is zero comprehension. Similarly, you could know how to decode the words of the text and know all their meanings, but without sufficient background knowledge, you will again multiply by zero, and the result is zero comprehension.
“Students from disadvantaged backgrounds show a characteristic pattern of reading achievement in school; they make good progress until around fourth grade, and then suddenly fall behind. The importance of background knowledge to comprehension gives us insight into this phenomenon” (Willingham, 2017, p. 128).
In contrast with a reader who struggles to decode words, advanced readers recognize them in milliseconds. For truly literate individuals, the elements of the big three blend seamlessly. Nearly instantaneous recognition is accompanied by equally instant association with meaning, and advanced readers have the knowledge to fully understand the context. The result is comprehension.
The Overskillification of Reading
Willingham claims that “the mistaken idea that reading is a skill—learn to crack the code, practice comprehension strategies—may be the single biggest factor holding back reading achievement in the country” (as cited in Schmoker, 2011, p. 102). He and Schmoker (2011) note that “once students begin to read, they learn to read better by reading—just reading—not by being forced to endure more reading skill drills” (p. 103). And Lemov et al. (2016) point out simply, “Excellence in almost any academic subject requires strong reading” (p. 1).
Consider the construct of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for ELA (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices [NGA] & Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2010), which devotes countless pages to listing the various skills within the standards, while a mere four pages, scattered throughout, address specific content. The standards leave the ultimate decisions of what knowledge to impart up to the schools. This makeup is in no way unique to the CCSS. Most other standards sets have the same dynamics: lots of discrete skills listed, with only passing references to specific knowledge. Is it any wonder, then, that teachers view literacy as a collection of various skills? Cognitive scientists and psychologists, however, take a very different view.
This reliance on skills is a very common theme emerging in the professional literature, which we will refer to as the overskillification of reading. This results in two dynamics, neither of which is helpful. First, overskillification encourages teaching reading skill by skill, rather than understanding that students achieve comprehension through many interdependent skills and abilities. Second, requiring students to learn lengthy lists of skills often precipitates numerous skills-based lessons that, sadly, take more and more time away from students actually reading. It’s like a football practice where you spend all your time doing worksheets and watching videos about specific skills, at the cost of actually taking to the field and integrating the skills in a scrimmage or actual game situation.
“Excellence in almost any academic subject requires strong reading” (Lemov et al., 2016, p. 1).
Reading comprehension strategies are an excellent example of overskillification. As Schmoker (2018) asserts, “Symbolism, figurative language, setting, mood, or structure have their place but are absurdly overemphasized in state standards” (p. 125) at the cost of truly authentic literacy. Daniel T. Willingham and Gail Lovette (2014) note that direct instruction on reading comprehension strategies does make a statistically significant difference in general reading performance, but they also note these skills “are quickly learned and don’t require a lot of practice.” They expressly state that there are “plenty of data showing that extended practice of [reading comprehension strategy] instruction yields no benefit compared to briefer review.” Hirsch (2006) notes that “six lessons in comprehension strategies yield as much or as little benefit as 25 lessons,” meaning that educators must be aware of the beneficial but “very limited efficacy of strategy-practicing.” As a result, Willingham and Lovette (2014) call for educators to “curtail English language arts activities that offer the smallest payout,” noting that “strategy instruction may have an upper limit, yet building background knowledge does not.” We can conclude, then, that spending too much time on these strategies simply takes time away from just letting students read and develop their personal schema of background knowledge to build on.
We are not saying that instruction on specific skills or strategies has no impact. It does; it’s just that your return on time investment diminishes quickly. According to reading researchers Anne Castles, Kathleen Rastle, and Kate Nation (2018), “The benefits of strategy instruction appear to emerge after relatively little instruction: There is little evidence that longer or more intensive strategy interventions lead to greater improvements in reading comprehension” (p. 35). That’s where the time becomes available for significantly more student reading. Similarly, Hirsch (2018) notes:
Source: © Mark Anderson, www.andertoons.com. Used with permission.
Students do show an initial positive effect from practicing finding the main idea. But their progress quickly reaches a limit and then halts. We know this from various meta-studies as well as from the stagnant NAEP data. Drills in formal comprehension skills have not raised mature reading scores; rather, they have taken up a lot of class time that could have been devoted to knowledge building. (p. 20)
The ability to find a main idea or make an inference is a manifestation or byproduct of comprehension. Students do not read well because we have taught them the hundreds of skills reflected in the standards. They are able to perform those skills because we have taught them to read well by focusing on the big three.
Now armed with the big three elements as a distillation of comprehension, we teachers best know where to focus. Decoding, vocabulary, and knowledge are truly the essence of comprehension, not all the individual reading comprehension skills and strategies that occupy so much of our time.
The Journey Ahead
Now that we have a better understanding of what comprehension is, we can begin to fully explore how to develop it. We need to consider how teachers can best promote the process of literacy acquisition, but our findings will not merely be about what teachers must do. If we are going to make substantive changes in student performance, we must also come to understand how students not only can but must become self-teachers in the process. There is work they must do, and we must create the conditions for that to happen.
First of all, let’s mention why we’ve chosen to title the book Literacy Reframed. Our ambition with Literacy Reframed is to reframe K–12 teachers’ approach to literacy, moving from a skill-based frame to a more holistic and knowledge-centric one. A knowledge-centric approach to reading values the actual knowledge one receives from reading. Knowledge learned is the ultimate takeaway from the literacy experience. We intentionally use the word reframe because we are putting a brand-new frame on the existing picture of literacy. It is about changing perspectives, or educators’ view of the endgame of reading. Teachers can then use this reframed vision of literacy to craft enduring learning for aspiring readers.
In visual arts, particularly cinematography, framing is the presentation of visual elements in an image, especially the placement of the subject in relation to other objects. When we frame a scene in a different way, the new frame doesn’t change the contents of the picture, but it changes the focus of the person viewing the picture. Framing can make an image more aesthetically pleasing and keep the viewer’s focus on the framed scene. One example from the visual arts is the framing technique repoussoir, or the use of an object near the edge of a composition that directs attention into the scene. In French, repoussoir means “pushing back” (“Repoussoir,” n.d.); this book pushes teachers’ attention away from the distractions that have plagued them and back to what matters. Basically, our aim is to give teachers a sense of the value of knowledge and meaning instead of letting them rely so heavily on students’ skillfulness as readers. The painting “The Art of Painting” (https://bit.ly/3ddHped)