Friends, let’s talk about poorly-understood research that has the potential to turbocharge your reading outcomes:
Students’ background knowledge matters more to their reading comprehension than their reading skill. REALLY.
Research has proven this, most famously in The Baseball Study by Recht & Leslie.
This video explains the study so well in 3 minutes that I am just gonna insist that you watch it right now, ’cause I can’t write it any better. (I’ll wait.)
Alternately, this outstanding Learning to Read Primer (Part 2) explains the Baseball Study on pages 4 through 8. In addition, Part 1 frames the research beautifully (especially pg. 10-14).
Eye-opening stuff, right?!?
Cognitive science guru Daniel Willingham summarizes the same research in a video (skip to 5:25). He notes that this study has been repeatedly replicated with other subjects – from photocopy technology to the Vietnam War – with the same outcome. (In fact, he noted in a tweet thread that researchers have stopped trying to replicate this study because “the effect is known;” instead, they account for this significant effect in statistical analysis.)
The upshot: background knowledge is key to reading comprehension.
Equity enthusiasts, take note: when this research sinks in, you realize that privileged students start on third base from a literacy perspective. (See what I did there?) They arrive at school with the benefit of more travel, museum visits, and parents talking about geeky academic stuff, so they just know more about the academic world. We need to be especially focused on building content knowledge for our less privileged students. Kids from less affluent families show up with lots of knowledge about their worlds, but not about the subjects that show up on assessments (think science, social studies, the arts).
Another key equity insight: content knowledge is an even greater predictor of comprehension for English language learners. This research truly holds the keys to equitable reading outcomes.
The takeaway for all students: background knowledge about a subject fosters reading comprehension.
So, what are we doing about this information in schools? We’re spending loads of time on science and social studies in order to teach kids about the world, giving them a rich bank of content knowledge to propel their reading success… right?
Wrong. We’ve actually been spending less time on those subjects. The Knowledge Matters campaign notes “a period of de-emphasizing science and social studies at the elementary grades” over the last 20 years, in which “time spent in 1st-4th grade social studies and science classes has decreased – down by nearly an hour and a half a week.”
So, that’s problem #1. We’re ignoring the research on content knowledge-as-reading-catalyst with the diminished time for science and social studies.
Where’s the extra classroom time going? It’s going to reading instruction: “time dedicated to reading instruction has increased – to more than two-and-a-half hours a day.”
That sounds smart… until you look at our outcomes. We’ve added time for reading instruction across our schools, yet we have essentially flat reading outcomes in the same period (in addition to the gutting fact that only a third of our students are proficient readers, as Emily Hanford reminds us):
Why isn’t the extra time for reading – which is surely intended to improve reading outcomes – paying off? Here’s what researchers find: the additional time tends to be used on reading strategies and skills instruction. There’s a place for that instruction, but it has unfortunate diminishing returns, and we’re overdoing it. Which is problem #2.
The Knowledge Matters folks say it best: ‘Instead of using the extra time to read, discuss, and understand texts that intentionally build students’ vocabulary and knowledge of key topics in science and social studies, an excessive focus has been put on practicing reading comprehension skills such as “finding the main idea,” “making inferences,” and “understanding text features.”’
Literacy experts believe that problems #1 and #2 conspire to explain our poor national reading outcomes.
So, let that sink in… in our quest to improve reading outcomes, we’ve been decreasing time on the very subjects that build content knowledge for kids, which hamstrings our reading outcomes… and we’ve given more time to reading instruction, using approaches that don’t move the needle on reading outcomes.
More folks need to know this essential info! And you, friend, may want to know more.
Here are my fave resources for explaining and understanding this research, besides the ones above. (Which are fabulous and all. I could Tweet that 3-minute video on The Baseball Study all day long… I’ve seen it drop more jaws than anything else I have ever shared, on any topic.)
Want a layman-friendly intro to the research? How to Get Your Mind to Read by Daniel Willingham is an excellent primer, and an easy share with parents. Read it, Tweet it, hand it out at your next PLN meetup.
Want to understand this research within the broader context of how kids learn to read? These Learning to Read Primers (Part 1 and Part 2) are outstanding. Must-read. Share with everyone you know.
Want to go deeper on the background knowledge research? In 10 minutes, Daniel Willingham makes it all super-tangible in this info-rich video:
Want instructional guidance on building content knowledge? The Knowledge Matters campaign’s superb informational overview is your must-read. Come for the research, stay for the examples of what good looks like at a classroom-level.
Want to understand why spending loads of time on reading skills and strategies isn’t a successful approach? Read Can Reading Comprehension be taught? by Daniel Willingham.
Want to go deep on this topic? Natalie Wexler wrote the book on it, and the whole world seems to be reading The Knowledge Gap right now.
Want to persuade someone that this research truly matters? Sue Pimentel, literacy goddess and lead author of the CCSS in ELA, names it as one of her three Must-Wins to improve reading outcomes in Education Week.
Want to laugh at ’80s hairstyles while you watch educators experience this principle in action? This video is one part genius explanation (really… it’s legit informative), one part comic relief, one part proof that we have known this research for a looooooong time:
School Your Friends
I’d say that this is the most ‘Aha!’ moment-generating info in all of K–12 education.
