Wiley and International Reading Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Reading Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

Developing Comprehension through Teacher-Made Questions Author(s): Ruby Jeanne Lanier and Anita Price Davis Source: The Reading Teacher, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Nov., 1972), pp. 153-157Published by: on behalf of the Wiley International Reading AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20193164Accessed: 04-05-2015 17:14 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

This content downloaded from 136.183.11.43 on Mon, 04 May 2015 17:14:39 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Developing comprehension

through teacher-made

questions RUBY JEANNE LANIER

ANITA PRICE DAVIS

The "experts" don't always have the answers. Solutions are often found by classroom teachers. Coauthors Lanier and

Davis proved this point through a summer program for reading teachers. Ruby Jeanne Lanier is assistant professor of elementary education at the College of Charleston. Anita Davis is assistant professor in education at Converse College, Spartanburg, South Carolina.

X-TOW did twenty-five teachers *

in the Spartanburg area of

South Carolina learn to teach ele mentary reading? A small num ber mentioned their methods course, practice teaching, and the "reading of books." However, the

majority of the twenty-five teach ers stated, "I learned more from the reading manuals than from any other source."

The answer was not surprising.

Sixty-three percent of 1,500 ele mentary teachers (grades one

through three) surveyed by Bar ton and Wilder (1964) had like

wise considered the basal series and the accompanying teachers'

manuals a "very important" influ ence on their beliefs about read ing instruction. Practice teaching,

methods courses, and books re

lating to reading instruction were secondary. Barton and Wilder found also that approximately 68 percent of the elementary teach ers "strongly" or "mostly" agreed

with the statement: "The sugges tions found in reading manuals are based on definite scientific proof." The Spartanburg teachers again agreed. "Reading experts," on the other hand, disagreed. Less than one-third (32 percent) be lieved the reading manuals to be based on definite scientific proof (Barton and Wilder). Surpris ingly, the names of many of these "experts" appeared on the basal readers and the accompanying

manuals.

The twenty-five South Carolina elementary teachers were partici

pants in Project RATES, a pro

153

This content downloaded from 136.183.11.43 on Mon, 04 May 2015 17:14:39 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

gram sponsored by Converse Col lege, Spartanburg, South Caro lina. The project, funded by a grant from the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education, had three main emphases: the teaching of reading, the use of audiovisual and other materials, and the utilization of team teach ing in the elementary school. Par ticipants attended class five days a week during the Converse sum

mer session and once a week dur

ing the fall. The fall term pro vided the practicum for those

techniques studied during the summer instruction period.

If manuals are not scientifically designed, there is little justifica tion for teachers slavishly follow ing them as guides. Overdepen dency on manuals might not only interfere with tailoring a lesson for a specific group of children, but might also result in a failure to include teacher-made items

which could be superior to those suggested in the manuals. Teach

er-made questions, on the other

hand, might result in gains in the reading comprehension skills of pupils.

Teachers in the Spartanburg project were asked to read a se lection taken from a popular basal reading series and, without the aid of the manual, to construct a number of questions such as might be used to improve com

prehension. In a thirty minute period 215 questions were con structed; however, while con

structing these questions, the teachers recognized a need for their reviewing the literature re

lating to the development of read ing comprehension skills. Teach ers reviewed the materials and, as a result, developed their own sim ple model for writing questions. (See Table 1) They chose four

question levels: 1) literal, 2) in

terpretive, 3) critical, and 4) cre ative. Literal, the lowest of the levels, included questions of recall or recognition of facts, sequence,

Table 1 Comprehension skills

Level 1 Literal

Level 2 Interpretive

Level 3 Critical

Level 4 Creative

Recall of facts (details) sequence main idea directions organization cause-and-effect comparison contrast character traits

Recognition of facts sequence main idea directions organization cause-and-effect comparison contrast character traits

Inferring: sequence main idea cause-and-effect comparison contrast purpose details character traits

Drawing conclusions

Generalizing

Deriving meaning from figurative language

Speculating

Predicting

Anticipating

Summarizing

Judging

Detecting propaganda

Analyzing

Checking validity

Checking author's reputation, biases,

purposes

Applying information to new situation

Responding emotionally

154 The Reading Teacher November 1972

This content downloaded from 136.183.11.43 on Mon, 04 May 2015 17:14:39 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

main ideas, directions, organiza

tion, cause and effect, compari son, contrast, and character traits.

The interpretive level consisted of inference questions (sequence,

main ideas, cause and effect, com

parison, contrast, purpose, detail, and character traits), drawing conclusions, generalizing, deriv

ing meaning from figurative lan guage, speculating, anticipating, predicting, and/or summarizing.

The critical level included judg ing, detecting propaganda, making analyses, checking validity, and checking on author's reputation, biases, and purposes.

The highest level, which was creative, dealt with the applica tion of old information to a new situation and making emotional responses.

Literal questions prevailed When the questions constructed

earlier by the teachers were com pared to the model, they found that two-thirds of the 215 were on the literal level; the literal questions were all recall items.

The other three levels were repre sented in the remaining one-third.

The teachers stated that they could improve the questions they constructed if they used the de veloped model. Together the teach ers arrived at a behavioral objec tive for the remainder of the ses sion. "Given a basal reader, with out a teachers' manual, the teach er must be able to write questions

which check literal, interpretive, critical, and creative comprehen sion."

Again a selection from a basal series was chosen; questions were developed with the model serving as the guide. This time two-thirds of the questions were above the literal level. For example, given

the following paragraphs: . . .

"Frederick is lost!" screamed

the people on the street.

"The Union has fallen!" screamed still others.

Hearing the screaming, Barbara Frietchie hurried to her window.

Marching down the street were

the Confederate troops led by Gen eral "Stonewall" Jackson.

