Over the years, I’ve spent some time reviewing items on reading-comprehension tests, evaluating the passages selected as texts and checking the following eight or ten questions for accuracy, validity, etc. It can be a draining activity, scanning rather dry and often remote informational text, then spotting ambiguities or confusions in the questions that must be corrected.
One thing, I’ve found, lightens the load: a little knowledge about the passage material. Just a little bit helps a lot. Indeed, the difference between no knowledge and a little knowledge means much more than the difference between a little knowledge and abundant knowledge.
That’s my experience, and it corresponds with long-time arguments made by E. D. Hirsch and others about the importance of “domain knowledge” to reading comprehension. A recent essay in The American Prospect (magazine motto: “Liberal Intelligence”) argues just that. It is by Hirsch and Robert Pondiscio, and it bears the blunt title “There’s No Such Thing as a Reading Test.”
Hirsch and Pondiscio lay out the conventional understanding of reading.
“The culture of testing treats reading ability as a broad, generalized skill that is easily measured and assessed. We judge our schools and increasingly individual teachers based on their ability to improve the reading skills of our children. When you think about your ability to read—if you think about it at all—the chances are good that you perceive it as not just a skill but a readily transferable skill. Once you learn how to read you can competently read a novel, a newspaper article, or the latest memo from corporate headquarters. Reading is reading is reading.”
That outlook sounds common-sensical, Hirsch and Pondiscio admit, and they grant it partial accuracy. “The ability to translate written symbols into sounds, commonly called ‘decoding,’ is indeed a skill that can be taught and mastered,” they write. One can “read” words that have no meaning (“rigfap,” “churbit”), and one can sound out words in a sentence filled with allusions to something one doesn’t understand (say, a 10-year-old reading a paragraph on the Thirty Years War).
“But,” the authors insist, “clearly there’s more to reading than making sounds. To be fully literate is to have the communicative power of language at your command—to read, write, listen, and speak with understanding. As nearly any elementary schoolteacher can attest, it is possible to decode skillfully yet struggle with comprehension. And reading comprehension, the ability to extract meaning from text, is not transferable.”
Why? Because texts contain embedded assumptions, things the writer assumes the reader will know. Their example: “A-Rod hit into a 6-4-3 double play to end the game.” Think of the implied meanings. One, it’s the ninth inning. Two, a man on first and one out. Three, the Yankees are behind. Etc. If you don’t have the domain knowledge, you’re not a bad reader. “You merely lack the domain-specific knowledge of baseball to fill in the gaps.”
This is why reading is not an abstract transferable skill (except at the most basic levels of literacy). Hirsch and Pondiscio note that “poor readers” do well when faced with a passage whose subject matter is familiar to them, “outperforming even ‘good readers’ who lack relevant background knowledge.” The problem is that knowledge in one area usually doesn’t help you to comprehend a text covering a different area.
The authors quote Dan Willingham on the national implications of the knowledge factor:
“The mistaken idea that reading is a skill—learn to crack the code, practice comprehension strategies, and you can read anything—may be the single biggest factor holding back reading achievement in the country,” Daniel T. Willingham, professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, recently wrote in The Washington Post. “Students will not meet standards that way. The knowledge base problem must be solved.”
You see the problem, though. If reading is not an abstract, transferable skill, if reading comprehension relies upon sufficiently broad knowledge of important cultural, political, scientific, historical, and artistic materials, then we run squarely into delicate Culture War questions of curriculum. The inevitable question arises, “Who’s to say which traditions and histories and literature and philosophies should be required in the classroom?”
I’ll take Hirsch/Pondiscio’s advice: “Rather than idle away precious hours on trivial stories or randomly chosen nonfiction, reading, writing, and listening instruction would be built into the study of ancient civilizations in first grade, for example, Greek mythology in second, or the human body in third. . . . Let’s say a state’s fourth-grade science standards include the circulatory system, atoms and molecules, electricity, and Earth’s geologic layers and weather; and social-studies standards include world geography, Europe in the Middle Ages, the American Revolution, and the U.S. Constitution, among other domains. The state’s reading tests should include not just fiction and poetry but nonfiction readings on those topics and others culled from those specific curriculum standards.”