It’s not completely unknown to educators. I meet plenty of savvy literacy leaders who know it. My Mom knew it before I knew it. Still, my travels in K–12 suggest that maaaaaybe 10% of educators know this info. We gotta change that.
So please, friends, post it, Tweet it, email it, preach it. Skywrite it if you can. Knowledge matters to reading comprehension, and we can propel kids’ reading outcomes if we align our instruction around that truth.
Applying This Research In Classrooms
A postscript, added after my wise Mom pointed out some gaps in the piece.
Solutions I Dig:
I would want educators to read this and think, “My school should consider how we’re building content knowledge for our students, at the same time as we’re supporting their foundational skill development in reading. That’s the game-changing Both-And.”
My favorite solution in this regard is purpose-built curriculum. Sue Pimentel put it best:
“Given that time is a scarce commodity in most schools, the takeaway for school leaders is to incorporate rich content, organized around conceptually-related topics, into the reading curriculum so that students learn new information about the world while they develop as readers.”
Exemplars help, so here’s one: the EL Education K–5 Language Arts curriculum builds each unit around a text set on a science or social studies topic:
I hope to write more about some other knowledge-building curricula in the months to come. In the meantime, you can read about these curricula in classrooms via the Knowledge Matters school tour.
I would not want anyone to think that I recommend scaffolding the heck out of every text, spoon-feeding the info contained within to students before they read, in a well-intentioned but misguided attempt to build background knowledge for kids. Students should be acquiring their knowledge about the world from the texts (or better yet, text sets), not from overteaching.
Good talk, y’all.
Hey socialites, if you’re gonna share in social, here’s my fave quote from the insightful Knowledge Matters piece. Share on!
Thanks for spreading the word about this essential research. Kids win when we bring this conversation to new education PLCs.
Has The Baseball study been replicated? It is 30 years old. It would be interesting to know if results would be the same.
Yes, it has been replicated many times. See this video from cognitive science guru Daniel Willingham (skip to 5:25). He notes that this study has been repeatedly replicated with other subjects – from photocopy technology to the Vietnam War – with the same outcome: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiP-ijdxqEc&feature=youtu.be
[…] of Knowledge in Reading Comprehension. In this blog post, the author shares essential research that isn’t always common knowledge…that knowledge […]
Though I don’t disagree about the importance of teaching content, I think we must be careful not to assume that content is the secret to improved reading. Of course, we know that context helps, and a content background provides context, but a good English teacher will teach kids strategies to increase their reading skills.
In the younger grades, the acquisition of sight word vocabulary and phonics skills are critical to good reading.
I’m suspicious of any report on research that uses the word “proves.”
Indeed, there are no magic bullets in the process of learning to read. Thank you for taking the time to read the blog!
I fear you don’t really know what you’re on about – comprehension strategies complement, not interfere with, delving into background knowledge. But such strategies are general in nature and don’t help when background knowledge is low.
She does know what she’s on about. “Comprehension strategies” steal educational time from teaching skills that are fundaments: without accurate and automatic decoding — which should be explicitly and systematically taught — and rich content knowledge, teaching “comprehension strategies” replaces teaching the things that actually DO foster comprehension. Don’t take my word for it. Check the science that’s emerged in the last 10 years.
[…] eating pie for breakfast (both predictable Black Friday activities). She read my most recent blog, Essential Research No One Knows: Knowledge Matters To Reading Comprehension. Again, she had a fair critique: “I’m afraid that a teacher might read this, and […]
[…] did you know that it’s holding back our reading outcomes? […]
[…] most important unknown research in K–12 ed, and if you don’t know the research, puh-lease scoot on over to this blog and school […]
Can anyone weigh in on how this applies to adult ESL? We also reflexively apply a single reading level to students, as well as harping on skills like reading for main idea and inference, skills now shown not to apply across texts
[…] Content knowledge is essential to reading comprehension, yet almost no one knows this key research. […]
[…] Content knowledge is essential to reading comprehension, yet almost no one knows this key research. […]
[…] work together to help teachers turn the light of knowledge on and motivate students to learn while they are in school. Parents can do their part by simply […]
[…] way that they get all kids working with grade level texts; a content knowledge-building approach (which is key, based on research); strong writing components; use of formative assessments; and […]
Can you help us understand this statement?: “Why isn’t the extra time for reading – which is surely intended to improve reading outcomes – paying off? Here’s what researchers find: the additional time tends to be used on reading strategies and skills instruction.”
Here’s the problem that parents/educators face when blanketed by urgent redirection to focus what appears to be only knowledge w/o acknowledging the simple view of reading. For what it’s worth, students with dyslexia often arrive in PK and K with a HUGE knowledge base, but still don’t learn to read.
Your blog post, begs the question: Does the quote above mean that schools are teaching “too much PA and phonics strategies” and/or “comprehension strategies” and not enough background knowledge to support reading? Parent and educator experience across the US show that schools only lightly touch on decoding instruction and phonemic awareness is an alien concept. Many educators argue that these PA/phonics “skills and strategies” are “ill-conceived and rigid reading programs.”
