Nell K. Duke Michigan State University Literacy Achievement Research Center

1. Comprehension in Early EducationA Presentation at Promoting Student Literacy Through Comprehension: Enhancing Teacher Preparation and Professional Development, Albany, NY, June, 2007 Nell K. Duke Michigan State University Literacy Achievement Research Center

2. Presentation Aims • Provide key research-based understandings about how to support comprehension for students in the early grades • Share information and perspective about implications of the research for teacher education policy and practice Note: I am focusing on reading comprehension.

3. Two reviews of research on reading comprehension instruction specifically and exclusively in the primary grades: Pearson, P. D., & Duke, N. K. (2002). Comprehension instruction in the primary grades. In C. C. Block & G. M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 247-258). New York: Guilford Press. Stahl, K. A. D. (2004). Proof, practice, and promise: Comprehension strategy instruction in the primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 57, 598-609. A review of research across the elementary grades and beyond: Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd edition) (pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. (There are many more of these.)

4. Note also studies focusing on teacher professional development around reading comprehension instruction, including: Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E.,, Rackcliffe, 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, 347-368. El-Dinary, P. B., & Schuder, T. (1993). Seven teachers’ acceptance of Transactional Strategies Instruction during their first year using it. Elementary School Journal, 94, 207-219. With older students: Hilden, K. R., & Pressley, M. (2007). Self-regulation through Transactional Strategies Instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 51-75.

5. Six Understandings • Reading comprehension is an ultimate goal of literacy education.* • Reading comprehension is integrally linked to language and world knowledge. • There is a lot more to reading comprehension than recognizing the words. * This one is more philosophical than something that can be tested in research.

6. Six Understandings • In early education, a focus on both reading comprehension and letter- and word-level work seems best. • Even in early education, reading comprehension improves when teachers provide explicit instruction in the use of comprehension strategies. • Even in early education, reading comprehension improves when teachers design and implement activities that support understanding of the texts that students read in their classes.

7. Reading Comprehension is an Ultimate Goal of Literacy Education • Comprehension is a focus in every literacy standards document I am aware of. • Comprehension is a focus of every state assessment I am aware of, as well as NAEP. • Many foci of early education -- e.g., instruction in concepts of print, phonological awareness, letter-sound relationships, even, to a degree, vocabulary -- are a means to the end, not the end itself. Educators, policymakers, and others can lose sight of this.

8. Reading Comprehension is an Ultimate Goal of Literacy Education • How reading comprehension is defined, what’s involved at a minimum, and what’s included at a maximum, varies. • RAND Reading Study Group (2002): “. . . the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and involvement with written language. . .” • Simple View of Reading (e.g., Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990): reading comprehension is a function of two processes: (1) decoding and (2) linguistic or language or listening comprehension (different scholars use different terms and perhaps, concepts)

9. Reading Comprehension is an Ultimate Goal of Literacy Education • Strong agreement that successful reading comprehension is not solely literal • Strong agreement that meaning does not simply lie in the text • Considerable agreement that successful reading comprehension varies by text and by task (both the reason for reading and the way reading comprehension is reflected -- e.g., intertextual work, writing in response to reading, gleaning specific information from text) In my experience, preservice teachers and others often have misconceptions along these lines.

10. Reading Comprehension is an Ultimate Goal of Literacy Education • Less agreement about whether reading comprehension includes comprehension of visual elements of text • Less agreement about whether reading comprehension includes text search and navigation. • Less agreement about whether reading comprehension includes critique, critical literacy, and so on. In any case, these areas have to be addressed somewhere, so we have to figure out where.

11. Reading Comprehension is Integrally Linked to Language and World Knowledge • Language difficulties are strongly linked to reading comprehension difficulties (see Scarborough, 2001 for a review). • Reading comprehension and vocabulary are strongly related (see Stahl, 1998 and National Reading Panel, 2000 for reviews). • Reading comprehension relies heavily on world knowledge (e.g., Afflerbach & Pressley, 1995; Wilson & Anderson, 1986). Educators and policymakers need to guard against the neglect of language and world knowledge development in early education.

