Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
As a primary classroom teacher for 18 years, three of which were as
a reading specialist, the author has an observed need for explicit comprehension
instruction for developing readers, including those who are English Learners. Evenwhen students are taught to read using a balanced reading approach (emphasis on
integrating meaning, structure, and visual cues) some young students appear to
perceive the task of reading as accurate decoding of words (Applegate,
Applegate, & Modla, 2009). It is probable that this is due to early success
resulting from the use of decoding cues; and the difficulty of using meaning
and semantic cues as they are in the midpoint
of acquiring English Language
development (August& Shanahan, 2006).
Statement of Problem
For the past few decades a large amount of research has hypothesized
that automaticity and fluency would result in the automatic comprehending of
text (Hudson, Lane, & Pullen, 2005). However, further research has
suggested the need for explicit instruction in comprehension strategies (Pressley,
2000). This is especially true for expository text as it offers more challenges
than narrative structure (Dymock, 2005). Young readers often have a distorted
conception of what reading is, focusing on word recognition and fluency and not
developing high levels of comprehension. (Applegate et al., 2009) These
students often become what are termed word callers rather than deep thinkers.
Research Question
The purpose of this thesis was to investigate the effects of
explicit instruction of different structures of expository texts as well as
comprehension strategies. The effect of this treatment was studied to determine
if comprehension skills of second grade English Learners would increase due to
this instruction. Students were introduced and explicitly taught the structures
for compare and contrast, sequencing and description formats of expository
texts. In addition, the following strategy was used to encourage students to
monitor their reading: think alouds focusing on paraphrasing,
This study attempted to answer the following question: If features and
vocabulary for specific text structures were explicitly taught, will English
Learner’s expository comprehension improve? In addition, will the use of the
following strategies encourage students to monitor their reading: think alouds
focusing on paraphrasing, predicting, using known information, and the use of
text features? A secondary question was to see if students’ definitions toward
reading shifted to a more comprehension focus rather than word calling.
Rationale
As mentioned, during the past few decades an extraordinarily large
amount of research has pointed to the need for automaticity and fluency for
comprehension to take place. Hudson et al. (2005) suggested that once a reader
is freed up from attending to word recognition, attention will be placed toward
comprehension. As a result it was concluded that an increase in fluency will
lead to increased achievement in comprehension. However, additional evidence
has suggested that an emphasis on fluency does not automatically translate into
reading comprehension (Rand Study Group, 2002). Dolores Durkin’s landmark study
in 1978 demonstrated that teachers were not explicitly teaching comprehension. Furthermore,
a number of students need to be taught explicitly what these strategies are, and
how to use them to improve their reading comprehension. This is especially true
for English Learners who often score as well as their English speaking peers in
spelling and decoding but have increased difficulty in the area of vocabulary and
comprehension (August& Shanahan, 2006).
Students need to be aware of the differences between narrative and
expository texts. Understanding expository text is much more difficult as there
are different text structures children need to be aware of as well as increased
difficulty with academic vocabulary and content (Williams, Hall, Lauer, Stafford, deCani 2005). In the primary grades, these text
structures include compare/contrast, sequencing, description, cause and effect
and problem solution. According to Moss (2004), it is imperative to provide
students with the necessary tools to develop understanding for expository texts
due to fact that state standardized tests use expository structures to test students’
comprehension.
Methodology
This study of the effects of explicit instruction of text structures
and selected comprehension strategies on students’ comprehension and their personal
definition of reading was for the most part qualitative in nature (case study).
Six second grade English Learners took part in this study for seven weeks. Students
were selected based on their reading level (accuracy rate very close to or
meeting grade level expectations) and CELDT score for reading at the beginning
or early intermediate level. The treatment took place Mondays, Tuesdays, and
Thursdays from 2:45 p.m.
to 3:30 p.m. after school
during the school homework club, which was already an established program. The
following assessments were given individually to students as pretests;
- The Qualitative Reading Inventory, IV, 2005 which included an accuracy rate, retelling of expository passages and answering implicit and explicit questions;
- an interview using Burke’s Reading Inventory of the Reading Process; and
- a short assessment in which students were asked to identify text structures.
Students took part in a seven
week treatment. Each 45 minute lesson was videotaped and then analyzed for
learning outcomes. At the end of the treatment, students were given post tests.
These post tests included multiple passages from QRI 4. Both expository and
narrative passages where used and students were encouraged to use the
paraphrasing strategy. In addition, students were able to use a Venn diagram on
expository text as an extra scaffold. Students were again given the Burke’s
Reading Inventory as well as a text identification assessment.
Definition of Terms
Expository Text Structure: The structural pattern,
or the way information is organized. Expository or informational text conveys
and communicates factual information (Reading Strategy of the Month, 2005).
Informational Text-Also
known as expository text or non-fiction: Text that
provides facts, ideas, and principles that are related to the physical,
biological, or social world; classified as non-fiction text
Think Aloud: “is creating a record through talking aloud the strategic decision
making and interpretive processes of going through a text reporting everything
that a reader is aware of noticing, doing, seeing, feeling, asking, and
understanding as he/she reads” (Wilhelm, 2001, p. 19).
Limitations of the Research
There are a few limitations to this study. To begin with, the six
students came from three different classrooms. In addition, five of the six studentsreceived reading intervention from the researcher during the school day where
both narrative and expository text were used as well as the comprehension
strategies taught in the treatment. There may have been cross over of
comprehension strategies. Since the treatment was at the end of the day, some
students were fatigued and may not have participated or attended at optimal
levels.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 2 describes a review of literature in the areas of comprehension,
informational text, text structures, and comprehension strategies. Chapter 3
includes a detailed description of the methodology including significant
information about the participants’ treatment and procedure, data collection
and an overview of the data analysis. Chapter 4 reviews the results of the
treatment, and Chapter 5 includes results of the study in the context of
professional literature. Chapter 5 then concludes with recommendations for
future research and suggestions for classroom practices.
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The purpose of this study was to
answer the following question: If you explicitly teach informational text
structures and vocabulary for compare and contrast, sequencing and descriptive
text with English Learners, will their comprehension improve? In addition, the
following strategy was explicitly taught: paraphrasing through think alouds. A
secondary question investigated whether students’ definitions of reading
shifted to more of a comprehension level rather than simple decoding.
Fluency
According to Applegate et al.
(2009), in recent years researchers have found that there is a relationship
between fluency and comprehension. It has been hypothesized that if a student
has to spend energy on decoding, it will limit the energy spent on
comprehension. However, according to Applegate et al. (2009), in the field of
education many administrators and teachers have taken this idea to an extreme.
Too much of their attention has been placed on accuracy and fluency and not on
teaching comprehension strategies.
Hicks (2009) stated that the goal of
reading is to make meaning rather than to read quickly. She went on to suggest
that the reading rate is important but overemphasis on fluency can hamper
comprehension.
Applegate et al. (2009) conducted a
study to look at the relationship between fluency rate and comprehension. 171
children who were all considered fluent readers were tested. Each student was
given a passage to read orally and silently. After reading, they answered a
number of comprehension questions ranging from text based, inferences, and
critical responses. Of the 171 students, 35% answered the comprehension
questions at an advanced level. 32% of the students answered questions at a
proficient level. However, 33%, or one-third, of the students were scored at a
struggling level. This last finding showed that fluency and automaticity does
not necessarily lead to comprehension.
Finally, in a study conducted by Shelton, Altwerger, and
Jordan (2009), students were assessed using DIBELS. DIBELS, which stands for Dynamic Indicators ofBasic Early Literacy Skills is a thorough assessment of the reading process.
This included students’ fluency rate. It was found that a high fluency rate did
not necessarily lead to comprehension of authentic literature. Shelton and her colleagues
went on to state that a student’s oral reading showed no connection to their
comprehension.
Lack of Comprehension Instruction
Dolores Durkin’s study in 1978 demonstrated
the necessity of explicit instruction in comprehension. It was found that
classroom teachers often gave assignments and tested for comprehension rather
than teaching students how to comprehend. In his book Reading Instruction that Works (2006), Pressley discussed the
importance of comprehension development and explicit instruction in this area. In
1995-1996, Pressley, along with Ruth Wharton-McDonald, Jennifer
Mistretta-Hampston, and Marissa Echevarria (1998) conducted a study in which 10
fourth and fifth grade classrooms’ language arts periods were observed. Although
they observed research based instruction such as explicit teaching of
vocabulary and high quality of literature, there was very little comprehension
instruction. “There was very little instruction of how to process text so thatstudents could understand and remember it” (Pressley & Block, 2002). This
study was very disappointing to Pressley as he felt his previous studies along
with other researchers in the area of comprehension had been largely ignored (Pressley & Block).
According
to Duke and Pearson (2002), one important question that researchers and
educators have addressed is, can we teach students to engage in efficient
reading behaviors? According to Duke and Pearson, the answer to this question
is, “Yes.” There are a variety of strategies to teach; even focusing on one
strategy has proven to show positive outcomes on a student’s comprehension
(Duke & Pearson). The National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development (2000) found that if teachers explicitly taught comprehension
strategies, it was highly effective in improving their understanding of both
narrative and expository text.
Finally
in a study conducted by Dole, Brown, and Trathen (1996), it was found that
students who were explicitly taught comprehension strategies outperformed those
who focused on story content when asked to read a selection independently. More
recently, a study administered by Joanna P. Williams (2008) found that second
grade students at risk for academic failure benefited from explicit instruction
in comprehension.
In
their article “Effective Practices for Developing Reading Comprehension,” Duke
and Pearson, (2002) discussed behaviors and strategies that good readers use
when they comprehend. Duke and Pearson stated that good readers are active and
have a clear goal for reading in mind before they begin. They also preview the
text for the structure and sections that will help them with their reading
goal. As they read, good readers evaluate if they are meeting their goal. They
think about what they should read quickly and what needs to be read more
carefully. Good readers make predictions as they read and confirm or deny their
predictions. As they read, good readers construct, revise, and question what
they read. Furthermore, they use their prior knowledge to help construct
meaning. Good readers also read different kinds of text differently. When
reading narratives, good readers attend closely to the setting and characters. When
reading expository text, good readers frequently summarize what they are reading
(Duke & Pearson). Hoyt (2002) agrees that proficient readers are strategic,
they monitor their reading and notice when they do not understand something.
Moreover, Pearson and Duke (2002) believe
that comprehension improves when a teacher explicitly teaches comprehension
strategies. Duffy (2002) is also in agreement with direct instruction of
comprehension strategies. He found struggling readers who received explicit
instruction in comprehension strategies made significant gains in their
comprehension.
In a study conducted by Dole et al.
(1996), students who received comprehension instruction made greater gains over
the other treatment groups. Moreover, the students in the strategy group were
more likely to become active learners and felt a sense of control over their
learning. According to anecdotal notes taken by the researcher, students in the
treatment group were more active and vocal than in the control groups. In this
treatment, the teacher scaffolded when she modeled and gradually released
responsibility to the students.
In a study conducted by Eilers andPinkley (2006), first grade students were taught comprehension monitoring
processes strategies explicitly. It was found that primary grade students
benefited from this explicit instruction. In this study, explicit teaching of
comprehension strategies significantly improved the students’ reading
comprehension. Finally, Eilers and Pinkley went on to suggest that reading
comprehension should begin at an early age and can be taught simultaneously as
children are learning how to decode.
According to Martinez (2006), meta-cognition is more than
thinking about thinking. It is “Monitoring and control of thought” (p. 696). To
describe what this means, Martinez
identified three major categories for meta-cognition: meta-memory and
meta-comprehension, problem solving and critical thinking. Meta-memory involves
knowing what you know or are able to recall while meta-comprehension involves
knowing if you understand the text. When many students read, they are not even
aware if they are comprehending or not. The second category is problem solving.
