Gaining Perspective on the Roles Knowledge, Language, & Skills Play in Reading Development

Many educators assume that the language arts standards, along with the specific skills embedded within them, should drive classroom instruction and assessment. This belief is largely influenced by the presence of high-stakes standardized assessments, which loom in the back of educator’s minds as they make instructional and curricular decisions. Naturally, everyone wants students to perform well on these tests, and if standards and skills are the primary focus of these assessments, it’s logical to conclude that they should also be the focus of instruction.

While the narrow focus on standards and skills is understandable, it’s not justifiable. Insights from cognitive science have shown that skills, such as those outlined in the Common Core Language Arts Standards, should not—and cannot—be completely separated from content knowledge.[1] Furthermore, language itself cannot be fully divorced from the content it represents. These three critical elements of literacy development—knowledge, language, & skills—are interconnected. It’s critical that educators understand the exact nature of this integration so that reading comprehension development can be maximized for all students.

Take, for example, the ability to make logical inferences from a text, as outlined in Common Core Reading Standard 1. Mastery of this standard does not depend on some isolated inferencing skill strengthened through countless hours of practice. Instead, it relies on the depth of knowledge readers have about the subject matter of the passage. The following text demonstrates this point with striking clarity.

Rashid struck with the very next ball, Babar miscuing his googly back to him, and then delivered a wicket maiden as Iftikhar struggled to read his variations. He conceded his only boundary in his final over when Shadab slapped him back over his head during a stand of 36 with Masood - but regular wickets at the death restricted Pakistan to 137.[2]

No amount of skill instruction—that is, no amount of practice asking and answering questions that require you to make logical inferences or to find the main idea—is going to help your comprehension of the text above. What’s needed is prior knowledge of cricket, a sport immensely popular in countries like India, Pakistan, and Australia, but hardly ever mentioned in the U.S. Put simply, the extent to which you have knowledge of cricket will determine the extent to which you are able to make the inferences necessary to understand the passage.

Standardized reading tests, much like the cricket example, consist of passages that demand extensive knowledge of the world. As cognitive scientist Dan Willingham notes, “Reading tests are knowledge tests in disguise.”[3] The knowledge these tests assess is best described as communal or shared knowledge—facts, concepts, and language that are commonly understood within a society or culture, and without which meaningful, efficient communication becomes impossible.

How exactly are reading tests essentially knowledge tests in disguise? Below, I’ve included an excerpt from a sample passage from PIRLS, an international reading assessment administered to 4th graders every four years. The passage describes the perilous journey of a poor lump of clay that eventually gets its chance to become something significant. As you read, consider the prior knowledge a 4th grader would need to comprehend the text and answer the test question accurately.

Here's my big chance! he thought, squinting in the light. A boy put the clay on the potter’s wheel, spinning it as fast as he could. “This is fun!” thought the little lump of clay. The boy tried pulling the clay up as the wheel went around. The little lump of clay felt the excitement of becoming something! After trying to make a bowl, the boy gave up. He pushed and pounded the clay into a neat ball.

“Time to clean up," said the teacher. The workshop was filled with the sounds of children sponging and wiping and washing and drying. Water dripped everywhere. The boy plopped the lump of clay near the window and rushed to join his friends. After a while, the workshop emptied. The room was quiet and dark. The little lump of clay was terrified…He sat by the open window, unable to move, feeling the moisture seep out of him. The sunlight beat down, the night breezes blew in, until he was rock hard.[4] 

Sample Question: What did the boy do that was careless?

a.      He left the clay on the potter’s wheel.

b.     He was spinning the wheel as fast as he could.

c.      He put the clay near the window.

d.     He pushed and pounded the clay.

Making the appropriate inference and selecting the correct answer (c) requires some general knowledge of pottery and clay. More specifically, it requires knowledge of how clay reacts to moisture and heat sources such as the sun. For a reader familiar with this communal knowledge, answering the question is straightforward. However, consider a reader who does not understand how pottery wheels function or that clay dries out when exposed to heat. It is not unreasonable for such a reader to assume that the clay dries because the boy spins it rapidly on the pottery wheel or due to his actions of pushing and pounding it. In this case, both options b and d become logical choices alongside option c. Furthermore, a reader unfamiliar with the word “plopped” in the sentence “The boy plopped the lump of clay near the window…” might miss its connotation of a careless dropping action, which could further hinder their ability to make the correct inference.

