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

Mon Sep 28 20:08:14 BST 2020

David,

Your minitreatise makes perfect sense!  :  I love the notion of comprehension vs comprehension-solving. Two points, though:

Point 1. But maybe comprehension and comprehension-solving are not that distinct. Comprehension is more automatic, but the other just uses those same interactions, but slowed down to consciousness. I still would characterize what’s needed not as “embedded strategies” – but as internalized habits & resources built from experiences encountering problems/misunderstandings during reading.  Understanding that if sense-making fails, you may need to reread, go back to earlier text, etc. I think a key distinction is reading that builds resources rather than teaching individual nuggets.
I would also suggest that McKeown, Beck, & Blake 2009, in RRQ, provided a start on how to promote a comprehension-solving approach not based on isolated strategies.

Point 2: I agree on your knowledge view – build knowledge to aid comprehension, preferably as a part of reading, but not as a separate enterprise. Or in Peter’s words: school is (still) about learning from text.

PS to Ray – I did not mean for students to rely on social support, but that situations of interactive reading & discussion of text instill habits that can be called on when reading independently.

PS to Peter – I agree that good readers are strategic, but I don’t think that necessitates explicit strategy instruction.

Moddy (again)

From: P Pearson <ppearson at berkeley.edu>
Date: Monday, September 28, 2020 at 1:22 PM
To: "Peter P. Afflerbach" <afflo at umd.edu>
Cc: "Mckeown, Margaret G" <mckeown at pitt.edu>, reading hall of fame <reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: I found this announcement in my monthly NPR/PBS print magazine

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>> on behalf of P Pearson <ppearson at berkeley.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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

[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<mailto:ppearson at berkeley.edu>
other e-mail:  pdavidpearsondean at gmail.com<mailto: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%7C11821a22b4264b309d7008d863d315b8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C637369105544115965&sdata=ByHIDCX1rhQt6sucpLgymo6AnzQqeMN%2FQxt%2FTGz4MaI%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<mailto:Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/reading-hall-of-fame<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.nottingham.ac.uk%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Freading-hall-of-fame&data=02%7C01%7Cmckeown%40pitt.edu%7C11821a22b4264b309d7008d863d315b8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C637369105544115965&sdata=F%2BNOE%2Byux32MaSe2ycyEhJheF%2Bd4xx2g9RGEgHtlXDw%3D&reserved=0>

--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
P. David Pearson
Evelyn Lois Corey Emeritus Professor of Instructional Science
Graduate School of Education
University of California, Berkeley

email:  ppearson at berkeley.edu<mailto:ppearson at berkeley.edu>
other e-mail:  pdavidpearsondean at gmail.com<mailto: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%7C11821a22b4264b309d7008d863d315b8%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1%7C0%7C637369105544115965&sdata=ByHIDCX1rhQt6sucpLgymo6AnzQqeMN%2FQxt%2FTGz4MaI%3D&reserved=0>
*******************
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/ff7c51c2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 584207 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/private/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20200928/ff7c51c2/attachment-0001.jpg>