“The first research has shown that basic knowledge is playing a role,” said Kausalai Wijekumar, Texas A&M University education teacher, who studied reading teaching and recently produced a study that is more light on the debate. “People with good basic knowledge seem to be able to read more quickly and understand more quickly.”
For some children, in particular the children of wealthy families, she said, basic knowledge is “sufficient” to unlock the understanding of reading, but not for all. “If we want all children to read, we have proven that they can be taught with the right strategies,” said Wijekumar. She has a set of research to support her position.
Wijekumar agrees that student drilling on the main point or that the author’s objective is not useful because a reader in difficulty cannot find a point or a thin air goal. (Nor is it a fan of highlighting keywords or graphic organizers, both common strategies for understanding reading in schools.) Instead, Wijekumar pleads for a step -by -step process, designed in the 1970s by its mentor and research partner, Bonnie JF Meyer, Professor Emeritus in Penn State.
The first step is to guide students through a series of questions as they read, such as “is there a problem?” “What caused him?” And “Is there a solution?” Based on their answers, students can then decide what structure the passage follows: cause and effect, problem and solution, comparisons or sequence. Then students fill whites – as in a Mad Libs worksheet – to help create a main idea declaration. And finally, they train to develop this idea with relevant details to form a summary.
Wijekumar analyzed the history of Cinderella for me, using its approach. The problem? Cinderella is the victim of intimidation by her mother-in-law and half-sisters. We learn that because she is forced to do additional tasks and is not allowed to attend the ball. The cause of the problem? They are jealous of her. This is why they remove his pretty clothes. Finally, the solution: a fairy godmother helps Cinderella to go to the ball and meet Prince Charming. Students can then bring together all these elements to find the main idea: Cinderella is the victim of intimidation by her mother-in-law and her sisters-in-law because they are jealous of her, but a fairy godmother saves her.
It is a formula approach and there are certainly other ways to see or express the main idea. I would not have analyzed Cinderella in this way. I would have guessed that it is a story to never give up your dreams even if your life is miserable now. But Wijekumar says it is a useful start for students who fight the most.
“It is very structured and systematic, and it provides a solid base,” said Wijekumar. “This is only the starting point. You can take it and superposition on more things, but 99% of children find it difficult to start. ”
Wijekumar transformed Meyer’s strategy into a computerized tutor called ITSS, which means an intelligent tutoring using the structure strategy. About 200,000 students from around the world use their own. The non -profit organization of Wijekumar, Literacy.io, invoices schools $ 40 per student plus teacher training, which can cost $ 800 per teacher, depending on the size of the school.
The tutor allows students to practice reading understanding at their own pace. Sits was one of the only three online learning technologies that have shown clear evidence to improve students’ results, according to a February 2021 report from the Institute of Education Sciences, the Research and Development Branch of the American Department of Education.
Since then, Wijekumar has continued to refine its reading program and test it with more students. Its most recent study, a large -scale replication in high poverty schools, was a great success according to a criterion, but not such a success, according to another measure. It was published last year in the Journal of Educational Psychology.
A team of six researchers led by Wijekumar awarded randomly 17 of the 33 schools in the Northeast and along the Texas border to teach reading with its own, while the 16 remaining schools taught reading as usual. More than 1,200 fifth year students practiced their reading understanding using the ITs for 45 minutes per week over six months. Their teachers received 16 hours of training on how to teach understanding of this way and also delivered traditional analog reading lessons to their students.
After six months, students who received this reading instruction displayed much higher scores on an assessment designed by researchers, who measured the ability of students to write main ideas, recall key information and understand text structures. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups on a standardized test, the Gray Silent Reading Test (GSRT), which measured the general understanding of students’ reading. The researchers did not report the results of state tests.
Previous studies with richer students have shown improvements on the test of understanding standardized reading. It is difficult to understand why this study showed giant advantages using a measurement, but none using another.
Substantial changes in teaching were necessary for these students on high pause. Some were so weak readers that the Wijekumar team had to write easier texts so that students could practice the method. But the biggest change was 14 hours of additional teachers’ training and the creation of educational guides for teachers. Wijekumar’s strategies have directly contradicted what the manuals of their schools told them to do. At first, the students were confused with the teachers who taught them in one way and another. Wijekumar therefore worked with teachers to remove their manual instructions and teach their way.
I consulted Marissa Filderman, a respected reading expert who reviewed the literature on teaching understanding for children who have trouble reading and who is a deputy professor at the University of Alabama. She said that despite the imperfect evidence of this study, she considers the body of Wijekumar’s research as proof that the teaching of the explicit strategy is important as well as basic knowledge and vocabulary. But it is always an evolving science, and research is not yet clear enough to guide teachers over time to pass on each aspect.
Improving understanding of reading is essential, and I will monitor new research to help answer these questions for teachers.
Shirley Liu contributed the reports.
This story on Teach the main idea was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger reportAn independent non -profit press organization has focused on inequality and innovation in education. Register Evidence and others Newsletters Hechinger.
