Embora algumas partes contradigam claramente certas teses que por cá navegam quanto ao excesso de informação dada aos alunos. Ou quanto à necessidade de repetição.
With word-recognition—and to a lesser extent, fluency—it makes sense to limit the analysis to studies in the field of reading. Learning to sound out, or “decode,” words involves a finite set of skills that, when practiced in a systematic way, usually lead to success.
But reading comprehension is different. It’s not just a reading process. It’s inextricably connected to the process of learning in general. And cognitive scientists have found that the key factor in learning new information is how much relevant information you already have.
That’s because the aspect of our consciousness that takes in new information, our “working memory,” is easily overwhelmed. Until we become fluent readers, we have to juggle things in working memory like how to decode unfamiliar words and where to put the emphasis in sentences, in addition to the new information in the text. The more information we have in long-term memory that’s relevant to the text—whether that’s knowledge of the topic or general academic vocabulary, or both—the more capacity we have in working memory to understand and retain new information.
But little of that evidence from cognitive science is reflected in the practice guide, or in the research the panel surveyed. There’s a nod to “building word and world knowledge,” but that turns out to mean brief, one-time explanations of unfamiliar terms just before students read a text. That may help kids wrest meaning from the passage at hand in the moment, but unless they hear those words again—repeatedly, over a period of weeks, in different contexts—the knowledge is unlikely to stick and enable them to become better overall readers.