E74 | Robust Comprehension Using HQIM Featuring Dr. Dan Reynolds, Dr. Anna Jennerjohn, & Dr. Sara Rutherford-Quach

In this episode I sit down with the SRI Education research team—Dr. Dan Reynolds, Dr. Anna Jennerjohn, and Dr. Sara Rutherford-Quach—to unpack their learning brief, Beyond the Surface.

This episode explores the gap between using high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) and achieving deep, robust reading comprehension.

Read the Brief Here: https://www.sri.com/publication/education-learning-pubs/beyond-the-surface-leveraging-high-quality-instructional-materials-for-robust-reading-comprehension/

Quick Summary:

Actionable advice for coaches and school leaders to build systems that support genuine meaning-making in the classroom.

The Study: Analyzed 111 comprehension lessons across districts with mature HQIM implementation and surveyed 500+ teachers.

The Central Finding: While HQIM was consistently used, 64% of lessons focused only on surface-level objectives (completing tasks) rather than robust comprehension (building a mental model).

Episode Highlights:

Defining the crucial distinction between Surface and Robust comprehension.

Introducing the 6 high-leverage instructional practices that move the needle toward deep understanding.

Timestamps
[0:00] – Teaser: Surface vs. Robust Comprehension

[0:16] – Introduction & episode overview; Jake introduces the HQIM landscape

[1:29] – Introducing the guests and their learning brief: Beyond the Surface

[2:43] – What is HQIM and why has the term taken off so quickly?

[4:46] – Background on the study: Schusterman Family Philanthropies partnership and why SRI undertook this observational research

[7:14] – Why studying mature implementation matters — districts where HQIM had been in place for several years

[9:34] – Defining surface-level comprehension vs. robust comprehension

[20:58] – How the data was collected: 111 classroom observations, 500+ teacher surveys, 100+ interviews, 62 PLCs observed

[25:10] – Finding #1: Teachers were using their HQIM consistently (72–89% daily or almost daily)

[21:26] – Finding #2: High floor established — 98% of lessons had a comprehension purpose; but 64% of lessons set only surface-level goals

[26:06] – The “voltage drop”: how robust lessons erode

[29:57] – The six high-leverage practices for robust comprehension:

[30:11] Practice 1: Engaging students in text-specific analysis
[33:29] Practice 2: Activating and leveraging prior knowledge
[36:10] Practice 3: Explaining and modeling meaning-making
[38:48] Practice 4: Providing instructional feedback
[40:36] Practice 5: Providing opportunities for text-based reasoning
[41:59] Practice 6: Setting up peer learning opportunities
[44:25] – What surface-level instruction looks like in practice

[47:37] – It’s not a checklist: how the six practices can serve surface OR robust ends

[48:56] – Three action steps for coaches and school leaders:
[56:07] – Walkthrough tools and their limitations: why you can’t see robust comprehension in a 5-minute walkthrough

[1:00:28] – Jake’s curveball: How do standards interact with comprehension instruction? (The PLC/Norse mythology example)

[1:06:05] – Student engagement in robust vs. surface lessons — the House on Mango Street discussion example

[1:04:12] – What’s next: upcoming SRI briefs on foundational skills, multilingual learners, and knowledge-building

[1:10:17] – Optimism for the future of literacy: teachers hungry for the “how,” and a push toward more honest comprehension assessment

[1:14:25] – Jake’s Take: Reflections on HQIM as an “instructional floor,” why all three gears must turn (content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, curriculum knowledge), and a simple habit for keeping comprehension instruction tethered to meaning-making

[1:30:30] – Closing