ABSTRACT Explicitly teaching the strategy of paraphrasing to students in Year 3 increases their recall and comprehension of fictional and factual texts. Many students in the Year 3 level are able to decode and read texts, and respond to literal questions by recalling what they can remember, or copying directly from the text rather than explain or retell in their own words. When required to show comprehension of the text they experience difficulty making links to what has been read and explaining the meaning or main ideas. By explicitly teaching paraphrasing it was hoped the students would be able to recall what they had read, retell main ideas or events, and answer related literal and inferential questions in their own words. Research suggests that in order for readers to be skilled in understanding and comprehending what they read, they need to be explicitly taught skills about how to comprehend texts on many levels. At the sentence and paragraph level, paraphrasing is a suggested strategy that can be used after reading to assist with comprehension and the recalling of facts. To test the hypothesis that “explicitly teaching the strategy of paraphrasing to students in Year 3 increases their recall and comprehension of fictional and factual texts” a sequence of ten lessons and two testing sessions were conducted. A class group of eighteen Year 3 students were explicitly taught how to paraphrase and were able to practise the strategy when responding to comprehension questions both orally and written. This project found that, overall, most students showed improvement in their listening comprehension and recall of main ideas and events, their reading comprehension of fiction and factual texts, and their response to questions both literal and inferential. Students who scored below expectation on pre-tests showed a significant increase in post-test scores in most cases. The implications for teaching comprehension strategies are that for readers to gain meaning from texts, they need to be able to predict and answer questions before, during and after reading. Students need to be explicitly taught reading and comprehension strategies including paraphrasing to improve their recall and understanding of what has been read.
Microsoft Word - MCronin.docABSTRACT
Explicitly teaching the strategy of paraphrasing to students in
Year 3 increases
their recall and comprehension of fictional and factual
texts.
Many students in the Year 3 level are able to decode and read
texts, and respond to
literal questions by recalling what they can remember, or copying
directly from the text
rather than explain or retell in their own words. When required to
show comprehension
of the text they experience difficulty making links to what has
been read and explaining
the meaning or main ideas. By explicitly teaching paraphrasing it
was hoped the
students would be able to recall what they had read, retell main
ideas or events, and
answer related literal and inferential questions in their own
words. Research suggests
that in order for readers to be skilled in understanding and
comprehending what they
read, they need to be explicitly taught skills about how to
comprehend texts on many
levels. At the sentence and paragraph level, paraphrasing is a
suggested strategy that
can be used after reading to assist with comprehension and the
recalling of facts.
To test the hypothesis that “explicitly teaching the strategy of
paraphrasing to
students in Year 3 increases their recall and comprehension of
fictional and
factual texts” a sequence of ten lessons and two testing sessions
were conducted. A
class group of eighteen Year 3 students were explicitly taught how
to paraphrase and
were able to practise the strategy when responding to comprehension
questions both
orally and written.
This project found that, overall, most students showed improvement
in their listening
comprehension and recall of main ideas and events, their reading
comprehension of
fiction and factual texts, and their response to questions both
literal and inferential.
Students who scored below expectation on pre-tests showed a
significant increase in
post-test scores in most cases.
The implications for teaching comprehension strategies are that for
readers to gain
meaning from texts, they need to be able to predict and answer
questions before,
during and after reading. Students need to be explicitly taught
reading and
comprehension strategies including paraphrasing to improve their
recall and
understanding of what has been read.
2
Introduction
From data previously collected at the Year 3 level, it was found
that many students
were able to decode and read texts at an age appropriate level, but
had poor recall and
comprehension of the material read. The students were able to
respond to literal
questions if the answers were directly located within the text and
most were copying
from the text or repeating what they could remember rather than
attempting to explain
or retell in their own words. When required to demonstrate their
comprehension of
texts, both orally and written, they experienced difficulty making
links to what had been
read and explaining the meaning or main ideas in the text. This
concern with reading
comprehension was also raised in the school review report that
particularly examined
previous AIM results for reading comprehension in Years 3.
Research suggests that in order for readers to be skilled in
understanding and
comprehending what they read, they need to be explicitly taught
skills about how to
comprehend texts on many levels. At the sentence and paragraph
level, paraphrasing
is a suggested strategy that can be used after reading to assist
students with
comprehension and the recalling of facts. Paraphrasing has been
defined as “a
rewording of something spoken or written, usually for the purpose
of making its
meaning clearer … the use of this as a literary or teaching
device”. (Webster’s
Dictionary, 2005) By explicitly teaching the selected group
paraphrasing skills, as a
whole class, and practising the skills in small group situations,
it was expected that the
students would be able to recall what they had read, retell main
ideas or events, and
answer related literal and inferential questions related to the
text in their own words.
Paraphrasing can prove to be a challenge for students who
experience difficulty at the
sentence level and tend to rewrite or retell in single words, or
remembered phrases
from a text previously read.
In research undertaken by Katims and Harris (1997) it was shown
that “The
paraphrasing strategy has been demonstrated to significantly
increase the reading
comprehension of students with and without learning difficulties.”
(p.118) In their study,
it was found that “… students with learning disabilities who
learned and used the
paraphrasing strategy increased their ability to answer
comprehension about materials
3
written at their grade level … the more paraphrasing a student did,
the higher was his
or her comprehension score.” (p.118)
In their research, Parker, Hasbrouck and Denton (2002) defined
comprehension in
reading as the reader understanding what is read. The research
identifies students who
experience difficulties in reading as those who do not understand
key words or
sentences, cannot link sentences within a text to each other, and
cannot successfully fit
the information contained in a text together in a meaningful way.
Some students
experience greater difficulty getting meaning from texts than with
oral reading accuracy
or fluency. The use of comprehension strategies helps students to
maintain interest
and concentration when reading, and to understand key words, key
sentences, how
sentences relate to one another, and how information fits together
in a meaningful way.
Students who fail to understand key words and key sentences often
demonstrate poor
comprehension skills. (Parker, Hasbrouck, and Denton, 2002) The
teaching strategy
introduced by Parker, Hasbrouck and Denton (2002) moves from
paraphrasing single
sentences, to several connected sentences, to paragraphs, and is
known as the “What
did it say?” approach, which is similar to the Paraphrasing
Strategy described by
Schumaker, Denton and Deshler (1984) in their research. In the
Paraphrasing Strategy
(Schumaker, Denton and Deshler, 1984) students are taught to use a
reading
comprehension strategy by applying the acronym RAP:
• Read a paragraph
• Ask yourself, “What were the main ideas and details in this
paragraph?”
• Put the main idea and details into your own words.