12. There is a Lot More to Reading Comprehension Than Recognizing the Words* • Far from perfect correlations between word recognition and/or fluency and comprehension, even pretty early on(e.g., Nation and Snowling 1998; Paris, Carpenter, Paris, & Hamilton, 2002; Yuill & Oakhill, 1991) • Documented cases of hyperlexia(e.g., Wahlberg, 2001; Barnes, Faulkner, & Dennis, 2001) • Other cases in the clinical literature(e.g., Dewitz & Dewitz, 2003) • * This is another misconception I often see, especially among preservice teachers and policymakers.

13. There is a Lot More to Reading Comprehension Than Recognizing the Words • Profile Analyses, good word recognition but poor comprehension: • Shankweiler et al, 1999: 13.6% of children 7.5 - 9.5 years old, 27.8% of impaired readers at this age • Catts and Hogan, 2002: 3% of fourth graders, 19.5% of fourth graders with reading difficulties • Buly and Valencia, 2002: 18% of fourth graders who did poorly on Washington state test

14. There is a Lot More to Reading Comprehension Than Recognizing the Words • Even good word recognition and good listening comprehension is not a guarantee of reading comprehension success: • Catts, Hogan, Adolf, & Barth, 2003: Among those showing poor RC, the following showed good D and good L: 13.9% of second graders, 15.7% of fourth graders, 23.5% of eighth graders. • Nation, Clarke, Marshall, & Durand, 2004: Among 22 showing poor RC, 18 readers showed poor RC, good D and good LC.

15. There is a Lot More to Reading Comprehension Than Recognizing the Words • Good readers are active readers. • From the outset they have clear goals in mind for their reading. They constantly evaluate whether the text, and their reading of it, is meeting their goals. • Good readers typically look over the text before they read, noting such things as the structure of the text and text sections that might be most relevant to their reading goals. • As they read, good readers frequently make predictions about what is to come. • They read selectively, continually making decisions about their reading--what to read carefully, what to read quickly, what not to read, what to re-read, and so on. From Duke & Pearson, 2002

16. Good readers construct, revise, and question the meanings they make as they read. • They draw upon, compare, and integrate their prior knowledge with material in the text. • They think about the authors of the text, their style, beliefs, intentions, historical milieu, and so on. • They monitor their understanding of the text, making adjustments in their reading as necessary. • Good readers try to determine the meaning of unfamiliar words and concepts in the text, and they deal with inconsistencies or gaps as needed. • They evaluate the text’s quality and value, and react to the text in a range of ways, both intellectually and emotionally. From Duke & Pearson, 2002

17. Good readers read different kinds of text differently. • When reading narrative, good readers attend closely to the setting and characters; • when reading expository text these readers frequently construct and revise summaries of what they have read. • For good readers, text processing occurs not only during ‘reading’ as we have traditionally defined it, but also during short breaks taken during reading, even after the ‘reading’ itself has commenced, even after the ‘reading’ has ceased. • Comprehension is a consuming, continuous, and complex activity, but one that, for good readers, is both satisfying and productive. • See also growing research literature on what good Internet readers do when they read -- it reveals many of these same things, but also many different things as well (e.g., Coiro & Schmar-Dobler, 2007; Zhang & Duke, under review). From Duke & Pearson, 2002

18. A Focus on Both Reading Comprehension and Letter- and Word-Level Work Seems Best • Exemplary schools and teachers studies: • Knapp & Associates (1995): taught discrete skills (though more often in the context of text) AND more writing in response to reading, more discussion of text, more higher-order discussion • Pressley, Rankin, & Yokoi (1996) (survey): lots of letter recognition, phonics, and spelling AND taught text structure, theme/main idea, character analysis, comprehension strategies • Taylor, Pearson, Clark, &Walpole (2000:) most effective teachers taught phonics (but with emphasis on application during real reading) AND engaged in more higher-order questioning and more writing in response to reading

