critical reflections on theory and research related to comprehension strategies instruction
DESCRIPTION
Critical Reflections on Theory and Research Related to Comprehension Strategies Instruction. Janice F. Almasi, Ph.D. Carol Lee Robertson Endowed Professor of Literacy University of Kentucky [email protected]. Contact Information. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Critical Reflections on Theory and Research Related to Comprehension Strategies Instruction Janice F. Almasi, Ph.D.Carol Lee Robertson Endowed Professor of Literacy
University of [email protected]
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Contact Information For further information about this
presentation please contact:Janice F. Almasi, Ph.D.
Carol Lee Robertson Endowed Professor of LiteracyUniversity of Kentucky
101 Taylor Education BuildingLexington, KY 40506
Almasi, J. F., & Fullerton, S. K. (2012). Teaching strategic processes in reading (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
“Strategies are actions an individual selects deliberately to attain a particular goal.”--Almasi & Fullerton (2012,
p. 1)
“Reading strategies are deliberate, goal-directed attempts to control and modify the reader’s efforts to decode text, understand words, and construct meanings of text.”
--Afflerbach, Pearson, & Paris (2008, p. 368)
What are Strategies?
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying the differences between reading skills and strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364-373.
Almasi, J. F., & Fullerton, S. K. (2012). Teaching strategic processes in reading (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364-373.
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Comprehension ResearchWhere We’ve Been
Comprehension Research: Where We’ve Been (Pearson, 2009)
1975ComprehensionNot valued except
as a step toward textmemorization
• Readers viewed as active participants in meaning construction process.
• Experimental studies offered promising findings showing strategies-based interventions were successful at enhancing comprehension.
CognitiveRevolution
Pearson, P. D. (2009). The roots of reading comprehension instruction. In S. E. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of reading comprehension research (pp. ). New York: Routledge.
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Observational Research: 1970s Durkin (1978/1979)
Paucity of actual comprehension instruction in elementary classrooms.
Great amount of time was spent: “Mentioning” (i.e., mentioning the skill
students were supposed to practice) “Practicing” (i.e., practicing the skill) “Assessing” (i.e., giving directions to
complete assignments and workbook pages)
Expert/Novice Studies: 1980sExpert Readers
Have rapid decoding skills
Have large vocabularies Know a variety of
strategies to enhance comprehension and memory of text
Know about text features and text structures
Have good phonemic awareness
Novice Readers Focus on decoding
individual words Cannot adjust their
reading rate Are not aware of
alternate strategies for enhancing their comprehension and memory of text
Are not adept at monitoring their own comprehension
Source: Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, and P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 609-640). New York: Longman.
Good Strategy Users (Pressley, 1986,1989)
Possess a varietyof strategies foraccomplishingtasks
Fig. 1.5, p. 11
Pressley, M. (1986). The relevance of the good strategy user model to the teaching of mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 21, 139-161.
Pressley, M., Symons, S., Snyder, B. L., & Cariglia-Bull, T. (1989). Strategy instruction comes of age. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 16-30.
Possess a varietyof strategies foraccomplishingtasks
Fig. 1.5, p. 11
Nonstrategic Readers(Garner, 1987)
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Use PrimitiveRoutines
Good Strategy Users (Pressley, 1986,1989)
Good Strategy Users (Pressley, 1986,1989)
Possess a varietyof strategies foraccomplishingtasks
Are able to analyze readingtasks to plan andselect strategies
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Fig. 1.5, pp. 11, 19
Pressley, M. (1986). The relevance of the good strategy user model to the teaching of mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 21, 139-161.
Pressley, M., Symons, S., Snyder, B. L., & Cariglia-Bull, T. (1989). Strategy instruction comes of age. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 16-30.
Uses Primitive Routines
Pressley, M. (1986). The relevance of the good strategy user model to the teaching of mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 21, 139-161.
Pressley, M., Symons, S., Snyder, B. L., & Cariglia-Bull, T. (1989). Strategy instruction comes of age. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 16-30.
Nonstrategic Readers(Garner, 1987)
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Good Strategy Users (Pressley, 1986, 1989) pp. 22-
23
Unable to TransferStrategy Use
To New Contexts
Good Strategy Users (Pressley, 1986, 1989)
Possess a varietyof strategies foraccomplishingtasks
Are able to analyze readingtasks to plan andselect strategies
Are motivated touse strategies
and have agency
Fig. 1.5, pp. 11-14
Pressley, M. (1986). The relevance of the good strategy user model to the teaching of mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 21, 139-161.
