Question 2. What reading strategies have proven most effective to increase reading comprehension in first through fourth grade poor readers? What does the research indicate?
To look at the question of which strategies are most effective with first through fourth grade poor readers to increase reading comprehension, I began with the National Reading Panel Report. In it seven categories are said to have firm scientific base. These are comprehension monitoring by the reader, cooperative learning, graphic organizers, question answering, question generating, use of story structure and summarization (NRPR, p.17).
I have read research studies involving all these strategies. The effectiveness of the strategy is partially dependent on the knowledge of the strategies of the instructor. Lack of sufficient training was seen as a factor in the failure of the volunteers to increase comprehension (Elliot, et al., 2000). The willingness of teachers to learn and use the strategies was also seen as significant concern (Ferro-Almeida, 1993).
The effectiveness of strategies is also dependent on the developmental level of the reader. Many studies use students who have already developed good decoding skills (Marr, et al., 1982; Dowhower, 1987). Although Dowhower used second grade students for the repeated readings study, they had to have adequate decoding skills to participate. A study to address poor third and fourth grade readers through assisted reading practice required that students be able to pass a reading test to participate (Shany et al., 1995). In fact, I had to eliminate numerous studies from my search because they did not involve students in fourth grades or below. Several studies involved children in third grades and higher and specifically noted that although the third grade students made significant improvement, the older students improved more (Hashey et al., 2003; Stevens et al., 1987; Paris et al., 1084). These studies did not suggest the strategies should not be used with third grade students; they seemed to be pointing to developmental differences and the readiness of students to make the most of the strategies. Strategies which worked with third and fourth grade students included cooperative learning, activating prior knowledge, vocabulary study, study of structure of language, predicting, generating questions, visualizing, summarizing and teaching students when and why to use these strategies.
The studies which involved students who had not yet developed good decoding skills (Crowe, 2005; Aarnoutse, et al., 1997) used the strategies orally. Aarnoutse’s study indicates reading comprehension skills may be limited by poor listening comprehension skills. If poor listening skills are evident, that is an important place to start with younger students. Strategies used effectively with these students were: making predictions with pictures, discussion to activate prior knowledge, retelling, summarization, vocabulary instruction, language structure instruction and instruction in strategic listening strategies.
It is apparent from the National Reading Panel and from these studies that students must first be taught decoding skills and use them with ease before comprehension strategies can become the primary focus. The strategies that are then taught should be designed with the needs of the students in mind. Not all students need to be taught strategies. Good readers have developed their own. We need to help poor readers determine which strategies are most appropriate for their developmental levels and learning styles. For example while some students may respond well to story maps, others might find them obstructive. The teacher must not only thoroughly understand the strategies but know how to determine which are best suited to the individual student.
I have read, studied and taught the findings on comprehension from the National Reading Panel but until I did this research, I never really understood what has happened in the area of reading in the past 25 to 30 years. It is amazing to look at the understanding of reading comprehension in the 60s and 70s and to see how it has developed. Researchers have progressed from looking at one strategy at a time and evaluating their effectiveness to evaluating the instruction of multiple strategies. They now take for granted the findings of the 70s and 80s and base their research on those findings. I knew this but I didn’t know it until I did this study. History has come alive for me.
I find it amazing that all this activity and discovery has been taking place while I have been basically unaware. Yes, I was aware when the schools went from phonetic instruction to whole language and I was horrified. As a special education teacher educated at ASU in the mid 70s, I was aware my students had to have phonics instruction in order to learn to read. In addition, I was certain many children who wouldn’t place in special education programs also needed phonics instruction to learn to read. I realize now what I have missed by not reading the professional journals. Although I tried to attend workshops and keep up with current trends, that was not adequate.I have been concerned that when I finish this masters program, I will fall behind in knowledge of my field. I am glad I was required to do a search of the literature. I plan to continue reading professional journals.
It concerns me that the research findings take a very long time to effect classroom instruction. Even when they begin to use strategies, most teachers have little idea why they are using the strategies. Workshops and in-service teacher training are not effectively conveying the research.
Bibliography
Aarnoutse, C., Brand-Gruwel, S. (1997). Improving reading comprehension strategies through listening. Educational Studies, Vol. 23, 2, 209-228.
Crowe, L. K. (2005) Comparison of two oral reading feedback strategies in improving reading comprehension of school-age children with low reading ability. Remedial and Special Education, Vol.26, 1, 32-42.
Dole, J.A., Brown, K. J., Trathen, W. (1996) Effects of strategy instruction on the comprehension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 31,1,62-88
Dowhower, S. L. (1987) Effects of Repeated Reading on Second-Grade Transitional Readers’ Fluency and Comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 22, 4, 389-406.
Elliot, J., Arthurs, J., Williams, R. (2000). Volunteer Support in the Primary Classroom: The Long Term Impact of One Initiative upon Children’s Reading Performance. British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 26. 2, 227-244.
Ferro-Almeida S. (1993). Teachers’ Initial Perceptions of Transactional Strategies Instruction. The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 94, 2, 201-205.