31 Responses to Reading Is Not a Skill
andremayer - August 29, 2010 at 11:23 am
I’m sure Hirsch and Pondisco would really like to see the schools teach classical mythology, etc., but I’d venture that the most critical knowledge base for real-world reading comprehension is the popular culture of the two prior generations. Good luck with that!
markbauerlein - August 29, 2010 at 6:09 pm
I would say, andremayer, that few “knowledges” are more fleeting than recent popular culture (I presume you mean mass culture, not popular culture in its strict definition). Knowledge of TV, movies, music, and advertising circa 1988 won’t get you far.
goxewu - August 29, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Odd that Prof. Bauerlein would offer as proof that one can’t read well without some a priori “domain knowledge” that bit of slangy baseball reporting concerning A-Roid (not a typo), and then reply to a commenter that “few ‘knowledges’ are more fleeting than recent popular culture.” Baseball is popular culture and its stars are fleeting. (Quick: What player passed a home-run milestone in 1988? See what I mean?)But however contradictory Prof. Bauerlein is, he’s actually more right with the A-Roid example. Most of what people read–from tabloids to reputable hardbound nonfiction–is about the here, now, and quite recent past; the most useful “domain knowledge” likewise concerns the here, now and quite recent past. It’s a pleasant, culturally sentimental idea that if students are required from the git-go to learn (obviously from teachers lecturing them, and not from reading, because they don’t have the requisite a priori “domain knowledge,” do they?) the 19th century learned person’s trio of classical mythology, the Bible, and Shakespeare, they’ll be able to say to themselves, “Hey, I know where this [contemporary] story comes from, and it was thought up centuries ago!” For those going on to become graduate students or professors, or simply those who want to shine at dinner parties, such millenia-deep domain knowledge may be desirable or even necessary, but for your ordinary seeker of a bachelor’s degree, it really doesn’t make much difference if learning about archteypes of human character comes from the classics or a novel hot off the presses.The sciences are a bit different, but somebody who wants to be a hematologist doesn’t have to have read William Harvey’s “On the Motion of the Heart and the Blood,” does she?It might even make better sense to start students with the here and now and work backward as they get older. You know, some comic book or “graphic novel” about gang-bangers trapped off their turf in the beginning, and Xenephon and the march of the 10,000 later, rather than the reverse.
markbauerlein - August 30, 2010 at 6:50 am
I would extend the range of society in which traditional knowledge of history, politics, literature, etc. is a lot more important than mass culture knowledge to all the professions, including the sciences. And, for those who don’t go into those fields, what would you rather have them study in 8th Grade, the Iliad or “Troy”?
goxewu - August 30, 2010 at 8:39 am
Rage–Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus’ son Achilles,murderous, doomed, that cost the Acheans countless losses,hurling down to the House of Death so many sturdy souls,great fighters’ souls, but made their bodies carrion,feast for the dogs and bords,and the will of Zeus was moving toward its end.Begin, Muse, when the two first broke and clashed,Agamemnon lord of men and brillliant Achilles…[Fagles trans.]Actually, for eighth-graders across the board (and not just latter-day John Stuart Mills), I’d go with “Troy.” (And then proceed from there.) I don’t know when’s the last time Prof. Bauerlein talked to a real, live average eighth-grader who isn’t required to wear a blazer and tie to class, but if it’s within recent memory, he ought to be able to imagine the rolling of the eyes, the heads slumping toward desktops, and the general turning off to ever after studying the Iliad.
markbauerlein - August 30, 2010 at 9:31 am
You’re selling middle-school English teachers short, goxewu, if you think class discussions of the Iliad can’t be rousing. And having never attended a private school in my life, I can’t really claim any experience with the blazer-tie group. But I do talk often to public school teachers.
mark_r_harris - August 30, 2010 at 9:37 am
Well, I *have* taught the Iliad and the Odyssey to real live ninth-graders recently, and the students did just fine. Here’s a trick I can offer: at the start of our study of Greek mythology and classic literature, I assigned each of the students a god that they would portray and be responsible for in all contexts. It fired their enthusiasm and they became quite protective of each god’s “turf.” My Zeus and Hera even presented me with divorce papers they drew up themselves based on irreconcilable differences! It was great fun and they all learned a lot. So of course the Iliad and the Odyssey can be taught at that grade level without the help of Brad Pitt. It just takes good teaching. I’m totally with Professor Bauerlein here.