In an effort to support students who struggle with questions similar to the one above, educators often try to isolate, teach, and assess Reading Standard 1 (i.e., Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it…) However, this approach can be a misuse of valuable time and resources. As demonstrated, making a logical inference is impossible without the prerequisite knowledge of content and language, regardless of how extensively the skill of making inferences is taught or assessed.

Furthermore, researchers consistently highlight that reading tests do not report on individual standards simply because they cannot.[5] Despite employing some of the best psychometricians in the world, the creators of standardized reading assessments are unable to break down a reader’s performance by individual standards. This is because, as we have seen, reading comprehension does not operate in such a segmented manner. The most standardized reading tests can offer is a general indicator of a student’s overall reading comprehension.[6]

To their credit, the creators of the Common Core Standards understand this, which is why they include the following in the introduction to the standards:

While the Standards delineate specific expectations in reading, writing, speaking, and listening, and language, each standard need not be a separate focus for instruction and assessment.

The creators also recognize the casual links between content knowledge and comprehension. As stated in the Common Core Anchor Standards section:

By reading texts in history/social studies, science, and other disciplines, students build a foundation of knowledge in these fields that will also give them the background to be better readers in all content areas. Students can only gain this foundation when the curriculum is intentionally and coherently structured to develop rich content knowledge within and across grades.

With this in mind, it’s important to consider the role that standards and skills should play in instruction. Research supports the teaching of comprehension strategies such as summarization techniques, question generation, and story mapping, which have been shown to help students develop proficiency in various standards and enhance their overall reading comprehension.[7] However, more strategy instruction does not necessarily mean better outcomes. Meta-analyses have found that programs offering around six sessions of strategy instruction were as effective as those with up to 50 sessions.[8] Dan Willingham, in his review of this research, concludes that while strategy instruction “is a low-cost way to give developing readers a boost, it should be a small part of a teacher’s job… Acquiring a broad vocabulary and a rich base of background knowledge will yield more substantial and longer-term benefits.”[9] It is also noteworthy that strategy instruction showed stronger effects on students in grades four and above and was most beneficial for students who were proficient decoders but unfamiliar with the strategies being taught.

Returning to the language arts standards more broadly, when viewed appropriately, they are crucial components in developing proficient readers and writers. Teachers should understand the standards and use them effectively within their classroom instruction. Like comprehension strategy instruction, the key is to view standards as tools to support students in developing a rich mental representation of the text. Problems arise when isolated standards become the sole focus, often leading to lessons that are dry and mechanical. For example, while the Common Core Standards emphasize close readings of complex texts, the success criteria of a lesson should not be limited to students mechanically annotating the text according to a specific close reading technique. Instead, success should be defined by students developing a deep and lasting understanding of the text. A close reading strategy is valuable only to the extent that it helps readers achieve that goal.

The Knowledge Matters Campaign, an organization that has highlighted many of the issues discussed above, has released a valuable tool for educators and stakeholders to evaluate curriculum quality. One section of this tool, titled “A Laser Focus on What Matters Most for Literacy,” offers an insightful perspective on standards and their role in literacy instruction. It’s worth quoting at length:

The curriculum is designed to seamlessly integrate practices from ELA standards in reading, writing, speaking, and listening, as well as facility with language. The standards themselves are not the goal of daily instruction; instead, the goal of instruction is to develop students’ ability to understand texts they encounter and to express that understanding in multiple ways. Standards mastery is the end result of, not the organizing force for, reading instruction.[10] 

In short, educators should keep strategies, skills, and standards in perspective. This is why, when I cover this topic in conferences or in professional development sessions, I use a simple yet powerful visual to illustrate the integrated nature of these three major instructional factors. However, it is important to note that this visual assumes students are engaged in mastering or have already mastered basic reading skills, as accurate and automatic word reading is a prerequisite for high levels of reading comprehension to occur.[11]

Notice how all three factors—domain knowledge, language, and strategies/skills—are not isolated but overlapping and integrated. This approach aligns with the insights from cognitive science and the recommendations of the standards' creators discussed above. Additionally, observe that the strategies/skills bubble is noticeably smaller than the knowledge and language bubbles. This design aims to help educators prioritize the two factors that educational researcher E.D. Hirsch, asserts should be the primary driving forces behind any equitable language arts curriculum. He notes:

It is now well accepted that the chief cause of the achievement gap between socioeconomic groups is a language gap… The relationship between language and the world knowledge to which language refers is extremely strong. In human beings, knowledge of a subject is automatically accompanied by language use that represents that knowledge. It is this language/knowledge nexus that establishes the key principle of a language arts curriculum.