Gimbrell, L. B., Bales, R. J. (1986). Mental Imagery and the Comprehension-Monitoring-Performance of Fourth- and Fifth-Grade Poor Readers. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 21, 4, 454-464.
Hashey, J. M., Conners, D. J. (2003) Learn From Our Journey: Reciprocal Teaching Action Research. The Reading Teacher, Vol. 57, 3, 224-232.
Marino, J. L., Gould, S. M., Haas, L. W. (1985). The Effects of Writing as a Prereading Activity on Delayed Recall of Narrative Text. The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 86, 2, 199-205.
Marr, M. B., Gormley, K. (1982). Children’s recall of familiar and unfamiliar text. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 18, 1, 89-104
National Reading Panel Report (2000) Findings and determinations by topic areas: Reading comprehension.
Paris, S. G., Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The Benefits of Informed Instruction for Children’s Reading Awareness and Comprehension Skills. Child Development, Vol. 55, 6, 2083-2093.
Shany, M. T., Biemiller, A. (1995). Assisted Reading Practice: Effects on Performance for Poor Readers in Grades 3 and 4. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 30, 3, 382-395.
Stevens, R. J., Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1987). Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition: Two Field Experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 22, 4, 433-454.
Summary of Studies Read
Research / Strategies Studied / PopulationMarr, et al., 1982 / Familiarity with topic (prior knowledge) / Randomly selected 4th grade students
Paris, et al., 1984 / Evaluation, planning, self-regulation (taught when and why to use strategies) / Grades 3 & 5
Whole classes
Marino, et al., 1985 / Prewriting to activate prior knowledge / Grades 4 & 5
Poor readers
Gimbrell, et al., 1986 / Mental imagery / 4th and 5th grade students-reading level
1 to 2 yrs below
Dowhower, 1987 / Repeated readings to 100 words per minute: child reads along with tape or teacher assists with specific words / 2nd grade students who
could decode
Stevens, et al., 1987 / Cooperative learning along with reading strategies: vocabulary study, decoding review, repeated oral readings, discussions involving predictions, summarizations and conclusions / Grades 3 & 4
Whole classes
Ferro-Almeida, 1993 / Transactional strategy instruction: contextual clues, predictions, visualizing, thinking aloud, story-grammar analysis, prior knowledge, self-questioning, summarizing and interpretation / Teachers grades 1-6 and EC teacher and Chapter 1
Shany, et al. 1995 / Teacher assisted readings and tape assisted readings / 3rd an 4th grade
poor readers
Aarnoutse, et al., 1997 / Teaching strategic listening strategies: questioning, clarifying, summarizing and predicting / Ages 9-11 with
Poor decoding
Poor listening vs average listening
Elloit, et al., 2000 / Volunteers to work with students – not effective / Prereaders and beginning readers from disadvantaged neighborhoods
Hashey, et al., 2003 / Reciprocal teaching: predicting, question generating, clarifying and summarizing
Crowe, 2005 / Making predictions using pictures, discussion to activate prior knowledge, summarize, vocabulary study, language structure study
Aarnoutse, C., Brand-Gruwel, S. (1997). Improving reading comprehension strategies through listening. Educational Studies, Vol. 23, 2, 209-228.
Studies show a strong correlation between reading comprehension and listening comprehension (Danks & End, 1987; Rispens, 1990; Smiley et al., 1977). The researchers accept this correlation and state that students with poor listening, poor decoding and poor reading comprehension should be instructed in each of these areas. They see a need to instruct middle grade students who have inadequate decoding skills in comprehension skills as well as decoding skills. Due to the poor reading ability, they wonder whether these skills can be taught through listening by presenting strategies verbally.
They site the Palincsar and Brown (1984) study in strategy instruction in reciprocal teaching. They want to use the four strategies used in that study but introduce and instruct strategies one at a time. They also want to compare students who have poor decoding skills and poor listening comprehension skills with those who have poor decoding skills and average listening comprehension to determine success of verbal strategy instruction.
The instruction of four strategies was presented verbally. Questioning, clarifying, summarizing, and predicting were taught and practiced one at a time and strategies already taught were reviewed while new strategies were being taught. The researchers used reciprocal teaching in which the teacher initially is responsible for the learning process, then in guided practice the students work individually or in small groups. Finally, the student applies strategies to work independently.
The subjects in the study were children in schools for children with learning disabilities in the Netherlands. They were nine to eleven years old. The experimental group was composed of 24 students, 16 of which had poor decoding and poor listening skills and eight who had poor decoding skills and average listening skills. The control group was composed of 15 students with poor decoding skills and poor listening skills and eight who had poor decoding and average listening skills. Students were selected as a result of scores on standardized decoding and general listening comprehension tests.
Pre and post testing included a decoding test, a reading comprehension test, a listening comprehension test and a strategic listening test. The strategies were taught twice a week for a total of 20 lessons of 30 minutes each. A graduate student trained by the researchers taught students the strategies in a step-by-step manner, outside of class.
