Overview

=Comprehension Strategies Instruction=


 * Overview**

The focus early on in literacy instruction was decoding through the alphabetic approach. Little attention was paid to teaching children how to comprehend text. The types of text were either biblical or skill and drill that did not allow for authentic and meaningful learning; therefore, comprehension instruction was overlooked. Instead researchers believe that increasing knowledge would, in turn, increase comprehension. In the early 1900s, due to major movements of testing and silent reading the focus began to shift to understanding of the text, and this was assessed through multiple choice and open ended questions (Pearson). By the mid-1990’s, Durkin (1978) published a study which documented very little classroom time used for comprehension instruction. Expert teachers attributed comprehension instruction to questioning after reading and assessment worksheets (Durkin, 1978). Very little time was spent on instruction of comprehension strategies for students.

As we moved towards the new century, despite Durkin’s (1978) study, little effort was made to focus on comprehension instruction within the classroom. Comprehension finally came on the radar of educators once the National Reading Panel (2000) cited it as one of the top five areas of literacy focus. At this point many comprehension strategies became a focus in the classroom such as; predicting, questioning, self-monitoring, visualizing, and summarizing. In addition, the research and theories previously published became the background for comprehension instruction in the classroom such as Schema theory (Anderson, 1977), Transactional theory (Rosenblatt, 1978), and Scaffolding and Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978). Through these theories, researchers began to introduce effective strategies to teach comprehension in the classroom. Such strategies and/or framework models are: The Gradual Release of Responsibility Model (Pearson & Gallagher 1983), QAR (Raphael, 1982, 1984), Reciprocal Teaching (Palinscar, 1984), and SAIL-Transactional Strategies Instruction (Pressley, et.al, 1994) just to name a few. Through these strategies, teachers provide explicit comprehension instruction which involves modeling, guided practice, and independent practice through various types of authentic text utilizing the main comprehension strategies of predicting, questioning, self-monitoring, visualizing, and summarizing. These comprehension strategies will be reviewed in more detail, as well as the implications of instruction with regards to English Language Learners (ELL) and struggling readers.

media type="youtube" key="eVKkyc_ne4M?version=3" height="360" width="640" Video retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVKkyc_ne4M

media type="youtube" key="pyzHNccNnzE?version=3" height="360" width="640" Video retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyzHNccNnzE


 * References **

Anderson, R. C. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educatiional enterprise. In R. S. R.C. Anderson, //Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge// (pp. 415-431). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Durkin, D. (1978). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension. //Reading Research Quarterly// //, 14//, 481-533.

National Reading Panel.(2000). //Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Reports of subgroups//. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.

Pearson, D. (n.d.). //Back to the future: Why has comprehension made a comeback?// Retrieved June 20, 2012, from Center for Improvement of Early Reading Achievement: []

Pearson, P. D. (1983). //The Instruction of Reading Comprehension.// Champaign, Ill: The Center.

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). //The instruction of reading comprehension//. Champaign, Ill.: The Center.

Rosenblatt, L. R. (1978). //The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work.// Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). //Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.// Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.