"Written language is more complex than oral language in terms of its vocabulary and sentence structure, and students need to become familiar with that complexity if they’re going to become proficient readers."
What a wonderful article! I suggest writing another article about what it means to teach reading for understanding, especially in subjects such as science and social studies: helping students to define specific concepts; sorting, categorizing and classifying specific information; sequencing and making other types of connections; explaining specific ideas; distinguishing opinion from fact; creating arguments, and more...It isn't about LEARNING these skills, it's about USING these skills often to develop a knowledge and understanding base and thus at the same time learning to use these skills often as good readers to increase knowledge and understanding...
Don’t think much will change here until the assessment of reading is reframed and requires students to write about what they learned from what they read — not by regurgitating text facts but by being asked to USE what they learned in creative ways and by being required to reference their readings in their written responses. This will make reading comprehension “everybody’s baby.”
I agree! Louisiana has an alternative assessmet that is aligned to a teacher-created curriculum. The data as a result was very promising. However, the assessment is only an option if the districts are using that curriculum. My district recently switch to one of the fluffy ones.
I have a question, is there proof that writing oh let's say 11 essays in one school year improves students writing, reading and overall performance in LA? This question pertains to 6th grade.
I love to read. So much so that I became a writer and book reviewer. But my son, an economist, recently sent me an article that had something to do with international financial markets. I got two paragraphs in and gave up. I know nothing about international finance. As a long-time ELA and social studies teacher, I have watched so many students feel that same frustration when asked to read informational text and explain the main idea like you referenced in this article. About a year ago, a fellow teacher and I had a thought: what if we could write books and lesson activities that helped elementary teachers build social studies background knowledge AND reading comprehension skills at the same time? A year later, we have a website, 241books.com, and three books ready for teachers to try out. Teachers DO need better curriculum. They need quality learning materials based on science of reading strategies that help students read to learn AND learn to read at the same time. We think we might be able to help them do it.
There are so many ways in which writing can support reading---Almost always if a student is having trouble with something to do with reading comprehension, I ask myself what can I do in writing composition to support it?
Natalie, this was such an interesting read as a speech-language pathologist working in a school for kids with language-based learning disabilities. You're right, background knowledge and vocabulary are the key to better reading comprehension and writing, and they are often built in academic blocks like social studies and science. Their foundation is also laid through literature. I am going to go out on a limb to say that the idea of talking too much and not writing enough is a misconception, even with the research you shared.
This may be true for grammar and writing mechanics, but in terms of producing well written content and finding your writer's voice, our spoken language production and written language production are actually always developing concurrently and influencing each other. I just did a presentation about this with two of my colleagues at the American Speech and Hearing Association national conference, and I'd be happy to share more about it with you if you're interested.
You're on the right track, Natalie. Read Right methods are already accomplishing simultaneous development of total oral fluency and literal comprehension, in the moment, as reading progresses. Just ask the parents of the brand new readers I work with (without EVER asking them to decode a single word) and the teens and adults with mild to severe reading problems I've worked with. Read Right isn't known because the gatekeepers of SOR have done a d**n good job of burying the data. Shame on them. Low literacy = low economic potential. So WRONG that the rich are getting richer, while the poor struggle to read and get poorer. There' no need for it any more. Read Right is grounded FULLY in brain science--all of the brain science the leaders of SOR ignored.
In many of Wexler's articles, she simplifies current comprehension instruction in the classroom to fit her claim. For example, the "Weekly Skill" mentioned is often simplified to "find the central idea" or "make an inference". While both of those are legitimate skills from the ELA Common Core Standards, many "Weekly Skills" are also "activate student background knowledge", "determine the meaning of words and phrases" and "analyze how modern fiction draws from myths or traditional stories". Teachers work to grow student knowledge while focusing on comprehension every day. New curriculum is not the answer.
Excellent information. Teachers of students who struggle with comprehension must do more reading to and with their students along with complex questioning to expand and extend understanding that supports the transfer of knowledge and vocabulary across content areas.
Oh how I wish I could relate this information to my district leaders! We just recently switched from a knowledge-rich curriculum to one of the BIG fluffy ones. In the past, our ELA units were aligned with social studies content (LA Guidebooks). As a teacher of both subjects, I have seen the decline in reading comprehension since the switch. All of your books just validated what I thought all along. Now I am mandated to give background knowledge on random topics to assists students in accessing complex text. This is in opposition to giving them access to information they need to know and retain. I am currently working on aligning the two (basically building my own curriculum). I just wish I had the support of district leaders through this process.