When defining “effective learning strategies that really work”,
Boudah and O’Neill (1999)
include the paraphrasing strategy in addition to several others.
They state that “each
strategy has multiple parts that students remember with the aid of
a mnemonic” and
give the example of the paraphrasing strategy by which “students
learn a reading
comprehension strategy that is remembered by the acronym RAP …”
(Boudah and
O’Neill 1999). They include the observation that “students
typically learn to use a
learning strategy in small groups … through short, intensive
lessons over several
weeks.” (Boudah and O’Neill 1999)
In the article “Paraphrasing for Comprehension”, Fisk and Hurst
(2003) state that “…
when students are taught a technique for how to paraphrase text,
paraphrasing can
strengthen comprehension of both fiction and non-fiction.” (p.182)
They report that their
4
research has “… found paraphrasing for comprehension to be an
excellent tool for
reinforcing reading skills such as identifying the main ideas,
finding supporting details,
and identifying the author’s voice.” (p.182) They believe the
reason for the success of
paraphrasing “… is because it integrates all modes of communication
– reading, writing,
listening, and speaking – which lead to a deeper understanding of
the text.” (p.182)
They conclude their article with the statement that “Paraphrasing
for comprehension is
an effective reading strategy that helps students process and
comprehend what they
are reading and learning.” (p.182)
“One of the most crucial elements of supporting reading development
is the explicit
teaching of reading strategies so readers are able to access their
prior knowledge
during reading … A reader must actively integrate a range of
strategies, including both
word identification and comprehension strategies … The teaching of
comprehension
and word identification strategies is essential.” (First Steps,
2007 p.112) Research into
reading has identified processes commonly used by efficient or
skilled readers.
“Efficient readers are active as they read, simultaneously using a
range of processes to
identify unknown words and comprehend text.” (First Steps, 2007
p.113) They … “ask
themselves what is most important in this phrase, sentence,
paragraph, chapter …”
(First Steps, 2007 p.120) As part of the process of determining the
importance of
information, the skills of summarising and paraphrasing are used to
identify, record, and
write the key ideas and main points or most important information
from a text. Students
use the Paraphrasing Strategy to improve reading comprehension of
main ideas and
details through paraphrasing. Paraphrasing refers to the restating
or re-writing of text
into other words and involves the identifying, recording and
writing of the key ideas,
main points or most important information from a text into your own
words. (First Steps,
2007) When reading an unfamiliar text, readers align what they are
reading with
previous knowledge and accumulate and store new knowledge, about
vocabulary,
sentence structures, topics, content knowledge, values, attitudes,
etc., into their long-
term memory. By teaching students comprehension strategies, such as
paraphrasing,
using synonyms, rereading and retelling, they will be able to make
the links.
This study aims to explicitly teach the paraphrasing strategy to
all students in a Year 3
class group, as a means of providing the students with a strategy
to help them improve
their recall and comprehension of fictional and factual texts, and
to effectively respond
to literal and inferential comprehension questions.
5
Method
Design:
The design of the present investigation uses the combination of a
time series (one
group pre-test – post-test) design and an OXO (observe, treatment,
observe) design,
during which the progress made in reading comprehension, following
the explicit
teaching of the paraphrasing strategy, is monitored and compared.
This design was
used as a single group of students in the same year level were
selected, “pretested,
given some treatment or independent variable manipulation
(intervention), then post
tested.” (Dictionary of Psychology, 2001) There was no control
group; therefore, all
students received the same input when being taught how to use
paraphrasing. A class
group of eighteen Year 3 student were explicitly taught how to
paraphrase and were
able to practise the strategy when responding to comprehension
questions both orally
and written. The students were divided into three teaching groups
and given the same
texts, instruction and questions. There was no additional support
given to the less
capable readers who were experiencing difficulty with
comprehension. The texts used,
both fiction and factual, were related to the Enquiry Unit of work
currently being studied.
The students were assessed at the beginning of the investigation to
ascertain their
comprehension levels when reading fiction and factual texts. The
students were
explicitly taught the strategy of paraphrasing; then the group was
post tested using the
same or similar standardised tests. The structure of the sessions
was based on an
adaptation of “Teaching a Paraphrasing Strategy” (Munro 2007),
using whole group and
small group teaching situations. There were two testing sessions
(pre-test and post
test), and ten teaching sessions. Teaching sessions were for
approximately 50 - 60
minutes, over a period of three weeks. During the teaching
sessions, the students were
to be taught the paraphrasing strategy, the acronym R.A.P.
(Appendix 4) and given the
opportunity to articulate what they were doing before, during and
after reading and how
R.A.P. would help them understand what they were reading
about.
6
Participants:
The participants were all Year 3 students in the same class group;
these students were
also in the same Year 2 group and had the same teachers. The group
consisted of 18
students, six of which had received Reading Recovery support in
Year 1. One student
was a New Arrival, arriving in Australia nine month previous. Being
a small class size, it
was decided to expose all students to the strategy so all could
benefit from the explicit
teaching and practising of paraphrasing skills.
Previous data collection and records indicated that the students
were all capable
readers, scoring a reading level of 28+ (at the end of Year 2), but
current testing scores
showed most to be below average reading age and comprehension level
for Year 3,
both for literal and inferential comprehension. This was evident by
the AIM data
analysed during the pre-test session. Most students could decode
texts at the word
level but had difficulty in processing the text for meaning at the
sentence and paragraph
levels, both fiction and factual texts.
At the time of pre-testing, the students ranged in age from 7 years
7 months to 9 years
9 months, and showed a wide variety of reading ages and abilities.
(Table 1) It was
found that two of the more fluent readers (Student C and Student O)
had difficulty
processing text for meaning rather than at the word level where
they could decode and
locate words in a text, but were unable to successfully identify
the main facts and ideas
when answering questions. Their scores were below the expected for
Year 3. Six
students in the class scored below their chronological age in
reading by at least 9
months (Students C, F, H, M, O, R) and this was of concern
particularly for Student R
who is 8 months older than the next nearest student in age.
By comparing results from the pre-tests with the post tests, it was
hoped to ascertain if
exposing the whole class to the teaching strategy of paraphrasing
has the same impact
for all students in the Year 3 level, which students made the most
significant gains, and
which students would require further support with reading and
comprehending texts.
