|Topic||EU Education Programs|
|Pages||33 - 46|
|Issue||IEJEE, Volume 4, Issue 1, Special Issue Reading Comprehension|
|Date of acceptance||01 October 2011|
The authors review five major findings in reading comprehension and their implications for educational practice. First, research suggests that comprehension skills are separable from decoding processes and important at early ages, suggesting that comprehension skills should be targeted early, even before the child learns to read. Second, there is an important distinction between reading processes and products, as well as their causal relationship: processes lead to certain products. Hence, instructional approaches and strategies focusing on processes are needed to improve students’ reading performance (i.e., product). Third, inferences are a crucial component of skilled comprehension. Hence, children need scaffolding and remediation to learn to generate inferences, even when they know little about the text topic. Fourth, comprehension depends on a complex interaction between the reader, the characteristics of the text, and the instructional task, highlighting the need for careful selection of instructional materials for individual students and specific groups of students. Finally, educators may benefit from heightened awareness of the limitations and inadequacies of standardized reading comprehension assessments, as well as the multidimensionality of comprehension to better understand their students’ particular strengths and weaknesses.
|Topic||EU Education Programs|
|Pages||33 - 46|
|Issue||IEJEE, Volume 4, Issue 1, Special Issue Reading Comprehension|
|Date of acceptance||01 October 2011|
Adlof, S.M., Catts, H.W., & Little, T. (2006). Should the simple view of reading include a fluency component? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 933-958.
Bereiter, C. & Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identification and teaching of reading comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 131-156.
Cain, K. & Oakhill, J.V. (1999). Inference making and its relation to comprehension failure. Reading and Writing, 11, 489-503.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P.E. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31-42.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Lemmon, K., (2005). The relation between children's reading comprehension level and their comprehension of idioms. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 90, 65-87.
Catts, H.W., Fey, M.E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J.B. (1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal investigation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 331-361.
Chi, M.T.H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self- explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
Chiesi, H.L., Spilich, G.J., & Voss, J.F. (1979). Acquisition of domain-related information in relation to high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 257-273.
Cook, A.E., Limber, J.E., & O'Brien, E.J. (2001). Situation-based context and the availability of predictive inferences. Journal of Memory & Language, 44, 220-234.
Cornoldi, C. & Oakhill, J.V. (Eds.). (1996). Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and remediation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Inc.
Cutting, L.E. & Scarborough, H.S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 227-299.
Dewitz, P., Carr, E., & Patberg, J. (1987). Effects of interference training on comprehension and comprehension monitoring. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 99-121.
Dixon, P. & Bortolussi, M. (1996). Literary communication: Effects of reader-narrator cooperation. Poetics, 23, 405-430.
Einstein, G.O., McDaniel, M.A., Owen, P.D., & Coté, N.C. (1990). Encoding and recall of texts: The importance of material appropriate processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 566-581.
Fletcher, J.M. (2006). Measuring reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 323-330. Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2007). Instruction on mathematical problem solving. In D. Berch & M. Mazzacco (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 397-414). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174-206.
Garnham, A., Oakhill, J.V., & Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1982). Referential continuity and the coherence of discourse. Cognition, 11, 29-46.
Givón, T. (1995). Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind. In M.A. Gernsbacher & T.
Givón (Eds.), Coherence in spontaneous text (pp. 59–115). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Gough, P.B., Hoover, W.A., & Peterson, C.L. (1996). Some observations on a simple view of reading. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties (pp. 1-13). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gough, P.B. & Tunmer, W.E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.
Graesser, A.C., McNamara, D.S., & Louwerse, M.M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text. In A.P. Sweet & C.E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82-98). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
Graesser, A.C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395.
Guthrie, J.T. & Alao, S. (1997). Designing contexts to increase motivations for reading. Educational Psychologist, 32, 95-105.
Haenggi, D. & Perfetti, C.A. (1994). Processing components of college level reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 17, 83-104.
Hansen, J. & Pearson, P.D. (1983). An instructional study: Improving the inferential comprehension of fourth grade good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 821-829.
Keenan, J. M. (in press). Measure for measure: Challenges in assessing reading comprehension. In J. Sabatini & E. Albro (Eds.), Assessing reading in the 21st century: Aligning and applying advances in the reading and measurement sciences.