I am in Louisiana. The work you did in another parish led me to following everything you write.
The author's articles, this one included, consistently read to me - a non-teacher - as exquisite common sense. Her view of the systems and their components from a rational overall perspective of the best functional outcomes surely is the only proper approach to education. Focusing on subsidiary questions of particular methods and specific narrowly defined 'achievements' seems to risk losing the wood amongst the trees. Another great article thanks.
interesting read as always. i am curious about this in relation to the approaches and pedagogy of language arts. language arts, especially at the secondary level, goes beyond comprehension and into layered reading. however, with many students struggling to comprehend tex in the first place (what I call close read one), it can be hard to get them to analyze, etc. on a deeper level. for example, my 7th graders in Florida are being asked to: Analyze how figurative language contributes to tone and meaning and explain examples of allusions in text(s). this is semantics and a little bit of pragmatics right? but also, if they don't have the rich knowledge necessary to understand allusions and how they cement meaning, then it's back to square one.
my curriculum is based on Amplify but the "program specialists" at the district office take the texts and some questions from the program and blend it with strategy instruction -- like that's all we do all year. students are not super into the textbook version of amplify, but i do think the activities and structure of knowledge building is nice. i don't really understand why "program specialists" chop it up and add in so much strategy instruction. proficiency on the FAST assessment is hardly moving.
that was ramble-y but just some of my thoughts on the subtle differences between language arts and reading and what the study of language arts requires from reading skills.....
I have been teaching a while and wish I knew more than I do. If you had to quickly state the best 5 strategies of teaching comprehension, what would you say they are, or would you point me where to look.
I don't know that I can identify the best 5 practices across the board, because the effectiveness of a practice will vary depending on the text and the content. But there's evidence that summarizing (which is pretty much the same thing as finding the main idea) helps with comprehension, and I would guess that's particularly true with nonfiction texts.
But it's not just a matter of telling students to "put in the important information and leave out the unimportant." Many kids will need to be guided in how to identify what information is important. For that, I recommend the approach in The Writing Revolution, which teaches students to write notes in response to appropriate question words (who, what, why, when, etc.) and then construct a summary sentence based on the answers.
"Written language is more complex than oral language in terms of its vocabulary and sentence structure, and students need to become familiar with that complexity if they’re going to become proficient readers."
We have to keep saying this!
What a wonderful article! I suggest writing another article about what it means to teach reading for understanding, especially in subjects such as science and social studies: helping students to define specific concepts; sorting, categorizing and classifying specific information; sequencing and making other types of connections; explaining specific ideas; distinguishing opinion from fact; creating arguments, and more...It isn't about LEARNING these skills, it's about USING these skills often to develop a knowledge and understanding base and thus at the same time learning to use these skills often as good readers to increase knowledge and understanding...
Don’t think much will change here until the assessment of reading is reframed and requires students to write about what they learned from what they read — not by regurgitating text facts but by being asked to USE what they learned in creative ways and by being required to reference their readings in their written responses. This will make reading comprehension “everybody’s baby.”
I agree! Louisiana has an alternative assessmet that is aligned to a teacher-created curriculum. The data as a result was very promising. However, the assessment is only an option if the districts are using that curriculum. My district recently switch to one of the fluffy ones.
I have a question, is there proof that writing oh let's say 11 essays in one school year improves students writing, reading and overall performance in LA? This question pertains to 6th grade.
I love to read. So much so that I became a writer and book reviewer. But my son, an economist, recently sent me an article that had something to do with international financial markets. I got two paragraphs in and gave up. I know nothing about international finance. As a long-time ELA and social studies teacher, I have watched so many students feel that same frustration when asked to read informational text and explain the main idea like you referenced in this article. About a year ago, a fellow teacher and I had a thought: what if we could write books and lesson activities that helped elementary teachers build social studies background knowledge AND reading comprehension skills at the same time? A year later, we have a website, 241books.com, and three books ready for teachers to try out. Teachers DO need better curriculum. They need quality learning materials based on science of reading strategies that help students read to learn AND learn to read at the same time. We think we might be able to help them do it.
There are so many ways in which writing can support reading---Almost always if a student is having trouble with something to do with reading comprehension, I ask myself what can I do in writing composition to support it?
Natalie, this was such an interesting read as a speech-language pathologist working in a school for kids with language-based learning disabilities. You're right, background knowledge and vocabulary are the key to better reading comprehension and writing, and they are often built in academic blocks like social studies and science. Their foundation is also laid through literature. I am going to go out on a limb to say that the idea of talking too much and not writing enough is a misconception, even with the research you shared.
