Critical Reflections on Theory and Research Related to Comprehension Strategies Instruction

Critical Reflections on Theory and Research Related to Comprehension Strategies Instruction Janice F. Almasi, Ph.D.Carol Lee Robertson Endowed Professor of Literacy

University of [email protected]

Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky

Contact Information For further information about this

presentation please contact:Janice F. Almasi, Ph.D.

Carol Lee Robertson Endowed Professor of LiteracyUniversity of Kentucky

101 Taylor Education BuildingLexington, KY 40506

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Almasi, J. F., & Fullerton, S. K. (2012). Teaching strategic processes in reading (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

“Strategies are actions an individual selects deliberately to attain a particular goal.”--Almasi & Fullerton (2012,

p. 1)

“Reading strategies are deliberate, goal-directed attempts to control and modify the reader’s efforts to decode text, understand words, and construct meanings of text.”

--Afflerbach, Pearson, & Paris (2008, p. 368)

What are Strategies?

Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying the differences between reading skills and strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364-373.

Almasi, J. F., & Fullerton, S. K. (2012). Teaching strategic processes in reading (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364-373.


Comprehension ResearchWhere We’ve Been

Comprehension Research: Where We’ve Been (Pearson, 2009)

1975ComprehensionNot valued except

as a step toward textmemorization

• Readers viewed as active participants in meaning construction process.

• Experimental studies offered promising findings showing strategies-based interventions were successful at enhancing comprehension.

CognitiveRevolution

Pearson, P. D. (2009). The roots of reading comprehension instruction. In S. E. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of reading comprehension research (pp. ). New York: Routledge.


Observational Research: 1970s Durkin (1978/1979)

Paucity of actual comprehension instruction in elementary classrooms.

Great amount of time was spent: “Mentioning” (i.e., mentioning the skill

students were supposed to practice) “Practicing” (i.e., practicing the skill) “Assessing” (i.e., giving directions to

complete assignments and workbook pages)

Expert/Novice Studies: 1980sExpert Readers

Have rapid decoding skills

Have large vocabularies Know a variety of

strategies to enhance comprehension and memory of text

Know about text features and text structures

Have good phonemic awareness

Novice Readers Focus on decoding

individual words Cannot adjust their

reading rate Are not aware of

alternate strategies for enhancing their comprehension and memory of text

Are not adept at monitoring their own comprehension

Source: Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, and P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 609-640). New York: Longman.

Good Strategy Users (Pressley, 1986,1989)

Possess a varietyof strategies foraccomplishingtasks

Fig. 1.5, p. 11

Pressley, M. (1986). The relevance of the good strategy user model to the teaching of mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 21, 139-161.

Pressley, M., Symons, S., Snyder, B. L., & Cariglia-Bull, T. (1989). Strategy instruction comes of age. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 16-30.


Fig. 1.5, p. 11

Nonstrategic Readers(Garner, 1987)

Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Use PrimitiveRoutines




Are able to analyze readingtasks to plan andselect strategies


Fig. 1.5, pp. 11, 19



Uses Primitive Routines





Good Strategy Users (Pressley, 1986, 1989) pp. 22-

23

Unable to TransferStrategy Use

To New Contexts

Good Strategy Users (Pressley, 1986, 1989)



Are motivated touse strategies

and have agency

Fig. 1.5, pp. 11-14



PersistConfident

Attribute Success to Effort


p. 23


Personal attributions

do not supportstrategy use

Give Up

Unconfident

Attribute Success to Luck



To New Contexts




Are motivated toemploy strategiesand have agency

Possess an extensiveknowledge base: • Declarative • Procedural • Conditional

Fig. 1.5, pp. 11-13Table 6.1, pp. 148-

151Table 7.3, pp. 236-

237











Possess an extensiveknowledge base: • Declarative (What) • Procedural (How) • Conditional (Why)

Meagerknowledge base

pp. 22-23


To New Contexts






Meagerknowledge baseWhat am

I supposed

to do?

I don’t know how to do it!