greeneyeshade - August 30, 2010 at 10:47 am
Could it be that the way to acquire domain knowledge is to encourage “drilling down” once the basics of reading have been mastered? My English 101 teacher always said read with a dictionary handy. So easy to do these days with a computer, and domain Wikipedia is getting better all the time–so long as one stays skeptical, as one should, whether reading high tech or low tech.
chemteach - August 30, 2010 at 11:25 am
I agree with Bauerlein’s “Let’s say a state’s fourth-grade science standards include the circulatory system, atoms and molecules, electricity, and Earth’s geologic layers and weather…. The state’s reading tests should include not just fiction and poetry but nonfiction readings on those topics and others culled from those specific curriculum standards.”a science instructor, students do not know how to read serious nonfiction. You cannot skim it and get the “gist” of the reading. Even PhD scientists have to slog through when reading material outside of their field. For example, I am trained as a chemist, if I read nuclear physics, I must go very slowly. If the writing includes mathematical or chemical formulas a basic understanding of the math or chemistry is required. Reading math is truly based on previously learned experience. If we don’t build those skills into youth they will not have the perseverance to get through the challenging material required to attain excellence in enginnering and science.
11159995 - August 30, 2010 at 12:43 pm
There is a special problem with one area of knowledge: religion. Public schools shy away from teaching religion for understandable “separation of church and state” reasons. But understanding religion is necessary for anyone exposed to the Western world’s great literature, which is shot through with religious allusions. Although I am not religious in any sectarian sense myself, I often find myself thinking that even nonreligious parents should have their children attend some neighborhood church, synagogue, or mosque so that they can learn about at least one religion while growing up. This may not be the most ideal way for children to become educated about religion, but what is the alternative, short of parents taking on the responsibility of home schooling in this “domain”? Do Hirsch and Pondiscio have an answer to this problem? — Sandy Thatcher
_perplexed_ - August 30, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Reading comprehension to some degree must require contextual knowledge, but I don’t think this must reignite the culture war, at least along the same lines as previously argued. One might instead conclude that “anything goes” just as long as “everything goes”. Any context might matter, and none should be disqualified. Read the Iliad one day, and a graphic novel the next.
crankycat - August 30, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Reading is a skill – comprehension of unfamiliar material requires added work/information. Figuring out how to accurately assess what another person has acquired while reading such material … well, I could say “Priceless”, which is cultural reference that will be obvious to many, but not all. Standardized testing is a plague.
markbauerlein - August 30, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Godo question, Sandy. The Core Knowledge does include in early grades a “World Religions” section on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (in the “History and Geography” area), but I don’t know whether it requires lengthy readings in King James or any other religious texts.
dereed999 - August 30, 2010 at 2:08 pm
I agree with Hirsch and Pondiscio that reading can, in many cases, require extensive contextual awareness. However, I don’t see a way around the “culture war”; for two reasons slightly different than I’ve seen presented. What “outcome” do we want? Do we want to turn out cashiers and stock-persons? “Middle management” types? Scientists? “Broad-content-exposure” individuals with the hope that they that can then learn “career specific domain knowledge” in college, trade-school, or on-the-job-training? Trying to define what contextual background to present, in essence, can define the outcome. Why bother at all? Will teaching Greek Mythology or how the circulatory system works help the average youth succeed in the world? No (although I have little proof of this.) Will it produce youth who have some shared set of knowledge and references beyond what’s on TV? Probably. But what’s the point? What’s the broader point of our education system? In my area many districts seem to focus on turning out future workers (cashiers, stock-clerks, laborers, lower-management types.) Not leaders or intellectuals or even individuals who can effectively think for themselves. (Disclaimer: I support teaching culture and contextual awareness and I do use the content suggested by Core Knowledge in my teaching, but I also ask whether it’s something our society at-large places value upon.)