7
y m Aural comp
BURT Word
AIM 2006
A* 8 3 6 3 98 8 4 100 6 29 29 11 B’ 7 7 5 4 107 9 5 113 10 52 46 12
C 8 5 9 5 94 7 8 92 9 46 64 13 D 8 3 9 12 120 12 8 152 17 91 70 23
E 8 1 8 4 103 9 1 108 10 52 56 13 F 8 10 7 4 90 6 10 82 11 58 50
9
G* 9 1 5 2 105 10 7 127 14 76 54 14 H* 7 10 3 0 89 6 1 73 3 13 30
14 I 8 5 5 2 105 9 9 117 18 96 58 13
J* 8 0 13 10 100 8 4 100 16 87 59 20 K 8 4 6 1 100 8 7 103 11 58 47
12 L 8 8 11 15 105 10 2 122 20 99 61 17
M* 8 2 5 3 89 6 6 78 8 40 49 6 N* 8 0 4 3 112 9 0 108 18 96 45 12 O
8 4 8 7 93 7 3 87 10 52 45 20 P 8 6 12 10 110 11 0 132 18 96 45 21
Q 8 5 3 2 104 9 9 117 18 96 56 13 R 9 9 4 5 98 9 0 108 15 82 46 18
18 20 24 20 99 110 28
* Reading Recovery (Year 1); B’ New Arrival (9 months)
Materials:
The materials selected for this investigation included the
following:
• Assessment / Testing tools:
• TORCH – At the Zoo (pre-test); Lizards Love Eggs
(post-test)
• BURT Word (pre / post test)
• AIM 2007 – Reading (pre-test); AIM 2006 – Reading
(post-test)
• Teacher designed comprehension questions (literal and
inferential) related to
texts.
• The Magic School Bus On The Ocean Floor, J. Cole
• Longneck’s Billabong, A. Coleridge
8
• Factual Texts:
• Frog Habitat, Where Have the Frogs Gone? p.5-9, Barrie Books
4A
• What is a Habitat? Habitats, p.1, Barrie Books 3A
• Wetlands, Habitats p.16-19, Barrie Books 3A
• Australian Crocodiles, Class Ideas K-3 No.40 p.38
• Habitats, Class Ideas K-3 No.33 p.41
• Other Materials:
• Reading cards – made for selected texts, both fiction and
factual
• Comprehension / Paraphrase lesson format (Munro 2007)
Procedure:
• Test Tasks:
The tasks were administered to all students in the Year 3 class
group. All tasks, except
BURT Word test, were given to the whole class at the same time,
with the students
separated and working on the tasks individually.
Aural / listening comprehension and retell was scored after the
students had listened to
a passage read aloud (Listening Comprehension Task - Munro, 2007).
The students
were required to listen to the whole passage then write as much of
the story as they
could remember. Prompts were used when the students had stopped
writing; e.g. Who
was in the story? What happened? Students needed to retell events
in sequence and
results were scored out of a possible 20 points. A similar teacher
designed passage
was used for the post-test. (Appendix 2)
Paraphrasing ability was assessed using the Group Administration
Paraphrasing Task
(Munro 2005), prior to beginning the teaching sessions. Many
students were not able to
paraphrase, as they did not demonstrate knowledge of “paraphrasing”
as a strategy. As
a group they had not been taught the skills needed to paraphrase.
They were able to
suggest other words for a given word (synonyms), when they
recognised individual
words and were prompted for suggestions. For both the pre-test and
the post-test, only
sentences 1-12 were used with a total possible score of 24.
9
The Reading Progress Test 3 was used as the pre-test to determine
the reading age of
students prior to teaching the strategy, and Reading Progress Test
3 was re-
administered for the post-test (as this test was appropriate for
Assessing Year 3
students in June/July). The RPT tests are designed to monitor the
reading
comprehension and reading age of students and “assess a wide range
of literal and
inferential skills and reading vocabulary, using test items and
text passages of varying
content and length.” (RPT Manual) The format of the RPT 3 is
similar to the AIM
Reading Tests, in that it has a variety of reading passages, both
fiction and factual, and
multiple choice style questions. Questions relating to texts assess
both literal and
inferential comprehension. As with AIM there are 4-5 questions per
text type, including
literal and inferential. The “tests are made up of three main types
of comprehension
questions: identifying the meaning of individual words; selecting
the right answer from a
number of choices after reading a short story, non-fiction passage
or poem; and
choosing, or supplying, missing words in a short story or
non-fiction passage.” (RPT
Manual 2 p.7) The theme for RPT 3 is “Parrots”. (Appendix 3)
Following the initial
testing, students were assigned to three small groups based on the
results of RPT 3.
(Table 2) Scores for AIM and TORCH were also considered when
forming the groups.
The students worked in the same three groups for all ten teaching
sessions.
Word reading accuracy was assessed using BURT Word List, using Dec.
2007 scores
as the pre-test data, and May 2008 as the post-test data. The BURT
word test was
used to rank the students’ knowledge of words in isolation and
determine the strategies
used to decode unknown words.
All students were assessed for comprehension accuracy using Tests
of Reading
Comprehension (TORCH). The TORCH reading passage “At The Zoo” was
used as a
pre-test and the raw and percentile rank scores were recorded. As a
post-test passage
“Lizards Love Eggs” (TORCH) was used and the same score data was
recorded. Both
TORCH passages were fictional texts and required the students to
read the text and
complete cloze passages, by filling in gaps using one or more of
their own words.
10
Table 2: Small Groups
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Student RA1 AIM Torch Student RA1 AIM Torch
Student RA1 AIM Torch
H 73 14 13 J 100 20 87 I 117 13 96 M 78 6 40 K 103 12 58 Q 117 13
96 F 82 9 58 E 108 13 52 L 122 17 99 O 87 20 52 R 108 18 82 G 127
14 76 C 92 13 46 N 108 12 96 P 132 21 46 A 100 11 29 B 113 12 52 D
152 23 91
• Teaching Sessions
Sessions were planned as a unit of ten lessons, following the
pre-testing sessions. The
structure of the lessons followed the format of whole class, small
groups with a
focussed teaching group, and whole class. The initial share session
of each lesson was
for approximately 20 minutes, during which the whole class was
introduced to the text,
and given the opportunity to practise paraphrasing skills. The next
20 - 30 minutes, the
students worked on Task centre activities, with one group being the
“Teaching Group”.
As there were three teaching groups, and fifteen possible teaching
sessions, each
group had five focussed teaching sessions on the paraphrasing
strategy. During the
final 10 minutes of the reading session, the class came back
together to share,
articulate and reflect on their learning.
The sessions were conducted during the Literacy Sessions over a
period of three
weeks, using reading materials related to the Integrated Enquiry
Unit “Wetland
Environment”. Students were supported in the practice of the
strategy and skills during
teaching groups. To help them articulate what they meant when they
paraphrased a
sentence of paragraph, they used the self-script of RAP:
Read the text (sentence or paragraph)
Ask yourself “what are the main ideas and details?”