Pressley, M., Symons, S., Snyder, B. L., & Cariglia-Bull, T. (1989). Strategy instruction comes of age. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 16-30.
PersistConfident
Attribute Success to Effort
Uses Primitive Routines
p. 23
Nonstrategic Readers(Garner, 1987)
Personal attributions
do not supportstrategy use
Give Up
Unconfident
Attribute Success to Luck
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Unable to TransferStrategy Use
To New Contexts
Good Strategy Users (Pressley, 1986, 1989)
Possess a varietyof strategies foraccomplishingtasks
Are able to analyze readingtasks to plan andselect strategies
Are motivated toemploy strategiesand have agency
Possess an extensiveknowledge base: • Declarative • Procedural • Conditional
Fig. 1.5, pp. 11-13Table 6.1, pp. 148-
151Table 7.3, pp. 236-
237
Pressley, M. (1986). The relevance of the good strategy user model to the teaching of mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 21, 139-161.
Pressley, M., Symons, S., Snyder, B. L., & Cariglia-Bull, T. (1989). Strategy instruction comes of age. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 16-30.
Uses Primitive Routines
Pressley, M. (1986). The relevance of the good strategy user model to the teaching of mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 21, 139-161.
Pressley, M., Symons, S., Snyder, B. L., & Cariglia-Bull, T. (1989). Strategy instruction comes of age. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 16-30.
Nonstrategic Readers(Garner, 1987)
Personal attributions
do not supportstrategy use
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Good Strategy Users (Pressley, 1986, 1989)
Possess an extensiveknowledge base: • Declarative (What) • Procedural (How) • Conditional (Why)
Meagerknowledge base
pp. 22-23
Unable to TransferStrategy Use
To New Contexts
Uses Primitive Routines
Nonstrategic Readers(Garner, 1987)
Personal attributions
do not supportstrategy use
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Meagerknowledge baseWhat am
I supposed
to do?
I don’t know how to do it!
I don’t know
when or why I
should use this!
pp. 22-23
Unable to TransferStrategy Use
To New Contexts
Good Strategy Users (Pressley, 1986, 1989)
Possess a varietyof strategies foraccomplishingtasks
Are able to analyze readingtasks to plan andselect strategies
Are motivated touse strategies
and have agency
Possess an extensiveknowledge base: • Declarative • Procedural • Conditional
Make use of metacognitive factors
to regulate and monitor comprehension
and performancePressley, M. (1986). The relevance of the good strategy user model to the teaching of
mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 21, 139-161. Pressley, M., Symons, S., Snyder, B. L., & Cariglia-Bull, T. (1989). Strategy instruction comes of
age. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 16-30.
Fig. 1.5, p. 11
Uses Primitive Routines
Nonstrategic Readers(Garner, 1987)
Personal attributions
do not supportstrategy use
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Meagerknowledge base
Poor cognitive monitoring andmetacognition
pp. 22-23
Unable to TransferStrategy Use
To New Contexts
Comprehension Research: Where We’ve Been
• First Wave• Teach students individual strategies
(e.g., predicting, monitoring, questioning, summarizing)
• Second Wave• Teach students to use multiple
strategies (e.g., reciprocal teaching)
Sources: Dole, Nokes & Drits (2009); Pressley (2000); Wilkinson & Son (2011)
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Explicit Instruction Studies : 1980s Examined effect of providing comprehension instruction
for students That body of research revealed that explicit instruction
enhances students’ learning and their strategic and metacognitive awareness, particularly for struggling readers (e.g., Dole, Duffy, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991; Dole, Brown, & Trathen, 1996; Duffy, et al., 1987; Duke & Pearson, 2002; Pearson & Fielding, 1991; Pearson & Dole, 1987).
Little comprehension instruction still occurs in elementary classrooms (Fielding & Pearson, 1994; Pearson, & Dole, 1987; Pearson & Fielding, 1991; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983; Pressley, 2000)
Explicit Instruction(Pearson & Dole, 1987; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983)
Explicit Instruction• Direct Explanation• In authentic context• Encourages flexible strategy use• Gradually release responsibility from teacher to student
Declarative Knowledge
Procedural Knowledge
Conditional Knowledge
Modeling/Thinking Aloud
Guided Practice
Independence
Explanation
What is it?
How do I do it?