dboyles - August 30, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Agreed, “a little knowledge about the passage material” “lightens the load.”How sad it is to have students who have a little passage material for whatever reason, K-12 courses, prerequisites, etc., who are not expected to read at a deepening university level. Were they to do so they would indeed deepen their knowledge within given subjects. Within a two semester course sequence in organic chemistry, for example, reading comprehension sees gains, if for no other reason than because the content of the subject matter is both repetitive and cumulative from one chapter to the next. Students are more than happy to take the pathway of less intellectual work by turning over to the teacher the responsibility to do the work for them by telling them what they are to know, and many teachers are more than happy to assume this role. In such cases reading comprehension has little chance to develop. One has to ask in failing to require students to negotiate a text for two semesters what additional skills more subtle than what measurement allows are lost.
dank48 - August 30, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Apparently I just don’t get it. I thought reading was a skill (or whatever) usually taught to people starting about five or six years of age, in elementary school, and that this skill (or whatever) improves (or not) as it’s practiced (or not) through the next few years. What in heaven’s name has this got to do with “higher” education? There are many obstacles, natural and artificial, to higher education. Like it or not, illiteracy is one of them, and pretending otherwise is otiose.
dboyles - August 30, 2010 at 4:20 pm
@dank48–That’s what I thought, too…until I discovered someone named James Joyce.
maa0162 - August 30, 2010 at 4:45 pm
I agree with mark_r_harris.About 12 years ago I taught AP Western music history to 9-12 graders at a Catholic high school in California with very high standards. The content had so much more meaning for them because they had a background context for the events of the middle ages, renaissance, baroque, classic, and romantic eras. What they didn’t know, they knew how to look up.Their background was particularly helpful in our study of The Mass, motet, Stabat Mater, and oritorio based on the New Testament.When we looked at Holst’s “The Planets,” They knew more about the solar system than I did!!!
goxewu - August 30, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Way back to re #6:I don’t think middle-school discussions of the Iliad “can’t be rousing.” Sure they can. And I’m sure the woods are full of middle-school teachers who teach the Iliad to their students with great success.But I don’t think it’ll work if mandated for middle schools across the board by school districts or states. (C’mon, think about it.)I also asked when was the last time Prof. Bauerlein talked to a real, live, average eighth-grader, not whether he talks to people who talk to them. Difference.Here’s a chicken-egg questions: Which comes first, “domain knowledge” or the ability to read well enough to acquire the “domain knowledge” of the domain one is going to read about?BTW: dank48 is absolutely right. James Joyce? We all (can) get through “The Dubliners” and “Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man,” without mastering the reading equivalent of bikram yoga. “Ulysses” takes at least six months of working out beforehand. And hardly anybody but professionals manage “Finnegan’s Wake.”
willynilly - August 30, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Bauerlein’s latest essay proves clearly, once again, that his comfort zone is demonstratively at the elementary and middle school level. He seems to be well positioned to make a meaningful contribution to that sector of the educational spectrum. Mr.Pondiscio, one of the two sources of Bauerlein’s essay, was a career 5th grade teacher, which is more evidence of Bauerlein’s true professional inclination. As helpful as his essay may be to elementary and middle school professionals, it really has no legitimate place in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Mr Bauerlein would serve his interests well, if he withdrew from his relationship with The Chronicle and connected with other periodicals, serving the elementary/middle school population where readers will openly embrace his work.
markbauerlein - August 30, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Reading comprehension has everything to do with higher education, dank. Just look at the numbers of freshmen who end up in remedial reading courses. And, as I argued awhile back, according to ACT, the biggest college readiness problem in reading is, precisely, inability to comprehend “complex texts.” The point of the post is to argue that reading comprehension doesn’t improve simply by practicing the “skill” again and again. Readers need to build domain knowledge in order to handle texts at the higher levels.