Put the ideas into your own words and change as many words as you
can.
During the whole class lesson focus, students reflected on the text
read at the previous
session, before a new text was introduced and “read to”, “read
with”, or “read by” the
students, a sentence or paragraph at a time. As a group, students
identified key words
and phrases or main ideas, and brainstormed synonyms for new words
in the text.
11
Individual students retold and paraphrased what they had heard or
read, sentence by
sentence, and discussed links to the previous sentence. Texts for
shared reading were
used for 3-5 sessions.
In the small group sessions (groups of 6 students, selected on
their reading ages in
months based on their pre-test RA1 scores – Table 2), students read
texts (shared
reading, guided reading, or independent reading), suggested
synonyms for new words,
paraphrased, and answered literal and inferential comprehension
questions, either
verbally or written in their own words. Groups were based on
students being at similar
stages of reading development. Students were introduced a new text
and encouraged
to predict the content and possible words that might be found in
the text. They then
read the text silently, identified new words, and gave a synonym
for selected words.
They then took turns to read aloud the text sentence by sentence,
and retell in their own
words.
To conclude the reading sessions, students were given the
opportunity to share or
articulate what they had learnt about the strategy of paraphrasing
and how RAP had
helped them with their reading and answering of comprehension
questions. They were
also asked what words they were able to change in the text and give
an example of a
sentence they had paraphrased, or the answer to a question they had
written in their
own words.
• Lesson Sequence
The first two sessions (1 and 2) were aimed at introducing the
strategy of paraphrasing,
using synonyms, and the meaning and use of the acronym R.A.P.
(Appendix 1)
• Introduction / revision of the term “synonym”
• Introduction to the shared text
• Shared reading of the text
• Identifying new words and main ideas in the text
• Demonstration of paraphrasing
• Practise paraphrasing sentences
• GROUP SESSION: See Lesson Format for Reading Groups (Appendix
1)
12
• Reflection / Articulation of learning
The following eight sessions (3 – 10) were designed on the
plan:
• Retelling text from the previous session
• Introduction of new, shared text
• Shared reading of the text – read to, read with, read by the
students
• Discussion of main parts / ideas in the text
• Identifying new words / phrases and listing synonyms
• Practise paraphrasing sentences
• GROUP SESSION:
• Reflection / Articulation of learning
In the Task Centres / Teaching Groups, the lesson followed the
plan:
• Introduction to the new text
• Silent Reading of new text
• Reading new text aloud
• Identify new words and phrases and give synonyms
• Paraphrasing sentences from the text
• Discussion of responses
• Comprehension questions based on the text – literal and
inferential
When the sequence of sessions was completed, the group was
re-assessed using the
same assessment tools and results recorded (Table 3) and
compared.
13
Results
The results show that after the explicit teaching of paraphrasing
there was an
improvement in the students’ comprehension levels within the Year 3
class group.
Often the students who attained low scores on the pre-tests showed
more significant
improvement in the post-test results. (Table 3) Depending on the
testing task, some
students performed better on tasks where reading / decoding demands
were less and
the task / text was presented in manageable sections. A range of
assessment tasks
was presented, enabling all students to show improvement in at
least two different
tasks: Aural / Listening Comprehension, Paraphrasing, Reading
Progress Test,
TORCH, Burt Reading Word Test, and AIM. The pre-test and post-test
scores for each
of the assessment tasks were converted to graph format so
comparisons could be
analysed.
y m Aural comp
BURT Word
AIM 2007
A* 8 5 9 12 97 8 1 -3 18 90 39 10 B’ 7 9 13 10 117 9 9 4 17 84 49
10 C 8 7 14 17 117 9 9 25 11 49 67 14 D 8 5 18 21 181 15 1 29 20 99
72 26 E 8 3 12 11 113 9 5 5 19 96 65 18 F 9 0 12 11 117 9 9 35 12
55 51 11
G* 9 3 11 11 132 11 0 5 16 78 57 18 H* 8 0 10 10 100 8 4 27 18 90
50 22 I 8 7 15 14 161 13 5 44 14 67 64 17
J* 8 2 18 14 181 15 1 81 17 84 69 26 K 8 6 10 11 122 10 2 19 14 67
52 15 L 8 10 16 20 161 13 5 39 19 96 74 23
M* 8 4 8 14 117 9 9 39 16 78 50 12 N* 8 2 12 10 117 9 9 9 16 78 55
16 O 8 6 14 17 132 11 0 45 17 84 55 24 P 8 8 19 16 152 12 8 20 18
90 63 21 Q 8 7 12 10 122 10 2 5 17 84 61 16 R 9 11 11 12 142 11 10
34 20 99 58 17 18 20 24 20 99 110 28
* Reading Recovery (Year 1); B’ New Arrival (9 months) All students
showed improvement in Aural / Listening comprehension. Scores in
the
pre-test ranged from 3 to 13 out of a possible 20 facts that could
be recalled. Post-test
scores ranged from 8 to 19. (Graph 1)
14
Graph 1: Aural / Listening Comprehension Task (Pre-Test and
Post-Test Results)
Student: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R (Pre-test scores –
blue; Post-test scores – red) Students H and Q received the lowest
scores on the pre-test, but made significant
gains, at least 7 more facts were included in their retelling of
the passage (See
Appendix 2). Students J and P who had higher pre-test scores, made
gains of 5-7
remembered facts. Overall, all students were able to improve their
scores by at least 3
points, after listening to a text, asking themselves what were the
main ideas and details,
and writing what they could remember in their own words / using
some remembered
words from the text.
The Paraphrasing Task post-test clearly showed that all students
had demonstrated
understanding of how to paraphrase and use synonyms when writing
sentences in their
own words. When completing literal and inferential comprehension
questions based on
the texts read during the teaching sessions, all students were able
to write answers in
their own words rather than copying directly from the text. They
used the self-talk
mnemonic R.A.P. after reading to verbalise paraphrasing skills. By
changing words
(using synonyms) and retain the meaning of sentences, the students
showed they were
able to paraphrase. By recording the results of the Paraphrasing
Tasks in graph format,
it can be seen that all students made significant gains, the most
significant being
Student H who scored 0 on the pre-test and 10 on the post-test, out
of a possible 24
(Graph 2).
Graph 2: Paraphrasing Task (Pre-Test and Post-Test Results)
Student: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R (Pre-test scores –
blue; Post-test scores – red) Student L, a capable reader and
imaginative writer, increased her score by 5 points. All
other students showed an improvement of at least 6 points. When
initially allocating the
students to reading groups, Students H, M, F, O, C and A scored the
lowest reading
levels and also had low scores in the paraphrasing pre-test. Each
student in this group
showed significant improvement by scoring at least 10 points higher
in their post-test
results.