For the uninitiated, the blog post appears to say that “skills” training”, which could mean PA/phonics to some, is not worthwhile. Parents and educators find high school students without any decoding abilities and reading comprehension is years below grade level. These same students have spoken language comprehension above grade level. When we leave out info on decoding, we open up ourselves to pouring a knowledge base where decoding is needed.
This is a long-winded way to offer a caution: please briefly include what is meant by skills and strategies — does it mean PA/phonics? Does it mean grammar and spelling? Does it mean learning discrete skills w/o including any background knowledge? Acknowledging the SVR equation can help frame the components of effective reading instruction for parents and educators so they can be part of the conversation with their districts on how to invest time and money for reading instruction.
In our haste to move back to basic knowledge, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Why not acknowledge that even if a student is proficient in language comprehension they might struggle to read and instruction in PA/phonics is necessary for skilled decoding and ultimately for understanding what they read. Thank you!
Thank you for asking! All students do need to developing the ability to decode words; additional color can be found in this phonics blog:
I appreciate your caution about the need to be clear about which forms of skills and strategies instruction are problematic. Thanks for reading!
[…] my K–12 party question: which is more unknown by educators, the research on the importance of content knowledge to reading comprehension, or the lack of an evidence base for leveled reading groups? It’s produces a good debate. The […]
[…] i curricula di alfabetizzazione elementare più comunemente usati adottano questo approccio. Ma studi hanno dimostrato quella comprensione non è una questione di abilità astratte. Dipende principalmente da quanta […]
[…] основну писменост такође прихватају овај приступ. Али студије су показале да разумевање није ствар апстрактних вештина. То […]
[…] ginagamit na elementarya sa pagbasa sa elementarya ay nagpatibay din sa pamamaraang ito. Ngunit ipinakita ang mga pag-aaral ang pag-unawa na ito ay hindi bagay ng mga abstract na kasanayan. Pangunahing nakasalalay ito kung […]
[…] main idea.” The most commonly used elementary literacy curricula also adopt this approach. But studies have shown that comprehension isn’t a matter of abstract skills. It’s primarily dependent on how much […]
[…] vinden'. De meest gebruikte elementaire geletterdheidscurricula hanteren ook deze aanpak. Maar studies hebben aangetoond dat begrip is geen kwestie van abstracte vaardigheden. Het is voornamelijk afhankelijk van hoeveel […]
[…] käytetyissä peruskirjallisuuden opetussuunnitelmissa on myös tämä lähestymistapa. Mutta tutkimukset ovat osoittaneet että ymmärtäminen ei ole asia abstrakteja taitoja. Se riippuu ensisijaisesti siitä, kuinka […]
[…] Kurikulum keaksaraan dasar yang paling umum digunakan juga mengadopsi pendekatan ini. Tapi penelitian telah menunjukkan pemahaman itu bukan masalah keterampilan abstrak. Ini terutama tergantung pada seberapa banyak […]
[…] Tento prístup tiež používajú najbežnejšie používané učebné osnovy gramotnosti. ale štúdie ukázali toto porozumenie nie je záležitosťou abstraktných schopností. Závisí to predovšetkým od […]
[…] lähenemisviisi kasutavad ka kõige sagedamini kasutatavad elementaarse kirjaoskuse õppekavad. Aga uuringud on näidanud see mõistmine ei ole küsimus abstraktsetest oskustest. See sõltub peamiselt sellest, kui palju […]
[…] 研究表明 […]
[…] leggyakrabban használt alapvető műveltségi tantervek is ezt a megközelítést alkalmazzák. De tanulmányok kimutatták ez a megértés nem absztrakt képességek kérdése. Elsősorban attól függ, hogy az olvasó […]
[…] mest almindeligt anvendte grundlæggende læsefærdighedsplaner anvender også denne tilgang. Men undersøgelser har vist at forståelse ikke er et spørgsmål om abstrakte færdigheder. Det er primært afhængigt af, […]
[…] Lehrpläne für Grundkenntnisse in der Alphabetisierung wenden ebenfalls diesen Ansatz an. Aber Studien haben gezeigt Dieses Verständnis ist keine Frage der abstrakten Fähigkeiten. Dies hängt in erster Linie davon […]
You know what kills me? When teachers, parents, and even STUDENTS think that building background knowledge before reading content is somehow “cheating.” We’ve developed this weird mindset -probably as a result of standards testing – that reading comprehension is a skill assessed solely by “cold reads” disconnected from anything kids are actually learning.
[…] knowledge about science, social studies, and the arts as part of English Language Arts, because of extensive (and poorly-known) research that shows that background knowledge is essential to reading comprehension. So, they selected a […]
[…] Build content knowledge for students from the earliest grades, because background knowledge (and its attendant vocabulary) is critical to reading comprehension. (Details here) […]
[…] of the subject is a major factor in helping you understand what you read. So, for example, If you know a lot about baseball, You will have an easy time understanding the details of a baseball game, who knows very little […]
[…] (LINK) Here is a screen capture giving the key to her entry: […]