I always appreciate attention to comprehension, questioning how we are testing it, and attention to knowledge and its role in comp, but I feel called to respond to some points in this piece by Natalie Wexler in Forbes that has been retweeted a lot. 1/12 https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliewexler/2020/07/22/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-reading-comprehension/#650161b024e9

As someone with expertise in comprehension as an educator and researcher, it’s important to point out that what “goes into” reading comprehension is more than prior knowledge, vocab, and conventions of written language. What about motivation, interest, or purpose? 2/12

Has anyone ever read something to confirm what you already know? Or read something because it contradicts your viewpoint and you're curious about alternatives? How did that purpose for reading impact your understanding of that text? (and which one are you doing right now?) 3/12

Prior knowledge doesn’t just “help” you understand what you read, it SHAPES HOW you understand what you read. This matters a lot in how we approach teaching comprehension. This is coupled with the idea that comprehension is not about one “right” interpretation of a text. 4/12