies, I would be fascinated to learn what you learn [00:35:00] about what you're learning from this, which I guess is leading me to my next question. I have recently identified as someone who likes to sit at the intersection of science and story.

I think I said that to you yesterday. And when I'm talking to you, I see you as someone who is sitting between science and story, because you have the story, these practices of, of how sLPs and teachers can collaborate to ultimately make their school better and you have also followed with the science of it. And the reason why I asked this next question is, you are someone who has been the forefront of collaborating across research disciplines. You've talked about a lot of the colleagues you've worked with already. You've also collaborated with schools and lift others in the field of research. Can you share some of what you have contributed to, or learned from through these types of collaborations. Maybe it's things that you've already talked about or new findings or new insights that you'd like to share.

Dr. Mindy Bridges: Yeah. I [00:36:00] have been, I sometimes I have to just pinch myself. because when I think about the people I've been able to collaborate with they're individuals that I read their work when I was going through my doctoral program. So one of the, and I'm going to start first with talking about research collaborations, because there's two I'm really proud of. One work that started with this LARCC project, which was this huge multi-site multi investigator, $20 million grant, where we were kind of looking at reading comprehension in preschool through third grade. And from that collaboration, I have continued to work with two of the investigators, Shelley Gray and Kate Cain.

And we have two large grants right now that we're looking at the structure of reading comprehension, as well as kind of predictors and facilitators of reading comprehension and sixth and ninth grade. So, which is kind of out of my, I would have always said I was kind of a preschool to third grade expert and I'm slowly moving across the academic academic span. And we're learning so much about these older readers, right, these [00:37:00] comprehenders, both in English and we have the Spanish language sample as well. And then the other collaboration also from LARCC is with Tiffany and Shane Piasta. We just started a grant last year that is looking at a tier two intervention that's based on the LARCC instruction, but it was modified to be used with small groups of at risk first graders. And a portion of those first graders are identified as having DLD. So I am so excited to see what will happen with this research. We'll, we'll follow those kids to third grade so we can really see if a language focus kind of extra dose of intervention will help those kids. So I've been really proud of those collaborations because I think there we, in both of those teams, the first group of studies are more basic science, but our eye is still on what can we learn about the structure of reading so that we can help develop assessments and interventions for these older kids? So that's kind of the collaborations that I, you know, I'm most proud of and what I'm still continuing to learn [00:38:00] so much from these amazing women, women researchers. I told you, I have to say this, by the way, I told you yesterday that huge $20 million grant, that was part of the IES reading for understanding initiative, the four primary investigators of our group, so we had four PIs at four states were all SLPs, Shelley Gray, Laura Justice, Tiffany Hogan and Hugh Catts. We got one of the largest reading grants, we were all SLPs, so that doesn't tell you that we have a place at the table, nothing does. So I'm very proud of that.

But then, in terms of collaboration, you know, with families and with schools, I really think that the work that I do is typically situated in the schools. And I really think it's informed me as to what is, and what is not happening in the schools and why. So I think, you know, it's our tendency to kind of blame, like we know a lot about evidence-based practice for reading. We don't know a lot. We don't know everything, but we know a lot. And I think sometimes the tendency is [00:39:00] to blame schools or blame people, you know, why aren't you doing this? And I think we need to figure out why. Why is it why isn't some of this happening?

And I think there's some really important discussions to be had around that. And I think that is being out in the schools and doing this kind of research really helps me find the questions that I think for me are most important. I'm really important in translational research and doing things that make sense, right. So I could study an intervention. That's 10 hours a week one-on-one in a school. I mean, if it works, that's great, but that's not feasible. That's not, that's not implementable. So, I think the collaborations I've had with schools and with families and with teachers and SLPs really have made me be really cognizant of doing research that has the ability to scale up. I've been really, I mean, I've been really interested in implementation science and that whole field for that very reason. I mean, [00:40:00] science, that's kind of the field of how do we actually adapt to these evidence-based practices that we know work? How do we actually make them work in messier situations?

Right? And schools are messy. Districts are messy. And so, but that's where the real work is happening. And so I, it's hard research,

Danielle Scorrano: Yeah.

Dr. Mindy Bridges: It's not clean, but that's, that's kind of what I've been really interested in. And I learned so much every time I go into a school.

Danielle Scorrano: I mean, you're speaking my language, like it's so the messiness is where the beauty is. It really is. And as you're talking, I'm wondering can you just share, what are those skills that you need to even, what are the skills that you think you have or that your colleagues have that make this work, they make you want to do this work and also make this work successful? Because when I think, when I read your work, or when I listened to you talk about the studies that you've done, or the collaborations that you have, that aren't even tracking, you're not even collecting data on, obviously there is a track record of success and effectiveness. [00:41:00] What are the, tell us the secrets of successful implementation science.

Dr. Mindy Bridges: I mean, I think one, you, you have to embrace the messy, it's not, this is not for everybody. Right? So if you want to be in a tightly controlled and knew all the answers, which you know, that is the case with some, with some researchers, this is not the field. But I think also, I think me having been a practicing SLP and I worked in schools for many years, I don't think that's critical, but for me, that skill has helped me a lot because I kind of know the language and I, I think I can go into a school and I understand school culture, and I can say, okay, I know that this is going to be hard, or you're going to have a hard time fitting this in, but I know you can do it because I've done it or, you know, I've seen other schools do it.

I think that's really important. I, I always, even if I have really great project directors, and people who are working for me that I trust implicitly, I am always going to the schools or I'm always [00:42:00] going to our school partners. So in the past we had a grant where we did a lot of testing of kids on Saturdays, and I was there a ton on the Saturdays and I didn't have to be. We had people that could run it, but, you know, I liked to see the parents that I like to see the teachers. I think that really makes a difference. And I think just like persistence and then having you know what, having the good collaborators. I could not, this is not the kind of work that you do well by yourself. Right. So I think having people that like the same kind of research, but bring together different skill sets, I learned so much every time I'm on these collaborator meetings. So I think that, I think those are kind of the skills that I think make me want to do this research. And I'm supported at my university for this kind of research for the most part, which I think this is hard research to do.

It takes a long time. You have to wait until the end to know the answer. And that's hard sometimes for early career folks, but I think it's really rewarding. I'm in this field because I want kids to read. I want kids to be successful and so this kind of messy [00:43:00] work is where, where I've always wanted to be.

Danielle Scorrano: Oh, I love that. I'm, sometimes when I'm on zoom with READ and as the cases right now, I feel like almost recording this as I'm walking, because there's so much energy that I'm feeling right now as we're talking. And I appreciate you talking about those skills because not only did the skills come in, but the energy and the inspiration I feel through this zoom screen. I hope people, I think people will also feel through their, through their earbuds when they're listening.

But, uh, I just, oh my gosh, I love that. The one question I wanted to end with is I created READ, research, education, advocacy to illuminate the integrated, comprehensive picture of how we educate children and what are those, how do we bring the evidence into the school so that we're supporting our, children's not only academic lives but their personal livelihood and as it pertains to [00:44:00] reading, I think one of the reasons why I wanted to have you on was because you offer this broad, this deeper and broader picture of what it means to educate children in reading. Right. I ultimately think that speech language pathologists and what the field of communication sciences and language can bring to the field of reading is unmatched, and there's so much more that could be explored.

And so it's something that I'm very, very passionate about, but for you, as you look in the future, what are you most excited to continue pursuing? And where do you see the field going?

Dr. Mindy Bridges: That's such a good question. I continue to be interested in helping our fields, and when I say our field, I mean speech language pathology, but also greater education, figure out where we sit this reading world. I think we're kind of at this crossroads where we know that we're important and [00:45:00] we sometimes are doing it well, but I'd like to see something, I'd like to see some work where we're a little bit more integrated.

And I see that coming, so I'm really excited, I'm really excited about that. And I think as schools continue to think about service delivery for kids, I think it's only natural that we think about how we, as that's changing and evolving, I think it's only natural to think about where we slip in there.