maa0162 - August 31, 2010 at 3:39 am
willynilly,Your post is rather silly!!In all seriousness bro, the ideas of Hirsch have their foundation in the work of Robert Maynard Hutchins and Mortimer Adler. They formed the first “Great Books” curriculum at the University of Chicago in the middle of the last century.Hutchins had explained that the reason why they did it was because they felt their students at UC were not capable of discussing serious issues because they did not have a background foundation in the great works of Western civilization.In fact one of Hirschs’ books (I can’t remember which off the top of my head), is dedicated to William Chandler Bagley!This idea is one founded in higher education and has only started working its way onto the k-12 level since Adler’s Padiea Proposal of 1982.So yes, background knowledge is very important in higher education, in k-12 education, and on internet blogs. Without it, one is left “wiilynilly” amongst a sea of unknown facts!
elsie - August 31, 2010 at 7:24 am
I rely on George Steiner’s essay “On Difficulty” for precisely this reason because he spells out precisely the kinds of issues that arise: knowledge of vocabulary, familiarity with complex syntax, background knowledge, and familiarity with different world views. Once one can help a student figure out why he or she is having difficulty with a given text, one is on the way to helping that student improve reading comprehension.
dank48 - August 31, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Mark, the point of my comment is that remedial reading in college is insane. Thirty-seven years ago the director at the Gymnasium where I was teaching couldn’t believe that American universities regularly provided English composition classes; after all, he pointed out, someone who can’t write a simple paper isn’t ready for higher education. “Higher education,” adjective and noun, has become a truly sick joke. “Higher” than what? Kindergarten? “Education” in what sense? There’s no doubt about it: suitably motivated adults can learn to read, given access to instruction and the desire to make use of it. It’s never too late for those who really want it. And in that sense, it’s certainly education in the best sense of the word.But that’s not what we’re talking about, is it? A horde of eighteen-year-olds (or so) arriving at college unable to make sense of the English language at any level of sophistication requiring more than than seven score characters, unable, that is to say, to comprehend this sentence, is about as serious a problem as I can imagine. It is not, however, in my opinion, a problem for which the solution comes from higher education.To the person who can’t read, higher education in any meaningful sense of the term is closed. Our “solution” has been to pass without teaching, to dumb down the material rather than to raise the consciousness of the student, to avoid challenge lest it tarnish self-esteem. Not everyone is above average. Not all grades can be A. Not everyone can benefit from higher education. As a society, we have sold ourselves a Ponzi scheme. As always with a Ponzi scheme, eventually the numbers defeat us, the bubble collapses, many get cheated, and here we are, cleaning up the mess and wondering what to do with all these worthless stock certificates, or diplomas.
rchametzky - August 31, 2010 at 12:33 pm
“22. maa0162 In all seriousness bro, the ideas of Hirsch have their foundation in the work of Robert Maynard Hutchins and Mortimer Adler. They formed the first “Great Books” curriculum at the University of Chicago in the middle of the last century.”Not true, though a bit of (very) Common background antiknowledge. The ‘Hutchins College’ was not a “Great Books” curriculum (GBC), and Mortimer Adler is not relevant. The GBC inaccurately pointed at here was enacted at St. John’s of Annapolis by Stringfellow Barr and Scott Buchanan. The truth about the Hutchins College is rather more interesting. Over more than 20 years, the faculty at Chicago asked and answered pretty much all the important questions about what an undergraduate (general) education should be, how to teach it, and how to assess it; they even invented Freshman Orientation. Anyone curious about whether those answers might still have some relevance today (hint: ‘some’ rather understates the case) should read “The idea and practice of general education” (University of Chicago Press, 1992 reprint of 1950 original, new preface by Donald Levine). Mark Twain said that history doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme; it’d be nice, indeed, if we could achieve at least that much consonance with the Hutchins College.
mattcardin - August 31, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Ah, I see now where the gist of the conversation between dank48 and Mark is going — and I concur with both of them.You made your point much clearer in your second post above, dank48. Since 2008 I’ve taught developmental (remedial) reading in fall, spring, and summer at a Central Texas community college. Prior to that I taught high school English in Missouri for six years. And you’re dead-on accurate in your assessment that, ideally speaking, remedial reading classes have no place at all in higher education. How the hell were these kids — or, in many cases, adults — with their severely lacking reading skills ever given the necessary high school diploma or GED that automatically allows them entrance into a college like the one where I’m employed? It boggles the mind. And I certainly don’t blame the students themselves for this insane evidence of a serious educational-cultural meltdown.And I do, at the same time, concur wholeheartedly with Mark’s (and Hirsch’s etc.) diagnosis about the catastrophic problem that’s inherent in regarding reading as purely a transferable skill without any reference to “domain knowledge.” And again, what ought to count as a college education, whether at a community college or the most elite university on the planet, has no proper involvement with establishing the base-line foundation for this sort of thing, which ought to be accomplished in the K-12 setting.So yes, I’m criticizing my own job as a college remedial reading teacher. No use waffling.
