Daniel Willingham--Science & Education
Hypothesis non fingo
  • Home
  • About
  • Books
  • Articles
  • Op-eds
  • Videos
  • Learning Styles FAQ
  • Daniel Willingham: Science and Education Blog

School time, knowledge, and reading comprehension

3/7/2012

 
Last week I deplored the lack of time devoted to science in early elementary grades. Well, if kids aren't spending time on Science, what are they doing?

They are spending a great deal of time on English Language Arts. According to the papers I cited, 62% of classroom time for first-graders, and 47% for third-graders.

The irony is that, by failing to include more time for science, history, geography, civics, etc., we are very likely hurting reading comprehension. Why? Because reading depends so heavily on prior knowledge.

Every passage that you read omits information. For example, consider this simple passage "Dan was so embarrassed. He went to the concert and forgot to turn off his phone." The author has omitted much information: the phone rang, the ringing was audible to others, the phone rang at a time when others were enjoying the music. All of this omitted information must be brought to the text by the reader. Otherwise the passage will be puzzling, or only partly understood. (I made a video explaining this phenomenon. You can see it here.)

Once kids are fluent decoders, much of the difference among readers is not due to whether you're a "good reader" or "bad reader" (meaning you have good or bad reading skills). Much of the difference among readers is due to how wide a range of knowledge they have. If you hand me a reading test and the text is on a subject I happen to know a bit about, I'll do better than if it happens to be on a subject I know nothing about.

Two predictions fall out of this hypothesis.

First, if take some "bad readers" and give them a text on a subject they know something about, they should suddenly read well, or at least, much better.

Several studies show that that is the case. In one that I've cited before, Recht & Leslie (1988) tested "good" and "poor" readers (as identified by a reading test) on their comprehension of a passage about baseball. Some kids knew a lot about baseball, some not so much. 
Picture
I've copied Table 1 from their paper:  The numbers ("quantity" and "quality") are two different measures of comprehension--in each case, larger numbers mean better comprehension. I've circled data from the two critical groups: Lower left = "poor" readers who know a lot about baseball. Upper right = "good" readers who don't know about baseball.

Here's a second prediction. There should be a correlation between world knowledge and reading comprehension. The more stuff you know about the world, the more likely it is that you'll know at least a bit about whatever passage you happen to hit.

The Recht & Leslie paper is well known, but this finding, less so. It's from a paper by Anne Cunningham & Keith Stanovich that was actually addressing a different question.
Picture
The researchers administered a number of different measures to 11th graders, including the comprehension subtest of the Nelson-Denny Reading test, and three measures of general cultural knowledge: a 45 item cultural literacy test (e.g., in what part of the body does the infection called pneumonia occur? What is the term for selling domestic merchandise abroad?). A second test used 20 items from the NAEP history and literature tests (e.g., "Which mythical Greek hero demonstrated his bravery during his long journey homeward after the Trojan war?") In the third test the researchers provided a list of 48 names, 24 of which represented famous figures from history, the arts, sciences, etc. Students were to pick the famous names and ignore the non-famous names.

The red circle shows the remarkably high correlation between reading comprehension and the measures of cultural knowledge.

This association may not seem so remarkable. Wouldn't one predict that smart kids are good readers, and smart kids also know a lot of stuff? So all we've done is measure intelligence in two indirect ways.

The correlations shown above are actually partial correlations. Researchers administered a standard non-verbal intelligence test (Raven's progressive matrices) and statistically controlled for the effect of intelligence. The correlations I've circled reflect that statistical control.

In sum, once kids can decode fluently, reading comprehension depends heavily on knowledge. By failing to provide a solid grounding in basic subjects we inadvertently hobble children's ability in reading comprehension.

As I have put it elsewhere, Teaching Content IS Teaching Reading.

Cunningham, A. E. & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934-945.

Recht, D. R. & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers' memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 16-20.
Daniel Willingham link
3/7/2012 09:09:11 am

I should add: You can go a long way towards addressing this problem by including content-rich materials in ELA. The writers of the Common Core Standards clearly got this point.

