I often wonder, how did I manage to graduate from an elite college with a degree in literature and Russian language, without ever having to identify text-to-text and text-to-self connections, or to enumerate the many strategies, such as the six traits of writing. Perhaps these are helpful for struggling readers, but they absolutely bore me to tears.
Then there is the persistent neglect of the role of motivation. Teaching the knowledge and the skills in a way that causes the children to hate reading is counterproductive. The name for that is aliteracy, which is ultimately just as bad as illiteracy.
Now I realize that motivation is often dismissed as irrelevant due to the short term effect size being small, however that does not make sense because it has cumulative effects that are profound. It would be like dismissing the effects of wind on an airplane because effects of the rudder and flaps are so much greater on the immediate orientation of the aircraft.
You raise an important point. Aliteracy is a by product of impersonal, generic instruction focused on the right answer and memorizing. Motivation and managing it is critical and can be taught. Comprehension is a strategic and intentional process involving motive and purpose.
Don, you are quite right. I taught high school junior English for 34 years in a public school, and I noticed when high stakes testing came in--during the early years of the 21st century--and the 9th and 10th grade English classes began to focus almost exclusively on test preparation (writing and reading comprehension strategies to game the test scores), I began to see an epidemic of students who not only were indifferent to writing and reading by the time they got to me, but who were openly hostile toward it.
First time I’ve heard the term “aliterate”—100% the term I’ve been searching for. I am an elementary teacher (Montessori certified)—relating to stories is such a creative, natural, human experience. Let’s keep it that way!
Having much experience working with teachers in the area of comprehension instruction, I just can’t agree with your characterization of mindless strategy-hopping. Maybe forty years ago. Teachers in classrooms tend not to be ideological but pragmatic if left to their professional good sense. It sounds a bit extreme to say that teachers should teach phonics first and then focus on teaching knowledge. Comprehension will take care of itself? Is this what you mean to say?
So what did you mean to say? Phonics works right? We must teach phonics as per LETRs or DISTAR, we must teach knowledge according to a prescribed blueprint. But we don’t teach comprehension as an interactive and transactive sociocultural practice? Are you familiar with the Four Resources model of reading? I question the reality of your claim that comprehension is taught without regard to managing prior knowledge and constructing new knowledge. Have you studied Patricia Alexander’s research on comprehension and relational reasoning? It’s all about building knowledge. I am reacting generally to the mischaracterization of current views on comprehension instruction and the oversimplification of the problem of knowledge construction in the context of literacy. Your article on summarizing as the pinnacle skill is relevant, too. Summarizing a text is a beginning point for comprehension, not an endpoint. Have you studied the field of reading enough to feel confident that you have all the answers?
Although I do agree that phonetics instruction is important, it is worth remembering that an overemphasis on this strategy also has its limitations (and let's face it, what doesn't?). If you haven't already read about this or seen the video, there is a hilarious news story about the recent graduation at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, where the graduates' names were being egregiously mispronounced, even though the announcer was following the phonetic instructions on the speaker's cards.
This to me is such an instructive remembrance of how anything overused quickly devolves into self-parody.
I think you have completely misinterpreted what happened at Thomas Jefferson Uni's graduation.
The graduates, who most likely started their formal education in 2002 or 2003, were taught letter-sound correspondence so poorly (or not at all) that they were unable to write their own name phonetically. And the announcer, presumably at least slightly older, could not correctly decode and say what the students wrote!
I wasn't there. I don't know what happened to cause the problem. I just know what was widely reported in the media, which focused on the existence of the problem, rather than the reasons for it.
Sadly the skills-driven mindset is so deeply entrenched that when I present arguments from "The Knowledge Gap," I get incredulous stares. Sort of like when I argue against academic standards. Nothing is allowed to happen as a by-product. If it's not micromanaged and paperworked to death, it's just not a thing.
Our schooling system works like this: You need so many specific vitamins and minerals, so today we're just going to eat fistfuls of red Vitamin-X pills. And tomorrow we'll eat fistfuls of green Vitamin-Y pills. But if you dare advocate just eating broccoli--maybe a colorful plate--people think you hate eating itself.
Great analogy!! Pelletized nutrients vs actual food-- We forget that human beings come with appetites that motivate them to eat, they each possess a meaning drive that motivates them to make sense. Just as the body's secret processes inform its various parts w nutrients, there are meaning-making processes to which we do not have direct access as teachers. Appealing to deeper drives of interest, engagement, connection, relationship, agency puts these processes in motion.
I went to a private school for the first 8 years and nary a class taught reading comprehension. Instead, from 3rd-4th grade, the teacher pointed to an oversized box in the corner of the classroom chock full of glossy, colorful oversized cards with tabs and said work on the SRA cards.
There were 36? different levels consisting of X cards in those tiers. You read the story, flipped over the card, answered the questions and filled in the circle on a scantron with a #2 pencil.
I did just fine having graduated from college and law school, subsequently.
Reading comprehension isn't taught. It's something you learn on your own when you read and are forced to answer questions about the story.
Thank you for saying this. It's pretty clear that Natalie has a pretty significant knowledge gap when it comes to teaching and evidence based instruction.
I often wonder, how did I manage to graduate from an elite college with a degree in literature and Russian language, without ever having to identify text-to-text and text-to-self connections, or to enumerate the many strategies, such as the six traits of writing. Perhaps these are helpful for struggling readers, but they absolutely bore me to tears.