I don’t know

when or why I

should use this!

pp. 22-23


To New Contexts




Are motivated touse strategies

and have agency

Possess an extensiveknowledge base: • Declarative • Procedural • Conditional

Make use of metacognitive factors

to regulate and monitor comprehension

and performancePressley, M. (1986). The relevance of the good strategy user model to the teaching of

mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 21, 139-161. Pressley, M., Symons, S., Snyder, B. L., & Cariglia-Bull, T. (1989). Strategy instruction comes of

age. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 16-30.

Fig. 1.5, p. 11






Meagerknowledge base

Poor cognitive monitoring andmetacognition

pp. 22-23


To New Contexts

Comprehension Research: Where We’ve Been

• First Wave• Teach students individual strategies

(e.g., predicting, monitoring, questioning, summarizing)

• Second Wave• Teach students to use multiple

strategies (e.g., reciprocal teaching)

Sources: Dole, Nokes & Drits (2009); Pressley (2000); Wilkinson & Son (2011)


Explicit Instruction Studies : 1980s Examined effect of providing comprehension instruction

for students That body of research revealed that explicit instruction

enhances students’ learning and their strategic and metacognitive awareness, particularly for struggling readers (e.g., Dole, Duffy, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991; Dole, Brown, & Trathen, 1996; Duffy, et al., 1987; Duke & Pearson, 2002; Pearson & Fielding, 1991; Pearson & Dole, 1987).

Little comprehension instruction still occurs in elementary classrooms (Fielding & Pearson, 1994; Pearson, & Dole, 1987; Pearson & Fielding, 1991; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983; Pressley, 2000)

Explicit Instruction(Pearson & Dole, 1987; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983)

Explicit Instruction• Direct Explanation• In authentic context• Encourages flexible strategy use• Gradually release responsibility from teacher to student

Declarative Knowledge

Procedural Knowledge

Conditional Knowledge

Modeling/Thinking Aloud

Guided Practice

Independence

Explanation

What is it?

How do I do it?

Where, when, why should I

do it?

Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research and a new conceptualization of instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 88(2), 151-165.

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317-344.


Seminal Early Studies Dole, Nokes, and Drits (2009) identified two studies

that changed the face of reading instruction and provided a glimpse of what true strategies instruction could look like Duffy, Roehler, Meloth, Vavrus, Book, Putnam, &

Wesselman, (1986) Duffy, Roehler, Sivan, Rackliffe, Book, Meloth,

Vavrus, Wesselman, Putnam, & Bassiri (1987) When teachers provided explicit explanations of what

strategies were, when they should be used, why they should be used, and how to perform them students’ reading achievement on standardized, non-standardized and maintenance measures improved.

Comprehension Research: Where We’ve Been

Sources: Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Son, E. H. (2011). A dialogic turn in research on learning and teaching to comprehend. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 359-387). New York: Routledge.

• Third Wave• Transactional Strategies Instruction

(extended multiple strategies instruction to include flexible strategy use while readers transact with text)


Research-Based Evidence Brown, Pressley, Van Meter, & Schuder

(1996) 60 2nd grade low achieving students 1 year intervention (SAIL, non-SAIL)

Measures▪ Strategies Interview

▪ Retellings

▪ Think Aloud Task

▪ Standardized Test of Reading Comprehension and Word Skills (Stanford Achievement Test, Forms J and K)

Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 18-37.

Treatment Conditions(Brown, Pressley, Van Meter & Schuder, 1996)

Transactional Strategies Instruction

(Students Achieving Ind. Learning)

Non-SAIL

Goal

Joint construction of reasonable interpretations of texts by group members as they apply strategies to texts. In the long term students internalize these processes.

Comparison teachers were eclectic in instructional practices.

Features

• Strategy instruction is long-term.• Teachers explain and model a few, powerful strategies.• Teachers and students model strategy use and think aloud.• Usefulness of strategies is emphasized .• A great deal of discussion of text content occurs as teachers interact with students, react to students’ use of strategies.

Blended whole language tradition with elements of skill and other traditional forms of conventional reading instruction.



