The Comprehension Conundrum: Vocabulary Pre-Exposure and its Effects on Reading Comprehension Eric C. Powell ED 7201T CUNY Brooklyn College, Fall 2011 [1] Table of Contents Abstract………………………………………………………………3 Introduction………………………………………………………….4 - Statement of the Problem………………………………….4 - Review of Related Literature………………………………4 - Statement of the Hypothesis………………………………8 Method……………………………………………………………….9 - Participants………………………………………………..9 - Instruments………………………………………………..9 - Experimental Design………………………………………9 - Procedure………………………………………………….9 Results………………………………………………………………… Discussion……………………………………………………………. Implications…………………………………………………………... References……………………………………………………………10 Appendices…………………………………………………………… - Appendix A……………………………….………………... - Appendix B………………………………………………… - Appendix C………………………………………………… - Appendix D………………………………………………... [2] Abstract [3] Introduction I have been fortunate enough to work with developing readers in the capacity of reading and writing tutor for almost four years now. The students I have worked with have ranged in level from kindergarten to young adults, and have included every age in between. Reading instruction usually begins with phonemic awareness before proceeding to comprehension. A student is first taught to decode words phonetically in order to be able to read the words on the page, with reading comprehension – the student’s understanding of what is being read – left as a secondary concern. As a Childhood Education student at CUNY Brooklyn College, I have had the opportunity to work in a Brooklyn elementary school in the capacity of student teacher. The students I worked with had – with the exception of the ELL students – their phonemic awareness in place and were thus working on their reading comprehension skills. The students were taught to approach reading comprehension through various strategies, but a gap still existed between their phonemic awareness and their comprehension levels when encountering a text. Statement of the Problem During my time as both a reading and writing tutor and a fifth grade student teacher, I have come to notice a disparity between student phonemic awareness and reading comprehension levels. Students who regularly display a positive grasp of phonic decoding skills are not always able to comprehend and explain what they have just read. Based on these observations I am interested in investigating techniques which purport to increase student comprehension levels. The current model for reading comprehension instruction is the reading workshop – a model in which there is one particular gap: vocabulary reinforcement. Review of Related Literature The current practice for promoting and teaching reading comprehension is called the reading workshop. The reading workshop, developed by Nancie Atwell, supplants the traditional basal reader with the students’ independent choice of reading materials, allows for reading time during class, and asks that the students record reflections about their reading in [4] a reading journal as well as share those thoughts with the class (Swift, 1993). The reading workshop model has been used to develop in students a sense of purpose in reading, increase the students’ sense of their own reading competence, and broaden the students’ knowledge base of reading strategies which enhance comprehension (Kletzien & Hushion, 1992). Reading workshop has also been used to increase student motivation to read as well as student reading speeds (Lausé, 2004). Students themselves have noted in studies an increase in their reading comprehension due to reading workshop (Stewart, Paradis, Ross, & Lewis, 1996). Reading workshop is a complete reorganization of reading instruction which has been deemed necessary in order to “rekindle a sense of joy and ownership” in the students’ views of reading (Reutzel & Cooter, 1991, p. 548). One aspect of this reorganization involves transference of control regarding student reading material – a transference which may at first give some teachers pause (Roessing, 2007). The control over student reading material shifts from teacher to student. It has been observed that in this reorganization the reading workshop is an outgrowth of Vygotsky’s theories regarding social interaction as a component of learning (Meyer, 2010). Through the reading workshop, the students are encouraged to communicate their ideas with their classmates while the teacher is utilized to model the various strategies for the students (Uttero, 1988). Reciprocal instruction (peer teaching of strategies) has been shown to greatly improve reading comprehension levels (Lysynchuk, Pressley, & Vye, 1990). Both of these aspects of the reading workshop can be seen as containing social interaction and are thus able to be seen as outgrowths of Vygotsky. The process of becoming a reader with comprehension abilities is an ongoing one, and this process will not begin to occur unless the student becomes engaged with meaningful texts from the start (Scharer, Pinnell, & Fountas, 2005). In order to create engaged readers, the teacher of the reading workshop must be prepared to experiment with different strategies and the students must be able to see those various strategies being utilized. One method which enables the students to observe the comprehension strategies of his/her classmates is through a shared reading of a common text. Through joint reading of a shared text, students are able to understand the reading strategies employed by their classmates (Ash, 1990). Methods outside of the reading workshop have been shown in increase reading comprehension as well. Oral reading of well-organized stories has been shown to increase [5] comprehension in low performing readers (Hinchley, & Levy, 1988). Exposure to reading strategies