Where, when, why should I
do it?
Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research and a new conceptualization of instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 88(2), 151-165.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317-344.
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Seminal Early Studies Dole, Nokes, and Drits (2009) identified two studies
that changed the face of reading instruction and provided a glimpse of what true strategies instruction could look like Duffy, Roehler, Meloth, Vavrus, Book, Putnam, &
Wesselman, (1986) Duffy, Roehler, Sivan, Rackliffe, Book, Meloth,
Vavrus, Wesselman, Putnam, & Bassiri (1987) When teachers provided explicit explanations of what
strategies were, when they should be used, why they should be used, and how to perform them students’ reading achievement on standardized, non-standardized and maintenance measures improved.
Comprehension Research: Where We’ve Been
Sources: Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Son, E. H. (2011). A dialogic turn in research on learning and teaching to comprehend. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 359-387). New York: Routledge.
• Third Wave• Transactional Strategies Instruction
(extended multiple strategies instruction to include flexible strategy use while readers transact with text)
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Research-Based Evidence Brown, Pressley, Van Meter, & Schuder
(1996) 60 2nd grade low achieving students 1 year intervention (SAIL, non-SAIL)
Measures▪ Strategies Interview
▪ Retellings
▪ Think Aloud Task
▪ Standardized Test of Reading Comprehension and Word Skills (Stanford Achievement Test, Forms J and K)
Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 18-37.
Treatment Conditions(Brown, Pressley, Van Meter & Schuder, 1996)
Transactional Strategies Instruction
(Students Achieving Ind. Learning)
Non-SAIL
Goal
Joint construction of reasonable interpretations of texts by group members as they apply strategies to texts. In the long term students internalize these processes.
Comparison teachers were eclectic in instructional practices.
Features
• Strategy instruction is long-term.• Teachers explain and model a few, powerful strategies.• Teachers and students model strategy use and think aloud.• Usefulness of strategies is emphasized .• A great deal of discussion of text content occurs as teachers interact with students, react to students’ use of strategies.
Blended whole language tradition with elements of skill and other traditional forms of conventional reading instruction.
Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 18-37.
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Results (Brown, Pressley, Van Meter & Schuder, 1996)
Pretest Word Study
Posttest Word Study
Pretest Comp
Posttest Comp
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
SAIL
Non-SAIL
Subtest
SAT Score
Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 18-37.
Dole, Brown, & Trathen (1996) 67 fifth and sixth-grade at-risk readers 5 week intervention
Measures of Comprehension6 Tests covering material from each of the 6 basal reading selections:
10 Comprehension Questions (maximum score = 30)
▪ 4 questions (vocabulary and content-specific declarative knowledge)
▪ 2 questions (story’s central problem and resolution)
▪ 4 questions (literal and inferential related to important events in selection)
2 Tests before instruction
2 Tests during instructional sequence
2 Tests given 7 weeks after instruction endedDole, 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), 62-88.
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Results (Dole, Brown & Trathen, 1996)
Imme-diate Inst.
Imme-diate Ind
Delayed Inst.
Delayed Ind.
0
5
10
15
20
25
Strategy
Story Content
Basal
Test Type
Test Per-formance
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), 62-88.
U.S. Dept. of Ed. Recommendationswhatworks.ed.gov/publications/practiceguides
Teach Students How to Use
Comprehension StrategiesSTRONG EVIDENCE
Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from whatworks.ed.gov/publications/practiceguides.
Provide Explicit
Instruction
Reduce Processin
g Demands
Create Opportuniti
es for Student
Verbalization
Create a Safe and Risk Free Environment to
Enhance Motivation and Risk Taking
Critical Elements of Strategy Instruction Model (Almasi & Fullerton, 2012) Enhances
Personal Attributio
ns and Motivatio
nEnhances Knowledge Overcomes: - Meager knowledge base - Use of primitive routines- Poor Comp Monitoring
Enhances Motivation, Knowledge,
and Transfer to New
Contexts
Enhances Motivation, Knowledge, Monitorin
g, and Transfer to
New Contexts
Fig. 2.1, pp. 36-57
Source: Almasi, J. F., & Fullerton, S, K. (2012). Teaching strategic processes in reading (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Comprehension ResearchWhere We Are
Comprehension Research: Where We Are
Sources: Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Son, E. H. (2011). A dialogic turn in research on learning and teaching to comprehend. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 359-387). New York: Routledge.