And I think I'm also really interested in how to tell people about language, like how, what's the best way, not just to disseminate to teachers and educators, which I obviously think is really important, but I also think it's equally important to talk to parents and families because I actually think, you know, most families are wanting things to do with their kids related to improving their academic life and improving their reading. And I think that if I could just sit down and talk to all parents. Some of the things you're doing are exactly what you need to be doing. So talk to your kids, talk about vocabulary, take them to the [00:46:00] zoo and make all these connections. I think empowering parents, like letting them see that what they're doing, they don't have to just sit and do flashcards.

I think that's what they want these activities, right? Like they want these packets where they feel like they're making a difference, but I want to tell them, look, you actually are making a difference. And for instance, when you're reading books, let me just give you these few extra suggestions. Let me tell you about how to question that will really increase the language. So those are the things that I feel like are going to continue to be part of what I do all the way through, because again, I think they have the most, they're going to have the most effects. They're small problems. Those are very small problems. See, I just tackled the real small problems, like how to get parents to communicate language with kids. That's easy. No one's been thinking about that.

Danielle Scorrano: Well, it's interesting because when you think about even research in how to make things habit and how to improved practices, it's those micro steps that really have the long lasting change. And it's not, I mean, obviously there are a lot of things that we need to do to tackle big system [00:47:00] problems, but even just those small changes are making lasting changes in the lives of kids.

So I actually, I really liked that and I'm not a parent yet, but I think now I'm like, okay, in the back of my mind, I'm raising a little one, that's a good practice. I don't have to buy the 52 deck of, what questions and answers ,we can just go to the zoo.

Dr. Mindy Bridges: Yeah, and I think that, I think empowering parents, just helping them understand what they're doing and why they're doing it. I think it's really important.

Danielle Scorrano: Yeah. I love that. Is there anything else you'd like to share with us? I mean, I could, again, keep you on all day. I know you eventually have to leave, start your weekend, but is there anything that you'd want to share as a sign off for our final question with our READ listeners?

Dr. Mindy Bridges: I mean, I feel like I should have some great imparting wisdom. I will say that the one hopeful thing that has happened to me this week or something that is giving me hope is when I started teaching [00:48:00] this reading disorders course that I teach for my master's students, I've been teaching it for six years. And the first year that I taught it, lots of students would come back and say in my field study, no, one's like, no one's doing that, like I don't, my SLP is not working with teachers at all, or, you know what I mean? We're not part of literacy at all. And I slowly, every year, I'm seeing more and more of my students who come back and say, I got to sit in on a curriculum meeting, or I was actually part of an IEP with my SLP supervisor for about reading. Like they, like we were there and I that's it's coming. I feel like that, that has been really exciting for me to see that because I talk about all these things in class and what we can do, and, you know, students sometimes are discouraged that it's not happening, but also I tell them you can be the change maker, right? So you're learning about this, and so go out and make it happen. So. I think that, that was, that brought us to my, to my face this week. I got an email from a student who's in her [00:49:00] first year at a school and they asked her to be on the literacy planning team that helps pick interventions and help pick assessments. And she was so proud of her role as part of that and that, it made my heart so happy. And that school is going to be, she's going to do a great job.

Danielle Scorrano: Yeah, it's going to be better for it.

Dr. Mindy Bridges: Yeah.

Danielle Scorrano: And Dr. Bridges, we are better for you. I mean, you talk about Changemakers. You are a change-maker. I'm so excited. We got to speak together and I see more collaborations between the two of us in the future. And thank you so much for your time. I truly appreciate it.

Dr. Mindy Bridges: This was the best way to end a very long week.

Danielle Scorrano: Me too. I love it. Thank you.

Dr. Mindy Bridges: Thanks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
episode 32 - language and reading comprehension with mindy bridges

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ep. 32 - Language & Reading Comprehension w/ Mindy Bridges, PhD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Episode 32 - Language and Reading Comprehension with Mindy Bridges, PhD, CCC-SLP - The Windward School

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TRLIL 2023 Lunch & Learn, Session 1 - Google Jamboard

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser. Dismiss

# data[].attributes.headline
Hugh Catts webinar on comprehension (Also watch the Tiffany Hogan webinar!)

# data[].attributes.subject
Hugh Catts webinar on comprehension (Also watch the Tiffany Hogan webinar!)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
2023 Symposium Recordings - AIM Institute for Learning & Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2023 Symposium Recordings - The AIM Institute for Learning & Research translates evidence-based literacy strategies into classroom practices through teacher training.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Free professional development Illinois
Professional development dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dyscalculia
Free PDH Illinois

Dr. Molly Ness takes us through the Science of Reading in a 3 hour course that breaks down structured literacy in an easy to understand manner. 3 PD hours given upon completion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FREE On-Demand Trainings & Resources for Illinois Teachers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We offer free in-person and virtual training, where Illinois teachers can earn PDHs, and resources for educators of students with specific learning disabilities in Illinois specific to dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dyscalculia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Routinely use a set of comprehension-building practices to help students make sense of the text

Part 3A. Build students' world and word knowledge so they can make sense of the text

Part 3B. Consistently provide students with opportunities to ask and answer questions to better understand the text they read

Part 3C. Teach students a routine for determining the gist of a short section of text

Part 3D. Teach students to monitor their comprehension as they read

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
reading intervention; reading instruction; literacy; reading difficulties; reading disabilities; comprehension; fluency; decoding; comprehension monitoring; world knowledge; word knowledge; vocabulary; stretch text; grade 4; grade 5; grade 6; grade 7; grade 8; grade 9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WWC | Providing Reading Interventions for Students in Grades 4-9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Routinely use a set of comprehension-building practices to help students make sense of the text Part 3A. Build students' world and word knowledge so they can make sense of the text Part 3B. Consistently provide students with opportunities to ask and answer questions to better understand the text they read Part 3C.

# data[].attributes.headline
Reading Comprehension is not a Skill with Robert Pondiscio-Melissa and Lori Love Literacy Podcast

# data[].attributes.subject
Reading Comprehension is not a Skill with Robert Pondiscio-Melissa and Lori Love Literacy Podcast

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You can find every episode of Melissa & Lori Love Literacy right here on this page starting with the most recent episodes. You can even search below for any guests or topics you are interested in to find all the episodes you want to listen to!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Melissa and Lori Love Literacy is a podcast for educators interested in learning more about the science of reading, knowledge building, and high-quality curriculum! Join Melissa and Lori as they tackle new ways of thinking about how to teach reading and writing. Guests include literacy researchers and experts, teachers and leaders, parents and advocates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over the last 50 years, there's been a vast outpouring of research about reading development, drawing on insights from neuroscientists, psychologists, linguists, speech pathologists, educators and other experts. I'm sometimes asked to summarize, in plain language, what we've learned so far. These ten maxims represent my best attempt at doing that.

This may seem like a fool's errand, because no set of maxims can fully convey the scope or the nuance of thousands of studies. I hope nevertheless that these maxims might be useful in crystallizing some of the most essential findings. In collaboration with some outstanding researchers and practitioners, I've compiled a selective list of studies that underlie each of the ten maxims. The research behind the maxims addresses a wide range of individual differences in reading development, reading difficulties and reading instruction. Taken as a whole, the studies encompass children identified as having dyslexia and other learning disabilities as well as children who struggle with reading as a result of inadequate instruction. Many of the studies also include proficient readers.

Because these maxims are very broad, there is of course more to say about specific sub-populations of students with distinct strengths and needs. I encourage advocates for these students to formulate additional maxims that are not adequately covered by these first ten. Any additions should be in clear, consumer-friendly language and supported by cited studies that report relevant empirical findings.

The overarching message is that learning to read is a complex process involving multiple abilities, skills, and knowledge. Each is essential but none is sufficient on its own.

With that as prologue, here are my ten maxims:

1. Almost all children learn to speak naturally; reading and writing must be taught.

2. Literacy begins at birth. It is root ed in early social interactions and experiences that include regular exposure to oral language and print. Strong roots tend to produce stronger readers.

3. All good readers are good decoders. Decoding should be taught until children can accurately and independently read new words. Decoding depends on phonemic awareness : a child's ability to identify individual speech sounds. Decoding is the on-ramp for word recognition .