This may be true for grammar and writing mechanics, but in terms of producing well written content and finding your writer's voice, our spoken language production and written language production are actually always developing concurrently and influencing each other. I just did a presentation about this with two of my colleagues at the American Speech and Hearing Association national conference, and I'd be happy to share more about it with you if you're interested.
I'm interested! Tell me more, please.
Hi Sara! If you DM me, I'd be happy to pass along some of the information I mentioned above
You're on the right track, Natalie. Read Right methods are already accomplishing simultaneous development of total oral fluency and literal comprehension, in the moment, as reading progresses. Just ask the parents of the brand new readers I work with (without EVER asking them to decode a single word) and the teens and adults with mild to severe reading problems I've worked with. Read Right isn't known because the gatekeepers of SOR have done a d**n good job of burying the data. Shame on them. Low literacy = low economic potential. So WRONG that the rich are getting richer, while the poor struggle to read and get poorer. There' no need for it any more. Read Right is grounded FULLY in brain science--all of the brain science the leaders of SOR ignored.
The purpose of reading is to comprehend.
In many of Wexler's articles, she simplifies current comprehension instruction in the classroom to fit her claim. For example, the "Weekly Skill" mentioned is often simplified to "find the central idea" or "make an inference". While both of those are legitimate skills from the ELA Common Core Standards, many "Weekly Skills" are also "activate student background knowledge", "determine the meaning of words and phrases" and "analyze how modern fiction draws from myths or traditional stories". Teachers work to grow student knowledge while focusing on comprehension every day. New curriculum is not the answer.
Excellent information. Teachers of students who struggle with comprehension must do more reading to and with their students along with complex questioning to expand and extend understanding that supports the transfer of knowledge and vocabulary across content areas.
Oh how I wish I could relate this information to my district leaders! We just recently switched from a knowledge-rich curriculum to one of the BIG fluffy ones. In the past, our ELA units were aligned with social studies content (LA Guidebooks). As a teacher of both subjects, I have seen the decline in reading comprehension since the switch. All of your books just validated what I thought all along. Now I am mandated to give background knowledge on random topics to assists students in accessing complex text. This is in opposition to giving them access to information they need to know and retain. I am currently working on aligning the two (basically building my own curriculum). I just wish I had the support of district leaders through this process.
I am in Louisiana. The work you did in another parish led me to following everything you write.
Thank You!
The author's articles, this one included, consistently read to me - a non-teacher - as exquisite common sense. Her view of the systems and their components from a rational overall perspective of the best functional outcomes surely is the only proper approach to education. Focusing on subsidiary questions of particular methods and specific narrowly defined 'achievements' seems to risk losing the wood amongst the trees. Another great article thanks.
interesting read as always. i am curious about this in relation to the approaches and pedagogy of language arts. language arts, especially at the secondary level, goes beyond comprehension and into layered reading. however, with many students struggling to comprehend tex in the first place (what I call close read one), it can be hard to get them to analyze, etc. on a deeper level. for example, my 7th graders in Florida are being asked to: Analyze how figurative language contributes to tone and meaning and explain examples of allusions in text(s). this is semantics and a little bit of pragmatics right? but also, if they don't have the rich knowledge necessary to understand allusions and how they cement meaning, then it's back to square one.
my curriculum is based on Amplify but the "program specialists" at the district office take the texts and some questions from the program and blend it with strategy instruction -- like that's all we do all year. students are not super into the textbook version of amplify, but i do think the activities and structure of knowledge building is nice. i don't really understand why "program specialists" chop it up and add in so much strategy instruction. proficiency on the FAST assessment is hardly moving.
that was ramble-y but just some of my thoughts on the subtle differences between language arts and reading and what the study of language arts requires from reading skills.....
I have been teaching a while and wish I knew more than I do. If you had to quickly state the best 5 strategies of teaching comprehension, what would you say they are, or would you point me where to look.
I don't know that I can identify the best 5 practices across the board, because the effectiveness of a practice will vary depending on the text and the content. But there's evidence that summarizing (which is pretty much the same thing as finding the main idea) helps with comprehension, and I would guess that's particularly true with nonfiction texts.
But it's not just a matter of telling students to "put in the important information and leave out the unimportant." Many kids will need to be guided in how to identify what information is important. For that, I recommend the approach in The Writing Revolution, which teaches students to write notes in response to appropriate question words (who, what, why, when, etc.) and then construct a summary sentence based on the answers.