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

Mon Sep 28 18:22:19 BST 2020

Moddy (and Peter),
To be clearer than (obviously) I have been, let me invoke a metaphor from
Donna Scanlon and Kimberly Anderson's RRQ piece on Context as an Aid in
Word Solving in the recent RRQ on SOR.  I want to distinguish between word
recognition and word solving.  If the word reading pedagogy reviewed by
Linnea Erhi in her piece in the same SOR issue is doing its job, then lots
of Word Reading will be either automatic processing mode or will make very
few attention-intensive cognitive demands on the reader to get to
accurate, maybe even fluent word reading. The reader can click along
without many clunks. But when clunks get in the way, the reader shifts to a
problem SOLVING mode and uses any and all resources available, including
contextual clues (using 3, 4, or N cuing systems--any and all that care to
generate a plausible hypothesis).

My metaphor for comprehension, based on a dialogical-interactive reading of
the Ehri and the Scanlon-Anderson pieces, is that just as there can be
something like word reading/recognition and word solving, so there can (I'd
say is) something like comprehension recognition and comprehension
solving.  Having invoked appropriate knowledge domains and applying
well-practiced monitoring standards (do the new ideas vying for a place in
my situation model meet the dual standards of *consistency with the text* I
have read so far and *consistency with my currently invoked schemata*), I
just cruise along in a euphoric state of I get it, I get it!!!  Until the
clicks get overwhelmed by the clunks.  And then I go into a comprehension
solving mode, where I have to be intentional about whatever practices or
routines or tricks of the trade I invoke to get unstuck.  Readers have
strategies (or routines or heuristics or tricks of the trade) they invoke
to get unstuck, and they know WHEN to invoke them.

I know that in the distant past, in the late 70s and early 80s, I argued
vehemently for explicit instruction or—to use the Duffy-Roehler
term—explicit explanation for these strategies.  I have seen the light and
found salvation, however.  Over time, as other evidence has become
available, I have backed off providing a privileged position for explicit
instruction, arguing for embedding strategies in the ongoing process of
supporting making meaning, even a "strategy of the moment" approach (after
Rand Spiro's "schema of the moment" approach within Cognitive Flexibility
Theory) to find just the right puzzle-solving heuristic for this particular
text, roadblock, and context (am I on my own or in a community of practice
or outfitted with a set of digital scaffolds (akin to lifelines on the
Millionaire show).

 All this is by way of saying that promoting knowledge growth *to aid*
comprehension and *as a consequence* of text comprehension are all fine by
me, but NOT at the EXPENSE of promoting the development of tools that
facilitate text comprehension and new learning in the face of challenging
content that is not easily assimilated.

The issue of whether, or under what circumstances, explicit instruction (or
some viable alternative) to promote the development of these comprehension
solving strategies (or for that matter word solving strategies) is
necessary is a question for to be settled with well-conceptualized and
well-designed pedagogical research.

Hoping that this little mini-treatise doesn't confuse the matter even more.

pdp

On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 2:05 PM Peter P. Afflerbach <afflo at umd.edu> wrote:

> 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
>>
>

-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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
*******************
*Please use HOME ADDRESS for responses*
Home:  851 Euclid Ave
Berkeley, CA  94708 -1305
iPhone:  510 543 6508
****************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/private/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20200928/e5a324be/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/20200928/e5a324be/attachment-0001.jpg>