4. Fluent readers can instantly and accurately recognize most words in a text. They can read with expression and at an appropriate rate for their age. Reading fluency requires comprehension AND it supports comprehension.

5. Comprehension-the goal of reading-draws on multiple skills and strengths, including a solid foundation of vocabulary and background knowledge.

6. One size does not fit all: use student data to differentiate your instruction.

7. Direct, systematic instruction helps students develop the skills they need to become strong readers. Indirect, three-cueing instruction is unpredictable in its impact on word reading and leaves too much to chance.

8. These maxims apply to English Learners/Emergent Bilinguals, who often need extra support to bolster their oral language as they learn to read and write in a new language.

9. We should support students who speak languages or dialects other than General American English at home, by honoring their home language and by giving them expanded opportunities to engage with General American English text.

10. To become good readers and writers, students need to integrate many skills that are built over time.

With appreciation to Kelly Butler, Claude Goldenberg, and Noel Gunther.

Contributors: Jane Ashby, Louise Dechovitz, Linda Diamond, Jan Hasbrouck, Kari Kurto, and Julie Washington
Read the research behind the maxims.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Maxims: What We've Learned So Far About How Children Learn to Read

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the last 50 years, there's been a vast outpouring of research about reading development, drawing on insights from neuroscientists, psychologists, linguists, speech pathologists, educators and other experts. I'm sometimes asked to summarize, in plain language, what we've learned so far. These ten maxims represent my best attempt at doing that.

# data[].attributes.headline
The "Bilingual Brain" & Reading Research

# data[].attributes.subject
The "Bilingual Brain" & Reading Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The “bilingual brain” and reading research: Questions about teaching English Learners to read in English

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Controversies over how best to teach children to read go back many years. Most recently, two questions have emerged that leave teachers of English Learners puzzled:First, does research on reading, sometimes referred to as “the science of reading,” include English Learners, or is it based solely on E…

# data[].attributes.headline
The "Reading Brain" is Taught, Not Born by Gotilieb, Rhinehart, and Wolf 

# data[].attributes.subject
The "Reading Brain" is Taught, Not Born by Gotilieb, Rhinehart, and Wolf 

# data[].attributes.headline
Context in Vocabulary Learning by Shanahan 

# data[].attributes.subject
Context in Vocabulary Learning by Shanahan 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Teacher question: I recently read an interview that you did. When you talk about kids needing to recognize when they don't know a word and how to figure it out - did you mean to leave them on their own to do that? When you mention 'passive scaffolding' it makes me think you do. I know a lot about vocabulary instruction and my view of passive scaffolding as a first-line technique is pretty dim. Glossaries or dictionaries are frustrating. What kids need is to be able to integrate relevant aspects of word meaning into the context to come up with an understanding of what the sentence means and how it adds to understanding of the text overall. And helping students cultivate that ability is best achieved through teacher-student interactions, questioning and discussion. Am I misunderstanding your views on this? Shanahan's response:
I believe good vocabulary instruction has five goals: (1) Increase the numbers of words that children know and the richness of their understanding of those words; (2) Build an understanding of morphology (the meaningful parts of words and how words relate and make meaning); (3) Develop an ability to infer or estimate word meaning on the basis of context; (4) Foster an appreciation of diction and awareness of how words convey tone and an author's attitude; and, (5) To teach students to use dictionaries, glossaries, and thesauruses effectively. A good regime of vocabulary instruction will try to accomplish all of those.

My comments in that interview were focused specifically on goal 3, teaching students to use context to determine the meanings of unknown words that readers may confront in text. My belief is that most reading programs tend to include a handful of context exercises and then undermine those lessons with how they guide reading the rest of the year.

Think about it.

The publisher or teacher tries to anticipate words that students might not know in an upcoming reading selection. This prediction invariably leads to pre-reading lessons aimed at building familiarity with those likely-to-be-unknown words. This makes a certain kind of sense. To the extent that the kids manage to learn the words their reading comprehension of that text should be elevated.

But I don't think that's the right goal.

I don't care how well the students comprehend a story that I'm teaching. At least not initially. I do care about what they learn that will help them to read successfully on their own.

To me that means that those kinds of words should not necessarily be pre-taught.

Someone should take a good look at the text. Can the meanings of any of those words be figured out from context (or from morphological analysis)? If they can be, then those words should not be pre-taught.

We need to give students a chance to deal with such of words in real reading situations.

Think questions - not reading preparation lessons.

If a word's meaning can be determined from context, the teacher should be prepared with a question that will reveal whether students got it. If they did, that's great. There's nothing more to be done.

But if they don't, then teachers need to take them back to the text and guide their efforts to determine the meaning. In some cases, this might be a demonstration. In other cases, the teacher may point out the key information. In still others, it might be nothing more than a direction to reread the sentence or paragraph.

That's what I mean by passive scaffolding. The teacher should know what she is trying to teach - she wants the kids to use context to determine word meanings. The students, however - in this kind of lesson - won't even know which words the teacher has focused on. Their task isn't to use context, like in a worksheet exercise, but to read the text with comprehension. That's why I prefer questions about the text rather than questions about the words.

For example, look at the following sentence that I lifted from a fourth-grade text:

When the prairie plants were uprooted, the animals that depended on them lost their food source.

Students, I think, can get the meaning of "uprooted" from the context, the morphology, or a combination of the two. Of course, I can ask students right out, "What does uprooted mean?" Or, "What does the author mean by uprooted?" Those are legitimate vocabulary questions.

However, my preference would be a question like, "What caused the animals to lose their food source?" That is not a direct vocabulary question, but a comprehension question that can only be answered by dealing with the vocabulary.

If the student answers, "Because the prairie plants were uprooted," then I'll ask directly about the meaning of that word. Or, if they say, "Because the prairie plants died," I might ask, what word did the author use to reveal that fact.

The point is to get them to use the vocabulary to make sense of the text and those kinds of questions guide them to think about the word meanings in a comprehension-centric fashion.

Defining words is just one of many skills that one must orchestrate during a successful read. The teacher should only scaffold if the students fail to make sense of what the author was trying to communicate with that word. That's what makes it passive. The teacher is observing carefully and responding to student behavior, not trying to lead things or to head things off.

That doesn't mean there is no place for introducing some words prior to reading. Not all words can be kenned through context or morphology, so giving kids a leg up on a challenging text is very reasonable - especially if you think those are valuable words.

That doesn't mean that there is no place for worksheets or digital exercises for practicing with context or morphology. But students need support in using context and morphology in real reading situations, too. You can't provide that kind of support if you're always pre-introducing the words, trying to avoid a problem instead of getting the kids to confront it.

That doesn't mean that you can't still teach those words that you had the students deal with through context or morphology. The meaning of those words can be reinforced through direct instruction after the reading.

If I understand your concern:

No, my point was not to suggest that just having kids read would be sufficient to build vocabulary skills. As a student myself, I read a lot, but paid little attention to word meanings. If I didn't know a word, I just kept rolling. My comprehension didn't take off until I made a concerted effort to expand my vocabulary - an effort that included being sensitive to unknown words, using context and dictionaries to figure them out, and lots of drill and practice. With that kind of regimen, my reading comprehension soared.

I had to do that on my own.

Our students should have more help than that, including that kind of passive or responsive vocabulary teaching. I think the confusion has to do with the word, "passive." The lesson is passive from the students' point of view since no one is going to tell them ahead of time the purpose of the lesson or the words that are the focus of this part of the lesson. But what is passive for the student is highly active for the teacher. She has familiarized herself with the affordances of the text and is going to probe to determine whether the students successfully made use of these affordances to comprehend the text. If not, she is ready to intervene with teaching geared to getting students to address that omission. Her teaching is responsive (perhaps a better description) and, yet, her watchfulness is not that general attentiveness to teachable moments, but a highly focused sensitivity to specific student behaviors in very specific parts of the text.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How I Teach Students to Use Context in Vocabulary Learning | Reading Rockets

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teacher question: I recently read an interview that you did. When you talk about kids needing to recognize when they don't know a word and how to figure it out - did you mean to leave them on their own to do that? When you mention 'passive scaffolding' it makes me think you do.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TRLIL 2023 Lunch & Learn, Session 5 - Google Jamboard

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser. Dismiss

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Awhile back, I posted an opinion piece calling for the explicit teaching of sentence comprehension. With schools aiming to expose kids to complex text, it would seem that such instruction would be de rigueur. Texts are often complex because they include complicated sentences and experience tells me that students often fail to grasp the meaning of individual sentences - undermining their ability to identify main ideas, make inferences, draw conclusions, or answer any of the other question types.

