The John Paul George and Ringo distribution map is excellent. This of course is precisely the same phenomenon as that of ability grouping in class or setting. It all depends on where we draw the lines, or the boundaries around groupings. Do you also consider the ability grouping model to be in need of drastic change?
A well-designed test should not rely on background knowledge. The knowledge should be either provided in the context of the passage or separately. This is a well-known test framework parameter. It will interesting to get a copy of the test to see if the complaints are valid or taken out of context.
Yes I am very aware of the key pillars and research behind the science of reading, and the work of Hirsch, Neuman (who sat on my advisory board), Willingham, Shanahan, Wolf, Snow and all the others. My point was simply that a well-designed test which was equitable would not be a test of background knowledge. A well-designed reading comprehension attainment test that would scaffold background knowledge with contextual clues so you would not penalize lower income students. This is an entirely different topic than a knowledge-based curriculum advocated by the DfE, Hirsch, Wexler and many others, which I support. That said, knowledge is “history in motion” and needs to be regularly updated, which is another reason to isolate the effects of knowledge on reading comprehension.
Longer-term, reading to learn and direct vocabulary instruction are the best ways to build background knowledge. I know you know this. 😀
The John Paul George and Ringo distribution map is excellent. This of course is precisely the same phenomenon as that of ability grouping in class or setting. It all depends on where we draw the lines, or the boundaries around groupings. Do you also consider the ability grouping model to be in need of drastic change?
A well-designed test should not rely on background knowledge. The knowledge should be either provided in the context of the passage or separately. This is a well-known test framework parameter. It will interesting to get a copy of the test to see if the complaints are valid or taken out of context.
Reading fundamentally depends on background knowledge - it's not possible to construct a reading test that doesn't test background knowledge. This article https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/Hirsch.pdf explains why and this video has some great examples https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiP-ijdxqEc
Yes I am very aware of the key pillars and research behind the science of reading, and the work of Hirsch, Neuman (who sat on my advisory board), Willingham, Shanahan, Wolf, Snow and all the others. My point was simply that a well-designed test which was equitable would not be a test of background knowledge. A well-designed reading comprehension attainment test that would scaffold background knowledge with contextual clues so you would not penalize lower income students. This is an entirely different topic than a knowledge-based curriculum advocated by the DfE, Hirsch, Wexler and many others, which I support. That said, knowledge is “history in motion” and needs to be regularly updated, which is another reason to isolate the effects of knowledge on reading comprehension.
Longer-term, reading to learn and direct vocabulary instruction are the best ways to build background knowledge. I know you know this. 😀