Dr. HyeJin Hwang is an assistant professor and literacy researcher whose research interests revolve around reading comprehension and content learning in K–12 settings, particularly for multilingual students. In this week’s episode of the podcast, HyeJin Hwang talks with Susan Lambert about background knowledge (what it is, how it’s built, and more), the importance of broad knowledge, the connections between knowledge and vocabulary, and unit planning rather than lesson planning. English wasn’t Dr. Hwang’s own first language, and her research on supporting multi-language learners is informed by her own experiences learning English and later teaching English as a second language. Whether you’re just starting to establish a solid foundation on knowledge building or you’re looking to explore the topic from new angles, this episode is the one to listen to.
Show Notes:
Quotes:
“Knowledge building cannot wait… Start from the beginning of schooling, from early grades. Multilingual students and monolingual students, they both need support developing knowledge and literacy skills.” —HyeJin Hwang
“In knowledge building, we usually like to go for cultivating in-depth knowledge. That means interconnected ideas need to be told throughout multiple lessons, multiple classes, rather than planning individual separate lessons.” —HyeJin Hwang
“When readers have good broad knowledge, prior knowledge, then it is more likely the readers can recall text information ideas, and they can make better inferences about missing ideas in text.” —HyeJin Hwang
Episode Content Timestamps*
2:00: Introduction: Who is Dr. HyeJin Hwang?
6:00: Comprehension models
8:00: What is background knowledge?
10:00: Activating and integrating background knowledge
15:00: Mitigating background knowledge issues
21:00: Strategy instruction
22:00: What should knowledge building instruction look like for students?
27:00: Advice for elementary school teachers to change their instruction
32:00: Broad knowledge and why it matters
38:00: Content knowledge and multilingual learners
44:00: Final thoughts and advice
*Timestamps are approximate, rounded to nearest minute
Dr. HyeJin Hwang is an assistant professor and literacy researcher whose research interests revolve around reading comprehension and content learning in K–12 settings, particularly for multilingual students. In this week’s episode of the podcast, HyeJin Hwang talks with Susan Lambert about background knowledge (what it is, how it’s built, and more), the importance of broad knowledge, the connections between knowledge and vocabulary, and unit planning rather than lesson planning. English wasn’t Dr. Hwang’s own first language, and her research on supporting multi-language learners is informed by her own experiences learning English and later teaching English as a second language. Whether you’re just starting to establish a solid foundation on knowledge building or you’re looking to explore the topic from new angles, this episode is the one to listen to.
Show Notes:
Quotes:
“Knowledge building cannot wait… Start from the beginning of schooling, from early grades. Multilingual students and monolingual students, they both need support developing knowledge and literacy skills.” —HyeJin Hwang
“In knowledge building, we usually like to go for cultivating in-depth knowledge. That means interconnected ideas need to be told throughout multiple lessons, multiple classes, rather than planning individual separate lessons.” —HyeJin Hwang
“When readers have good broad knowledge, prior knowledge, then it is more likely the readers can recall text information ideas, and they can make better inferences about missing ideas in text.” —HyeJin Hwang
Episode Content Timestamps*
2:00: Introduction: Who is Dr. HyeJin Hwang?
6:00: Comprehension models
8:00: What is background knowledge?
10:00: Activating and integrating background knowledge
15:00: Mitigating background knowledge issues
21:00: Strategy instruction
22:00: What should knowledge building instruction look like for students?
27:00: Advice for elementary school teachers to change their instruction
32:00: Broad knowledge and why it matters
38:00: Content knowledge and multilingual learners
44:00: Final thoughts and advice
*Timestamps are approximate, rounded to nearest minute
Knowledge building cannot wait . The reciprocal, the bidirectional relation between knowledge and reading starts from the beginning of schooling.
Speaker 2:This is Susan Lambert, and welcome to Science of Reading, the podcast from Amplify, where the science of reading lives . I'm so excited to share today's conversation with Dr. Hagen Huang , assistant professor at the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities. Part of the reason I'm so excited to share this conversation with Dr. Huang is that she does a fantastic job explaining so many foundational concepts such as the process for building knowledge, how activation works, and what background knowledge really is. Dr. Huang shares some concrete examples that I think listeners will really appreciate. She also details some of her own body of research, including a 2021 Meta-analysis of 35 studies that examined the integration of literacy and content area instruction. Dr. Huang also discusses her current focus on comprehension and content learning, particularly in multilingual learners. Please enjoy this rich conversation with Dr. Hagen Wong . I am so excited to have Dr. Hagen Wong on with us today for a very special episode. Thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 1:Thank you, Susan . I'm very happy to be here.