Before reading the texts presented in the Reading Progress Test,
the students were
reminded to use R.A.P. (paraphrasing) before attempting to answer
the questions.
There was no time limit and all students completed the task. The
RPT appeared to be
easier as students scored higher results, except Student A (Graph
3). In comparison to
the administration of the AIM Reading test, the students did not
have a time limit, they
were reminded to use R.A.P before reading, the texts appeared to be
presented in
manageable sized paragraphs, and the same texts had been used as
the pre-test. This
is possibly the reason why the scores for the RPT post-test were
better than those of
the AIM post-test (Table 3). When marking the RPT, the standard
score and reading
age were calculated and pre-test and post-test scores were
compared. The
standardised score indicates how a student is performing relative
to other readers of the
same age. The standard score have a mean of 100; so the closer the
score is to 100,
the closer the student is to the average or norm for their age
group. All students, except
Student A scored a standard at or above 100, which indicated, at
this present time, all
students are reading at their expected age level and the texts used
for this test were
age appropriate.
16
Graph 3: Reading Progress Test - Standard Scores (Pre-Test and
Post-Test Results)
Student: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R (Pre-test scores –
blue; Post-test scores – red)
The TORCH test was used to estimate the students’ reading
comprehension
achievement. Each student received a scaled score that can be used
to compare
individual results with the whole class. As the data for the
pre-test had previously been
collected the scores for the text “At the Zoo” were used. The
closest passage with
similar item difficulty (“Lizards Love Eggs”) was used for the
post-test, even though this
was considered to be a less demanding task. The raw score and
percentile rank for
each student were recorded. Percentile ranks show the percentage of
the “reference
group” with scores below the student’s score. Graph 4 shows the
percentile rank both
pre-test and post-test for all students. The “descriptive
interpretation” statements
outline the typical reading achievements of students within regions
along the TORCH
scale. (Detailed statements are contained in the TORCH Teacher
Manuel p. 27) The
scale scores were used to match the results to the statements that
describe the skills
the students have already developed and are expected to develop.
(Table 4)
17
Graph 4: TORCH Percentile Rank (Pre-test and Post-test
Scores)
Student: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R (Pre-test scores –
blue; Post-test scores – red)
From Graph 4, it can be seen that the majority of students
performed better on the post-
test when percentile ranks were compared. Students who scored
higher in the pre-test
did not as greater gain in the post-test as those who scored lower.
Student D, who
scored 17 on the pre-test, scored a total of 20 on the post-test,
but Student L scored 20
on the pre-test and only a score of 17 on the post-test; Students
I, N, P, and Q scored
18 0n the pre-test, but scored at or below 18 on the post-test.
This is probably due to
students achieving high scores in the pre-test do not have much
scope to improve and
increase their scores. Although Students F and J scored attained a
raw score of 1 point
higher, when the score was converted to a percentile rank, their
results show a score of
slightly less on Graph 4.
18
Table 4: TORCH Description of Reading Achievement for Post-Test
Results Students Raw
Score Scale Score
Description of Reading Achievement
D R 20 63.9 Reconstruct the writer’s general message from specific
statements E L 19 56.5 Draw an inference using knowledge of
cultural values A H P 18 51.1 Draw together several pieces of
implied information to infer a
relationship that is not directly stated B J O Q 17 47.5 Locate a
single piece of explicitly stated information when there is
closely competing information G M N 16 44.7 Locate explicitly
stated information when the information is not
prominent 15 42.3 Draw together pieces of explicitly stated
information to infer a
relationship I K 14 40.2 13 38.2 Provide a detail in the presence
of competing answers F 12 36.4 C 11 34.6 Draw together pieces of
explicitly stated information across
sentences 10 32.8 9 31.0 Draw together information across sentences
to infer a relationship 8 29.2 7 27.4 Provide a main detail of a
story given multiple explicit references 6 25.5 5 23.4 Complete
rephrased sentences 4 21.0 3 18.2 Complete very simple rewordings 2
14.6 Complete sentences copied verbatim The Burt Word Reading Test
was used to assess word accuracy. For this group of
students, the December 2007 scores were used as the pre-test data,
and May 2008 as
the post-test scores (Table 3). The Burt Word Test was used to rank
the students’
knowledge of words in isolation and determine the strategies used
to decode unknown
words. On the record sheet, strategies that students used to decode
unknown words
were noted – “sounding out”, breaking words into syllables,
awareness of blends (onset
and rime), similarity to known words, etc. Raw scores for pre-test
and post-test (Graph
5) show all students to have improved their scores for word
recognition over the past
five months. When interpreting the Burt Word Test, the raw scores
were placed on
Equivalent Age Bands (EAB) for “Boys and Girls” (Table 5) which
compares reading
age (in bands) at the word level to chronological age. The Burt
Word Reading Test EAB
for individual students “may provide a guide to suitable graded
reading material.”
(Gilmore, Croft and Reid 1981 pg. 7) Further analysis of test
errors can be used to
identify specific difficulties with word recognition and strategies
used for decoding e.g.
19
breaking words into syllables / onset and rime, pronunciation of
consonant and vowel
sounds and blends.
Graph 5: Burt Reading Word Test (Pre-test and Post-test
Scores)
Student: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R (Pre-test scores –
blue; Post-test scores – red)
Table 5: Burt Word Reading Test Scores Compared to Equivalent Age
Bands Student Raw Score
Dec EAB
May EAB
Boys and Girls Chronological
Age A 29 6.7 – 7.1 39 7.5 – 7.11 8.5 B 46 8.0 – 8.6 49 8.3 – 8.9
7.9 C 64 10.0 – 10.6 67 10.4 – 10.10 8.7 D 70 10.9 – 11.3 72 11.0 –
11.6 8.5 E 56 8.11 – 9.5 65 10.2 – 10.8 8.3 F 50 8.4 – 8.10 51 8.5
– 8.11 9.0 G 54 8.9 – 9.3 57 9.1 – 9.7 9.3 H 30 6.8 – 7.2 50 8.4 –
8.10 8.0 I 58 9.2 – 9.8 64 10.0 – 10.6 8.7 J 59 9.4 – 9.10 69 10.7
– 11.1 8.2 K 47 8.1 – 8.7 52 8.6 – 9.0 8.6 L 61 9.8 – 10.2 74 11.3
– 11.9 8.10 M 49 8.3 – 8.9 50 8.4 – 8.10 8.4 N 45 7.11 – 8.5 55
8.10 – 9.4 8.2 O 45 7.11 – 8.5 55 8.10 – 9.4 8.6 P 45 7.11 – 8.5 63
9.11 – 10.5 8.8 Q 56 8.11 – 9.5 61 9.8 – 10.2 8.7 R 46 8.0 – 8.6 58
9.2 – 9.8 9.11 18 110 110
20
When analysing students’ reading age using equivalent age bands, it
must be noted
that bands are approximately a six-month interval. Using the data
(Table 5), it can be
seen that Student A, aged 8 years and 5 months, in comparison with
other students of
the same chronological age has an EAB of 6.7 to 8.4, which
indicates that he / she
recognises and pronounces words approximately 2 years below the
level of students his
/ her own age. Also of concern with reading at the word level are
Student F and
Student R. Student F is reading words at least 1 month below he
word level, other
students Student F is 1 month below; and Student R at least 3
months below. For
these three students, this difficulty with words recognition is
also reflected in their
spelling and writing of words. Through introducing paraphrasing,
all students were able
to locate key words in texts. Students A, F and R could give
synonyms for words, as
spelling was not taken into consideration when scoring the
suggested words.
The AIM tasks included fiction and non-fiction texts, and assessed
a variety of reading
comprehension skills. (Appendix 3) The AIM post-test was used as a
“practice” for
NAPLAN. It will be interesting to see the results that this class
of students will score on
NAPLAN. As can be seen from Graph 6, some students did not achieve
an improved
score for the post-test. This is possibly due to the format and
content of the reading
tasks: there was a time limit, the answers were multiple-choice,
the texts appeared
daunting to some of the weaker readers, and several students said
they did not use
R.A.P after they had read the texts because they were not allowed
to talk.
Graph 6: AIM Reading Task (Pre-test 2007 and Post-test 2006
Scores)
Student: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R (Pre-test scores –
blue; Post-test scores – red)
21
DISCUSSION
The results of this project and the data collected and analysed,
supported and
confirmed the initial hypothesis that “explicitly teaching the
strategy of paraphrasing
to students in Year 3 increases their recall and comprehension of
fictional and
factual texts”. Overall, the students in Year 3 have shown
improvement in reading
scores on a variety of tasks and tests. Paraphrasing has provided
the students with
another strategy and set of skills to assist them with reading and
comprehension. This
strategy will need to continue to be reinforced so it becomes an
automatic response that
students can rely upon when required to make meaning of
texts.
As “Reading is a complex set of skills and successful reading …
involves achievement
in a number of areas such as comprehension, vocabulary, and speed
of reading as well
as word recognition” (Gilmore, Croft and Reid pg. 3) it is
important to teach a variety of
strategies to assist reader with making meaning of texts. In their
research studies,
Parker, Hasbrouck and Denton (2002), and Fisk and Hurst (2003),
suggest that
explicitly teaching students learning strategies of how to
comprehend and understand
will improve their comprehension of texts. Paraphrasing is only one
of the strategies
that readers can use.
The paraphrasing teaching unit enabled students to improve their
comprehension of
texts at the sentence and paragraph levels, identifying key words
and locating main
ideas. Paraphrasing sentences makes the reader aware of the meaning
of each
sentence and how it relates to the sentence before and after.
As listening comprehension precedes reading comprehension, it was
important to
include “Read To” sessions in the lesson sequence, and to assess
the students’ aural /
listening comprehension before and after teaching the strategy of
paraphrasing.
Opportunities for students to listen to texts being read enables
them to focus on
listening comprehension and on building meaning without having to
decode and
process at the same time. Reading to students provides models of
phrasing, fluency
and intonation, and allows students to engage in discussion before
and after reading. It
was found that most students with low listening scores initially,
only remembered the
beginning or final phrases. After teaching paraphrasing skills, the
students were able to
recall and remember more ideas from a text. Shared reading of texts
allowed for the
22
students to reinforce the paraphrasing strategy introduced, and
during small group
sessions, students read with greater comprehension as evidenced
through their
responses to both literal and inferential questions based on the
texts.
Data was used to inform the text selections, and the grouping of
students. Students
who scored below the expected level on most of the pre-tests made
significant gains in
the post-tests. Scores recorded for the AIM Reading tests did not
show significant
differences between the pre-test and post-test. Although Katim and
Haris (1997) used
a similar multiple-choice type assessment tool for their study,
including ten questions
involving recall and understanding, to support their study, the use
of AIM in this study
was not the best indicator of gains made by the students in the
Year 3 group. This may
need to be a consideration when assessing student reading; not all
student perform to
the same level on the same task, therefore, a variety of reading
tasks need to be
administered to provide a more comprehensive collection of data and
record of
achievement or progress in reading.
As with the Katim and Harris (1997) study, it was found that all
students benefited from
being taught and encouraged to use the paraphrasing strategy. In
this study the
paraphrasing strategy was taught to all students, not just those
experiencing difficulties
with reading. Fisk and Hurst (2003) state, “While paraphrasing for
comprehension is
not a strategy that needs to be used in every reading situation, it
is an effective tool to
add to our repertoire of classroom practices intended to increase
students’
comprehension of text.” (Fisk and Hurst, 2003 p.184) Both these
studies suggest that
teaching the paraphrasing strategy will improve students’
comprehension of texts – both
in whole class situations and in small groups of students with
similar needs. This study
explored to introduction of the strategy through whole class and
group sessions. Using
the CLaSS model (Crevola and Hill 2001), the strategy of
Paraphrasing could be
introduced and practised earlier than Year 3 during shared reading
and in small
teaching group situations.
The R.A.P. poster (Appendix 4) was used within the literacy
sessions and also when
students were asked to read at other times during the day – they
were keen to R.A.P (or
asked if they could R.A.P. after reading every text. When asked
what they could do to
help them understand a text, the response was usually “R.A.P.” As
the unit of work
progressed the students became more familiar with the strategy and
applied it in other
23
subject areas. Unfortunately, several students did not
automatically use the strategy
when attempting questions included in the AIM post-test, yet all
students demonstrated
understanding of the skills during shared reading and teaching
sessions. Parker,
Hasbrouck and Denton (2002) stated that when readers are able to
read and
comprehend texts and use comprehension strategies, they maintain
interest and
comprehension when reading. This became more evident as the
students read factual
texts related to the enquiry unit.
