Are Educational Apps Valuable For Learning in Early Childhood

This week's article summary is Can Young Children Learn from Educational Apps?

Last summer, I spent a week with my grandkids in Hilton Head. Most of the time they were either on the beach or in the backyard swimming pool. In the early morning and late afternoon they played various card and board games with my wife and me.

What was interesting to me was during the entire week they never asked to watch TV or to use any technology. On the five-hour drive from Atlanta, they had used their iPads, but once they got to the beach, they ignored technology.

Even though my grandkids never asked for technology, we adults occasionally offered them technology as a distraction, so we could have some adult time. (You can only play so much Uno after all.) 

What further amazed me was how quickly my grandkids laser focused on whatever app they opened or You Tube video they watched. They were transfixed until we physically yanked the iPads from them. 

So, the article below intrigued me. Do younger children (my grandkids are now 8 and 6) learn from technology?

With certain parameters and enhancements, educational apps, including video games, can result in student learning. 

The article refers to the Sesame Street ‘video deficit’ effect: kids don’t learn lessons through TV shows, even if they’re ostensibly educational. They need human interaction, dialogue, and explanation to have lessons from TV or educational apps stick and transfer to real life. 

So, the lesson for parents and teachers is there is certainly a place for technology to support young children’s learning but nothing as of yet is a substitute for human interaction. (Take that, ChatGPT!)

I’ll remember this article this summer, as I endure never-ending games of Uno with my grandkids rather than tempt them with an iPad!

Joe

-------

Parents often hear about the dangers of screen time for children, but rarely does there seem to be a distinction among different types of screen time. 

In particular, apps on smartphones or touchscreen devices for children seem to be growing in popularity, even among young children. 

In fact, research finds that 90% of children aged 2 to 3 years use a touchscreen device and that infants and toddlers on average spend 10 to 45 min per day on touchscreen devices.

Many apps claim to be “educational” and some apps are used as part of the curriculum in elementary school classrooms. 

Can young children actually learn from this technology? Are apps more educational than TV shows and movies? And if parents allow their children to engage with apps, which apps are best?

Research broadly finds that young children can learn from interactive apps, but it remains unclear the extent to which this learning is transferable to the real world. A meta-analysis found that most studies involving children five years and younger show an overall positive impact of touchscreen apps on learning. 

Another study found that children under 6 years old can learn from interactive apps, particularly in math skills. They also found some evidence that apps may improve phonics skills, teach science facts, and improve executive functioning. 

The review failed to find evidence that apps improved social communication skills.

Although we have consistent evidence that young children can learn from apps, it remains unclear the extent to which they can transfer this knowledge to the real world. It is well documented that young children (particularly children under 3) do not learn as well from video as they do from real life interactions and do not transfer learning from video to real life, referred to as the video deficit. However, there is some evidence that children can transfer learning when screen time is more interactive such as Facebook or video chat.

So, research finds that it is possible for children to learn from apps and that engaging in apps with them may enhance the transfer of learning to the real world, but does this mean they can learn from just any app? How can you determine which apps are truly educational?

A recent study evaluated 124 popular “educational” apps and found that 58% of popular apps were “low quality” in terms of how they promote learning.

The researchers evaluated apps based on the following:

• Active learning – whether the app requires critical thinking or intellectual effort versus a simple cause-and-effect
• Engagement in the learning process  – whether the interactive features enhance or distract from learning, including whether the app has unnecessary visual and sound effects and distracting ads
• Meaningful learning – how relevant what the child is learning in the app is to the child’s life and existing knowledge
• Social interaction – the extent to which the app encourages children to interact with characters in the app or with their caregivers while engaging with the app

The following apps received the highest scores in terms of promoting learning: 

