reading comprehension: effects of ...jgarich.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/55141328/effects of...reading...

Reading Psychology, 29:86–115, 2008Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0270-2711 print / 1521-0685 onlineDOI: 10.1080/02702710701853625

READING COMPREHENSION: EFFECTS OFINDIVIDUALIZED, INTEGRATED LANGUAGE ARTS

AS A READING APPROACH WITH STRUGGLING READERS

DANA G. THAMES, CAROLYN REEVES, RICHARD KAZELSKIS,and KATHLEEN YORK

The University of Southern Mississippi

CHARLOTTE BOLING

University of West Florida

KAVATUS NEWELL

University of Mary Washington

YING WANG

Mississippi Valley State University

This study examined the effects of individualized, integrated language arts asa reading approach on struggling readers’ comprehension scores obtained fromoral narrative, silent narrative, and silent expository passages at three levels:below-grade, on-grade, and above-grade levels. Students (N = 93) in gradesfour through eight, who were reading below grade level, participated in the study.Treatment group students (n = 51) received individualized, integrated languagearts as a reading approach once a week in place of basal reading instruction.Comparison group students (n = 42) received basal reading instruction for theduration of the study. Multivariate analysis of covariance was used to analyzeposttest Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI) comprehension scores. Several sta-tistically significant (p < .001) differences in comprehension performance werefound for on-grade-level scores and for above-grade-level scores, but few differenceswere found between treatment and comparison groups on below-grade-level scores.All statistically significant differences favored students in the treatment group.The findings of the study strongly suggest that the use of individualized, inte-grated language arts as a method for teaching reading is an effective approachfor improving the reading comprehension performance of struggling readers.

The research reported herein was partially funded by Grant Number H326L000001from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.

Address correspondence to Dr. Dana G. Thames, Professor of Literacy, The Universityof Southern Mississippi, Department of Curriculum, Instruction, & Special Education, 118College Drive #5057, Hattiesburg, MS 39406-0001. E-mail: [email protected]

86

Struggling Readers’ Comprehension 87

The debate over which instructional reading approach bestpromotes reading comprehension continues. Historically, the de-bate has focused on traditional approaches versus holistic, student-centered approaches. Holistic approaches for teaching reading arecharacterized by instruction that integrates “. . . speaking, listening,writing, and reading into a unified approach to literacy instruc-tion . . . to make conscious the connection between the student’semotional and personal life and the materials being presented”(Harris & Hodges, 1995, p. 108), while traditional approaches cen-ter around the use of a commercially produced program, such asa basal reading program, which usually includes graded studenttexts (readers), workbooks, teaching manuals, and supplementalmaterials for use in developmental reading instruction.

Proponents of holistic, student-centered reading instructionview reading as a meaning-making process (Goodman, 1984;Weaver, 1990). Also, the National Reading Panel, who assessedthe status of reading research as well as the impact of various ap-proaches used to teach children to read, emphasized that readingis a meaning-making process since comprehension “. . . requiresan intentional and thoughtful interaction between the reader andthe text” (National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-ment [NICHD], 2000, p. 13.). Although holistic, student-centeredpedagogy is rooted in a strong tradition supported by readingresearch (Goodman, 1989; Stephens, 1990), empirical evidencefrom comparative studies of holistic approaches and basal readingprograms has not consistently favored holistic approaches overbasal reading programs, and vice versa, in terms of students’ read-ing performance (Stahl, McKenna, & Pagnucco, 1994; Stahl &Miller, 1989). In truth, both traditional approaches and holistic,student-centered approaches have enjoyed equally modest advan-tages in different contexts (Bottomley, Truscott, Marinak, Henk,& Melnick, 1999).

In 1997, a panel funded by the NICHD issued a report enti-tled Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns,& Griffin, 1998). The report called for a “balanced approach”to reading instruction, which is currently referred to as com-prehensive reading instruction. Literacy educators who supporta balanced approach claim that it combines the best practicesfrom both traditional approaches and holistic, student-centeredapproaches for teaching reading (Blair-Larsen & Williams, 1999).