Speaker 2:And before we get started, as you know, we always love for you to introduce yourself to our listeners and tell us a little bit about you and your background. And I might ask you to talk about how you made it all the way from Korea over to the United States.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I was an ESL teacher in Korea, and I'm also speaking English as my second language. And when I was an ESL teacher at that time, teaching ESL focused on memorization of English script. So for example, hi, how are you? Should be answered with fine. Thank you. And you <laugh>? Yeah. It , it was scripted , uh, and it was not really merchant reading comprehension. So at that time, ESL and literacy were two separate fields. And in my master program in Korea, I read about brand model of reading comprehension, and I learned about kin's construction and integration model. They blew my mind. And by reading them, I expanded my perspectives. Mm-Hmm . <affirmative> . So simple truths like when reading in another language, the goal is still the same. You would like to understand the message and you would like to learn from it. And student's prior knowledge and experience matter to understand text no matter which language they are reading. And I, upon completing my master's program, I wanted to study reading completion more or so. Thankfully I ended up studying at the University of Michigan for my PhD. And one of the best things happened to me ever is I was advised by Al Duke , I was mentored by Janes Mm-Hmm . <affirmative> . And with them I studied reading comprehension, content theory , literacy and disciplinary literacy. And my dissertation focused on the role of general academic knowledge and reading motivation in reading comprehension in multilingual and monolingual student in the elementary years. And upon graduating the PhD program at the University of Michigan, another best thing happened to me was that I worked with Sonya Keval at Florida Center for Reading Research in Florida State University. She's wonderful as a scholar and mentor. Um, these are mentorship ahead reach opportunities to think about how we can better support comprehension and content knowledge in the elementary years. How we could do, how , how we could both support simultaneously. Now I am at the University of Minnesota, a general system professor at the Department of Educational Psychology. Um , I'm so grateful to be here working with my amazing faculty colleagues and mentors, especially Pan Kendall and Christian McMaster and wonderful graduate students currently. Um , my research interest revolve around comprehension and content learning in K 12 settings, particularly in multilingual learners.
Speaker 2:Mm , very interesting. And I wonder if you wouldn't mind if we could go a few steps back to when you were talking about, I think you said it was in your master's program that you were introduced to some comprehension models. Can you talk a little bit about those things that sort of blew your mind that, that you were surprised about back in in that time?
Speaker 1:Yeah. So according to the random model of reading comprehension, reading comprehension is the process of extracting and constructing meaning from text. And it includes multiple factors that can influence reading comprehension. Hmm . So I could see the complexity of the processes of reading comprehension that would influence the product of reading comprehension. And it's a kin's construction integration model that indicate that prior knowledge is influencing not only the product of reading comprehension, but also the processes of reading comprehension. The two are critical in literacy development in multilingual students, but at the time, as an ESL teacher, prior knowledge was substantially a missing piece. And based on the random model reading , it has so many factors like contextual factor reader factors, for example. So at the time I thought that, well , reading comprehension is so complex and it is some really construct. So yeah, I would better select reading comprehension as a focus of my study because it is so complicated. Mm . It'll be so interesting. That was my thought .
Speaker 2:Curiosity, huh? <laugh> . That's right.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Curiosity. Yes.
Speaker 2:I love how you talk about reading comprehension being both process and product, because for me that was a really big aha. I don't think I understood that when I was a classroom teacher. And it wasn't until, I don't know, maybe eight years ago or something that I realized that comprehension, first of all, it was very complex, but it happens during the reading process, which is just as important as that outcome for comprehension. Mm-Hmm.
Speaker 1:<affirmative> .
Speaker 2:So you, you talked a little bit about prior knowledge and we talk a little bit about background knowledge, which you talk about that too. Can you just help us understand what is background knowledge and, and how, how is prior knowledge and background knowledge the same or maybe they're different? I don't know.
Speaker 1:Well , background knowledge can be defined as knowledge stored in our long-term memory. Usually it's colors from , uh, including me. Uh , prior knowledge and background knowledge can be used interchangeably.
Speaker 2:Okay. Mm-Hmm .
Speaker 1:And to explain background knowledge in relation to reading comprehension, I would also repeat the definition of reading comprehension by random reading model. So reading comprehension can be defined as the processes of extracting and constructing meaning from text and in extracting and constructing meaning prior knowledge or background knowledge is continuously activated and integrated with ideas in text to build coherent mental representation of text.
Speaker 2:Hmm . Now, I know when I was in my undergraduate program and when I was an early teacher, the idea of activating prior knowledge was an important concept before you started reading a text. But from what you defined, it's a little more complicated than just activating prior knowledge before reading the text.
Speaker 1:Mm-Hmm, <affirmative> . Um, so to explain that I would also start this definition. Okay,
Speaker 2:Go
Speaker 1:Ahead. So activation can be defined as retrieving pieces of prior knowledge, usually at the moment of reading, also before reading text and also after reading text. And building knowledge can be defined as associating the retrieved pieces of prior knowledge with the new information provided by text being read. So this integration process can result in gaining more knowledge learning from text. So to give you an example, let's say a reader is reading about information and text about water. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> . So the text says like, water takes up 70% of earth water can take different forms, and the reader already , uh, knows the maintaining body temperature is important to survive. And now the reader started reading. And when the reader reads like the sentence, water helps maintain body temperature and the reader encounters this sentence, the piece of prior knowledge maintaining body temperature is important to survive it's activated Hmm . At the right moment. Then now the reader can integrate prior knowledge, maintaining body temperature, important to survive with the new information. Water helps maintain body temperature. And as a visual of disintegration, the reader can, can develop, gain new knowledge, new piece , um, uh, new piece of knowledge, which is we need water to survive because it helps maintain body temperature.
Speaker 2:Hmm mm-Hmm.
Speaker 1:<affirmative>.
Speaker 2:So that, that depth of comprehension, so building new knowledge and then able to comprehend more deeply maybe ? I would say yes . Yes .
Speaker 1:If the reader does not know the piece of , uh, information maintaining body temperature is important to survive and the reader encounters the information, water helps maintain body temperature, then probably the reader's comprehension would be limited to the textual information. Water helps maintained body temperature. Mm-Hmm . <affirmative> . Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> rather than integrating prior knowledge with this new information and extending the reader's knowledge to understand we need water to survive.
Speaker 2:Hmm . That makes sense. You know, this makes me think of, I think I may have this quote wrong, but I think it's actually Gina Cervetti that said that we pay more attention to actually activating this background knowledge with students than helping them sort of integrate and build this background knowledge. Do you , do you agree with that?
Speaker 1:Um, in reading research, we, the more focus was on activation of prior knowledge, so yes. Yeah . But I also like to point out that activation is critical component to build students' knowledge. So it needs to Yeah. To make the learning happen. Yeah . Prior knowledge and new information. Mm-Hmm . <affirmative> and then integration can take place.
Speaker 2:That makes a lot of sense. And , and it's again, going back to something that was an aha for me about comprehension being a process, activation of knowledge is also a process that you just don't do once before you encounter the text, but you actually do during the process of reading the text and then build knowledge. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative>.
Speaker 1:So this process can suggest potential causes of reading comprehension difficulties in relation to prior knowledge. Again, reading comprehension is so complicated. There are numerous causes for comprehension difficulties, but in relation to prior knowledge, maybe there could be several regions. Then first region is that , uh, students do not have sufficient prior knowledge. Students have weak prior knowledge, or students have difficulties in activating prior knowledge. And students have difficulties in using prior knowledge difficulties in connecting prior knowledge with new information.
Speaker 2:Hmm . Are there things, so, so given those three things that you just talked about are things, are there things that teachers can do in the classroom to try to mitigate any of those, you know, those three issues?
Speaker 1:Um, knowledge building is a way we will talk about that more later, right? Yeah. Yeah. And also teachers can provide explicit instructional support for , uh, inference making in the context of knowledge building. And our team at the University of Minnesota, including Pan Kendall and Chrisy McMaster, we just published it a piece about how we could support influential skills and knowledge building using read aloud . So interesting. Yeah. Yeah. It , it was published in reading teacher this year. Um, yeah. It was really fun to work on that manuscript. So I'll go back to the example, the water . Yeah. So let's say it's a context of read aloud and teachers were reading aloud the book and when they , when the teacher read water helps maintain body temperature Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> and then the teacher stops reading. And students, why would water important for our health asking influential questions at the moment? Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> . Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> to help , uh, students activate and integrate their prior knowledge and information. And teachers can also provide scaffolding by indicating that, well , we just learned that , um, we just learned it from text, water helps maintain body temperature. And we also know that in previous classroom we also learned that maintaining body temperature is important to survive. So teacher here pointing out the new information in text and prior knowledge that students learned from previous class. So activating prior knowledge and referring to new information. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> . So by saying, we now know that water has maintained body temperature, and we previously learned that maintaining body temperature is important to survive by connecting these two pieces of information. Now we know that we need water to survive because it helps maintain body temperature. So it's like showing the sink aloud of how influence making can take place.
