Thinking to Read, Reading to think – Engaging Children meaningfully
in the Reciprocal Reading Process
Donna Thomson - Literacy Today article Dec. 2006, Issue 49, p12
In an attempt to effectively introduce the reciprocal reading framework that ‘teaches the
reading comprehension strategies of predicting, questioning, summarising and clarifying’
(First Steps, 1999) to Years 5 and 6 of our large Devon primary school in 2001, we
discovered that although many of the children in the classes had been assessed as
‘good readers’, they were struggling to engage with any real confidence in the reciprocal
guided reading process. It was decided that a more in-depth analysis of their reading
behaviors might uncover the area of difficulty and also offer a teaching focus for the
guided reading sessions.
Following the analysis of our children’s reading assessment results over a period of two
years we compared the outcomes from two reading measures: ‘PM Benchmark’ (2000)
and the New Zealand ‘Probe Comprehension Assessment’ 1999, and noted a
consistently disturbing discrepancy between the primary children’s ability to read, and
their overall comprehension at the reading level they had been attributed. The results
pointed to consistent teaching of objectives primarily aimed at levels of fluency and word
recognition (in line with PNS guidelines), that appeared to take precedence over the
teaching of comprehension thinking strategies at the most fundamental level. This led us
to question whether this lack of instruction in comprehension thinking skills might also be
impacting on the children’s motivation and ability to learn in general. An example of the
areas of comprehension failure that were identified by the ‘Probe’ assessment analysis
were amongst those also noted by Dr. Morag Stuart in her 2003 review of the NLS
reading guidelines:
i)
Poor knowledge of story structure and the different ways of gathering literal,
inference and evaluation information from the text (e.g. who, what where,
when, why and how information).
ii)
Little understanding that the authors intention is presented as clues in the text
that provide hidden and inferred meaning and that offer links to personal
meaning for the reader
iii)
Failure to make links and connections from own experience with that of
incoming new knowledge
iv)
General lack of in-depth enquiry during reading revealed as frequent literal or
unrelated personal responses to inference questions from the text
v)
Poor interpretation skills due to limited knowledge of vocabulary and
grammar
vi)
Poor skimming and scanning skills and tendency to rely on memory only to
respond to questions from the text
These findings (Thomson & Nixey, 2005) were later substantiated by other schools in the
country that had become aware of their pupil’s poor inferential and evaluative
comprehension skills and their students’ inability to make learning links and connections
across the primary and secondary curriculum. Concurrent evidence has accumulated
confirming poor literacy levels among children in the UK that might be linked to poor
teaching and assessment of comprehension thinking skills, were for example ‘100,000
young people are estimated to leave UK schools each year without basic literacy oral,
social and thinking skills to function adequately in society,' and ‘a quarter of 11 year olds
leave primary school unable to read and write well enough to deal with the demands of
the secondary school timetable’ (Sunday Times, Dec.,2004).
Undoubtedly, the cost of putting fluency before strategies to support contextual
understanding of text in the formative years of learning to read, has been high. Whilst
acknowledging the importance of phonics, there clearly exists a gap in children’s
1
learning that points to a need for them to think, question and actively seek meaning
much more during their primary reading experience than many of them do. It is essential
therefore that they are shown how to explore the text in greater ‘depth’; and to enquire
more as to the author’s meaning using inference, deduction and evaluation to predict
possible outcomes in the narrative as they read. Professor Stuart (2003)) points to the
necessity for more focused teaching of comprehension strategies in her report and
draws attention to the emphasis placed in the former NLS guidelines on ‘teaching
literacy criticism rather than facilitating reading comprehension’. She also challenges the
NLS notion that ‘word recognition’ is synonymous with ‘text comprehension’ and goes on
to say that ‘comprehension is complex’; a process that cannot be considered to be an
‘entity in itself, different and separated from listening comprehension’; but is ‘part of a
single language comprehension system that continues to develop throughout life’.
On further inspection of the (PNS) Primary National Strategy guidelines (2005) for
guided reading practice, it was clear to us, as it had been for Stuart (2003) ‘that we
neglect the development of language comprehension at our peril’ and that ‘further
research is needed if continuing improvements in teaching and learning are to be
achieved’. From the data collected (Thomson & Nixey 2001-5) it was evident that there
was a serious gap in the PNS framework until only recently, particularly in the area of
explicit instructions – where it neglects to show teachers how to teach inference and
evaluative thinking skills.
