1.Reading (process)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the learning activity. For other uses, see Reading (disambiguation).
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and
removed. (September 2008)
Egyptian boys reading
Part of a series on
Reading
LANGUAGE
Language · Writing
Writing system · Orthography
Braille
TYPES OF READING
Close reading · Slow reading
Speed reading · Subvocalization
LEARNING TO READ
Reading skills acquisition
Comprehension
Spelling · Vocabulary
Reading disability · Dyslexia
READING INSTRUCTION
Alphabetic principle · Phonics
Whole language
LITERACY
Literacy · Functional illiteracy
Family literacy
English orthography
LISTS
Languages by writing system
Management of dyslexia
v·d·e
'Reading' is a complex cognitive process of decoding symbols for the intention of constructing or
deriving meaning (reading comprehension). It is the mastery of basic cognitive processes to the
point where they are automatic so that attention is freed for the analysis of meaning.
Reading is a means of language acquisition, of communication, and of sharing information and
ideas. Like all language, it is a complex interaction between the text and the reader which is
shaped by the reader’s prior knowledge, experiences, attitude, and language community which is
culturally and socially situated. The reading process requires continuous practices, development,
and refinement.
Readers use a variety of reading strategies to assist with decoding (to translate symbols into
sounds or visual representations of speech) and comprehension. Readers may use morpheme,
semantics, syntax and context clues to identify the meaning of unknown words. Readers
integrate the words they have read into their existing framework of knowledge or schema
(schemata theory).
Other types of reading are not speech based writing systems, such as music notation or
pictograms. The common link is the interpretation of symbols to extract the meaning from the
visual notations.
This article is part of a series drawn from work in the Handbook of Reading Research:
Volume III (Kamil, Mosenthal, Pearson, & Barr, 2000). In the coming months, Reading
Online will publish additional chapter summaries from the book, prepared by the chapter
authors.
Comprehension Instruction: What Makes Sense Now, What Might
Make Sense Soon
Michael Pressley
Abstract
There are a variety of well-validated ways to increase
comprehension skills in students through instruction; these are
summarized in this article. In addition, new hypotheses about
effective comprehension instruction are emerging, and these are
also summarized. Although too little comprehension instruction is
now occurring in schools, much is known that would enable such
teaching to be done with confidence; more will be known as the
emerging hypotheses are evaluated in the years ahead.
Related Postings
from the Archives


Twenty
Online
Resources
on Reading
with
Comprehen
sion and
Engagemen
t by Bridget
Dalton
View others
in the
Handbook
of Reading
Research
series
Introduction | How Can Reading Comprehension Be Improved? | What Comprehension
Instruction Could Be | In Closing | References
Introduction
When I was asked to write the comprehension instruction chapter for the Handbook of
Reading Research: Volume III (Pressley, 2000), I saw my assignment as a conservative
one, to summarize practices of comprehension instruction that are well validated in
research. Of course, I knew before I began the bibliographic research for the chapter what
components of practice would end up being cited as effective, for I’ve spent much of the
past three decades thinking about how to improve students’ reading comprehension. Even
so, a surprising insight emerged from writing the chapter, one not shared in the handbook:
Given that there are some types of instruction that improve comprehension, it might just be
sensible to do all of them. No one, however, has ever done an experiment to explore what
happens when teaching is full of comprehension-enhancing approaches versus absent of
them. We do not know what happens in classrooms where all that was recommended in the
handbook chapter is tried.
One of my motivations for writing this article is that it might inspire some researchers to
think about evaluating that possibility. A second is to make the case that we are about to
know much more about what components might be added to comprehensive comprehension
instruction, for many researchers are now turning their attention anew to the development
of comprehension abilities in students by means of instruction.
I can encourage such an experiment with more confidence now than when I wrote the
handbook chapter. Since I wrote my chapter, the report of the U.S. National Reading Panel
(2000, online document) has appeared. For the most part, forms of instruction cited by the
panel as facilitating comprehension were ones that I had also concluded increased
comprehension. This was despite the fact that the panel’s criteria for inclusion of research in
its review was more narrow than my own, with the panel favoring true experiments over all
other forms of inquiry. The convergence between the conclusions I offered in the handbook
and those of the panel simply highlights that much is known about how to increase
students’ reading comprehension, much that is not very controversial.
That said, there remains a painful irony. Everyone in reading education knows about
Dolores Durkin’s (1978-79) now classic research. Durkin looked for comprehension
instruction in the upper-elementary grades and found little, discovering instead a great deal
of comprehension testing (i.e., teachers asked students questions about what they had read
after they had gone through a text). Of course, way back then, there was an excuse: The
explosion in comprehension instruction research had not occurred yet. Given the large
volume of research on the topic in the past quarter century, there has been the potential for
a revolution in schools with respect to comprehension instruction. Even so, no revolution
has occurred. For example, when my colleagues and I observed fourth- and fifth-grade
classrooms in the late 1990s, we, too, saw little comprehension instruction but many
teachers posing postreading comprehension questions (Pressley, Wharton-McDonald,
Hampston, & Echevarria, 1998).
Such observations made clear that there was good reason to put together the handbook
chapter in the fashion it was put together -- that is, by emphasizing effective instruction -for there is a real need for many more educators to be aware of what they can do to
increase students’ comprehension. I knew when I wrote the chapter that many wellinformed researchers would find such a summary predictable. Even so, I felt that it could be
illuminating for many school-based educators, who are the critical audience to inform and
inspire if there is to be shift in how comprehension instruction occurs in schools. Consistent
with that expectation, since the handbook has appeared, many school-based individuals
have told me that they found the chapter helpful. I hope that this article will make
information about comprehension instruction even more widely available.
The first section of this article is a brief summary of what was in the handbook chapter,
intended to make readers aware of what they can do to teach comprehension to students
that is defensible right now on the basis of research. The second section is a reflection on
emerging themes in comprehension instructional research. It is intended to inform readers
that comprehension instruction is a vital and dynamic area of inquiry in reading, one that
promises to provide much more information about how to improve student understanding of
text, information that could be used to transform reading instruction in schools.
Back to menu
How Can Reading Comprehension Be Improved Through ResearchValidated Instruction?
Reading is often thought of as a hierarchy of skills, from processing of individual letters and
their associated sounds to word recognition to text-processing competencies. Skilled
comprehension requires fluid articulation of all these processes, beginning with the sounding
out and recognition of individual words to the understanding of sentences in paragraphs as
part of much longer texts. There is instruction at all of these levels that can be carried out
so as to increase student understanding of what is read.
Decoding. Perhaps it is a truism, but students cannot understand texts if they cannot read
the words. Before they can read the words, they have to be aware of the letters and the
sounds represented by letters so that sounding out and blending of sounds can occur to
pronounce words (see, e.g., Nicholson, 1991). Once pronounced, the good reader notices
whether the word as recognized makes sense in the sentence and the text context being
read and, if it does not, takes another look at the word to check if it might have been
misread (e.g., Gough, 1983, 1984). Of course, reading educators have paid enormous
attention to the development of children’s word-recognition skills because they recognize
that such skills are critical to the development of skilled comprehenders.
As part of such work, LaBerge and Samuels (1974) made a fundamental discovery. Being
able to sound out a word does not guarantee that the word will be understood as the child
reads. When children are first learning to sound out words, it requires real mental effort.
The more effort required, the less consciousness left over for other cognitive operations,
including comprehension of the words being sounded out. Thus, LaBerge and Samuels’
analyses made clear that it was critical for children to develop fluency in word recognition.
Fluent (i.e., automatic) word recognition consumes little cognitive capacity, freeing up the
child’s cognitive capacity for understanding what is read. Anyone who has ever taught
elementary children and witnessed round-robin reading can recall students who could sound
out a story with great effort but at the end had no idea of what had been read.
Tan and Nicholson (1997) carried out a study that emphasized the importance of wordrecognition instruction to the point of fluency. In their study, struggling primary-level
readers were taught 10 new words, with instruction either emphasizing word recognition to
the point of fluency (they practiced reading the individual words until they could recognize
them automatically) or understanding of the words (instruction involving mostly studentteacher discussions about word meanings). Following the instruction, the students read a
passage containing the words and answered comprehension questions about it. The
students who had learned to recognize the words to the point of automaticity answered
more comprehension questions than did students who experienced instruction emphasizing
individual word meanings. Consistent with other analyses (e.g., Breznitz, 1997a, 1997b),
Tan and Nicholson’s outcome made obvious that development of fluent word-recognition
skills can make an important difference in students’ understanding of what they read.
Thus, a first recommendation to educators who want to improve students’ comprehension
skills is to teach them to decode well. Explicit instruction in sounding out words, which has
been so well validated as helping many children to recognize words more certainly (e.g.,
Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998, online document), is a start in developing good
comprehenders -- but it is just a start. Word-recognition skills must be developed to the
point of fluency if comprehension benefits are to be maximized.
Vocabulary. It is well established that good comprehenders tend to have good vocabularies
(Anderson & Freebody, 1991; Nagy, Anderson, & Herman, 1987). This correlation, however,
does not mean that teaching vocabulary will increase readers’ comprehension, for that is a
causal conclusion. As it turns out, however, when reading educators conducted experiments
in which vocabulary was either taught to students or not, comprehension improved as a
function of vocabulary instruction. Perhaps the most widely cited experiment of this type
was carried out by Isabel Beck and her associates, who taught Grade 4 children a corpus of
104 words over a 5-month period (Beck, Perfetti, & McKeown, 1982). The children who
received instruction outperformed noninstructed children on subsequent comprehension
tests. When all of the work of Beck’s group and others is considered (see, e.g., Beck &
McKeown, 1991; Durso & Coggins, 1991), a good case can be made that when students are
taught vocabulary in a thorough fashion, their comprehension of what they read improves.
One counterargument to this advice to teach vocabulary is that children learn vocabulary
incidentally -- that is, they learn the meanings of many words by experiencing those words
in the actual world and in text worlds, without explicit instruction (Stanovich, 1986;
Sternberg, 1987). Even so, such incidental learning is filled with potential pitfalls, for the
meanings learned range from richly contextualized and more than adequate to incomplete
to wrong (Miller & Gildea, 1987). Just the other morning, I sat in a reading class as a
teacher asked students to guess the meanings of new words encountered in a story, based
on text and picture clues. Many of the definitions offered by the children were way off.
Anyone who has ever taught young children knows that they benefit from explicit teaching
of vocabulary.
That children do develop knowledge of vocabulary through incidental contact with new
words they read is one of the many reasons to encourage students to read extensively.
Whenever researchers have looked, they have found vocabulary increases as a function of
children’s reading of text rich in new words (e.g., Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Elley, 1989;
Morrow, Pressley, Smith, & Smith, 1997; Pelligrini, Galda, Perlmutter, & Jones, 1994;
Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Rosenhouse, Feitelson, Kita, & Goldstein, 1997).
World knowledge. Reading comprehension can be affected by world knowledge, with
many demonstrations that readers who possess rich prior knowledge about the topic of a
reading often understand the reading better than classmates with low prior knowledge
(Anderson & Pearson, 1984). That said, readers do not always relate their world knowledge
to the content of a text, even when they possess knowledge relevant to the information it
presents. Often, they do not make inferences based on prior knowledge unless the
inferences are absolutely demanded to make sense of the text (McKoon & Ratcliff, 1992).
The received wisdom in recent decades, largely based on the work of Richard C. Anderson,
P. David Pearson, and their colleagues at the Center for the Study of Reading at the
University of Illinois in the 1970s, 1980s, and into the early 1990s, was that reading
comprehension can be enhanced by developing reader’s prior knowledge. One way to
accomplish this is to encourage extensive reading of high-quality, information-rich texts by
young readers (e.g., Stanovich & Cunningham, 1993).
Typically, however, when readers process text containing new factual information, they do
not automatically relate that information to their prior knowledge, even if they have a
wealth of knowledge that could be related. In many cases, more is needed for prior
knowledge to be beneficial in reading comprehension. A large number of experiments
conducted in the late 1980s and early 1990s demonstrated the power of “Why?” questions,
or “elaborative interrogation,” to encourage readers to orient to their prior knowledge as
they read (Pressley, Wood, Woloshyn, Martin, King, & Menke, 1992). In these studies,
readers were encouraged to ask themselves why the facts being presented in text made
sense. This encouragement consistently produced a huge effect on memory of the texts,
with the most compelling explanation emerging from analytical experiments being that the
interrogation oriented readers to prior knowledge that could explain the facts being
encountered (see especially Martin & Pressley, 1991). The lesson that emerged from these
studies is that readers should be encouraged to relate what they know to information-rich
texts they are reading, with a potent mechanism for doing this being elaborative
interrogation.
Active comprehension strategies. Good readers are extremely active as they read, as is
apparent whenever excellent adult readers are asked to think aloud as they go through text
(Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). Good readers are aware of why they are reading a text, gain
an overview of the text before reading, make predictions about the upcoming text, read
selectively based on their overview, associate ideas in text to what they already know, note
whether their predictions and expectations about text content are being met, revise their
prior knowledge when compelling new ideas conflicting with prior knowledge are
encountered, figure out the meanings of unfamiliar vocabulary based on context clues,
underline and reread and make notes and paraphrase to remember important points,
interpret the text, evaluate its quality, review important points as they conclude reading,
and think about how ideas encountered in the text might be used in the future. Young and
less skilled readers, in contrast, exhibit a lack of such activity (e.g., Cordón & Day, 1996).
Reading researchers have developed approaches to stimulating active reading by teaching
readers to use comprehension strategies. Of the many possible strategies, the following
often produce improved memory and comprehension of text in children: generating
questions about ideas in text while reading; constructing mental images representing ideas
in text; summarizing; and analyzing stories read into story grammar components of setting,
characters, problems encountered by characters, attempts at solution, successful solution,
and ending (Pearson & Dole, 1987; Pearson & Fielding, 1991; Pressley, Johnson, Symons,
McGoldrick, & Kurita, 1989).
Of course, excellent readers do not use such strategies one at a time, nor do they use them
simply when under strong instructional control -- which was the situation in virtually all
investigations of individual strategies. Hence, researchers moved on to teaching students to
use the individual strategies together, articulating them in a self-regulated fashion (i.e.,
using them on their own, rather than only on cue from the teacher). In general, such
packages proved teachable, beginning with reciprocal teaching, the first such intervention
(Palincsar & Brown, 1984), and continuing through more flexible approaches that began
with extensive teacher explanation and modeling of strategies, followed by teacherscaffolded use of the strategies, and culminating in student self-regulated use of the
strategies during regular reading (e.g., Anderson, 1992; Brown, Pressley, Van Meter, &
Schuder, 1996; Duffy et al., 1987). The more recent, more flexible form of this instruction
came to be known as transactional strategies instruction (Pressley et al., 1992), with the
body of research on this approach recently cited by the National Reading Panel (2000) as
exemplary work in comprehension instruction. When such instruction has been successful, it
has always been long term, occurring over a semester or school year at minimum, with
consistent and striking benefits.
The case is very strong that teaching elementary, middle school, and high school students
to use a repertoire of comprehension strategies increases their comprehension of text.
Teachers should model and explain comprehension strategies, have their students practice
using such strategies with teacher support, and let students know they are expected to
continue using the strategies when reading on their own. Such teaching should occur across
every school day, for as long as required to get all readers using the strategies
independently -- which means including it in reading instruction for years.
Monitoring. Good readers know when they need to exert more effort to make sense of a
text. For example, they know when to expend more decoding effort -- they are aware when
they have sounded out a word but that word does not really make sense in the context
(Isakson & Miller, 1976). When good readers have that feeling, they try rereading the word
in question. It makes sense to teach young readers to monitor their reading of words in this
way (Baker & Brown, 1984). Contemporary approaches to word-recognition instruction also
include a monitoring approach, with readers taught to pay attention to whether the
decoding makes sense and to try decoding again when the word as decoded is not in
synchrony with other ideas in the text and pictures (e.g., Iversen & Tunmer, 1993).
Good readers are also aware of the occasions when they are confused, when text does not
make sense (Baker & Brown, 1984). A key component in transactional strategies instruction
is monitoring. Even the first such package, reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984),
included the clarification strategy: When readers did not understand a text, they were
taught to seek clarification, often through rereading. To improve children’s reading and
comprehension, it makes very good sense to teach them to monitor as they read, to ask
themselves consistently, “Is what I am reading making sense?” Children also need to be
taught that they can do something about it when text seems not to make sense: At a
minimum, they can try sounding out a puzzling word again or rereading the part of a text
that seems confusing.
Summary. Based on research, a strong case can be made for doing the following in order
to improve reading comprehension in students:



