# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rethinking Instruction in Phonological Awareness: Focus on What Matters!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The importance of phoneme awareness for acquiring the alphabetic principle and for learning to read has been documented since the 1970s, gaining broad recognition when the National Reading Panel Report was published in 2000. Since then, instruction to foster phonological awareness has become routinely recommended for the early grades.

However, the widespread practice in schools is to target awareness of larger phonological structures such as words, syllables, and onset-rimes before focusing on phonemes, with attention to the phoneme not occurring until well into kindergarten or first grade.

During this hour-long webinar, Dr. Susan Brady will examine studies that raise questions regarding whether following this "continuum" is necessary and/or beneficial for students. She also discusses:
- The developmental sequence of phoneme awareness
- The importance of conducting phoneme awareness activities with letter knowledge and handwriting
- The benefits of this approach for all students

Watch this webinar to deepen your understanding of how and when to teach phonemic awareness to set students up for reading success.

# data[].attributes.body
-Many members
-Everyone is at a different point in their study of the SoR so some conflicts can arise

I prefer not to engage but read what piques my interest for my particular learners and colleagues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Use the Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines to evaluate how well a curriculum aligns with the findings from the science of reading.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore reading basics as well as the key role of background knowledge and motivation in becoming a lifelong reader and learner. Watch our PBS Launching Young Readers series and try our self-paced Reading 101 course to deepen your understanding.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

There's an idea about how children learn to read that's held sway in schools for more than a generation - even though it was proven wrong by cognitive scientists decades ago. Teaching methods based on this idea can make it harder for children to learn how to read. In this podcast, host Emily Hanford investigates the influential authors who promote this idea and the company that sells their work. It's an exposé of how educators came to believe in something that isn't true and are now reckoning with the consequences - children harmed, money wasted, an education system upended.

Sixty years ago, Marie Clay developed a way to teach reading she said would help kids who were falling behind. They'd catch up and never need help again. Today, her program remains popular and her theory about how people read is at the root of a lot of reading instruction in schools. But Marie Clay was wrong.
Sold a Story is an independent investigative journalism project from American Public Media. We rely on your donations to support this kind of rigorous reporting.
The controversial educational publishing company has sold instructional materials and professional resources in almost every state, earning at least $1.6 billion over a decade. Explore a map of school districts.

More states are now requiring districts to adopt curriculum that adheres to the science of reading. Look up the policy in your state.

At least 15 states have passed laws about how schools teach reading since the Sold a Story podcast was released in 2022, but there is pushback.

Here's a reading list put together by Emily Hanford.

This discussion guide, created by a teacher, invites educators, parents, community members and kids to have a conversation about the podcast.

Emails and voice messages poured in from people who listened to Sold a Story.

We'll let you know when we release new episodes of the podcast. Enter your address below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There's an idea about how children learn to read that's held sway in schools for more than a generation - even though it was proven wrong by cognitive scientists decades ago. Teaching methods based on this idea can make it harder for children to learn how to read.

# 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
How the Brain Learns to Read - Prof. Stanislas Dehaene

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Grouping with Phases of Word Recognition

# data[].attributes.body
UFLI
CKLA
LETRS
The Measured Mom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SAMPLE Phonics Weekly Lesson Plan: short vowels + blends

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SAMPLE Morphology Weekly Lesson Plan-struct.docx

# data[].attributes.body
UFLI Passages
The Measured Mom-Fiction  Nonfiction
Core Knowledge Student Readers
Beyond Decodables
Speld Phonic Books
Open Source Phonics (Passages)
Flyleaf Publishing
Starfall

Other decodable books to purchase

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Decodable Text Linda Farrell  Michael Hunter Oct 2021

# data[].attributes.body
Epic Book: pg 18-21, 24-25

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2022, a group of teachers and school leaders from 17 different primary schools across Australia participated in The Syntax Project, facilitated by Stephanie Le Lievre from Serpentine Primary School (WA).

Teachers were accepted into the project if they had experience with an explicit-instruction model and could demonstrate an understanding/experience with syntax level instruction.

All Lesson objectives were allocated to individuals based on experience/expertise and the grade they were currently teaching.

All lessons submitted went through a review process by one of our project moderators:

All lessons were created in teachers' own time. They are being shared freely to encourage professional collaboration amongst teachers and schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Syntax Project - The Grammar Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2022, a group of teachers and school leaders from 17 different primary schools across Australia participated in The Syntax Project, facilitated by Stephanie Le Lievre from Serpentine Primary School (WA). Teachers were accepted into the project if they had experience with an explicit-instruction model and could demonstrate an understanding/experience with syntax level instruction.