In urgent response to research outcomes, we created a programme (Think2Read, 2005)
for children in Years 5 and 6 of our primary school to support the implementation of the
reciprocal progress: which relies on a generic framework to organically facilitate thinking
skills, encourage independent learners and broaden the children’s understanding and
enjoyment of their reading in general. By using authentic classroom activities,
imaginative visual prompts and ‘real’ books in a series of interactive mixed ability
sessions, modeled by the teacher, the children are taught
 how building pictures in their heads from information they already know and
linking these images with new information - enables them to make a connection
with the authors meaning
 how to identify the difference between the author’s literal, inferential and
evaluative intention
 how to respond to and generate literal, inferential and evaluative questioning,
appropriately, effectively and meaningfully – independent of teacher guidance
 how to find key word connections in questions that link to key information and
evidence in the text to provide a full and accurate answer
 how to communicate their deductive ideas meaningfully and with confidence
orally and on paper
 how to skim and scan quickly and effectively in pursuit of the ‘bigger picture’
 how to gather information that makes connections and links with different
sections of text
 how to enrich and broaden their use and understanding of vocabulary
 how to work together using the reciprocal process to explore a range of different
genre using prediction, clarification, questioning and summarising within
collaborative mixed ability teams.
The programme yielded encouraging results. SATS results for participating Year 6
children showed a particularly high comprehension result of 90% passes at level 4/5,
with a significant rise in standards in just two terms. The school considered this to be
especially encouraging because of the number of children with dyslexic tendencies that
were included in the score. Teachers reported that pupils were more willing to learn
from one another’s assumptions and keen to explore and challenge each other about
text and the author’s intention within the reciprocal reading process. Dr. Maureen Lewis,
2
an observer from the NLS who came to visit the school in 2005, reported that the
sessions seemed to have ‘opened the gates to children’s learning of prediction,
clarification, questioning and summarizing.’ Children were found to be experiencing a
much greater appreciation of the books they were reading and were better prepared to
engage in more independent and meaningful exploration of author’s intention, style of
writing, narrative and non-fiction text and different genre.
In addition this has introduced them to the world of ‘the author’, where for many they
were beginning to understand for the first time how authors write with intention using
inference clue devices to build imagery and plot. This effective and fun approach to the
development of writing had such an impact on many of the children, that they moved a
whole level up in their writing as a result of this discovery - in just one lesson. This
experience also led them to transfer their deductive thinking practice to a variety of
contexts across the curriculum; once they realized that they were able to use inference
devices to help them to solve a range of problems, particularly with regard to maths and
science.
Since this programme’s success which has resulted in publication of the step-by-step
methods used to teach these strategies (Thomson & Nixey, 2007), it is heartening to see
that the specific outcomes from Phase 1 of the Think2Read Project are clearly reflected
in the new PNS literacy framework(Sept. 2006): where it wholeheartedly advocates the
use of the reciprocal reading process and underlines the ‘crucial role of the teacher’ in
providing ‘explicit instruction’ of ‘the five strategies’ e.g., ‘prediction, questioning,
clarifying, imagining and summarization’ (USA National Reading Panel, 2000) and
qualifies this by saying that it ‘should be taught to ensure good reading comprehension’,
as it ‘trains children to monitor their own understanding’ and ‘helps children go beyond
literal interpretation and recall to explore the complex meanings of a text using inference
and deduction.’
References
Education Department of Western Australia (1999) First Steps: GHPD, Oxford OX2 8EJ
Parkin,C & Parkin, C, (1999) Probe Comprehension Assessment, New Zealand, Truine Publications
Primary National Strategy (2006), Primary Framework for literacy and mathematics
www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/teachingresources
PM Benchmark ,(2000) Nelson
Stuart, M (2003) Fine Tuning the NLS, paper written in response to paper circulated to speakers on 24
February 2003, prior to DfES Phonics Seminar, March 17 th 2003
www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/publications/literacy/686807
Thomson, D. & Nixey, R. (2005) Reading To think, Thinking To Read: Bringing meaning, reasoning and
enjoyment to reading, Literacy Today No.44, September issue, Devon: The Education publishing company
Thomson, D & Nixey, R. (2007) Quick Fix For Year Six, Leamington Spa: Scholastic Ltd
3