If we’re reading more than ever (and we are) then why aren’t we getting better at it? At the Washington Post’s Answer Sheet blog, Dan Willingham looks at a recent study that shows we are virtually surrounded by text, and spending a lot more time than 30 years ago processing the written word–when you factor time spent with all text, whether it’s in traditional print, online or other media.
If you think that reading is a skill, then practice should improve the skill. The problem is that, as I’ve noted before, reading comprehension is not a skill. Decoding (that is, translating the letters on the page into sounds) is a skill. Practice is necessary for decoding to become fluent ( that is, fast and effortless). Once you’re fluent, the most important factor contributing to comprehension is background knowledge. If you know a bit about the topic, it’s much easier to understand.
“A likely solution to the conundrum is that all that extra reading we’re doing is pretty lightweight,” Willingham concludes.
Reading Dan’s piece reminded me of an education shibboleth that I’ve often heard repeated: if children spend 30 minutes a day reading at their “just right” or instructional reading level (a curious concept, given that my “reading level” may vary depending on the subject matter) their comprehension will improve. I can’t determine the source of that idea, but it seems unlikely to be true.
Today’s post fits perfectly with a science literacy program that I am creating with a 2nd grade teacher. We are developing a series of simple lessons that introduce 2nd graders to basic facts and vocabulary in the four major areas of scientific inquiry: biology, earth science, chemistry and physics. The 2nd Grade Core Knowedge book is one of my primary sources for what 2nd graders should know. The lessons connect the 2nd grade science units taught in this particular district with broader concepts in science using non-fiction books and experiments. The key difference between my lessons and what is already being taught is the emphasis on acquiring important vocabulary that leads to authentic comprehension of the texts. Additionally, the lessons create connections between science units taught in future grades – something seriously lacking in this district’s elementary science curriculum. Anyway, my whole point in sharing this is that I was excited to see my own work correlating with the conclusions of other people who are concerned about curriculum. This blog continues to be instrumental in helping me connect my particular area of study – science – to a more comprehensive view of education. Merry Christmas!
Comment by Gina — December 22, 2009 @ 10:42 am
The key seems to be whether the children learn to read phonetically or not. Many do not and just sight reading what they already know from previous exposure. No wonder Dan notices the materials are lightweight and don’t really add to literacy despite time spent.
My kids have been shocked that even in Honors or AP classes bright kids seem to have no idea how to approach unfamiliar multisyllabic words. Those unfamiliar words can have a whole sentence worth of subtle meaningful distinctions.
Please parents. If the school says they use a Balanced Literacy or Guided Reading approach, it is simply a more palatable name for Whole Language. Your child may be one of the significant percentage doomed to never move beyond sight reading of known words.
Get a copy of the National Reading Panel Report and compare how they plan to teach reading with what is described as effective. If the Kindergarten, 1st grade, or 2nd grade teacher cannot explain phonological awareness and why it matters, they do not have the proper training. Good intentions and a winning personality are not enough!
I was listening to the December Common Core presentation by Gene Wilhoit and Dane Linn on CCCSI. Their insistence that we need more research into what is effective in education does not bode well for CCCSI. It suggests they do not like or are not familiar with the results of the current research on effectiveness from Jeanne Chall, Project Follow Through, Marilyn Jager Adams, the National Reading Panel, or the National Math Panel. Dan Willingham has superb materials on what is effective and why.
If the current research on effective instruction and textbooks is being ignored or rejected, where is CCCSI trying to take this nation’s schoolchildren?
Comment by Student of History — December 22, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
Student of History, well said. My daughter was taught using Guided Reading (and you wonder why GA is ranked so low). To this day I have no idea how she learned to read. She is taking Latin now and that has been a tremendous help to reading more complex writing.
Learned that lesson and taught my son using phonics before he started school.
I read to my childen above their reading range and explain things as I go along. I also encourage them to check out one challenge book during our library outings.
Comment by CB — December 22, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
I started school in the mid-50s and can remember hearing “it doesn’t matter what the kids read as long as they do read” even then and it didn’t make sense to me. Even in early ES, I could tell that the best readers not only read a lot, we read higher-level materials and more different kinds of materials, including poetry and all kinds of non-fiction.
