Agenda

1. Agenda Today we will discuss: • Inspiration behind the framework • The utility of building conceptual models • Your model of reading comprehension • Components of the framework • Sample frameworks • Questions and answers

2. Inspiration Behind the Framework A new adolescent literacy program that: • Focused on Grades 6-12 • Targeted the “neediest” students in English/Reading classes • Assumed that all students had deficits in phonic analysis and word decoding skills • Selected Lexia Strategies for Olders Students (SOS) software as primary intervention • Evaluated effectiveness of program with Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test

3. What Striving Readers Really Need Study by Valencia and Riddle-Buly (2004): • Population: Fifth grade general education students who had failed state tests in language arts • Reading instruction: Provided by classroom teachers • Purpose: Understand the “garden variety” test failure - those students typically found in the regular classroom who are experiencing reading difficulty • Targeted skills: Word identification (decoding), meaning (comprehension and vocabulary), and fluency (rate and expression) • Source: Behind test scores: What struggling readers really need. The Reading Teacher, 57(6), 520-531 .

4. Diagnostic Tests Used Looked at word identification, meaning, and fluency: • Woodcock-Johnson Test - Revised (WJ-R)Letter-word Identification and Word Attack subtests • Qualitative Reading Inventory - II (QRI-II) Reading Accuracy, Acceptability, Rate, Expression, Comprehension • Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-R)Vocabulary Meaning • State Fourth-Grade PassagesReading Accuracy, Acceptability, Rate, Expression

5. Results of Cluster Analysis

6. Results of Cluster Analysis (cont.)

7. Conclusions and Implications Research indicated… • Pre-adolescents (5th graders) who fail state reading tests are more likely to show weaknesses in fluency and vocabulary/comprehension. • It is less likely that low-performing students will be weak in all critical areas but will show profiles of strengths and weaknesses. • One-size instructional programs do not fit all students. • For example, placing all the “neediest” students in a phonics/word identification program would be appropriate for only 41% of students.

8. Why Build a Conceptual Framework? You can use conceptual frameworks to: • Identify the essential components of a program/concept • Link those components to construct a vision orgraphic organizer for the program/concept • Clarify the assumptions behind the components and linkages • Use as a communication tool for staff development and collaborative inquiry • Review program practices for evidenceof components • Examples: Fab Five (NRP, 2000); Stages of Reading (Fountas and Pinnell, 1996); Roles of the Reading Specialist (IRA, 2000); logic models; curricula

9. Essential Components Curriculum content Instructional strategies Assessments Support and resources Using Frameworks for Evaluation Current implementation of curriculum and student results Desired implementation of curriculum and student results (The Vision) Gap Policy implications for closing the gap

10. Your Model of Reading Comprehension Individually or in pairs, use the worksheet handout to: • List the essential elements of adolescent reading comprehension. • Create categories from the list of elements. • Draw a picture of how the categories interact with one another. • Describe the strategies that you used to complete the task.

11. References for the Framework Out of 160+ publications, these were essential: • Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1997). Research on text comprehension in multimedia environments. Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 60-81. • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. • Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. • Wren, S. (2001). The cognitive foundations of learning to read: A framework. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

12. Key Assumptions Behind the Framework • Gough and Tunmer’s (1986) Simple View of Reading (R=DxC) is insufficient for addressing needs of striving adolescent readers. • Proficient readers use both lower level, bottom-up skills and higher-level, top-down skills. • Successful comprehension results from interactions and smooth transitions between both types of processing. • Readers may overcompensate for deficiencies at one level by relying on sources at lower or higher levels. • Comprehension results from interactive variables operating simultaneously within these processes rather than sequentially.

13. Components of the Framework Non-print language awareness: • Phonological combinations (similarities and differences between English phonemes) • Phonemic awareness (individual sounds in words) • Phonological awareness (sounds of words and syllables) Fluency in word decoding: • Basic phonic analysis (letter-sound conversion and spelling/syllable patterns) • Other decoding skills (e.g., semantic and syntactic cues) • Automaticity of word recognition (speed and accuracy) • Fluency (appropriate phrasing and expression)

14. Components of the Framework (cont.) Vocabulary: • Lexical access (selection of appropriate word meanings) • Vocabulary knowledge (the lexicon) Comprehension (online and offline): • Surface code (recall of exact wording in sentences) • Textbase (local and global paraphrasing of text) • Situation model (coherent mental image of relationships beyond explicit text) • Pragmatics and discourse genre (author characteristics, motives, and document form) • Extratextual representations (e.g., application, synthesis)

15. Sample Situation Model 1 2 Author 3 • Once upon a time • Cat and Rat were best friends. • They lived in houses right next to each other. • Rat liked to copy Cat. • Rat built a house that was just like Cat's. • Cat planted a tree by his house. • Rat planted one too. • Cat made a straw mat for his house, • and Rat made one too. • Once, Cat made a flute • and played sweet tunes. • “Let me play a tune, too,” said Rat. • So, Cat let Rat play a tune. • Cat and Rat also worked together in their vegetable garden. • They planned to have a big party for their friends • when all of the vegetables were ready. 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 9 16 14 12 13 15

16. Components of the Framework (cont.) Comprehension strategies (online and offline): • Cognitive strategies (e.g., scanning, repeating) • Metacognitive strategies (e.g., goal setting, evaluation) • Social-affective strategies (e.g., taking risks, lowering anxiety, learning from others) Engagement with reading activity/content: • Perceived self-efficacy (self-confidence) • Purpose for reading (intrinsically motivating goal) • Interest in content (relevant choice of topic)

17. Components of the Framework (cont.) Complexity of text: • Vocabulary load (number of unfamiliar words) • Sentence length and complexity (number of clauses and embedded structures) • Concept density (number of new ideas) Prior knowledge (world, content domain, topic) Cognitive capacity (e.g, attention, visualization, inferencing, reasoning, working memory)

18. Categories of the Framework The components are organized by: • Reader characteristics: prior knowledge, vocabulary, cognitive capacity, and engagement • Text complexity: vocabulary load, sentence length/complexity, and concept density • Comprehensionprocesses: automatic, lexical access, strategies, and online/offline production • Comprehensionproducts: surface code, textbase, situation model, pragmatic structure, and extra-textual

19. Sample Frameworks Before we review the framework, take a look at these: • Simple View of Reading (Wren, 2001) • Adolescent Reading Model (Deshler & Hock, 2006)

20. Simple View of Reading Source: Wren, S. (2001). The cognitive foundations of learning to read: A framework. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

21. Adolescent Reading Model Source: Deshler, D. D. & Hock, M. F. (2006). Shaping literacy achievement. New York: Guilford Press.

22. And Its Use for SIM Reading Program Source: Deshler, D. D. & Hock, M. F. (2006). Shaping literacy achievement. New York: Guilford Press.

23. Questions and Answers For more information, contact: Chad T. Green, PMPProgram AnalystResearch OfficeLoudoun County Public Schools21000 Education CourtAshburn, VA 20148Voice: 571-252-1486Fax: 571-252-1633E-mail: chad.green@loudoun.k12.va.us