• Fourth Wave• Dialogic Approaches
• Embed strategy instruction in content domains (e.g., CORI, In-Depth Expanded Application of Science, Reading Apprenticeship)
• Use classroom discussion to foster comprehension • Aesthetic/Expressive Stance (e.g., Book
Club, Grand Conversations, Literature Circles)
• Efferent Stance (e.g., Instruction Conversations, QTA, Jr. Great Books)
• Argumentation (e.g., Accountable Talk, Collaborative Reasoning)
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Content Knowledge vs. Strategy Instruction There is controversy surrounding the
efficacy of comprehension strategies instruction for enhancing students' achievement. Some have argued that content knowledge rather than strategies instruction plays a larger role in achievement. Others maintain that the process-oriented nature of strategies instruction leads to more efficacious learning.
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Content-Based Approaches McKeown, Beck, & Blake (2009)
Strategy Condition (summarizing, predicting, drawing inferences, question generation, comprehension monitoring)
Content Condition (QtA: general meaning-based questions about text)
Y1 (Expository text) Y2 (Narrative) Results
No difference on SVT measure (Y1 or Y2) Content students produced longer and higher quality
recalls (Y1 and Y2) No difference on measures of comprehension monitoring
and strategies task (Y1 and Y2)
Source: McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. K. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218-253.
Participants:
Intact 5th grade
classrooms
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Worries . . . Product vs. Process
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
- Anna Isabella Ritchie, Mrs. Dymond (1885)- Chinese Proverb
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Worries . . . Product vs. Process Participants:
Who benefits? Epistemological considerations:
What counts as knowledge? Power/Authority:
Whose interpretation of text is privileged? Whose “way” of using strategies is
privileged?
Striving Readers EvaluationU.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., & Rintamaa, M. (2013). Reading intervention in middle and high schools: Implementation fidelity, teacher efficacy, and student achievement. Reading Psychology, 34(1), 26-58.
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., Rintamaa, M., & Madden, A. (2010). The impact of a strategy-based intervention on the comprehension and strategy use of struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 257-280.
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., & Rintamaa, M. (in preparation). The impact of supplemental reading instruction on struggling adolescents’ reading achievement, motivation, and strategy use. Unpublished manuscript.
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
LSC Impact StudyResearch Questions
1. What is the impact of the LSC on the reading achievement, strategy use, and motivation of struggling adolescent readers?
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
LSC Certification
2010 2011
Number of LSC teachers who received degree/certificate
11 2
LSC Classroom Model• Supplemental
Instruction
• Class Length: 50-90 minutes, 50-60 minutes for LSC (no more than 300 minutes per week)
• Class Size: 10-15 students
Strategies Taught
Word Identification
Visual Imagery
Self-Questioning
LINCS Vocabulary Strategy & Routines
Fundamentals of Sentence Writing
Fundamentals of Paraphrasing and Summarizing
Paraphrasing Strategy
Inference Strategy
Possible Selves
LSC Classroom Model
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Provide Explicit
Instruction
Reduce Processin
g Demands
Create Opportuniti
es for Student
Verbalization
Create a Safe and Risk Free Environment to
Enhance Motivation and Risk Taking
Critical Elements of Strategy Instruction Model (Almasi & Fullerton, 2012) Enhances
Personal Attributio
ns and Motivatio
nEnhances Knowledge Overcomes: - Meager knowledge base - Use of primitive routines- Poor Comp Monitoring
Enhances Motivation, Knowledge,
and Transfer to New
Contexts
Enhances Motivation, Knowledge, Monitorin
g, and Transfer to
New Contexts
Fig. 2.1, pp. 36-57
Source: Almasi, J. F., & Fullerton, S, K. (2012). Teaching strategic processes in reading (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
LSC Impact StudyResearch Design
Multiple Cohort Pretest/Posttest Control Group Design
Stratified Random Assignment to Condition within Schools
Sixth- and ninth-grade students two or more grades below grade level in 21 rural schools
LSC Student Demographics
Total
Gender Ethnicity SES Special Ed.
