Thank you for shedding some light on this topic. That disconnect between the research base and the teaching profession is something I have been particularly interested in lately. I'm curious whether you think this misunderstanding persists mainly because of initial teacher education, or because it's so deeply embedded in classroom resources and assessment? Also, do you think the pendulum will continue to swing on this issue? The idea of a knowledge rich curriculum is becoming much more common now but I still wonder whether many classrooms are holding onto old comprehension routines almost out of habit. Many thanks again for your work on this topic
Briefly: I think the disconnect is a result of teacher prep AND classroom resources AND assessment. It's so deeply ingrained at this point, at least in the US, that even if one of those things were to focus more on what the research base indicates will work, we would likely still face significant obstacles to change.
And yes, we do have evidence that even in American schools that have adopted content-rich, knowledge-building curricula, most teachers change the lessons to focus more on comprehension skills--maybe out of habit, maybe because they're misled by "benchmark" testing that appears to measure skills, maybe because consultants are telling them that's what they need to do--or a combination of those things. I wrote about that here:
Thanks for taking the time to get back on this. It definitely seems to be multifaceted, although it’s a topic I want to look more into to fully understand as well.
I’ll have a look at your recommended article, thank you for suggesting this
I agree with many of your points related to the importance of knowledge in comprehension and making meaning from text. I see that when students have knowledge they make meaningful connections to the texts they are reading and make robust inferences. Just yesterday I had a golden teaching moment when a student used his knowledge about Javan rhinos to make inferences about the similar plight of the quetzal bird. Coming from a student, not directed by me, laid the groundwork for me to develop the understanding of my group further. An organic approach led to a deeper understanding! My question to you is regarding "skills" and "strategies". I am not sure I understand this issue completely. I am looking for answers... We do teach students to understand main ideas in texts, details that support those ideas, author's claims, how to break the text down into meaningful chunks based on if they notice the text is organized around the frame of comparing and contrasting, a sequencing of events, etc. What's wrong with that? I read that teaching strategies is "not in anymore" and I am not sure. Perhaps you could write more about that. When students are tackling complex texts, we want them to do so, and we teachers "help them to understand it". We use strategies to scaffold complex texts through close reading and other pedagogical moves. Clarify for me what you think about the use of strategies for teachers to help students access complex texts that build knowledge. What tools am I offering my students to tackle complex texts as they build their knowledge to close “the knowledge gap”?
I have written a lot about the role of strategy instruction. I'm providing a link below to the most recent post I've written on the topic, but -- TL;DR, it's not that teachers need to choose between building knowledge and teaching strategies. It's a question of what is in the foreground. It works best to put content in the foreground and bring in whatever skills or strategies are appropriate to help students understand and analyze the particular content at hand.
How does this align or not align with a program like DI Corrective Reading Comprehension? Thank you
I can't really say, because I'm not familiar with that program.
Thank you for shedding some light on this topic. That disconnect between the research base and the teaching profession is something I have been particularly interested in lately. I'm curious whether you think this misunderstanding persists mainly because of initial teacher education, or because it's so deeply embedded in classroom resources and assessment? Also, do you think the pendulum will continue to swing on this issue? The idea of a knowledge rich curriculum is becoming much more common now but I still wonder whether many classrooms are holding onto old comprehension routines almost out of habit. Many thanks again for your work on this topic
Briefly: I think the disconnect is a result of teacher prep AND classroom resources AND assessment. It's so deeply ingrained at this point, at least in the US, that even if one of those things were to focus more on what the research base indicates will work, we would likely still face significant obstacles to change.
And yes, we do have evidence that even in American schools that have adopted content-rich, knowledge-building curricula, most teachers change the lessons to focus more on comprehension skills--maybe out of habit, maybe because they're misled by "benchmark" testing that appears to measure skills, maybe because consultants are telling them that's what they need to do--or a combination of those things. I wrote about that here:
https://nataliewexler.substack.com/p/using-knowledge-building-curriculum
Thanks for taking the time to get back on this. It definitely seems to be multifaceted, although it’s a topic I want to look more into to fully understand as well.
I’ll have a look at your recommended article, thank you for suggesting this
I agree with many of your points related to the importance of knowledge in comprehension and making meaning from text. I see that when students have knowledge they make meaningful connections to the texts they are reading and make robust inferences. Just yesterday I had a golden teaching moment when a student used his knowledge about Javan rhinos to make inferences about the similar plight of the quetzal bird. Coming from a student, not directed by me, laid the groundwork for me to develop the understanding of my group further. An organic approach led to a deeper understanding! My question to you is regarding "skills" and "strategies". I am not sure I understand this issue completely. I am looking for answers... We do teach students to understand main ideas in texts, details that support those ideas, author's claims, how to break the text down into meaningful chunks based on if they notice the text is organized around the frame of comparing and contrasting, a sequencing of events, etc. What's wrong with that? I read that teaching strategies is "not in anymore" and I am not sure. Perhaps you could write more about that. When students are tackling complex texts, we want them to do so, and we teachers "help them to understand it". We use strategies to scaffold complex texts through close reading and other pedagogical moves. Clarify for me what you think about the use of strategies for teachers to help students access complex texts that build knowledge. What tools am I offering my students to tackle complex texts as they build their knowledge to close “the knowledge gap”?
I have written a lot about the role of strategy instruction. I'm providing a link below to the most recent post I've written on the topic, but -- TL;DR, it's not that teachers need to choose between building knowledge and teaching strategies. It's a question of what is in the foreground. It works best to put content in the foreground and bring in whatever skills or strategies are appropriate to help students understand and analyze the particular content at hand.
Here's the link to the post:
https://nataliewexler.substack.com/p/clearing-up-misconceptions-about-26a