• My Food – Nutrition for Kids
• Daniel Tiger’s Stop & Go Potty
• Toca Life (Neighborhood, School and Hospital)
• LEGO DUPLO Town
• Zoombinis
• Measure That Animal
• Math Shelf
• Know Number Free
• Endless Alphabet
• Letter School
• First Word Sampler
• Word Wall HD
• Pocket Phonics
• Skills Builder Spelling
• Phonic Monster 1
• ABC Touch and Learn
• Bee Sees
• Kindergarten Lite
• Starfall
• Super Why

This research provides the following tips for parents related to apps: 

• If possible, wait until your child is at least 3 years old before trying educational apps. Research finds that although children younger than 3 can learn within an app, they may be less likely to apply this knowledge to the real world. 
• Engage in apps with your child. Provide some help and assistance without doing the task for them. Help the child to understand the instructions and pay attention to relevant features.
• When engaging with apps together, use a lot of language to help to explain the task to the child. Offer frequent praise and encouragement.
• Choose apps that require the child to think critically rather than simple cause-and-effect, such as an app in which they have to choose the correct answer rather than an app in which they simply press a button and an animation plays.
• Avoid apps with irrelevant or excessive features or advertisements that are not related to the learning process.
• Look for apps that teach children skills that they can easily transfer to real life and that are related to their existing knowledge, such as an app that teaches about letters of the alphabet.
• Choose apps that encourage your child to interact with the characters in the app and/or with you or other caregivers while engaging with the app.

What is Reggio Emilia

This week's summary is Everything Parents Need to Knoe About the Reggio Emilia Approach, and it’s follow up to last week's article on Maria Montessori.

Reggio Emilia pedagogy (so named for the town in Italy it originated from and where a number of our Early Learners’ teachers will visit this summer) began after World War II in the mid-1940s.

A Reggio Emilia approach, primarily in the preschool years, has become especially popular over the past 20-25 years.

As you’ll see in the article, the qualities of a Reggio Emilia classroom are time-tested pedagogy that, similar to the Montessori approach, respect children as innate, inquisitive, learners. 

Some of the key aspects of a Reggio Emilia classrooms are as follows:

• Trust the child as a capable and motivated learner
• Utilize project-based learning activities to give children opportunities to be critical and creative thinkers and problem solvers
• Document the students’ process of learning
• Provide a classroom environment that is rich and stimulating and that encourages exploration and discovery
• Involve children, teachers, and parents as partners in a child’s learning process

This article is a reminder of the educational values we esteem at Trinity. As you read the article, even if you teach upper elementary grades, look for the parallels in your classroom, i.e., emphasis on child-directed learning, creativity, and collaboration, and see to what extent you provide similar experiences for your students.

Joe 

-------

Anyone researching alternative schools and/or non-traditional curriculums will come across the concept of the Reggio Emilia approach or schools inspired by the philosophy, as it continues to become more and more popular across the US. 

But, what is the Reggio Emilia Approach, exactly and what makes this model different from others?

Reggio Emilia is not a person, it is a city in Italy where this educational philosophy and pedagogy originated after World War II and is most commonly used in preschool and early elementary classrooms. 

Unlike in traditional-model schools where lessons are teacher-led, educators that follow the Reggio Emilia approach let the students lead the way and offer guidance, knowledge, and direction as needed. Teachers closely observe children to help them in planning and offering learning opportunities that will connect to their interests or questions. This shows the children that their ideas, thoughts, passions, experiences, and preferences are valued.

Even though they aren’t leading a class in the traditional sense, teachers are still observing the students’ academic growth and evolving their classrooms as needed to ensure students have the tools they require to master benchmark skills. Teachers are consistently documenting the learning and making it visible to children, parents, and the community. Documentation provides the opportunity for children to reflect and revisit learning experiences and reflecting with the children allows them to make meaning of the work and helps plan for future learning experiences.

Reggio Emilia-inspired curriculum is hands-on, collaborative, and taught through projects, exploration, and play. Because of this, the classroom’s setup is very important. The environment is set up as the ‘3rd teacher’ so children can independently engage and learn in a space that has been intentionally set up to be beautiful, engaging, encourage investigation, and promote relationship building. Materials are carefully chosen based on sensory elements and kept within reach of the students, and learning spaces are set up so that there is enough room for multiple kids to work together.