Results (Brown, Pressley, Van Meter & Schuder, 1996)

Pretest Word Study

Posttest Word Study

Pretest Comp

Posttest Comp

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

SAIL

Non-SAIL

Subtest

SAT Score


Dole, Brown, & Trathen (1996) 67 fifth and sixth-grade at-risk readers 5 week intervention

Measures of Comprehension6 Tests covering material from each of the 6 basal reading selections:

10 Comprehension Questions (maximum score = 30)

▪ 4 questions (vocabulary and content-specific declarative knowledge)

▪ 2 questions (story’s central problem and resolution)

▪ 4 questions (literal and inferential related to important events in selection)

2 Tests before instruction

2 Tests during instructional sequence

2 Tests given 7 weeks after instruction endedDole, J. A., Brown, K. J., & Trathen, W. (1996). The effects of strategy instruction on the

comprehension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 62-88.


Results (Dole, Brown & Trathen, 1996)

Imme-diate Inst.

Imme-diate Ind

Delayed Inst.

Delayed Ind.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Strategy

Story Content

Basal

Test Type

Test Per-formance

Dole, J. A., Brown, K. J., & Trathen, W. (1996). The effects of strategy instruction on the comprehension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 62-88.

U.S. Dept. of Ed. Recommendationswhatworks.ed.gov/publications/practiceguides

Teach Students How to Use

Comprehension StrategiesSTRONG EVIDENCE

Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from whatworks.ed.gov/publications/practiceguides.

Provide Explicit

Instruction

Reduce Processin

g Demands

Create Opportuniti

es for Student

Verbalization

Create a Safe and Risk Free Environment to

Enhance Motivation and Risk Taking

Critical Elements of Strategy Instruction Model (Almasi & Fullerton, 2012) Enhances

Personal Attributio

ns and Motivatio

nEnhances Knowledge Overcomes: - Meager knowledge base - Use of primitive routines- Poor Comp Monitoring

Enhances Motivation, Knowledge,

and Transfer to New

Contexts

Enhances Motivation, Knowledge, Monitorin

g, and Transfer to

New Contexts

Fig. 2.1, pp. 36-57

Source: Almasi, J. F., & Fullerton, S, K. (2012). Teaching strategic processes in reading (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford


Comprehension ResearchWhere We Are

Comprehension Research: Where We Are

Sources: Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Son, E. H. (2011). A dialogic turn in research on learning and teaching to comprehend. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 359-387). New York: Routledge.

• Fourth Wave• Dialogic Approaches

• Embed strategy instruction in content domains (e.g., CORI, In-Depth Expanded Application of Science, Reading Apprenticeship)

• Use classroom discussion to foster comprehension • Aesthetic/Expressive Stance (e.g., Book

Club, Grand Conversations, Literature Circles)

• Efferent Stance (e.g., Instruction Conversations, QTA, Jr. Great Books)

• Argumentation (e.g., Accountable Talk, Collaborative Reasoning)


Content Knowledge vs. Strategy Instruction There is controversy surrounding the

efficacy of comprehension strategies instruction for enhancing students' achievement. Some have argued that content knowledge rather than strategies instruction plays a larger role in achievement. Others maintain that the process-oriented nature of strategies instruction leads to more efficacious learning.


Content-Based Approaches McKeown, Beck, & Blake (2009)

Strategy Condition (summarizing, predicting, drawing inferences, question generation, comprehension monitoring)

Content Condition (QtA: general meaning-based questions about text)

Y1 (Expository text) Y2 (Narrative) Results

No difference on SVT measure (Y1 or Y2) Content students produced longer and higher quality

recalls (Y1 and Y2) No difference on measures of comprehension monitoring

and strategies task (Y1 and Y2)

Source: McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. K. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218-253.

Participants:

Intact 5th grade

classrooms


Worries . . . Product vs. Process

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

- Anna Isabella Ritchie, Mrs. Dymond (1885)- Chinese Proverb


Worries . . . Product vs. Process Participants:

Who benefits? Epistemological considerations:

What counts as knowledge? Power/Authority:

Whose interpretation of text is privileged? Whose “way” of using strategies is

privileged?

