Capin has led a team of 11 members who brought together 66 studies in which the reading instruction has been observed in real classrooms in the past 40 years. Most studies took place after 2000 and included observations of nearly 1,800 teachers. Studies have not only examined reading or arts of the English language, but also of science and social studies. In some studies, researchers have registered teaching hours and analyzed transcriptions.
These observations and recordings are only snapshots of what is happening in classrooms. Unfortunately, these observation studies cannot explain why teachers do not follow the scientific evidence of understanding reading, and Capin could not determine whether the teaching of understanding had improved more recently with a new interest in the science of reading. But he shared some ideas.
Little time spent reading
Teachers spend a limited time reading texts with children. “The obvious problem is that it is difficult to support the understanding of reading if the students do not read,” said Capin.
The reading shortage was particularly pronounced in science lessons where teachers tended to prefer PowerPoint slides to texts. More time was spent on reading comprehension instructions during reading or English, but it was only 23% of the educational time. However, this is a great improvement in relation to the original study of 1978, which documented that only 1% of the instructions time was devoted to the understanding of reading.
A separate survey of college teachers published in 2021 echoes these observation results that very little reading takes place in classrooms. Seventy percent of science teachers said they had spent less than 6 minutes on SMS per day, or less than 30 minutes per week. Only 50% of social study teachers said they had spent more time reading in classrooms.
“It is possible that a poor reading instruction can cause poor reading instruction,” said Capin. “Teachers often report that their students have difficulty reading texts at school.” They therefore avoid reading completely.
It may seem a wrestling. Teachers do not spend more time teaching reading because students find it difficult to read. But without more time, students cannot improve.
More attention to the decoding than to understanding
Capin said that his team had found that reading teaching was more focused on reading skills, which educators call “decoding”. The researchers noticed that teachers also strengthened the knowledge of students, in particular in the courses of science and social studies. But this knowledge building was mainly divorced from students’ commitment to understanding the text.
“We have adopted this approach according to which the instruction of reading understanding is defined by reading and understanding the text,” said Capin. This may seem obvious, but Capin said that some defenders of knowledge construction criticized their analysis, arguing that strengthening knowledge is beneficial for understanding reading and it doesn’t matter that the teacher uses twists and turns.
Low level instruction
Reading education based on evidence, as recommended in teaching guides from the Institute of Education, is rare, said Capin.
Instead, the researchers observed “low level” reading instructions in which a teacher asks a question and the students answer with a word answer. Capin gave me an example.
Teacher: We have just read on ancient Egypt. Who were the former Egyptian leaders?
Class: Pharaohs!
And the teacher moves on.
A more sophisticated approach could be to ask students the objectives of the pharaohs, or why the ancient Egyptians built the graves.
Teachers tended to confirm whether the students’ responses were “correct” or “bad”. Capin said that only 18% of teachers ‘responses have developed or developed students’ ideas.
Capin said teachers tended to give lectures rather than encouraging students to talk about what they understand or think. Teachers often read the text aloud, asked a question, then answer the question themselves when the students did not answer it correctly. He said that directing a discussion could help students better understand the text.
Capin said teachers also often ask generic understanding issues, such as “What is the main point?” Without examining if the questions are suitable for passing the reading at hand. For example, in fiction, the author’s main point is not as important as identifying the main characters and their objectives. Even the means based on evidence of improving understanding of reading can be poorly executed.
Some teachers run reading discussions in their classes. Capin said he had visited one of these classes a few weeks ago. But he thinks that teaching good understanding is not common because it is much more difficult than teaching fundamental reading skills. Teachers must fill the gaps in the skills of students and basic knowledge so that everyone can get involved. Teacher training programs do not put an emphasis on evidence -based methods, and researchers are not good for talking to the educators of these methods. Meanwhile, teachers face pressures to produce high test scores and low -level understanding strategies can produce short -term results.
“Nor do I want to claim that researchers know everything about reading comprehension instructions,” said Capin. “We are about 20 years old in the science of teaching the understanding of reading in relation to skills in fundamental reading.”
The interest in the science of reading has exploded throughout the country in the past five years, in particular for a podcast, “sold a history”, underlined the need for sound education. I hope that we will not have to wait another 50 years for understanding to improve.