88 D. G. Thames et al.

As a proponent of balanced reading instruction, Adams (2001)urges teachers to help students learn to read “through reading,and writing, and spelling, and language play, and conceptual ex-ploration, and all manner of engagement with text, in relentlessenlightened balance” (pp. 314–315). Teachers wishing to followAdams’ advice need a clear understanding of what constitutes abalanced approach to reading instruction. Unfortunately, agree-ment among educators on a single definition of the balanced ap-proach does not exist. Nevertheless, educators do have a set ofprinciples to inform their use of balanced reading instruction.In 1993, the International Reading Association’s Balanced Read-ing Instruction Special Interest Group adopted seven principlesof balanced instruction (Blair-Larsen & Williams, 1999). A closeexamination of the principles reveals the embodiment of most ofthe components of an integrated language arts approach to lit-eracy instruction as well as holistic strategies, such as the use oftrade books as well as published teaching materials; the use ofauthentic assessments in addition to norm-referenced standard-ized tests; the integration of all the language arts processes (i.e.,listening, speaking, reading, writing, viewing, and visual represen-tation) within the context of reading instruction; the need forteacher flexibility; and the importance of individualizing instruc-tion to meet the needs of each student (Blair-Larsen & Williams,1999).

Despite the fact that balanced reading instruction is sup-ported by the International Reading Association, some schoolshave shifted toward direct instruction characterized by teacher-centered reading approaches and the use of standardized,norm-referenced assessments. Holistic, student-centered ap-proaches, such as the integrated language arts approach toteaching reading, are often dismissed or ignored as a result ofpressures from high-stakes testing and teacher overload, largelybecause student-centered approaches are viewed as placing moredemands on teachers’ preparation time and requiring more in-structional time than do streamlined, direct approaches. A reviewof the literature related to the use of integrated language arts as anapproach for teaching reading suggests that it may be an effectivealternative to traditional approaches especially for students whostruggle to read (Clary, 1992; Eldredge & Butterfield, 1986;Thames & Reeves, 1994; Walmsley & Walp, 1990), but empirical


research is needed to determine the extent to which such anapproach may, or may not, influence reading comprehensionperformance.

It may be that stronger interest in using student-centered ap-proaches for reading instruction would be stimulated by researchthat identifies ways in which data from informal measures may beused to both inform and assess instruction that is student-centered.The Informal Reading Inventory (IRI), which has a long-standingtradition in reading assessment (Jongsma & Jongsma, 1981), has re-ceived minimal attention as a measure of reading comprehensionin published studies designed to examine the effects of instruc-tional approaches on reading comprehension. An IRI provides in-formation about the reader’s “. . . strengths, weaknesses, and strate-gies in word identification and comprehension” based on both oraland silent reading performance (Harris & Hodges, 1995, p. 116).When the goals of classroom reading instruction are (a) to deter-mine reading levels of students so that texts of suitable difficultycan be selected for instruction; (b) to evaluate individual progressin reading so that specific abilities and instructional needs of stu-dents may be identified; and (c) to determine which students maybe grouped together for small-group instruction that focuses ontheir particular literacy needs, the data obtained from IRIs will beof great value to the classroom teacher (Anderson, 1977a; Caldwell,1985; Gerke, 1980; Helgren-Lempesis & Mangrum, 1986; Henk,1987; Jongsma & Jongsma, 1981). Although teachers often chooseto make their own IRIs by using passages from basal texts, com-mercially prepared instruments are available, and according toAnderson (1977b), commercial IRIs provide “more valid, morereliable, and potentially more useful diagnostic information thanteacher-made IRIs” (p. 99). Among the advantages of commercialIRIs are the inclusion of multiple reading selections for each gradelevel, evaluation of the student’s prior knowledge about the topic,evaluation of the student’s recall and understanding of a passagethrough retelling, and evaluation of the student’s ability to answerspecific kinds of comprehension questions (ranging from literalto inferential comprehension).

Because there is a large population of poor readers (Fletcher& Lyon, 1998), many of whom are being taught with traditionalapproaches, such as basal reading instruction, and because few in-structional programs are using diagnostic information from IRIs


to inform instruction, there is a need for research studies which ex-plore the effects of using individualized (student-centered), holis-tic approaches to literacy learning based on diagnostic informa-tion. Further, few empirical studies have been located that focuson improving the reading performance of student samples, partic-ularly samples comprised primarily of African American students,by using assessment information for the purpose of informing liter-acy instruction via integrated language arts as a reading approach.It appears that studies designed to examine the effectiveness ofindividualized (student-centered), holistic approaches to literacylearning, using diagnostic information both to inform and to assessthe impact of such approaches, are needed.

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects ofusing individualized, integrated language arts as a reading ap-proach on the comprehension performance of struggling read-ers as measured by the Woods and Moe (1999) sixth edition ofthe Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI). It was anticipated that theindividualized, integrated language arts approach would improvethe comprehension scores of students who comprised the treat-ment group. Our specific research questions were (a) What arethe effects of an individualized, integrated language arts approachto reading on struggling readers’ total comprehension scores ob-tained from oral narrative, silent narrative, and silent expositorypassages at three levels: below-grade, on-grade, and above-gradelevels? and (b) What are the effects of an individualized, inte-grated language arts approach to reading on struggling readers’comprehension scores for each of four types of comprehensionquestions at three levels: below-grade, on-grade, and above-gradelevels?

