1 / 100

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 Kentucky Janice.almasi@uky.edu. Contact Information.

rianne
Download Presentation

Critical Reflections on Theory and Research Related to Comprehension Strategies Instruction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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 Kentucky Janice.almasi@uky.edu

  2. Contact Information • For further information about this presentation please contact: Janice F. Almasi, Ph.D. Carol Lee Robertson Endowed Professor of Literacy University of Kentucky 101 Taylor Education Building Lexington, KY 40506 Janice.almasi@uky.edu Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky

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

  4. What are Strategies? “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) 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.

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

  6. Comprehension Research Where We’ve Been Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky

  7. Comprehension Research: Where We’ve Been (Pearson, 2009) Cognitive Revolution • Readers viewed as active participants in meaning construction process. • Experimental studies offered promising findings showing strategies-based interventions were successful at enhancing comprehension. Comprehension Not valued except as a step toward text memorization 1975 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.

  8. 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) Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky

  9. Expert/Novice Studies: 1980s Expert Readers 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 • 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 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.

  10. Fig. 1.5, p. 11 Possess a variety of strategies for accomplishing tasks Good Strategy Users (Pressley, 1986,1989) 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.

  11. Fig. 1.5, p. 11 Possess a variety of strategies for accomplishing tasks Good Strategy Users (Pressley, 1986,1989) Use Primitive Routines Nonstrategic Readers (Garner, 1987) Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

  12. Fig. 1.5, pp. 11, 19 Possess a variety of strategies for accomplishing tasks Are able to analyze reading tasks to plan and select strategies Good Strategy Users (Pressley, 1986,1989) Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky 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.

  13. Unable to Transfer Strategy Use To New Contexts Uses Primitive Routines Good Strategy Users (Pressley, 1986, 1989) pp. 22-23 Nonstrategic Readers (Garner, 1987) 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. Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

  14. Possess a variety of strategies for accomplishing tasks Are able to analyze reading tasks to plan and select strategies Are motivated to use strategies and have agency Fig. 1.5, pp. 11-14 Good Strategy Users (Pressley, 1986, 1989) Persist Confident Attribute Success to Effort 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.

  15. Unable to Transfer Strategy Use To New Contexts Uses Primitive Routines p. 23 Personal attributions do not support strategy use Give Up Unconfident Nonstrategic Readers (Garner, 1987) Attribute Success to Luck Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

  16. Possess a variety of strategies for accomplishing tasks Are able to analyze reading tasks to plan and select strategies Are motivated to employ strategies and have agency Good Strategy Users (Pressley, 1986, 1989) Fig. 1.5, pp. 11-13 Table 6.1, pp. 148-151 Table 7.3, pp. 236-237 Possess an extensive knowledge base: • Declarative • Procedural • Conditional 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.

  17. Unable to Transfer Strategy Use To New Contexts Uses Primitive Routines Good Strategy Users (Pressley, 1986, 1989) Personal attributions do not support strategy use pp. 22-23 Possess an extensive knowledge base: • Declarative (What) • Procedural (How) • Conditional (Why) Meager knowledgebase Nonstrategic Readers (Garner, 1987) 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. Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

  18. Unable to Transfer Strategy Use To New Contexts Uses Primitive Routines Personal attributions do not support strategy use pp. 22-23 I don’t know how to do it! Meager knowledgebase Nonstrategic Readers (Garner, 1987) What am I supposed to do? I don’t know when or why I should use this! Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

  19. Possess a variety of strategies for accomplishing tasks Are able to analyze reading tasks to plan and select strategies Are motivated to use strategies and have agency Good Strategy Users (Pressley, 1986, 1989) Fig. 1.5, p. 11 Possess an extensive knowledge base: • Declarative • Procedural • Conditional Make use of metacognitive factors to regulate and monitor comprehension and performance 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.

