[Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: I found this announcement in my monthly NPR/PBS print magazine

Sun Sep 27 22:05:02 BST 2020

Hi all:

Accomplished readers are unfailingly strategic. There is the massive
think-aloud research data base which describes the strategic nature of good
reading.

And there is the decades old, regularly refreshed research base that
describes the effectiveness of reading strategy instruction. Certainly,
millions of folks

learned to read prior to the existence of “reading comprehension strategy
instruction,” so there’s the question of the absolute necessity of strategy
instruction.

I like to think that reading strategy instruction makes more efficient a
developing reader’s path to being an accomplished reader. If strategy
instruction moves

that process along appreciably, it’s worth it.

As for students needing knowledge to learn school content, David’s (and
many others’) work on schema theory, scripts--all the way back to Bartlett
reminds us

of the prior knowledge requirement. But, my concern is this: if all that
students need to have to read well in school is decoding and sufficient
content area prior

knowledge, where does reading fit in? Isn’t school (still) about learning
from text? You see where this goes—how do students gain knowledge to learn
knowledge?

Is it a constant feeding of required prior knowledge so that students
without reading comprehension strategies can learn? And at what point is it
decided that

enough new knowledge has been provided so that students can then learn the
rest of the new knowledge? I’d like to think that at some point reading

proficiency--including reading comprehension strategy use--frees students
(and teachers and curriculum) from having to do massive front-loading of
new material

so that students can learn new material…

I am also not sure how lack of attention to strategies will work in domains
like history, where students learn to identify text sources, vet text
contents, judge

trustworthiness, figure out if the author is bogus or not, etc...or
identifying claim and evidence in science, rhetoric, history, social
studies...it's here that I think a

big goal of literacy learning should be thinking strategically.

Also, this APM work continues to frame reading development and reading
achievement as a solely cognitive enterprise, ignoring affect and conation.
Leaving motivation

and self-efficacy out of any account of development and achievement is
partial science, IMO.

Best,

Peter

On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 4:33 PM Mckeown, Margaret G <mckeown at pitt.edu>
wrote:

> Dear P David and colleagues,
>
>
>
> I agree that decoding + knowledge + eyes on text are not going to cut it
> for many/most young readers.
>
>
>
> But I don’t agree that the only alternative is learning strategies to
> invoke when knowledge fails. You can also invoke habits, built deliberately
> through supportive, scaffolded experiences interacting with text. Read
> together, talk about the text and what it takes to make sense of it. And
> yes, it needs to be more, and, more systematic than “a little talk about
> text.”
>
>
>
> PDP – your personal ramblings are always welcome!
>
>
>
> Moddy
>
>
>
> Margaret G. McKeown, Ph. D.
>
> Clinical Professor Emerita, Instruction and Learning
>
> School of Education
>
> Senior Scientist, Learning Research and Development Center
>
> University of Pittsburgh
>
> Pittsburgh, PA 15260
>
> mckeown at pitt.edu
>
>
>
> For more on reading and vocabulary, follow me on Twitter: @margaretmckeow2
>
>
>
> *From: *<reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk> on behalf
> of P Pearson <ppearson at berkeley.edu>
> *Date: *Sunday, September 27, 2020 at 1:34 PM
> *To: *reading hall of fame <reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
> *Subject: *[Reading-hall-of-fame] I found this announcement in my monthly
> NPR/PBS print magazine
>
>
>
> Took this photo to share.  I guess they APM/NPR decided not to take us up
> on our offer to participate in planning or enacting future events on this
> issue.  I bet NPR has a contract with APM to carry X number of show per
> month.  Another example of outsourcing resulting from Congressional budget
> cuts for public broadcasting.
>
>
>
> I bet the report will say, stop teaching strategies. Just teach decoding
> and knowledge, and all will be well.  The logic will be, if they can decode
> any and all words they encounter and if they know a lot (that they can
> express in oral language), then they will get the reading comprehension
> pretty much for free--maybe a little talk about text thrown in for good
> measure.
>
>
>
> I like knowledge; I'd say I am a big fan of it.  And I spent 10 years
> working on Seeds and Roots on the premise that all the procedural stuff
> (practices, processes, skills and strategies) work better and are acquired
> more readily and without such arduous effort when they are picked up and
> fine-tuned in pursuit of the acquisition of knowledge and insight.
>
>
>
> But what do you do when your knowledge fails you, and there is no one or
> no "thing" there to help you out of your cul du sac?  I view strategies as
> the deliberate, intentional, often stepwise, procedures you invoke when
> knowledge is not able to motivate all the connecting and monitoring that
> goes on in the construction and integration phases of comprehension.
>
>
>
> That's why I am an advocate of "the full tool-box" and the "you gotta do
> it all" approaches to pedagogy.
>
>
>
> My personal ramblings aside, I wanted to alert all of you to this sequel.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
> [image: Emily Hanford is Back.jpeg]
>
> --
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> P. David Pearson
>
> Evelyn Lois Corey *Emeritus* Professor of Instructional Science
>
> Graduate School of Education
>
> University of California, Berkeley
>
>
>
> email:  ppearson at berkeley.edu
>
> other e-mail:  pdavidpearsondean at gmail.com
>
> *website for publications*:  www.pdavidpearson.org
> <https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pdavidpearson.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cmckeown%40pitt.edu%7Cbc68dc4f73f44992799b08d8630b85ed%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C1%7C637368248449572869&sdata=7lhPC4Z4Y1r3%2Bep1EtIyicWOJgmf5NXLWRepGLEyEq8%3D&reserved=0>
>
> *******************
>
> *Please use HOME ADDRESS for responses*
>
> Home:  851 Euclid Ave
>
> Berkeley, CA  94708 -1305
>
> iPhone:  510 543 6508
>
> ****************************************
>
>
>
>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
>
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
>
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
>
> attachment.
>
>
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
>
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
>
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
>
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment.
>
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
> where permitted by law.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Reading-hall-of-fame mailing list
> Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/reading-hall-of-fame
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/private/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20200927/1d687ed5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 584206 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/private/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20200927/1d687ed5/attachment-0001.jpg>