Female White MinorityF/R
LunchRead/Write
Other
6th
Intv 605 40% 87% 13% 69% 21% 12%
Control 530 42% 86% 14% 68% 18% 10%
9th
Intv 593 41% 88% 12% 63% 19% 11%
Control 535 45% 87% 13% 61% 14% 10%
Overall 42% 87% 13% 65% 18% 11%
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Student Outcome Measures Achievement Test: GRADE
Reading Strategies Use Survey: MARSI (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2000)
Motivation Survey: MRQ (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997)
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
LSC Analytic Approach:Hierarchical Linear Models (HLM)
2-Level HLM: Students within Schools
School #1
School #2
School #X
Intv Control
Intv
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Control
IntvContr
ol
Student
Student
LSC 6th Grade Student Achievement (Y1 and Y4) (Cantrell, Almasi, et al., 2010)
Unadjusted Means HLM-Adjusted MeansEst.
ImpactEffect Size p-value
Control Intv Control Intv
Y1 Spring Scores 29.8 31.0 27.2 30.0 2.76 0.218 0.034*
No. of Students 131 171
No. of Schools 12
Y1-Y4 Spring Scores 30.7 32.3 29.3 30.4 1.07 0.077 0.137
No. of Students 530 605
No. of Schools 12Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., Rintamaa, M., & Madden, A. (2010). The impact of a strategy-based
intervention on the comprehension and strategy use of struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 257-280.
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., & Rintamaa, M. (in preparation). The impact of supplemental reading instruction on struggling adolescents’ reading achievement, motivation, and strategy use. Unpublished manuscript.
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
LSC Implementation
Grade
Percent Implementation
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
LSC Instruction: % of Time LSC
Observed
6th 58.5 80.0 87.2 87.7
9th 70.4 78.5 86.6 82.9
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., & Rintamaa, M. (2013). Reading intervention in middle and high schools: Implementation fidelity, teacher efficacy, and student achievement. Reading Psychology, 34(1), 26-58.
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
LSC 9th Grade Student Achievement (Y1 and Y4) (Cantrell, Almasi, et al., 2010)
Unadjusted Means HLM-Adjusted MeansEst.
ImpactEffect Size p-value
Control Intv Control Intv
Y1 Spring Scores 32.7 32.7 31.0 32.1 1.09 0.076 0.444
No. of Students 159 194
No. of Schools 11
Y1-Y4 Spring Scores 32.3 33.7 30.2 31.9 1.69 0.122 0.032*
No. of Students 535 593
No. of Schools 11
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., Rintamaa, M., & Madden, A. (2010). The impact of a strategy-based intervention on the comprehension and strategy use of struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 257-280.
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., & Rintamaa, M. (in preparation). The impact of supplemental reading instruction on struggling adolescents’ reading achievement, motivation, and strategy use. Unpublished manuscript.
LSC 6th Grade Student Motivation (MRQ) Y1 and Y4 (Cantrell, Almasi, et al., 2010)
Unadjusted Means HLM-Adjusted MeansEst.
ImpactEffect Size p-value
Control Intv Control Intv
Y1 Spring Scores 3.36 3.47 3.38 3.51 0.138 0.176 0.230
No. of Students 67 94
No. of Schools 12
Y1-Y4 Spring Scores 2.65 2.71 2.65 2.73 0.075 0.159 0.016*
No. of Students 390 439
No. of Schools 12Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., Rintamaa, M., & Madden, A. (2010). The impact of a strategy-based
intervention on the comprehension and strategy use of struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 257-280.
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., & Rintamaa, M. (in preparation). The impact of supplemental reading instruction on struggling adolescents’ reading achievement, motivation, and strategy use. Unpublished manuscript.
LSC 9th Grade Student Motivation (MRQ) Y1 and Y4 (Cantrell, Almasi, et al., 2010)
Unadjusted Means HLM-Adjusted MeansEst.
ImpactEffect Size p-value
Control Intv Control Intv
Y1 Spring Scores 3.39 3.23 3.44 3.29 -0.153 -0.235 0.155
No. of Students 85 80
No. of Schools 11
Y1-Y4 Spring Scores 2.38 2.50 2.42 2.54 0.119 0.230 0.001**
No. of Students 342 368
No. of Schools 11Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., Rintamaa, M., & Madden, A. (2010). The impact of a strategy-based
intervention on the comprehension and strategy use of struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 257-280.
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., & Rintamaa, M. (in preparation). The impact of supplemental reading instruction on struggling adolescents’ reading achievement, motivation, and strategy use. Unpublished manuscript.
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Striving ReadersYear 5 Follow-Up Study
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Research Question What are differences in reading
achievement and motivation for students who participate in the Learning Strategies Curriculum intervention for two years as compared to students who participate for just one year, when the students still are struggling with reading after one year of intervention?