From the data and evidence collected during the study, it is
recommended that
Students A, F, H, K, M, N and R continue to receive additional
support when reading
and writing. Teaching the Paraphrasing Strategy to the whole class
has been
beneficial, and it is recommended that other learning strategies
are explicitly taught to
the whole class. Students A,F and R, who scored below the expected
level on the Burt
Word Reading Test, may be demonstrating the observation made by
Parker, Hasbrouck
and Denton (2002) that students demonstrate poor comprehension due
to their failure
to understand key words.
The implications for teaching comprehension strategies are that for
readers to gain
meaning from texts, they need to be able to predict and answer
questions before,
during and after reading. Students need to be explicitly taught
reading and
comprehension strategies including paraphrasing to improve their
recall and
understanding of what has been read.
Implications for teaching skills and learning strategies could
include the following:
• explicitly teach strategies and practise skills by having an
acronym that students can
use as self-talk to assist them with reading e.g. R.A.P.;
R.I.D.E.R
• provide a variety of assessment tasks, including: multiple-choice
questions; questions
that require literal, inferential and analytical answers;
vocabulary and word answers;
cloze passages; retelling and sequencing; locating key words and
main ideas in a
sentence / paragraph; etc.
Further research / teaching suggestions would be to explicitly
teach the strategy of
visualising (or another comprehension strategy) to the same group
of Year 3 students
and compare results.
24
References / Bibliography AIM Teaching materials (Reading
Comprehension). “Going Places” Year 3, 2006. Victorian Curriculum
and Assessment Authority. AIM Teaching materials (Reading
Comprehension). “Going Places” Year 3, 2007. Victorian Curriculum
and Assessment Authority. Boudah, D.J. and O’Neill, K. (1999).
Learning Strategies, ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted
Education Reston VA, ERIC/OSEP Digest E577 Clay, M. (1993,
Reprinted 2000). An Observation Survey of Early Literacy
Achievement. Heinemann. Colman, A. (2001). A Dictionary of
Psychology. Oxford University Press. Crevola, C. and Hill, P.
(1988, Revised 2001). Children’s Literacy Success Strategy. CEO
Melbourne. Education Department of Western Australia. (2006,
Revised 2007). First Steps Reading Resource Book. Rigby Heinemann /
Harcourt. Fisk, C. and Hurst, B. (2003). Paraphrasing for
Comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 57, 2, 182-85 Gilmore, A.,
Croft, C. and Reid, N. (1981). Burt Word Reading Test. Lithoprint.
Katims, D.S. and Harris, S. (1997). Improving the reading
comprehension of middle school students in inclusive classrooms.
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 41, 2, 116-123 Mossenson,
L., Stephanou, A., Foudter, M., Masters, G., McGregor, M.,
Anderson, P., and Hill, P. (2003). TORCH Tests of Reading
Comprehension, second edition. Australia: ACER. Parker, R.,
Hasbrouck, J.E. and Denton, C. (2002). How to Tutor Students with
Reading Comprehension Problems. Preventing School Failure, 47,1,
45-48 Schumaker, J.B., Denton, P.H. and Deshler, D.D. (1984).
Learning Strategies Curriculum: The Paraphrasing Strategy.
Lawrence: University of Kansas. Vincent, D., Crumpler, M. and de la
Mare, M. (2004). Reading Progress Tests, Stage Two. Hodder Murray.
Webster. (2005). Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Wiley
(www.yourdictionary.com). Other: Munro, J.K. (2007). Literacy
Intervention Strategies Course Notes. University of
Melbourne.
25
Appendix 1: Teaching Unit Paraphrasing Lesson Format Aim: The
teaching sessions in this unit aim:
• to introduce to students in Year 3 the Paraphrasing Strategy • to
provide opportunities for students to practise paraphrasing skills
• to improve sentence / paragraph level comprehension through the
use of paraphrasing • to provide students with a reading strategy
that will help hem understand texts • to improve student responses
to literal and inferential comprehension questions.
Sessions 1 and 2 Introduction: During our Reading sessions, we are
going to be learning a new way to help us with comprehension and
answering questions about what we read. This new way is called
paraphrasing. We are going to use the word R.A.P. to remind us what
to do. (What do you think “rap” means?)
Activity Task Description Text / Example Introduction / revision of
the term “synonym”
Students are introduced to the definition of “synonym” and give
examples for selected words.
Introduction to the shared text Students are introduced to the
shared text at beginning of Literacy Reading session. Students
predict text content and possible words / ideas.
Shared reading of the text Students listen to selected text and
discuss main parts, retelling from memory.
Identifying new words and main ideas in the text
Students brainstorm / suggest synonyms for identified words /
phrases / ideas.
Demonstration of paraphrasing Teacher models paraphrasing of whole
sentences, both orally and written.
Introduction of the acronym R.A.P.
Students are introduced to the strategy of paraphrasing. They paste
poster in their individual workbooks. (Appendix 4)
Practise paraphrasing sentences
Students take turns to read aloud a sentence and paraphrase by
retelling in their own words, changing as many words as possible.
Other students can also be asked for their ideas.
Questions related to the text – both literal and inferential
Students are asked questions about the text and are to give
What is a “synonym”? Can you give some examples? Make a list of
synonyms for select words: little (adjective); said (verb); house
(noun); quickly (adverb). Introduction of the text The Magic School
Bus At the Waterworks, J. Cole (“Read to” and individual reading
cards for independent reading and “Read with”)
26
GROUP SESSION: See Lesson Format for Reading Groups
Students work in task centre groups, reading selected texts,
practising paraphrasing skills, and answering comprehension
questions – literal and inferential.
Reflection / Articulation of learning
Students are encouraged to retell a sentence / paragraph in their
own words, or read their answer to a question based on the text,
and explain how they used R.A.P. to help them understand what they
were reading about in the session.
27
Sessions 3 to 10
Activity Task Description Text / Example Retelling text from the
previous session
Students retell the main parts of the text read during the previous
session, including as much detail as possible.
Introduction of new shared text
Students are introduced to the new, shared text and predict text
content and possible words / ideas.
Shared reading of the text – read to, read with, read by the
students
Students listen to, read with, or independently read selected text.
Students read text aloud, taking turns to read by sentences /
paragraphs.
Discussion of main parts / ideas in the text
Students discuss the main parts of the text in their own words.
Students are reminded of R.A.P. (Appendix 4)
Identifying new words / phrases and listing synonyms
Students / teacher locates words / phrases in the text, and
students are asked to give synonyms for selected words.
Practise paraphrasing sentences
Students take turns to read aloud a sentence and paraphrase by
retelling in their own words, changing as many words as
possible.
Questions related to the text – both literal and inferential
Students are asked questions about the text and are to give verbal
answers in their own words.
