If You Really Want Higher Test Scores: Rethink Reading Comprehension Instruction

Kathy--

Wonders, by providing kids a varied collection of high quality texts that are arrayed to challenge kids with difficulty and then back down to something easier and then raising the difficulty level provides kids with an ideal regimen of text complexity that gets gradually more difficult across a school year. Additionally, with its "level up" feature, it allows kids to take on a text that is relatively easy for them, and then to take on related texts that have features that are more complex--using the easier reading to scaffold the more difficult. Additionally, the ACT feature provides professional support for the teacher in the scaffolding to be provided (dealing with issues like vocabulary, syntax, grammar, structure, cohesion), etc.

No program can teach comprehension, that is up to individual teachers. But Wonders provides more support for teachers to provide this kind of instruction than any other program.

Freya--

There is research showing that QAR gives a learning advantage, but it is especially and consistently small. That is definitely no where I would place my instructional effort. Perhaps your kids are such good readers that this kind of instruction would be sufficient, but for most kids, the effect sizes of that kind of teaching just aren't worth the investment.

"Rather than having kids practice answering particular kinds of questions, comprehension instruction should be aimed at teaching students:
Word meanings and the meaningful parts of words (morphology).
How to infer word meanings from context and structure.
How to untangle the complex syntax of sentences.
How to interpret the cohesive links across a text.
How to identify and interpret the organizational plan or structure of a text and how to use this organization as a memory aid.
How to interpret an author’s tone.
How to use (and not overuse) one’s knowledge to help make sense of a text.
How to summarize text information effectively.
How to monitor one’s comprehension—recognizing whether understanding is taking place and taking appropriate action if it is not.
How to rehearse text information so that it is remembered/learned.
How to interpret the graphic elements of texts (e.g., illustrations, charts, graphs, tables).
To develop the reading stamina required for understanding longer texts.
To recognize what a text says and what it does not.
How to compare and combine information appropriately from multiple texts."

But how do you teach students these without asking particular types of questions that "get at" these particular domains (most of which are tied to particular reading standards--I'll concede that things like "[h]ow to monitor one's comprehension" aren't directly tied to the standards)? Or, to quote Yeats, "How can we know the dancer from the dance?"

I agree that answering certain types of questions should not be the sought-after end. But if the end is helping students become better readers, I'm not sure how you accomplish this without asking students questions (or give them tasks) that are aligned with particular reading standards.

To put it another way, let's say my instruction tends to focus on a lot of the above bullets. But without my knowing, the majority of the what I focus on or ask questions about is to have students "recognize what a texts says and what it does not" (broadly speaking, this falls under Reading Standards 1-3). Then my friend tells me, "Well, I notice that the majority of your questions and assessments tend to fall under the Key Ideas and Details standards (R1-3). You're not really giving students the opportunity to think about the author's craft and structure (R4-6)." And let's say that as a result, I ask students to pay more attention to (through instruction and questioning) author's rhetorical choices and effects.

Isn't what you're saying a more deductive approach and my friend's an inductive one, both of which will lead to the same place?

Jose-
First, there is nothing wrong with asking questions, just don’t ask questions aimed at giving kids practice answering certain kinds of questions. Focus on the texts, not the question types.
Second, there is more to comprehension instruction than just answering questions. Guiding the kids to interpret or negotiate the text barriers.
Good luck.
Tim

Hi,
I am new to your website and found your article interesting about comprehension. We are in the first year of the 1.5 million dollar Ohio State Literacy Collaborative and I find it extremely frustrating because it lacks scope and sequence, decoding/phonics etc... It seems to emphasize Interactive read aloud , their version of teaching comprehension. Am I way off base being frustrated with this expensive program. Our scores on tests are dropping and we are lacking direction. The Fountas and Pinelle books are overwhelming and hard to follow. The majority of teachers are desperate for a more comprehensive curriculum. Am I missing something ? Is this program of Ohio State Literacy Collabotative the end all be all, or are they just getting richeroff of us?
Georgia

Georgia-

That does sound like the wrong direction to me. If your test scores are dropping for real (not just rhetoric or a change in tests or something like that) then you have the evidence that what you are doing is a bad idea. You should at least be using approaches and programs that are consistent with asic research findings.

Tim

What's crucial to understand is how we learn. There are theories out there that address different aspects of this question and they're all important. For example, Kintsch and others speak about how we construct and integrate meaning. To do this we have to understand the text on page, which involves making text-based inferences, from simple ones like understanding to whom pronouns refer or connecting words across sentences that have the same meaning within the context of the text. It's also important to understand how texts are organized, since the way a text is organized affects comprehension. Some organizations are easy to follow, like sequence, but others are complex. It's very important that we teach this, which goes back to what you are saying about interpreting the organizational plan(s). Importantly, we have to construct what the text says, often using inferences to do so. Lastly, we might understand a text at its local or global levels, for sure, but until we integrate that knowledge into what we already know, the information will be lost. And that's what Kintsch means when he talks about "integration." And, so far, this is just on theoretical approach. We also believe that our long term memory is organized, which some theorists call our "schemas." As we read, we had to our conceptual knowledge and through networks, and this plays out in our comprehension. Think, too, about how we interpret texts given the social world we live in. I can't go on, but it's import hat that well-thought out theories lead the way into our instructional planning. Much of what I've mentioned could link to the list Tim has, above. Think about each idea and hook it to a theoretical approach. Very important.

Oh the dilemma of teaching literacy. So much to try to help students accomplish in such a short amount of time! I'm interested in strategies for helping students better learn "how to untangle the complex syntax of sentences", how to monitor comprehension, develop reading stamina, and compare and combine information appropriately. I have tried to emphasize comprehension strategies , and yet I do see students slip as I try to teach them how to answer complicated open response questions that they must face knowing how to answer. Trying to teach a step by step process in answering the question to include textual evidence seems to often lead to loss of understanding what they read or concentration on a question answering strategy then producing an answer that doesn't make sense.
Still I feel compelled to teach them how to answer these boring , complicated questions because I want them confident when they face them which in today's educational world is often!
Truth: students that navigate through these complicated tasks do much better when they have developed a love for reading and do a lot of it on their own.
Fostering a love and desire to read by exposing them to good literature is probably the most important thing we do. It is so easy to get lost in the mountain of "things" we need to teach.

Tell me more, this is such an important topic! I want to use what works for kids.

How do you encouraging teachers to spend more time with effective contextual word learning.

How do you implement these strategies with dyslexic students (in Canada, it's referred to as a Learning Disability)? These students often have low working memory and are just gaining confidence in decoding and word recognition. I want to teach my students higher level thinking about text, but how do I do this? Where do I start?

What is the role of prior knowldge and experiences of the child?

S. Jackson states that, "Trying to teach a step by step process in answering the question to include textual evidence seems to often lead to loss of understanding what they read or concentration on a question answering strategy then producing an answer that doesn't make sense."

I'm at this point right now, and actually sent an email to Dr. Shanahan asking him for help on this. In my team we are often debating what's the best/correct approach to answering a question. Some of us feel that including textual evidence, directly from text, with quotes and all, is the 100% way to go. Others of us feel that the ability to simply refer to the text and say, for example, "In Chapter 1 we read that Bud is trying to make Jerry feel better about going to the new nursing home. This shows me that Bud is a caring boy, watching out for his friend."

What is the correct way? And is this answer wrong?

What do you guys say about this?

Love it! A great read I'll share with my colleagues. Thank you!!!

Sorry for being a latecomer to this particular posting. You said "Many of the items in this list could be practiced on worksheets and whiteboard exercises. It would be best, however, if they were confronted with extended texts that students are trying to make sense of." I think your list and what you said about it is the key to effective comprehension instruction. Effective comprehension instruction involves teaching them how to think, specifically how to think about text and interact with text. This isn't the only place where you talk about helping students make sense of what they read, but for me it is your best observation on the topic. I am on a personal quest to find common ground among the various literacy leaders and their positions and this point is one on which I think there is widespread agreement. Job one for teachers is scaffolding students into thinking deeply about their text. Teaching skills in isolation is ineffective- you've made that point in other places. While I no longer teach full time, I still work at an after-school program twice a week and this summer will be adjunct professor of reading (again). I'll be applying your observation in both places. Thanks.