prior to classroom instruction has shown lasting results among fifth grade students (Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005). Students with learning disabilities often must be taught to re-read passages which at first confused them, as they often do not realized that comprehension must be actively monitored (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001). Reading workshop models have been shown to increase reading levels as well as levels of involvement among students with learning disabilities, without showing an effect on reading comprehension levels (Oberlin & Shugarman, 1989). Another method which has been evaluated in terms of its usefulness in promoting reading comprehension is the use of technology in the classroom. Web-conferencing has been utilized successfully to connect struggling readers with literacy coaches to reinforce classroom lessons and to deliver specialized instruction to struggling readers (Amendum, Vernon-Feagans, & Ginsberg, 2011). Mindful of the emergence of technology in the classroom, a modified version of the reading workshop has even been designed in which electronic books and electronic reading journals are utilized (Larson, 2008). A correlation has also been shown between the amount of time a literacy coach spends with a teacher relating to student reading gains in which a direct relation was shown between increased time with a literacy coach (for the teacher) and increased reading comprehension gains (for the students) (Elish-Piper & L’Allier, 2011). Taken together with findings relating student gains to contact with literacy coaches, it can be seen that involvement with a literacy coach is a beneficial methodology to employ for student gains in reading comprehension. Studies have also been done in which programs similar to the reading workshop are tested without showing positive results towards reading comprehension. One such study utilized a methodology called The Schoolwide Enrichment Model in Reading Framework (SEM‐R), which employs many of the hallmarks of the reading workshop (independent reading, student choice of reading material, exposure to books in the students’ field of interest), in conjunction with daily direct instruction. While student gains were shown in oral reading fluency and student outlooks towards reading, there were no significant gains in reading comprehension (Reis, McCoach, Coyne, Schreiber, Eckert, & Gubbins, 2007). This seems to indicate that there are other mitigating factors in play which cannot be accounted [6] for in methodology. In this case, the authors of the study suggested that perhaps if the study had continued longer that higher gains in comprehension would have been shown. A factor which has been shown to be of importance is individual teacher practices. Teachers who place an emphasis on higher-order thinking in their classroom have been shown to promote greater reading comprehension gains in their students than teachers who do not (Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez, 2003). Other studies have looked at individual components of reading instruction and their effects on reading comprehension levels. One such study looked at the effectiveness of picture walks, KWL charts, and directed reading-thinking activity in reading instruction and found that of the three strategies, directed reading-thinking activity yielded the biggest reading comprehension gains (Dougherty Stahl, 2008). Hearkening back to Vygotsky, the directed reading-thinking activity strategy views reading as a “problem-solving process best accomplished in a social context” (p. 364). Another strategy that has been studied is the implementation of guided reading. Guided reading has been shown to be a successful strategy with gains at the reading comprehension level, yet some teachers do not implement it into their classroom. Teachers who did implement guided reading were likely to have younger students and were also likely to have received instruction on how to teach using the method (Ferguson & Wilson, 2009). Modified versions of guided reading have been shown to be effective in working with populations of deaf students (Schaffer & Schirmer, 2010). A factor to be considered is the method(s) of assessment. Some researchers have begun to look at how we measure reading comprehension in the face of our changing cultural student body make-up. Bilinguals, for example, are being exposed to new methods of comprehension assessment. One such method is the Diagnostic Assessment of Reading Comprehension (DARC), which is designed to assess comprehension processes over decoding and English-language demands (August, Francis, Hsu, & Snow, 2006). This method has been shown to give a more accurate portrayal of ELL comprehension processes than other assessment methods. Ideas revolving around the concept of a reading workshop for the classroom are not new, however. Years before Atwell it was posited that a reading workshop which would show positive gains in reading comprehension was possible, with specific focus on the very [7] young reader and even pre-readers. Utilizing vocabulary development with young students it was demonstrated that reading comprehension gains were possibly achieved in this manner. Statement of Hypothesis Exposure to vocabulary as a pre-reading strategy during one 45 minute period twice a week for four weeks will increase reading comprehension among ten 5th graders at PS X in Brooklyn, NY. [8] Method Participants Ten fifth grade students from P.S. X, an elementary school in Brooklyn, New York. Instruments 1. Surveys: Pre- and post-instructional surveys to assess student perceptions of reading comprehension levels. 