Sol Stern
3/7/2012 09:56:56 am

Yes Dan, but the same Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, who is pushing states to adopt the Common Core ELA standards is also bribing states to adopt value added methodology for rating teachers. So the reality is that teachers will focus narrowly on teaching skills useful for tests, because the tests are where their bread is buttered. Content knowledge will be sacrificed for job security and bonuses.

Daniel Bruno
3/9/2012 04:04:46 am

While that may be true, I cannot believe that we must have one or the other. Much as this post advocates for combining content and ELA skills, there are interdisciplinary ways to ensure that students learn both testing skills and prior knowledge. E.D. Hirsch makes a similar case in The Knowledge Deficit.

Sol Stern
3/9/2012 04:40:19 am

Of course you are right that we need not "have one or the other." Unfortunately, the testing results are now what produces either monetary gains or the threat of loss of livelihood for teachers. As long as that is true teachers will opt for emphasis on test skills. Teachers are human, after all. Also see Campbell's Law.

Paul Bruno link
3/10/2012 03:55:34 pm

I think part of the point of this post is precisely that if teachers want to improve their test scores, what they should *really* be doing is teaching more content knowledge and less in the way of those skills.

Kronosaurus
3/8/2012 02:29:36 am

Dan, I just wanted to say I am very happy you have started this blog. I really appreciate your analysis on this topic. Please keep this blog going on a regular basis. I will definitely check it regularly.

Daniel Willingham link
3/8/2012 02:52:38 am

Thanks Kronosaurus!

Brad Miller
3/11/2012 09:36:37 am

As one that has spent the past 18 months deeply studying education and reform efforts (with parents that where both teachers) what Dan and ED Hirsch talk about seems just so logical, basically common sense. Just try reading about a difficult topic in which you know little about... Both content knowledge and general cultural literacy are needed. The sad fact is that students who need this the most get the least (having already started behind) which further pulls on the achievement gap. The other problem is that a content rich curriculum is not a quick fix, it takes time to build, that is why it is so important to start early. Hopefully someday more people with influence will see what just seems to be common sense and kick into high gear the quality of content that is taught to our children. It is possible to upgrade the topics that are taught, use history and science as duel tools and even teach such in a student centered way if desired.

Daniel Willingham link
3/12/2012 02:37:56 am

@Brad: You're square-on right, imo.
Note in todays' NYT, report of a comparison of core knowledge reading program:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/nyregion/nonfiction-curriculum-enhanced-reading-skills-in-new-york-city-schools.html?_r=2

london dating link
8/15/2012 01:37:14 pm

Was browsing through Weebly when I stumbled here

La Roche Posay link
9/21/2012 04:43:20 am

The sad fact is that students who need this the most get the least (having already started behind) which further pulls on the achievement gap.

Folixir link
9/26/2012 01:50:27 am

the testing results are now what produces either monetary gains.


Comments are closed.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    RSS Feed


    Purpose

    The goal of this blog is to provide pointers to scientific findings that are applicable to education that I think ought to receive more attention.

    Archives

    April 2022
    July 2020
    May 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    October 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    November 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    December 2015
    July 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012

    Categories

    All
    21st Century Skills
    Academic Achievement
    Academic Achievement
    Achievement Gap
    Adhd
    Aera
    Animal Subjects
    Attention
    Book Review
    Charter Schools
    Child Development
    Classroom Time
    College
    Consciousness
    Curriculum
    Data Trustworthiness
    Education Schools
    Emotion
    Equality
    Exercise
    Expertise
    Forfun
    Gaming
    Gender
    Grades
    Higher Ed
    Homework
    Instructional Materials
    Intelligence
    International Comparisons
    Interventions
    Low Achievement
    Math
    Memory
    Meta Analysis
    Meta-analysis
    Metacognition
    Morality
    Motor Skill
    Multitasking
    Music
    Neuroscience
    Obituaries
    Parents
    Perception
    Phonological Awareness
    Plagiarism
    Politics
    Poverty
    Preschool
    Principals
    Prior Knowledge
    Problem-solving
    Reading
    Research
    Science
    Self-concept
    Self Control
    Self-control
    Sleep
    Socioeconomic Status
    Spatial Skills
    Standardized Tests
    Stereotypes
    Stress
    Teacher Evaluation
    Teaching
    Technology
    Value-added
    Vocabulary
    Working Memory