Individualized, integrated language arts as a reading ap-proach, as used in this study, is defined as literacy instruction thatengages students in reading, writing, listening, speaking, viewing,and visual representation activities designed to meet their individ-ual reading needs, using selected trade books and expository textsrelated to the topical interests of the students. Basal reading in-struction, which was used exclusively with the comparison groupin this study, is defined as teacher-directed lessons based on a col-lection of student texts and workbooks, teacher’s manuals, andsupplemental materials designed to teach developmental readingin the elementary grades.


Method

Participants

Prior to the study, 110 students in grades four through eight wererandomly selected from a list of students identified by classroomteachers as being in the lowest quartile in reading performancebased on results from the reading subtest of the norm-referencedassessment mandated by the state. The 110 students were randomlyassigned to treatment and comparison groups. At the end of thestudy, complete data were not available for 17 students so their datawere excluded from analysis. Thus, a total of 93 students remainedin the study for its duration.

The treatment group (n = 51) consisted of 24 females and27 males; 49 of the students were African American and two wereEuropean American. The comparison group (n = 42) consistedof 13 males and 29 females; 26 of the students were African Ameri-can students, 8 were European American, and racial identificationwas not designated for 8 students. The distribution by gender andethnicity across grade levels was similar for the treatment and com-parison groups.

The predominately African American sample attended a low-socioeconomic neighborhood school located in the southeasternregion of the United States. One additional student, in grade five,came from a nearby school. By grade level, 25.8% of the studentswere in grade four, 29.0% were in grade five, 21.5% were in gradesix, 10.8% were in grade seven, and 12.9% were in grade eight. Atthe time of this study, basal reading instruction was being used inthe schools.

Instrument

This study used students’ scores on comprehension passages fromthe Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI), developed by Woods andMoe (1999), as pre- and post-measures. The ARI is a comprehensiveassessment instrument used to measure the reading performanceand behaviors of students in grades one through nine. Adminis-tered individually, the ARI is designed to allow the examiner toobserve, analyze, and record data about a reader’s word recogni-tion performance (word lists), reading miscues, comprehension of


narrative and expository passages, fluency, and personal behaviorsexhibited during assessment. In this study, only the comprehen-sion data from the ARI were used.

Forms A, B, and C of the ARI are alternate forms that may beused to assess narrative reading, with the form selected to assessoral narrative reading being eliminated as a choice for assessingsilent narrative reading (e.g., if Form A is used for the oral read-ing assessment, then Form B or C is used for the silent readingassessment). Forms S and SS of the ARI are alternate forms thatmay be used to assess expository reading related to science and so-cial studies topics, respectively, with each form containing gradedexpository passages ranging in difficulty from Level 1 to Level 9.For all forms of the ARI, each narrative and expository passageis followed by six to eight comprehension questions designed toassess four types of comprehension: Retells in Fact (RIF), Puts In-formation Together (PIT), Connects Author and Reader (CAR),and Evaluates and Substantiates (EAS). The RIF questions are lit-eral and the answers require explicitly stated facts from the text.An example of a RIF question is “Who are the characters in thestory?” The PIT questions are both literal and implied. To answerthem correctly, the reader must combine two or more explicitlystated facts located either next to one another or in differentplaces in the passage. Also, PIT questions may require the readerto put together explicitly stated facts with information impliedin the passage. An example of a PIT question is “What is John’sproblem?” To answer the CAR questions correctly, the reader mustcombine her prior knowledge with the author’s choice of wordsand phrases used in the passages. An example of a set of CARquestions is “What do you know about the word sympathy? Whatdoes sympathy have to do with the story?” To answer the EAS ques-tions correctly, the reader must make a judgment, generate anopinion, generate an emotional response, or make a predictionbased upon inference drawn from the passage. Also, the readermust substantiate her response with explicit information fromthe passage. An example of a set of EAS questions is “How doyou think Mark’s grandmother felt? You think this because. . . ?”Each type of comprehension question is represented one or moretimes following each passage, so that all four types of compre-hension are assessed after the reader has completed reading thepassage.


