Ask the Cognitive Scientist: The Usefulness of Brief Instruction in Reading Comprehension Strategies
Willingham, D. T. · 2006
grade Dreviewindependentmixed
Sample
Synthesis of the NRP + Rosenshine meta-analyses
Population
US school-age readers; argument that strategy instruction is weak before grade 3-4.
Design
Expert synthesis built on existing metas, not new data. Grade D as a standalone; the numbers it cites are C-level meta estimates.
Key findings
Argues comprehension strategies are a small, front-loaded, one-time boost (~d 0.33) that saturates in ~6-10 sessions - a low-cost 'trick' (remember to monitor/summarize), not a skill built by practice. Concludes broad vocabulary and background knowledge yield the more substantial, durable benefits.
Genetic confound
Notes 'good readers use strategies' is only correlational; frames knowledge/vocabulary (themselves heritable) as the deeper drivers.
Replication notes
Flat dose-response consistent across the strategy literature; the 'brief suffices' framing is contested by Shanahan.
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average effect of teaching a comprehension strategy | d | ~0.33 | mixed | end-of-treatment | business-as-usual | end-of-treatment | domain-skill |
| Dose-response (~6 vs ~50 sessions) | d | ~0 (saturates fast) | mixed | end-of-treatment | active-alternative | end-of-treatment | domain-skill |
Cited by
- Reading-comprehension strategy instruction (reciprocal teaching, summarizing, questioning)mixedconf: mediumgc: low