Keenan, J.M. & Betjemann, R.S. (2006). Comprehending the Gray Oral Reading Test without reading it: Why comprehension tests should not include passage-independent items. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 363-380.
Keenan, J.M., Betjemann, R.S., & Olson, R.K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281-300.
Kendeou, P., Lynch, J.S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., White, M., & Kremer, K.E. (2005). Developing successful readers: Building early narrative comprehension skills through television viewing and listening. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33, 91-98.
Kendeou, P. & Papadopoulos, T.C. (2008, November). Cognitive profiles of struggling readers: A theorybased approach to reading disabilities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Chicago, IL.
Kendeou, P. & Papadopoulos, T.C. (in press). The use of CBM-Maze in Greek: A closer look at what it measures. In C. Espin, K. McMaster, & S. Rose (Eds.), The progress monitoring paradigm: Research, policy, and practice.
Kendeou, P., Savage, R., & van den Broek, P. (2009). Revisiting the simple view of reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 353-370.
Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M.J., & Lynch, J.S. (2007). Preschool and early elementary comprehension: Skill development and strategy interventions. In D.S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies, (pp. 27-45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M.J., & Lynch, J.S. (2009). Predicting reading comprehension in early elementary school: The independent contributions of oral language and decoding skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 765-778.
King, A. (2007). Beyond literal comprehension: A strategy to promote deep understanding of text. In D.S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 267-290). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction- integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W. & van dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
Kucan, L. & Beck, I.L. (1997). “Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social Interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67, 271-299.
Long, D.L., Oppy, B.J., & Seely, M.R. (1994). Individual differences in the time course of inferential processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1456-1470.
Lonigan, C.J., Burgess, S.R., & Anthony, J.L. (2000). Development of emergent literacy and early reading skills in preschool children: Evidence from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 36, 596-613.
Magliano, J.P. & Millis, K.K. (2003). Assessing reading skill with a think-aloud procedure. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 251-283.Magliano, J.P., Millis, K.K.,
Magliano, J.P., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Millis, K.K., Muñoz, B.D., & McNamara, D.S. (2002). Using latent semantic analysis to assess reader strategies. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &Computers, 34, 181-188.
Mannes, S.M. & Kintsch, W. (1987). Knowledge organization and text organization. Cognition and Instruction, 4, 91-115.
Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. New York, NY: Cambridge.
McKoon, G. & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inferences during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440-466.
McNamara, D.S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51-62.
McNamara, D.S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38, 1-30.
McNamara, D.S. (2007). IIS: A marriage of computational linguistics, psychology, and educational technologies. In D. Wilson & G. Sutcliffe (Eds.), Proceedings of the twentieth International Florid Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 15-20). Menlo Park, California: The AAAI Press.
McNamara, D.S., Boonthum, C., Levinstein, I.B., & Millis, K. (2007). Evaluating self-explanations in iSTART: Comparing word-based and LSA algorithms. In T. Landauer, D.S. McNamara, S.
Dennis, & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis (pp. 227-241). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McNamara, D.S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N.B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1-43.
McNamara, D.S. & Magliano, J.P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 297-384). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M.J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary and grammatical skills as foundations of early reading development: evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 40, 665-681.
Nation, K. (2005). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties. In M.J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp 248-265). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Oakhill, J. (1984). Inferential and memory skills in children’s comprehension of stories. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 31–39.
Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & Bryant, P.E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: evidence from component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 443-468.
Oahill, J. & Yuill, N. (1996). Higher order factors in comprehension disability: Processes and remediation. In C. Cornaldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Oakhill, J., Yuill, N. & Donaldson, M. (1990). Understanding of "because" in skilled and less-skilled text comprehenders. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 401-410.
O’Brien, E.J. & Myers, J.L. (1985). When comprehension difficulty improves memory for text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 11, 12-21.
O'Brien, E.J. & Myers, J.L. (1999). Text comprehension: A view from the bottom up. In S.R. Goldman, A.C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 35-54). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
O’Reilly, T. & McNamara, D.S. (2002). What’s a science student to do? In W.D. Gray & C.D. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 726–731). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
O’Reilly, T., Best, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2004). Self-explanation reading training: Effect for lowknowledge readers. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the TwentySixth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1053–1058). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
O'Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007a). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43, 121-152.