# 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.headline
Cortex in the Classroom: Advancing the Science of Reading in the Early Years

# data[].attributes.subject
Cortex in the Classroom: Advancing the Science of Reading in the Early Years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Advancing Science of Reading in the Early Years - K–5 Literacy Program & Curriculum | Amplify CKLA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reading 101: Self-Paced Learning Modules

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Core knowledge about reading is a key to effective literacy instruction. Our free, self-paced learning modules can help you deepen your understanding of the building blocks of reading and writing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About the 2022 Symposium

The 2022 PaTTAN Literacy Symposium will provide educators in all capacities with the opportunity to deepen their knowledge and skills pertaining to evidence-based practices in reading instruction in grades K-12.

Target Audience

Elementary Educators, Secondary Educators, Special Education Teachers, Speech Language Practitioners, School Leaders/Administrators, Reading Specialists, Teachers of English Language Learners, Literacy Coaches, Instructional Support Team Members, School Psychologists, Pre-Service Teachers, Higher Education Instructors, Paraprofessionals, and Families.

View the PaTTAN Literacy Symposium '22 schedule & directory.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 2022 PaTTAN Literacy Symposium will provide educators in all capacities with the opportunity to deepen their knowledge and skills pertaining to evidence-based practices in reading instruction in grades K-12. Target Audience Elementary Educators, Secondary Educators, Special Education Teachers, Speech Language Practitioners, School Leaders/Administrators, Reading Specialists, Teachers of English Language Learners, Literacy Coaches, Instructional Support Team Members, School Psychologists, Pre-Service Teachers, Higher Education Instructors, Paraprofessionals, and Families.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I was recently developing some PowerPoints and activities for a comprehension training session about the role that text structure plays in reading comprehension. One of the related topics that is unfamiliar to many teachers was Cohesive Devices (sometimes called Cohesive Ties, and also known as anaphors). I thought I'd devote this post to explaining cohesive ties and how they might affect reading comprehension, especially for younger students or English language learners.

Cohesive devices are words or phrases used to connect ideas between different parts of text. There are three main types of cohesive devices:

Pronouns that refer back to a previously mentioned noun.
Example: Jim went out to the playground. He played on the swings.

Substitution of a synonym for a previously mentioned noun.
Example: There was a lot of food, but she only ate the bread.

Transition words and inter-clausal connectors such as so or because

Example: Jim played on the swings. Later, Jim played ball.

Example: Mary was late, so she took the bus. Mary was late because she took the bus.

Cohesive devices affect comprehension because they help readers integrate information between sentences in a text. The pronoun, synonym, or transition word is tied to a previous word, phrase or clause (the antecedent). Many students, even skilled readers, never consciously think about authors' use of cohesive devices. It is helpful for teachers to draw attention to this kind of text structure, especially for students who have difficulty comprehending a series of sentences that include cohesive ties. Children with poor reading comprehension make more errors on questions that can only be answered if a pronoun has been correctly resolved. They are less likely to supply the appropriate anaphor in a cloze task. For example, "Steve gave his umbrella to Andrea in the park because ___ wanted to keep dry." (Carlisle & Rice, 2002; Cain & Oakhill, 2007) Also, poor comprehenders' difficulties are particularly pronounced when there is intervening text between the anaphor and it's antecedent.
Examples
Look at the two examples below. The cohesive ties are linked to their antecedents with arrows. Notice how there can be multiple cohesive ties within a single paragraph!

Instructional Suggestions
As a means of drawing students' attention to cohesion, have them identify all the words that "stand for" other words, phrases, or a clause in a short, familiar passage from material students are reading. For young children, many of the read aloud texts that teachers use to develop vocabulary and comprehension include examples where the author has used pronouns, synonyms, and transitions to connect sentences. For good readers, an activity such as this may be all that is necessary to encourage greater attention to the connections between sentences. The following are some recommendations for students who have difficulty understanding cohesion (Maria, 1990):

Have students match the cohesive tie with its antecedent. There are several ways to do this. Students may draw arrows from the cohesive ties to the words they replace, write the antecedent above the cohesive tie, or write the same number over words that are linked. Some students may benefit from applying one of these techniques as they read.

Have children read a passage and answer questions that require comprehension of cohesive ties.

Delete pronouns from a passage, and have students fill in the blanks.

Give students a passage in which names and other sentence components have been unnecessarily repeated. Ask them to substitute cohesive ties for the repetitious information.