Before the student reads an entire ARI passage (for both oraland silent reading assessments), the proctor tells the student toread the title and the first two sentences of the passage, and thenthe proctor asks the student to predict what the rest of the passagewill be about. After the student finishes reading a passage (for bothoral and silent reading assessments), the proctor says to the stu-dent, “Retell everything that you can remember from the passage,and I will write down what you say.” The retelling is followed bythe proctor asking a set of six to eight comprehension questions,representing RIF, PIT, CAR, and EAS types of comprehension; theproctor marks on his or her copy a plus sign (+) beside questionsanswered correctly, a minus sign (−) beside questions answeredincorrectly (as well as writing the student’s incorrect response tothe question), and writes 1/2 beside two-part questions when half ofthe question is answered correctly. Scores for comprehension areobtained by counting the number of incorrect responses to ques-tions; a scoring guide for each passage is provided to indicate thedesignated number of incorrect responses associated with each ofthree reading comprehension levels: independent (0–1 incorrectresponse), instructional (1–2 incorrect responses), and frustration(3–4+ incorrect responses).

For the purposes of our study, the modified version of theARI described by Woods and Moe (1999) was used to assess read-ing comprehension, which included below-grade, on-grade, andabove-grade levels of comprehension assessment. Thus, the com-prehension data consisted of scores for total comprehension andfor type-of-question comprehension, calculated as the percentagecorrect per passage (i.e., oral narrative, silent narrative, and silentexpository) at each of the graded levels (below-grade, on-grade,and above grade) for each student. Each total comprehensionscore represented the percentage of correct responses for the en-tire set of questions following each passage. Each type-of-questioncomprehension score represented the percentage of correct re-sponses for each of the four question types (RIF, PIT, CAR, andEAS) per passage.

While the ARI administrator’s manual does not provide di-rect information about score reliability and validity, it does con-tain information about the instrument’s development and valida-tion. The narrative passages of the ARI were written, field tested,computer analyzed, and revised several times. The content of the


narrative passages is based on the reading interests of students atvarious grade levels, and the writing style of the passages is grade ap-propriate. To maintain the integrity of the assessment instrument,the same topics occur across alternate forms for each graded level.For example, all three passages at Level 9 are about meeting criticalenvironmental needs within communities. This consistency allowsexaminers to use alternate forms with some degree of confidence.The vocabulary used in the narrative passages was governed by acomputer analysis of the number of difficult words, using Readabil-ity Calculations (Micro Power and Light, 1995a). The expositorypassages represent the style of writing found in science and socialstudies textbooks. The science and social studies passages were se-lected from various textbooks used in grades one through nine.Readability formulas were used to establish grade-level validationfor each narrative passage in Forms A, B, and C. In addition, theextent to which words differ within the narrative and expositorypassages was calculated using Vocabulary Diversity Score (MicroPower and Light, 1995b) procedures to determine the progres-sive difficulty of the graded passages and to ensure consistencywithin grade levels and across forms (Woods & Moe, 1999). Theinstrument was field tested, using approximately 200 students ingrades two through eight, and revisions were made in passages andcomprehension questions based on feedback from the students.

Anderson (1977a) evaluated three commercially preparedIRIs, theClassroom Reading Inventory (Silvaroli, 1976), the Sucher-Allred Reading Placement Inventory (Sucher & Allred, 1973), and theAnalytical Reading Inventory (ARI) by Woods and Moe (1977). An-derson found that the ARI had the greatest potential for collect-ing sound diagnostic data because it was built on the most recentknowledge from the literature. A search of the literature did notreveal a more recent critique of commercially produced IRIs thanAnderson’s study (1977a).

Procedures

Administrators of schools in the local area gave permission for theresearch to be conducted and supported the researchers’ requestto randomly select and assign students to treatment and compar-ison groups. Prior to beginning the study, graduate students inliteracy education and preservice teachers who had been trained


to administer the ARI conducted the reading comprehension as-sessments of students in the treatment and comparison groups.Forms A, B, and S of the ARI were used to assess oral narrative,silent narrative, and silent expository reading comprehension atthree levels: below grade, on grade, and above grade level; resultsfrom these assessments served as the pretest data for the study.The week after the 20th treatment session, ARI posttest compre-hension data were collected using forms B, C, and SS to assessoral narrative, silent narrative, and silent expository reading, re-spectively, at three levels: below grade, on grade, and above gradelevel.

TREATMENT GROUP

Meetings were held with classroom teachers whose studentswould be participating in the study to explain the instructionaltreatment approach and to arrange for preservice teachers to visittheir classrooms once per week to observe their assigned studentsin the context of the students’ regular reading block instruction.A total of twenty 90-minute instructional sessions constituted thetreatment period, with 10 once-a-week sessions occurring duringthe fall semester and 10 once-a-week sessions occurring during thespring semester.