According to Martinez,
this is what you do when you don’t know something. For example, being a
classroom teacher involves problem solving. There is no algorithm. You have to
constantly evaluate what you are doing to determine if you are meeting your
goal. The third category is critical thinking. Critical thinking involves
evaluating the quality of your thinking. Does it really make sense, is the idea
stated clearly, do ideas flow from one to another?
Martinez (2006) also stated that it is
important for students to understand the term meta-cognition. Moreover, a
teacher can model the concept through think alouds. Further, students should
have the opportunity to work with others in sharing their thoughts, making
their thinking and strategies available to one another.
In a study conducted by Regina Boulware-Gooden,
Carreker, Thornhill, and Joshi (2007) it was found that instruction of
meta-cognitive strategies enhanced reading comprehension and vocabulary
achievement of third grade students. In their study of third grade students, it
was found that explicit teaching using meta-cognitive strategies significantly
improved the academic achievement of third grade students in reading
comprehension and vocabulary development. Students were encouraged to think
aloud as they read.
Finally, in a study conducted by Loxerman,
Beck, and McKeown (1994), students using the think aloud strategy, performed
better on comprehension tasks than when reading orally.
Teachers can assist students in
developing their own meta-cognition, and monitoring their thoughts through think
alouds (Rea & Mercuri 2006).
Paraphrasing has been identified as
a strategy that good readers use while they are reading (Kletzien & Dreher
2004). According to Kletzien (2009), paraphrasing has not received as much
attention as other comprehension strategies. Paraphrasing is putting the text
that one just read into their own words. It is sometimes said to be like
summarizing. However, Kletzien suggested that it is easier to paraphrase than
to summarize. “In order to summarize, a student must develop a topic sentence,distinguish between important and non-important details and decrease the lengthof a passage” (p. 73). In paraphrasing, a student is not asked to do these
things. They are just restating what they read in their own words. Therefore,
summarizing takes more practice to get good at the process and may be seen as a
task to do after learning to paraphrase. Paraphrasing is also different from
retelling. In retelling, students are allowed to use the same words as the
author. In paraphrasing, students are encouraged to use their own words. Paraphrasing
requires students to use their background knowledge, or words they know, to
paraphrase. It is important that students both understand the purpose of the
strategy as well as how to use it. These are the steps one would take to teach
students to paraphrase:
1. Teach
students to stop and look away from their reading and put what they just read
in their own words. If they are unable to do this, they can reread and try
again.
2. Point
out that this helps you to know if you understood what you just read and to
remember what was read. Make sure to use short paragraphs at first.
3.
Teacher modeling using
think alouds are essential. When reading, leave something out on purpose so
that you can model rereading.
Paraphrasing helps students monitor
and use prior knowledge. It helps them understand the goal of reading is to
understand. Hoyt (2002) suggested that children stop often and ask the
question, “What have I learned?” When they do not understand, students should
stop and reread. Moreover, she suggested they talk to a partner and tell them
what they have read.
A strategy that is
similar to paraphrasing is Read, Cover, Remember, and Retell. This was
developed by Jan Ellison (cited In Hoyt, 2002). When using this strategy,
students read as much as they can remember. Then they cover the text, focus on
remembering the text, and finally tell a partner what they remember.
Predicting
Kletzien and Dreher (2004) suggested
that predicting in nonfiction text is different from fiction. In fiction text
the reader is predicting what will happen. In nonfiction, the reader is
predicting what kind of information the author has included. Kletzien and
Dreher go on to state that predicting is considered a pre-reading strategy and
should be used before students begin reading a text.
According to Debbie Miller (2002),
when students make predictions using nonfiction text, they are both activating
their schema about a topic and using what they know about the type of text they
are going to read. Yopp and Yopp (2006), and Hoyt (2002) suggested that
students should predict words they think the author will use in the text before
beginning to read. As the teacher or students reads, they can confirm these
predictions. Yopp and Yopp described other benefits of this strategy to
include, anticipation and setting a purpose for reading,
Text Features
Fisher, Frey, and Lapp (2008)
reported that there are many text features that readers use to determine
meaning and importance in texts. These include: headings, captions,
illustrations, boldface words, graphs, diagrams, glossaries and more. Hoyt
(2002) suggested that text features can be used to help students navigate
through text and provide access to content. When a student is able to use these
features, he/she is able to move in and out of text and refer to pages that are
most helpful. (Hoyt)
Linda Hoyt (2002) developed a list
of tips for reading informational texts. On this list, she suggested that
students preview text before beginning to read. They are instructed to look at
illustrations, charts, headings, bolded words. She suggested when choosing a
book one should look for quality pictures that are closely related to the content
of the text. Moreover, she suggested that when reading aloud, it is an ideal
time to point out text features (Hoyt).
Finally, Dorn and Soffos (2005) used
the phrase “previewing text” to refer to text features. They suggested that
comprehension begins the moment a student picks up a book. Previewing is central
to learning. They concluded that students who are unable to preview will most
likely have difficulty comprehending (Dorn & Soffos).
Informational Text
Kletzien and Dreher (2004) stated
that there is a real need for teachers to include informational text in their
language arts instruction. These reasons included: Most of what we read outside
of class as an adult is informational, state and national standards call for
young students to be effective readers of informational text, standardized
tests measure student achievement using informational text, children who read a
variety of genre have higher reading levels, children enjoy expository text and
it is very motivating. Now, more than ever, publishers have made quality
expository books available to primary aged children (Kletzien & Dreher).
Moss
(2005) concurred with the need to include expository text in language arts
instruction. She identified three critical factors on why content area
instruction is important in elementary schools.
- Early exposure to lay a foundation for future success (By grade 6, 75% of text is informational)
- Informational text motivates children
- Informational text increases new knowledge domains-The ability to gain knowledge from text is critical in this age of information.
As noted, students are very
motivated by informational text. Moreover, young students are capable of
understanding informational text. Pappas (1993) conducted a study of
kindergarten students. She found that students as young as kindergarten were
able to retell expository texts. Moreover, Purcell-Gates, Duke, and Martineau
(2007) found that first graders involved in reading and writing informational
text were better informational writers.
Although the literature has pointed
out the need for using informational text, it is not a regular occurrence in
many classrooms. An important study administered by Duke (2000), investigated
20 first grade classrooms representing all socio-economic levels to see what
experiences these students had with informational text throughout their school
day. It was found that only 3.6 minutes per day were spent on informational
text. In the low socio-economic schools it was even less, 1.9 minutes per day.
Moreover, half of these low socio-economic schools provided no instruction at
all involving expository text.
Explicit
Instruction of Expository Text Structure
Dymock
(2005) found that expository text deals with unfamiliar content, contains many
text structures, and is therefore difficult to comprehend. Unlike narrative
text structure which has one format, problem-solution, expository text has six
different structures. These include cause and effect, compare and contrast,
sequencing, problem-solution, question answer generalization and description. According
to Dreher & Gray (2009), the number and variety of text structures can
create difficulties, especially if students have not received instruction in
this area.
Dymock
(2005) and Dreher & Gray (2009) reported that many students will not learn
to read expository text effectively without explicit instruction. Furthermore,
Dymock’s research suggested that students who have a good understanding of the
structures for expository text have fewer problems with comprehension.
From
the late 1970s through the 1990s there has been great deal of research in the
area of explicitly teaching text structures. Moreover, the majority of these
early studies showed positive results when teaching students to use text
features in understanding and recall of text (Duke & Pearson, 2002).
Text
Structure and the Primary Grades
According to Kletzien and Dreher
(2004), early exposure and instruction in text structure helped students
understand informational text. In their study, children who had opportunities
to experience expository text were better able to read and understand text as
they encountered it in later grades (Kletzien & Dreher). Williams, Stafford, Lauer, Hall, and Pollini (2009) also found this
to be true in their study of second grade students. Williams and her colleagues
found that explicit instruction in expository text structure can be effective
in the primary grades. Moreover, this instruction can be done in conjunction
with content area teaching.
Quality Instruction
Includes Teacher Modeling and Guided Practice
Explicit
instruction and teacher modeling is necessary to demonstrate how the texts work
and the strategies students can use (Pressley, 2006). According to Pressley,
(2006) there is a model for teaching comprehension strategies. This is
consistent with Dreher and Gray (2009) and Sweet and Snow (2003). Utilizing a
direct instruction model of learning, a lesson should have the following three
components:
- Teacher Modeling -Teacher models the strategy or text structure using think alouds to describe his/her thinking. She should use a graphic organizer to demonstrate how to organize the information as well as pulling out vocabulary that is essential for understanding the passage. The student’s job in this lesson is to watch and listen to the teacher.
- Guided practice - The teacher and students practice the strategy together and the teacher provides the necessary support. The teacher gradually releases responsibility to the students.
- Students practice the new skill on their own.
Pressley concluded that, this method
encourages active reading which will improve student’s reading comprehension. (2006,
p 21)
Compare and Contrast
When a student is comparing and
contrasting, they are telling how two things are alike and different (Kletzein &
Dreher, 2004). Although compare and contrast is one of the most common text
structures that a student might encounter, it is also one of the most difficult
to understand (Englert & Hibert, 1984). In a study conducted by Dreher and
Gray (2009), students initially had difficulty with a text using the compare
and contrast text structure. The authors described the following as the
problem: Students were unfamiliar with the compare and contrast text structure,
students did not have the background knowledge about the animals being
compared, and students were English Language Learners and they did not have the
vocabulary necessary to understand what they were reading.
According to Dreher and Gray (2009),
explicit instruction in compare and contrast text structure can help students
comprehend by helping them to understand the structure. Moreover, explicitly
teaching the cue vocabulary found in compare and contrast text structure, will
help them to recognize the structure when they encounter it. Also critical in
helping students understand this text structure was the use of a graphic
organizer such as a comparison chart or Venn diagram. Graphic organizers are an
important scaffold to help show a child the similarities and differences of
what is being studied. Compare and contrast can help students bridge their
known information to new content (Dreher & Gray).
Sequencing or Procedural Text
Kletzien and Dreher (2004) suggested
that many informational books are written with a sequencing text structure. How-to
books often use a sequencing text structure. Sequencing involves the order of
steps in a process or event. According to Duke (2010), the purpose of
procedural text is to give directions for doing something. It includes material
lists and steps to follow. It uses graphics to show steps.
Descriptive Text Structure
A descriptive text structure focuses
on the attributes of something (Dymock, 2005). This might include its size,
shape, location, what it eats, and other interesting details. Many
informational texts are written with a descriptive text structure and concept
maps are often helpful in organizing the information. This type of semantic map
can be useful in writing summaries and reports. (Kletzien & Dreher 2004)
Self Efficacy and Reading
According to Pajares (1996) students
who have a higher self efficacy in regards to school have increased motivation
and are more engaged in their school work. In addition, these students fare
better than their peers with lower self efficacy (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000)
According to Guthrie and Davis (2003) you can increase the self efficacy of
students by providing interesting content. They go on to say that the more
interested students are, the more likely they are to put effort into their
work. Moss (2005) suggested that allowing students to select their own books
can increase a student’s sense of ownership in his or her literacy learning.
According to Echevarria, Short, and
Powers (2006), more Hispanic students scored at the below basic level on
national tests as compared to white students. Also, fewer Hispanic students
scored at the proficient or advanced level when compared to their white peers. In
addition, recent studies have found that English Learners usually experience
more difficulty in reading comprehension than their English speaking peers (Lesaux
& Koda 2006, as cited in Manyak, 2007). According to Echevarria (2006), the
academic achievement of second language learners is less then English speaking
peers.
Manyak (2007) has found English
Learner students face more difficulty with unfamiliar content and vocabulary.
It is essential that they have strategies to activate their background
knowledge, inferring what words mean, and monitoring their own comprehension. Therefore,
there is a great need for quality instruction in comprehension for these
populations.