At times, the antecedent of a pronoun may be somewhat ambiguous. Some children may need to be taught how to use "clues" such as number and gender to figure out what pronouns stand for.
Example: Joe and Laura went to the beach. He played in the water while she looked for shells. Afterwards, they had a picnic lunch.

In other instances, children may need to draw on background knowledge and reasoning skills to determine the most probable antecedent of a pronoun. In the following example, it more likely refers to the mall than to the bank since John was able to conduct his business at the bank: John went to the mall after he deposited some money in his account at the bank. It was closed.

References:

Cain, K. & Oakhill, J. (2007). Reading comprehension difficulties: Correlates, causes, and consequences. In K. Cain & J. Oakhill (Eds.) Children's comprehension problems in oral and written language. New York: Guilford Press. pp. 48-49

Carlisle, J.F. & Rice, M. S. (2002). Improving reading comprehension: Research-based principles and practices. Baltimore, MD: York Press. pp. 129-130

Joan Sedita

Joan Sedita is the founder of Keys to Literacy and author of the Keys to Literacy professional development programs. She is an experienced educator, nationally recognized speaker and teacher trainer. She has worked for over 35 years in the literacy education field and has presented to thousands of teachers and related professionals at schools, colleges, clinics, and professional conferences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are Cohesive Devices and how do they affect comprehension? - Keys to Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I was recently developing some PowerPoints and activities for a comprehension training session about the role that text structure plays in reading comprehension. One of the related topics that is unfamiliar to many teachers was Cohesive Devices (sometimes called Cohesive Ties, and also known as anaphors).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Back To Schedule

34. Inference: Multiple Contributions to Comprehension

Sign up or log in to save this to your schedule, view media, leave feedback and see who's attending!

Speakers

Nancy Hennessy, literacy consultant and past president of the International Dyslexia Association, is an experienced educator. While in public schools, she provided leadership in the development of professional learning systems and innovative programming for special needs students... Read More →

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PaTTAN Literacy Symposium '22: 34. Inference: Multiple Contributions to...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
View more about this event at PaTTAN Literacy Symposium '22

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recently, I wrote about the science of reading. I explained how I thought the term should be defined and described the kind of research needed to prescribe instruction.

Today I thought I'd put some meat on the bone; adding some details that might help readers to grasp the implications of a scientific or research-based approach to reading.
What does it mean when someone says an approach to reading instruction "works"?
The term "it works" has gnawed at me for more than fifty years! I remember as a teacher how certain activities or approaches grabbed me. They just seemed right. Then I'd try them out in my classroom and judge some to work, and others not so much.

But why?

What was it that led me to believe some of them "worked" and some didn't?

It puzzled me even then.

Teachers, administrators, and researchers seem to have different notions of "what works."

Teachers, I think, depend heavily on student response. If an activity engages the kids, we see it as hopeful. We give credence to whether an activity elicits groans or a buzz of activity.

When I do a classroom demonstration and students say they liked the activity and want to do more, most likely I've won that teacher over.

Teachers recognize that learning requires engagement, so when an activity pulls kids in, they're convinced that it's a good idea.

That satisfaction is sometimes denigrated because of its potential vapidity. Let's face it. Bozo the Clown engages kids, too, but with how much learning?

What those complaints fail to recognize is that the teacher already has bought into the the pedagogical value of the activity. They assume it is effective. Student engagement is like gaining a third Michelin star.

What about administrators?

Their needs are different. To them, "it works," is more about adult acceptance. If a program is adopted, the materials shipments arrive as promised, and neither teachers nor parents complain, it works!

And, to researchers?

To them, it means there has been an experimental study that compared that approach with some other and found it to be superior in terms of fostering learning.

If a method does no better than "business as usual" classroom practice, then it doesn't work (which, confusingly, isn't entirely correct, since the difference isn't that everybody in one group learned and nobody in the other did).

I've worn all those hats - teacher, administrator, researcher - and I prefer the last one. The reason? Because it's the only one that explicitly bases the judgment on student learning.
RELATED: What's the Role of Amount of Reading Instruction? Will we accomplish higher achievement if we follow research and make our teaching consistent with the science?
That's the basic idea, but even that doesn't appear to be well understood.

I think we tend to get misled by medical science, particularly pharmacology.

New drugs are studied so thoroughly it's possible for scientists to say that a particular nostrum will provide benefit 94% of the time and that 28% of patients will probably suffer some unfortunate side effect.

When I tell you that the research shows that a particular kind of instruction works (i.e., it led to more learning), I can't tell you how likely it is that you will be able to make it work, too.

