Developing and Assessing Comprehension

Comprehension

Research on reading comprehension emphasizes the critical role of print exposure, independent reading, motivation, and time spent reading. Cunningham and Stanovich (1997) found that "individual differences in exposure to print can predict differences in growth in reading comprehension ability throughout the elementary grades and thereafter" (pg. 940). This shows the importance of access to diverse reading materials and engagement in frequent reading activities.

Additionally, Allington (2009a) states "that almost all reading skills, including phonemic awareness, phonics, and comprehension, develop through independent reading and writing experiences" (pg. 526). This suggests that building a print-rich environment is essential for comprehension development.

Motivation is another critical factor influencing reading comprehension. Research by Gottfried (1990) demonstrated "a strong correlation between intrinsic motivation and reading comprehension achievement in upper elementary students" (pg. 7). Furthermore, Guthrie et al. (2007) found that "allowing students to choose their reading materials fosters autonomy and positively impacts comprehension growth growth" (pg. 8). Similarily, Guthrie, Wigfield, Metsala, and Cox (1999) reported that "the amount of time students spend reading in and out of school is a strong predictor of reading comprehension" (pg. 9). These findings emphasize the need for instructional strategies that encourage both motivation and engagement in reading.

More than Decoding

Scarborough's Rope visually represents "the complexities of reading comprehension by intertwining two major strands: word recognition and language comprehension. Word recognition consists of phonological awareness, decoding, and sight recognition, while language comprehension includes background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning, and literacy knowledge" (Farrell et al., pg. 2). As these strands become increasingly interconnected, skilled reading emerges.

The Simple View of Reading suggests that "reading comprehension is the product of two primary components: decoding and language comprehension" (Farrell et al., pg. 3). According to this model, proficient reading cannot occur without the development of both skills.

https://www.ixl.com/diagnostic?partner=google&campaign=17316844499&adGroup=140552250161&gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMImt_g3um-jAMVgktHAR02vxpIEAAYAiAAEgJoVvD_BwE

The following link is to the, IXL'S Diagnostic Tools, which helps assess strudents' reading and math skills by providing personalized insights and recommendations for improvement. It also aligns with the Simple View of Reading by evaluating both decoding and language comprehension, the two key components of reading proficiency. It supports decoding becuase it identifies gaps in phonics, fluency, and word recognition, helping teachers to address any foundational skills. While it also supports comprehension because it assesses students' ability to understand texts, vocabulary, and reasoning skills, which supports overall literacy development. IXL continuously adapts to the students responses, and provides tailored practice that reinforces that balance between decoding and comprehension.

How to Develop Comprehension?

Teacher-Directed Strategies

Interactive Read Alouds

Teachers model fluent reading and engage students in discussions about the text, prompting them to make predictions and connections. This strategy enhances comprehension by explicitly demonstrating thinking processes.

The following video, shows a kindergarten teacher conducting an interactive read-aloud session with her students. She reads a storybook aloud, pausing to ask questions, encourage predictions, and facilitates discussions, which actively engages the children.

Reciprocal Teaching

This strategy involves four key comprehension processes: predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing. Teachers initially model these skills before transferring responsibility to students.

The following video demonstrated how this is for students to lead but this one shows how the teacher directs the students. The students come up in small groups to the teacher and each member assumes a role of summarizer, questioner, clarifier, or predictor. The teacher leads and then directs the students on how they can do this with themselves.

Graphic Organizers

Tools such as story maps and Venn diagrams help students visually organize their thoughts, enhancing their ability to analyze texts and extract key information.

Metacognitive Strategies

https://www.avc.edu/sites/default/files/studentservices/lc/metacognition%20-performance.pdf

The following link leads to the Metacognitive Performance Rubric, which assesses students' ability to predict exam content, apply knowledge, transfer learning, manage stress, use test-taking strategies, recall information, and adjust performance. It helps students to self-assess and improve their academic skills.

Self-Questioning

Encouraging students to ask themselves questions before, during, and after reading promotes deeper engagement and comprehension monitoring.

Think-Alouds

Students verbalize their thought processes while reading, making their cognitive strategies explicit and refining their understanding of the text.

Summarization

Teaching students to summarize main ideas and supporting details helps them synthesize information and identify essential components of a text.

Citations

Allington, R.L. (2009a). If they don’t read much...30 years later. In E.H. Hiebert (Ed.), Reading more, reading better (pp. 30–54). New York: Guilford.

Cunningham, A.E., & Stanovich, K.E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934–945. Medline doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.934

Farrell, L. “The Simple View of Reading.” Reading Rockets, www.readingrockets.org/article/simple-view-reading.

Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (3), 525–538.

Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., & Klauda, S. L. (2007). Contributions of concept-oriented reading instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivations in reading. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 237–250.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L., & Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 231–256.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse