My district is doing a new literacy initiative this year. We are meant to do lots of "data dives" and "identifying problems of practice" for school improvement plans. We are taught the model of "instructional core" as a triangle with teachers, students, and content as the three corners. Yet when I try to mention that maybe one of our biggest problems holding us back from proficient literacy could possibly be the curriculum, the content corner of the instructional core pyramid, I am told "no, we need to focus on solutions that are within our control" and brushed aside. It's so frustrating and truly makes me want to apply for jobs in districts with a knowledge building curriculum.
"And if I were a runner, I’d definitely want to know about it."
Exactly. As I was reading this I was thinking, please, Natalie, please tell us what Brightwood and Trousdale have been using. Not because I am going to assume it is the only path to success, but because it's important to me to know what's working out there! Thank you!
Clear and persuasive as always! I'd add that everyone who knows highlighting all factors that actually improve student outcomes will help boost the good signals through all the noise of the endless, vacuous trends that are sadly common in education.
This is why I quit classroom teaching. These articles are overwhelming and teachers simply don't stand a chance. In the 90's and 2000's, students didn't have social media and were not tied to a screen. Parents WERE respectful, as were most students. I remember the evaluation process stated 'has a good rapport,' now SEL and 'relationship building,' which can affect a teacher's well-being as many kids are traumatized, and we are not counselors. Also, it is rare to see teachers not giving assignments without using a computer. Students don't draft, revise, or edit, and often they read with a listening device. I am not saying that isn't sometimes necessary, but eventually, they might actually have to read something. Our ML community often needs this oral language assistance for books to acquire their L1 and/or L2, especially for our SLIFE students.
What's missing in education today? A damn good storyteller. Imagination. Read-aloud's NOT focused on 'enhancing curriculum (barf),' but allow for pure enjoyment. The data, the studies, the new curricula, the boredom a teacher faces after teaching the same thing for 4+ years straight (even Wit and Wisdom, which I loved) is daunting. You know, some of us need very few prompts on what a student needs. I love learning, don't get me wrong, but geez, it's a profession that after 2 decades plus teaching, I am done with 'the constant studies.'
Furthermore, balanced lit IS important to our SLIFE and ML learners, so don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. 'Teaching Reading to English Language Learners,' by Perez, Herrera, Escamilla.
But I have read and appreciated your book, Minding the Gap. :)
"The assumption is that such skills are transferable, but evidence from cognitive science indicates that they’re not. Whether you can, for example, make an inference depends far more on whether you have the background knowledge and vocabulary needed to understand a text than on how many hours you’ve spent practicing making inferences."
Are you familiar with this 2017 meta-analysis? Any thoughts?
Examining the Impact of Inference Instruction on the Literal and
Inferential Comprehension of Skilled and Less Skilled Readers:
A Meta-Analytic Review
Amy M. Elleman
Middle Tennessee State University
"Inference ability is considered central to discourse processing and has been shown to be important across models of reading comprehension. To evaluate the impact of inference instruction, a meta-analysis of 25 inference studies in Grades K–12 was conducted. Results showed that inference instruction was effective for increasing students’ general comprehension, d 0.58, inferential comprehension, d 0.68, and literal comprehension, d 0.28. Although skilled and less skilled readers responded similarly on general and inference outcomes, less skilled readers benefited more on literal outcomes, d 0.97, than skilled readers, d 0.06. Findings suggest that students can increase their inference ability and that less skilled readers gain the extra benefit of increases in literal comprehension. Findings also suggest that instruction provided in small groups is beneficial for increasing readers’ inferential understanding of text."
Harriet -- I'm not familiar with that particular study, but I know you're a regular reader of this newsletter, so I assume you know that I have never denied that there are many studies showing positive effects from this kind of comprehension skill instruction. That's not the question. The question is whether there are "practice effects" from this kind of instruction--i.e., whether students' ability to make inferences get better with practice.
Meta-analyses of comprehension studies indicate that (as you've probably read in this newsletter before) it doesn't make any difference whether students get just a few hours of instruction and practice making inferences or hundreds of them. If making inferences were a skill like playing the guitar or riding a bike, you would expect students to keep getting better, but the evidence indicates that they don't. (If this particular study shows otherwise, I would be interested to know why its results differ from so many others.)
I'm using the term "transferable" to distinguish making inferences from skills like riding a bike. If you're good at riding a bike, it doesn't matter what bike you're riding. But you can be good at making inferences in one text (a simple one, or one for which you have a lot of background knowledge) but struggle to make inferences in another (a complex one, or one on a topic you know nothing about).
Of course, I'm NOT saying kids should never be guided to make inferences. That absolutely needs to happen, across the curriculum. But I'm saying the content should be in the foreground rather than the skill. That's not the way these comprehension studies are conducted -- they put the skill in the foreground.
Thank you for making these important distinctions. As I teach complex text (currently to second graders about animal habitats), I always ask myself how is "practice" different form "practical application." Some students catch on quickly, while others need sustained support to remind them to APPLY what they've learned about summarizing or inference-making. Strategy instruction is not "one and done" insofar as scaffolded support for our students who need it most must accompany the reading--and remain in the foreground for those students.