GROUP SESSION: See Lesson Format for Reading Groups
Students work in task centre groups, reading selected texts,
practising paraphrasing skills, and answering comprehension
questions – literal and inferential.
Reflection / Articulation of learning
Students are encouraged to retell a sentence / paragraph in their
own words, or read their answer to a question based on the text,
and explain how they used R.A.P. to help them understand what they
were reading about in the session.
These texts were used during the shared reading session. Texts were
used for 3-5 days. The Magic School Bus Wet All Over, J. Cole
(“Read to”. This text was also used in the Task Centres) Sample
questions: What is another word for “condensing”? (synonym) What is
another word for “faucet”? (synonym) Why did Wanda and Arnold need
water? (literal) What happened when Carlos opened the mop cupboard?
(literal) What do you think “Waterland” would be like?
(inferential) How did the children feel when they were clouds?
(inferential) The Magic School Bus On The Ocean Floor, J. Cole
(“Read” to and individual reading cards of parts of the text. This
text was also used in the Task Centres) Longneck’s Billabong, A.
Coleridge (Big Book – enlarged text)
28
Lesson Format for Reading Groups
Activity Description Text / Example Introduction to the new text
From the cover / title, students
suggest possible content and vocabulary that might be included in
the text.
Silent Reading of new text Students read new text independently and
list / underline new words.
Reading new text aloud Students take turns to read text aloud, a
sentence / paragraph at a time.
Discussion of parts of the text Students discuss main parts of the
text in their own words. They are reminded of R.A.P. (Appendix
4)
Identify new words and phrases and give synonyms
Students read words / phrases they have written / underlined and
suggest synonyms.
Paraphrasing sentences from the text.
Students are given a sentence / paragraph from the text to
paraphrase either verbally or written. They are reminded to change
as many words as possible, but keep the meaning the same.
Discussion of responses Students in the group can offer other
suggestions or make their own attempt at paraphrasing a particular
sentence / paragraph.
Comprehension questions based on the text – literal and
inferential
Students are to answer questions, either verbally or written, based
on the text in their own words.
These texts were used in the Task Centres (groups of 6 students).
All groups read the same texts and completed the same tasks. • Frog
Habitat, Where Have the Frogs Gone? p.5-9, Barrie Books 4A • What
is a Habitat? Habitats, p.1, Barrie Books 3A • Wetlands, Habitats
p.16-19, Barrie Books 3A Text: “During the Wet season rain comes
and floods the wetlands.” What might you see when the wetlands
flood? • Australian Crocodiles, Class Ideas K-3 No.40 p.38 What do
you know about crocodiles? What words might be in an information
text about crocodiles? Task: Complete a table to compare the
Saltwater and the Freshwater crocodiles. • Habitats, Class Ideas
K-3 No.33 p.41 Text: “Wetlands are humid areas with still, shallow
waters that may be salty or fresh.” What is another word for:
humid, area, still, shallow. What is a wetland? (literal) What do
you think it might be like living in a wetland? (inferential)
29
Appendix 2: Listening Comprehension Texts / Score Criteria
Instructions given to students: I am going to read you a short
story. I want you to think about the story, the characters, the
setting and the problem. When I have finished reading the story, I
want you to write down as much of the story as you can remember.
Re-read to check if you have written all the main events in order.
You can go back and add any parts you might have left out. Pre-test
Passage (Listening Comprehension Task: from Munro 2004) Jane was at
school and went out to sit on the seats and eat her lunch. As she
opened her lunch box, it fell over and her lunch went on the
ground. Jane wondered what she was going to do. Her sandwiches now
had dirt all over them. She told her friend, Susan. Susan took one
of the sandwiches from her lunch box and shared it with Jane. After
lunch, Jane and Susan went into the playground and had a good time
playing chasey.
√ or X √ or X √ or X Jane at school went out sit on seats eat lunch
opened lunch box fell over lunch on ground wondered what to do
sandwiches dirt on them told friend Susan took sandwich shared with
Jane after lunch Jane and Susan went to playground had a good time
playing chasey Possible score 20 Post-test Passage (Teacher
Designed) Tom was at the park. He went to play with his dog, Kip.
He took a ball to play with. Kip jumped up and down because he
wanted Tom to throw the ball for him to fetch. Tom threw the ball
into the pond. Kip could not get the ball because the water was too
cold. Tom got a stick and hit the ball to the edge of the pond. Kip
got the ball. Tom and Kip ran home from the park. They were very
tired.
√ or X √ or X √ or X Tom at the park went to play with dog Kip took
a ball dog jumped Tom to throw ball fetch threw ball into pond
could not get ball water too cold Tom got a stick hit the ball edge
of the pond Kip got the ball Tom and Kip ran home were tired
Possible score 20
30
Appendix 3: Assessment Texts Reading Progress Test Text Types
Theme: Parrots The RPT 3 included the following:
• Word identification – things that fly • The Talking Garden –
fiction text • My Grandad – fiction text • Mother Parrot’s Advice
to her Children • Parrots in Danger – non-fiction • A Talent For
Talk – non-fiction • Questions related to all texts
AIM Assessment Skills and Text Types The 2006 AIM assessment task,
assessed the following skills: The student’s ability to:
• locate directly stated information in a text • make links between
directly stated ideas in a text • infer character’s feelings in a
text • select key information in a text • interpret the main
purpose of a text • infer character’s feelings in a text • work out
the meaning of phrases in context • use contextual cues to
interpret a text • make inferences about character’s qualities •
identify how language is used to represent things in different ways
• identify a sequence of events in a text.
“Going Places” Year 3 2006 Text titles / types (genre):
• The Snowman – fiction • Lucy’s Holiday – non-fiction /
advertisement • Puffins – non-fiction • The Letter – recount • The
Riding Club – fiction • Birtles and the Bean Car –
non-fiction
The 2007 AIM assessment task, assessed the following skills: The
student’s ability to:
• make links between directly stated ideas in a text • locate key
information in a text • locate directly stated information in a
text • identify the main purpose of a text • make inferences about
characters’ actions • identify a sequence of events in a text •
locate directly stated information in an illustration • draw on
knowledge of text organisation to interpret a text
31
• make inferences about characters’ motives • make inferences about
characters’ qualities • infer character’s feelings • identify how
attitudes are presented in a text • use contextual cues to
interpret a text • analyse characterisation in a text
“Going Places” Year 3 2007 Text titles / types (genre):
• Transport Day – non-fiction / advertisement • Jessie’s Find –
fiction • How to make a Cat Mask – procedure • Shopping Day –
fiction • Snow – non-fiction • A dog for Tom - fiction
32
Paraphrasing