Given that comprehension lessons tend to focus on "prior knowledge," vocabulary, text reading with follow-up questions, comprehension strategies, the lowly sentence gets short shrift in most programs and classrooms.

In any event, while that rant gathered some attention, it came up short.

Accordingly, I have decided to take a mulligan.

That blog articulated my opinions but neither marshalled the research evidence, nor provided much in the way of helpful instructional guidance. It called for action but was terse on specifics.

This piece should remedy those omissions.

To tell the truth, when I wrote that blog I didn't bother to search for research on sentence comprehension because, that topic never attracted much attention. There were some old studies indicating that teaching formal grammar had no impact on comprehension or writing. That seemed to settle it for most of us.

When I was working on my doctorate, a prominent reading scholar told me that "Noam Chomsky is dead." He meant it figuratively as he was trying to dissuade me from squandering my time on something as pointless as sentence comprehension.

No matter my excuses, boy was that a foolish oversight!

Over the past two decades - slowly, gradually - research on syntax and reading comprehension has accumulated. And, over the past couple of years, the numerous publications appearing in high quality psychological, educational, and linguistic journals suggests that being a sentence- comprehension researcher is now a respectable line of work, along with social media consultant or TikTok dancer.

First, the research.

These days we're all doing some handwringing over supply lines. Nevertheless, there are clearly no supply line problems to report when it comes to sentence-comprehension studies. The desert has become an oasis.

There is now a slew of rigorous studies revealing that an understanding of syntax is correlated with reading comprehension (Rand, 2002). That simply means that students who know more about how sentences are constructed do better on reading comprehension measures.

Even more persuasive is that many such studies examined that relationship AFTER controlling for differences in decoding ability, vocabulary knowledge, memory, and/or other relevant reading skills (Bowey, 1986; Bowey & Patel, 1988; Brimo, Apel, & Fountain, 2017; Brimo, Lund, & Sapp, 2018; Cain, 2007; Catts, Adlof, & Weismer, 2006; Cutting & Scarborough, 2006; Deacon & Kieffer, 2018; Gaux & Gombert, 1999; Farnia & Geva, 2013; Goodwin, Petscher, & Reynolds, 2022; Gottardo, Mirza, Koh, Ferreira, & Javier, 2018; Hagtvet, 2003; Mackay, Lynch, Duncan, & Deacon, 2021; Mokhtri & Thompson, 2006; Nation & Snowling, 2000; Nippold, 2017; Nomvete & Easterbrooks, 2019; Poulsen, Nielsen, & Vang Chrisensen, 2022; Scarborough, 1990; Scott, 2015; Shiotsu & Weir, 2007; Sorenson Duncan, Mimeau, Crowell, & Deacon, 2021; Tong & McBride, 2015).

In other words, if all students did equally well on decoding, vocabulary, and memory tests, we'd still see variations in reading comprehension ability because of syntax difference. The kids who understand syntax comprehend better than the ones who don't.

That list of studies is impressive, but not comprehensive. I didn't search carefully for these studies - combing through reference lists, using a variety of search terms and strategies, considering books and doctoral dissertations, and so on.

It is fair to point out that some such studies didn't find significant relationships between syntax and comprehension (e.g., Cain & Oakhill, 2006), though the data are sufficiently one-sided enough to conclude that any honest meta-analysis would conclude that knowledge of syntax is an essential reading skill.

That collection of studies cited above found sentence knowledge to be important to comprehension as early as 30-months old and throughout the school grades, K-12. They found that syntax mattered with regular classroom kids and those with dyslexia. They reported this pattern in English, French, Dutch, and Cantonese. They found syntax to matter with native English speakers and with English Language Learners. Syntax played a significant role in comprehension both in studies that measured those simultaneously, and in longitudinal studies which considered the role of the relationship in learning and development.

The amount of comprehension variance explained by syntax varied quite a bit from study to study (~5% to 30%). Researchers attributed some of those differences to the nature of the syntax measures, suggesting that the ability to make sense of complex sentences is more crucial than the ability to evaluate grammatical accuracy (e.g., Brimo, Lund, & Sapp, 2018). Researchers paid less attention to variations in reading comprehension measurement.

The texts included in Comprehension tests can vary a great deal in sentence complexity, and in whether the questions they ask tap into this complexity (Shanahan & Kamil, 1984).

This concern is important since syntax is a particularly important factor determining text complexity or comprehensibility (Graisser, McNamara, & Kulikowich, 2011; Stenner & Swartz, 2012). Texts with more complicated sentence structures will be a special challenge for kids who lag in sentence comprehension ability. However, at least for fifth-graders the ability to make sense of sentences with simple structures was more closely related to reading comprehension than doing so with more difficult sentences; though this may have been due to the specific demands of the particular comprehension measure used in the study (Sorenson Duncan, Mimeau, Crowell, & Deacon, 2021).

Another relevant collection of studies is those focused on oral reading fluency or text reading fluency. Such research has long shown that oral sentence reading requires skills beyond those required to read word lists - even when the words in the lists and sentences are identical (Jenkins, Fuchs, van den Broek, Espin, & Deno, 2003). That study found sentence reading to be more predictive of reading comprehension than was word list reading. Students with specific reading comprehension deficits read word lists as well as comparison students but perform more poorly than controls on text reading fluency (Cutting, Matterek, Cole, Levine, & Mahone, 2009). Research also has reported that syntax and text prosody are related to each other and to reading comprehension (Veenendaal, Groen, & Vehoeven, 2015).

If that provocative but incomplete review of the research isn't enough to convince you that sentence comprehension is a thing, then you likely can't be convinced. Your lifetime membership in the Flat Earth Society is safe and secure for the time being.

For those of you who are more open minded, let's turn to what we know about teaching sentence comprehension.

I'd love to present an equally impressive array of studies showing that if you teach sentences your state test scores will reach levels just this side of Nirvana. Unfortunately, I can't do that.

A thoughtful review (MacKay, Lynch, Duncan, & Deacon, 2021; Stoddard, Valcante, Sindelar, O'Shea, & Algozzine, 1993) recently concluded that this research is so severely limited and insufficient that it would be unwise yet to proceed pedagogically. The reasoning of these researchers is admirable and consistent with what I usually espouse - don't try to apply basic research to classroom practice. Wait for the instructional studies!

MacKay and company rightly point out that some interventions aimed at improving sentence comprehension haven't worked (e.g., Balthazar & Scott, 2018), and that interventions aimed at sentence comprehension have been hopelessly confounded (e.g., Morris, et al., 2012; Proctor, Silverman, Harring, Jones, & Hartranft, 2000; Reynolds, 2021). Although these studies reported significant reading comprehension improvement, they didn't focus on syntactic work alone but also taught morphology, vocabulary, or text structure; perhaps the gains were due to one or another of them.

The same point could be made about paraphrasing studies (Stevens, Vaughn, House, & Stillman-Spisak, 2020). Although such teaching must include some attention to translating sentences into one's own words - for the most part, these studies have emphasized paragraph paraphrases which would likely include skills that go beyond sentence interpretation. Though this approach has been successful at improving reading comprehension, it would be inappropriate to conclude from this alone that sentence instruction is a good idea.

Despite these problems, in this case, I'm going to suggest the appropriateness of cautiously proceeding with sentence comprehension teaching.

First, I believe studies that show a close connection between text reading fluency and reading comprehension to be persuasive. (I cited a few such studies but could include many more; see Breznitz, 2005 for a more rigorous treatment of these issues). MacKay and her colleagues didn't credit this dimension of the work, but if you do then the many studies showing that oral reading guidance and chunking instruction can improve reading comprehension need to be considered (NICHD, 2000; Stevens, 1981). They suggest that teaching students how to read sentences aloud with proper prosody is effective, and I believe those practices to be examples of effective sentence instruction.