Barbara turned from the win

dow and picked up the Union flag with its crimson bars and silver

stars.

Returning to the open window, Barbara saw General Jackson al

most directly below. With steady hand, she thrust forward the flag and set its staff.

Seeing the Union fiag, Jackson

ordered, "Halt! Fire!" Bullets shat tered the window and ripped through the flag. Grabbing the falling flag, Barbara called to the soldiers below, "Shoot me if you

must but not our country's flag!" Barbara Frietchie knew the Union would stand. Its flag must be pre served.

Seeing such a noble woman, Jackson ordered, "Ride on! Spare that patriot's life!"

Barbara Frietchie's flag flew all

day over the marching Confeder ate soldiers.

. . . teachers constructed such

questions as :

What do the following expres sions mean :

". . . set the staff."

"Frederick is lost!" "The Union has fallen!" (inter pretive )

Why did Jackson order his troops to fire on the flag? (cause and effect)

How does the author know that Barbara's hand was steady as she

displayed the flag? (checking va lidity)

LANIER & DAVIS: Developing comprehension 155

This content downloaded from 136.183.11.43 on Mon, 04 May 2015 17:14:39 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

How did the author know that Barbara was sure the Union would stand? (checking validity)

If you had been Barbara, what

would you have done? (applica tion)

Would you have been afraid? (making emotional response)

What was lost? Who led the Confederate troops?

What did Barbara Frietchie do when she saw the Confederate

troops below? How did Barbara feel when she

displayed the flag? Why was the flag not complete

ly destroyed? Was the flag flown again?

The accompanying teachers' manual from which this passage has been patterned contained four

questions; these questions are

closely paraphrased here. What happened after Barbara

Frietchie set the staff of the Un

ion flag? (literal) How do we know that she was

not afraid? (manual states iden

tifying character traits as purpose of question)

How do we know that she could think far ahead? (identifying character traits listed as purpose of question)

What respected symbol of our

country did Barbara own? (literal)

Followup action

During the fall session teachers continued their work with com

prehension. With the models as

guides they planned questions for use with their classes. Along with

planning questions the teachers were then asked to keep, if possi ble, a profile sheet for each child in the reading group. This profile sheet was to be used to note indi vidual strengths and/or weak nesses in the area of reading com

prehension. The diagnostic device

was to serve as a basis for deter mining subsequent instruction for each pupil.

The question model was used as a guide for developing the in dividual profile sheet. Four levels and their accompanying descrip tions were listed on the sheet.

Teachers could place a check by those kinds of questions which

posed problems for a particular child. A section was included on the sheet for recommendations. (See Table 2.)

Table 2 Comprehension skills

individual analysis sheets

Level 1?Literal Recall of facts

facts sequence main idea directions organization cause-and

effect comparison contrast character traits

Recognition of facts sequence main idea directions organization cause-and

effect comparison contrast character traits

Level 3?Critical

Judging

Detecting propaganda

Analyzing

Checking validity

Checking author's reputation, biases, purposes

Level 2? Interpretive

Inferring:

sequence main idea cause-and

effect comparison contrast purpose details character traits

Drawing conclusions

Generalizing

Deriving meaning from figurative language

Speculating

Predicting

Anticipating

Summarizing

Level 4?Creative

Applying informa tion to new situation

Responding emotionally

Recommendations

156 The Reading Teacher November 1972

This content downloaded from 136.183.11.43 on Mon, 04 May 2015 17:14:39 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Each teacher was asked to pre

pare a written evaluation of this

particular phase of Project RATES. Typical comments:

... I learned much concerning comprehension that I didn't know. I had been making out some of

my own questions, but the major ity were literal. I plan to show the form to other teachers in my school.

After listening and discussing the different aspects of compre

hension, I think the questions I

asked later were superior to those I asked earlier. . . . I'm sure my

pupils will gain from this as I will be more conscious of what

I'm doing and what I want to do.

I think this . . . has shown some good thinking on the part of the class. Class discussions have

been handled well.

I really gained some good ideas as to how to help a child com

prehend what he has read. It was

amazing to me to see the differ ence in the questions the class

made out before and after our discussions.

... I understand more about

comprehension and for the very first time, I have been taught how to make out questions.

... I think we will be more conscious of the types of ques tions we use in our classes.

. . . levels of comprehension will be most useful in recording some students' weaknesses when school begins. Also, we will be better able to judge what level of

comprehension is being over

looked by us.

The behavioral objective con structed earlier in the session ("Given a basal reader, without a

teachers' manual, the teacher must be able to write questions which check literal, interpretive, critical, and creative comprehen sion for her daily lessons") was, in the writers' opinions, achieved.

Both the teacher-made questions and the teacher evaluations sup

port this conclusion.

The following teacher's com

ment, in the writers' opinions, best assesses the worth of the study:

. . . It's so good to realize that

you can do the things you usually depend on an "expert" to do. I once found myself "giving in" to

guidebook questions when, in

truth, I oftentimes felt my own were much more pertinent. Thanks

to Dr. Lanier and you, I feel more

confident and much freer.

Reference Barton, Allen H. and Wilder, David E.

"Research and Practice in the Teaching of Reading: A Progress Report." Innova tion in Education, Ed. M. B. Miles. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964, pp. 361-398.

New or prospective teachers

What do you want to know? What's on your mind?

Benefit from the experience and sophistication of IRA veterans. Send your questions, problems, or statements of concern to "Interchange", see them published, then watch for responses in the column from readers.

The address: Interchange, The Reading Teacher, International Read

ing Association, Six Tyre Avenue, Newark, Delaware 19711.

LANIER & DAVIS: Developing comprehension 157

This content downloaded from 136.183.11.43 on Mon, 04 May 2015 17:14:39 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions