ii
will replace with current cover when current cover is done
23
Beth Hurst
•
•
Final Thoughts
Recently I have had some comments on social media from Science of Reading advocates claiming my position that some SOR folks do not TEACH comprehension is unfounded. I’ll begin by saying that many SOR advocates do attempt to assess comprehension and practice comprehension skills. The former is a good use of teaching time; the latter is not. I’ll go so far as to say reducing the amount of time on various activities to “practice” comprehension skills is a good idea. So, there is some common ground between my position and the position some SOR proponents take. However, practicing comprehension skills without first teaching them is like having baseball batters practice their swings without coaching on how to adjust their swings. The issue then becomes what we do about teaching comprehension strategies. It is on that point that we sharply differ. I call for using the Science of Reading Comprehension LINK.
Many SOR advocates have adopted the position posited by Willingham that improving background knowledge is most of what it takes to improve comprehension. They call for teachers to significantly reduce the amount of time teachers spend teaching reading strategies. I’ll begin by pointing out that some major figures in the SOR world have questioned Willingham’s position. LINK I’ve written my own opinion. That opinion says that Willingham does not factor in several decades of research showing that teaching reading strategies using gradual release does result in improved reading scores. LINK I’ve also questioned whether the amount of time he advocates allocating to reading strategy instruction is adequate for teachers to implement a gradual release teaching model.
My inquiries on how these SOR advocates teach comprehension (as opposed to assessing or practicing comprehension skills) have been deflected rather than answered. One key question for those advocates is whether they support the teaching comprehension model that calls for teaching strategies using gradual release. The follow-up question is this- what percentage of their teaching time is spent teaching comprehension?
Perhaps we need replication of Durkin’s seminal work in the 1980s about how much time teachers spend teaching comprehension. LINK. She found that “classroom observation of reading and social studies instruction shows that teachers are mentioners, assignment-givers, and interrogators.” During the era of the early 1980s, teachers did not TEACH comprehension. It’s not in anyone’s best interest to return to those times. We should not write off the three decades of progress the reading world has made in teaching reading comprehension.
Finally, I urge all policymakers, administrators, and teachers to consider all the research and best practices from all points of view as they decide how to help our children to become motivated lifelong readers and writers.
Taken from Dr. Sam's blog of 09/03/22 and used with his permission.
Dr. Sam Bommarito, the Co-Editor of this journal. is retired from full-time teaching after a 51-year career in education that included teaching at almost every grade from K through graduate school. He has made numerous presentations at ILA conferences, including national conferences. Most of his career was spent working in Title 1 buildings as a reading specialist and staff developer. He twitters daily about his various literacy endeavors (@DoctorSam7) and writes a weekly blog about literacy https://doctorsam7.blog/.
.
.
Things Policy Makers Should Consider When Making
Decisions About Literacy
\
by Sam Bommarito
\