Also, I know researchers differ in the weight they accord to sentence manipulation instruction. I tend to be persuaded that sentence combining and reduction improves reading comprehension (Neville & Searls, 1985; O'Hare, 1973; Wilkinson & Patty, 1993), and that provides another body of supportive instructional data - though I admit the quality of some of these studies is dubious, it is also fair to point out that the results were just as good in the best designed and implemented studies.

Finally, I identified a couple of studies that were beyond the purview of the MacKay review. One of these studies taught 9- and 10-year-olds to read fables and to identify complex sentences, constituent clauses, and subordinate conjunctions in those texts, and then to revise the fables to make them more readable. This results in significant gains in both oral and written language.

I also recently discovered a doctoral dissertation that evaluated the impact of an intriguing sentence comprehension intervention that improved reading achievement for high school students - grades 9 and 11 (Rozen, 2005). That study had teachers guiding students to analyze difficult texts sentence-by-sentence, discussing main ideas, author's purpose, inferences, and styles of passage as expressed or revealed in those sentences. They also taught students to break down difficult sentences, simplifying them, and determining the primary function of the various phrases (e.g., who does what to whom?).

The comparison groups received all the business-as-usual reading instruction - including vocabulary, strategies, and practice reading of the texts. The 15-minutes per day of sentence work was accomplished by reducing the time accorded to the other skills. The classes were taught by the same teacher and control and experimental students read the same texts.

My advice to teachers?

1. Teach oral reading fluency either with grade level classroom texts, including the texts for social studies and science. In the upper grades focus specifically on prosody issues. If the students are not reading the sentences properly - attending to punctuation and pausing in the appropriate places in terms of meaning, then the sentences will make no sense. (Although I know of no research on the practice, but I wouldn't hesitate with older students to focus this fluency work on the reading of specific complicated sentences drawn from appropriate texts).

2. I think it also makes sense to engage students in sentence combining and reduction - combining simple sentences to make complex ones and breaking more complicated sentences down into their constituent parts. For examples of this kind of work, along with a wealth of other practical syntax teaching approaches, I recommend downloading the document, "Syntactic Awareness: Teaching Sentence Structure" by Joan Sedita. I found it by typing 'Syntactic Awareness" into the search box at the Mass Literacy Website ( https://www.doe.mass.edu/massliteracy/)

3. Lots of times teachers tell me they aren't too sure whether a sentence may seem complex to the students. A good readable source that can provide guidance for identifying sentences that may be barriers to comprehension can be found for free online; an article by Cheryl M. Scott and Catherine Balthazar provides great advice regarding sentence length, subordination, relative clauses, passive voice, and other syntactic issues. ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4373700/) However, remember that even more basic sentences may pose challenges for elementary students. However, no matter how complex a sentence may be, it is only worth breaking down if it poses some impediment to comprehension. Scott and Balthazar's guidance may help you to notice whether a sentence poses a particular kind of problem (like a passive sentence seemingly confusing actor and acted upon), but an exercise aimed at comprehending such a structure, should start with a question to determine whether or not students could understand it. If understood, move on. If not understood, it would be a great basis for a lesson.

4. I think that idea of replacing some typical "guided reading" with the kind of reading intervention described earlier - guiding students to read each sentence, to paraphrase what they mean, and to break the sentences down when they have trouble paraphrasing. That strikes me as a very intelligent and supportive way to teach these skills - going faster when the kids are having no problem with a sentence and digging in to solve the problem when they do.

5. Although I've emphasized sentences heavily here, it is important to remember that individual words play an important role in sentence interpretation and syntactic understanding (Adlof & Catts, 2015; Goodwin, Petscher, & Reynolds, 2022). Meaning will often turn on coordinating conjunctions (e.g., and, but, so) or subordinating conjunctions (e.g., because, when, if). Likewise, verb tenses (e.g., swim and swam) reveal when actions took place or are taking place or will take place in time. Sentence work requires some attention to word meanings and morphology.

6. There have been several successful reading interventions that included sentence work. Those studies aren't sufficient to determine the effectiveness of the sentence comprehension part of the instruction. Nevertheless, we can take some direction from such studies - including sentence work while still teaching vocabulary, morphology, text structure, and so on. These days vocabulary instruction seems to be getting a lot of play, though the contribution of syntax to reading comprehension is similar in magnitude (Deacon & Kieffer, 2018; Shiotsu & Weir, 2007). Perhaps 15 minutes per day on sentence comprehension would be a good use of reading instruction time.
References
Adlof, S. M., & Catts, H. W. (2015). Morphosyntax in poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28(7), 1051-1070.

Balthazar, C. H., & Scott, C. M. (2007). Syntax-morphology. In A. G. Kamhi, J. J. Masterson & K. Apel (Eds.), Clinical decision making in developmental language disorders; clinical decision making in developmental language disorders (pp. 143-163). Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes.

Bowey, J. A. (1986). Syntactic awareness and verbal performance from preschool to fifth grade. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 15(4), 285-308.

Bowey, J. A., & Patel, R. K. (1988). Metalinguistic ability and early reading achievement. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9(4), 367-383.

Breznitz, Z. (2005). Fluency in reading: Synchronization of processes. New York: Routledge.

Brimo, D., Apel, K., & Fountain, T. (2017). Examining the contributions of syntactic awareness and syntactic knowledge to reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(1), 57-74.

Brimo, D., Lund, E., & Sapp, A. (2018). Syntax and reading comprehension: A meta?analysis of different spoken?syntax assessments. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 53(3), 431-445.

Cain, K. (2007). Syntactic awareness and reading ability: Is there any evidence for a special relationship? Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 679-694.

Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2006). Profiles of children with specific reading comprehension difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 683-696.

Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., & Weismer, S. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(2), 278-293.

Cutting, L. E., Materek, A., Cole, C. A. S., Levine, T. M., & Mahone, E. M. (2009). Effects of fluency, oral language, and executive function on reading comprehension performance. Annals of Dyslexia, 59(1), 34-54.

Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 277-299.

Deacon, S. H., & Kieffer, M. (2018). Understanding how syntactic awareness contributes to reading comprehension: Evidence from mediation and longitudinal models. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(1), 72-86.

Farnia, F., & Geva, E. (2013). Growth and predictors of change in English language learners' reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 36(4), 389-421.

Gaux, C., & Gombert, J. (1999). La conscience syntaxique chez les préadolescents: Question de méthodes. L'Année Psychologique, 99(1), 45-74.

Goodwin, A. P., Petscher, Y., & Reynolds, D. (2021). Unraveling adolescent language & reading comprehension: The monster's data. Scientific Studies of Reading.

Gottardo, A., Mirza, A., Koh, P. W., Ferreira, A., & Javier, C. (2018). Unpacking listening comprehension: The role of vocabulary, morphological awareness, and syntactic knowledge in reading comprehension. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 31(8), 1741-1764.

Graesser, A.C., McNamara, D.S., & Kulikowich, J.M. (2011). Coh-Metrix providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 223-234.

Hagtvet, B. E. (2003). Listening comprehension and reading comprehension in poor decoders: Evidence for the importance of syntactic and semantic skills as well as phonological skills. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16(6), 505-539.

Hirschman, M. (2000). Language repair via metalinguistic means. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 35(2), 251-268.

Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 719-729.

Lauterbach, S. L., & Bender, W. N. (1995). Cognitive strategy instruction for reading comprehension: A success for high school freshmen. High School Journal, 79(1), 58-64.

MacKay, E., Lynch, E., Sorenson Duncan, T., & Deacon, S. H. (2021). Informing the science of reading: Students' awareness of sentence?level information is important for reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly.

Mokhtari, K., & Thompson, H. B. (2006). How problems of reading fluency and comprehension are related to difficulties in syntactic awareness skills among fifth-graders. Reading Research and Instruction, 46(1), 73-94.