Studies have found that using
explicit instruction is beneficial to English Learners. A study by Lesaux and
Siegel (2003) found that English Learners who were provided explicit
instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics within a balanced approach scored
equal to or better than the control group on a number of reading assessments
including comprehension (Lesaux & Siegel). A second study conducted by
Vaughn, Mathers, and Linan-Thompson (2005) found that students who were given
explicit instruction in a variety of reading skills including phonics and
comprehension made significant gains in decoding and comprehension and scored
on par with their English speaking peers.
Research indicates that English
Learners will not use effective strategies unless they are explicitly taught (Rea
& Mercuri, 2006). According to Rea and Mercuri, think alouds is an
effective strategy for English Language learners. Moreover, the teacher should
first model the procedure for think alouds. The teacher can stop at a point of
confusion and make notes in the margin. Students then practice this on their
own text and ultimately before, during and after the reading. They also go on
to state that before reading a text, the teacher should introduce key
vocabulary as well as building background knowledge. Students can also be
encouraged to skim the text before reading. By employing these strategies
before reading, students are better able to understand and interact with the
text while reading. After reading, students can have a group discussion, read
more about the topic, or write about the subject.
According to Eurydice Bouchereau Bauer
(2009) and Patrick Manyak (2007), having a language-rich environment can
increase a student’s oral language development. Also, providing some sort of
hands-on or visual activity using realia should proceed reading the text (Bauer,
2009; Hoyt, 2002, Manyak, 2007).
The present study involved explicit
instruction of expository text structures with second grade English Language
learners. The methodology in the treatment used was consistent with the
research provided in this chapter. Students began with a concept oriented
lesson, students were then taught key vocabulary for each structure and graphic
organizers were used to help students organize what they read.
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this research was to
address the following question: If you explicitly teach features and vocabulary
for expository text structures, will English Learners’ comprehension improve?
In addition, will the use of the following strategy encourage students to
monitor their reading: think alouds focusing on paraphrasing. A secondary
question investigated if students’ definition of reading shifted to more of a
comprehension focus rather than word calling. Recent research in the field of
education has pointed to the need for explicitly teaching comprehension
strategies (Duke & Pearson, 2002). It has been found that although teachers
were often very good at assessing comprehension, they fell short in explicitly
teaching children strategies to comprehend text (Durkin, 1978). It was also
found that explicitly teaching text structures can increase a child’s ability
to comprehend text (Dymock, 2005). Moreover, comprehension instruction should
start in the primary grades. Highly effective schools gave emphasis to both
decoding and comprehension (Pressley, 2006). In
addition meta-cognition was seen as an important tool in a student’s
ability to comprehend text (Boulware et al., 2007).
A description of the sample
population of the current study, instruments used to measure comprehension,
intervention methodology, and procedures of the study are provided in this
chapter. This research was a qualitative case study.
Sample Population
The
study took place in Davis, California,
in one of eight elementary schools in the Davis Joint
Unified School
District. The school has the largest
concentration of English Learners in the district, particularly in the primary
grades.
The mission of the School is to
provide an active learning environment in which our students discover that
learning through participation empowers, engages, and enables. Our school
community strives to maximize every learner's potential for growth. We will
approach teaching with creativity, employing a variety of techniques. (Davis Joint Unified School District,
n.d.)
Four
hundred and sixty six students from kindergarten through sixth grade are
students in the school. Forty percent of the students are English Learners and
of those, 36% also meet low income guidelines. Although the school is
considered a high performing school, it went into program improvement this
year. The English Learner sub group did not meet their Academic Performance
Index. The figures below are scores for both the target school’s STAR and
California English Language Development Test for the 2008/2009 school year.
Table 1
2009 Test Scores by Grade Level
2009 Test scores 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
Students Tested
|
83
|
77
|
50
|
50
|
57
|
%
of Enrollment
|
100.0
%
|
98.7
%
|
96.2
%
|
92.6
%
|
95.0
%
|
Students with Scores
|
83
|
77
|
50
|
50
|
57
|
Mean Scale Score
|
355.5
|
359.1
|
385.6
|
387.4
|
372.7
|
% Advanced
|
22 %
|
31 %
|
50 %
|
50 %
|
35 %
|
% Proficient
|
34 %
|
29 %
|
24 %
|
18 %
|
37 %
|
% Basic
|
28 %
|
17 %
|
20 %
|
26 %
|
21 %
|
%
Below Basic
|
8 %
|
13 %
|
0 %
|
4 %
|
5 %
|
%
Far Below Basic
|
8 %
|
10 %
|
6 %
|
2 %
|
2 %
|
Six second grade English Learners were selected for this
intervention treatment. Two of the students were boys and four were girls. Five
out of six of the students participated in one of the researcher’s reading
intervention groups which took place during the school day.
Each
student in the treatment was either meeting grade level benchmarks or within
two reading levels of grade level benchmarks in the area of decoding. This was
important as the researcher wanted to focus on comprehension rather than
decoding. Currently the district uses the Rigby Assessment Kit (Rigby, 2006) to
determine a student’s reading level. This kit has assessment books that range
from level 1 to level 30, increasing in difficulty. A teacher takes a running
record to record the student’s accuracy and then asks comprehension questions. If
a student scores 95% or above and is able to answer the majority of
comprehension questions, the teacher administers the next level.
Kindergarten
students are expected to end the year at level 2. First grade students are
expected reach level 18 by the end of the year. The Davis district has designated level 20 to be
the benchmark for the first trimester of second
grade. Therefore, using these criteria for selection, the researcher
selected students for the treatment who scored at level 18 or above (95%
accuracy) and 80% or above on comprehension questions, after first trimester
assessments of their second grade year
In
addition, each student scored at the beginning or early intermediate level on
the reading portion of the CELDT. Table 3 lists the CELDT scores for each
student in the treatment.
Table 3
CELDT
Scores for Six Students
Name
|
Overall
|
Speaking
|
Listening
|
Reading
|
Writing
|
Yahir
|
Early Intermediate
|
Intermediate
|
Early Intermediate
|
Early Intermediate
|
Early
Intermediate
|
Silvia
|
Early Intermediate
|
Intermediate
|
Intermediate
|
Beginning
|
Beginning
|
Heidi
|
Early Intermediate
|
Intermediate
|
Intermediate
|
Early Intermediate
|
Beginning
|
Osmara
|
Early Intermediate
|
Intermediate
|
Early
Intermediate
|
Beginning
|
Early Intermediate
|
Jennifer
|
Intermediate
|
Early Advanced
|
Early Advanced
|
Early Intermediate
|
Early Intermediate.
|
Edgar
|
Early Intermediate
|
Intermediate
|
Intermediate
|
Beginning
|
Early Intermediate
|
The intervention treatment took place from 2:45 p.m. -3:15 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays for seven
weeks. Each student was part of the after school homework club and was
therefore available for the intervention.
Instruments
Pre and post assessments were given
to each student who participated in the treatment. These assessments included a QRI 4
(Qualitative Reading Inventory), The Burke Reading Interview, and a Text
Structure Assessment developed by the researcher.
The QRI was developed by Lauren
Leslie and JoAnne Caldwell (2005). It is an individually administered informal
reading inventory designed to provide diagnostic information about the
condition under which students can identify words and comprehend text. It
begins with concept questions to assess a student’s familiarity of a topic and
to activate his or her background knowledge. It then leads into a prediction
based on the concept questions to get students ready for the reading. This is followed by an oral reading of the
passage. As the student reads the passage, the teacher records the oral reading
miscues which will eventually be analyzed. The teacher can either choose to
count each error (total accuracy) or only the errors that affect the meaning
(total acceptability). This assessment is timed in order to get a fluency rate.
Immediately following the oral
reading the student was asked to give an oral retelling of the passage. This
retelling is unaided and the students may not have look backs. The teacher
checks off each detail a student recalls from the reading. This assessment
helps the teacher identify if the student retains the narrative structure and
if most of the important details are included in a sequential manner. If it is
an expository text, the student is assessed as to whether or not they give a
main idea and details.
Following the retelling, the student
answers explicit and implicit comprehension questions. The total correct answers
are counted and the student is identified as performing at either independent,
instructional or frustration levels. The student continues reading passages,
which are becoming more difficult until he/she reaches the frustration level
for the passage.
Burke Reading Interview was
developed by Carolyn Burke in 1987 (Burke Reading Inventory, 1987). Students
are asked 10 questions regarding their reading behavior as well as
characteristics of a good reader. This survey was designed to ascertain
students’ understanding of what makes a good reader as well as awareness and
use of reading strategies.
The final assessment was developed
by the researcher. Three passages were developed, one for each of the following
text structures (compare and contrast, sequencing and descriptive). After the
students read each passage, they were asked which text structure the author
used. During the post-test the students were also asked to locate the clue
words within the passages.
The treatment began on Tuesday, January 19, 2010. It
included six second grade English Learners. The students were all familiar with
each other and the researcher so they got right to work.
Throughout the treatment, the
researcher explicitly taught text structures as well as comprehension strategies
through modeling (using the think aloud strategy), guided practice, and
independent practice. This was consistent with a teaching methodology suggested
by Dreher & Gray (2009).
The following text structures:
description, sequencing and compare and contrast were introduced by modeling
the concept through a visual demonstration that
did not include
text. The purpose was to ensure that the students understood the concept before
being expected to read the specific text structure.
The books used for the treatment are
listed in the Appendix A.
Week 1
Lesson Focus (Sample Lesson Plan in
Appendix B)
Text feature - Descriptive Text, Fiction vs Nonfiction
Genre - Fiction vs. Nonfiction
Definition - An author describes a topic by including characteristics such as:
size, shape, sensory vocabulary, location, and other interesting details.
Strategies Taught
1.
Preview using Text Features
(Title, Contents, Heading, and Pictures.)
2.
Paraphrasing through think
alouds
Graphic Organizer - Spider Graph
Fiction/non fiction. Since the purpose of this study was to identify non-fiction text
structures, the researcher dedicated some time the first week to teach the
students the difference between fiction and non-fiction. For the first three
lessons, the researcher and students read the definition of fiction and non
fiction. After reading the definitions, the researcher used trade books to
further teach the difference between fiction and nonfiction text. In addition,
for three days students spent five minutes at the beginning of each lesson
distinguishing between fiction and non fiction text.
Descriptive Text Structure
Descriptive text structure introduction.The researcher introduced the concept of
description by having students describe an object. The researcher did this by
having the students take turns describing a stuffed Cat and the Hat. As they
described the object, they classified what they said by color, size, shape and
sensory details with the support of the researcher.
Modeling Through Demonstration and Think Alouds
While introducing the text “Watch Me Grow” the researcher thought
aloud, pointing out descriptive concepts. These concepts included size of the
bears, where they lived, and how they cared for their young. She also modeled
the use of text features. These text features included the title, contents, headings,
and pictures. How each of these features helped out the reader was also
discussed. The title gives information about the general topic. Table of
contents let you know all the specific topics you will read about and what
pages they are on. Headings also let you know what you will be reading about on
a particular page or section.
Guided Practice
After modeling, the researcher
guided students through a lesson so they could practice identifying descriptive
details as well as text features. She did this by supporting students as they
read “I’m Born in the Den.” Students came up and identified headings on the
overhead and discussed how headings can be useful in letting us know what we
are going to read about. They also discussed how pictures are important. In
addition, the students were guided in the completion of a “spider” graphic
organizer looking for descriptive details about bears. Through the graphic organizer, students practiced recording
descriptive facts as well as organizing and classifying them.
Week 2 and 1 Day of Week 3
Lesson Focus
Text feature - Descriptive Text
Strategies Taught
1.
Preview using Text Features
(Title, Contents, Heading, and Pictures.)
2.
Paraphrasing through Think
Alouds
Graphic Organizer-Spider Graph
1.
Preview using Text Features
(Title, Contents, Heading, and Pictures.)
2.
Paraphrasing through think
alouds
The researcher
read the definition of paraphrasing to the students.