Teach decoding skills.
Teach vocabulary.
Encourage students to build world knowledge through reading and to relate what
they know to what they read (e.g., by asking why questions about factual knowledge
in text).


Teach students to use a repertoire of active comprehension strategies, including
prediction, analyzing stories with respect to story grammar elements, question
asking, image construction, and summarizing.
Encourage students to monitor their comprehension, noting explicitly whether
decoded words make sense and whether the text itself makes sense. When problems
are detected, students should know that they need to reprocess (e.g., by attempting
to sound out problematic words again or rereading).
Such instruction must be long term, for there is much to teach and much for young readers
to practice. Even so, there is little doubt that instruction that develops these interrelated
skills should improve comprehension.
Little, if anything, offered in this section is debatable. That said, there are more debatable -but very promising -- perspectives being offered, for there continues to be great researcher
interest in development of even more effective comprehension instruction. These
perspectives are presented in the following section.
Back to menu
To cite this Article: Woolley, Gary (2008) 'The assessment of reading comprehension difficulties for
reading intervention * ', Australian Journal of ...
www.informaworld.com/.../ftinterface~db=all~content=a793435725~fulltext=713240928
2. What Comprehension Instruction Could Be: Emerging Issues
Cathy Collins Block and I have edited a book about comprehension instruction that will be
published late in 2001 (Block & Pressley, in press). We scoured the literature to identify
those carrying out research on reading comprehension, with the goal of including all the
cutting-edge thinking in one volume. We succeeded in obtaining chapters from a who’s who
of reading comprehension researchers, both senior scholars and younger colleagues who
will soon define the field. The authors in the volume include Gerald Duffy, Gale Sinatra,
Kathleen Brown, Ralph Reynolds, Linda Baker, Peter Afflerbach, Hiller Spires, Thomas Estes,
Joanna Williams, Laura Smolkin, Carol Donavan, Darcia Narvaez, Tom Trabasso, Ed
Bouchard, Pamela Beard El-Dinary, Diane Tracey, Lesley Mandel Morrow, Gay Ivey, P. David
Pearson, Nell Duke, Donna Ogle, Camille Blachowicz, John Guthrie, Sevgi Ozgungor, Marian
Jean Dreher, Linda Gambrell, Patricia Koskinen, Alina Reznitskaya, Richard C. Anderson,
Rachel Brown, Joseph Fisher, Jean Schumaker, Donald Deshler, Michelle Simpson, and
Sherrie Nist.
In reading over their chapters, a variety of emerging themes was apparent, and these are
summarized briefly here. The ideas that follow are present in the thinking of several
contributors, with the kernels offered below typically representing amalgamated thinking
rather than the exact position of any one author in the book. As an advance organizer, I
offer the general conclusion that much of what is emerging in comprehension instruction
research is fine tuning of ideas that are already well validated, mostly ones closely related
to the those presented in the last section. Taken together, however, it is clear that the
emerging thinking has the potential to provide a much richer understanding of
comprehension instruction in the future than exists now.
The limits of word-recognition instruction. Although skilled and eventually fluent word
recognition certainly facilitates comprehension, it is not enough. This conclusion contrasts
with the thinking of some in the educational policy-making community who view wordrecognition instruction as a panacea for reading problems, a simple view that reduces
reading to recognizing words and listening to oneself read those words (e.g., Gough,
Hoover, & Peterson, 1996). If that were all there is to it, then, of course, the many other
interventions discussed in the first section of this article would not be as potent as they are.
Those who argue that comprehension problems can be solved by taking care of wordrecognition problems are ignoring a lot of relevant data.
Early teaching of comprehension skills. Traditionally, there has been a tendency among
educators to view the primary grades as the time to hone word-recognition skills, with
comprehension developed in the later grades. Increasingly, this view is rejected, with many
demonstrations that interventions aimed at improving comprehension -- that is,
interventions beyond word-recognition instruction -- do, in fact, make an impact during the
primary years. The authors in the Block and Pressley edited book, in particular, recognize
that the starting point for the development of many comprehension skills is teacher
modeling of those skills. Hence, there is much commentary in the book about modeling,
monitoring, and so on. Also, the authors were impressed that when researchers have asked
primary-level students to use comprehension strategies and monitoring, the children have
benefited greatly from it (Brown et al., 1996). There is definitely interest in expanding
comprehension instruction in the early elementary grades, with the expectation that such
instruction will affect 5- to 8-year-olds dramatically in the short term and perhaps lead to
development of better comprehension skills over the long term.
Rethinking the “package” approach to comprehension strategies development.
Although it is quite clear that good readers use repertoires of strategies to comprehend text
and that such repertoires can be taught profitably to children (see, e.g., Brown et al., 1996;
Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995), there is renewed interest in teaching
strategies one at a time as a way of encouraging strategic comprehension. Keene and
Zimmermann’s (1997) Mosaic of Thought advanced the idea that teachers can become
hooked on comprehension strategies themselves -- and come to understand the potency of
strategies -- by learning them one at a time. There is no doubt that the Keene and
Zimmermann book has fueled interest in comprehension strategies among teachers. The
verdict is not yet in, however, about whether this approach does lead to teachers who are
more strategic in their own reading and more effective in teaching strategies to young
readers. We know that some teachers resist teaching comprehension strategies packages
(Pressley & El-Dinary, 1997). If Keene and Zimmermann’s mosaic does increase teacher
willingness to teach comprehension strategies, it will have been an important contribution to
reading pedagogy.
Cognitive capacity constraints. It has been understood for the past quarter century that
humans only have so much short-term memory capacity, which limits how much they can
do consciously at one time. It also has been recognized that the more automatic reading is,
the less capacity it consumes. Much attention has been given to this capacity-automaticity
tradeoff with respect to word recognition and word comprehension (e.g., LaBerge &
Samuels, 1974).
Just as it is being recognized that much more must be learned about how to increase
fluency of word-recognition processes (National Reading Panel, 2000), there is additional
recognition that much needs to be learned about how to increase fluency of higher order
reading processes, including the automatic use of comprehension and monitoring strategies.
According to this perspective, comprehension will only be maximized when readers are
fluent in all the processes of skilled reading, from letter recognition and sounding out of
words to articulation of the diverse comprehension strategies used by good readers (e.g.,
prediction, questioning, seeking clarification, relating to background knowledge,
constructing mental images, and summarizing).
That use of comprehension processes must be automatic is one of the reasons that
successful teaching of higher order comprehension processes occurs over years (Pressley et
al., 1992). Automatic, fluid articulation of comprehension strategies develops slowly, when
it develops at all. There is increasing awareness that teaching of comprehension strategies
has to be conceived as a long-term developmental process. Although much is known about
how to teach comprehension strategies when students are first learning them, very little is
known about how teaching should occur as students are internalizing and automatizing
strategies. Just as there needs to be study of instruction promoting fluency in word
recognition, there needs to be study of instruction promoting fluency in use of higher order
comprehension processes, including comprehension strategies and monitoring.
World knowledge. As described in the preceding section, the positive effects for reading
comprehension of abundant prior knowledge have been noted for many years, but there has
recently been increasing awareness that readers differ dramatically in the world knowledge
they possess. In particular, membership in specific cultural groups goes far in determining
what a reader knows that can be related to text -- and thus goes far in determining a
reader’s interpretation of text. In the early 20th century, there was a belief among many
literary scholars that some interpretations of texts were better than others. Louise
Rosenblatt’s (1938, 1978) work has been influential in increasing appreciation of the fact
that there are many legitimate interpretations to most texts. Cultural theorists have done
much to promote awareness that a variety of legitimate interpretations spring from the
same text because of cultural differences in readers.
That said, there are still some interpretations of a text that are very bad, with these
recognizable as such because so few elements of the text are represented in them (e.g.,
Eco, 1990). One way that a reader can come to bad interpretations is to relate irrelevant or
tangential world knowledge to texts being read.
Joanna Williams and other researchers have been exploring how some students with reading
disabilities undermine their comprehension by relating prior knowledge to a text that just
does not connect well with that text (see, e.g., Williams, 1993). Such a reader might be
reading a story about a plane trip, for example, and suddenly relate something heard on the
radio about a plane crash. Williams and her associates are working on interventions to
prevent such errant processing, designed to increase the likelihood that readers will relate
appropriate world knowledge to texts being read.
Diverse texts. There is increasing concern that too much of the elementary reading
curriculum has involved reading of narratives, with growing awareness that students need
practice reading expository text. (Much of mature reading, of course, focuses on
exposition.) In addition, there is emerging understanding that our text world is changing
dramatically with the proliferation of electronic documents and multimedia. Little is known
at this point about how Web-based and hypertext documents can be processed well; less is
known about how to teach students to read such documents so as to maximize
comprehension of the information encoded in them.
Diverse text tasks. Sadly, just as it was a quarter of a century ago, so it is now: Students
often are asked to read a text in order to answer questions designed to do little more than
test whether they have understood and remembered the text read. The problem with this
task is that it is so little like the tasks readers carry out in the real world. More positively, in
recent years there has been an increase in the study of more realistic tasks. John Guthrie
and his associates have done much to increase understanding about how readers search
text for information and can be taught to do so more efficiently (e.g., Guthrie, 1988).
Others are studying how students synthesize information as they read multiple texts -- in
particular, how they compose essays by integrating ideas found in several different
documents (Flower, Stein, Ackerman, Kantz, McCormick, & Peck, 1990). There is increasing
recognition that comprehension instruction needs to prepare readers to do more than
respond to short-answer postreading questions or multiple-choice questions on a
standardized test. Much hard thinking is occurring about what real-world comprehension
demands are and how instruction can prepare young readers to meet them.
Diverse populations. In recent decades, there has been much more attention paid to the
instructional development of reading skills in weaker readers than in average or aboveaverage readers. There is increasing awareness that more needs to be learned about the
effects of comprehension instruction on the full range of readers. There are many high
school and college readers whose comprehension is disappointing, so there is plenty of
incentive to explore instruction aimed at students who, although among the best readers in
school, could be better.
Summary. What might research-based comprehension instruction include in the future?
There will still be teaching of decoding skills, vocabulary, important world knowledge,
comprehension strategies, and monitoring. The primary years will be richer, however, with
improved methods of instruction for word recognition complemented by more teaching of
comprehension strategies and reading of more diverse texts, especially texts rich in
important world knowledge.
Keene and Zimmermann’s (1997) book might succeed in getting more teachers to use
active comprehension strategies, with a byproduct being that they will understand better
why comprehension strategies should be taught. Commitment to teaching these strategies
should then increase. Further, with increasing understanding that development of wordrecognition and comprehension skills to the point of fluency is essential, there should also
be more long-term attention paid to both word-level and higher order processes, with
teachers requiring extensive practice of word-recognition and comprehension skills. In
addition to increasing student reading of information-rich texts, teachers will also be alert to
students who are applying errant world knowledge as they read and will be armed with
teaching techniques to encourage use of appropriate knowledge. Comprehension will be
assessed more broadly than it is now, with application of ideas in text emphasized over
short-answer postreading questions. Finally, teachers will be better prepared to teach
comprehension to all students, for much will be learned in the coming decade about how
comprehension instruction can benefit average and above-average readers in addition to the
weakest readers.
There is good reason to believe that comprehension instruction will improve as the research
programs covered in the Block and Pressley (in press) book come to fruition and the
findings in that research are translated into practice.
Back to menu
In Closing
I close by returning to the possibility raised in the introduction of this article: There needs to
be experimental validation of comprehensive comprehension strategies instruction. There is
a great need to know just how much of an impact on reading achievement can be made by
instruction rich in all the individual components that increase comprehension. Of course, the
hope is that there will be much benefit; the fear is that such instruction might be
overwhelmingly complex. If all the components are simply thrown into the mix, instruction
will be confusing and ineffective. With some experience in attempting to mix these
components, how to create more effective blends might become more apparent so that
meaningfully articulated and effective teaching occurs. There is much interesting work
ahead before comprehension instruction is understood fully.
Back to menu
References
Anderson, R.C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J.T. Guthrie (Ed.),
Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77-117). Newark DE: International
Reading Association.
Back
Anderson, R.C., & Pearson, P.D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in
reading. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Back
Anderson, V. (1992). A teacher development project in transactional strategy instruction for
teachers of severely reading-disabled adolescents. Teaching & Teacher Education, 8, 391403.
Back
Baker, L., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr,
M.L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). White
Plains, NY: Longman.
Back
Beck, I.L., & McKeown, M. (1991). Conditions of vocabulary acquisition. In R. Barr, M.L.
Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume II (pp.
789-814). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Back
Beck, I.L., Perfetti, C.A., & McKeown, M.G. (1982). Effects of long term vocabulary
instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology,
74, 506-521.
Back
Block, C.C., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (in press). Comprehension instruction. New York:
Guilford.
Back
Breznitz, Z. (1997a). Effects of accelerated reading rate on memory for text among dyslexic
readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 289-297.
Back
Breznitz, Z. (1997b). Enhancing the reading of dyslexic children by reading acceleration and
auditory masking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 103-113.
Back
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, 18-37.
Back
Cordón, L.A., & Day, J.D. (1996). Strategy use on standardized reading comprehension
tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 288-295.
Back
Dickinson, D.K., & Smith, M.W. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool teachers’ book
readings on low-income children’s vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading Research
Quarterly, 29, 104-122.
Back
Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M., 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.
Back
Durkin, D. (1978-79). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension
instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481-533.
Back
Durso, F.T., & Coggins, K.A. (1991). Organized instruction for the improvement of word
knowledge skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 109-112.
Back
Eco, U. (1990). The limits of interpretation. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.
Back
Elley, W.B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research
Quarterly, 24, 174-187.
Back
Flower, L., Stein, V., Ackerman, J., Kantz, M.J., McCormick, K., & Peck, W.C. (1990).
Reading to write: Exploring a cognitive and social process. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Back
Gough, P.D. (1983). Context, form, and interaction. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements in
reading (pp. 203-211). New York: Academic.
Back
Gough, P.B. (1984). Word recognition. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 225-254). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Back
Gough, P.B., Hoover, W.A., & Peterson, C.L. (1996). Some observations on a simple view of
reading. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties (pp. 1-13).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Back
Guthrie, J.T. (1988). Locating information in documents: Examination of a cognitive model.
Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 178-199.
Back
Isakson, R.L., & Miller, J.W. (1976). Sensitivity to syntactic and semantic cues in good and
poor comprehenders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 787-792.
Back
Iversen, S., & Tunmer, W.E. (1993). Phonological processing skills and the Reading
Recovery program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 112-120.
Back
Kamil, M.L., Mosenthal, P.B., Pearson, P.D., & Barr, R. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of reading
research: Volume III. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Back
Keene, E.O., & Zimmermann, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a
reader’s workshop. Portsmouth NH: Heinemann.
Back
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing
in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
Back
Martin, V.L., & Pressley, M. (1991). Elaborative-interrogation effects depend on the nature
of the question. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 113-119.
Back
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440466.
Back
Miller, G.A., & Gildea, P. (1987). How children learn words. Scientific American, 257(3), 9499.
Back
Morrow, L.M., Pressley, M., Smith, J.K., & Smith, M. (1997). The effect of a literature-based
program integrated into literacy and science instruction with children from diverse
backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(1), 55-76.
Back
Nagy, W., Anderson, R., & Herman, P. (1987). Learning word meanings from context during
normal reading. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 237-270.
Back
National Reading Panel. (2000, April). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching
children to read. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Available: www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrppubskey.cfm
Back
Nicholson, T. (1991). Do children read words better in context or in lists? A classic study
revisited. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 444-450.
Back
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension- fostering and
monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Back
Pearson, P.D., & Dole, J.A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research
and a new conceptualization of instruction. Elementary School Journal, 88, 151-165.
Back
Pearson, P.D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B.
Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume II (pp. 815-860).
White Plains, NY: Longman.
Back
Pellegrini, A.D., Galda, L., Perlmutter, J., & Jones, I. (1994). Joint reading between mothers
and their Head Start children: Vocabulary development in two text formats (Reading
Research Rep. No. 13). Athens, GA, & College Park, MD: National Reading Research Center.
Back
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M.L.
Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research:
Volume III (pp. 545-561). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
Back
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of
constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Back
Pressley, M., & El-Dinary, P.B. (1997). What we know about translating comprehension
strategies instruction research into practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 486-488.
Back
Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P.B., Gaskins, I., Schuder, T., Bergman, J., Almasi, L., & Brown, R.
(1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension
strategies. Elementary School Journal, 92, 511-554.
Back
Pressley, M., Johnson, C.J., Symons, S., McGoldrick, J.A., & Kurita, J.A. (1989). Strategies
that improve children’s memory and comprehension of text. Elementary School Journal, 90,
3-32.
Back
Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Hampson, J.M., & Echevarria, M. (1998). The nature of
literacy instruction in ten grade-4/5 classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 2, 159-191.
Back
Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V.E., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. (1992).
Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers
facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 91-110.
Back
Robbins, C., & Ehri, L.C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn
new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 54-64.
Back
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1938). Literature as exploration. New York: Progressive Education
Association.
Back
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the
literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Back
Rosenhouse, J., Feitelson, D., Kita, B., & Goldstein, Z. (1997). Interactive reading aloud to
Israeli first graders: Its contribution to literacy development. Reading Research Quarterly,
32, 168-183.
Back
Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Available:
books.nap.edu/catalog/6023.html
Back
Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.
Back
Stanovich, K.E., & Cunningham, A.E. (1993). Where does knowledge come from? Specific
associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85, 211-229.
Back
Sternberg, R.J. (1987). Most vocabulary is learned from context. In M.G. McKeown & M.E.
Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Back
Tan, A., & Nicholson, T. (1997). Flashcards revisited: Training poor readers to read words
faster improves their comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 276288.
Back
Williams, J.P. (1993). Comprehension of students with and without learning disabilities:
Identification of narrative themes and idiosyncratic text representations. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85, 631-641.
Back
About the Author
Michael Pressley is the Notre Dame Professor in Catholic
Education and a professor of psychology at the University of
Notre Dame, Indiana, USA. He is the current editor of the Journal
of Educational Psychology and has published over 250 articles,
chapters, and books, including Reading Instruction That Works
and the recent Learning to Read: Lessons from Exemplary FirstGrade Classrooms. His writing reflects a wide range of interests
and expertise, from work on children’s memory to research on
the development of cognitive monitoring skills to studies of
effective reading instruction. He is a member of the Reading Hall
of Fame and a recipient of the National Reading Conference’s
Oscar Causey Award. Contact him by e-mail at
Pressley.1@nd.edu.
Back to top
Acknowledgment: Writing of this article was supported by discretionary funds provided by the University of Notre Dame
to the author as the Notre Dame Professor of Catholic Education. The chair is supported by the Alliance for Catholic
Education through the generosity of anonymous donors.
To print this article, point and click your mouse anywhere on its text; then use your browser’s print command.
Citation: Pressley, M. (2001, September). Comprehension instruction: What makes sense now, what might make sense
soon. Reading Online, 5(2). Available:
http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/handbook/pressley/index.html
Reading Online, www.readingonline.org
Posted September 2001
© 2001 International Reading Association, Inc.
ISSN 1096-1232
3.
SIGN IN SIGN UP
Improving children's reading
comprehension and use of
strategies through computerbased strategy training
2008
Authors: Yao-Ting Sung
Kuo-En Chang
Department of
Educational
Psychology
and
Counseling,
National
Taiwan
Normal
University,
No. 162,
Section 1, HePing East
Road, Taipei,
Taiwan
Graduate
Institute of
Information
and Computer
Education,
National
Taiwan
Normal
University,
No. 162,
Section 1, HePing East
Road, Taipei,
Tools and
Resources

o
Article o

Bibliometrics
· Downloads (6
Weeks): n/a
· Downloads (12
Months): n/a
· Citation Count:
0
TOC Service:
Email
RSS
Save to Binder