Speaker 2:Oh , that's a brilliant example. Thank you for sharing that. And it reminds me of an episode we did not too long ago with Dr. Molly Ness about the interactive nature of read aloud , right?
Speaker 1:Yes . Single aloud . Yeah , yeah , yeah . Of course I listened to that. Yeah.
Speaker 2:I love that you used the read aloud in that example because , um, even younger students can help make those kind of inferential , um, connections, particularly when the teacher stops at that point and actually helps them make that connection. So thank you. Thank you for providing that.
Speaker 1:Can I point out one thing? Go ahead. Prior knowledge is really important. Yeah. But not having prior knowledge does not necessarily mean that reader will not comprehend text at all.
Speaker 2:Oh, that's a great point. So
Speaker 1:I'll borrow Kimchis words in , um, 2013. So attentive and cooperative readers will be able to draw text presentations as invited by the order of the text. So it indicates that when leaders are authentic and cooperative, so using , um, reading strategies or monitoring one's own comprehension, this can lead them to draw tax representations, but it should be still limited by the intended meaning , meaning of order . So going back to the water example, yeah . It'll be limited to , um, water helps maintain body temperature. So using strategies and monitoring comprehension processes can help them draw meaning intended by the, the, the intended message by others. But not having sufficient prior knowledge would limit the comprehension to the textual message rather than
Speaker 2:Expecting . Hmm . That makes so much sense. It makes me think a little bit about the , um, the example we always use about the importance of building background knowledge. And I think almost everybody knows about it , the baseball study, right? And, and this idea that when you have background knowledge that you bring to a text, you're better able to comprehend that. But I think, and I might be wrong about this, so you , you help keep me honest here, but what I actually think is that that background knowledge will actually help poorer readers more than it helps those students that we would consider better readers. Do I have that right? Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> . That's good to know. And it's a great reminder that activating prior knowledge, prior knowledge, whatever impacts a reader's comprehension differently based on who that reader is.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I also would like to point out that strategy instruction is also important in addition to , um, supporting prior knowledge.
Speaker 2:That's great. Tell us a little bit more about that.
Speaker 1:Uh , based on the kin's expression Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> authentic and cooperative readers, basically indicating that when readers are carefully examining their comprehension process and use strategies such as rereading, summarizing that could help them , um, withdraw meaning from text.
Speaker 2:Hmm . I think that reminds me of another episode we did too with Reed Smith who talked about it was a big surprise to him that it wasn't either background knowledge or reading strategies. You actually need strategies and service of developing background knowledge and extending background knowledge. So both of these things really need to work together. Mm-Hmm.
Speaker 1:<affirmative>.
Speaker 2:So speaking of background knowledge, let's go back then and talk a little bit about knowledge building instruction and what knowledge building means and what we need to do with that for our students.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I would like to talk about findings from my main analysis study.
Speaker 2:I'd love that. That'd be great. Yeah.
Speaker 1:With Sonya Keble and Rachel Joyner at Florida State University , uh, Florida Center for Reading Research, we analyzed 35 studies that tested integrated literacy and content area instruction to build knowledge and support literacy skills in the elementary years. And we found that the integrated approach overall when combining all kinds of measures supported reading comprehension, vocabulary development, and content knowledge development. And we also analyzed it characteristics of instruction. We found some characteristics. First texts were connected to one another around the science or social studies topics. This is related to conceptually Coran text that Gina survey already previously mentioned. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> and second vocabulary words were taught in relation to content being taught. That means vocabulary words were semantically connected to one another around content being taught. So some interventions such as more model of reading engagement by James Kim at Harvard, they use concept mapping to visually show how words are related to one another. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> and third students regularly engage in reading or read aloud discussion and or writing for the purpose of learning content and communicating their knowledge. Fourth , most interventions focused on informational text because the purpose of informational text is to convey information about the nature and social world. And when narrative textual used , it was often to introduce a topic to students. And these conceptually co text and vocabulary semantically related vocabulary words around content and regular engaging reading, writing discussion and inform usual information text. These are common characteristics. Hmm . And there were some different instructional strategies. So some intervention, usually hands-on activities. For example, science ideas by vital environments engages students in designing and conducting science experiments. So, for example, students read science text and discussed the information for the purpose of designing an experiment. Then they conducted the experiment and discussed the results , and then write the report about the results of the experiment. This way, the science ideas interventions connected reading, writing, discussion, and hands-on activities for knowledge building. And some interventions such as query by Ian colleagues, they told reading strategies and supported reading fluency in the meaningful context of knowledge building. Hmm .