6th Grade AchievementN Mean
(SD)F Significanc
e
Posttest by Intervention Group
1st Year 42 22.6(10.2) 2.90 .09
2nd Year 49 26,5 (12.9)
Covariate Intervention Pretest Scores
Test Scores 1st Year 42 17.9
(12.3)19.96 .00**
2nd Year 49 18.33 (9.7)
Posttest by Gender
Male 62 24.5 (12.5)
0.02 .90
Female 29 25.0 (10.3)
Posttest by Ethnicity
White 78 23.5 (11.6)
6.02 .02**
Minority 13 32.0 (10.5)
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., Rintamaa, M., & Madden, A. (2010). The impact of a strategy-based intervention on the comprehension and strategy use of struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 257-280.
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., & Rintamaa, M. (in preparation). The impact of supplemental reading instruction on struggling adolescents’ reading achievement, motivation, and strategy use. Unpublished manuscript.
6th Grade AchievementN Mean
(SD)F Significanc
e
Posttest by Lunch Designation
Standard Pay 20 25.1 (12.2) 2.41 .13
Free/Reduced 71 24.6 (11.8)
Posttest by Special Ed. Status
Non-Special Ed. 51 28.1(10.9) 3.89 .05*
Special Ed. 40 20.3 (11.6)
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., Rintamaa, M., & Madden, A. (2010). The impact of a strategy-based intervention on the comprehension and strategy use of struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 257-280.
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., & Rintamaa, M. (in preparation). The impact of supplemental reading instruction on struggling adolescents’ reading achievement, motivation, and strategy use. Unpublished manuscript.
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
NAEP 6th Grade Reading Scale Scores in Kentucky 2002-2011
2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011180
190
200
210
220
230
240
222 221 222225
228 226
199202 203 203 204
210WhiteBlack
16
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
NAEP 8th Grade Reading Scale Scores in Kentucky 2002-2011
2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011230235240245250255260265270275
267 269266 264
269 271
248245
248 247 249 248 WhiteBlack
23
LSC Conclusions The professional development model was effective in
supporting teachers’ implementation of LSC at high levels.
The LSC was effective at enhancing students’ reading overall.
More specifically, the LSC had a statistically significant impact for 9th grade achievement.
The LSC had significant impacts on motivation for both 6th and 9th grades.
To a lesser extent, the LSC had a positive effect on 6th grade students’ strategy use.
A second year of intervention may be beneficial for 6th graders, particularly minority students and those who are not in Special Education.
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., Rintamaa, M., & Madden, A. (2010). The impact of a strategy-based intervention on the comprehension and strategy use of struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 257-280.
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., & Rintamaa, M. (in preparation). The impact of supplemental reading instruction on struggling adolescents’ reading achievement, motivation, and strategy use. Unpublished manuscript.
Narrative Comprehension ProjectUS Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences
Lorch, E., Milich, R., Almasi, J. F., van den Broek, P., & Boyd, A. (2011). A Narrative Comprehension Intervention for Elementary School Children At-Risk for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Children At Risk for ADHD
Inattentive Impulsive
Overactive Off-task
Poor short-term memory Empirically validated treatments (i.e., stimulant
medication, behavior modification) do not address problems with higher order cognitive
processing skills (i.e., comprehension) 1-2 children per classroom
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Rationale Impairments are interrelated Appear to result in problems in building coherent,
goal-based story representations and in using relevant information and causal structure to guide story recall and inference making.
Medication appears to be insufficient to address these problems.
Interventions need to be developed that focus on the narrative comprehension deficits that may be contributing to the academic difficulties of children with ADHD.
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Purpose The goal of the project is to design,
implement and pilot test targeted academic intervention strategies that can lessen story comprehension difficulties.
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Goal Independent and efficacious use of
narrative comprehension strategies in a variety of contexts.
To achieve the goal, the instructors will model the use of the strategy and the children will practice the strategy in groups with the instructor’s help (scaffolding) until the instructor has faded scaffolding to the point in which children can use the skills on their own.