1. Read
a small amount of text.
2.
Stop and look away. Restate
what you just read into your own words.
3.
If they are unable to
do this, they can reread and try again.
The researcher put the
text on the overhead. She then modeled the above procedure. She read a small
amount of text, stopped and looked away. She then restated what she read in her
own words. She did this five times modeling the technique.
Guided Practice
After modeling paraphrasing and text
features, students had the opportunity to practice with support. Students took
turns coming up to the overhead, reading a small amount of text, and
paraphrased in their own words to the best of their ability. The researcher
assisted when necessary. Over the next three lessons, students practiced
paraphrasing with a partner. They also had the opportunity to practice
paraphrasing during their intervention during the school day.
Independent Practice
Students read a section of “Bear”
independently and completed a “spider” graphic organizer on their own. The
organizer was labeled with the following clue words: size, shape, location,
sensory details and interesting facts. Students read the passage with a partner
first, paraphrasing. They then filled out the graphic organizer on their own.
Week 3, Tuesday, Thursday and Week 4
Lesson Focus (Sample Lesson Plan in
Appendix C)
Text structure - Sequencing
Text structure clue words. First, then, next,
finally, after, before, today, tomorrow, first, second, third
Definition - The author lists events in order. This may include “How to books,”
recipes or other sequential information
Graphic Organizer - Sequencing
Sequencing text structure introduction. A visual activity was used for teaching the concept of sequencing
before it was connected to text. After making popcorn, the researcher sequenced
the events and wrote a paragraph. In addition, students were introduced to the
definition of sequencing. Moreover, they were shown the following clue words:
First, then, next, finally, after, before, today, tomorrow, second, third.
Modeled Think Alouds
The researcher modeled sequencing
using picture cards. She thought aloud as she sequenced the cards using clue
words to connect each picture. In addition, the researcher used text from “How
to Draw a Vehicle” to locate sequence words as well as comprehending the text.
Guided Practice
In order to gain a strong
understanding of sequencing, for three days students spent five minutes during
each lesson practicing sequencing cards and writing sentences about the cards
using sequencing clue words. In addition, students read simple sequencing
passages locating clue words and answering comprehension questions.
The lessons were concluded by having
the students make a smoothie. First, the students read a smoothie recipe. Next,
the students took turns reviewing the recipe and putting in the ingredients. Then,
they completed a sequencing diagram on the steps to make a smoothie. Finally,
they wrote a paragraph, using sequencing clue words on how to make a smoothie.
Week 5
Lesson Focus (Sample Lesson Plan in
Appendix D)
Text structure - Compare and Contrast
Clue words - Compare, contrast, similar, alike, in common, different, unlike
Definition - the author gives information about how two things are alike and
different.
Strategies Taught
1.
Continue paraphrasing through
think aloud
Compare and Contrast Text Structure Introduction
A visual activity was used to
introduce the concept of compare and contrast text structure. The researcher
had a picture of a lion and tiger. She used a Venn diagram to record the
physical characteristics of both animals. Students were also introduced to the
definition of compare and contrast. In addition, students were familiarized
with the clue words associated with the text structure. These included compare,
contrast, similar, alike, in common, different, unlike.
Vocabulary
The researcher provided concrete
activities to teach the vocabulary for this unit. At the beginning each lesson,
students compared and contrasted two objects or people. During these
activities, students practiced using clue words such as in common, similar,
unlike or different in complete sentences.
This lesson began with the
researcher predicting aloud about what she thought the author would include in
the passage about alligators and crocodiles. She recorded the predictions. As
she read the passage, she paraphrased, through think alouds and filled out a
Venn diagram emphasizing the similarities and differences between the two
animals. The researcher then went back and confirmed or denied the predictions.
The lesson was concluded with the researcher modeling how to write a paragraph
comparing alligators and crocodiles. The following paragraph frame was used: ________________
and _______________have similarities and differences. They are alike because
they both ________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________.
They are different because ________________________________
and
__________________________________________________. __________________ and
____________________ are alike and different.
For the next six lessons students were guided through the following
sequence of lessons. Throughout these lessons, the students compared and
contrasted three sets of animals. The researcher simplified the text from the
book, “What’s the Difference?” to make it more comprehensible. The rewritten
passages have been included in Appendix D.
·
Predicted what the author will
write about
·
Read together paraphrasing the
text
·
Completed a Venn Diagram
·
Confirmed or Denied Predictions
·
Wrote a paragraph about the two
animals using the provided frame.
The above bulleted points were
repeated with three different sets of animals. Each time, the author guided the
students through the lesson very similar to the modeled lesson.
On the final day of the treatment,
students read a passage about cats and dogs independently. They completed a
Venn diagram and wrote a paragraph comparing cats and dogs.
At the conclusion of the treatment,
the researcher assessed students’ reading comprehension looking at a number of
strategies and scaffolds. Students were asked to paraphrase during post
assessments. They were also assessed with the extra scaffold of a Venn diagram
to see if that would affect their comprehension. Finally, they were asked to
read a narrative passage using the paraphrasing strategy to see if fiction
continued to be easier to comprehend than informational text. Students’ text
structure knowledge and attitudes toward reading was also assessed and compared
to their pre-assessments.
These post tests included multiple
passages from QRI 4. Both expository and narrative passages where used and
students were encouraged to use the paraphrasing strategy. In addition, students
were able to use a Venn diagram on expository text as an extra scaffold. Students
were again given the Burke’s Reading Inventory as well as a text identification
assessment. The data was analyzed using qualitative measures.
Chapter 4
RESULTS
This study attempted to answer the following question: If you
explicitly teach features and vocabulary for specific text structures will English
Learners’ comprehension improve? In addition, the following strategy was taught
to encourage students to monitor their reading: think alouds focusing on
paraphrasing. A secondary question investigated if students’ definitions
reading shifted to more of a comprehension focus rather than word calling.
According to Durkin (1978), many teachers assess for comprehension
but don’t actually teach students how to comprehend. Moreover, in recent years
there has been an emphasis on fluency, thinking it would automatically lead to
comprehension (Applegate et al., 2009). Kletzien and Dreher (2004) stated that
there is a real need to use informational text as well as to explicitly teach
text structure.
This chapter reviews the results of the pre and post assessments
given to the students in the treatment. Students were initially given a
Qualitative Reading Inventory. In addition they were asked questions about
their attitudes toward using the Burke’s View of the Reading Process. Finally,
they read paragraphs developed by the researcher to determine if they could
identify informational text structures.
At the end of the treatment, students were assessed on the QRI 4,
again to measure growth. Students were also given the second grade expository
passage that had a compare and contrast text structure. First, they read the
passage with paraphrasing and they were asked the comprehension questions. A
few days later they read the passage again and were allowed to use a Venn
diagram as a scaffold before answering the comprehension questions. Finally,
they read the second grade narrative passage, paraphrasing, and answered the
comprehension questions. Students were given the Burke’s View of the Reading
Process again. Their assessment concluded by rereading the passages developed
by the researcher and identifying the text structure. They were also asked to
identify the clue words within the passages.
The following section presents pre and post treatment scores on the
Qualitative Reading Inventory, Burke’s View of the Reading Process, and text
structure identification for all subjects in the study. Further, the
investigator’s notes regarding subjects use of think aloud strategy and her
assessment observations are also provided.
QRI
Edgar
Pre-assessment. When Edgar was initially assessed, he read 18/20 of the first
grade word list. Edgar read the first grade expository passage “The Brain and
Five Senses” at an instructional level with four errors. Two of his errors
involved leaving off an ending (s). The other two errors were the result of
skipping words. He answered 4 out of the 6 (66%) comprehension questions, which
is considered instructional. One question he missed was an implicit question;
the other was an explicit error, not being able to recall a detail.
Post-assessment. Before reading the first grade passage “The Brain and Five Senses,”
Edgar was prompted to paraphrase. On the post test, his accuracy score
increased from an instructional level with four errors to an independent level
with one error. His one error was leaving off an (s) at the end of a word which
was consistent with the error he made in the pre-test. He made the exact error
in his pre-test, “nose” for “noses.” This time, Edgar was able to recall
information about the brain and how it makes the senses work. He answered the
comprehension questions at an independent level with 6 out of 6 which is 100%
correct. This is an increase of 33%.
Edgar then read the second grade expository passage “Whales and
Fish” and he was prompted to paraphrase. He read it at an instructional level
with six errors. Two of his errors were irregular words, two words were
skipped, one word was a decodable word, and the final error was the result of
mixing up the sight word for/of. He answered 1 out of 8 (12.5%) comprehension
questions correctly. The question he answered was an implicit question. His
score was at the frustration level.
A few days later Edgar was asked to read the same passage again
silently and to complete a Venn diagram. After completing the Venn diagram,
Edgar read the passage to the researcher. When asked the comprehension
questions again, he was able to answer 6/8 (75%) answers correctly. This is an
increase of 62.5 %. Both questions he missed were implicit in nature.
The final passage Edgar read was a second grade narrative, “What Can
I Get for My Toy?” Before reading he was prompted to paraphrase. Edgar read the
passage at an instructional level and answered 7 out of 8 questions correctly
(88%), which is at the instructional level. The question he missed was a higher
level implicit question.
Think aloud/paraphrasing. As Edgar read he paraphrased often using the words from the text
rather than his own words. He didn’t add any background knowledge or make any
connections.
Observations. Before the treatment, Edgar’s ability to decode was better than
his comprehension. He often read quickly, never stopping to think. His decoding
errors on the pre-test were often the result of leaving off the ending (s) or
skipping words. On the post test Edgar was able to read the second grade
passage at an instructional level. The majority of his errors were not the
result of decoding difficulties. They were due to skipping words and leaving
off endings. When prompted to paraphrase, Edgar was able to understand much
more. This was true with both the first grade expository passage as well as the
second grade narrative. On the second grade narrative his comprehension score
was 87.5%. Also helpful to Edgar’s comprehension was the use of the Venn
diagram. He had an increase of 62% when using this tool.
Jennifer
Pre-assessment. When Jennifer was initially assessed, her scores indicated to
start on the first grade passage. Jennifer read the expository passage “The
Brain and Five Senses” at an instructional level with two miscues. Her first
error was the result of leaving off an ending (s). The second error was the
result of skipping a word. She was able to answer 5 out of the 6 comprehension
questions correctly (83%). Her error was an implicit question involving the
brain and senses.
Post-Assessment. Before reading the first grade expository passage, “The Brain and
Five Senses,” Jennifer was prompted to paraphrase. Her accuracy score increased
from an instructional level with two errors to an independent level with one
error. Her miscue was the result of a semantic error. She was able to answer
the comprehension questions at an independent level with 6 out of 6 (100%) correct,
an increase of 17%.
Jennifer then read the second grade expository passage “Whales and
Fish.” She was prompted to paraphrase. She read the passage at an instructional
level with five errors. Two of the words were irregular words; the other two
were decoding errors. The decoding errors involved both short and long vowels. She
answered 5 out of 8 (62.5%) questions correctly, which was considered to be at
frustration level. Jennifer was able to answer three out of four explicit
questions correctly and two out of four implicit questions correctly.
A few days later Jennifer was asked to read the same passage
silently and to complete a Venn diagram. After completing the Venn diagram,
Jennifer read the passage to the researcher. When asked the questions again,
she was able to answer 8/8 (100%) answers correctly. This was an increase of
37.5%.
The final passage Jennifer read was a narrative “What Can I Get for
My Toy?” Before reading she was prompted to paraphrase. Jennifer answered 6 out
of 8 questions correctly (75%). She answered all the explicit questions
correctly and missed two out of four implicit questions. Being unable to answer
implicit questions accurately continued to be a problem for Jennifer. It may be
due to cognitive developmental issues.
Think aloud/paraphrasing. When paraphrasing Jennifer attempted to use her own words.
Observations. On Jennifer’s pretest and post test she was able to read the “The
Brain and Five Senses” independently. Moreover, her accuracy improved from two
errors to one. Jennifer’s miscues did not follow a pattern. Her comprehension
score increased from an instructional level to an independent level with no
errors.
The majority of Jennifer’s comprehension errors were on implicit
questions. As she read, she paraphrased often using her own words. On the
second grade passage, Jennifer’s score increased by 37.5 % when using a Venn
Diagram. On the second grade narrative passage with the use of paraphrasing,
Jennifer was able to comprehend the text at an instructional level.
It appears that the use of a Venn diagram was a powerful tool for
Jennifer. Moreover, Jennifer’s comprehension was better on the fiction passage
than the expository passage without the use of a Venn diagram.
Silvia
The word list assessment indicated that Silvia should begin reading
at the primer level. Silvia read the primer expository passage first. Silvia
was able to read the passage at an independent level with one error. Her error
was visual substituting “many “for “may”. She was able to answer 3 out of the 6
(50%) comprehension questions correctly, which is considered to be at the
frustration level. Silvia answered all of the explicit questions correctly 3/3,
but missed each implicit question 3/3. Therefore, the researcher administered
the pre-primer passage. Silvia was able to read the passage independently with
no errors. Silvia answered 2 out of 5 (40%) comprehension questions correctly,
which is considered to be at a frustration level. Both of the questions she
answered correctly were explicit questions. Once again she missed all of the
implicit questions.
Post-assessment. Before Silvia began to read she was instructed to paraphrase. When
Silvia was tested on the primer passage she was able to read the primer at an
independent level with no errors. She was able to answer the 5 out of 6 (83%)
comprehension questions. The one question she missed was an explicit question
from the beginning of the passage. Her comprehension score improved on the post
test by 33%. On the first grade expository passage, “The Brain and the Five
Senses,” Silvia read the passage at an instructional level with three errors.
Two of errors were irregular words and the final error was a sight word she
substituted “a” for “the.” However, she was able to answer the comprehension
questions at an independent level. She answered 6 out of 6 correctly (100%).
Before reading the second grade expository passage “Whales and Fish”
Sylvia was again prompted to paraphrase. She read the expository passage,
“Whales and Fish” at an instructional level with 5 errors. Four of her errors
were irregular and one was a sight word confusion, she read “from” instead of
“for.” She was able to answer 5/8 answers correctly, (62.5%) which is
considered to be at the frustration level. Silvia answered some of the questions
partially and was not given full credit.
A few days later Sylvia was instructed to read the passage again and
this time she completed a Venn diagram as she read. She was able to answer 6/8
(75%) answers correctly, which is an increase of 25%. Both of her errors were
toward the end of the passage. One was an explicit question and the other was
implicit.
Silvia then read the second grade narrative passage “What Can I Get
for My Toy?” Once again she was prompted to paraphrase. She read the passage at
an instructional level. She was able to answer 8 out of 8 questions correctly
(100%), which is considered to be at the independent level.
Paraphrasing. When Silvia paraphrased she tried to use her own words. She often
makes connections from her background knowledge, sharing what she knows.
Observations. Many of Silvia’s miscues were the result of irregular sight words
or simple substitutions. Silvia’s score increased from the pre-primer level in
comprehension to independent level in first grade with expository text. On her
pre-test assessments, Silvia was more successful with explicit questions than
implicit ones.
When the extra scaffold of a Venn diagram was present, Silvia
increased from a frustration level at the second grade level to a second grade
instructional level. Silvia was most successful on the narrative passage with
the use of paraphrasing. Silvia was able to comprehend the text at an
independent level (100%). When Silvia thought aloud, she often made connections
and adds background knowledge. It appears that this meta-cognitive strategy has
increased her comprehension ability.
Heidi
Pre-test. The word list assessment indicated that Heidi should begin reading
at the first grade level. Heidi was able to read the passage at an independent
level with one error. However, she was only able to answer 1 out of the 6 (17%)
comprehension questions correctly. The one question she did answer correctly
was an explicit question that was also in her background knowledge. This is
considered to be at the frustration level. Therefore, the researcher
administered the primer passage. Heidi was able to read the expository passage
independently with 1 error. Her miscue was a sight word substitution “they” for
“there”. She answered 2 out of 6 comprehension (33%) questions correctly. Both
questions she answered correctly were explicit questions. Heidi was then
administered the pre primer passage. She read it at an independent level with 1
error. Her one error was a visual miscue substituting “any” for” many.” She
answered 4/5 comprehension questions successfully which is an instructional
level. Heidi’s only error was an implicit question.
Post-assessment. Before Heidi began to read she was instructed to paraphrase. When
Heidi was tested on the primer passage she was able to read the primer at an
independent level with 1 error. Her one error involved leaving off the ending
(s). She was able to answer the 6 out of 6 comprehension questions, which is an
increase of 67%. On the first grade expository passage “The Brain and the Five
Senses,” Heidi was instructed to paraphrase. Heidi read the passage at an
independent level with no errors. She was able to answer the comprehension
questions at an independent level, 6 out of 6 (100%) correct which is an
increase of 83%.
Before reading the second grade expository passage “Whales and Fish,”
Heidi was again prompted to paraphrase. Heidi read the passage at an
instructional level with 9 errors. 3 of her errors were decodable short vowel
words, 2 errors were irregular sight words, two were sight words and 1 was not
putting an ending (s). She answered 4/8 (50%) of the answers correctly which is
considered to be at the frustration level. She was able to answer all the
explicit questions correctly, and she didn’t answer any of the implicit
questions correctly.
A few days later Heidi was instructed to read the passage again,
this time completing a Venn diagram as she read. She was able to answer 7/8
answers correctly (87.5%), an increase of 37.5%. Her one error was an implicit
question.
Heidi then read the second grade narrative passage. Once again she
was prompted to paraphrase. As Heidi paraphrased, she often used the words from
the passage and added background knowledge. She was able to answer 7 out of 8
questions correctly (87.5), which is considered to be at the instructional
level. Her one error was an implicit question.
Think aloud/paraphrasing. As Heidi paraphrased she used words from the passage, but then
added a comment from her background knowledge. She also asked questions about
things she wants clarified. She always added information from her background
knowledge to further clarify meaning. It appeared that this meta-cognitive
strategy has increased her comprehension ability. During the school day Heidi
continued to paraphrase when she reads. She did this spontaneously without any
prompting.
Observations. Heidi did not have many miscues on her pre-test. The few errors
that she had were substitutions based on visual information. Heidi’s score
increased from the pre-primer level in comprehension to independent level in
first grade with expository text. Heidi was most successful when answering
explicit questions from the passage.
When the extra scaffold of a Venn diagram was present on the second
grade expository text, Heidi’s score increased 37.5% to an instructional level.
On the narrative passage with the use of paraphrasing, Heidi was able to
comprehend the text at an instructional level (87%).
The use of the Venn diagram and paraphrasing during the fiction text
both aided in Heidi’s comprehension.
Yahir
Although the word list assessment indicated that Yahir should begin
reading at the second grade level, the researcher began at the first grade
level because she knew that Yahir’s ability to decode was higher than his
comprehension level. Yahir was able to read the passage at an independent level
with one error. His one error was a simple substitution. He read “us” for “use.”
He was able to answer 1 out of the 6 comprehension questions correctly (17%),
which is considered to be at the frustration level. The question that he got
correct was an explicit question. Therefore, the researcher administered the
primer passage. Yahir had 3 self corrections and no errors. He scored 6 out of
18 on the retelling portion. Yahir answered 3 out of 6 (50%) comprehension
questions correctly. Two of the questions he answered correctly were implicit
and 1 was explicit. Yahir was then administered the pre primer passage. He was
able to read the passage at an independent level with no errors. On the comprehension
questions, he was able to answer 4 out of 5 correctly. His one error was an
implicit question.
Post-assessment. Before Yahir began to read he was instructed to paraphrase. When
Yahir read the expository primer passage he was able to read it an independent
level with no errors. He was able to answer the 4 out of 6 comprehension
questions correctly (66%). This was an increase of 16%. On the first grade
expository passage, “The Brain and the Five Senses,” Yahir read the passage at
an independent level with no errors. He was able to answer the comprehension
questions at an instructional level. He answered 5 out of 6 (83%) correctly
which is an increase of 67%. His one error was on an explicit question.
Before reading the second grade passage, Yahir was again prompted to
paraphrase. Yahir read the passage at an independent level with 1 error. His 1
error was a sight word problem substituting “there” for “them.” He answered 3/8
answers correctly (37.5%), which is considered to be at the frustration level. Two
of the questions he got correct were implicit questions and one was explicit.
A few days later Yahir was instructed to read the passage again. This
time he completed a Venn diagram as he read. He was able to answer 6/8 (75%)
correctly, which is an increase of 38%. The two errors he made were explicit
questions.
Yahir then read the second grade narrative passage, “What Can I Get
For My Toy?” Once again he was prompted to paraphrase. As Yahir paraphrased he
often used the words from the passage and added background knowledge that was
sometimes confusing. He read the passage at an independent level. He was able
to answer 7 out of 8 questions correctly, which was considered to be at the
instructional level. His one error was on an implicit question.
Observations. When Yahir began the treatment his ability to decode was much
greater than his comprehension. He scored at a pre-primer level for
comprehension and was able to read the word list at the second grade level. He
had very few decoding errors. On the post test, Yahir’s comprehension score
increased from the pre-primer level to a first grade level.
Initially on the comprehension questions, Yahir had difficulty with
the explicit questions. However, the use of think alouds and paraphrasing has
helped Yahir. In addition, the use of a Venn diagram aided in his
comprehension. With these scaffolds in place, his ability to answer explicit
questions improved.
Think aloud/paraphrasing. As Yahir paraphrased, he tried to use his own words and he added
personal comments. At times however, he included information that was
inaccurate and confusing.
Osmara
Pre-assessment. When Osmara was initially assessed, she read 18/20 of the first
grade word list. Therefore, the researcher had Osmara read the first grade
expository passage, “The Brain and the Five Senses.” Osmara was able to read
the passage at an independent level with 1 error. Her miscue was a sight word
error, saying “a” for “and.” She was able to recall four senses. She answered 4
out of the 6 comprehension questions correctly (66%), which was considered to
be at an instructional level. Osmara missed both questions about how the brain
is involved with the senses.
Post-assessment. Before reading the first grade expository passage “The Brain and
the Five Senses,” Osmara was prompted to paraphrase. Osmara was able to read
this passage at an independent level with no errors. Her accuracy score
increased from an independent level with 1 error to an independent level with
no error. Her comprehension remained the same, answering 4 of the 6 questions
correct. She had difficulty with the same implicit questions.
Osmara then read the second grade expository passage. Once again she
was prompted to paraphrase but had difficulty with the think aloud task. She
read it at an independent level with 2 errors. She answered 1 out of 8
comprehension questions correctly (12.5%). The one question she scored correct
was an implicit question.
A few days later Osmara was asked to read the passage silently and
to complete a Venn diagram. After completing the Venn diagram, Osmara read the
passage to the researcher. When asked the comprehension questions again, she
was able to answer 5/8 answers correctly (62.5%). This is an increase of 50%,
although her score is still considered to be a frustration level. Two of the
questions she missed were near the end of the passage.
The final passage Osmara read was a narrative “What Can I Get for My
Toy?” Before reading she was prompted to paraphrase. As she read she had
difficulty paraphrasing. The researcher told her it was okay to use the words
from the passage. Osmara read the passage at an independent level and answered
5 out of 8 questions correctly (62.5%). She missed the final three questions. Two
out of three were implicit.
Observation. Osmara did not participate in the daily reading group from the
classroom. She had difficulty paraphrasing because she was unable to use her
own words. She never added background knowledge or made connections.