Export Formats:
BibTeX
EndNote
ACM Ref
Share:
|
Tags: comprehension
computer assisted reading
computer uses in education
strategies
Taiwan
Jung-Sheng Huang Graduate
Institute of
Information
and Computer
Education,
National
Taiwan
Normal
University,
No. 162,
Section 1, HePing East
Road, Taipei,
Taiwan
Published in:
· Journal
Computers in Human Behavior archive
Volume 24 Issue 4, July, 2008
Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, The
Netherlands
table of contents
doi>10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.009
Feedback | Switch to single page view (no tabs)
Cited Index
Table of
Abstract Authors References
Publication Reviews Comments
By
Terms
Contents
In this study, the attention-selection-organization-integration-monitoring (ASOIM) model,
revised from Mayer's [Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of
expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction.
Educational Psychology Review, 8, 357-371] SOI model of text comprehension, was used as a
foundation to design a multi-strategy based system, which was named Computer Assisted
Strategy Teaching and Learning Environment (CASTLE). CASTLE aims to enhance learners'
abilities of using reading strategies and text comprehension. The effects of CASTLE on students
with different reading abilities were empirically evaluated. 130 sixth graders took part in an 11week computer-based reading strategies course. The results show that CASTLE helps to enhance
the students' use of strategies and text comprehension at all ability levels.
Powered by
The ACM Digital Library is published by the Association for Computing Machinery. Copyright
© 2011 ACM, Inc.
Terms of Usage Privacy Policy Code of Ethics Contact Us
Useful downloads:
Adobe Acrobat
QuickTime
Windows Media Player
Real
Player
oleh YT Sung - 2008 - Dinyatakan dengan 11 - Artikel terkait
Training reading comprehension in adequate decoders/poor comprehensions: Verbal versus
visual strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology. v92. 772-782. ...
portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1365317 - Mirip
4. The assessment of reading comprehension
difficulties for reading intervention *
Click here for immediate access to the latest key research articles
Author: Gary Woolleya
Affiliation: a School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
DOI: 10.1080/19404150802093729
Article Requests: Order Reprints : Request Permissions
Published in:
Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, Volume 13, Issue 1 May 2008 , pages 51 - 62
Publication Frequency: 2 issues per year
Previously published as: Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities (1324-8928) until 2008
Download PDF (~179 KB)
View Related Articles
To cite this Article: Woolley, Gary (2008) 'The assessment of reading comprehension difficulties for
reading intervention * ', Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 13:1, 51 - 62
Abstract
There are many environmental and personal factors that contribute to reading success. Reading
comprehension is a complex interaction of language, sensory perception, memory, and motivational
aspects. However, most existing assessment tools have not adequately reflected the complex nature of
reading comprehension. Good assessment requires a multifaceted approach to reading diagnosis and
flexible interventions in order to cater for individual learning needs. In recent times, the Four Roles
Model has enabled educators to broaden the focus of literacy programs in many Australian schools.
Such a focus can provide a framework to better understand the complex nature of reading
comprehension and its various situational applications. This discussion investigates the educational
issues for the assessment of students with reading comprehension difficulties and suggests appropriate
principles and strategies that teachers can apply to inform assessment and teaching practice.
* †The editors are grateful to Gary Wooley for providing this (refereed) Discussion Paper and invite
responses on this important topic.
Assessment
Educators generally agree that assessment is fundamental to the effective teaching of reading and
to the design of individualised reading intervention programs (Clay, 1992; Coccamise & Snyder,
2005). However, Joshi and Aaron (2000) claimed that most assessment procedures currently
being used in the schools today are based on limited theoretical models of reading and tend to
give the impression that all comprehension difficulties are merely found within the reader.
Generally speaking, these assessment procedures have sprung from specific theories that are
concerned either with a single aspect of reading, such as word decoding, or are focused on global
aspects, such as overall cognitive ability (Freebody & Frieburg, 2001; Joshi & Aaron, 2000). The
reality is that reading successfully requires a complex interaction of language, sensory
perception, memory, and motivation (Pikulski & Chard, 2005). Thus, a number of researchers
have called for better assessment models of comprehension and appropriate intervention
programs to reflect this complex process (Pressley, 2002a; Schunk, 2004).
Furthermore, it is claimed that students with learning difficulties can make greater progress when
instructional interventions are multifaceted by combining a number of approaches (Hay, Elias, &
Booker, 2005; National Reading Panel, 2000). In contrast, Paris and Oka (1989) claimed that
most existing standardised comprehension tests are inappropriate to assess the possible
comprehension benefits of teaching students to use multiple reading strategies. To overcome
these limitations educators may need a range of assessment strategies and instruments that
robustly reflect the dynamic, developmental nature of comprehension within the reader and with
his or her interactions with other external dimensions such as activity, text, and context (Duke &
Pearson, 2002; Gillet & Temple, 1994; Snow, 2003).
Changing views of reading
The Simple View of Reading held that word reading ability and listening comprehension account
for nearly all of the variance in reading comprehension (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). Normally
word reading and reading comprehension are highly correlated and one reason for the lessskilled comprehenders' initial failure may be that they focus more on word reading accuracy
rather than comprehension monitoring (Cain & Oakhill, 1999). Furthermore, when teachers
focus on word-level processing skills as a single indicator of reading performance the focus may
be too restricted and may lead to an inadequate assessment of reading comprehension difficulties
(Bishop & Snowling, 2004).
It is thought that unless a student is able to read words fluently, heavy demands are made on
working memory during a slow and tedious decoding process that requires the reader to use
focused attention to identify each succeeding word (Spencer & Hay, 1998). A number of other
researchers have also shown that there is strong association between speed of word reading and
text comprehension (Hay, Elias, & Booker, 2005; Jenkins, Fuchs, van den Broek, Espin, &
Deno, 2003). According to Joshi and Aaron (2000) a revised model referred to as the Component
Model was later proposed to account for the significant effect of fluency on reading
comprehension. It was shown that adding speed of processing to the Simple View of Reading
significantly improved prediction of reading comprehension.
Fluency not only involves efficient decoding of words, but in order for reading comprehension to
progress effectively, the reader must focus attention on making meaning while using automatic
processes for word recognition. To a large degree, fluency will be affected by the quality of prior
experiences and knowledge structures that children apply to read text information (Reutzel,
Camberwell, & Smith, 2002). Moreover, faster rates of word recognition would directly affect
comprehension and enhance the chunking of information into meaningful information units in
working memory by enabling the expansion and elaboration of existing knowledge structures
(Jenkins et al., 2003; Pikulski & Chard, 2005). Therefore, a comprehensive assessment of
fluency must not only include measures of oral reading accuracy and rate of oral reading but also
the quality of oral reading. This is particularly important for older children, as there is evidence
to suggest that fluency contributes relatively more to comprehension at higher levels of reading
development (Jenkins et al., 2003; Pikulski & Chard, 2005). It is vital that fluency is assessed in
relation to reading for understanding but there are a range of other factors that may need to be
considered when selecting suitable assessment tools.
The use of a single direct measure
Neale Analysis of Reading Ability (NARA: Neale, 1988) is an example of a decontextualised or
direct measure of reading accuracy, comprehension and reading rate. Westwood (2003)
maintained that the test is generally highly regarded and used in most Australian schools by
regular teachers and special education teachers to assess and identify students with reading and
comprehension difficulties. The test is a measure of reading accuracy, reading rate and reading
comprehension and is comprised of a battery of short narratives with graded readability levels.
While undertaking this test, a student would be required to read a series of stories and orally
answer eight comprehension questions for each passage. There have been a number of
comparisons conducted to verify the adequacy of this test, for example, Graves, Fitzgerrald,
Miller, and Pillay (2002) found that the reading ages derived from the NARA, in most cases,
were almost identical to the spelling ages derived from the South Australian Spelling Test
(Westwood, 2005). Hatcher and Hume, (1999) found that Verbal IQ (which is often dependent
on vocabulary subtests) is also correlated highly with NARA reading comprehension.
No direct assessment tool is perfect, and awareness of the strengths and limitations of each
instrument will guide the educator's selection of the most appropriate testing tool and
interpretation of the scores (Cain & Oakhill, 2006a). For example, Spooner, Baddeley, and
Gathercole (2004) suggested that the comprehension component of the NARA was less reliable
than the reading accuracy measure. One reason for this was that the researchers maintained that
reading comprehension and word accuracy were strongly interrelated and could not be easily
separated. However, one of the obvious strengths of the NARA is that this is not as problematic
as other tests because misread words are corrected during the reading. Cain and Oakhill (2006a)
suggested that a more reliable measure of reading ability would be to use the NARA accuracy
scores in conjunction with a separate test for reading comprehension such as the TORCH
(Mossenson, Hill, & Masters, 1987). Other researchers claimed that the NARA comprehension
score was doubtful because the passages were read orally rather than silently (Graves et al.,
2002).
Ehri and McCormick (1998) maintained that progress in reading beyond the early stages is
dependent on oral language development. This is because text comprehension draws on a broad
range of different language skills-these include lower-level lexical skills, such as word reading
efficiency and vocabulary knowledge, sentence-level skills, such as knowledge of grammatical
structure, and higher-level text processing skills, such as inference generation and
comprehension monitoring (Cain & Oakhill, 2006b). There is considerable evidence that
difficulties in reading comprehension are often accompanied by inadequate oral language
(Leach, Scarborough, & Rescorla, 2003). For example, a number of researchers have identified
that word reading, vocabulary, and grammatical awareness are related to reading comprehension
(Cain & Oakhill, 2006b; Nation & Norbury, 2005). Hay, Elias, and Booker (2005) also found
that many students in the middle and upper school with reading difficulties had problems
comprehending text passages because they couldn't identify and process the information
contained in phrases, sentences and relationships between sentences. Furthermore, Cain and
Oakhill (2006a) maintained the assessment of readers with expressive language difficulties
would present greater problems on the NARA because they would have greater difficulty in
producing oral responses for answers to questions at the end of each passage. To overcome this
confusion, some researchers recommend the assessment of both reading and listening
comprehension using parallel measures to distinguish children who experience language-related
comprehension difficulties from children whose problems are caused primarily by word
decoding difficulties (Gunning, 2006).
Children with ADHD have particular difficulties associated with executive functioning and
impulse control (Aaron, Joshi, Palmer, Smith, & Kirby, 2002). For such children, poor
performance on a test of reading comprehension (such as the NARA) may not be directly related
to either word decoding or language processing problems but may be due to an inability to
maintain attention as the child works his or her way through the reading material. Aaron et al.
(2002) asserted that children with inconsistent attention would perform more poorly on tests that
require sustained attention, such as listening comprehension, than on tests that are more tolerant
of inattention, such as reading comprehension. This is because listening comprehension requires
more focused and sustained attention than print. Thus, one would expect that individuals with
ADHD would be more vulnerable to listening tasks than to reading tasks. Many children with
ADHD do better on group achievement tests because they are multiple-choice tests with short
passages, as opposed to passage or paragraph-length tests that require sustained attention.
Moreover, passage or paragraph-length tests of reading comprehension require more sustained
attention than sentence-length cloze tests, which often use single sentences. Thus, failing to
reliably separate attention demands and language-based difficulties for children with ADHD can
lead to providing the wrong treatment for the wrong reading problem.
A variety of direct and contextual measures
Difficulties such as weak verbal or cognitive skills, for example, appear to affect the reading
development of less skilled comprehenders in different ways, however, a single underlying
source of poor comprehension is unlikely. Thus, when comprehension problems are identified,
careful analysis of other language and cognitive skills must inform remediation (Cain & Oakhill,
2006b). A number of researchers have suggested that teachers can be accurate judges of student
attributes (Hoge, 1983; Hoge & Colardarci, 1989; Hoge & Cudmore, 1986; Quay & Steele,
1998). For example, Gresham and MacMillan (1997) reported high correlations between teacher
judgements of students' reading and students' tested reading scores. In a more recent study,
Heccht and Greenfield (2001) have also attested to a high level of accuracy of teacher rating
compared with reading-related test performance for children considered to be at a high risk of
developing reading failure. The kinds of assessments that teachers find most informative, such as
the informal reading inventory or informal talk-aloud protocols while reading, are the hardest to
make reliable across administrators and testing sessions, whereas those that are the most
standardised are the least informative (Snow, 2003; Walpole & McKenna, 2006). Even though
informal measures can be very informative, some researchers have raised concerns about the
adequacy and objectivity of teacher's observations and contextualized assessment measures
(Bestwick, Willms, & Sloat, 2005). However, there is a consensus that no single measure or type
of assessment constitutes best practice (Bestwick et al., 2005; Cooksey, Freebody, WhyattSmith, 2007; Paris & Hofman, 2004). The problem may be addressed by using a number of types
of formal and informal assessment tools at different phases within a consistent framework to
address the literacy roles of students by engaging them in a variety of different literacy tasks and
contexts. Thus, a varied test battery using both direct and contextualized measures may enhance
the quality of practice (Winograd, Flores-Duenas, & Arrington, 2003) and overcome a natural
tendency of many teachers to see only what they are looking for (Johnson, 2002).
Over recent years, Australian research and theory in the area of reading and literacy has
generally drawn upon a number of quite diverse academic and professional traditions (Freebody,
2006). Ongoing reforms in reading theory and educational practice have been influenced by the
notion that reading is no longer regarded as a clear and easily delineated process (Durrant &
Green, 2000; Fehring, 2005; Ludwig, 2004). More recently, there has been a shift to view the
reading process as developing within a broader social and cultural context (Cairney, 2000;
Culican & Emmitt, 2002; Durrant & Green, 2000). Consequently, a number of researchers have
asserted that reading and classroom instruction need to be seen more broadly as both cognitive
and social activities (Luke & Freebody, 1999; Paris & Oka, 1989; Pressley, 2002a). Ludwig
(2004) maintained that literacy is a complex process and is influenced by the diversity of the
literacy practices within the home, the school, and the community. The claim is that all of the
classroom social and cultural practices directly and indirectly influence the students' reading
ability, motivation to read, and their self-perceptions as readers (Cairney, 2000; Pressley, 2002b).
Freebody and Luke's (1990) Four Roles Model can be adapted for assessment and used as a
framework to address the complex nature of reading comprehension difficulties by considering
the reader as: (a) a code-breaker, (b) a text-participator, (c) a text-user, and (d) a text-analyser.
Breaking the code emphasised decoding of the words, and encoding of information,
understanding the conventions of written, spoken, and visual multimodal texts by recognising
and using the surface features of print. Text-participation involves making meaning by drawing
from the readers' social and cultural backgrounds and prior knowledge within literate contexts.
As text-users, students understand the purposes of using texts in different ways for different
cultural and social functions. The text-analysing aspect focuses on the ideas within the literacies.
It must be emphasized that assessment is a dynamic process and will be ongoing. Understanding
the performance of an individual also requires the recognition of differences in functioning
across activities with varying purposes, and with a variety of texts and text types (Snow, 2003).
Table 1 presents a flexible reading comprehension assessment matrix showing the four roles of
the reader with the before, during and after reading phases. The individual assessment items
within the matrix may include: (1) standardised tests or elements of standardised test, (2)
informal reading inventories or elements of informal reading inventories, or (3) questions or
think-alouds related to other items on the matrix.
Table 1. Assessment matrix.
Reader Roles
Code breaker
Scanning pictures
Before and headings for
reading clues before
reading
Reading During
Reading accuracy
Phases reading
Meaning maker
Text user
Text analyst
Predicting story
content
Suitable choice of
book
Activating background
experiences of similar
people and events
Monitoring
predictions
Choice of repair
strategies when
meaning is lost
Answering questions
related to character
actions
Making
judgements
related to reading
fluency
Making moral
judgements related to
perceived character
motives
Reflection on the Reflecting on the
After
suitability of repair accuracy of the
reading
strategies used
predictions made
The elements within the matrix can be adjusted to reflect appropriate items suited for different
stages of reading development or with a particular focus in mind (see Table 2). For example, if
the focus is placed on visualising strategies the meaning-maker role may incorporate
visualisation techniques (Woolley, 2007; Woolley & Hay, 2004) (highlighted in Table 2). For a
child at an earlier stage of development, the visualisation items may be more concrete, for
example, the drawing of a picture related to story events could be substituted with a matching
picture to text activity.
Table 2. Assessment matrix (modified to incorporate some visualising strategies).
Reader Roles
Code breaker
Meaning maker
Text user
Text analyst
Activating
Scanning pictures
Visualising similar scenes
background
Before and headings for
Suitable choice of
from background
experiences of
reading clues before
book
similar people and
experiences
reading
events
Choice of repair
Reading During
Drawing a picture related
strategies when
Reading accuracy
Phases reading
to story events
meaning is lost
Reflecting on the
Reflection on the
vividness of the mental
After
suitability of
imagery and the ability to
reading repair strategies
make the story “come
used
alive”
Making
judgements
related to
reading fluency
Answering questions
related to character
actions
Making moral
judgements related
to perceived
character motives
Many children with reading difficulties have developed learned helplessness over time; they tend
to avoid activities they perceive will lead to reading failure (Block, 2004; Guthrie & Davis,
2003; Westwood, 2003). Such children become disengaged with reading and tend not to use
forethought by planning ahead, self-monitoring, or reflection on their learning. Readers' strategy
use, self-regulatory skills, and reading effort can be viewed as cyclical processes linked with the
'pre-reading', 'during-reading', and 'after-reading' phases of text reading. In particular,
forethought is linked to the 'before-reading' phase, reading engagement or monitoring is linked to
the 'during-reading' phase, and self-reflection is linked to the 'after-reading' phase (Butler, 2002;
Dreher, 2000; Zimmerman, 2002). In other children relatively low rates of monitoring and
revision are often not due to an inability to decide how the text should be repaired or difficulties
with constructing or implementing a successful change, but rather a failure to recognise in the
first place that the texts need to be revised.
The results of several intervention studies show that metacognitive strategies, such as
comprehension monitoring, can be taught effectively to all children in the classroom (Beal,
1996). Furthermore, it has been shown that improved self-regulatory reading behaviours can lead
to improved reading achievement, reading self-efficacy, and reading self-concept (Borkowski &
Muthukrishna, 1992; Chapman & Tunmer, 1997). Questions can be asked to assess
metacognitive strategy processes before, during, and after reading to ascertain whether or not the
student has been actively engaged by using self-regulatory behaviours. For example, questions
such as, “How has your reading improved?” or “How did you work out that word?” can be
included. It is assumed that students' reading improvement would be indicated by self-awareness
and self-acknowledgement. Thus, a comprehensive assessment process should be dynamic,
ongoing, and responsive to students' reading engagement.
Palincsar, Brown, and Campione (1991) used the term “dynamic assessment” to characterise
several approaches “that feature guided learning for the purpose of determining a learner's
potential for change” (p76). Johnson (2002) also used “dynamic assessment” to describe
assessment procedures that emphasised the processes of perception, thinking, learning, and
problem solving rather than merely focusing on test products, such as answers to comprehension
questions. This type of assessment is ongoing and is used to allow the assessor to see how
students respond to different teaching approaches such as the use of prompts, scaffolding, or
rewording of instructions and feedback on strategies used.
While miscue analysis (such as the one used in the NARA) of oral reading can also provide some
insights, a more complete understanding of metacognitive thinking processes is needed before
intentional reading instruction can occur. Although understanding what readers are thinking
during reading is a complex task it can give some added insight and add a deeper dimension to
the diagnostic process. Isreal, Baureman, and Block (2005) maintained that a metacognitive
assessment focus requires that the assessor shift the perspective of an assessment item by looking
at the thinking processes from the child's standpoint. Furthermore, such a shift in perspective can
be operationalised by utilising a think-aloud strategy by having the reader verbalise his/her
thinking when applying reading strategies during reading (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker,
2001; Oster, 2001). The claim is that when self-reflection is used in association with the thinkaloud strategy it gives insight into readers' use of self-correction and self-regulation processes
(Gambrell, 1987; Horner & Shwery, 2002; Schunk, 2003).
Another key strategy for determining metacognitive thinking processes is a reflective
metacognitive interview. Asking students to tell why they chose their responses gives a
metacognitive focus to the assessment (Isreal et al., 2005). For example, Hibbing and RankinErikson (2003) have extended this idea by having struggling readers draw pictures as they read,
to aid in their visualisation strategy. This drawing technique takes on a metacognitive focus
when teachers question students about their thinking processes behind the drawings.
Furthermore, Bloom's (1956) taxonomy of higher order thinking skills can also be used in
conjunction with this technique to guide the assessor in creating focused questions that
encourage students to think metacognitively about what they have read.
When students are more metacognitively aware, their comprehension is enhanced because they
are consciously monitoring and interacting with their own thought processes (Isreal et al., 2005).
To enhance these processes, students should be engaged with the assessment procedures where
possible. For example, they should have a chance to understand their teachers' purposes and
assessment expectations (Snow, 2003). Isreal et al. (2005) maintain that students are more likely
to attempt challenging tasks when the assessment practices used in their classrooms are nonthreatening and the students have a voice in the evaluation process. Thus, they should also,
where possible, be given some responsibility as readers to ask their own questions, to make their
own connections, to visualise their own images, and to formulate and reformulate their own
predictions (Villaume & Brabham, 2002).
Intervention programs and activities need to be guided by the children's individual responses to
the assessment activities rather than be categorised on an overall grade level (Leach et al., 2003).
It also should be emphasised that it is important that a targeted reading strategy is only a part of a
complex strategy system (Villaume & Brabham, 2002). When teachers use ongoing assessment
procedures it must be kept in mind that the learning of a new reading strategy can take as long as
six months to consolidate (Hay et al., 2005).
Summary
In the past, reading comprehension assessment was reliant upon tools that were designed around
simple literacy models that focused on a narrow set of skills. However, there needs to be a
broader understanding of comprehension that goes beyond viewing reading problems as being
solely within the learner. Reading comprehension is complex and multifaceted, no single
instrument, by itself, will provide the necessary information to guide the design of appropriate
individualised teaching interventions for struggling readers. The problem is that formal,
decontextualised instruments tend to be limited in focus and don't give enough direction for
suitable teaching practices. Teacher-designed instruments are more informative but less reliable
because they vary with content, test conditions, and assessor variables. However, there is a broad
consensus that teachers can ensure quality practice by incorporating a range of contextual and
direct assessment instruments and observations. What is certain is that strategies and instruments
should robustly reflect the dynamic, developmental nature of comprehension to include other
external dimensions such as activity, text, and context.
Teacher-designed informal reading inventories can supplement standardised tests to broaden the
focus and to provide more relevant information. This requires teacher judgement. However, there
is a danger that reliability may suffer without a consistent assessment framework. The Four
Roles model of literacy is an example of a literacy framework that can provide some structure to
give teachers direction for assessment choices. Such an organisational arrangement should
provide a theoretical framework to give consistency without restricting the assessor's ability to
make informed decisions related to the various reader roles and strategies. To be effective, this
framework will need to be ongoing and have a clear purpose. It should also be sensitive to the
reader's stage of reading development and consider the before, during, and after reading phases.
Where possible, assessment should be dynamic and ongoing and should actively involve the
reader in making choices and allow for metacognitive decisions to be articulated while reading.
Feedback from such activity should inform teachers as to the motivational and self-regulatory
reading behaviours of the children they are attempting to assist.
Acknowledgements
This submission has had research support from the Faculty of Education, Griffith University.
References


















1. Aaron, P. G. , Joshi, R. M. , Palmer, H. , Smith, N. and Kirby, E. (2002) Separating cases of
reading disability from reading deficits caused by predominantly inattentive ADHD behaviour.
Journal of Learning Disabilities 35:5 , pp. 425-435. [ pubmed ] [ crossref ]
2. Beal, C. R. (1996) The role of comprehension monitoring in children's revision. Educational
Psychology Review 8 , pp. 219-238. [ crossref ]
3. Beswick, J. F. , Willms, J. D. and Sloat, E. A. (2005) A comparative study of teacher ratings of
emergent literacy skills and student performance on a standardised measure. Education 126:1 ,
pp. 116-137.
4. Bishop, D. V. M. and Snowling, M. J. (2004) Developmental dyslexia and specific language
impairment: Same or different?. Psychological Bulletin 130:6 , pp. 858-886. [ csa ] [ pubmed ] [
crossref ]
5. Block, C. C. (2004) Teaching comprehension: The comprehension process approach Pearson ,
Boston
6. Bloom, B. S. (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook 1: The cognitive domain
David McKay , New York
7. Borkowski, J. G. and Muthukrishna, N. Pressley, M. , Harris, K. R. and Guthrie, J. T. (eds) (1992)
Moving metacognition into the classroom: 'Working models' and effective strategy teaching.
Promoting academic competence and literacy in school pp. 477-501. Academic Press , Toronto
8. Butler, D. L. (2002) Individualising instruction in self-regulated learning. Theory Into Practice
41 , pp. 81-92. [informaworld]
9. Cain, K. and Oakhill, J. V. (1999) Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension
failure in young children. Reading and writing: An interdisciplinary Journal 11 , pp. 489-503. [
crossref ]
10. Cain, K. and Oakhill, J. (2006a) Profiles of children with specific reading comprehension
difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology 76 , pp. 697-708. [ csa ] [ crossref ]
11. Cain, K. and Oakhill, J. (2006b) Assessment matters: Issues in the measurement of reading
comprehension. British Journal of Educational Psychology 76 , pp. 683-696. [ csa ] [ crossref ]
12. Cairney, T. (2000) Beyond the classroom walls: The rediscovery of the family and community
as partners in education. Educational Review 52 , pp. 163-174. [informaworld]
13. Chapman, J. W. and Tunmer, W. (1997) A longitudinal study of beginning reading
achievement and self-concept. British Journal of Educational Psychology 67 , pp. 279-291. [ csa ]
14. Clay, M. M. Watson, A. and Bedenhop, A. (eds) (1992) Reading recovery: The wider
implications of an education innovation. Prevention of reading failure pp. 22-47. Ashton
Scholastic , Auckland, NZ
15. Coccamise, D. and Snyder, L. (2005) Theory and pedagogical practices of text
comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders 25 , pp. 5-20.
16. Cooksey, R. W. , Freebody, P. and Wyatt-Smith, C. (2007) Assessment as judgement-incontext: Analysing how teachers evaluate students' writing. Educational Research and
Evaluation 13:50 , pp. 401-434. [informaworld]
17. Culican, S. J. and Emmitt, M. (2002) Putting literacy in the middle: Key learnings from the
middle years literacy research project. Literacy Learning in the Middle Years 10 , pp. 9-18.
18. Dreher, M. J. Baker, L. , Dreher, M. J. and Guthrie, J. T. (eds) (2000) Fostering reading for
learning. Engaging young readers: Promoting achievement and motivation pp. 68-93. Guilford
Press , New York

















19. Duke, N. K. and Pearson, P. D. Farstrup, A. E. and Samuels, S. J. (eds) (2002) Effective
practices for developing reading comprehension. What research has to say about reading
instruction pp. 205-242. 3rd ed.,, International Reading Association , Newark, DE
20. Durrant, C. and Green, B. (2000) Literacy and the new technologies in school education:
Meeting the l(IT)eracy challenge?. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 23 , pp. 89-108.
21. Ehri, L. C. and McCormick, S. (1998) Phases of word learning: Implications for instruction
with delayed and disabled readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly 4:2 , pp. 135-163.
[informaworld]
22. Freebody, P. Spinks, T. and Kilham, C. (eds) (2006) Expanding the repertoires of practice in
literacy education: Special needs students and the Four Roles Model. A resource book:
Strategies for students with learning difficulties and disabilities pp. 122-118. Department of
Education, Science and Training , Canberra — Retrieved September 16, 2007, from
http://www.dest.gov.au/RN/rdonlyres/34675037-83EC-413E-860CF4DE14E863445/15460/FinalProductResourceBookFINALDec06.pdf
23. Freebody, P. and Frieberg, J. (2001) Re-discovering practical reading activities in homes and
schools. Journal of Research in Reading 24 , pp. 222-234.
24. Freebody, P. and Luke, A. (1990) 'Literacies' programs: Debates and demands in cultural
context. Prospect: A Journal of Australian TESOL 11 , pp. 7-16.
25. Fehring, H. (2005) Critical, analytical and reflective literacy assessment: Reconstructing
practice. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 28 , pp. 95-114.
26. Gambrell, L. B. (1987) Using mental imagery and summarisation to achieve independence in
comprehension. Journal of Reading 30 , pp. 638-642.
27. Gersten, R. , Fuchs, L. S. , Williams, J. P. and Baker, S. (2001) Teaching reading
comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of
Educational Research 71 , pp. 279-320. [ crossref ]
28. Gillet, J. W. and Temple, C. (1994) Understanding reading problems: Assessment and
instruction pp. 13-56. 4th ed., Harper Collins , New York
29. Gough, P. B. and Tunmer, W. (1986) Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and
Special Education 7 , pp. 6-10.
30. Gunning, T. G. (2006) Assessing and correcting reading and writing difficulties 3rd ed., Allyn
and Bacon , Boston
31. Guthrie, J. T. and Davis, M. H. (2003) Motivating the struggling readers in middle school
through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly 19 , pp. 5985. [informaworld]
32. Greaves, D. , Fitzgerald, A. , Miller, G. and Pillay, B. (2002) Diagnosis and program outcomes
for students who learn differently. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 25:3 , pp. 65-80.
33. Gresham, F. M. and MacMillan, D. L. (1997) Teachers as 'tests': Differential validity of
teacher judgments in identifying students at risk. School Psychology Review 26 , pp. 47-61.
34. Hatcher, P. and Hume, C. (1999) Phonemes, rhymes, and intelligence as predictors of
children's responsiveness to remedial reading instruction. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology 72 , pp. 130-153. [ pubmed ] [ csa ] [ crossref ]
35. Hay, I. , Elias, G. and Booker, G. (2005) Schooling issues digest: Students with learning
difficulties in relation to literacy and numeracy Commonwealth Department of Education
Science and Training , Canberra, ACT — Retrieved 15th February, 2006, from
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/schooling_issues_di
gest/schooling_issues_digest_learning_difficulties





















36. Hecht, S. A. and Greenfield, D. B. (2001) Comparing the predictive validity of first grade
teacher ratings and reading-related tests on third grade levels of reading skills in young children
exposed to poverty. School Psychology Review 30 , pp. 50-70.
37. Hibbing, A. N. and Rankin-Erikson, J. L. (2003) A picture is worth a thousand words: Using
visual images to improve comprehension for the middle school struggling readers. Reading
Teacher 56 , pp. 758-770.
38. Hoge, R. (1983) Psychometric properties of teacher-judgement measures of pupil aptitudes,
classroom behaviours, and achievement levels. Journal of Special Education 17 , pp. 401-429.
39. Hoge, R. and Colardarci, T. (1989) Teacher-based judgements of academic achievement: A
review of the literature. Review of Educational Research 59 , pp. 297-313. [ crossref ]
40. Hoge, R. and Cudmore, L. (1986) The use of teacher-judgement measures in the
identification of gifted pupils. Teaching and Teacher Education 2 , pp. 181-196. [ crossref ]
41. Horner, S. L. and Shwery, C. S. (2002) Becoming an engaged, self-regulated reader. Theory
into Practice 41 , pp. 102-109. [informaworld]
42. Isreal, S. E. , Bauserman, K. L. and Block, C. C. (2005) Metacognitive assessment strategies.
Thinking Classroom 6:2 , pp. 21-28.
43. Jenkins, J. R. , Fuchs, L. S. , van den Broek, P. , Espin, C. and Deno, S. L. (2003) Sources of
individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational
Psychology 95:4 , pp. 719-729. [ crossref ]
44. Johnson, D. (2002) Learning disabilities in the context of communication disorders. Thalmus
20:1 , pp. 19-28.
45. Joshi, M. and Aaron, P. G. (2000) The component model of reading: Simple view of reading
made a little more complex. Reading Psychology 21 , pp. 85-97. [informaworld]
46. Leach, J. M. , Scarborough, H. S. and Rescorla, L. (2003) Late-emerging reading disabilities.
Journal of Educational Psychology 95 , pp. 211-224. [ crossref ]
47. Ludwig, C. (2004) Literacy in the learning areas: A proposition. Literacy Learning in the
Middle Years 8 , pp. 37-53.
48. Luke, A. and Freebody, P. (1999) A map of possible practices: Further notes on the four
resources model. Practically Primary, ALEA 4 , pp. 5-8.
49. Mossenson, L. , Hill, P. and Masters, G. (1987) Test of reading comprehension TORCH
Australian Council of Educational Research , Hawthorn, Vic
50. Nation, K. and Norbury, F. (2005) Why reading comprehension fails: Insights from
developmental disorders. Topics in Language Disorders 25 , pp. 21-32.
51. National Reading Panel (2000) Teaching children to read: Report of the comprehension
instruction subgroup to the National Institute of Child Health and Development NICD ,
Washington, DC
52. Neale, M. D. (1988) Neale analysis of reading ability revised Australian Council for
Educational Research , Hawthorn, Vic
53. Oster, L. (2001) Using think-alouds for reading instruction. Reading Teacher 55 , pp. 64-69.
54. Palincsar, A. , Brown, H. and Campione, J. Swanson, H. (ed) (1991) Dynamic assessment.
Handbook on assessment of learning disabilities pp. 75-94. Pro-Ed , Austin, TX
55. Paris, S. G. and Hoffman, J. (2004) Reading assessments in kindergarten through third grade:
Findings from the Centre for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement. Elementary School
Journal 105:2 , pp. 199-217. [ crossref ]
56. Paris, S. G. and Oka, E. R. (1989) Strategies for comprehending text and coping with reading
difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly 12 , pp. 32-42. [ crossref ]


















57. Pikulski, J. J. and Chard, D. J. (2005) Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading
comprehension: As part of a developmental process of building decoding skills, fluency can form
a bridge to reading comprehension. Reading Teacher 58:6 , pp. 510-519. [ crossref ]
58. Pressley, M. Collins Block, C. , Gambrell, L. B. and Pressley, M. (eds) (2002a) At-risk students:
Learning to break through comprehension barriers. Improving comprehension instruction pp.
354-369. Jossey-Bass , San Francisco
59. Pressley, M. Collins Block, C. , Gambrell, L. B. and Pressley, M. (eds) (2002b) Improving
comprehension instruction: A path for the future. Improving comprehension instruction pp. 385389. Jossey-Bass , San Francisco
60. Quay, L. C. and Steele, D. C. (1998) Predicting children's achievement from teacher
judgements: An alternative to standardised testing. Early Education and Development 9 , pp.
207-218. [informaworld]
61. Reutzel, D. R. , Camberwell, K. and Smith, J. A. Collins Block, C. , Gambrell, L. B. and Pressley,
M. (eds) (2002) Hitting the wall: Helping struggling readers to comprehend. Improving
comprehension instruction pp. 385-389. Jossey-Bass , San Francisco
62. Schunk, D. (2003) Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modelling, goal setting,
and self-evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly 19 , pp. 159-172. [informaworld] [ERA General Abstracts]
63. Schunk, D. H. (2004) Learning theories: An educational perspective 4th ed., Pearson , Saddle
River, NJ
64. Snow, C. E. Sweet, A. P. and Snow, C. E. (eds) (2003) Assessment of reading comprehension.
Rethinking reading comprehension pp. 191-206. Guilford Press , New York
65. Spencer, R. and Hay, I. (1998) Initial reading schemes and their high frequency words.
Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 21 , pp. 222-233.
66. Spooner, A. L. R. , Baddeley, A. D. and Gathercole, S. E. (2004) Can reading accuracy and
comprehension be separated in the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability?. British Journal of
Educational Psychology 74 , pp. 187-204. [ERA - General Abstracts] [ crossref ] [ csa ]
67. Villaume, S. K. and Bradham, E. G. (2002) Comprehension instruction: Beyond strategies.
Reading Teacher 55 , pp. 672-675.
68. Walpole, S. and McKenna, M. C. (2006) The role of informal reading inventories in assessing
word recognition. Reading Teacher 59:6 , pp. 592-594. [ crossref ]
69. Winograd, P. , Flores-Duenas, L. and Arrington, H. Morrow, L. , Gambrell, L. and Pressley, M.
(eds) (2003) Best practices in literacy assessment. Best practices in literacy instruction 2nd ed.,
Guilford Press , New York
70. Woolley, G. (2007) A comprehension intervention for children with reading comprehension
difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties 12:1 , pp. 43-50.
71. Woolley, G. E. and Hay, I. Knight, B. A. and Scott, W. (eds) (2004) Using imagery as a strategy
to enhance students' comprehension of read text. Learning difficulties: Multiple perspectives pp.
85-101. Pearson , Frenchs Forest, NSW
72. Westwood, P. (2005) Spelling: Approaches to teaching and assessment 2nd ed., ACER Press ,
Melbourne, Australia
73. Westwood, P. (2003) Commonsense methods for children with special educational needs:
Strategies for the regular classroom 4th ed., RoutledgeFalmer , London
74. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002) Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into
Practice 41 , pp. 64-70. [informaworld]
Notes
†
The editors are grateful to Gary Wooley for providing this (refereed) Discussion Paper and
invite responses on this important topic.
List of Tables
Table 1. Assessment matrix.
Reader Roles
Code breaker
Scanning pictures
Before and headings for
reading clues before
reading
Reading During
Reading accuracy
Phases reading
Meaning maker
Text user
Text analyst
Predicting story
content
Suitable choice of
book
Activating background
experiences of similar
people and events
Monitoring
predictions
Choice of repair
strategies when
meaning is lost
Answering questions
related to character
actions
Making
judgements
related to reading
fluency
Making moral
judgements related to
perceived character
motives
Reflection on the Reflecting on the
After
suitability of repair accuracy of the
reading
strategies used
predictions made
Table 2. Assessment matrix (modified to incorporate some visualising strategies).
Reader Roles
Code breaker
Meaning maker
Text user
Scanning pictures
Visualising similar scenes
Before and headings for
Suitable choice of
from background
reading clues before
book
Reading
experiences
reading
Phases
During
Drawing a picture related Choice of repair
Reading accuracy
reading
to story events
strategies when
Text analyst
Activating
background
experiences of
similar people and
events
Answering questions
related to character
Table 2. Assessment matrix (modified to incorporate some visualising strategies).
Reader Roles
Code breaker
Meaning maker
Reflecting on the
Reflection on the
vividness of the mental
After
suitability of
imagery and the ability to
reading repair strategies
make the story “come
used
alive”
Text user
Text analyst
meaning is lost
actions
Making
judgements
related to
reading fluency
Making moral
judgements related
to perceived
character motives
To cite this Article: Woolley, Gary (2008) 'The assessment of reading comprehension difficulties for
reading intervention * ', Australian Journal of ...
www.informaworld.com/.../ftinterface~db=all~content=a793435725~fulltext=713240928
5. oleh S Gammelmark - 2009 - Dinyatakan dengan 7 - Artikel terkait
12 Mar 2009 ... IOPscience is a unique platform for IOP-hosted journal content providing sitewide ... Quantum learning by measurement and feedback ...
iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/11/3/033017 - Mirip