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Teacher + Class
Small Grp
Trios
Pairs
Individual
Less
More
Events Movies Wordless Books Picture Books Text
Semiotic (Less) Linguistic (More)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Am
ou
nt
of
Stu
den
t’s C
og
nit
ive
Resp
on
sib
ilit
y
Amount of Cognitive Activity Required by Text
Ways to Gradually Release Cognitive Responsibility (Almasi & Fullerton, 2012)
Almasi, J. F., & Fullerton, S. K. (2012). Teaching strategic processes in reading (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Participants Addresses narrative comprehension
difficulties that are separate from any difficulty decoding
No decoding demands placed on the children
Students at risk for ADHD 2nd and 3rd graders
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Specific Areas of Difficulty1) Understanding the causal relations among story events
(Landau, Lorch, & Milich, 1992; Lorch et al., 2000; Lorch et al., 2004; Sanchez et al.,1999)
2) Using the goal structure (GAO) of a story to build a coherent story representation (Flory, Milich, Lorch, Hayden, Strange, & Welsh, 2006; Renz, Lorch, Milich, Lemberger, Bodner, & Welsh, 2003)
3) Recognizing the important information in a story and using this information to guide recall (Flake, Lorch, & Milich, 2007; Lorch, Deiner et al., 1999; Lorch, Lorch, Calderhead, Dunlap, & Freer, 2010; Lorch, O’Neil et al., 2004; and Lorch, Sanchez et al., 1999)
4) Making coherence inferences about story information and monitoring ongoing understanding of the story (Berthiaume, Lorch, & Milich, 2010)
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Provide Explicit
Instruction
Reduce Processin
g Demands
Create Opportuniti
es for Student
Verbalization
Create a Safe and Risk Free Environment to
Enhance Motivation and Risk Taking
Critical Elements of Strategy Instruction Model (Almasi & Fullerton, 2012) Enhances
Personal Attributio
ns and Motivatio
nEnhances Knowledge Overcomes: - Meager knowledge base - Use of primitive routines- Poor Comp Monitoring
Enhances Motivation, Knowledge,
and Transfer to New
Contexts
Enhances Motivation, Knowledge, Monitorin
g, and Transfer to
New Contexts
Fig. 2.1, pp. 36-57
Source: Almasi, J. F., & Fullerton, S, K. (2012). Teaching strategic processes in reading (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Measures1) Ease of mastery for participants2) Participant ratings and interviews3) Instructor ratings4) Feedback from teachers
• Teacher focus groups in Year 1 • Ratings and interviews in Years 2 and 3
5) Independent observer ratings6) Measures of student comprehension efficacy7) School records and standardized testing measures
(years 2 and 3)8) Pre-test and post-test measures
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Measures of Iterative Process: Feasibility Factors Ease of mastery Usability Difficulty Appeal/Satisfaction Effectiveness Efficacy
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
What we did right now was . . .Learning how to find goals was . . .If someone asked me to identify the goal in a story . . .
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Pretest/Posttest Measures Free recall protocols of television program and audiotaped story
important events characters’ goals, actions and outcomes identification of causal connections between event inferences
Cued recall of television program and audiotaped story Narration of wordless picture book (identification of initiating
events that motivate goals, maintenance of goals by explicitly linking attempts and outcomes to a goal plan, and statements of causal connections and inferences that link events)
Creation of stories (evaluated for inclusion of initiating events, goals, maintenance of characters’ goals, and causal connections between story events)
Story comprehension self-efficacy
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Instructional Lesson Framework1. Establish Group Rules2. Provide Explicit Instruction Using Concrete Activity
(Balloon Narrative/Magician Narrative)3. Teacher Modeling and Guided Practice with Text
(e.g., video, wordless picture book, picture book)4. Paired Practice with text5. Evaluation #16. Teacher Modeling and Guided Practice with
alternate text 7. Paired Practice8. Evaluation #2
OUTCOME: FAIL
Making Identifying Goals Concrete
GOAL
?
I want
ATTEMPT
OUTCOME: YES
Procedural Knowledge Related to Identifying Goal Sequences
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Balloon Narrativeas OngoingConcreteExperience
Transfer to Text
GOAL
?
I want
ATTEMPT
OUTCOME: FAIL
OUTCOME: YESJanice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
DePaola, T. (1978). Pancakes for breakfast. New York: Harcourt.