The Reggio Emilia approach falls somewhere between Montessori and traditional classrooms, in that there are still daily routines (like the traditional model) but the actual learning is student-led (like Montessori), so it’s the best of both worlds. However, unlike traditional and Montessori schools, this approach gives kids the freedom of demonstrating their knowledge through various methods. Children tell the teacher what they know as they build, dance, draw, paint, sculpt, create, explore, read, write, observe, investigate, experiment, garden, dream, engineer, talk, act, cook, etc., which illustrates that there are many ways for children to express themselves outside of writing and speaking.

Other benefits of the Reggio Emilia approach include:

• A relaxed learning environment that encourages exploration 
• Teacher-student relationships that are rooted in respect
• Students build social skills through a collaborative environment
• A student-led approach allows consistent opportunities for problem-solving
• Kids develop a strong sense of community
• Emphasis on creativity and artistic expression
• Adaptive curriculum means lesson plans are created based on what the students need to master a skill (as opposed to standard curriculum that continuously moves forward and can leave some students behind)

All of that being said, the most important benefit is that children are shown that learning is a joyful experience.

Maria Montessori's Impact on Education

This week's summary is How Maria Montessori Transformed the Realm of Children's Education.

Most of us have a rudimentary idea of Maria Montessori and her impact on education philosophy and practice.

Much like John Dewey, Montessori was a pioneer of progressive education tenets that shifted schooling away from a mechanical pedagogy of lecture, worksheets, and rote learning to a more child-centered, process-oriented, problem-based focus.

Even though the roots of progressive education can be traced to philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s book Emile in the mid-1700s, it was Montessori and Dewey in the early 20th century who put children’s innate curiosity and desire to learn at the forefront of the classroom.

Rather than viewing the child as a blank slate whose brain needed to be force fed with knowledge, Montessori put trust in her students and developed classroom pedagogy and activities (many of us are familiar with her pink tower) to engage children’s natural instinct to learn. A major belief for Montessori was to allow a child to learn at his/her own pace.

While today she is primarily associated with preschool grades, her beliefs influenced changes at all levels of education.

The article below is a short introduction to her life and influence. For a more comprehensive picture of her, you can read the recent biography of her, The Child is the Teacher.

 Joe

----

Maria Montessori stood before a crowd of 60 underprivileged children, her students. It was January 6, 1907, and the 36-year-old educator was opening her first school: the Casa dei Bambini or “Children’s House,” a preschool that would revolutionize children’s education.

Today, the legacy of the Italian woman behind Montessori schools lives on in preschools around the globe. 

But at the time, the theory that providing children with stimulating activities would help them more than rote learning and academic drills was revolutionary.

Though her innovations inspired a movement in young children’s learning, Montessori saw her work more simply. “I did not invent a method of education,” she wrote in 1914. “I simply gave some little children a chance to live.”

Montessori was passionate about education from a young age. Born in 1870 and raised in Rome, she took a path that defied the era’s expectations for women. Montessori studied engineering, then applied to medical school at the University of Rome, telling a professor during her interview, “I know I shall become a doctor.” The school refused her, so Montessori enrolled in the general university; studied physics, mathematics and natural sciences; and reapplied to medical school. She was finally admitted, becoming the first woman to enter the university’s medical school, and in July 1896, she became Italy’s first female doctor.

Montessori’s medical work led her to the University of Rome’s psychiatric clinic. As part of her job, she visited asylums for children with mental disorders, searching for patients eligible for treatment at the clinic. It was here that her interest in child development intensified.

In 1898, Montessori spoke at the National Medical Congress in Turin, advocating that lack of adequate provisions and care for children with mental and emotional disorders caused them to misbehave. She continued her advocacy at the 1899 National Pedagogical Congress, where she proposed special training for teachers working with special-needs children.