Speaker 2:Hmm . Wow. That was a lot that you gained from that meta-analysis. <laugh> . And I wonder what , um, you talked about the integration of this. So it was English language arts instruction using science and social studies topics.
Speaker 1:This meta-analysis included integrated approach that took place in ELA or also content area . Okay . And some studies were not really clear Okay. In their descriptions.
Speaker 2:Okay. That, that makes sense. So when you're thinking about the results of this meta-analysis and what kind of, you know, support we can provide teachers in how to apply this meta-analysis, I know you listed some of the Im important characteristics of knowledge building, but what would you tell elementary school teachers of, you know, where , what are some ways that you can use the results of this to, to change your instruction?
Speaker 1:Good question. I actually published one practitioner paper with Sarah Lupo and Sonya Cabell and <inaudible> . We recommend that unit planning whether than individual lesson planning.
Speaker 2:Ooh , interesting.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Because this is , um, more accessible way because in knowledge building, we like to go for cultivating in-depth knowledge. That means interconnected ideas need to be told through multiple lessons , multiple classes, rather than planning individual separate lesson. First select science or social studies content to be taught Mm-Hmm . <affirmative> based on students' interests, their curiosity and science and social studies standards. Mm-Hmm . <affirmative> and use that content to plan unit rather than individual lessons. Hmm . And also select text that represent different ideas related to content. And these co conceptually related text , um, students can engage in reading about co conceptually related text throughout different lessons. They will engage in reading, they will engage in discussion about this text, and also they can write about what they read. Hmm . And also I would recommend select vocabulary words that are related to content. Hmm . So it'll be very helpful for students when teachers teach words the selective vocabulary words repeatedly and support inquiry students to use vocabulary words in their reading, writing, and discussion. Hmm . And make it clear to students that we are reading and we are discussing this topic and writing because we would like to learn , uh, more about this topic, and we would like to convey our knowledge about this topic to audience. So make it clear that these activity literacy activities are for the purpose of learning more.
Speaker 2:Hmm . That's great advice. And we'll find that article and actually link our listeners in the show notes to that so they can take a peek at that. But that's super helpful and just sort of reiterates the importance of, you know, long-term planning, but also coherency in terms of the texts that you're delivering to students to help them gain this new knowledge.
Speaker 1:Thank you.
Speaker 2:We'll be right back for this knowledge focus season of the podcast. We've asked the finalist from last year's Science of reading star awards to offer some of their thoughts and advice on knowledge building throughout this season. We've been sharing some of their insights and we've got one more message to share with you. This one from Wanda Ramirez, a second grade bilingual teacher in California. Wanda was the winner of the language luminary award, and here is some of her advice.
Speaker 3:When thinking about the role of knowledge for emergent bilingual students, I think about two things. Getting access to students' existing knowledge and building new knowledge. Finding out what your students know about a particular topic can help you figure out how to make meaningful connections to their experiences, which I think it's important and can make your instruction more culturally relevant. Once you have identified the knowledge that students are bringing, we can also build on that knowledge by using instructional strategies like visuals, key vocabulary. And in the case of bilingual students, building that bridge for them between the two languages, teaching them about cognates and relating material to students' lives as much as possible.
Speaker 2:That was Wanda Ramirez grade two teacher and amplify lead at ELs , soul Science and Arts Academy in Santa Ana, California. Wanda was the winner of the Language Luminary award. That was our final message from our cohort of 2023 Science of Reading Star Award finalists . But applications are now open for the third annual science of Reading star awards . Find out more information and submit a nomination at amplify.com/soar-star awards . And now back to our conversation with Dr. Hagen Wong . You talked a little bit about knowledge, but, but I'm gonna ask you this question about broad knowledge. Mm-Hmm.