My district is doing a new literacy initiative this year. We are meant to do lots of "data dives" and "identifying problems of practice" for school improvement plans. We are taught the model of "instructional core" as a triangle with teachers, students, and content as the three corners. Yet when I try to mention that maybe one of our biggest problems holding us back from proficient literacy could possibly be the curriculum, the content corner of the instructional core pyramid, I am told "no, we need to focus on solutions that are within our control" and brushed aside. It's so frustrating and truly makes me want to apply for jobs in districts with a knowledge building curriculum.
"And if I were a runner, I’d definitely want to know about it."
Exactly. As I was reading this I was thinking, please, Natalie, please tell us what Brightwood and Trousdale have been using. Not because I am going to assume it is the only path to success, but because it's important to me to know what's working out there! Thank you!
Clear and persuasive as always! I'd add that everyone who knows highlighting all factors that actually improve student outcomes will help boost the good signals through all the noise of the endless, vacuous trends that are sadly common in education.
Yes, CURRICULUM is key. Liked the "running shoe" analogy.
This is why I quit classroom teaching. These articles are overwhelming and teachers simply don't stand a chance. In the 90's and 2000's, students didn't have social media and were not tied to a screen. Parents WERE respectful, as were most students. I remember the evaluation process stated 'has a good rapport,' now SEL and 'relationship building,' which can affect a teacher's well-being as many kids are traumatized, and we are not counselors. Also, it is rare to see teachers not giving assignments without using a computer. Students don't draft, revise, or edit, and often they read with a listening device. I am not saying that isn't sometimes necessary, but eventually, they might actually have to read something. Our ML community often needs this oral language assistance for books to acquire their L1 and/or L2, especially for our SLIFE students.
What's missing in education today? A damn good storyteller. Imagination. Read-aloud's NOT focused on 'enhancing curriculum (barf),' but allow for pure enjoyment. The data, the studies, the new curricula, the boredom a teacher faces after teaching the same thing for 4+ years straight (even Wit and Wisdom, which I loved) is daunting. You know, some of us need very few prompts on what a student needs. I love learning, don't get me wrong, but geez, it's a profession that after 2 decades plus teaching, I am done with 'the constant studies.'
Furthermore, balanced lit IS important to our SLIFE and ML learners, so don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. 'Teaching Reading to English Language Learners,' by Perez, Herrera, Escamilla.
But I have read and appreciated your book, Minding the Gap. :)
"The assumption is that such skills are transferable, but evidence from cognitive science indicates that they’re not. Whether you can, for example, make an inference depends far more on whether you have the background knowledge and vocabulary needed to understand a text than on how many hours you’ve spent practicing making inferences."
Are you familiar with this 2017 meta-analysis? Any thoughts?
Examining the Impact of Inference Instruction on the Literal and
Inferential Comprehension of Skilled and Less Skilled Readers:
A Meta-Analytic Review
Amy M. Elleman
Middle Tennessee State University
"Inference ability is considered central to discourse processing and has been shown to be important across models of reading comprehension. To evaluate the impact of inference instruction, a meta-analysis of 25 inference studies in Grades K–12 was conducted. Results showed that inference instruction was effective for increasing students’ general comprehension, d 0.58, inferential comprehension, d 0.68, and literal comprehension, d 0.28. Although skilled and less skilled readers responded similarly on general and inference outcomes, less skilled readers benefited more on literal outcomes, d 0.97, than skilled readers, d 0.06. Findings suggest that students can increase their inference ability and that less skilled readers gain the extra benefit of increases in literal comprehension. Findings also suggest that instruction provided in small groups is beneficial for increasing readers’ inferential understanding of text."
Harriet -- I'm not familiar with that particular study, but I know you're a regular reader of this newsletter, so I assume you know that I have never denied that there are many studies showing positive effects from this kind of comprehension skill instruction. That's not the question. The question is whether there are "practice effects" from this kind of instruction--i.e., whether students' ability to make inferences get better with practice.
Meta-analyses of comprehension studies indicate that (as you've probably read in this newsletter before) it doesn't make any difference whether students get just a few hours of instruction and practice making inferences or hundreds of them. If making inferences were a skill like playing the guitar or riding a bike, you would expect students to keep getting better, but the evidence indicates that they don't. (If this particular study shows otherwise, I would be interested to know why its results differ from so many others.)
I'm using the term "transferable" to distinguish making inferences from skills like riding a bike. If you're good at riding a bike, it doesn't matter what bike you're riding. But you can be good at making inferences in one text (a simple one, or one for which you have a lot of background knowledge) but struggle to make inferences in another (a complex one, or one on a topic you know nothing about).
Of course, I'm NOT saying kids should never be guided to make inferences. That absolutely needs to happen, across the curriculum. But I'm saying the content should be in the foreground rather than the skill. That's not the way these comprehension studies are conducted -- they put the skill in the foreground.
Thank you for making these important distinctions. As I teach complex text (currently to second graders about animal habitats), I always ask myself how is "practice" different form "practical application." Some students catch on quickly, while others need sustained support to remind them to APPLY what they've learned about summarizing or inference-making. Strategy instruction is not "one and done" insofar as scaffolded support for our students who need it most must accompany the reading--and remain in the foreground for those students.