New Journal of Physics Volume 11 March 2009 Create an alert RSS this journal
S Gammelmark and K Mølmer 2009 New J. Phys. 11 033017 doi: 10.1088/13672630/11/3/033017
Quantum learning by measurement and feedback
S Gammelmark and K Mølmer
Show affiliations
Tag this article Full text PDF (697 KB) View as HTML
Abstract References Cited By
We investigate an approach to quantum computing in which quantum gate strengths are
parametrized by quantum degrees of freedom. The capability of the quantum computer to
perform desired tasks is monitored by measurements of the output and gradually improved by
successive feedback modifications of the coupling strength parameters. Our proposal uses only
information available in an experimental implementation and is demonstrated with simulations
on search and factoring algorithms.
Issue 3 (March 2009)
Received 26 Agustus 2008
Published 12 Maret 2009
Your last 10 viewed
1. Quantum learning by measurement and feedback
S Gammelmark and K Mølmer 2009 New J. Phys. 11 033017
Users also read
What's this?
1. Nickel-free austenitic stainless steels for medical applications
2. Electrospun nanofibrous materials for tissue engineering and drug delivery
3. Heavy ion microprobes: a unique tool for bystander research and other radiobiological
applications
More
Related review articles
What's this?
1. Phonon-mediated entanglement for trapped ion quantum computing
2. Quantum information storage using tunable flux qubits
3. Experimental and theoretical challenges for the trapped electron quantum computer
More
Share



Post to CiteUlike
Post to Connotea
Post to Bibsonomy
Terjemahan
Baru Jurnal Fisika Volume 11 Maret 2009 Buat tanda RSS jurnal ini
S Gammelmark dan K Mølmer 2009 J. Phys Baru:. 11 033.017 doi 10.1088/13672630/11/3/033017
Quantum belajar dengan pengukuran dan umpan balik
S Gammelmark dan Mølmer K
Tampilkan afiliasi
Tag artikel ini Kendali teks PDF (697 KB) Lihat sebagai HTML
Abstrak Referensi Dikutip Dengan
Kami menyelidiki pendekatan untuk komputasi kuantum di mana kekuatan kuantum gerbang
yang parametrized oleh kuantum derajat kebebasan. Kemampuan dari komputer kuantum untuk
melakukan tugas yang diinginkan dipantau oleh pengukuran output dan secara bertahap
diperbaiki dengan modifikasi umpan balik berturut-turut parameter kopling kekuatan. Proposal
kami hanya menggunakan informasi yang tersedia dalam implementasi eksperimental dan ini
ditunjukkan dengan simulasi pada algoritma pencarian dan anjak piutang.
PACS
03.67.Lx arsitektur komputasi Quantum dan implementasi
Syaraf 07.05.Mh jaringan, logika fuzzy, kecerdasan buatan
Peningkatan Bounds pada Quantum Learning Algoritma ( Citations: 2 )
7. Alp Atici , Rocco A. Servedio
Pada artikel ini kita memberikan hasil yang baru beberapa kompleksitas algoritma yang mempelajari
fungsi Boolean dari query kuantum dan contoh kuantum. Hunziker et al. menduga bahwa untuk setiap
kelas C fungsi Boolean, jumlah query kotak hitam kuantum yang diperlukan untuk tepat mengidentifikasi
fungsi yang tidak diketahui dari C adalah $ O (\ frac {\ log | C |} {\ sqrt {{\ hat { \ gamma}} ^ {C }}})$,
mana $ \ hat {\ gamma} ^ {C} $ adalah parameter kombinasi dari kelas C. Kami dasarnya menyelesaikan
dugaan di afirmatif dengan memberikan sebuah algoritma kuantum yang, untuk kelas C,
mengidentifikasi berbagai fungsi yang tidak diketahui dari C dengan menggunakan $ O (\ frac {\ log | C |
\ log \ log | C |} {\ sqrt {{\ hat {\ gamma}} ^ {C}}}) $ kuantum kotak hitam query. Kami
mempertimbangkan berbagai masalah alam perantara antara masalah pembelajaran yang tepat (di
mana pelajar harus mendapatkan semua bit informasi tentang fungsi kotak hitam) dan masalah biasa
komputasi predikat (di mana pelajar harus mendapatkan hanya satu sedikit informasi tentang fungsi
kotak hitam). Kami memberikan hasil positif dan negatif pada saat kuantum dan kompleksitas query
klasik masalah antara yang polynomially terkait satu sama lain. Akhirnya, kami meningkatkan batas
bawah dikenal di sejumlah contoh kuantum (sebagai lawan kuantum-kotak query hitam) diperlukan
untuk $ (\ epsilon, \ delta) $-PAC belajar setiap kelas konsep-Chervonenkis dimensi Vapnik d atas
domain $ \ {0,1 \} n ^ $ dari $ \ Omega (\ frac {d} {n}) $ untuk $ \ Omega (\ frac {1} {\ epsilon} \ log \ frac
{1} {\ delta } + d + \ frac {\ sqrt {d}} {\ epsilon}) $. Ini baru batas bawah lebih dekat dengan pencocokan
batas atas dikenal untuk belajar PAC klasik.
Jurnal: Quantum Information Processing - KUANTUM PROSES INF , vol. 4, no. 5, hal 355-386, 2005
DOI: 10.1007/s11128-005-0001-2
Lihat Publikasi

( www.springerlink.com )

( www.springerlink.com )

( arxiv.org )
Referensi (20)

Ketat batas pada kuantum mencari ( Citations: 224 )
Michel Boyer , Hoyer Peter , Hoeyer Peter , Tapp Alain

Oracle dan Pertanyaan Yang cukup untuk Exact Belajar ( Citations: 73 )
H. Bshouty Nader , Richard Cleve , Gavaldà Ricard , Kannan Sampath , Tamon Christino
Jurnal: Jurnal Ilmu Komputer dan Sistem - JCSS , vol. 52, no. 3, hlm 421-433, 1996

Lebih rendah batas kompleksitas kotak hitam kuantum dan derajat polinomial
mendekati oleh pengaruh variabel Boolean ( Citations: 20 )
Yaoyun Shi
Jurnal: Surat Pengolahan Informasi - IPL , vol. 75, no. 1-2, hlm 79-83, 2000

Batasi pada Kecepatan Komputasi Quantum dalam Menentukan Parity ( Citations: 50
)
Edward Farhi , Goldstone Jeffrey , Gutmann Sam , Sipser Michael
Jurnal: Review Letters Fisik - Phys REV LETT , vol. 81, no. 24, hlm 5442-5444

Berapa banyak pertanyaan yang diperlukan untuk belajar? ( Citations: 55 )
Lisa Hellerstein , Pillaipakkamnatt Krishnan , Raghavan Vijay , Wilkins Fajar
Jurnal: Journal of ACM The - JACM , vol. 43, no. 5, hal 840-862, 1996
Kutipan (2)

Geometri kuantum belajar
Hunziker Markus , Meyer A. David , Taman Jihun , James Pommersheim , Rothstein Mitch
Jurnal: Quantum Information Processing - KUANTUM PROSES INF , vol. 9, no. 3, hlm 321-341,
2010

Quantum Algoritma untuk Belajar dan Pengujian junta ( Kutipan: 1 )
Alp Atıcı , Servedio A. Rocco
Jurnal: Quantum Information Processing - KUANTUM PROSES INF , vol. 6, no. 5, hal 323-348,
2007
Advanced Search
Keyword (2)


lower bound
quantum algorithm
Academic
Publication
Improved Bounds on Quantum Learning Algorithms
Edit
Improved Bounds on Quantum Learning Algorithms (Citations: 2)
Alp Atici, Rocco A. Servedio
In this article we give several new results on the complexity of algorithms that learn Boolean functions
from quantum queries and quantum examples. Hunziker et al. conjectured that for any class C of
Boolean functions, the number of quantum black-box queries which are required to exactly identify an
unknown function from C is $O(\frac{\log |C|}{\sqrt{{\hat{\gamma}}^{C}}})$, where
$\hat{\gamma}^{C}$ is a combinatorial parameter of the class C. We essentially resolve this conjecture
in the affirmative by giving a quantum algorithm that, for any class C, identifies any unknown function
from C using $O(\frac{\log |C| \log \log |C|}{\sqrt{{\hat{\gamma}}^{C}}})$ quantum black-box queries.
We consider a range of natural problems intermediate between the exact learning problem (in which
the learner must obtain all bits of information about the black-box function) and the usual problem of
computing a predicate (in which the learner must obtain only one bit of information about the black-box
function). We give positive and negative results on when the quantum and classical query complexities
of these intermediate problems are polynomially related to each other. Finally, we improve the known
lower bounds on the number of quantum examples (as opposed to quantum black-box queries) required
for $(\epsilon,\delta)$-PAC learning any concept class of Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension d over the
domain $\{0,1\}^n$ from $\Omega(\frac{d}{n})$ to $\Omega(\frac{1}{\epsilon}\log
\frac{1}{\delta}+d+\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\epsilon})$. This new lower bound comes closer to matching known
upper bounds for classical PAC learning.
Journal: Quantum Information Processing - QUANTUM INF PROCESS , vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 355-386, 2005
DOI: 10.1007/s11128-005-0001-2
View Publication

( www.springerlink.com )

( www.springerlink.com )

( arxiv.org )
Reference (20)

Tight bounds on quantum searching (Citations: 224)
Michel Boyer, Peter Høyer, Peter Hoeyer, Alain Tapp

Oracles and Queries That Are Sufficient for Exact Learning (Citations: 73)
Nader H. Bshouty, Richard Cleve, Ricard Gavaldà, Sampath Kannan, Christino Tamon
Journal: Journal of Computer and System Sciences - JCSS , vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 421-433, 1996

Lower bounds of quantum black-box complexity and degree of approximating
polynomials by influence of Boolean variables (Citations: 20)
Yaoyun Shi
Journal: Information Processing Letters - IPL , vol. 75, no. 1-2, pp. 79-83, 2000

Limit on the Speed of Quantum Computation in Determining Parity (Citations: 50)
Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, Sam Gutmann, Michael Sipser
Journal: Physical Review Letters - PHYS REV LETT , vol. 81, no. 24, pp. 5442-5444

How many queries are needed to learn? (Citations: 55)
Lisa Hellerstein, Krishnan Pillaipakkamnatt, Vijay Raghavan, Dawn Wilkins
Journal: Journal of The ACM - JACM , vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 840-862, 1996
Citation (2)

The geometry of quantum learning
Markus Hunziker, David A. Meyer, Jihun Park, James Pommersheim, Mitch Rothstein
Journal: Quantum Information Processing - QUANTUM INF PROCESS , vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 321-341,
2010

Quantum Algorithms for Learning and Testing Juntas (Citations: 1)
Alp Atıcı, Rocco A. Servedio
Journal: Quantum Information Processing - QUANTUM INF PROCESS , vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 323-348,
2007
Help | Feedback | Follow Us | Terms of Use | Specific Terms | Trademarks | Privacy Statement
©2011 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Share this on | Contribute to Academic


7. Skip to main content
Skip to section navigation.



Search Key
CART | MY ACCOUNT | CONTACT US | HELP
Home / Education / Curriculum Tools / Literacy & Reading /

Skip to main content.
Journal Menu







Journal Home
Aims & Scope
Author Guidelines
Editorial Contacts
View content online
Association / Society
Virtual Issues
Sales and Services






