Does Knowing How to Read Prepare You to Teach Reading?

In the world of psychology there is a phenomenon called “The Illusion of Explanatory Depth.” In their article on the phenomenon, Rozenblit and Keil (2002) explain that, “People feel they understand complex phenomena with far greater precision, coherence, and depth than they really do; they are subject to an illusion—an illusion of explanatory depth.” Basically, people think they know more about things than they really do. For example, if you asked 100 people on the street if they knew how a toaster works, many, if not most would say that they do. Most people have successfully used a toaster, after all. If you then asked them to explain exactly how a toaster works, it would quickly become apparent to both of you that they really don’t know as much about a toaster as they thought they did.

Research about teacher knowledge supports this notion when it comes to reading instruction. Common perception is that being a skilled reader (i.e. knowing how to read) is qualification enough to be a skilled teacher of reading. However, being a skilled reader does not mean one has an explicit awareness of the structures of written and spoken language that is necessary to effectively teach reading. Over the years, Louisa Moats has administered many surveys to teachers with varying levels of experience in order to measure their perceived and actual knowledge of concepts that are essential for effective reading instruction (Moats, 1995; Moats & Foorman, 2003). Teachers taking the survey were asked how confident they were in their ability to teach reading then they were asked specific questions about reading. Moats found some major gaps in teacher knowledge about reading instruction and understanding of the structure of the English language.

Results from these surveys have consistently demonstrated that teachers show a lack of understanding of the following concepts related to literacy knowledge and instruction:

• the difference between speech sounds and the letters that represent the sound
• the ability to identify individual sounds (phonemes) in words
• the ability to recognize a word’s regularity or irregularity (i.e. knowledge of the letter combinations (graphemes) that represent sounds (phonemes) in common words
• identification of spelling units such as digraphs, blends, and silent-letter spellings
• syllable division and spelling patterns in syllables
• recognition of basic parts of speech

The surveys also showed that teachers had difficulty recognizing when students struggled with phonology, orthography, or syntactical elements of reading when analyzing work samples or assessments. This lack of understanding logically leads to misinformed attempts to teach reading.

Moats and other researchers have come to the convergent conclusion that most teachers are ill prepared to explicitly teach reading and writing as demonstrated by a lack of knowledge concerning the phonology and orthography of the English language. Conversely, teachers who have a strong knowledge of phonology and orthography as well as the ability to apply these concepts have students who have higher levels of literacy achievement (Cunningham, et. al., 2004; Spear-Swerling, 2004). This especially applies to teachers who are teaching in the primary grades where literacy acquisition is critical.

References

Cunningham, A.E., Perry, K.E., Stanovich, K.E., & Stanovich, P.J. (2004). Disciplinary knowledge of K-3 teachers and their knowledge calibration in the domain of early literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 139-172.

Moats, L.C. (1995). The missing foundation in teacher education. American Educator (Special Issue: Learning to Read: Schooling’s First Mission), 19 (2), 9, 43-51.

Moats, L.C., & Foorman, B.R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 23–45.

Spear-Swerling, L. & Brucker, A.O. (2004). Preparing novice teachers to develop basic reading and spelling skills in children. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 332-364.

Rozenblit, L. and Keil, F. (2002), The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science, 26: 521–562. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1   

4 Comments

David Boulton said 10 years ago

Dr. Moats discusses this [quote]gap[/quote] (she calls it a 'gulf of knowledge') in my interview with her (http://goo.gl/zN31I). I disagree with the premise that this gap is simply a gap in explicit knowledge of the structures within written and spoken language. Much more fundamentally it's "[b]The Illusion of Explanatory Depth[/b]” as relates to educator's understanding of '[b]What Reading Is[/b]' (http://goo.gl/3K9py)and the '[b]Brain Challenges[/b]'(http://goo.gl/wrG6t)involved in reading our [b]code[/b] (http://goo.gl/Kw7OR). Absent the right metal models, knowledge about the structures become fragmented and misleading. The problem isn't just a lack of knowledge, it's the [b]inertia of the paradigms[/b] we conceptualize reading through. (http://goo.gl/jDcN0)

Chibi Mitch said 10 years ago

This is very interesting. Is there a video where I can watch about this so called GAP? I'm a teacher and this could help me understand. thanks for a very informative share. ♥

David Boulton said 10 years ago

Videos: Dysteachia: http://goo.gl/77K50 Superficial Thinking: http://goo.gl/BrKdv Teacher Training: http://goo.gl/kfvjt Resistance: http://goo.gl/nf1oQ

Stacy Hurst said 10 years ago

I agree, David Boulton. And 'inertia' is the perfect word to use when discussing paradigms through which reading is framed by educators in general. As a society, the word 'velocity' can also be applied when referring to the prevalence of the effects of erroneous paradigms(mainly concerning the relationship between speaking and listening and reading and writing)and the resulting confusion they continue to cause for so many students. Hopefully we can correct the mental models, decelerate the runaway train, and get on the right track. Thanks, by the way, for your contribution to the cause!

Authors: No content items.