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

[P Pearson]

My question is why do strategies, heuristics, and tools have to be the
straw man for championing the idea that knowledge matters?

pdp

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 4:06 PM P Pearson <ppearson at berkeley.edu> wrote:

> A lot of the public policy work on the knowledge stuff is the work of
> Knowledge Matters and Natalie Wexler.  Here's one of her pieces on the
> website, Persuasion.
>
> https://www.persuasion.community/p/they-dont-need-no-education
>
> I do agree that knowledge matters. In so many ways.
>
>  But what knowledge and whose knowledge are BIG stumbling blocks.  Need to
> start there before another conspiracy of good intentions plays itself out.
>
> pdp
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 12:08 PM Mckeown, Margaret G <mckeown at pitt.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> 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>
>> 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%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
>> 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
>>
>> 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%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
>>
>> ****************************************
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 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
> ****************************************
>
>

-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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/20200928/601811fd/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 584207 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/private/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20200928/601811fd/attachment-0001.jpg>