Striving Readers EvaluationU.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., & Rintamaa, M. (2013). Reading intervention in middle and high schools: Implementation fidelity, teacher efficacy, and student achievement. Reading Psychology, 34(1), 26-58.

Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., Rintamaa, M., & Madden, A. (2010). The impact of a strategy-based intervention on the comprehension and strategy use of struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 257-280.

Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., & Rintamaa, M. (in preparation). The impact of supplemental reading instruction on struggling adolescents’ reading achievement, motivation, and strategy use. Unpublished manuscript.


LSC Impact StudyResearch Questions

1. What is the impact of the LSC on the reading achievement, strategy use, and motivation of struggling adolescent readers?


LSC Certification

2010 2011

Number of LSC teachers who received degree/certificate

11 2

LSC Classroom Model• Supplemental

Instruction

• Class Length: 50-90 minutes, 50-60 minutes for LSC (no more than 300 minutes per week)

• Class Size: 10-15 students

Strategies Taught

Word Identification

Visual Imagery

Self-Questioning

LINCS Vocabulary Strategy & Routines

Fundamentals of Sentence Writing

Fundamentals of Paraphrasing and Summarizing

Paraphrasing Strategy

Inference Strategy

Possible Selves

LSC Classroom Model


Provide Explicit

Instruction

Reduce Processin

g Demands

Create Opportuniti

es for Student

Verbalization




Personal Attributio

ns and Motivatio



and Transfer to New

Contexts


g, and Transfer to

New Contexts

Fig. 2.1, pp. 36-57



LSC Impact StudyResearch Design

Multiple Cohort Pretest/Posttest Control Group Design

Stratified Random Assignment to Condition within Schools

Sixth- and ninth-grade students two or more grades below grade level in 21 rural schools

LSC Student Demographics

Total

Gender Ethnicity SES Special Ed.

Female White MinorityF/R

LunchRead/Write

Other

6th

Intv 605 40% 87% 13% 69% 21% 12%

Control 530 42% 86% 14% 68% 18% 10%

9th

Intv 593 41% 88% 12% 63% 19% 11%

Control 535 45% 87% 13% 61% 14% 10%

Overall 42% 87% 13% 65% 18% 11%



Student Outcome Measures Achievement Test: GRADE

Reading Strategies Use Survey: MARSI (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2000)

Motivation Survey: MRQ (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997)


LSC Analytic Approach:Hierarchical Linear Models (HLM)

2-Level HLM: Students within Schools

School #1

School #2

School #X

Intv Control

Intv

Student

Student

Student

Student

Student

Student

Student

Student

Student

Student

Control

IntvContr

ol

Student

Student

LSC 6th Grade Student Achievement (Y1 and Y4) (Cantrell, Almasi, et al., 2010)

Unadjusted Means HLM-Adjusted MeansEst.

ImpactEffect Size p-value

Control Intv Control Intv

Y1 Spring Scores 29.8 31.0 27.2 30.0 2.76 0.218 0.034*

No. of Students 131 171

No. of Schools 12

Y1-Y4 Spring Scores 30.7 32.3 29.3 30.4 1.07 0.077 0.137


No. of Schools 12Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., Rintamaa, M., & Madden, A. (2010). The impact of a strategy-based

intervention on the comprehension and strategy use of struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 257-280.