Our education studies reveal whether someone has managed to make an approach successful.

Our evidence indicates possibility, not certainty.

When we encourage you to teach like it was done in the studies, we are saying, "if they made it work, you may be able to make it work, too."

That's why I'm such a fan of multiple studies.

The more times other people have made an approach work under varied circumstances, the more likely you'll be able to find a way to make it work as well.

If you show me one such study, it seems possible I could match their success. Show me 38, and it seems even more likely that I could pull it off.

That nuance highlights an important point: Our instructional methods don't have automatic effects. We, as teachers, make these methods work.

Lackadaisical implementation of instruction is never likely to have good results. The teacher who thinks passive implementation of a science-based program is what works is in for a sad awakening.

I assure you that in the studies, everyone worked hard to make sure there were learning payoffs for the kids. That's part of what made it work better than the business-as-usual approach.

That point is too often muffled by our rhetoric around science-based reading. But teacher buy-in, teacher effort, and teacher desire to see a program work for the kids are all ingredients in success.
I don't get it, I'm hearing that some approach (e.g., 3-cueing) is harmful, and, yet I know of research-based programs that teach it. Does that make any sense?
You're right about 3-cueing being part of some successful programs. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Instructional programs usually include multiple components. Studies of them tell if the program has been effective, but they usually say little about the various components that are integral to the program.

Without a direct test of the individual components, there are three possibilities: (1) a component may be an active ingredient, one of the reasons for the success; or (2) it's a neutral ingredient -- drop it and kids would do as well; or (3) it's hurtful, the instruction would be even more effective without it.

Logically, 3-cueing makes no sense. It emphasizes behaviors good readers eschew.

That said, I know of no research that has evaluated 3-cueing specifically.

Claims that it's harmful (beyond being a likely time waster) are, for the time being, overstatements. These claims rely on logic, not data.

The problem that you identify is a common one - people will tell you that multisensory instruction, a sole focus on decodable texts, advanced phonemic awareness, more social studies lessons, word walls, sound walls, and so on are all certain roads to improved achievement. Each is part of at least one successful program or another. But none have been evaluated directly. The truth is, we really don't know if they have any value at all.

They might provide benefits, but that isn't the same thing as knowing that they have done so before.
Our district has adopted new programs and instructional routines based on science. But our kids aren't doing any better than before. Does that make any sense?
No, that makes no sense at all. The purpose of any kind of educational reform - including science-based reform - is to increase learning. The whole point is higher average reading scores or a reduction in the numbers of struggling students.

Whoever's in charge should take this lack of success seriously and should be asking - and finding answers - to the following questions?

Were these changes really based on the science and what does that mean?

Administrators often make choices based on minimal information. It is better to vet these things before adopting them, but in a case like this one, it is never too late to find out if the reform scheme was really consistent with the science.

How has the amount of reading instruction to students changed?

Some approaches work better than others because they have a bigger footprint. They provide a greater amount of teaching than business-as-usual approaches. Adopting such programs without making the schedule changes to facilitate their implantation will likely undermine potential success. Are kids getting more instruction, less instruction, or about the same as before?

How is the amount of reading instruction apportioned among phonemic awareness, phonics, text reading fluency, reading comprehension strategies, written language ability, and writing?

Often the adoption of new programs or reform efforts aimed at a particular piece of the puzzle lead to greater attention to certain abilities, but to diminished attention to other key parts of literacy. Make sure that you aren't trading more phonics for less fluency work, or more vocabulary for less comprehension. You want to make sure that all components of reading are receiving adequate attention - not going overboard with some and neglecting others.

To what extent are teachers using the programs?

Compliance matters in program implementation. The adage that "teachers can do whatever they want when the door is closed" highlights one of the biggest roadblocks to making such efforts work. You need to make sure you have sufficient buy in for the men and women who do the daily teaching. You bought a new program or set new instructional policies. Are they being used or followed?

How well prepared are the teachers to provide the required instruction?

Program adoption requires a lot more than issuing a policy proclamation. Research shows that program implementation supported by substantial professional development is much more successful than just buying a program. You need to make sure that you've built the capacity for success and not just expected magic to happen.
READ MORE: Shanahan On Literacy Blog References
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Shanahan, T. (2020). What constitutes a science of reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S235-S247.

Stanovich, P. J. , & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). Using research and reason in education. Washington, DC: National Institute of Literacy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Myths of the Science of Reading Era | Shanahan on Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This Shanahan blog explores what it means when we say a method, approach, or program “works” in scientific terms. Read more here about Myths of the Science of Reading Era!

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