Comment by momof4 — December 22, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
Robert,
It seems hard to believe Dan’s assertion that reading practice doesn’t improve comprehension. People have long used texts to learn new material. Wouldn’t reading a college Chemistry textbook be considered practice that improved comprehension?
From Dan’s comment I am assuming that he is referring to the lack of subject matter comprehension benefits from reading conversational texts (texting, email, etc..). That would be unsurprising as conversational English rarely carries the lexico-grammatical complexity of content rich materials.
Comment by Erin Johnson — December 22, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
I’ll let Dan answer for himself, but I’m guessing that reading a college Chemistry book would indeed improve your comprehension. Of chemistry (and assuming you’d had previous exposure to the subject before).
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — December 22, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
Whenever I read a children’s book written in the 19th century or the early part of the 20th century, I am always struck by how much richer the vocabulary and syntax are compared with most modern works. Authors of the past were not afraid to use big words, even when writing for a juvenile audience.
Comment by Crimson Wife — December 22, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
Crimson Wife,
The example I’ll remember forever was Beatrix Potter’s use of “implore” in her story of Peter Rabbit. I was reading it to my (then) three or four year old son (now 24) and almost fell right off the rocking chair when I came across it.
Comment by Paul Hoss — December 22, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
Erin,
An impetus behind the movement towards “hands on” science and an activity focus comes from a belief that the traditional science textbook and lecture format placed too much emphasis on good reading skills, background content knowledge, and prepositional logic.
The idea that science should be an activity in which the students interact with objects in their environment really picked up with the amendments to the IDEA in 1997 that pushed mainstreaming whenever possible. Basically, science and math were changed to meet the diverse needs of the untracked, mainstreamed classroom.
Comment by Student of History — December 22, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
Paul,
I learned the meaning of the word “soporific” as a kid from one of the Beatrix Potter stories- the one where the baby bunnies eat too much lettuce and fall asleep in Farmer MacGregor’s rubbish heap
Comment by Crimson Wife — December 22, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
Student of History,
“Hands on” science means little without “minds on”. Just because kids are playing with chemicals does not mean that they understand anything about chemistry. (After doing one particular “hands on” experiment, one very bright 1st grader explained to me quite rationally how the experiment had proven that air did not exist. My explaination to the contrary could not shake what he had seen for himself. I am fairly sure that that had not been the intent of the experiment. But the “hands-on” experiment had left that student with a gross misconception. Not what science is supposed to be about.)
Any complex subject (chemistry, literary study, history, etc…) requires a in-depth understanding of the vocabulary, the concepts and the complex discourse conventions used in traditional textbook and lecture formats. It is tragic that educators use the “diverse needs” canard to remove the necessary complex language used in the subject matter domains.
All that being said, experimentation as a way of integrating academic knowledge with practical applications can be extremely useful. But the knowledge needs to come first. The practical applications second. It is only when the minds are on that the benefits of the experimental applications can be fully realized.
Comment by Erin Johnson — December 22, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
Watch a Charlie Brown episode and then watch anything written recently for children. It’s no wonder our children can’t speak without saying “like” every other word. Children’s literature has gone the same way. Anything recent is minus rich text and descriptions or words with more than 4 letters.
Comment by CB — December 22, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
In America, it’s all about money. Books get written to earn money. Curricula get developed to make money. Everything in America seems to be geared toward making, saving, or just using money.
Maybe a hundred years ago folks were more concerned with life than money.
But then, maybe not.
Money, money, money.
Comment by TFT — December 22, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
Crimson Wife,
Sopo-what?
Comment by Paul Hoss — December 23, 2009 @ 9:34 am
“It is said that the effect of eating too much lettuce is ’soporific.’ I have never felt sleepy after eating lettuces; but then I am not a rabbit. They certainly had a very soporific effect upon the Flopsy Bunnies!”
Don’t think I’ve ever used the word in conversation, though!
Comment by Crimson Wife — December 24, 2009 @ 4:13 am