Morris, R.D., Lovett, M.W., Wolf, M., Sevcik, R.A., Steinbach, K.A., Frijters, J.C., & Shapiro, M.B. (2012). Multiple component remediation for developmental reading disabilities: IQ, socioeconomic status, and race as factors in remedial outcome. Journal of Learning Disabilities,

Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (2000). Factors influencing syntactic awareness skills in normal readers and poor comprehenders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21(2), 229-241.

Neville, D. D., & Searls, E. F. (1991). A meta-analytic review of the effect of sentence-combining on reading comprehension. Reading Research and Instruction, 31(1), 63-76.

Nippold, M.A. (2017). Reading comprehension deficits in adolescents: Addressing underlying language abilities. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48(2), 125-131

Nomvete, P., & Easterbrooks, S. R. (2020). Phrase-reading mediates between words and syntax in struggling adolescent readers. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 41(3), 162-175.

Poulsen, M., Nielsen, J. L., & Vang Christensen, R. (2022). Remembering sentences is not all about memory: Convergent and discriminant validity of syntactic knowledge and its relationship with reading comprehension. Journal of Child Language, 49(2), 349-365.

Proctor, C. P., Silverman, R. D., Harring, J. R., Jones, R. L., & Hartranft, A. M. (2020). Teaching bilingual learners: Effects of a language?based reading intervention on academic language and reading comprehension in grades 4 and 5. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(1), 95-122.

RAND Reading Study Group (2002). Reading for understanding, toward an R&D Program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Rozen, S.D. (2005). Sentence disambiguation using syntactic awareness as a reading comprehension strategy for high school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University.

Scarborough, H. S. (1990). Index of productive syntax. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11(1), 1-22.

Scott, C. M., & Balthazar, C. H. (2010). The grammar of information: Challenges for older students with language impairments. Topics in Language Disorders, 30(4), 288-307.

Scott, C.M., & Balthazar, C. (2013). The role of complex sentence knowledge in children with reading and writing difficulties. Perspectives on Literacy and Language, 39(3), 18-30.

Shanahan, T., & Kamil, M. L. (1984). The relationship of the concurrent and construct validities of cloze. In J. A. Niles, & L. A. Harris (Eds.), Changing perspectives on research in reading/language processing and instruction. (Thirty-third Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 252-256). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.

Shiotsu, T., & Weir, C. J. (2007). The relative significance of syntactic knowledge and vocabulary breadth in the prediction of reading comprehension test performance. Language Testing, 24(1), 99-128.

Sorenson Duncan, T., Mimeau, C., Crowell, N., & Deacon, S. H. (2021). Not all sentences are created equal: Evaluating the relation between children's understanding of basic and difficult sentences and their reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(2), 268-278.

Stevens, E. A., Vaughn, S., House, L., & Stillman-Spisak, S. (2020). The effects of a paraphrasing and text structure intervention on the main idea generation and reading comprehension of students with reading disabilities in grades 4 and 5. Scientific Studies of Reading, 24(5), 365-379.

Stevens, K. (1981). Chunking material as an aid to reading comprehension. Journal of Reading, 25, 126-129.

Stoddard, K., Valcante, G., Sindelar, P., O'Shea, L., & al, e. (1993). Increasing reading rate and comprehension: The effects of repeated readings, sentence segmentation, and intonation training. Reading Research and Instruction, 32(4), 53-65

Tong, X., & McBride, C. (2015). A reciprocal relationship between syntactic awareness and reading comprehension. Learning and Individual Differences, 57, 33-44.

Veenendaal, N. J., Groen, M. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2015). What oral text reading fluency can reveal about reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 38(3), 213-225.

Wilkinson, P.A., & Patty, D. (1993). The effects of sentence combining on the reading comprehension of fourth-grade students. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(1), 104-125.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
what teachers need to know about sentence comprehension

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
what do teachers need to know about sentence comrehension

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
what should teachers know about reading comprehension

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Teachers Need to Know about Sentence Comprehension | Shanahan on Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This blog entry provides an overview of the research that reveals the importance of syntax knowledge and sentence comprehension.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Symposium Moderator - Nancy Hennessy, M.Ed.

Nancy Hennessy is an experienced teacher, author, and administrator who currently works as a literacy consultant. She has designed and delivered keynote addresses and multiple virtual and live professional learning events including workshops, podcasts, and training courses on the science of reading & structured literacy. Nancy is the author of the book, The Reading Comprehension Blueprint: Helping Students Make Meaning of Text. She also wrote the chapter, Working with Word Meaning: Vocabulary Instruction, in Multisensory Teaching of Basic Skills (4th edition). While serving as a national trainer for Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling, she co-authored LETRS, Digging for Meaning: Teaching Text Comprehension (2nd edition) with Louisa Moats. Nancy is the past president of the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) and a recipient of IDA's Margaret Byrd Rawson Lifetime Achievement Award.

Rethinking Reading Comprehension
Dr. Catts is Professor of the School of Communication Science and Disorders at Florida State University. He is a past board member of the International Dyslexia Association and past board member and President of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading. He has received the Samuel T. Orton Award from the International Dyslexia Association and the Honors of the Association from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association for his career contributions in each of these disciplines. His current research concerns the early identification and prevention of reading and language disabilities and the nature and assessment of reading comprehension problems.

Inference Generation and Knowledge Acquisition: Key Factors in Reading Comprehension
Dr. Elleman currently serves as the director of the Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) Literacy Studies Ph.D. Program, an interdisciplinary program dedicated to teaching doctoral students how to translate literacy research to practice. Dr. Elleman has experience as a teacher and administrator serving students with learning and behavior difficulties. Dr. Elleman earned a B.S. in Psychology at the University of Maryland in Heidelberg, Germany. She earned her M.Ed. and Ph.D. at Vanderbilt University where she became interested in the early identification and treatment of reading comprehension difficulties. Her current research includes investigating individual differences in vocabulary acquisition for students with learning difficulties, conducting meta-analyses focused on comprehension, and examining the impact of knowledge and inference instruction for students with reading comprehension difficulties.

Tiffany Hogan, Ph.D., CCC-SLP

Language Comprehension and Developmental Language Disorder: The other side of the Simple View of Reading
Dr. Hogan is a Professor in the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders at MGH Institute of Health Professions in Boston, Director of the Speech and Language (SAiL) Literacy Lab, and Research Associate at Harvard University. Dr. Hogan has published over 100 papers on the genetic, neurologic, and behavioral links between oral and written language development, with a focus on improving assessment and intervention for children with Developmental Language Disorder, Dyslexia, and/or Speech Sound Disorders. Her advocacy for children with communication disorders has led her to co-found a DLD informational website: www.dldandme.org, host a podcast ( www.seehearspeakpodcast.com), organize an annual conference on implementation science in CSD ( https://info.mghihp.edu/isforall), and contribute information for articles in numerous news outlets including the New York Times, the Boston Globe, along with several television and radio appearances.

From Research to Practice: Anchoring Effective Processes to Improve Reading Outcomes
Kristen Wynn is State Literacy Director (K-12) for the Mississippi Department of Education with 17 plus years of service in the field of education. She is committed to ensuring equitable access for all students to effective literacy instruction, highly qualified teachers, and high-quality instructional materials. Her experience in the classroom includes teaching 1st and 2nd grade, as well as serving as a Kindergarten through 5 th grade Intervention Specialist. She has also spent several years as a new teacher mentor. Ms. Wynn previously served as a literacy coach for the Mississippi Department of Education (MDE), a Regional Literacy Coordinator, an Assistant State Literacy Coordinator, and currently serves as the State Literacy Director, where she has worked diligently to improve literacy outcomes of schools and districts across the state of Mississippi. She is the co-creator of several literacy professional development trainings (for educators) aligned to the science of reading. During the 2016-2017 school year, she co-produced the MDE's Literacy Focus of the Month in Action instructional videos featuring literacy coaches and students in Mississippi classrooms. During the 2017-2018 school year, she began working with coaches to increase the rigor and consistency of writing instruction in kindergarten through sixth grade classrooms through the development and implementation of Writing Galleries. Currently, she serves as a member of the Mississippi Reading Licensure Task Force, the Mississippi Reading Panel, the Higher Ed Literacy Council (HELC) and the Governor's Task Force for Teacher Preparation in Early Literacy Instruction. Kristen is the mother of two wonderful boys, Braxton and Parker and a sweet princess, Baylor.