Speaker 1:<affirmative> ,
Speaker 2:Why , why does it matter or does it matter? <laugh> , I mean, there's this idea of, well , we're gonna learn maybe, maybe four things this year, but I think you would actually say that broad knowledge, a broad knowledge base, is actually better for literacy development than, than a more narrow one.
Speaker 1:Um, I would say different types of , uh, prior knowledge all matter. Yeah. Um, then let's talk about what domain fraud knowledge is. Right. This , this should be our start point. Yeah, please. Uh , so I would like to use McCarthy McNamara 2021 article to explain what domain knowledge is, because they have really good explanation of different types of prior knowledge. So based on their explanation topic, knowledge is specific knowledge related to a topic of text. So that's related to , uh, your explanation about the baseball study topic knowledge. Okay . Yep . Talking about baseball. Right. Um , it was, it was helpful for students who were struggling in reading and they could leverage their topic knowledge to make sense of the text. Right. Mm-Hmm . <affirmative> and domain knowledge is prior knowledge, background knowledge related to field of study could say science and history and general academic knowledge is the broadest , uh, prior knowledge , um, prior knowledge or background knowledge related to more than one field of study and general academic knowledge is in the academic setting. Okay. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> and they, McCarthy and McNamara , they have, they also have good framework to explain different dimensions of prior knowledge. So in addition to think about prior knowledge as domain knowledge, general knowledge, toping knowledge, they suggest four dimensions. So amount of knowledge. Okay. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> and specificity. So age means the , uh, extent to which reader's knowledge is related to information or ideas in text and accuracy. And accuracy is very important, especially in this era of misinformation and disinformation. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> . Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> and coherence indicating how concepts or information in prior knowledge are connected to one another. So they really explained well, and this is your really interesting framework, so I highly recommend reading it. Um, so back to your question. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> , yeah . It is evident like topic knowledge. Okay. The reader knows this topic better, and this is the text about that topic. And well then the complaint on text on that topic should be easier than comprehending of a text about unfamiliar topic, right? Mm-Hmm . <affirmative> . So why would having , uh, strong domain knowledge matter? Um, well, if you have good broad knowledge, then the possibility of encountering formula information in text would be higher. Right? Right. But in addition to that, when reader have strong domain knowledge or general academic knowledge, it also means reader has a well organized it core co structure of ideas related to a domain or related to domains. So that means we don't have really good interconnected ideas, and that will expedite activation of relevant prior knowledge. And this is a good condition to enhance text memory and influence making . So when leaders have good broad knowledge, prior knowledge, then it is more likely the readers can recall text information ideas, and they can make better inferences about missing ideas in text. Also, the, the coherent structure of ideas can guide reader to understand the relations among ideas in texts . So reader with , uh, strong, broad knowledge can identify main ideas better distinguishing it from supporting ideas or example ideas. And readers who have broad domain or general academic knowledge can, are more likely to use their knowledge flexibly. So when they are reading a topic not directly related to existing knowledge, skillful readers can approach text with existing knowledge. So when, let's say the readers have really good knowledge in physics, so they are familiar with energy conservation, but they are reading a topic about cell metabolism in biology, which is not familiar, but they can approach the new topic with the existing knowledge. Mm-Hmm . And actually it has empirical evidence. So recently, pan kendale and C McMaster and I published it a paper in reading research quarterly , and we examined the directional relation between domain knowledge and reading development. And we found that , um, we observed bidirectional relation between science domain knowledge and reading throughout the elementary years from the beginning of schooling in multilingual and monolingual students.
Speaker 2:Oh , okay. So I'm gonna, I'm gonna restate that. So does that mean that that domain knowledge helped students be better reader reading comprehenders, and as they were better reading comprehenders, they were able to gain more domain knowledge? Is that the bidirectional
Speaker 1:Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> , yes. The findings suggests that,
Speaker 2:That's very interesting. And you said something about , um, even in multilingual learners, why is that so important for multilingual learners as well?
Speaker 1:Um, it's , uh, based on my previous research, the empirical evidence is really clear. Um, the positive relation between part knowledge and reading was consistently observed in different studies longitudinally and concurrently in multilingual and monolingual students. I think the process of extracting in order for the process of extracting and constructing process to happen, activating prior knowledge and connecting prior knowledge with new information, I think that's just , um, uh, essential, essential in order to make sense of text and learn from text. Hmm . Regardless of you are reading in your first language and second language. Hmm hmm .