Osmara had very few miscues when reading. Her initial score was one
of the strongest of all the students. Her scores did not increase from the pre
or post test. However, the extra scaffolding from the Venn diagram did help
her, and her score increased by 50%. Compared to her initial reading of the
second grade expository text, Osmara was more successful with the fiction
passage.
Think aloud/paraphrasing. Osmara had difficulty paraphrasing. She often said nothing or used
words from the text. She didn’t add any connections or background knowledge.
Overall Results of the QRI
Five out of the six students’ scores improved from the pre to the
post test on the QRI for both accuracy and comprehension. Figure 1 illustrates
the growth students made on the comprehension portion of the QRI. Yahir, Heidi,
and Silvia made the most progress, initially testing at the pre-primer level,
advancing to the first grade level. Edgar and Jennifer advanced from an
instructional level to an independent level (see Figure 1).
Figure
1. Pre and Post Comprehension Results.
The use of the extra scaffolds of paraphrasing and the use of the
Venn diagram also aided in the students’ ability to answer the comprehension
questions. Figure 2 illustrates the growth students made when reading “Fish and
Whales,” a second grade expository passage that compared and contrasted fish
and whales. Initially, students were instructed to paraphrase as they read the
passage. The students then answered the comprehension questions. A few days
later, they were instructed to read the passage again and complete a Venn
diagram. Every student made significant growth using this scaffold. Edgar and
Osmara demonstrated the most growth.
Figure
2. Second Grade Expository Text With and Without
Venn Diagram.
Another
interesting finding was comparing the results of a fiction and nonfiction text (see
Figure 3). Even after the treatment, students overwhelmingly did better on the
narrative passage compared to the expository passage without the aid of a Venn
diagram. On both passages students were instructed to paraphrase.
Figure
3. Second Grade Expository and Fiction.
The final comparison looked at the expository passage with the aid
of the Venn diagram and the fiction text using the paraphrasing think aloud
strategy (see Figure 4). As stated earlier, both strategies led to significant
gains. As apparent in the graph, Heidi, Yahir, and Osmara benefited equally
when using the strategies. The use of paraphrasing was more beneficial to
Silvia compared to the Venn diagram. However, the exact opposite was true for
Jennifer. Edgar showed a slight increase in the use of paraphrasing as compared
to the Venn diagram.
Figure
4. Comparing the Venn Diagram and Paraphrasing
Fiction.
Burke’s View of the Reading Process
Jennifer
Initially, Jennifer indicated that if she came to something she
didn’t know, she would ask for help. On the post assessment she indicated that
she would sound it out. When asked what else she would do, she said she would
cover part of it up, and if she didn’t understand something, she would read it
again. When asked what makes a student a good reader, Jennifer replied that she
reads and understands the text, where initially she replied that books have
challenges. Initially, when Jennifer rated herself on a scale of 1 to 5, as a
reader she gave herself a 1. At the end of the treatment she gave herself a 5,
which is the highest rating.
Osmara
Initially when Osmara was asked what she does when she gets to
something she doesn’t know, she said she was confused. On the post test she
indicated that she would stop and think. When asked who is a good reader,
initially she said her sister. On the post test she indicated that we were all
good readers. Initially, Osmara was not able to describe herself as a reader. On
the post assessment, Osmara indicated that she liked to read books and she
named her favorite title. On both assessments, Osmara indicated that she was a
terrific reader.
Heidi
Initially, Heidi indicated that she was confused when she came to a
word that she didn’t know. On the post test she replied that she would stop and
think when she came to something she didn’t know. When asked what made a good
reader, initially Heidi said that that when she was confused her sister would
help her sound it out. However, on the post test she replied that her sister
would stop and think. On both assessments, on a scale of 1 to 5, Heidi
indicated that she was a 5.
Edgar
When asked what he does when he get to something he doesn’t know, on
both the pre and post assessments Edgar indicated that he “thinks.” He also
indicated on both assessments on what good readers do when they get to
something they don’t know. He said, “think.” Many times Edgar mentioned that
you should stop and think. On both assessments he indicated that he was a
terrific reader.
Silvia
When asked what you do when you get to something you don’t know,
Silvia initially indicated that she would stop and think. On the post
assessment, she said she would read it again and stop and think. When asked
what makes a good reader, Silvia initially said that they stop and think. On
the post test, she said that she stops and thinks and doesn’t speed read. Both
of these responses revealed an increase in strategy use. When asked how to
teach someone who doesn’t read well, initially Silvia indicated that you should
teach them to read. On the post test, she indicated that you should tell them
to read it again and to stop and think. When asked what she would like to do
better as a reader, initially Silvia said that she would read every day. On the
post test, she said she would read every day and stop and think about the story.
When asked to describe yourself as a reader, initially Silvia said, “I don’t
know.” On the post test, she said she likes chapter books and that she likes to
read hard books. On both assessments, Silvia indicated that she rates herself
as a 5 on the scale which indicated that she was a terrific reader.
Yahir
When Yahir was asked how he learned to read, he said by thinking and
comparing, contrasting and sequencing. When asked what he could do to become a
better reader, initially he said he didn’t know. On the post test, he replied
that he should read more books. On both the pre and post assessments, Yahir
rated himself as a 5.
Synthesis of Students’ Responses to the Burke’s View of the Reading Process
Initially, only two students responded that thinking was important
when reading. During the post assessment, all students responded in some way
that thinking and understanding was important for reading. This is critical to
the meta-cognitive processing that needs to take place during reading. Initially,
1 out of the 6 students indicated that good readers stop and think when they
come to something they don’t understand. On the post assessment, four out of
the six students indicated that good readers think and/or understand what they
are reading. This is an important strategy that they are now using. Once again,
meta-cognition was revealed as important to these students. Initially none of
the students indicated that they liked reading. Now 5 of the 6 students
indicated that they enjoyed reading. This is essential for their motivation. On
the initial assessment, 5 out of 6 students responded that they were terrific
readers and one said that she was a 1, the lowest level. During the post test,
all 6 students indicated that they were terrific readers. The self efficacy of
these students is high and will benefit their overall reading development.
Text Structure Assessment
Pre-test. During the initial assessment, none of the students were able to
identify any text structures. They didn’t understand the term and after reading
the passages they didn’t really know what the researcher was asking them to
do.
Post-test. During the post test students were asked a six question survey on
text structures. In addition, they were asked to read three passages with
different text structures. They read the passages one at a time. After reading
each passage, the students were asked to underline the clue words, and then
were asked which text structure the author was using.
Silvia
When reading the compare and contrast passage, Silvia was able to
locate 7/7 of the clue words. She was also able to identify the passage as
compare and contrast. On the text structure survey, Silvia was able to list 5
descriptors for the descriptive text feature. In addition, she correctly
identified the passage. On the sequencing passage, Silvia identified 4/4
sequencing clue words as well as correctly identifying the passage as
sequencing.
Edgar
On the survey Edgar was able to locate 7/7 of the clue words for
compare and contrast. He was also able to identify the passage as compare and
contrast. On the text structure survey, Edgar was able to list 8 descriptors
for the descriptive text feature. He identified the descriptive passage
correctly. In addition, he correctly identified the passage. On the sequencing
passage, Edgar identified 4/4 sequencing clue words as well as correctly
identifying the passage as sequencing.
Yahir
On the survey Yahir was able to locate 7/7 of the clue words for
compare and contrast. He was also able to identify the passage as Compare and
Contrast. On the text structure survey, Yahir listed all of the senses and
important details as descriptors for the descriptive text feature. He
identified the descriptive passage correctly. He located the clue words for
sequencing but incorrectly identified the sequencing passage as descriptive.
Jennifer
When reading the compare and contrast passage, Jennifer was able to
locate 7/7 of the clue words. She was also able to identify the passage as
compare and contrast. On the text structure survey, Jennifer was able to list 6
descriptors for the descriptive text feature. In addition, she correctly
identified the passage. On the sequencing passage, Jennifer identified 4/4
sequencing clue words as well as correctly identifying the passage as
sequencing.
Osmara
When reading the compare and contrast passage, Osmara was able to
locate 7/7 of the clue words. She incorrectly identified the passage as
descriptive rather than compare and contrast. On the text structure survey,
Osmara was able to list all the senses as well as one additional descriptor for
the descriptive text feature. She incorrectly identified the passage as
comparing rather than descriptive. On the sequencing passage, Osmara identified
4/4 sequencing clue words as well as correctly identifying the passage as
sequencing.
Heidi
When reading the compare and contrast passage, Heidi was able to
locate 7/7 of the clue words. She was also able to identify the passage as
compare and contrast. On the text structure survey, Heidi was able to list 3
descriptors for the descriptive text feature. In addition, she correctly
identified the passage. On the sequencing passage, Heidi identified 4/4
sequencing clue words but incorrectly identified the sequencing text structure
as compare and contrast.
Summary of Text Structure Assessment
All of the students were able to correctly locate the clue words for
compare and contrast and sequencing. All students were able to report
describing words for the descriptive text structure. Five out of six students
correctly identified the compare and contrast text structure. Five out of six
students identified the descriptive text structure correctly. Five out of six
students identified the sequencing passage correctly.
The outcomes of this research were positive. Five of the six
students showed growth on the comprehension portion of the QRI when reading
expository text. The use of a Venn diagram increased all students’ ability to
comprehend a compare and contrast text. Further, the use of paraphrasing
through think alouds also had a positive effect on students’ comprehension. Also
interesting to note, it was discovered that fiction text was easier for
students to comprehend when compared to expository text, even after the
treatment.
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to answer the following question: If
you explicitly teach text structures and vocabulary for compare and contrast,
sequencing and descriptive informational text structures to English Learners,
will their comprehension improve? In addition, the following strategy was
taught explicitly: Paraphrasing using think alouds. A secondary question
investigated whether students’ attitudes toward reading shifted to more of a
comprehension level rather than word calling. This research involved
introducing text structures as well as paraphrasing to six second grade English
Learner students.
According to Applegate et al. (2009) an overemphasis has been placed
on fluency, thinking it would automatically make a student good at
comprehending text. Dreher and Gray (2009) have found that informational text
is more difficult than narrative to comprehend. This is partly due to the
variety of text structures that are often found, as well as unknown content. Duke
and Pearson (2002) stated that students with good comprehension use a variety
of strategies.
The outcomes of this research were positive. Five of the six
students showed growth on the comprehension portion of the QRI when reading
expository text. In addition, the use of a Venn diagram increased all students’
ability to comprehend a compare and contrast text. The use of paraphrasing
through think alouds also had a positive effect on students’ comprehension. Moreover,
it was discovered that fiction text was easier for students to comprehend when
compared to expository text, even after the treatment.
By the end of the treatment, the majority of the students were able
to identify text structures as well as the cue vocabulary associated with them.
On a survey related to reading behaviors all of the students indicated that it
was important to think when they read. This added metacognitive awareness will
enhance their understanding of text. Moreover, they all maintained or increased
their self efficacy regarding reading abilities.
Discussion
Five out of the six students increased their performance on the QRI
after the researcher completed her treatment. This could be attributed to the
explicit instruction in the different text structures and comprehension
strategies. According to Duke and Pearson (2002), comprehension improves when a
teacher explicitly teaches comprehension strategies. During the treatment,
students were taught to use text features such as the title, headings, pictures,
and table of contents. According to Fisher, Frey, and Lapp (2008), there are
many text features that students use to determine meaning and importance in
texts.
Students also showed success in understanding text when using the
paraphrasing strategy. This was true for both the informational passage as well
as the fiction passage in the post assessment. Outcomes support the work of
Kletzien (2009). She indicated that paraphrasing has not received as much
attention as other strategies, but it does aid in comprehension.