For the fall semester, preservice teachers were paired withstudents in the treatment group using random assignment pro-cedures. Each preservice teacher had completed three courses inliteracy instruction and was enrolled in the fourth course, whichfocused on reading assessment and instruction and required thateach preservice teacher use diagnostic reading information to planlessons and instruct an assigned student within the context of aschool setting.

During the first two weeks of the fall semester, each preserviceteacher studied the results of his assigned student’s ARI data, whichhad been obtained prior to the initiation of the study; observed theassigned student in his classroom and visited with the classroomteacher; and administered an informal interest inventory and theElementary Reading Attitude Survey (McKenna & Kear, 1990) to the as-signed student. Based on the data obtained from these formal andinformal sources, each preservice teacher prepared a written, de-tailed, diagnostic analysis of their assigned student’s strengths andweaknesses; this information was used by the preservice teacher to


prepare a series of integrated language arts lessons that centeredon the student’s diagnosed reading needs, using trade books andexpository texts on topics that were of interest to the student. Alllesson plans were reviewed by the reading course instructor andrevised by preservice teachers as needed, prior to the lessons beingtaught to students.

During the subsequent 10 weeks, preservice teachers met withtheir assigned students once a week to provide one-on-one instruc-tion via the integrated language arts lessons they had designed. Allinstructional sessions took place once a week in the school’s cafe-teria, during the school’s designated 90-minute block for readinginstruction, using reading carrels to create a private space for eachsession. Also, each preservice teacher observed once each week inthe classroom of their assigned student during the reading blockperiod, as treatment-group students continued to receive basalinstruction on all class days except for the once-a-week, individu-alized instruction.

Near the end of the fall semester, each preservice teacherwrote a case study report documenting the reading progress madeby his assigned student based on the authentic portfolio of thestudent’s responses to the one-on-one instructional sessions; thereport included specific recommendations for continuing the stu-dent’s growth in reading performance. The case study report waspart of the requirements for completing the course in readingassessment and instruction; each preservice teacher reviewed thecase study report with the course instructor, who sometimes sug-gested additional recommendations for continuing the student’sgrowth. A copy of the final case study report for each of the treat-ment students was made available to the classroom teacher and tothe student’s parent or guardian.

For the subsequent spring semester, a new group of preserviceteachers was randomly assigned to the treatment-group students,thus continuing the individualized, integrated language arts in-structional treatment to the end of that semester. The new groupof preservice teachers used the case study reports and instructionalrecommendations that had been prepared by the fall-semesterpreservice teachers to develop integrated language arts lessonsdesigned to meet their assigned students’ specific reading needs,thus building on the progress that had been made with studentsduring the fall semester. For the remainder of the spring semester,


the procedures followed by the preservice teachers were the sameas those used during the fall semester, with the exception that ARIforms B, C, and SS were used for the posttest measure of readingcomprehension performance.

When developing the individualized, integrated language artslessons, the preservice teachers followed a specific lesson planformat that included both narrative (trade book) and expository(information) texts, used context clues to teach new vocabulary,and provided before-, during-, and after-reading components thatused listening, speaking, reading, writing, viewing, visual repre-sentation, and metacognitive activities to enhance comprehen-sion of the narrative and expository texts. A copy of a samplelesson plan is presented in Appendix A. For each of the lessonplans, the topic of the reading materials was selected by the pre-service teacher based upon the student’s interests and readingneeds as identified through interest and attitude surveys and ob-servations by the preservice teacher. Additional types of expositoryreading materials were often used in the lessons as well, such asnewspapers, magazine articles, and Internet-text selections. Forexample, if the student were interested in learning about NativeAmericans, the preservice teacher’s lesson might include the fol-lowing: viewing and talking about paintings of Native Americansand nature; listening to the teacher read the trade book BrotherEarth, Sister Sky; having the student read a short Internet articleabout Chief Seattle; asking the student to tell why he believesChief Seattle’s speech is important; writing a biopoem describingChief Seattle; and illustrating the poem with a drawing of ChiefSeattle.

Also, instructional strategies such as the Directed Reading-Thinking Activity (DRTA), List-Group-Label, ReQuest, GraphicOrganizers, and Think Alouds were incorporated into the pre-service teacher’s lesson plans as part of the course requirements.Each of the preservice teacher’s lesson plans was examined by thecourse instructor prior to being implemented, and the course in-structor observed a portion of each preservice teacher’s instruc-tional session each week, making notes about the extent to whichthe instructional activities appeared to be meeting the student’sreading needs. The observational notes were used to provide feed-back to each preservice teacher on a weekly basis. Also, once aweek the course instructor observed a portion of the basal reading


instruction offered in those classrooms in which treatment groupstudents were enrolled.