2. Assessments: Pre- and post-instructional assessments to measure student reading comprehension achievements. Experimental Design Procedure Results Discussion Implications [9] References Amendum, S.J., Vernon-Feagans, L., & Ginsberg, M.C. (2011). The effectiveness of a technologically facilitated classroom-based early reading intervention. The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 112, (1), 107-131. doi: 10.1086/660684. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/660684 Ash, B. H. (1990). Reading assigned literature in a reading workshop. English Journal, Vol. 79, 77-79. http://www.jstor.org/journals/00138274.html August, D., Francis, D.J., Hsu, H.A., & Snow, C.E. (2006). Assessing reading comprehension in bilinguals. The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 107, (2), 221-238. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/510656 Dougherty Stahl, K. (2008). The effects of three instructional methods on the reading comprehension and content acquisition of novice readers. Journal of Literacy Research, Vol. 40, (3), 359-393. Elish-Piper, L., & L’Allier, S.K. (2011). Examining the relationship between literacy coaching and student reading gains in grades K–3. The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 112, (1), 83-106. doi: 10.1086/660685. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/660685 Ferguson, J., & Wilson, J. (2009). Guided reading: it’s for primary teachers. College Reading Association Yearbook, Issue 30, 293-306. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L.S., Williams, J.P. & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: a review of research. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 71, (2), 279-320. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516086 Hinchley, J., & Levy, B.A. (1988). Developmental and individual differences in reading comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, Vol. 5, (1), 3-47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233608 Kletzien, S.B., & Hushion, B.C. (1992). Reading workshop: reading, writing, thinking. Journal of Reading, Vol. 35, (6), 444-451. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40007556 Larson, L.C. (2008). Electronic reading workshop: beyond books with new literacies and instructional technologies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, Vol. 52, (2), 121-131. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20111749 Lausé, J. (2004). Using reading workshop to inspire lifelong readers. The English Journal, Vol. 93, (5), 24-30. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4128931 [10] Lysynchuk, L.M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N.J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves standardized reading-comprehension performance in poor comprehenders. The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 90, (5), 469-484. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001797 Maney, E.S. (1954). The reading workshop: building pre-reading comprehension skills part 1: vocabulary development. The Reading Teacher, Vol. 7, (3), 183-186. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20196764 Meyer, K.E. (2010). A collaborative approach to reading workshop in the middle years. The Reading Teacher, Vol. 63, (6), 501-507. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25615840 Oberlin, K.J., & Shugarman, S.L. (1989) Implementing the reading workshop with middle school ld readers. Journal of Reading, Vol. 32, (8), 682-687. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40030025 Reis, S.M., McCoach, D.B., Coyne, M., Schreiber, F.J., Eckert, R.D., & Gubbins, E.J. (2007). Using planned enrichment strategies with direct instruction to improve reading fluency, comprehension, and attitude toward reading: an evidence‐based study. The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 108, (1), 3-23. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/522383 Reutzel, D.R., & Cooter, Jr., R.B. (1991). Organizing for effective instruction: the reading workshop. The Reading Teacher, Vol. 44, (8), 548-554. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20200734 Roessing, L. (2007). Losing the fear of sharing control: starting a reading workshop. Middle School Journal, Vol. 38, (3), 44-51. Schaffer, L.M., & Schirmer, B.R. (2010). The guided reading approach: a practical method to address diverse needs in the classroom. Odyssey: New Directions in Deaf Education, Vol. 11, (1), 40-43. Scharer, P., Pinnell, G., Lyons, C., & Fountas, I. (2005). Becoming an engaged reader. Educational Leadership, Vol. 63, (2), 24-29. Stewart, R.A., Paradis, E.E., Ross, B.D., & Lewis, M.J. (1996). Student voices: what works in literature-based developmental reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, Vol. 39, (6), 468-478. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40014036 Swift, K. (1993). Try reading workshop in your classroom. The Reading Teacher, Vol. 46, (5), 366-371. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20201090 Taylor, B.M., Pearson, P.D., Peterson, D.S., & Rodriguez, M.C. (2003). Reading growth in high-poverty classrooms: the influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy learning. The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 104, (1), 3-28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3203047 [11] Uttero, D.A. (1988). Activating comprehension through cooperative learning. The Reading Teacher, Vol. 41, (4), 390-395. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20199801 Van Keer, H., & Verhaeghe, J.P. (2005). Effects of explicit reading strategies instruction and peer tutoring on second and fifth graders' reading comprehension and self-efficacy perceptions. The Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 73, (4), 291-329. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20157404 [12]