LSC Implementation

Grade

Percent Implementation

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

LSC Instruction: % of Time LSC

Observed

6th 58.5 80.0 87.2 87.7

9th 70.4 78.5 86.6 82.9



LSC 9th Grade Student Achievement (Y1 and Y4) (Cantrell, Almasi, et al., 2010)




Y1 Spring Scores 32.7 32.7 31.0 32.1 1.09 0.076 0.444


No. of Schools 11

Y1-Y4 Spring Scores 32.3 33.7 30.2 31.9 1.69 0.122 0.032*


No. of Schools 11



LSC 6th Grade Student Motivation (MRQ) Y1 and Y4 (Cantrell, Almasi, et al., 2010)




Y1 Spring Scores 3.36 3.47 3.38 3.51 0.138 0.176 0.230


No. of Schools 12

Y1-Y4 Spring Scores 2.65 2.71 2.65 2.73 0.075 0.159 0.016*





LSC 9th Grade Student Motivation (MRQ) Y1 and Y4 (Cantrell, Almasi, et al., 2010)




Y1 Spring Scores 3.39 3.23 3.44 3.29 -0.153 -0.235 0.155


No. of Schools 11

Y1-Y4 Spring Scores 2.38 2.50 2.42 2.54 0.119 0.230 0.001**






Striving ReadersYear 5 Follow-Up Study


Research Question What are differences in reading

achievement and motivation for students who participate in the Learning Strategies Curriculum intervention for two years as compared to students who participate for just one year, when the students still are struggling with reading after one year of intervention?

6th Grade AchievementN Mean

(SD)F Significanc

e

Posttest by Intervention Group

1st Year 42 22.6(10.2) 2.90 .09

2nd Year 49 26,5 (12.9)

Covariate Intervention Pretest Scores

Test Scores 1st Year 42 17.9

(12.3)19.96 .00**

2nd Year 49 18.33 (9.7)

Posttest by Gender

Male 62 24.5 (12.5)

0.02 .90

Female 29 25.0 (10.3)

Posttest by Ethnicity

White 78 23.5 (11.6)

6.02 .02**

Minority 13 32.0 (10.5)



6th Grade AchievementN Mean

(SD)F Significanc

e

Posttest by Lunch Designation

Standard Pay 20 25.1 (12.2) 2.41 .13

Free/Reduced 71 24.6 (11.8)

Posttest by Special Ed. Status

Non-Special Ed. 51 28.1(10.9) 3.89 .05*

Special Ed. 40 20.3 (11.6)




NAEP 6th Grade Reading Scale Scores in Kentucky 2002-2011

2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011180

190

200

210

220

230

240

222 221 222225

228 226

199202 203 203 204

210WhiteBlack

16


NAEP 8th Grade Reading Scale Scores in Kentucky 2002-2011

2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011230235240245250255260265270275

267 269266 264

269 271

248245

248 247 249 248 WhiteBlack

23

LSC Conclusions The professional development model was effective in

supporting teachers’ implementation of LSC at high levels.

The LSC was effective at enhancing students’ reading overall.

More specifically, the LSC had a statistically significant impact for 9th grade achievement.

The LSC had significant impacts on motivation for both 6th and 9th grades.

To a lesser extent, the LSC had a positive effect on 6th grade students’ strategy use.

A second year of intervention may be beneficial for 6th graders, particularly minority students and those who are not in Special Education.



Narrative Comprehension ProjectUS Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences

Lorch, E., Milich, R., Almasi, J. F., van den Broek, P., & Boyd, A. (2011). A Narrative Comprehension Intervention for Elementary School Children At-Risk for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder


Children At Risk for ADHD

Inattentive Impulsive

Overactive Off-task

Poor short-term memory Empirically validated treatments (i.e., stimulant

medication, behavior modification) do not address problems with higher order cognitive

processing skills (i.e., comprehension) 1-2 children per classroom


Rationale Impairments are interrelated Appear to result in problems in building coherent,

goal-based story representations and in using relevant information and causal structure to guide story recall and inference making.

Medication appears to be insufficient to address these problems.

Interventions need to be developed that focus on the narrative comprehension deficits that may be contributing to the academic difficulties of children with ADHD.


Purpose The goal of the project is to design,

implement and pilot test targeted academic intervention strategies that can lessen story comprehension difficulties.


Goal Independent and efficacious use of

narrative comprehension strategies in a variety of contexts.

To achieve the goal, the instructors will model the use of the strategy and the children will practice the strategy in groups with the instructor’s help (scaffolding) until the instructor has faded scaffolding to the point in which children can use the skills on their own.