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Goals for Causal Connections Module To help student learn to:
Identify what causes and events are Identify simple causes and events Identify causal chains Identify causes (and events) and the important events that
drive causal chains Identify single cause of multiple events Identify distal causes Identify distal causes that illustrate important events in a story Use causal connections to retell story events Use causal connections to help identify which events in a a
story are more important than others Use causal connections to retrieve story events
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Single Episode (Trabasso & van den Broek, 1985)
Setting
Initiating Event
Reactions
Goals
Attempts
Out-comes
Simple Cause/Event
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Simple Cause/Event
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Successive Episodes (Chaining) (Trabasso & van den Broek, 1985)
S1
E1
R1
G1
A1
O1
G1
2
A1
2
O1
2
Outcome Embedding(Trabasso & van den Broek, 1985)
S1
1
E1
1
R1
1
G1
1
A1
1
O1
1G2
1
A2
1
O2
1G3
1
A3
1
O3
1
A22
A12
O2
2
O1
2
Outcome embeddingdepends on success orfailure of goals and if the outcome leads to the creation of a new goal . If the outcome is a failureand leads to a subordinate goal (G21) thena goal hierarchy results. Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Chaining
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Single Cause/Multiple Events
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Distal Cause
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
Comprehension ResearchWhere We Need to Go
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
What I Have Learned . . . Comprehension is not a unitary
construct
Scatterplot of the Relationship between Non-word Reading and Reading Comprehension for 7 to 10 Year-Old Children
(Nation, 2005)
Good ComprehensionPoor Decoding
Good ComprehensionGood Decoding
Poor ComprehensionGood Decoding
Poor ComprehensionPoor Decoding
Source: Nation, K. (2005). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 248-266). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Reading Proficiencies of Fourth and Fifth Grade Readers (Leach, Scarborough & Rescorla, 2003)
No Rdg Difficulties59%
Poor Comp/Poor
Decod-ing
16%
Poor Comp/Good
Decod-ing7%
Good Comp/Poor
Decod-ing
17%
Source: Leach, J. M., Scarborough, H. S., & Rescorla, L.(2003). Late-emerging reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 211-224.
Profiles of Struggling Readers(Riddle Buly & Valencia, 2002; Valencia, 2011)
Automatic Word Callers
18%
Struggling Word Callers
15%
Slow Word Callers
17%
Slow Com-prehenders
24%
Word Stumblers
17%
Disabled Readers9%
Sources: Riddle Buly, M., & Valencia, S. W. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of students who fail state reading
assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 219-239.Valencia, S. W. (2011). Reader profiles and reading disabilities. In A. McGill-Franzen & R. L. Allington
(Eds.), Handbook of reading disability research (pp. 25-35). New York: Routledge.
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
What I Have Learned . . . Comprehension is not a unitary
construct Particularity is essential Interventions must be matched to
specific children We need new assessments of
comprehension
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
References Almasi, J. F., & Fullerton, S. K. (2012). Teaching strategic processes in
reading (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford. Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., Rintamaa, M., & Buckman, M. (in
press). The impact of supplemental instruction on low-achieving adolescents’ reading engagement. Journal of Educational Research.
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., & Rintamaa, M. (2013). Reading intervention in middle and high schools: Implementation fidelity, teacher efficacy, and student achievement. Reading Psychology, 34(1), 26-58.
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., Rintamaa, M., & Madden, A. (2010). The impact of a strategy-based intervention on the comprehension and strategy use of struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 257-280.
Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., & Rintamaa, M. (in preparation). The impact of supplemental reading instruction on struggling adolescents’ reading achievement, motivation, and strategy use. Unpublished manuscript.
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
References Dole, J. A., Nokes, J. D., & Drits, D. (2009). Cognitive strategy instruction. In S. E. Israel
& G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 347-372). New York: Routledge.
Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus, L. G., Book, C., Putnam, J., & Wesselman, R. (1986). The relationship between explicit verbal explanations during reading instruction and student awareness and achievement: A study of reading teacher effects. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(3), 237-252.
Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus, L. G., Wesselman, R., Putnam, J., & Bassiri, D. (1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 347-368.
Durkin, D. (1978/1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481-533.
Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S. Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Tackett, K. K., Schnakenberg, J. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262-300.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279-320.
Janice F. Almasi, University of Kentucky
References 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 (Report of the subgroups). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, and P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 609-640). New York: Longman.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 3, pp. 545-561. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M. (1986). The relevance of the good strategy user model to the teaching of mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 21, 139-161.
Pressley, M., Symons, S., Snyder, B. L., & Cariglia-Bull, T. (1989). Strategy instruction comes of age. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 16-30.
Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from whatworks.ed.gov/publications/practiceguides.
Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Son, E. H. (2011). A dialogic turn in research on learning and teaching to comprehend. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 359-387). New York: Routledge.