Over on Britannica Blog, Dan Willingham has a new post entitled “What Makes a Good Fourth-Grade Reader? Knowledge.” Professor Willingham asks, “What makes for effective reading instruction?” and then answers, “A new study indicates that an important contributor is integrating material from other subjects into reading instruction.”
He’s talking about a recently released study by Wai Ming Cheung and colleagues from the University of Hong Kong. They examined predictors of reading literacy among fourth graders and found that “the most powerful predictor [of high outcomes] was the use of materials from other subjects as reading resources.”
This finding is consistent with points made elsewhere as well as here on TE: It’s not sufficient to teach decoding and abstract strategies. Kids need to read stuff! That means they need real content, and certainly one of the best sources of that content would be what they’re learning in other courses. It’s relevant, probably pitched at their level, etc.
Reading literacy of fourth-grade students in Hong Kong showed a remarkable improvement from 2001 to 2006 as shown by international PIRLS studies. This study identified various aspects of the teacher factor contributing to the significant improvement among students. A total of 4,712 students and 144 teachers from 144 schools were randomly selected using probability proportional-to-size technique to receive the Reading Assessment Test and complete the Teacher’s Questionnaire, respectively. A number of items pertaining to teachers’ instructional strategies and activities, opportunities for students to read various types of materials, practices on assessment, and professional preparation and perception, were found to be significantly correlated with the outcome of students’ reading literacy. Stepwise regression procedure revealed four significant predictors for students’ overall reading achievement. The most powerful predictor was the use of materials from other subjects as reading resources. Suggestions to improve quality of teaching of reading and further studies are made.
Cheung, W. M, Tse, S. K., Lam, J. W. I., & Loh, E. K. Y. (2009). Progress in international reading literacy study 2006 (PIRLS): Pedagogical correlates of fourth-grade students in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 32, 293-308.
Link to Professor Willingham’s blog entry. Link to the abstract for the study by Professor Cheung.
that jives with all the supporting research that says parents should use lots of words and have lots of conversations, too. It means we need more than decoding and abstract strategies – and also more than predictable text.
SueJ, I agree that “we need more than decoding and abstract strategies – and also more than predictable text,” but we also need those things, too. Students won’t do well if they get only a little bit of this and a little bit of that (not that your comments suggests such a strategy).
We really do need complete teaching. That’s one of the givens, as I see it. Too often, we educators seem to seek some near-magical experience, activity, or method, ignoring the evidence that most of the things we want students to learn require merging of multiple experiences, activities, and methods. (This is a variant on the ain’t-no-magic-key argument, of course.)
==> Simply having parents use more words and more different words and syntax won’t be sufficient.
==> Simply teaching decoding won’t be sufficient.
==> Simply modeling comprehension strategies won’t be sufficient.
==> Simply labeling common classroom objects won’t be sufficient.
==> Simply increasing the number of books in school won’t be sufficient.
Educators need to know and employ a well-coordinated set of activities and methods to create the mixture that fosters learning. Sigh. Thanks for reminding me of this important point.