Hollis Scarborough Award Recipient - Laurie Cutting, Ph.D.

The Complexity of Reading Comprehension and Beyond: Lessons Learned from the Reading Rope and its Author
Dr. Cutting is the Patricia and Rodes Hart Professor of Special Education, Psychology and Human Development, Radiology, Pediatrics, and Electrical and Computer Engineering at Vanderbilt University, and was the recipient of the 2017-2018 Joe B. Wyatt Distinguished University Professorship at Vanderbilt University. She is also Associate Director of the Vanderbilt Kennedy Center, a member of the Vanderbilt Brain Institute, training faculty for Vanderbilt's Neuroscience Ph.D. program, and a Senior Scientist at Haskins Laboratories. Her work focuses on brain-behavior relations in children and adolescents, with a particular emphasis on reading, language, and executive function. Currently, she is the principal investigator of several NIH- and other federally funded research projects examining the neural underpinnings of cognitive development and academic achievement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
2023 Agenda and Handouts - AIM Institute for Learning & Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Symposium Moderator - Nancy Hennessy, M.Ed. Nancy Hennessy is an experienced teacher, author, and administrator who currently works as a literacy consultant. She has designed and delivered keynote addresses and multiple virtual and live professional learning events including workshops, podcasts, and training courses on the science of reading & structured literacy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Four Ways Not to Deal with Complex Text by Shanahan

# data[].attributes.subject
Four Ways Not to Deal with Complex Text by Shanahan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Blast from the Past: This blog first posted April 3, 2016 and was re-posted on June 9, 2023. It contains an important reminder that the ultimate purpose of a reading lesson is NOT to ensure that kids accomplish high comprehension of the texts that we are using to teach reading comprehension. So many teachers -- and supposed authorities on reading -- have lost sight of this. That's why they have developed so many ways that make high comprehension (of that day's text) certain, but that do little to make students stronger and more independent as readers. This blog entry highlights and warns against some of those widely used techniques for avoiding the teaching and learning demands of working with complex text. If you want kids to become better readers, they need to take on texts that they cannot already read well without teacher support. The widely held belief that teaching with books at the students' "instructional level" will offer students sufficient struggle to enable learning is incorrect. Teaching with challenging text -- text that students cannot already read well -- is important because it provides opportunity to learn. But when you teach with such text, you need to avoid these 4 common actions that will undermine such opportunity and will undermine student learning.
We've been talking a lot about complex text since the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) burst on the scene.

But most of that talk has focused on how to find texts that meet the complexity requirements.

Today, I suggest that we consider some of the ways that teachers may make it look like they are dealing with complex text when they really aren't.

Anyone who has taught reading - or any course that requires a textbook - knows of kids who struggle to understand the text. If the text looks hard, they might even refuse to give it a try. For that reason, many teachers may try to make it easier or more encouraging for students. I like the notion of supporting students so that they will buy into a lesson and get engaged. But if your approach both gets the kids to participate and makes participation a waste of learning time, we've created a no win situation.

The text looks hard, so they may want to try to avoid it altogether.

The kids' anxiety, of course, complements the way many teachers think about this problem.

Teachers don't want the fluidity of their lessons disrupted, they want students to gain the required information from the text, and they have to worry about their daily schedule. The students don't want to work too hard or to be embarrassed. So, a kind of tacit agreement may be arrived at -- with the teacher adopting instructional approaches that reduce both the amount of teaching and the amount of learning. These methods make it look like teaching is happening, but nobody has to do too much.

What are these avoidance routines that teachers must learn to avoid?
1. If a text is challenging, I'll find an easier one or go without.
Beyond the beginning reading levels, there is no evidence that kids must be taught with a particular level of text. But many teachers have been told that if a book is difficult for students it is to be avoided.

Imagine that we're supposed to get students up a mountain, and a teacher decides, "No, that looks hard. Let's climb this little hill over here instead."

That wouldn't be very satisfying and certainly wouldn't accomplish the intended goal. If a fourth grader is supposed to work with fourth grade texts and you try teaching him with second or third grade texts, you are avoiding the mountain, not getting him up it.

The same can be said for the teacher who decides not to use a text all -- since kids might struggle with it.

That kind of text shifting (or text omitting) means those kids will rarely get the opportunity to take on texts at their intellectual or developmental levels.

What if we changed that up?

If a mountain is high, we should help students to climb that mountain -- not some other easier one. And we never should skip climbing altogether.

With appropriate supports and scaffolds, it can be done.
2. If a text is challenging, read it to them.
The next time you think about moving kids to an easier text or skipping the use of text, think about what you could do to get them up the real mountain rather than the instead one.

I'm a big fan of reading to kids.

However, there are books for teacher sharing, and there are books that students should take on themselves.

If there is a social studies textbook, the kids are supposed to read it. If there is a core reading series, that's on the kids, too. If your class has been assigned a grade level novel, yep, that is for student reading, not teacher reading.

Many English/Language Arts teachers get emotionally committed to particular texts -- they want their students to know Catcher in the Rye or Beloved. Nothing wrong with that -- as long as their dedication is to building the ability for students to read such texts independently, rather than just making sure the kids experience that book.

Reading such texts to your students (or having others read it to them through round robin or popcorn) are just ways to get around the mountain, rather than up it.

I have no doubt that students will be able gain information about the mountain when you read the books to them.

But they still will not be able to climb it themselves - the real purpose of the reading part of such lessons. Yeah, I want kids to know what happens in Romeo and Juliet, but I want them to know that because they read the play -- not because you read it to them or had them listen to a recording of it.
3. If a text is challenging, tell students what it says.
If your desire is to share information with students, then reading it to them is fine. But, if, like me, you want to teach students to gain such information independently, you must teach them to read it. Teach them to climb the mountain, rather than having them watch you climb it.

This avoidance approach is very popular in upper grade content classes. Teachers tell me that they can explain concepts more clearly than the textbook can. Man oh man, some of those teachers are darn good at 'splainin' and 'Powerpointin'. But this approach suffers the same problem as reading the texts to the kids. It just tells them what's on the mountain without enabling them to summit for themselves.

Telling someone what a text says is just a good way to make the text not matter. Why should I read a text if I already know what it says?

Teachers who use this approach often tell me that the kids are "allowed" to read the texts on their own if they want to in addition to the class lectures and videos.

My response: "Good luck." That isn't very likely to happen.
4. If a text is challenging, ignore the problem.
Kids are supposed to gain knowledge in their social studies, science, and literature classes -- but some of that knowledge is supposed to come from the students' own reading. If that isn't the case, you're avoiding climbing the mountain.

I see this approach, too, though not as much as I used to (thak goodness).

Yes, some teachers still assign texts without any consideration of whether the students can handle them. They do check up on the reading afterwords, asking questions of the hand-raisers, and then moving on to other challenging texts that many students will simply ignore.

These teachers don't usually get many kids to the top of the mountain (or at least, they don't get many kids there who can't already climb that mountain on their own). They leave a lot of kids stranded at base camp - with neither an idea of how to rise or any sense that anyone cares if they do.

If you want kids to learn to read complex texts, you are going to have to let them try to read complex texts -- even if that means they don't get everything the first time through or that the lesson is a bit bumpier than usual.

No, if we want them to develop the ability and the stamina to read difficult texts, we're going to have to help them make sense of such texts without reading them for the students.

Without telling them what the texts say.

But if students are to succeed in meeting the challenge successfully, teachers need to provide guidance, support, scaffolding, explanations, and the teaching that will allow them to ascend those mountains under their own steam.

Let's swear off these avoidance techniques.

Let's break the co-dependency.

And let's teach kids to read demanding text.

It's time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
On Climbing the Mountain: Four Ways Not to Deal with Complex Text | Shanahan on Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Blast from the Past: This blog first posted April 3, 2016 and was re-posted on June 9, 2023. It contains an important reminder that the ultimate purpose of a reading lesson is NOT to ensure that kids accomplish high comprehension of the texts that we are using to teach reading comprehension.