Then there is the persistent neglect of the role of motivation. Teaching the knowledge and the skills in a way that causes the children to hate reading is counterproductive. The name for that is aliteracy, which is ultimately just as bad as illiteracy.
Now I realize that motivation is often dismissed as irrelevant due to the short term effect size being small, however that does not make sense because it has cumulative effects that are profound. It would be like dismissing the effects of wind on an airplane because effects of the rudder and flaps are so much greater on the immediate orientation of the aircraft.
You raise an important point. Aliteracy is a by product of impersonal, generic instruction focused on the right answer and memorizing. Motivation and managing it is critical and can be taught. Comprehension is a strategic and intentional process involving motive and purpose.
Don, you are quite right. I taught high school junior English for 34 years in a public school, and I noticed when high stakes testing came in--during the early years of the 21st century--and the 9th and 10th grade English classes began to focus almost exclusively on test preparation (writing and reading comprehension strategies to game the test scores), I began to see an epidemic of students who not only were indifferent to writing and reading by the time they got to me, but who were openly hostile toward it.
First time I’ve heard the term “aliterate”—100% the term I’ve been searching for. I am an elementary teacher (Montessori certified)—relating to stories is such a creative, natural, human experience. Let’s keep it that way!
Having much experience working with teachers in the area of comprehension instruction, I just can’t agree with your characterization of mindless strategy-hopping. Maybe forty years ago. Teachers in classrooms tend not to be ideological but pragmatic if left to their professional good sense. It sounds a bit extreme to say that teachers should teach phonics first and then focus on teaching knowledge. Comprehension will take care of itself? Is this what you mean to say?
No, that's not what I mean to say. I'm not sure how anyone who reads the post (as opposed to the headline) could come away with that impression.
So what did you mean to say? Phonics works right? We must teach phonics as per LETRs or DISTAR, we must teach knowledge according to a prescribed blueprint. But we don’t teach comprehension as an interactive and transactive sociocultural practice? Are you familiar with the Four Resources model of reading? I question the reality of your claim that comprehension is taught without regard to managing prior knowledge and constructing new knowledge. Have you studied Patricia Alexander’s research on comprehension and relational reasoning? It’s all about building knowledge. I am reacting generally to the mischaracterization of current views on comprehension instruction and the oversimplification of the problem of knowledge construction in the context of literacy. Your article on summarizing as the pinnacle skill is relevant, too. Summarizing a text is a beginning point for comprehension, not an endpoint. Have you studied the field of reading enough to feel confident that you have all the answers?
Although I do agree that phonetics instruction is important, it is worth remembering that an overemphasis on this strategy also has its limitations (and let's face it, what doesn't?). If you haven't already read about this or seen the video, there is a hilarious news story about the recent graduation at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, where the graduates' names were being egregiously mispronounced, even though the announcer was following the phonetic instructions on the speaker's cards.
This to me is such an instructive remembrance of how anything overused quickly devolves into self-parody.
To learn to sight read properly though you still have to sound out the words EVEN when the sounds don't make any sense phonetically.
It's part of imprinting it on the brain properly
True, but presumably the announcer at a college graduation ceremony should have been well-beyond that point.
fair enough.
the funniest take I've ever seen on this exact subject
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd7FixvoKBw
I've seen this before but you're right--it's brilliant!
I think you have completely misinterpreted what happened at Thomas Jefferson Uni's graduation.
The graduates, who most likely started their formal education in 2002 or 2003, were taught letter-sound correspondence so poorly (or not at all) that they were unable to write their own name phonetically. And the announcer, presumably at least slightly older, could not correctly decode and say what the students wrote!
I wasn't there. I don't know what happened to cause the problem. I just know what was widely reported in the media, which focused on the existence of the problem, rather than the reasons for it.
Sadly the skills-driven mindset is so deeply entrenched that when I present arguments from "The Knowledge Gap," I get incredulous stares. Sort of like when I argue against academic standards. Nothing is allowed to happen as a by-product. If it's not micromanaged and paperworked to death, it's just not a thing.
Our schooling system works like this: You need so many specific vitamins and minerals, so today we're just going to eat fistfuls of red Vitamin-X pills. And tomorrow we'll eat fistfuls of green Vitamin-Y pills. But if you dare advocate just eating broccoli--maybe a colorful plate--people think you hate eating itself.
Great analogy!! Pelletized nutrients vs actual food-- We forget that human beings come with appetites that motivate them to eat, they each possess a meaning drive that motivates them to make sense. Just as the body's secret processes inform its various parts w nutrients, there are meaning-making processes to which we do not have direct access as teachers. Appealing to deeper drives of interest, engagement, connection, relationship, agency puts these processes in motion.
Not enough LOL
And NOT a boomer here.
I went to a private school for the first 8 years and nary a class taught reading comprehension. Instead, from 3rd-4th grade, the teacher pointed to an oversized box in the corner of the classroom chock full of glossy, colorful oversized cards with tabs and said work on the SRA cards.
There were 36? different levels consisting of X cards in those tiers. You read the story, flipped over the card, answered the questions and filled in the circle on a scantron with a #2 pencil.
I did just fine having graduated from college and law school, subsequently.
Reading comprehension isn't taught. It's something you learn on your own when you read and are forced to answer questions about the story.
Thank you for saying this. It's pretty clear that Natalie has a pretty significant knowledge gap when it comes to teaching and evidence based instruction.