The students in the present study used the paraphrasing strategy to
differing degrees. At times it was challenging as they are English Learners. Consequently,
modeling, guided and independent practice proved to be very beneficial. This
was consistent with the recommendations of Sweet and Snow (2003) and Dreher and
Gray (2009) in regards to explicit strategy instruction. Some students were
able to put the text in their own words and some even went on to make
connections to their own background knowledge. These students fared best when
using the paraphrasing strategy. However, even those students who paraphrased
using words from the text improved in their comprehension ability. This
increased meta-cognitive monitoring aided in their understanding of text. According
to Boulware et al. (2007) it was found that instruction in meta-cognition
enhances comprehension.
All of the text used during instruction of this treatment was
informational. Moss (2005) and Kletzien & Dreher (2004) stated that the use
of informational text in the classroom was essential. Much of what we read as
an adult is informational. Also, state and national standards call for young
readers to be effective readers of informational text. Moreover, it is very
motivating to students (Moss, 2005). According to Dreher and Gray (2009),
expository text often deals with unfamiliar text, has many text structures, and
is therefore difficult to understand. Moreover, Dreher & Gray, 2009) stated
that many students need explicit instruction to learn structures for expository
text. In this treatment, the researcher explicitly taught text structures as
well as vocabularies associated with them. Dymock (2005) suggested that
students who have a good understanding of the structures for expository text
have fewer problems with comprehension. All of the students in this treatment
were able to recognize clue words for each text structure that was taught. This
outcome supported research that suggests explicit instruction of vocabulary for
specific text structures is essential. Dreher and Gray (2009) suggest Knowledge
of vocabulary of specific text structures will help students identify the
structure when they encounter it.
The use of a graphic organizer, the Venn diagram, was beneficial in
aiding students’ comprehension. All students’ comprehension increased
significantly when using a Venn diagram to record information from the compare
and contrast passage. This supports the research of Dreher and Gray (2009) who
stated that graphic organizers are important to help show a child the
similarities and differences of what is being studied.
All of the students in this study were English learners. As
mentioned previously, they all benefited from the explicit instruction
delivered in the treatment. This is consistent Pressley and Afflerbach (1995),
who stated English Learners benefit from being taught comprehension strategies
explicitly. Manyak (2007) found that English Learners face difficulty with
unfamiliar content and vocabulary. The treatment in this study included
vocabulary development as well as delivery of content. Throughout the
treatment, the students were exposed to the vocabulary and took part in many
activities to reinforce it. Each student was able to identify the vocabulary in
the different text structures. In addition, most of the students were able to
correctly identify the text structures. The use of the graphic organizers
helped the students organize the concepts they were learning. According to Rea
and Mercuri (2006), teachers can help students internalize content through the
use of graphic organizers. Graphic organizers help students understand
complicated material in a simple way. Moreover, the use of paraphrasing through
think alouds was beneficial to the English Learners in this treatment. This
supported the research by Rea and Mercuri, that suggested think alouds are
beneficial to English Learners. Lastly, using the modeling procedures described
by Pressley (2006) allowed for optimum teaching which was beneficial to the
treatment group: Modeling, guided practice, and independent practice are
essential for English Learners.
Need for Further Research
At this point there is only a small amount of research involving
paraphrasing and primary students’ comprehension. According to Kletzien (2009),
the ability to paraphrase is a precursor to summarizing. Given that many
students are asked to summarize, more attention should be paid to the ability
to paraphrase. Moreover, students are often instructed to make connections and
question. However, if they are not aware of the importance of attending to what
they are reading, this will be impossible. This research has found that the
paraphrasing strategy aided the students’ monitoring and clarifying of what
they were reading. The students got the message; you need to pay attention to
what you are reading. Second grade students often race through text, thinking
good readers read fast. All students, especially English Learners, need to take
time to understand what they are reading. Consequently, the paraphrasing
strategy was a powerful tool for the students in the treatment. Their scores
significantly improved when they paraphrased the text. This outcome supports
the contention that reading is a meaning seeking activity, not word calling or
speed reading. Therefore, further studies should be done regarding primary
students ability to comprehend using the paraphrasing strategy.
In addition, it would be beneficial to repeat the treatment with an
experimental focus. It could include an entire class, involving students with
varying language abilities. Besides text structures, think alouds using
paraphrasing and other comprehension strategies could be explicitly taught. The
use of instruction in academic language before and after the treatment could
also be investigated.
It would also be beneficial to look at the developmental nature of
implicit questions as some students in this study continued to have with
difficulty with the inferencing process. Many students are able to recall
information and answer explicit questions. However, the task of making inferences
and thinking at a deeper level proves to be more difficult for many students.
Another area to study would involve looking at the definition of
“Stop and Think” in a quantitative manner to see which strategy students are
most likely is use while they read. This could include questioning, making
connections, paraphrasing, predicting or previewing text.
Lastly, it would be important to investigate whether this treatment
would have a different outcome for students who have English as a first
language. There were times in this study when the students’ low language
interfered with their understanding. For example, when reading the second grade
expository passage, many of the students were confused with the phrase “live
birth.”
Classroom Recommendations
This treatment provided powerful explicit instruction in text
structures and paraphrasing which had positive outcomes for the participants. Research
suggests that many students need explicit instruction in comprehension
(Pressley, 2006) and many classroom teachers assess comprehension rather than
teach it (Durkin, 1978). This explicit instruction can easily be applied to the
classroom setting and would be beneficial to all students. This instruction
should be year long and should include other comprehension strategies such as
making connections, questioning, and predicting based on prior knowledge. The
think aloud procedure should be used to get students to verbalize their
thoughts. This procedure provides classroom teachers with rich formative
evaluation data for future instructional planning.
Recommendation #1
Informational text. It is very important that classroom teachers have informational
books available to students. As mentioned earlier, Moss (2005) and Kletzien and
Dreher (2004) both believe this is essential to all students including those in
the primary grades. Students are often tested on expository passages and much
of what we read as adults is informational. The good news is that children
enjoy expository text and it is very motivational (Moss, 2005).
Recommendation #2
Also critical is explicit instruction of text structures. Informational
text is more difficult for students to comprehend than fiction text. Moreover,
there are many different text structures. Students need many years of
instruction on the artifacts of text structure beginning in the primary grades.
In addition, they need to learn the vocabulary associated with the text
structures.
Recommendation #3
Explicit instruction of
comprehension strategies. According to Durkin (1978),
students are often tested in comprehension but are rarely instructed in
strategies good readers use. Duke and Pearson (2002) suggested that
comprehension increased when students were taught comprehension processes
explicitly. The researcher would recommend that the following strategies should
be taught explicitly: paraphrasing, making connections, questioning,
predicting, and using text features. Using think alouds is a good way to help
students monitor their understanding and model this processing for their peers.
Recommendation #4
Modeling, guided practice,
and independent practice. The final recommendation
involves quality instruction. Research suggests that teachers should first
model the desired strategy (Pressley, 2006). Once modeling is complete,
students should be guided through the strategy. Finally students should have
the opportunity to practice independently. Teachers often expect a student to
be able to do something without the proper modeling or guided practice. Teachers
need to make sure they begin their lesson by modeling. Then they should guide
students through the activity and finally they should have independent
practice.
Personal Statement
I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to the researchers who
have dedicated their careers to researching comprehension. I have learned so
much because of these studies and numerous books on the subject of
comprehension.
One of the most important teaching techniques that I got out of this
study was how to teach students to think aloud. I had often thought about
getting kids to think aloud as I heard about it in readings and in classes. The
development of this for this research study treatment gave me the tools to
teach students to do this. Modeling, guided practice, and independent practice do
work!
I feel fortunate that I am going to be able to continue working with
the students who were in my treatment group. I was able to introduce the idea
of different text structures but much more work is necessary to get these
students to really understand text structure.
While doing this research, I was able to introduce many of these
concepts with other students with whom I was working; I plan on continuing this
in order to affect as many students as I can through my position as a reading
specialist. Moreover, I plan on doing in-service for teachers in the area of
metacognitive processing and the use of comprehension strategies as well as
co-planning and teaching.
APPENDIX A
Books Used in Treatment
Books
Used in Treatment
Beverly
Randel Brown Bears
Michael
LaPlaca How To Draw Cars and
Trucks
Judy
Diehl What’s the
Difference
APPENDIX
B
Descriptive
Lesson
Descriptive
Lesson Plan
Add
the definition of Descriptive text structure into students’ notebooks. Review the definition of text Structure-
Have students add more descriptive words to each category.
Students read
chorally the definition of description.
Edgar was very eager to participate.
As I was talking about descriptive he chimed in and said authors
describe. After reading description, students took turns writing descriptor
words for each characteristic.
Size Shape Color-children wrote color
Osmara- small cube words independently
Edgar- enormous round Sensory details-guided
Yahir – big rectangular students together
Silvia- large, tiny square
|
Reviewed the previous
day’s graphic organizer emphasizing the different characteristics: size,
shape, sensory details,
Independent Practice-“Bears” Have students read “Bears” independently.
|
Independent Practice
Graphic Organizer- After reading, they will read it a second time
filling out the graphic organizer. The
graphic organizer will be labeled with the following terms: size, shape,
location, sensory detail, interesting facts. Students will share their
results. They will use the descriptive vocabulary chart to prove their findings. Students will be finishing at different
times. As they finish they can read
some non fiction books quietly until everyone is finished.
All students were able to correctly
put the following information on the graphic organizer.
Size-big
Color-all students wrote at least one
color word.
Location-all students except Yahir
wrote woods. Yahir wrote den. He was using his background knowledge.
Shape-Edgar, Yahir and Osmara put
round
Sensory details- No one was able to
identify the sensory detail. However, while reviewing the graphic organizer
Edgar said roar was a sensory detail.
Interesting Fact- All students had an
interesting fact
|
Text Structure Post Test
Descriptive
Gecko
The gecko is a lizard. It can be brown or green. It can walk on walls because it has sticky
hairs on its feet. The gecko lives where
it is warm. They sleep in the
daytime. The gecko eats insects.
APPENDIX
C
Sequencing
Lesson
Sequencing
Lesson Plan
Week
3 day 3
·
Reviewed
definition of sequencing- Students read the
definition chorally.
Yahir
underlined first
Heidi underlined
next-
Osmara underlined
then
Silvia- finally
One day a little girl went down the
slide.
Jennifer- told us how to begin. First – She climbed up the ladder,
Heidi- Then- she slid down the slide
Yahir- (We need a word that we can use
to end) Finally
Introduced start and add.
Kids came up and underlined clue words. They were able to do this successfully.
Ticket out- Tell me two clue words.
All students were able to do this.
|
Text Structure Post Test
Sequencing
How
to make a Peanut Butter Sandwich
This is how you make a
peanut butter and jelly sandwich. First
you spread the peanut butter. Then you
add the jelly. Next, you cut your
sandwich in half. Finally, you eat it
up.
APPENDIX
D
Compare
and Contrast Lesson
Compare
and Contrast Lesson
Day
2 - Review all text structures We reviewed our senses
Review
Compare and Contrast-Clue words-
|
Remind
students of the passage about alligators and crocodiles- I learned a lot
about alligators and crocodiles. The way the author compared and contrasted
alligators and crocodiles helped me understand how they are alike and
different.
Each student had a chance to look at the Venn diagram and
complete one of the frames.
Jennifer- Lions and tigers are similar because the both have
thick fur
Sylvia -Lions and tigers are similar because they have sharp
teeth.
Lions and tigers are similar because they both hunt
Review clue words-
As I began to read, the student reminded me to put up the
great picture in the book.
I reread the alligators and crocodiles. We went on a hunt to look for clue words. (
I modeled most of this) Underlined both.
Reviewed the Venn diagram on how the animals are similar. Edgar pointed out our next clue word-
difference. However next clue
word.
Compare was the next word.
Difference- Jennifer identified
It
also helped thinking about what I knew about them before I started to read
and of course paraphrasing always helps me. Lets go back to the passage and
see if any words or phrases that let us know we are comparing and contrasting
two types of animals.