# data[].attributes.headline
Meta-Analysis of Comprehension Strategy Instruction for Older Struggling Readers

# data[].attributes.subject
Meta-Analysis of Comprehension Strategy Instruction for Older Struggling Readers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Content

The Illinois Comprehensive Literacy Plan is currently undergoing revisions based on feedback received during an initial round of listening sessions. Public comments are being considered and a revised plan will be presented at the October 18 Illinois State Board of Education meeting. There will subsequently be another listening tour to gather public input.

In-person sessions will be conducted during this next phase to further engage with stakeholders. The public also is encouraged to provide written feedback between October 18 and November 18.

More revisions will be made after the second round of listening and before the final adoption of the plan by the Illinois State Board of Education in January. The plan is required to be in place by January 31, 2024, as required by Public Act 103-0402​.

Timeline

Presentation to ISBE Boar​d

Listening Tour & Focus Groups

Revised Plan to ISBE Board

2nd Listening Tour & Public Comment

Begin the year with a finalized literacy plan for Illinois​

We encourage all stakeholders to actively participate in the review and feedback process. Your input will play a pivotal role in shaping the final version of the literacy plan, which will guide literacy instruction and support across the state.

To sign up to receive literacy updates via list serv, please complete the Illinois Literacy Plan Updates sign-up form.

For more information regarding the Literacy Summit from October 2022, please see the Literacy Stakeholder Engagement Meeting, October 25, 2022: Summary of Themes .

Thank you for your continued support and commitment to advancing literacy in our state.

The Illinois Literacy Plan team at ISBE can be reached by email at ILTeachTalkLearn@isbe.net.​​​​​​​​​​​

Draft Writing Team Members

Listed below are the draft writing team members and their associated organizational affiliation(s).

Lulia Sarmiento - Belvidere School District #100

Rochelle Luttrell - Arthur CUSD305

Kimetrice Tate - Teach Plus Illinois

Joanna Marek - Spring Avenue Elementary School, LaGrange School District 105 and Association of IL School Library Educators (AISLE)

Kellyn Sirach - Teach Plus Policy Fellow, Champaign Unit 4 Jefferson Middle School

Dr. Chris Becker - Highland High School

Anne Peiffer - Rockford Public Schools #205

Molly Allen - ROE 17 - DeWitt, Livingston, Logan, McLean

Dr. Sarah Epplin - Tri-County Special Education Association

Shannon Hammond - National Louis University

Dr. David Paige - Northern Illinois University

Dr. Lindsay Meeker - Western Illinois University/Bilingual Advisory Council/Latino Policy Forum

Verity Sandell - Parent of children in Illinois schools and Hartlieb Horste & Sandell

Diane Wendt Uher - IL Early Literacy Coalition, Parent Volunteer Structured Literacy Advocate

Tinaya York,PhD - Literacy for Life, LLC

Jessica Handy - Stand for Children IL, IL Early Literacy Coalition

Laura Beltchenko - IL Advisory Council for the Education of Gifted and Talented Children

Cristina Sanchez-Lopez - Illinois Resource Center; National Committee for Effective Literacy; Paridad Education Consulting; Illinois Committee for Effective Literacy

Robin Thoma - Specific Learning Disability Project - EIU

Shira Raviv Schwartz - Everyone Reading Illinois

* * * This page has been archived. The content on this page may no longer be in effect. * * *

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Content The Illinois Comprehensive Literacy Plan is currently undergoing revisions based on feedback received during an initial round of listening sessions. Public comments are being considered and a revised plan will be presented at the October 18 Illinois State Board of Education meeting. There will subsequently be another listening tour to gather public input.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Welcome to the Reading Research Recap!

I am Dr. Neena Saha, Research Advisor at MetaMetrics and founder and CEO of Elemeno, now a part of MetaMetrics. My focus is to bridge the research-practice gap so that educators can access real-time tools to support reading success. To expand the understanding of research to inform teaching and learning strategies, I put together this monthly compendium of the relevant and must-read research that impacts the reading and learning landscape. I offer research highlights in digestible summary slices. Hopefully, the data and findings you see here are useful to you as researchers, educators, and district and edtech leaders.

Video and Research Summary

This month I chose the paper: The Active Ingredient in Reading Comprehension Strategy Intervention for Struggling Readers: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

Too long; Didn't Read Summary: As a teacher, focus your comprehension intervention efforts for older struggling readers on main idea, text structure and retell (in combination), and don't forget to also teach background knowledge!

Introduction

As soon as I saw "Network Meta-analysis" in the title of the paper, it was love at first sight (scroll to methods to see why or watch the video). I knew I had to cover this one! But I loved this paper for many other reasons:

1. It asked an important question (which comprehension strategies work) in a population that is often under-researched (older, struggling readers).

2. It was a meta-analysis (so it looked at a lot of research).

3. It used a new technique that I also used 5 years ago for my major area paper: network-meta-analysis (watch the video summary for more info and a good visual explanation!).

4. The results are practically important for the classroom.

Background & Rationale

Comprehension strategies like retell, main idea, inferences, text structure, etc. have evidence of effectiveness and are often combined in interventions (aka "multicomponent interventions").

But, multicomponent comprehension interventions are really difficult to enact because they are complex for teachers to learn and time-consuming to implement.

Also, the reading comprehension strategies tax students' working memory, so it would be useful to know which comprehension strategies are optimal/most effective.

The researchers used a technique called network meta-analysis.

Network meta-analysis is more powerful than traditional pair-wise meta-analytic techniques because it allows researchers to include studies even if there is not a direct comparison between the same interventions across all studies.

Basically, you can compare apples and oranges as long apples and oranges are connected by other fruits in a network.

Unlike traditional meta-analysis, network meta-analysis allows the researchers to create a rank-ordered list of the most effective interventions.

Personal side tangent: Why am I so obsessed with network meta-analysis? Well, back when I was a 3rd year doc student I had a problem: I needed to find a quantitative way to combine studies that used different independent variables. I was working on my major area paper (a pre-req project and paper to show you can handle a dissertation). I spent hours searching on Google and came across network meta-analysis. At the time, network meta-analysis was new to education- in fact, I couldn't find any studies that used it. All the studies were in the field of medicine. But now, it seems like it is catching on in education. I went back and checked my paper and saw that it has 9 citations on Google Scholar!)

No one comprehension strategy was best.

The use of more strategies was not more effective.

The most effective combination was: main idea, text structure & retell (taught together).

The results only held, though, when background knowledge instruction was also included.

Practical Implications

As a teacher focus your comprehension intervention efforts for older struggling readers on main idea, text structure, & retell (in combination) and don't forget to also teach background knowledge!

Phonics, decoding & Phonemic Awareness

Comprehension

Teacher Knowledge

Social/Emotional, Motivation, Attitudes, Reading Beliefs

Dyslexia, Struggling Readers

Want to start receiving monthly notifications for this series?

Please register or sign in to your Lexile & Quantile Hub account and join our Reading Research mailing list.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Neena's Top Reading Research Picks for July - MetaMetrics Inc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I am Dr. Neena Saha, Research Advisor at MetaMetrics and founder and CEO of Elemeno, now a part of MetaMetrics. My focus is to bridge the research-practice gap so that educators can access real-time tools to support reading success.

# data[].attributes.headline
 A Novel Idea: The History of the Science of Reading Movement

# data[].attributes.subject
 A Novel Idea: The History of the Science of Reading Movement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Iowa Reading Research Center - The University of Iowa

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Novel Idea: The History of the Science of Reading Movement

In this eight-episode documentary podcast series, host Meg Mechelke explores the history of literacy instruction in the United States, starting from the Age of Enlightenment and progressing to the development of controversies and debates that are still happening today. We will define and discuss hot-button literacy terms and concepts, such as "Reading Recovery," "the cueing system," and "structured literacy." We will examine the historical roots of instructional approaches such as look-say and whole language. And we will work to understand how these ideas became commonplace in classrooms across the country.

Subscribe to receive release updates, trailers, and an email in your inbox for each new episode.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Novel Idea: The History of the Science of Reading Movement. An eight-episode documentary podcast series. New episodes every Thursday. Hosted by Meg Mechelke.