Are We Teaching Reading Comprehension?
Part II -- 6 Things Every Teacher Should Know
Tim Shanahan
Previously, I discussed two observational studies (a landmark from the 1970s and a valuable recent effort). Both aimed to determine the amount of reading comprehension instruction in American schools. That’s an endeavor that requires clear definitions.
According to the older study conducted by Dolores Durkin (1978), comprehension instruction included any action teachers took to help children “understand or work out the meaning of more than a single, isolated word.” The newer study, this one by Philip Capin and colleagues (2024), didn’t provide a definition as much as a list of acceptable actions: teaching word meaning knowledge, developing background knowledge, selecting texts to match lesson goals, establishing engaging and motivational contexts for reading, engaging students in collaborative learning, teaching comprehension strategies, teaching text structure, and high-quality discussions of text content.
Durkin explicitly rejected the post-reading question-and-answer sessions so common in schools. To her, that was assessment only, not instruction. Capin accepted the value of high-quality discussion but distinguished that from the more typical quiz show routines that accompany reading.
Neither study homed in on the most essential feature of comprehension teaching. It is insufficient to enable students to understand a story or article. If the aim isn’t to alter reading behaviors for future texts, then it isn’t comprehension instruction. Reading practice is not enough.
Here are 6 important things that everyone should know about comprehension teaching.
1. Amount of comprehension instruction
Both studies claimed there was not enough comprehension instruction. By Durkin’s definition, there was almost zero such teaching, though it increased considerably when those Q&A sessions were counted (Hodges, 1980). Capin found that 23% of reading instruction focused on comprehension.
I’ve long argued for at least 2 hours per day for reading/writing/spelling/language instruction, with a quarter of that devoted to comprehension.
Given that, I don’t think our problem is too little comprehension time. No, it’s that...
READ MORE...
Are We Teaching Reading Comprehension? Part II -- 6 Things Every Teacher Should Know
by Michael Keany
on Monday
Are We Teaching Reading Comprehension?
Part II -- 6 Things Every Teacher Should Know
Tim Shanahan
Previously, I discussed two observational studies (a landmark from the 1970s and a valuable recent effort). Both aimed to determine the amount of reading comprehension instruction in American schools. That’s an endeavor that requires clear definitions.
According to the older study conducted by Dolores Durkin (1978), comprehension instruction included any action teachers took to help children “understand or work out the meaning of more than a single, isolated word.” The newer study, this one by Philip Capin and colleagues (2024), didn’t provide a definition as much as a list of acceptable actions: teaching word meaning knowledge, developing background knowledge, selecting texts to match lesson goals, establishing engaging and motivational contexts for reading, engaging students in collaborative learning, teaching comprehension strategies, teaching text structure, and high-quality discussions of text content.
Durkin explicitly rejected the post-reading question-and-answer sessions so common in schools. To her, that was assessment only, not instruction. Capin accepted the value of high-quality discussion but distinguished that from the more typical quiz show routines that accompany reading.
Neither study homed in on the most essential feature of comprehension teaching. It is insufficient to enable students to understand a story or article. If the aim isn’t to alter reading behaviors for future texts, then it isn’t comprehension instruction. Reading practice is not enough.
Here are 6 important things that everyone should know about comprehension teaching.
1. Amount of comprehension instruction
Both studies claimed there was not enough comprehension instruction. By Durkin’s definition, there was almost zero such teaching, though it increased considerably when those Q&A sessions were counted (Hodges, 1980). Capin found that 23% of reading instruction focused on comprehension.
I’ve long argued for at least 2 hours per day for reading/writing/spelling/language instruction, with a quarter of that devoted to comprehension.
Given that, I don’t think our problem is too little comprehension time. No, it’s that...
READ MORE...