Model
Write- Compare and contrast paragraph.
The
paragraph is about __________ and ___________. In some ways they are the
same._____________________________. In
other ways they are different._______________________________. As you can see ________ and __________ have
similarities and differences.
Alligators and Crocodiles can be fierce animals. In some ways they are similar. They both have sharp teeth and long tails
(students helped me fill this in.) But
in some ways they are different. When
a crocodile’s mouth is shut you can see their teeth. An alligator has a wide rounded mouth. Alligators and crocodiles have similarities
and differences.
___________
and ______________ are the animals I studied.
|
Compare and
Contrast Texts
Turtles and Tortoises
Turtles and tortoises are
similar in many ways. They are both reptiles with scales covering their skin.
Each one has a shell that protects their bodies. Both turtles and tortoises
cannot ever leave their shells.
Turtles and tortoises have
other things in common. They both enjoy basking in the sun. They both will also
hide in their shell when danger threatens.
The main difference
between tortoises and most turtles has to do with where they live. Tortoises
always live on land. Turtles spend at least part of their time in the water.
Another difference is that
tortoises have a heavier shell than a turtle.
Wasps and Bees
Bees and wasps have a lot
in common. They are both insects. Some bees and wasps even look alike. They
both have black and yellow stripes.
But bees and wasps are
also very different. Bees are covered with hair and look furrier than wasps.
When bees walk over flowers they use their fur to collect pollen and nectar.
Bees feed their babies the nectar. Wasps do not collect pollen or nectar.
Instead, they hang out at picnics or around garbage cans to find sweet things. Unlike
bees, wasps catch their prey and feed them to their babies.
Bees and wasps are similar
in another way. They can both sting people. A honey bee will die after it
stings a person. However, a wasp does not die. It can sting many people.
Rabbits and Hares
One way to tell a rabbit
from a hare is to compare their babies. Newborn rabbits have pink skin with no
hair. When they are first born they cannot see. A newborn hare is different.
They are born with fur and they can see.
When rabbits and hares
grow up you can see similarities and differences. A few things that they have
in common are, they both have soft fur and puffy tails. Also similar is that
they both eat grass. Yet, they also have differences. Hares have longer ears
and longer legs. Hares can also run faster than rabbits.
Leopards and Cheetahs
Cheetahs and leopards have
similarities and differences. They both can be orange with black spots. Also similar
are their sharp teeth. They both prey on animals and eat meat. Also in common
is that they are both part of the cat family.
However, cheetahs and leopards
have their differences. Cheetahs are the fastest animal in the world. They can run
much faster than leopards. They also have longer legs than leopards do. You can
also tell a cheetah from a leopard by looking at its face. A cheetah has a dark
stripe that runs down both sides of its face.
Unlike cheetahs, leopards
have special claws that help them climb trees. You will never see a cheetah in
a tree.
Crocodiles and Alligators
Both alligators and
crocodiles are reptiles. Also in common are their long tails, short legs and
sharp teeth.
Alligators
and crocodiles are also similar because they are both covered in scales.
However, alligators and
crocodiles also have their differences. Alligators live in fresh water while
crocodiles live in both fresh water and salt water. Another way they are unlike
is their snouts. An alligator has a wider snout that is rounded. A crocodile’s
snout is longer and pointed.
Alligators and crocodiles
have similarities and differences.
Cats and Dogs
Cats and dogs have
similarities and differences. One thing they have in common is that they are
both pets. They both have four legs and soft fur. Also similar is that dogs and
cats run fast.
Cats and dogs also have
their differences. Cats meow and dogs bark. Also different is that cats can
climb trees and dogs can’t. Dogs bite people and cats scratch people. Dogs and
cats are alike in some ways and different in others.
Butterflies and Moths
Butterflies and moths are
similar in many ways. They are both insects and have colored scales. Butterflies
and moths also both fly and lay eggs. You might see a moth or butterfly around
flowers.
Butterflies and moths also
have their differences. Butterflies antennae are thin while moths have feathery
antennae. Another difference is you will usually see butterflies during the day
and moths at night. Butterflies and moths do have many similarities and
differences.
Text Structure Post Test
Compare and Contrast
Rabbits and Hares
When rabbits and hares
grow up you can see similarities and differences. A few things that they have
in common are they both have soft fur and puffy tails. Also similar is that
they both eat grass. Yet, they also have differences. Hares have longer ears
and longer legs. Hares can also run faster than rabbits.
REFERENCES
Applegate, M. D., Applegate, A. J., & Modla, V.
(2009). “She’s my best reader; she just can’t comprehend:” Studying the relationship
between fluency and comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 62(6), 512-521.
August, D., Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language
learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children
and Youth. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Bauer, E. B. (2009). Informed additive literacy. The Reading
Teacher, 62(5), 446-448.
Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A. R.,
& Joshi, M. (2007). Instruction of metacognitive strategies enhances reading
comprehension and vocabulary achievement of third-grade students. The Reading
Teacher, 61(1), 70-77.
Burke Reading
Interview. (1987). Retrieved from http://academic.evergreen.edu/f/fordter/winter06/burke.htmhttp://academic.evergreen.edu/f/fordter/winter06/burke.htm
Davis Joint Unified School District. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.djusd.k12.ca.us/Montgomery
Dole, J. A., Brown, K. J., & Trathen, W. (1996).
The effects of strategy instruction on the comprehension performance of at-risk
students. Reading Research Quarterly,
31(1).
Dorn, L. J., & Soffos, C. (2005). Teaching for deep comprehension. Portland, ME:
Stenhouse Publishers.
Dreher, M., & Gray, J. (2009). Compare,
contrast, comprehend: Using the compare and contrast text structure with Ells
in k-3 classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 63(2), 132-141.
Duffy, G. (2002). The case for direct explanation of
strategies. In C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practice (pp.
28-41). New York: Guilford Press.
Duke,
N. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational text in first
grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2), 202-224.
Duke, N.
K. (2010). Informational text and young children: When, why, what, where, and
how. National Geographic and Hampton
Brown Best Practices in Science. Retrieved from
http://www.ngsp.com/Portals/0/downloads/SCL22-0469A_AM_Duke.pdf
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices
for developing reading comprehension. A Scholastic Red Professional Article.
Excerpted from What research has to say about
reading. Retrieved from http://www.Red_c7_16r_pa_duke.pdf
Durkin, D. (1978). What
classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Urbana, IL: Center for
the Study of Reading
Dymock, S. (2005). Teaching expository text
structure awareness. The Reading Teacher, 59(2), 177-181.
Echevarria, Short, & Powers. (2006). School reform
and standard-based education: A model for English Language Learners. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 195-210.
Eilers, L. H., & Pinkley, C. (2006). Metacognitive
strategies help students to comprehend all text reading improvements. Reading Improvement, 43(1), 13-29.
Englert, C. S., & Hiebert, E. H. (1984).
Children’s developing awareness of text structures in expository materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 65-75.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2008). Shared reading:
Modeling, comprehension, vocabulary, text structures and text features for older
readers. The Reading Teacher, 61(7), 548-556.
Guthrie,
J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle
school through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading and
Writing Quarterly, 19,
59-85.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000).
Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D.
Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume III
(pp. 403-422). New York:
Erlbaum.
Hicks, C. P, (2009). A lesson on reading fluency learned
from The Tortoise and the Hare. The Reading Teacher, 63(4), 319-323.
Hoyt, L. (2002). Make
it real strategies for success with informational text. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Hudson,
R., Lane, H., & Pullen, P. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and
instruction: What, why, and how? The Reading
Teacher, 58(8),
702-714.
Kletzien, S. B. (2009). Paraphrasing: An effective
comprehension strategy. Reading Teacher,
63(1), 73-77.
Kletzien, S. B., & Dreher, M. J.
(2004). Informational text in K-3
classrooms. Helping children read and write. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association
Lesaux, N. X., & Siegel, L. S. (2003). The
development of reading in children who speak English as second language. Developmental Psychology, 39, 1005-1019.
Leslie,
L., & Caldwell, J. S. (2005). QRI 4(4th
ed). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Loxterman, J. A., Beck, I.
L., & McKeown, M. G. (1994). The effects of thinking aloud during reading
on student’s comprehension of more or less coherent text. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(4),
352-367.
Manyak, P. (2007). A framework for robust literacy instruction
for English Learners. The Reading Teacher, 61(2), 197-199.
Martinez,
M. E. (2006). What is meta cognition. Phi
Delta Kappan, 87(9),
696-699.
Miller, D. (2002). Reading with meaning: Teaching comprehension in the
primary grades. Portland,
ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Moss, B. (2004). Teaching
expository text structures
through information trade book retellings. The
Reading Teacher,
57(8), 710-718.
Moss, B. (2005). Making a case and a place for
effective content area literacy instruction in the elementary grades. The Reading
Teacher, 59(1), 46-55.
National Institute
of Child Health and Human
Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching
children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research
literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH
Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Pajares,
F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of Educational Research, 66,
543-578.
Pappas,
C. (1993). Is narrative "primary"?
Some insights from kindergarteners' pretend readings of stories and information
books.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 25(1), 97-129.
Pressley, (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
(vol. III, pp. 545-561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Pressley, M. (2006). Reading
instruction that works. New York: The Guilford Press
Pressley,
M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal
protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pressley, M., & Block, C. C. (2002). Comprehension strategies instruction A Turn-of –the- Century Status Report. In
C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension
instruction: Research-based best practice (pp. 11-27). New
York: Guilford
Press.
Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston,
J., & Echevarria, M. (1998). Literacy instruction in 10 fourth-and fifth-grade
classrooms in Upstate New York. Scientific
Studies of Reading,
2(2), 159-194.
Purcell-Gates,
V., Duke, N., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to read and write
genre-specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading
Research Quarterly, 42(1), 8-46.
Rand
Study Group. (2002, Feb/Mar). Rand report
spotlights reading comprehension. Reading
Today, 19(4). Retrieved from
Academic Search Premier web site: http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.csus.edu/ehost/results
Rea, D. M., & Mercuri, S. P. (2006). Research-based strategies for English
Language Learners. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Reading
strategy of the month. (2005, November). Text
structure. Retrieved December
3, 2009, from
http://forpd.ucf.edu/strategies/strattextstructure.html
Rigby
Reading. (2006, January). PM ultra
benchmark assessment guide book. Barrington,
IL: Author.
Shelton, N. R., Altwerger, B., & Jordan, N. (2009). Does DIBELS Put
Reading First? Literacy Research and
Instruction, 48, 137-148.
Sweet, A., & Snow (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension. New York: The Guilford Press.
Vaughn, S., Mathers, P., & Linan-Thompson, S.
(2005). Teaching English Language Learners at risk for reading disabilities to read:
Putting research into practice. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 58-67.
Vaughn, S., & Pedrotty, B. D. (2002). Reading comprehension intervention that
enhances outcomes for English Language learners. Washington, DC:
US Department of Education.
Wilhelm, J. (2001). Improving
comprehension with think-aloud strategies. New York: Scholastic Professional Books.
Williams, J. P. (2008). Explicit instruction can help
primary students learn to comprehend expository text. In C. Block & M.
Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension
instruction: Research-based best practice (p. 179). New
York: Guilford
Press.
Williams,
J. P., Hall, K., Lauer, K., Stafford, B.,
& deCani, J. (2005). Expository text in the primary classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 538-550.
Williams, J., Stafford,
B., Lauer, K., Hall, K., & Pollini, S. (2009). Embedding reading comprehension
training in content-area instruction. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 101(1).
Yopp, R. H.,
& Yopp, H. K. (2006). Informational texts as read alouds at school and
home. Journal of Literacy Research,
58, 79-83.
0 Response to "SKRIPSI BAHASA INGGRIS EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION IN EXPOSITORY TEXT STRUCTURES WITH SECOND GRADE ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS"
Posting Komentar