markbauerlein - August 31, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Agreed, dank, you’re absolutely right. But colleges have no choice. They accept students, give them a diagnostic test over the summer, and find that if they put those students in regular math and reading/writing courses, the students will fail. Dropout rates will leap, and embarrassment for the school will follow. The system is terrible, but I don’t see any solution for it except through improvements at the secondary level.
dank48 - August 31, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Mark, are essentially in agreement. My guess is that, as someone on the front lines, which I’m not, you’re more realistic and less sentimental about it than I am. For example, and this is a flimsy reed indeed to lean on, I do have to disagree, in principle, with your second sentence in #27. Colleges do too have a choice. It’s just a choice they aren’t going to make, for a multiplicity of reasons. Aside from the handful of “first-tier” schools, colleges simply are not going to refuse to admit students who are not prepared for college. (I think there’s a parallel moral problem, along with the intellectual one, from which “elite” schools are no more immune than the general run of colleges, so it’s not all on the state schools and so on. When teachers are discussing whether there’s such a thing as plagiarism, for instance, a whole lot is wrong, and it’s got nothing to do with reading level. Or look at the current state of the economy and who helped get us there, many of them graduates of “elite” schools.)Charles Beard said, “When it’s dark enough, you can see the stars.” Fair enough, but if it’s dark and overcast, even the brightest stars remain invisible. And it seems to me that the sky is indeed overcast, and there’s one hell of a lot of bad weather coming.
jelef001 - September 11, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Having taught freshman English as best I can for the past four years, I find the perspective in this article a great help. I simply never questioned the classification of reading as a skill, and the points here help explain my students’ inability to handle long readings.I wanted to offer a response to dank’s discussion of the “alternative” to admitting unprepared students. I went to high school in Greece, where students simply do not gain admission to university unless they pass exams that test both their knowledge and their writing. A whole private industry has risen up around the need to reach that standard. I had many friends who had to do a year of full-time private lessons after failing their exams. I also tutored students who were taking their remedial classes *before* entering university. All I’m saying is, there is another way. When American universities lower their standards in order to admit larger classes, and thus increase revenues, do we start to think there are too many universities for the economy to handle? I don’t have enough knowledge of economics to answer that.
eleftheriou - September 11, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Having taught freshman English as best I can for the past four years, I find the perspective in this article a great help. I simply never questioned the classification of reading as a skill, and the points here help explain my students’ inability to handle long readings.I wanted to offer a response to dank’s discussion of the “alternative” to admitting unprepared students. I went to high school in Greece, where students simply do not gain admission to university unless they pass exams that test both their knowledge and their writing. A whole private industry has risen up around the need to reach that standard. I had many friends who had to do a year of full-time private lessons after failing their exams. I also tutored students who were taking their remedial classes *before* entering university. All I’m saying is, there is another way. When American universities lower their standards in order to admit larger classes, and thus increase revenues, do we start to think there are too many universities for the economy to handle? I don’t have enough knowledge of economics to answer that.
lindelltyann - September 20, 2010 at 11:50 pm
Background knowledge is essential to reading comprehension. That knowledge comes from a great many sources – one of which is reading! Context is critical. I learned this when I was in a high school sociology class in the mid-70′s. Mr. Jeff Johnson gave us a “black” IQ test. That was an awakening for me! I generally tested very well, but I had the background information to help me. On this IQ test the analogies were totally foreign to me so I was essentially guessing. No cup is to saucer analogies on that test!With technology we could easily create reading tests that branch based on comprehension of each section creating tests that measure reading ability not prior knowledge. My bet is we don’t want to.Mr. Johnson wherever you are – you started me on the social justice road with that sociology course. Thank you.