COMPARISON GROUP

Students in the comparison group received basal reading in-struction daily from their classroom teachers, during the 90-minutereading block, for the duration of the study. Reading materials forthe comparison group included the text selections contained inthe basal reading program. Classrooms that contained comparisonstudents were observed by the course instructor, who made weeklyclassroom observations during the reading block period, to ensurethat classroom teachers followed the teacher’s guide which accom-panied the basal reader series. The basal reading series focused onthe skills of vocabulary acquisition, word recognition, and compre-hension. Posttest ARI assessments of students in the comparisongroup occurred during the same time frame as that of the treat-ment group and were conducted by graduate students majoringin literacy education.

Analysis of Data

For the purposes of this study, data were excluded from an anal-ysis if any data points were missing or if on-grade-level total com-prehension scores exceeded 75% (this was the case with two stu-dents), as 75% is usually considered to be an adequate level of com-prehension. A multivariate analysis of covariance was carried outfor each of the below-grade-level, on-grade-level, and above-grade-level comprehension measures for oral narrative, silent narrative,and silent expository passage categories. There were four depen-dent variables for each analysis (RIF, PIT, CAR, and EAS types ofcomprehension). The initial pretest total comprehension score forthe corresponding passage category was used as the covariate ineach analysis.

The dependent variable scores tended to be negativelyskewed, and the means and standard deviations tended to be pro-portional. Therefore, the data were analyzed in their original formand using both a square-root and an arcsine transformation.

In order to control the type I error rates across the nine multi-variate analyses, a Bonferroni adjustment was used. Thus, only the


multivariate analyses resulting in associated probabilities less than.05/9 = .0055 were considered statistically significant.

Statistically significant multivariate findings were followed upwith univariate analyses of covariance, using the initial pretest totalcomprehension scores for the corresponding passage categories asthe covariates. Homogeneity of regression was examined for eachof the univariate analyses. To further control type I error rates, theBonferroni adjustment for the use of four variables was appliedwithin each analysis by using the .05/4 = .0125 level.

Additionally, univariate analyses of covariance were carriedout for the total comprehension scores for below-grade, on-grade,and above-grade levels for each of the three passage categories. Theinitial pretest total comprehension scores for the correspondingpassage categories were used as covariates.

Results

Because results of the analyses were virtually identical for the orig-inal and transformed scores, only the results based on the analysesof the original scores are reported since these scores are in a morenatural metric. The results of the multivariate analyses of covari-ance for the original scores are presented in Table 1. Statisticallysignificant (p < .05/9 = .0055) multivariate results were found foron-grade-level and above-grade-level scores for the silent narrativeand silent expository passage scores and for the above-grade-level

TABLE 1 Summary of Results of Multivariate Analyses of Covariance for theOriginal Scores

ReadingCategory Grade Level F df p Eta-squared

Silent Narrative Below 3.78 4/52On 6.71 4/51 <.001 .345Above 8.06 4/46 <.001 .412

Oral Narrative Below 1.33 4/40On 3.63 4/40Above 6.71 4/39 <.001 .408

Silent Expository Below 2.38 4/55On 10.93 4/55 <.001 .443Above 14.95 4/55 <.001 .521


TABLE 2 Summary of Results of Univariate ANCOVAs Comparing Treatmentand Control Groups Across Reading Category: Original Scores

Silent Narrative Oral Narrative Silent Expository

Level/Type F p Eta2 F p Eta2 F p Eta2

Below Grade LevelTotal 0.91 3.94 6.83 <.01 .105

On Grade LevelRIF 12.96 <.001 .232 19.38 <.001 .250PIT 1.78 44.26 <.001 .433CAR 0.03 6.33 <.01 .098EAS 0.20 10.92 <.01 .158Total 3.78 17.86 <.001 .249 28.78 <.001 .332

Above Grade LevelRIF 20.11 <.001 .324 27.94 <.001 .363 43.17 <.001 .427PIT 8.09 <.01 .162 24.91 <.001 .337 6.47 <.01 .100CAR 0.38 0.64 15.46 <.001 .210EAS 1.17 6.41 <.01 .116 25.96 <.001 .309Total 11.38 <.01 .213 25.94 <.001 .346 39.55 <.001 .405

scores for the oral narrative passage. No statistically significant re-sults were found for the below-grade-level passage scores for anyof the three types of passages. The multivariate eta-squared valuesranged from .345 to .521, indicating large effects across all analyses(Cohen, 1988).