The results showed a significant improvement in the strategic listening posttest results for the experimental group over the control group. No differences were found between the poor and average listeners in either group. However on the listening comprehension posttest there was no difference between results of the control and experimental groups showing no transfer into more general areas. The experimental group also made no more progress than the control group on the reading comprehension posttest.
The researchers concluded that the verbal instruction of strategies was effective as far as it went. They stated that four strategies might not have been enough. They also questioned whether the strategy instruction was taught long enough. They suggested extending strategy instruction to 40 sessions, adding more strategies and working on integrating these strategies in other texts. They also saw a need to refine questioning and summarizing strategies.
I certainly think the students would need more intensive, extensive instruction in the strategies. It has been my experience with the learning disabled student that resistance to instruction, which is developing as the new definition, is key. For any strategy to be effective, it must be taught thoroughly and practiced frequently. I have a problem with the strategies being taught outside of class with no apparent interaction with the teacher. I have found listening comprehension difficult to remediate and I think it would be more effective if addressed several times each school day with the coordinated efforts of teachers and therapists.
Margaret Greene
Works Cited
Danks, J. H. & End, L. J. (1998). Processing strategies for reading and listening, in: R.
Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds) Comprehending Oral and Written Language, pp.271-
294 (San Diego, CA, Academic Press Inc.).
Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering
and comprehension monitoring activities, Cognition and Instruction, 1, p. 117-175.
Rispens, J. (1990).Comprehension problems in dyslexia, in D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores, D.
Arcais & K. Rayner (Eds) Comprehension Processes in Reading, p. 603-620
(Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum).
Smiley, S. S., Oakley, D.D., Worthen, D., Campione, J.C., & Brown A.L. (1977). Recall
of thematically relevant material by adolescent good and poor readers as a function of
written versus oral presentation, Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, p. 381-387.
Crowe, L. K. (2005) Comparison of two oral reading feedback strategies in improving reading comprehension of school-age children with low reading ability. Remedial and Special Education, Vol.26, 1, 32-42.
There have been many studies relating the instruction of reading strategies to increase in reading comprehension. One approach is the use of highly structured and systematic instruction of decoding tasks with the attitude that comprehension is the natural result of recognizing words and attaching meaning to words, phrases and sentences (Tunmer & Cole,1991; Reichmuth,1997). The author contrasts that with communicative reading strategies (CRS; Norris, 1988) in which the teacher activates prior knowledge, helps summarize, defines unfamiliar words and helps with understanding of language structure. The author of this study relates studies in which CRS has been effective in increasing comprehension (Hernandez, 1989) and increasing oral and written language performance (Crowe. 2003). This researcher notes there have been few studies comparing effects of CRS to decoding based traditional intervention in the area of reading comprehension for poor readers. That comparison is the purpose of this study.
The children of this study were divided into two groups. Those who were in group 1 studied vocabulary words before reading the chapter and periodically discussed events in the story as they read. As they read they were encouraged and helped to decode words, reread a misread word and divide words into syllables to decode. The children in group 2 were asked to look at pictures to make predictions about the story, join in discussions to activate prior knowledge, summarize material as they read, discuss unfamiliar words as they read, and received any help needed to comprehend language structure and make connections throughout the material read.
The subjects of this study were eight children from eight to eleven years old. They had no diagnosed disabilities other than language or reading. There were two girls and two boys in each group and all children had good phonological awareness skills. Pre and post testing involved different forms of the same standardized reading comprehension test. The intervention took place over five weeks and was conducted for one hour twice a week by the author of the study. Each session began by the researcher asking five to six comprehension questions from the previous session. The comprehension questions for data analysis were collected on eight different days.
The results showed significant growth for group 2 with each child showing gains in reading comprehension. In the control group, no child showed growth and two showed decreases. Group 2 showed better recall of factual information after four days but there was no difference in inferential information recall for the groups.
The author notes group 2 scored higher on lower level comprehension questions but there were no significant differences in more abstract questions. She notes the small sample size as a factor limiting the generalization of the results. She also discusses the engagement of the children in group 2 with the material and the lack of engagement with group 1 resulting in inattention and behavior problems. She suggests that additional studies are needed to replicate her findings.
I have some problems with this study. The author seemed to have her mind set before she went into this study. I doubt her objectivity. I also have problems with her instructing the groups. I wonder whether she showed any interest with the group 1 children or were they set up for failure from the beginning? No matter what manner of instruction is used, teacher attitudes play a significant role.
Margaret Greene
Works Cited
Crowe, L. K. (2003). Comparison of two reading feedback strategies in improving the
oral and written language performance of children with language-learning disabilities.
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 16-27.
Hernandez, S. N. (1989). Effects of communicative reading strategies on the literacy
behaviors of third grade poor readers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge.
Norris, J. A. (1988). Using communication strategies to enhance reading acquisition. The
Reading Teacher, 41,368-373.
Reichmuth, S. S. (1997).Efficacy of communicative reading strategies as an instructional