Subscribe / Renew
Recommend to Library
Customer Services
Permissions
Reprints/Offprints
Advertising
Journal of Research in Reading
Published on behalf of the United Kingdom Literacy Association
Edited by:
Clare Wood
ISI Journal Citation Reports® Ranking: 2009: Psychology, Educational: 17 / 44; Education &
Educational Research: 35 / 139
Impact Factor: 1.137
Journal of Research in Reading provides an international forum for researchers into literacy. It is
a refereed journal, principally devoted to reports of empirical studies in reading and related
fields, and to informed reviews of relevant literature. The journal welcomes papers researching
issues related to the learning, teaching and use of literacy in a variety of contexts; papers on the
history and development of literacy; papers about policy and strategy for literacy as related to
children and adults. Journal of Research in Reading encourages papers within any research
paradigm and from researchers in any relevant field such as anthropology, cultural studies,
education, history of education, language and linguistics, philosophy, psychology and sociology.
TopNews and Announcements
Recent Special Issue freely available online! Writing Development: Cognitive, Sociocultural,
Linguistics Perspectives
Dr. Ros Fisher and Prof. Debra Myhill guest edit this recent Special Issue, covering the full
range of development of writing from very young children learning about writing together with
their parents to young adults at university writing at a more advanced level. Click here to read
the Special Issue online today.
Journal of Research in Reading Virtual Issue: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Reading
This Virtual Issue of Journal of Research in Reading includes a cross-section of papers from
recent issues of the Journal that have presented data on key contemporary issues in reading and
on how to support the development of reading. These papers represent a broad range of topics
with international relevance and diverse methodologies, drawn from a variety of complementary
disciplines. Click here to read the Virtual Issue online today.
The Annual UKLA and Wiley-Blackwell Research in Literacy Award
This award, launched in 2008, is given annually for research judged to be exemplary in either of
UKLA's journals - Journal of Research in Reading and Literacy.
Award winners 2010:
Journal of Research in Reading
Flexibility in young second-language learners: examining the language specificity of
orthographic processing
Deacon, S. Hélène; Wade-Woolley, Lesly; Kirby, John R.
Volume 32, issue 2 (May 2009)
Literacy
Impressions, improvisations and compositions: reframing children's text production in social
network sites
Dowdall, C.
Volume 43, issue 2 (July 2009)
Previous winners:
Journal of Research in Reading 2009
Children's inference generation across different media
P. Kendeou, C. Bohn-Gettler, M.J. White, P. van der Broek
Literacy 2009
Teachers as readers: Building communities of readers
T. Cremin, M. Mottram, F. Collins, S. Powell, K. Safford
Journal of Research in Reading 2008
Deriving word meanings from context: does explanation facilitate contextual analysis?
K. Cain
Literacy 2008
Teachers are digikids too: the digital histories and digital lives of young teachers in English
primary schools
L.Graham
ScholarOne Manuscripts™
Authors are able to submit their paper to Journal of Research in Reading online using
ScholarOne Manuscripts. Benefits of online submission include:





Fast decisions on your paper. Submission, review and communication are all handled online. No
more postal delays or lost messages!
Easy. Write your paper on any word processor. Simply save text as RTF or Word. Graphics can be
uploaded separately in any popular format, including PowerPoint and Excel.
Convenient. Submit from any computer with an Internet connection. No software needs to be
installed. All you need is a Web browser, Acrobat Reader and email.
Responsive. Decisions sent by email, revisions made online. The moment a decision is taken, an
email is dispatched. You can respond to the comments and submit a revised version online.
Transparent. Track your manuscripts online. Return to the site at any time to see the current
status of your submission
To make a submission, please visit http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jrir
Jurnal Penelitian di Reading
Ditampilkan atas nama Inggris Melek Asosiasi
Diedit oleh:
Clare Kayu
Laporan ISI Journal Citation ® Ranking: 2009: Psikologi, Pendidikan: 17 / 44; Pendidikan &
Educational Research: 35 / 139
Dampak Faktor: 1,137
Jurnal Penelitian di Reading menyediakan sebuah forum internasional bagi para peneliti ke
dalam keaksaraan. Ini adalah jurnal wasit, terutama ditujukan untuk laporan studi empiris dalam
membaca dan bidang terkait, dan untuk informasi tinjauan literatur yang relevan. Jurnal ini
menyambut tulisan meneliti isu-isu yang berkaitan dengan pengajaran, pembelajaran dan
penggunaan keaksaraan dalam berbagai konteks; makalah tentang sejarah dan perkembangan
melek huruf; makalah tentang kebijakan dan strategi untuk keaksaraan yang terkait dengan anakanak dan orang dewasa Membaca. Jurnal Penelitian mendorong kertas dalam setiap paradigma
penelitian dan dari peneliti dalam bidang yang relevan seperti antropologi, kajian budaya,
pendidikan, riwayat pendidikan, bahasa dan linguistik, filsafat, psikologi dan sosiologi.
Top Berita dan Pengumuman
Edisi Khusus Recent bebas tersedia secara online! Menulis Pengembangan: kognitif, sosial
budaya, Linguistik Perspektif
Dr Ros Fisher dan Prof Debra tamu Myhill Edisi Khusus menyunting ini baru-baru ini, yang
mencakup berbagai pengembangan menulis dari anak yang sangat muda belajar tentang menulis
bersama dengan orang tua mereka untuk orang dewasa muda di universitas menulis pada tingkat
yang lebih maju. Klik disini untuk membaca Edisi Khusus online hari ini.
Jurnal Penelitian di Reading Isu Virtual: Perspektif Interdisipliner di Membaca
Isu ini Virtual Jurnal Penelitian di Reading mencakup penampang kertas dari isu terbaru dari
Journal yang mempresentasikan data mengenai isu-isu kontemporer kunci dalam membaca dan
bagaimana mendukung perkembangan membaca. Makalah ini mewakili berbagai topik dengan
relevansi internasional dan metodologi yang beragam, yang diambil dari berbagai disiplin ilmu
yang saling melengkapi. Klik disini untuk membaca Edisi Virtual online hari ini.
Para UKLA Tahunan dan-Blackwell Penelitian Wiley di Award Melek
Penghargaan ini, diluncurkan pada tahun 2008, diberikan setiap tahun untuk penelitian dinilai
menjadi teladan dalam salah satu's jurnal UKLA - Jurnal Penelitian di Reading dan Melek.
Abstrak
Ada berbagai cara-divalidasi dengan baik untuk meningkatkan
keterampilan pemahaman pada siswa melalui instruksi; ini
dirangkum dalam artikel ini. Selain itu, hipotesis baru tentang
instruksi pemahaman yang efektif muncul, dan ini juga diringkas.
Meskipun pemahaman instruksi terlalu sekarang terjadi di sekolah,
banyak yang diketahui yang akan memungkinkan pengajaran
seperti itu dilakukan dengan keyakinan, lebih akan dikenal sebagai
hipotesa yang muncul dievaluasi di tahun-tahun mendatang.
Terkait Postingan
dari Arsip


Dua puluh
Online
Sumberda
ya
Membaca
dengan
Pemahama
n dan
Keterlibata
n oleh
Bridget
Dalton
Lihat
lainnya di
Buku
Pegangan
Reading
seri
Penelitian
Pendahuluan | Bagaimana Pemahaman Membaca Ditingkatkan? | Apa Instruksi Pemahaman
Mungkinkah | Penutup | Referensi
Pengantar
Ketika saya diminta untuk menulis bab instruksi pemahaman untuk Handbook of Reading
Research: Volume III ( Pressley, 2000 ), saya melihat tugas saya sebagai satu konservatif,
untuk merangkum praktek pengajaran pemahaman yang baik divalidasi dalam penelitian.
Tentu saja, aku tahu sebelum saya memulai penelitian bibliografi untuk bab apa komponen
praktik akan berakhir menjadi dikutip sebagai efektif, karena aku telah menghabiskan lebih
dari tiga dekade terakhir berpikir tentang bagaimana meningkatkan pemahaman membaca
siswa. Meskipun demikian, wawasan yang mengejutkan muncul dari menulis bab, satu tidak
dibagi di buku pegangan: Mengingat bahwa ada beberapa jenis instruksi yang
meningkatkan pemahaman, itu hanya mungkin menjadi masuk akal untuk melakukan
semua dari mereka. Tidak ada, bagaimanapun, telah pernah dilakukan percobaan untuk
mengeksplorasi apa yang terjadi ketika mengajar penuh-meningkatkan pendekatan
pemahaman versus absen dari mereka. Kita tidak tahu apa yang terjadi di ruang kelas
dimana semua yang direkomendasikan pada bab buku pegangan dicoba.
Salah satu motivasi saya untuk menulis artikel ini adalah bahwa hal itu mungkin
menginspirasi beberapa peneliti untuk berpikir tentang evaluasi kemungkinan itu. kedua
adalah untuk membuat kasus bahwa kita akan tahu lebih banyak tentang apa yang
mungkin komponen ditambahkan ke instruksi pemahaman yang komprehensif, agar banyak
peneliti sekarang mengalihkan perhatian mereka baru pada pengembangan kemampuan
pemahaman siswa dengan cara instruksi.
Saya dapat mendorong seperti percobaan dengan lebih percaya diri sekarang daripada
ketika saya menulis bab buku pegangan. Karena saya menulis bab saya, laporan dari US
National Membaca Panel (2000 , dokumen online ) telah muncul. Untuk sebagian besar,
bentuk instruksi yang dikutip oleh panel sebagai pemahaman memfasilitasi adalah orang
yang saya juga menyimpulkan pemahaman meningkat. Ini terlepas dari fakta bahwa panel
kriteria untuk inklusi penelitian di review lebih sempit dari saya sendiri, dengan panel
mendukung percobaan benar atas semua bentuk penyelidikan. Konvergensi antara
kesimpulan saya ditawarkan di buku pegangan dan mereka panel hanya menyoroti bahwa
banyak yang diketahui tentang bagaimana meningkatkan membaca pemahaman siswa,
banyak yang tidak sangat kontroversial.
Yang mengatakan, tetap ada ironi yang menyakitkan. Semua orang dalam pendidikan
membaca tahu tentang (1978-1979) Dolores Durkin's klasik penelitian sekarang. Durkin
mencari pemahaman instruksi di-dasar kelas atas dan menemukan sedikit, bukannya
menemukan banyak pengujian pemahaman (misalnya, guru menanyakan pertanyaanpertanyaan siswa tentang apa yang mereka baca setelah mereka pergi melalui teks). Tentu
saja, perjalanan kembali itu, ada alasan: Ledakan dalam instruksi penelitian pemahaman itu
belum terjadi. Mengingat volume besar penelitian tentang topik di seperempat abad
terakhir, telah ada potensi untuk sebuah revolusi di sekolah sehubungan dengan instruksi
pemahaman. Meskipun demikian, revolusi tidak terjadi. Misalnya, ketika rekan-rekan saya
dan saya mengamati-dan kelas lima kelas empat di akhir 1990-an, kita juga melihat
instruksi pemahaman sedikit tetapi banyak guru mengajukan pertanyaan postreading
pemahaman ( Pressley, Wharton-McDonald, Hampston, & Echevarria, 1998 ) .
pengamatan tersebut membuat jelas bahwa ada alasan yang baik untuk mengumpulkan
bab buku pegangan dalam mode itu mengumpulkan - yaitu, dengan menekankan instruksi
yang efektif - karena ada kebutuhan nyata untuk pendidik lebih banyak untuk menyadari
apa yang dapat mereka lakukan untuk meningkatkan 'pemahaman siswa. Aku tahu ketika
saya menulis bab ini bahwa para peneliti baik akan menemukan banyak informasi seperti
ringkasan diprediksi. Meskipun demikian, saya merasa bahwa itu bisa mencerahkan untuk
pendidik berbasis sekolah banyak, penonton yang penting untuk menginformasikan dan
menginspirasi jika harus ada perubahan dalam cara instruksi pemahaman terjadi di
sekolah-sekolah. Konsisten dengan harapan tersebut, karena buku pegangan telah muncul,
individu berbasis sekolah banyak telah memberitahu saya bahwa mereka menemukan bab
membantu. Saya berharap bahwa artikel ini akan membuat informasi tentang instruksi
pemahaman bahkan lebih banyak tersedia.
Bagian pertama dari artikel ini adalah ringkasan singkat dari apa yang dalam bab buku
pegangan, dimaksudkan untuk membuat pembaca menyadari apa yang bisa mereka
lakukan untuk mengajarkan pemahaman kepada siswa yang dipertahankan sekarang
berdasarkan penelitian. Bagian kedua adalah refleksi atas tema yang muncul dalam
pembelajaran penelitian pemahaman. Hal ini dimaksudkan untuk menginformasikan para
pembaca bahwa instruksi pemahaman dan dinamis adalah area penting penyelidikan dalam
membaca, salah satu yang menjanjikan untuk menyediakan lebih banyak informasi tentang
bagaimana meningkatkan pemahaman siswa teks, informasi yang dapat digunakan untuk
mengubah instruksi membaca di sekolah.
Kembali ke menu