Speaker 2:And are you, are you currently doing some research with multilingual learners? Is that right?
Speaker 1:Yes. Uh , yes. I'm currently , um, I just collected data to support , uh, science knowledge revision in young students using read aloud . Um, that includes a lot of multilingual students, but I have not yet done <laugh> data analysis.
Speaker 2:So <laugh> , what led you to want to include multilingual learners or take that, you know, obviously monolingual learners, but what led you to want to include multilingual learners in , in some of this research?
Speaker 1:It's , uh, really related to my growing up as multilingual speakers. Mm-Hmm . <affirmative> . And also I was an ESL teacher, and I could sometimes see in the field like , um, this content is too difficult for these students because they are speaking English as a second language and they are receiving more , um, basic support. I mean, this is also critical, but sometimes it is taking place at the expense of their opportunities to learn about science and social studies. And I think it is like knowledge building cannot wait . And as you can see, the reciprocal, the bi direction relation between knowledge and reading starts from the beginning of schooling. So from only grades multilingual students and monolingual students , they both need support for developing knowledge and literacy skills. Yeah. I could see some disconnect between research and practice. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> , I'm just interested in monolingual <laugh> students . Yeah. <laugh> . And also growing up as , um, like English is my second language, and as a multilingual speaker, I could see that like developing knowledge in my first language is so critical. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> . So maybe it's something that we need to do supporting students knowledge using their multilingualism. And it's also based on <inaudible> study by Proctor and his and the colleagues. And they engage students in learning about science and social studies. Also at the same time supporting their literacy skills. They develop the intervention called clavis , and they provide support, but for them by , uh, for example, providing them some instruction, language instruction, instruc first language to explain English language. And students were provided opportunity to , to speak in both languages when in the T of learning content. And they found that students who received this integrated instruction with multilingual support improve their academic language and reading comprehension .
Speaker 2:Hmm . That's really interesting. And it just speaks to knowledge development, language development in your first language or your home language can help support you. Then in another language, you said this quote, knowledge building cannot wait. Yeah. <laugh> , I love that quote.
Speaker 1:Thank you.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's really good. And to remind ourselves that it starts even knowledge building starts well before our students come to school, but it's part of our responsibility to make sure we develop that while they're in school. Well, as we wrap up, do you have any final thoughts or advice for our listeners?
Speaker 1:Um, I just would like to revisit the points that I made. Um, so knowledge building ELA instruction can support student literacy and background knowledge. This is based on meta-analysis, research evidence and background knowledge matters for both multilingual students and monolingual students reading and knowledge development. It's also based on different research findings. But I would also point out that knowledge building ELA instruction should not replace science and social studies instruction. And currently the located time for science and social studies is, is often too insufficient. Mm-Hmm. <affirmative> . So given that domain knowledge and reading have received protocol relations throughout the elementary years, neglecting either ELA or content areas would not be effective.
Speaker 2:That's great advice. And I, and I love that advice. Well, we really appreciate you coming on and sharing your knowledge about knowledge building, and we will link our listeners in the show notes to some of these resources that you talked about. Um, and thank you for the work that you're doing.
Speaker 1:Thank you so much, Susan . Thank you so much for having me today.
Speaker 2:Thanks so much for listening to my conversation with Dr. Hagen Huang , assistant professor at the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities. Please check out the show notes for links to much of Dr. Huang's research that we discussed, including her fantastic meta-analysis work. We'd be thrilled to hear your takeaways from this conversation. Please add to the conversation in our Facebook discussion group, science of Reading. The Community Science of Reading. The podcast is brought to you by Amplify. For more information on how amplify leverages the science of reading, go to amplify.com/c kla . Next time on the show, I'll be joined by Dr. Sharon Vaughn for another wide ranging conversation about the critical role of background knowledge, as well as some of her concerns about the future.
Speaker 4:I think the strength I have from being in this business for decades is that I've seen things go awry. Good things get interpreted incorrectly. I mean, the science of reading has that potential
Speaker 2:That's coming up next time. Don't miss that or any other upcoming episodes by subscribing to Science of Reading the podcast wherever you find your podcast. While you're there, please consider giving us a rating and review. Thank you again for listening.