The Cognitive Element Model of Reading Instruction

Abstract

The science of reading emphasizes explicit skills‐based reading instruction to support students’ reading acquisition. Yet, despite ample evidence of support, some students do not respond to such instruction adequately. To characterize why some students are not responsive to evidence‐based reading instruction and to inform the development of novel instructional approaches for improving responsiveness, cross‐disciplinary perspectives on cognitive and academic development are important. Based on the cognitive–academic bidirectional theory, on cognitive training transfer theory, and on various working memory–reading models, the authors propose a cognitive element model of reading instruction that provides a novel framework for considering how to embed supports for cognitive processes within evidence‐based reading instruction. Specifically, the element model emphasizes building reading fluency and comprehension/knowledge with explicit instruction. Working memory should not be considered a domain‐general construct in working memory training that aims to produce far‐transfer effects on reading outcomes. Instead of looking for far‐transfer effects, we should make outcomes (i.e., reading) near‐transfer tasks such that working memory training should be domain (material) specific, task paradigm specific, and strategy specific and assimilated within existing skill‐based reading activities. The authors review intervention studies with rigorous methodology and show promising effects of this framework. With the element model, the authors provide a foundation for considering how one can use extant knowledge of evidence‐based reading instruction together with knowledge of related skills in other domains (e.g., cognitive psychology) to maximize the efficacy of reading instruction for all students.

Evidence-Based Use of Cognitive Testing for Academic Interventions: A Critical Appraisal of Meta-Analytic Methodologies

“…Unlike other meta-analytic reviews, a random-effects model was used which provided a more methodologically defensible approach for integrating various effect sizes and as well as mixed-effects models for examining the influence of moderating variables. Overall, results were consistent with Melby-Lervåg and Hulme (2013) and suggested that WM Peng and Goodrich (2020)].…”

Beyond the Simple View of Reading: The Role of Executive Functions in Emergent Bilinguals’ and English Monolinguals’ Reading Comprehension

“…We note, however, that not all EF interventions are effective for improving reading outcomes (for a review, see Jacob & Parkinson, 2015). Domain‐specific interventions—those tied to the specific demands of literacy tasks—are more effective than domain‐general EF interventions (Melby‐Lervåg & Hulme, 2013; Peng & Goodrich, 2020), a point that should be explored in future work with EB students.…”

Structure Altering Effects of a Multicomponent Reading Intervention: An Application of the Direct and Inferential Mediation (DIME) Model of Reading Comprehension in Upper Elementary Grades

“…Recent instructional models emphasize explicit skills-based reading instruction. For example, the cognitive-element instructional model emphasizes that outcomes should consist of near-transfer tasks (e.g., inferencing) instead of, or in addition to, far-transfer effects on general outcome measures of reading (Peng & Goodrich, 2020;Van Norman et al, 2018). In addition, instruction should be taskspecific and assimilated within existing skill-based reading activities.…”