The results of the follow-up univariate analyses for type-of-comprehension question scores and total comprehension scoresare presented in Table 2. The assumption of homogeneity of re-gression was found to hold for all analyses. The reported probabili-ties are one-tailed, reflecting the a priori prediction of differencesfavoring the treatment group. For the silent expository passage,scores statistically significant differences were found for each ofthe four dependent variables (i.e., RIF, PIT, CAR, EAS) for boththe on-grade-level and above-grade-level scores. For the silent nar-rative passage category, RIF score differences were found for boththe on-grade-level and above-grade-level scores, and PIT score dif-ferences were found for above-grade-level scores. RIF, PIT, andEAS score differences were found for above-grade-level scores forthe oral narrative passage category. All statistically significant dif-ferences favored the treatment group (Tables 3, 4, and 5).


TABLE 3 Summary Data: Silent Narrative

Pre PostAdj. Posta

Exp. Comp. Exp. Comp.Exp. Comp.Level/

Type M SD M SD M SD M SD M M

Below Grade Levelb

RIF 33.96 37.79 44.68 29.92 62.96 31.20 41.16 33.43 65.33 39.10PIT 37.59 34.62 35.71 28.63 51.26 32.25 41.13 31.60 52.35 40.18CAR 34.26 39.66 45.16 39.31 51.56 40.36 47.06 36.12 54.51 44.94EAS 32.41 36.57 53.23 48.07 44.44 34.20 51.61 45.61 45.32 50.85Total 35.85 27.83 44.71 21.52 52.93 22.55 44.61 26.46 54.92 42.88

On Grade Levelc


Above Grade Leveld


aTotal pre-scores used as covariate.bnexp = 27, ncomp = 31.cnexp = 27, ncomp = 30.dnexp = 25, ncomp = 27.

For total comprehension scores, statistically significant resultswere found for all analyses with the exception of two perfor-mance levels (i.e., for below-grade-level scores on the silent nar-rative passage category and the oral narrative passage categoryand for on-grade-level scores on the silent narrative passage cat-egory). Again, all statistically significant results favored the treat-ment group (Tables 3, 4, and 5). The assumption of homogene-ity of regression did not hold for the total comprehension scoresfor the above-grade-level silent expository reading. Therefore, agroups-by-trials (treatment, comparison by pretest, posttest) anal-ysis of variance was carried out for these scores. A statistically signifi-cant (p < .01) groups-by-trials interaction was found. Examinationof the cell means indicted that the mean comprehension scoresfor the treatment group increased from pre- to post-assessments,


TABLE 4 Summary Data: Oral Narrative

Pre PostAdj. Posta



Below Grade Levelb

RIF 63.83 23.40 68.91 29.87 78.61 31.46 73.57 29.69 79.87 72.31PIT 44.57 30.54 52.17 35.29 64.65 26.03 50.65 28.69 64.24 51.07CAR 32.61 33.23 48.91 36.52 36.96 22.45 42.39 32.36 38.30 41.05EAS 55.43 39.14 57.61 42.26 63.04 37.59 63.04 43.22 62.66 63.43Total 48.70 23.43 56.61 24.49 61.35 14.44 56.17 24.94 61.69 55.83On Grade Levelc

RIF 51.39 27.12 59.78 29.34 72.83 28.68 35.52 40.15 72.76 35.59PIT 51.47 31.84 39.93 29.62 51.48 26.45 38.83 36.64 51.38 39.93CAR 23.57 30.63 26.09 28.68 33.70 30.72 31.52 38.60 33.49 31.73EAS 50.00 33.71 45.65 39.64 41.30 46.84 46.74 45.42 41.27 46.97Total 44.65 17.18 44.09 18.50 52.61 19.39 37.26 32.76 52.48 37.39Above Grade Leveld


aTotal pre-scores used as covariate.bnexp = ncomp = 23.cnexp = ncomp = 23.dnexp = 23, ncomp = 22.

while the mean comprehension scores of the comparison groupdecreased slightly. These results support the viability of the indi-vidualized, integrated language arts instructional approach usedwith the treatment group.