Montessori’s interest in early childhood education strengthened over the next few years. She developed her own teaching materials, and in 1907, she opened her first school.

Her method revolved around engagement. Though Montessori introduced her students to many activities and materials, she retained only those the kids were interested in. She realized that activities could help children socially develop, and she theorized that, surrounded by such activities, students could educate themselves. Montessori’s self-dubbed “auto-education” approach soon had the 5-year-olds at Casa dei Bambini reading and writing.

News of Montessori’s success spread quickly, and by 1908, her name was known around the world. By the fall of 1908, five Case dei Bambini were operating in Italy. Her method soon crossed borders as kindergartens in Switzerland adopted her methods. 

A couple of years later, Montessori published a book, The Montessori Method -- over time, it would be translated into 20 different languages. In the following decades, Montessori schools and teacher training programs sprang up around the world.

Before her death in 1952, Montessori lived to see her educational theories enacted around the globe, as more and more “awakened” children—as she called activity-stimulated students—successfully learned their letters.

As Montessori biographer E.M. Standing notes, Montessori proved that the “awakened” child “develops a higher type of personality—more mentally alert, more capable of concentration, more socially adaptable, more independent and at the same time more disciplined and obedient—in a word, a complete being—a ready foundation for the building up of a normalized adult.”

“This is Montessori’s great achievement,” Standing writes, “the discovery of the child.”

Teen Pressure to Succeed

This week's summary is Teen Grind Culture.

Unlike today’s teenagers, I had the time and freedom to discover who I was during high school and college. There was little internal or external pressure on me as a young man to have it all it figured out and my future path established.

As you’ll see in the article below, today’s teens feel pressure (from parents, social media, themselves) to be on duty all the time with the expectation of excelling in everything (school, sports, social life, appearance, community service).

Consequently, many teens feel that they can’t ever take a breath and relax. It was particularly disturbing to read that some teens feel guilty for doing anything at all for pleasure and enjoyment.

The small percentage of teens who don’t feel this pressure shared similar practices: more sleep, more time outdoors, a less structured daily schedule, and limited activity on social media and with technology.

Fittingly, those habits the healthiest teens possess are what Trinity as an elementary school espouses for its students. 

It’s tougher for teens today yet we do have the opportunity to shape our students’ attitudes and habits during these formative years so they’ll perhaps learn to relax a little bit when they reach high school.

Joe

-------

Like it or not, children and teenagers today are live participants in an unprecedented experiment. Ubiquitous cellphones and hyper-engagement in social media have coincided over the last 15 years with a sharp increase in teen anxiety and depression.

Researchers from Harvard’s Center for Digital Thriving surveyed U.S. teenagers in the fall of 2023. 

What emerged was a vivid description of the “grind culture” dominating kids’ lives – “this sense of always needing to be productive, to be striving in all these different areas, even at the expense of your health,” said Center co-director Emily Weinstein. 

Some specific findings:

• 56 percent felt “game plan” pressure – to have their future path clear and set
• 53 percent felt pressure to earn impressive grades or excel in sports
• 51 percent to look their best
• 44 percent to have a robust social life
• 41 percent to be available to support friends
• 32 percent to stay informed and do good for their community

All these were more intense for girls. And one in four respondents described symptoms of burnout more common among adults in high-stress jobs.

On the “game plan” pressure, it’s striking that teens said they didn’t have time for the typical adolescent quest to figure out who they are and what they want to be. They seemed to believe that noodling around with new interests and ideas would work to their disadvantage. “Teens literally described feeling guilty for reading a book for pleasure,” says Weinstein.

Where do all these pressures come from? Parents, teachers, teens themselves – and social media. About one in five of those surveyed said they were “almost constantly” on social media, messaging apps, and YouTube. Using Instagram, Tik Tok, and Snapchat intensified the pressures teens felt.

