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
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 GatesMacGinitie Reading Test
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 .
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 Passages
Reading Accuracy, Acceptability, Rate, Expression
Results of Cluster Analysis
Student
Profile
Word
Ident.
#1
--
--
--
Very weak in all areas 9%
#2
++
--
++
Reads fast, accurate but
no meaning - 18%
#3
-
-
++
Reads indiv. words; rate
high with errors - 15%
#4
-
+
-
Labored reading for
meaning - 17%
#5
+
++
-
Slow but relatively
accurate - 24%
#6
+
-
-
Good decoding, slow, poor
meaning - 17%
Meaning Fluency Description
Results of Cluster Analysis (cont.)
Student
Profile
Word
Ident.
#1
--
--
--
#2
++
--
++
Slow down, attend to
meaning
#3
-
-
++
Phonics and
comprehension
#4
-
+
-
Decoding and fluency
#5
+
++
-
Rereading to build fluency
#6
+
-
-
Increase reading rate and
comprehension
Meaning Fluency Reading Strategy
Emphasize phonics and
phonemic awareness
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.
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 or graphic
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 evidence of components
Examples: Fab Five (NRP, 2000); Stages of Reading
(Fountas and Pinnell, 1996); Roles of the Reading
Specialist (IRA, 2000); logic models; curricula
Using Frameworks for Evaluation
Current
implementation of
curriculum and
student results
Essential Components
Curriculum content
Instructional strategies
Assessments
Support and resources
Gap
Desired
implementation of
curriculum and
student results
(The Vision)
Policy implications
for closing the gap
Your Model of Reading Comprehension
Individually or in pairs, use the worksheet handout to:
1. List the essential elements of adolescent reading
comprehension.
2. Create categories from the list of elements.
3. Draw a picture of how the categories interact with one
another.
4. Describe the strategies that you used to complete the
task.
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.
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.
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)
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)
Sample Situation Model
1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
2
Author
3
Once upon a time
4
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.
1
1
Once, Cat made a flute
6
4
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.
5
6
7
8
1
0
9
1
2
1
5
1
1
1
3
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)
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)
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
Comprehension processes: automatic, lexical access,
strategies, and online/offline production
Comprehension products: surface code, textbase,
situation model, pragmatic structure, and extra-textual
Sample Frameworks
Before we review the framework, take a look at these:
Simple View of Reading (Wren, 2001)
Adolescent Reading Model (Deshler & Hock, 2006)
Simple View of Reading
Source: Wren, S. (2001). The cognitive foundations of learning to read: A
framework. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Adolescent Reading Model
Source: Deshler, D. D. & Hock, M. F. (2006). Shaping literacy
achievement. New York: Guilford Press.
And Its Use for SIM Reading Program
Source: Deshler, D. D. & Hock, M. F. (2006). Shaping literacy
achievement. New York: Guilford Press.
Questions and Answers
For more information, contact:
Chad T. Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Research Office
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633
E-mail: chad.green@loudoun.k12.va.us