  20. Unable to Transfer Strategy Use To New Contexts Uses Primitive Routines Personal attributions do not support strategy use pp. 22-23 Poor cognitive monitoring and metacognition Meager knowledgebase Nonstrategic Readers (Garner, 1987) Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

  21. 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)

  22. 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) Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky

  23. Explicit Instruction(Pearson & Dole, 1987; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983) Declarative Knowledge What is it? Explanation • Explicit • Instruction • Direct Explanation • In authentic context • Encourages flexible • strategy use • Gradually release • responsibility from • teacher to student How do I do it? Procedural Knowledge Where, when, why should I do it? Conditional Knowledge Modeling/Thinking Aloud Guided Practice Independence 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.

  24. 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. Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky

  25. Comprehension Research: Where We’ve Been • Third Wave • Transactional Strategies Instruction (extended multiple strategies instruction to include flexible strategy use while readers transact with text) 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.

  26. 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) Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky 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.

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

  28. Results (Brown, Pressley, Van Meter & Schuder, 1996) 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. Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky

  29. Measures of Comprehension 6 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 ended • Dole, Brown, & Trathen (1996) • 67 fifth and sixth-grade at-risk readers • 5 week intervention 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.

  30. Results (Dole, Brown & Trathen, 1996) 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. Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky

  31. U.S. Dept. of Ed. Recommendationswhatworks.ed.gov/publications/practiceguides STRONG EVIDENCE Teach Students How to Use Comprehension Strategies 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.

  32. Critical Elements of Strategy Instruction Model(Almasi & Fullerton, 2012) Enhances Personal Attributions and Motivation Fig. 2.1, pp. 36-57 Create a Safe and Risk Free Environment to Enhance Motivation and Risk Taking Enhances Motivation, Knowledge, Monitoring, and Transfer to New Contexts Enhances Knowledge Overcomes: - Meager knowledge base - Use of primitive routines - Poor Comp Monitoring Provide Explicit Instruction Create Opportunities for Student Verbalization Reduce Processing Demands Enhances Motivation, Knowledge, and Transfer to New Contexts Source: Almasi, J. F., & Fullerton, S, K. (2012). Teaching strategic processes in reading (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford

  33. Comprehension Research Where We Are Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky

  34. Comprehension Research: Where We Are • 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) 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.

  35. 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. Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky

  36. 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) Participants: Intact 5th grade classrooms Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky 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.

  37. Worries . . . • Product vs. Process Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky

  38. 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

  39. 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? Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky

  40. Striving Readers Evaluation U.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.

  41. LSC Impact Study Research Questions • 1. What is the impact of the LSC on the reading achievement, strategy use, and motivation of struggling adolescent readers? Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky

  42. LSC Certification Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky

  43. 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

  44. LSC Classroom Model 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 Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky

  45. Critical Elements of Strategy Instruction Model(Almasi & Fullerton, 2012) Enhances Personal Attributions and Motivation Fig. 2.1, pp. 36-57 Create a Safe and Risk Free Environment to Enhance Motivation and Risk Taking Enhances Motivation, Knowledge, Monitoring, and Transfer to New Contexts Enhances Knowledge Overcomes: - Meager knowledge base - Use of primitive routines - Poor Comp Monitoring Provide Explicit Instruction Create Opportunities for Student Verbalization Reduce Processing Demands Enhances Motivation, Knowledge, and Transfer to New Contexts Source: Almasi, J. F., & Fullerton, S, K. (2012). Teaching strategic processes in reading (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford

  46. LSC Impact Study Research 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 Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky

  47. LSC Student Demographics Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky

  48. Student Outcome Measures • Achievement Test: GRADE • Reading Strategies Use Survey: MARSI (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2000) • Motivation Survey: MRQ (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997) Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky

  49. LSC Analytic Approach:Hierarchical Linear Models (HLM) • 2-Level HLM: Students within Schools School #1 School #2 School #X Intv Intv Control Control Intv Control Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky

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

More Related