The researchers were struck by the fact that 19 percent of those surveyed said they were not feeling pressure in any of the six areas listed above. Several practices and patterns were common among these outliers:

• They got more sleep
• Were more likely to spend time outdoors
• Had more open schedules
• Watched less television
• Spent less time on social media and the Internet.

The more self-care practices teens engaged in – including seven or more hours of sleep, regular exercise, time in nature, hanging out with a friend, engaging in creative projects – the less likely they were to feel burned out. 

The Benefits of Applied Math

This week's article summary is Applied Math Education Can Make Americans More Numerically Literate, and it’s written by a college science professor who bemoans her students lack of mathematical confidence and reasoning skills.

It’s a follow-up to a recent summary on the importance of math in elementary school.

Her worries extend beyond her classroom: due to math illiteracy, many adults are ignorant about personal finances and blindly believe politicians and others who spout exaggerated statistics without providing any evidence.

She encourages elementary schools to do a better job teaching math, including real-life applications so kids can see the connections between math and real-life.

As mentioned in the earlier summary, Trinity is in the vanguard of enhanced math instruction in elementary school. Over the past number of years, we’ve all seen our students and teachers gain much more confidence and comfort in math.

Joe

--------

As American elementary schoolchildren head back to school, one subject just might be the most dreaded of all—mathematics. 

A distaste for arithmetic, calculations, and numbers in general starts young in America, where it's socially acceptable to claim to "hate math" or simply "be bad with numbers." 

By the time U.S. students hit middle school, our educational system has already failed them. American 15-year-olds score far below their peers from other countries in mathematical literacy. 

I will meet many of these students a few years later in my college classroom, where they will react with dismay at encountering calculus-based modeling in biology class, a subject which, in their prior experience, was virtually a math-free zone. While math is a key tool of modern biology—allowing us to predict how diseases spread or calculate the sustainability of our food supply—it's usually avoided in introductory classes, where it's viewed as "too complicated.” 

The American educational system is failing to prepare its citizens to face mathematical challenges with confidence.

This "math anxiety" has serious social and political consequences. 

In personal finance, Americans typically struggle to scale expenditures with income. 

More dangerously, innumerate people may become data-avoidant, assessing risk and quality of arguments based on "gut feelings" rather than numerical facts.

In contrast, math and statistics classes provide us with the logic frameworks we need to assess risk and link the magnitudes of cause and effect, making us better decision makers. There's still a role for experts and pundits, who help us make sense of a complex world. But as an American voting public, we should strive for better mathematical reasoning skills to supplement these expert analyses.

Educators have shown that it's possible to build strong math skills from Day 1 by investing more time on mathematical reasoning in our elementary school classrooms. 

And for those who remember math as boring or recall struggling to learn something wholly disconnected from daily life, there's a solution—applied math, which grounds math concepts in real-world examples.

These examples can start early. When our research team visits second-grade classrooms, we use "helpful" and "harmful" relationships between animals and humans to introduce number lines with positive and negative values. 

Similarly, elementary school educators have shown time and again that music lessons improve student math scores by introducing students to this note-based arithmetic. The same concepts apply for little girls curious about engineering and little boys helping parents measure ingredients in the kitchen.

Even after we've left the classroom, let's challenge ourselves to stop flinching away from numbers or blindly trusting (or mistrusting) those reciting them. When hearing a number or statistic, let's adopt a "stop and study" approach, asking what's being argued, by whom, using what rationale. 

Mathematical reasoning gives us a core, common set of facts that we can interpret together. By building math skills—in the classroom and in adulthood—we can be part of an American public that prides itself in mathematical exceptionalism, not mathematical avoidance.

 

Explicitly Teaching Reading Comprehension

This week's article summary is Reading Comprehension Loses Out in the Classroom, and it's a follow up to last week's summary.

When I taught middle school humanities (language arts and history/social), one of my principal academic objective was to get my students to form, substantiate, and express (orally and in writing) their opinions.