O'Reilly, T. & McNamara, D.S. (2007b). The impact of science knowledge, reading skill, and reading strategy knowledge on more traditional “High-Stakes” measures of high school students’ science achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 161-196.
Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D.S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19, 228-242.
Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D.S. (2007). A multidimensional framework to evaluate reading assessment tools. In D.S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 107-136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ozuru, Y., Rowe, M., O'Reilly, T., & McNamara, D.S. (2008). Where's the difficulty in standardized reading tests: The passage or the question? Behavior Research Methods, 40, 1001-1015.
Palincsar, A.S. & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Paris, S.G. (2007). Assessment of reading comprehension. Encyclopedia of language an literacy development (pp. 1-8). London, ON: Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network.
Paris, S.G., Cross, D.R., & Lipson, M.Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children’s reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1239-1252.
Paris, S.G., Lindauer, B.K., & Cox, G.L. (1977). The development of inferential comprehension. Child Development, 47, 1728-1733.
Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York, NY: Guilford.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume III (pp. 545-561). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Rapp, D.N., van den Broek, P., McMaster, K.L., Kendeou, P., & Espin, C.A. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 289-312.
Rauenbusch, F. & Bereiter, C. (1991). Making reading more difficult: A degraded text microworld for teaching reading comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 181-206.
Savage, R. (2006). Reading comprehension is not always the product of nonsense word decoding and linguistic comprehension: Evidence from teenagers who are extremely poor readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 143-164.
Shanahan, R., Kamil, M.L., & Tobin, A.W. (1982). Cloze as a measure of intersentential comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 229-55.
Singer, M. & Ritchot, K.F.M. (1996). The role of working memory capacity and knowledge access in text inference processing. Memory & Cognition, 24, 733-743.
Spooner, A., Baddeley, A.D., & Gathercole, S.E. (2004). Can reading accuracy and comprehension be separated in the Neale Analysis of reading ability? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 187-204.
Snowling, M.J. & Hulme, C. (2005) Learning to read with a language impairment. In M.J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 397-412). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Stanovich, K.E. & Cunningham, A.E. (1993). Where does knowledge come from? Specific associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 211-229.
Storch, S.A. & Whitehurst, G.J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 934-947.
Stothard, S.E. & Hulme, C. (1992). Reading comprehension difficulties in children: The role of language comprehension and working memory skills. Reading and Writing, 4, 245-256.
Trabasso, T. & Suh, S. (1993). Understanding text: Achieving explanatory coherence through online inferences and mental operations in working memory. Discourse Processes, 16, 3-34.
van den Broek, P. (1990). The causal inference maker: Towards a process model of inference generation in text comprehension. In D.A. Balota, G.B. Flores d’ Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 423-445). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van den Broek, P. & Kremer, K.E. (1999). The mind in action: What it means to comprehend during reading. In B. Taylor, M. Graves, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Reading for meaning (pp. 1-31). New York: Teacher's College Press.
van den Broek, P., Rapp, D.N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 299-316.
van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., & White, M. J. (2009). Cognitive processes during reading: Implications for the use of multimedia to foster reading comprehension. In A. G. Bus & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Multimedia and literacy development: Improving achievement for young learners (pp. 57-73). New York: Rutledge.
Whitney, P., Ritchie, B., & Clark, M. (1991). Working memory capacity and the use of elaborative inferences in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 14, 133–145.
Yuill, N. & Oakhill, J. (1988). Understanding of anaphoric relations in skilled and less skilled comprehenders. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 173–186.
Hakan DUNDAR, Murat AKCAYIR
Fatma ASLAN-TUTAK, Thomasenia Lott ADAMS
Richard L. ALLINGTON
Keith J. TOPPING
Özlem DOĞAN TEMUR, Serap AKBABA DAĞ, Sedat TURGUT
Hakan YAMAN, Sefa DÜNDAR, Ülkü AYVAZ
Ayşegül ATAMAN, Gökhan ÖZSOY