19. A Focus on Both Reading Comprehension and Letter- and Word-Level Work Seems Best • Wharton-McDonald, Pressley, & Hampton (1998): lots of skills instruction (though not decontextualized) AND lots of meaning focus, including lots of reading connected writing and content instruction • Pressley, Wharton-McDonald, et al., (2001): lots of word recognition instruction (though emphasizing more different strategies) AND more likely to teach research-tested comprehension strategies • National syntheses • Preventing Reading Difficulties (1998) • National Reading Panel (2000) • Cross-category gains (Comp. gains from letter- and word-level work AND word-level gains from comp. work -- e.g. Brown, et al. 1992)

20. Reading Comprehension Improves When Teachers Provide Explicit Instruction in the Use of Comprehension Strategies (1) An explicit description of the strategy and when and how it should be used (2) Teacher and/or student modeling of the strategy in action (3) Collaborative use of the strategy in action (4) Guided practice using the strategy with gradual release of responsibility (5) Independent use of the strategy From Duke & Pearson, 2002

21. Reading Comprehension Improves When Teachers Provide Explicit Instruction in the Use of Comprehension Strategies • Strategies can be taught individually. Specific strategies shown to improve comprehension if taught, even individually: • Monitoring and adjusting as needed • Activating and applying relevant prior knowledge (including making predictions) • Asking oneself questions as one reads (also, teacher questioning) • Think aloud (also, teacher think aloud) • Attending to and uncovering text structure • Constructing visual representations (imaging and graphic organizers) • Summarizing From Duke & Pearson, 2002 (Duke & Pearson, 2002)

22. Reading Comprehension Improves When Teachers Provide Explicit Instruction in the Use of Comprehension Strategies • Strategies can also be taught in clusters, quickly used as sets rather than individually. This appears to be more effective (Reutzel, Smith, & Fawson, 2005). Relatively few have been tested and shown to raise reading achievement with children K - 3 (many more, of course, in grades 4 and above). These include: • Reciprocal Teaching (Johnson-Glenberg, 2000; Palincsar, Brown, & Campione, 1993, though not exactly a “test”) • Students Achieving Independent Learning (SAIL), a Transactional Strategies Instruction (TSI) approach (Brown, et al. 1996) • Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) (Guthrie, Wigfield, & Perencevich, 2004) • And with other sets of strategies, such as: • Question Answer Relationships (QAR) (in third grade: Ezell, et al., 1992; Highfield, 2003; for more info about QAR in general: Raphael, Highfield, & Au, 2006) (Duke & Pearson, 2002)

23. Reading Comprehension Improves When Teachers Design and ImplementActivities that Support Understanding of the Texts that Students Read in their Classes There are a number of these. They include: • Text Talk (Beck & McKeown, 2001) • Shared Book Discussions (Eldridge, Reutzel, & Hollingsworth, 1996) • Fluency-Oriented Reading Instruction (Stahl, Heubach, Holcomb, 2005) • Repeated Reading (Dowhower, 1987) • Wide Reading (Kuhn, 2004/2005) (Duke & Pearson, 2002)

24. More about the Stahl et al. structure The routine for each story in a basal reader was modified so that students engaged in the following activities: 1. Listening to the teacher read the story aloud 2. Participating in a whole class discussion of the story • Teacher-generated questions • Student-generated questions • Attention to vocabulary 3. Completing, independently, organizational tools (story maps, plot charts, Venn diagrams, etc.)

25. More about the Stahl et al. structure 4. Echo reading with the teacher if in need of extra help 5. Reading the story to parents/caretakers at home 6. On the next day, re-reading the story with a partner 7. Writing a journal entry in pairs or as a whole class 8. Free reading for 15-20 minutes per day in class and at home

26. Six Understandings • Reading comprehension is an ultimate goal of literacy education.* • Reading comprehension is integrally linked to language and world knowledge. • There is a lot more to reading comprehension than recognizing the words. * This one is more philosophical than something that can be tested in research.

27. Six Understandings • In early education, a focus on both reading comprehension and letter- and word-level work seems best. • Even in early education, reading comprehension improves when teachers provide explicit instruction in the use of comprehension strategies. • Even in early education, reading comprehension improves when teachers design and implement activities that support understanding of the texts that students read in their classes.