For most humanities teachers the vehicles used to accomplish the above goals are reading novels, short stories, textbooks, and primary sources. Usually teachers ask their students to complete their reading assignments at home, and then the classroom is used to assess, deepen, and expand their understanding of the material they read.

I always thought that through class discussions I could assess if my students were successfully comprehending their reading assignments. But, as you’ll see in the article below, I should have included more direct reading in my classroom.

Reading comprehension has remained an elusive goal in education. We know how important it is but struggle teaching and assessing it.

It’s critical to learn to decode words, develop an extensive vocabulary, and possess extensive background knowledge. Yet these skills don’t necessarily mean a student is effective at reading comprehension.

The article below recommends more direct reading in class – both by students themselves and from read alouds from their teachers. Thid should be followed from a class discussion of open-ended questions.

As I read the article, I kept thinking of two questions to repeatedly ask students about what they’re reading: What is the reading selection telling you? How do you know this?

Classroom reading is a staple of most elementary school teachers’ pedagogy. Yet, in addition to being entertaining for children, classroom reading is also a great opportunity to see if they are developing reading comprehension skills.

Joe

-----

Nearly a half century ago, a landmark study showed that teachers weren’t explicitly teaching reading comprehension. Once children learned how to read words, no one taught them how to make sense of the sentences and paragraphs. Some kids naturally got it. Some didn’t.

Since then, reading researchers have come up with many ideas to foster comprehension. Although the research on reading comprehension continues, there’s evidence for a collection of teaching approaches, from building vocabulary and background knowledge to leading classroom discussions and encouraging children to check for understanding as they read. 

This should mean substantial progress toward fixing a problem that was identified decades ago. But hardly any of these evidence-based practices have filtered into the classroom.

“It’s a little bit discouraging,” said Philip Capin of Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education. “What we often see in classrooms is devoid of high-quality strategy instruction or knowledge-building instruction.

Capin is referring to a host of comprehension strategies, such as checking yourself for understanding after reading a paragraph, identifying the author’s main point, or summarizing what you have just read.

Teachers spend limited time reading texts with children. The dearth of reading is especially pronounced in science classes where teachers tended to prefer PowerPoint slides over texts. More time is spent on reading comprehension instruction in reading or English class, but it was still just 23 percent of instructional time. Still, that is a big improvement over the original 1978 study, which documented that only 1 percent of instructional time was spent on reading comprehension.

A survey of middle school teachers published in 2021 echoes these observational findings that very little reading is taking place in classrooms. Seventy percent of science teachers said they spent less than 6 minutes on texts a day, or less than 30 minutes a week. Only 50 percent of social studies teachers said they spent more time reading in classrooms.

Capin said his team found that reading instruction was more focused on word reading skills, what educators call “decoding.” Researchers noticed that teachers were also building students’ knowledge, especially in science and social studies classes. But this knowledge building was mostly divorced from engaging students in text comprehension. 

Classroom researchers observed “low-level” reading instruction in which a teacher asks a question and students respond with a one-word answer. Teachers tended to confirm whether student responses were “right” or “wrong.” Capin said that only 18 percent of teacher responses elaborated on or developed students’ ideas. 

Capin said teachers tended to lecture rather than encourage students to talk about what they understand or think. Teachers often read the text aloud, asked a question and then answered the question themselves when students didn’t answer it correctly. He said that leading a discussion might help students better understand the text. 

Capin said teachers also often ask generic comprehension questions, such as “What is the main point?” without considering whether the questions are appropriate for the reading passage at hand. For example, in fiction, the author’s main point is not nearly as important as identifying the main characters and their goals.

Some teachers are leading reading discussions in their classrooms. Capin said he visited one such classroom a few weeks ago. But he thinks good comprehension instruction isn’t commonplace because it’s much harder than teaching foundational reading skills. Teachers have to fill in gaps in students’ skills and background knowledge so that everyone can engage. Teacher training programs don’t put enough emphasis on evidence-based methods, and researchers aren’t good at telling educators about these methods.

Interest in the science of reading has been exploding around the country over the past five years, especially since a podcast, “Sold a Story,” highlighted the need for more phonics instruction. Hopefully, we won’t have to wait another 50 years for comprehension to get better.

 

Rethinking Reading

This week's article summary is Rethinking Reading.

As you’ll see, more and more elementary schools are implementing Science of Reading curricula, e.g., Fundations, with their specific focus on strengthening word reading.

As we all know intuitively and through experience, strengthening student reading comprehension goes far beyond the ability to break down and read individual words. Quoting the article, ‘reading comprehension is one of the most complex activities, and our ability to do so is dependent upon a wide range of knowledge and skills.’

A recent research study from an earlier summary notes that ‘phonics is just one crucial piece of the reading puzzle—which must eventually be applied to authentic reading materials, such as books and short stories, as a regular part of the reading diet that involves more advanced skills like comprehension, prediction, vocabulary, and sustained attention.’

The five components of reading (phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension) can erroneously be considered and taught as independent skills rather than in an integrated fashion befitting the complexity and gamut of reading comprehension. 

I am thankful that under the guidance of Marsha Harris we have made available this school year more content-rich reading materials to support student development of content-specific vocabulary and knowledge, as word reading is but one aspect of being a strong reader.

Joe

--

How can this be?” This was the response of principal Jane Avery when she saw her school’s most recent third-grade reading scores. Three years ago, she worked with her primary grade teachers to adopt and implement a new reading curriculum based on the “science of reading” with systematic and explicit instruction in phonics. Ms. Avery expected that the curriculum would lead to greatly improved scores on the state reading exam. She was shocked to see only a small improvement.

Ms. Avery is not alone in her expectations. Many others have seen the recent emphasis on the science of reading as the answer to America’s “reading crisis.”

Researchers have made significant progress in our understanding of how children learn to read, and this work is having an impact on classroom instruction. Much of the emphasis has been on developing word reading accuracy and fluency through explicit instruction in phonics. Word reading is critical to reading achievement, but reading involves much more than recognizing the words on the page. Students must also comprehend what they read. 

Research within the science of reading has investigated what is involved in comprehension and how children learn to understand what they read. Some of the findings from this research have been incorporated into educational practice, but not all that is known from research has been implemented in the classroom. 

Many educators view comprehension as a component of reading and one of the pillars of reading instruction. This view is an outgrowth of the report from the National Reading Panel (NRP) that separates reading into alphabetics, fluency, and comprehension. In the report, alphabetics was further divided into phonological awareness and phonics, and comprehension was divided into vocabulary and text comprehension. Over time, these components, along with fluency, became known as the big five or the five pillars of reading instruction. 

Today, much of reading instruction in the United States is guided by this component model of reading.

One limitation is that it can give the impression that the five components are independent and can be taught individually. In practice, the components are generally best taught together in an integrated fashion. That is, phonological awareness is best taught in the context of phonics, and vocabulary in the context of comprehending a text.

A more significant limitation is that including comprehension (and vocabulary) along with other components gives the impression that comprehension is skill based and similar in complexity and malleability to the other components. The model also implies that like phonics, comprehension can be explicitly taught, and once acquired, can be applied to all texts. 

In recent years there have been significant advancements in the science of how to teach and assess comprehension that are beginning to impact educational practices. At the forefront is the movement toward providing integrated comprehension and knowledge instruction within content-rich literacy curricula.

The focus on knowledge is important because of the critical role it plays in comprehension. Knowledge lays the foundation for building our understanding of text and provides an anchor for holding new information in memory. But despite the importance of knowledge, it has typically been neglected in comprehension instruction, which has focused primarily on teaching domain-general reading strategies and general vocabulary. 

Researchers who have recognized the importance of knowledge have begun to examine the effectiveness of content-rich literacy instruction in the classroom. Systematic reviews of this research show that content-rich literacy programs successfully increase vocabulary and content knowledge, as well as performance on standardized tests of reading comprehension.