A coherent and extended curriculum is the most effective vocabulary builder and the greatest contributor to increased reading comprehension.[12]  

In closing, I wish to build on E.D. Hirsch’s profound insights regarding the achievement gap. It is crucial to recognize the impact that an informed perspective can have on students who are most at risk for poor reading outcomes. Over the past few decades, disparities in knowledge and language between children from middle-class and professional families and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have been well documented.[13] Children from professional families are less reliant on schools to provide the necessary shared knowledge and standard language that is so integral to becoming proficient readers. Much of their learning in these areas occurs outside of the school setting through various educational opportunities that align with the knowledge and language prioritized in the classroom.

Consider the standardized test question from the clay story discussed earlier. Children who have had some experience with clay will have a significant advantage in understanding the text. Many of these children might have played with clay, visited a pottery studio, or explored a museum where they learned about how Native Americans crafted pots from clay. They may also have had rich literacy experiences at home, such as being read a book on the subject by a caregiver. Students with these out-of-school educational experiences will be less impacted by an isolated skills-based approach to instruction.

It is the students who have not had the same opportunities—those who haven’t visited pottery studios, played with clay, explored museums, or been read to frequently—who will be most affected. For these students, a narrow focus on standards and skills can be devastating to their literary and overall academic growth. Such an approach is like expecting children to row a boat stranded on dry ground and then blaming their lack of progress on not having big enough paddles. Just as larger paddles cannot move a boat that isn’t in the water, isolated skills instruction cannot improve reading proficiency without being integrated into a curriculum rich in content knowledge and language.

All students deserve access to a curriculum rich in shared knowledge and language to fully prepare them to extract and construct meaning from a variety of texts across different genres. Furthermore, all children deserve educators whose instructional approach is informed not by misguided notions about standardized tests, but by decades of research detailing what truly fosters reading comprehension development. While it is possible to improve reading scores and achieve genuine mastery of the skills and standards valued by educators and community stakeholders, this will only happen if more educators keep the most crucial factors in reading comprehension instruction in perspective.

References

[1] Kintsch, W. (1991). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Advances in Psychology, 79, 107-153.

[2] Cricket text retrieved from https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/icc-men-s-t20-world-cup-2022-23-1298134/england-vs-pakistan-final-1298179/match-report

[3] Hirsch, E.D. (2016). Why Knowledge Matters: Rescuing Our Children from Failed Educational Theories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

[4] PIRL sample passage and test question was retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pirls/released.asp

[5] Shanahan, T. (2019). Should we grade students on the individual reading standards? (Retrieved from https://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/blog/should-we-grade-students-on-the-individual-reading-standards)

[6] See National Center for Education Statistics description of the NAEP reading assessment here.

[7] National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implication for reading instruction. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child and Human Development.

[8] Rosenshine, B. and Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479-530.

-Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., and Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181-221.

[9] Willingham, D. (2006/2007). The usefulness of brief instruction in reading comprehension strategies. American Educator, 30(4), 39-50.

[10] The Knowledge Matters Campaign (2024). Knowledge Matters Review Tool: A Guide for Evaluating K-8 ELA Curriculum. (Retrieved from https://knowledgematterscampaign.org/review-tool/)

[11] Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.

[12] Hirsch, E.D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge—of words and the world. American Educator, 27, 10-29.

[13] Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD. Brookes.

-Fernald, A., Marchman, V.A., & Weisleder, A.(2012). SES differences in language processing skill and vocabulary are evident at 18 months. Developmental Science, 16(2), 234-248.

- Gilkerson, J., Richards, J. A., Warren, S. F., Montgomery, J. K., Greenwood, C. R., Oller, D. K., … & Paul, T. D. (2017). Mapping the early language environment using all-day recordings and automated analysis. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 26(2), 248-265. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_ajslp-15-0169