Teacher + Class

Small Grp

Trios

Pairs

Individual

Less

More

Events Movies Wordless Books Picture Books Text

Semiotic (Less) Linguistic (More)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Am

ou

nt

of

Stu

den

t’s C

og

nit

ive

Resp

on

sib

ilit

y

Amount of Cognitive Activity Required by Text

Ways to Gradually Release Cognitive Responsibility (Almasi & Fullerton, 2012)

Almasi, J. F., & Fullerton, S. K. (2012). Teaching strategic processes in reading (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.


Participants Addresses narrative comprehension

difficulties that are separate from any difficulty decoding

No decoding demands placed on the children

Students at risk for ADHD 2nd and 3rd graders


Specific Areas of Difficulty1) Understanding the causal relations among story events

(Landau, Lorch, & Milich, 1992; Lorch et al., 2000; Lorch et al., 2004; Sanchez et al.,1999)

2) Using the goal structure (GAO) of a story to build a coherent story representation (Flory, Milich, Lorch, Hayden, Strange, & Welsh, 2006; Renz, Lorch, Milich, Lemberger, Bodner, & Welsh, 2003)

3) Recognizing the important information in a story and using this information to guide recall (Flake, Lorch, & Milich, 2007; Lorch, Deiner et al., 1999; Lorch, Lorch, Calderhead, Dunlap, & Freer, 2010; Lorch, O’Neil et al., 2004; and Lorch, Sanchez et al., 1999)

4) Making coherence inferences about story information and monitoring ongoing understanding of the story (Berthiaume, Lorch, & Milich, 2010)


Provide Explicit

Instruction

Reduce Processin

g Demands

Create Opportuniti

es for Student

Verbalization




Personal Attributio

ns and Motivatio



and Transfer to New

Contexts


g, and Transfer to

New Contexts

Fig. 2.1, pp. 36-57



Measures1) Ease of mastery for participants2) Participant ratings and interviews3) Instructor ratings4) Feedback from teachers

• Teacher focus groups in Year 1 • Ratings and interviews in Years 2 and 3

5) Independent observer ratings6) Measures of student comprehension efficacy7) School records and standardized testing measures

(years 2 and 3)8) Pre-test and post-test measures


Measures of Iterative Process: Feasibility Factors Ease of mastery Usability Difficulty Appeal/Satisfaction Effectiveness Efficacy


What we did right now was . . .Learning how to find goals was . . .If someone asked me to identify the goal in a story . . .


Pretest/Posttest Measures Free recall protocols of television program and audiotaped story

important events characters’ goals, actions and outcomes identification of causal connections between event inferences

Cued recall of television program and audiotaped story Narration of wordless picture book (identification of initiating

events that motivate goals, maintenance of goals by explicitly linking attempts and outcomes to a goal plan, and statements of causal connections and inferences that link events)

Creation of stories (evaluated for inclusion of initiating events, goals, maintenance of characters’ goals, and causal connections between story events)

Story comprehension self-efficacy


Instructional Lesson Framework1. Establish Group Rules2. Provide Explicit Instruction Using Concrete Activity

(Balloon Narrative/Magician Narrative)3. Teacher Modeling and Guided Practice with Text

(e.g., video, wordless picture book, picture book)4. Paired Practice with text5. Evaluation #16. Teacher Modeling and Guided Practice with

alternate text 7. Paired Practice8. Evaluation #2

OUTCOME: FAIL

Making Identifying Goals Concrete

GOAL

?

I want

ATTEMPT

OUTCOME: YES

Procedural Knowledge Related to Identifying Goal Sequences


Balloon Narrativeas OngoingConcreteExperience

Transfer to Text

GOAL

?

I want

ATTEMPT

OUTCOME: FAIL

OUTCOME: YESJanice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky

DePaola, T. (1978). Pancakes for breakfast. New York: Harcourt.


Goals for Causal Connections Module To help student learn to:

Identify what causes and events are Identify simple causes and events Identify causal chains Identify causes (and events) and the important events that

drive causal chains Identify single cause of multiple events Identify distal causes Identify distal causes that illustrate important events in a story Use causal connections to retell story events Use causal connections to help identify which events in a a

story are more important than others Use causal connections to retrieve story events


Single Episode (Trabasso & van den Broek, 1985)

Setting

Initiating Event

Reactions

Goals

Attempts

Out-comes

Simple Cause/Event


Simple Cause/Event



Successive Episodes (Chaining) (Trabasso & van den Broek, 1985)

S1

E1

R1

G1

A1

O1

G1

2

A1

2

O1

2

Outcome Embedding(Trabasso & van den Broek, 1985)

S1

1

E1

1

R1

1

G1

1

A1

1

O1

1G2

1

A2

1

O2

1G3

1

A3

1

O3

1

A22

A12

O2

2

O1

2

Outcome embeddingdepends on success orfailure of goals and if the outcome leads to the creation of a new goal . If the outcome is a failureand leads to a subordinate goal (G21) thena goal hierarchy results. Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky

Chaining


Single Cause/Multiple Events


Distal Cause



Comprehension ResearchWhere We Need to Go


What I Have Learned . . . Comprehension is not a unitary

construct

Scatterplot of the Relationship between Non-word Reading and Reading Comprehension for 7 to 10 Year-Old Children

(Nation, 2005)

Good ComprehensionPoor Decoding

Good ComprehensionGood Decoding

Poor ComprehensionGood Decoding

Poor ComprehensionPoor Decoding

Source: Nation, K. (2005). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 248-266). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Reading Proficiencies of Fourth and Fifth Grade Readers (Leach, Scarborough & Rescorla, 2003)

No Rdg Difficulties59%

Poor Comp/Poor

Decod-ing

16%

Poor Comp/Good

Decod-ing7%

Good Comp/Poor

Decod-ing

17%

Source: Leach, J. M., Scarborough, H. S., & Rescorla, L.(2003). Late-emerging reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 211-224.

Profiles of Struggling Readers(Riddle Buly & Valencia, 2002; Valencia, 2011)

Automatic Word Callers

18%

Struggling Word Callers

15%

Slow Word Callers

17%

Slow Com-prehenders

24%

Word Stumblers

17%

Disabled Readers9%

Sources: Riddle Buly, M., & Valencia, S. W. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of students who fail state reading

assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 219-239.Valencia, S. W. (2011). Reader profiles and reading disabilities. In A. McGill-Franzen & R. L. Allington

(Eds.), Handbook of reading disability research (pp. 25-35). New York: Routledge.


What I Have Learned . . . Comprehension is not a unitary

construct Particularity is essential Interventions must be matched to

specific children We need new assessments of

comprehension


References Almasi, J. F., & Fullerton, S. K. (2012). Teaching strategic processes in

reading (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford. Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., Rintamaa, M., & Buckman, M. (in

press). The impact of supplemental instruction on low-achieving adolescents’ reading engagement. Journal of Educational Research.





References Dole, J. A., Nokes, J. D., & Drits, D. (2009). Cognitive strategy instruction. In S. E. Israel

& G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 347-372). New York: Routledge.

Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus, L. G., Book, C., Putnam, J., & Wesselman, R. (1986). The relationship between explicit verbal explanations during reading instruction and student awareness and achievement: A study of reading teacher effects. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(3), 237-252.

Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus, L. G., Wesselman, R., Putnam, J., & Bassiri, D. (1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 347-368.

Durkin, D. (1978/1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481-533.

Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S. Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Tackett, K. K., Schnakenberg, J. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262-300.

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279-320.


References National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the

scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (Report of the subgroups). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, and P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 609-640). New York: Longman.

Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 3, pp. 545-561. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.



Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from whatworks.ed.gov/publications/practiceguides.

Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Son, E. H. (2011). A dialogic turn in research on learning and teaching to comprehend. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 359-387). New York: Routledge.

Documents

Critical Reflections on Theory and Research Related to Comprehension Strategies Instruction