Discussion

This study examined the effects of using individualized, integratedlanguage arts as a reading approach, offered once a week by pre-service teachers, on the reading comprehension scores of strug-gling readers. The results strongly favored students who partici-pated in the individualized, integrated language arts lessons, withstatistically significant (p < .001) multivariate effects found for on-grade-level comparisons on silent narrative and silent expository


TABLE 5 Summary Data: Silent Expository

Pre PostAdj. Posta



Below Grade Levelb


On Grade Levelc


Above Grade Leveld


aTotal pre-scores used as covariate.bnexp = 27, ncomp = 34.cnexp = 27, ncomp = 34.dnexp = 27, ncomp = 34.

passages and for above-grade-level comparisons on silent narrative,oral narrative, and silent expository passages. Of the five statisti-cally significant univariate effects related to on-grade-level compar-isons, four were on the silent expository passage category. Twelveof the 15 above-grade-level comparisons of performance on thethree types of passages were statistically significant, and five ofthese comparisons of comprehension performance were on thesilent expository passage category. Differences between the twogroups for below-grade-level comprehension appeared to be mini-mal, since only a statistically significant univariate effect was foundfor total comprehension scores.

The findings related to the expository passage category wereparticularly promising because, in general, students have more


difficulty comprehending expository texts (Calfee & Curley, 1984;McGee & Richgels, 1985; Meyer & Rice, 1984; Pappas, 1993;Piccolo, 1987; Vacca & Vacca, 1996). This outcome may have oc-curred because each lesson plan included an expository text re-lated to the theme of the trade book, with associated language artsactivities that encouraged students to derive meaning through arange of connected literacy activities; also, the one-on-one instruc-tional setting provided ample opportunities for language interac-tions between the preservice teacher and her student. This kindof instructional approach contrasts with traditional instructionalapproaches for teaching science, social studies, or mathematics,which often lack the support of language arts activities to facili-tate the learning of subject-matter content and are usually taughtin group settings rather than through one-on-one interactions.The role of individualized, integrated language arts instruction instudents’ comprehension of expository text deserves further inves-tigation.

While the results of this study strongly suggest that individu-alized, integrated language arts instruction as a reading approachmay be effective in improving the comprehension performanceof struggling readers, the findings need to be considered in lightof possible limitations of the study. The students’ attitudes towardreading could have influenced their performance. Since all the stu-dents in this study needed help with reading, it is possible that somestudents’ attitudes about reading were negative, causing them toput forth less effort during the assessment procedures. Also, it isimportant to keep in mind that we sampled reading behavior ona specific day and time, and Jongsma and Jongsma (1981) remindus that, “On another set of passages, given on another day, youmight get different results” (p. 704). Another limitation is that theinclusion of zero scores on comprehension questions, obtained bystudents who attempted to read passages that were at their frus-tration level, may have influenced the results, although both thetreatment and comparison groups contained a few students whosescores were zero on various types of comprehension questions.Since the design of our study included below-grade-, on-grade-,and above-grade-level assessments of struggling readers, there weresome passages that were at the frustration level for some students.Finally, it was not possible to control for passage familiarity. Dur-ing the administration of the ARI, it was observed that some of


the students in both the treatment and comparison groups werefamiliar with the content of two of the ARI passages because thesereadings were based on the storylines of books that are popularamong children and young adults (i.e., The Incredible Journey andThe Outsiders). Students’ prior knowledge of the content of thesebooks may have positively impacted their comprehension scoreson these passages.

Although it is clear that the use of individualized, integratedlanguage arts instruction as a reading approach had a positiveimpact on the comprehension of treatment-group students, we ac-knowledge that this approach may not have been the sole factorinfluencing comprehension performance. A large part of the suc-cess of this study may have come from the meaningful, one-on-oneinteractions between the student participant and her preserviceteacher. Meaning-making is a process that is facilitated by such so-cial interaction (Vygotsky, 1962). Some educators may complainthat it is too daunting a task to expect teachers to individualize in-struction and to give one-on-one attention to students, yet the lit-erature supports the need for individualized instruction for thosewho struggle with school learning (Blair-Larsen & Williams, 1999;VanSciver, 2005). The findings of this study imply, however, thatthrough the use of certain methodologies it is possible for teach-ers to individualize lessons and facilitate meaningful social inter-actions during reading instruction. For example, after adminis-tering and interpreting an informal reading inventory and inter-viewing students to determine their interests, teachers can groupstudents into small learning communities based on their readinginstructional needs and topical interests. Students in these collab-orative teams can work on lessons designed to meet their readingneeds as they engage in teacher-recommended activities that in-volve listening, speaking, reading, writing, and critical thinkingexperiences at their current levels of performance. These kindsof meaningful group interactions allow each student to make con-tributions based on her strengths, thus performing as a learningcommunity in which much is learned from one another. Whilestudents are working with their collaborative teams, teachers canpull individual students away from the team for 10–15 minutesto give one-on-one attention to a specific literacy need that wasidentified by the student’s performance on the informal readinginventory.


Another important implication of this study is that preserviceteachers can be successfully trained to administer and use informalreading inventories to diagnose reading needs and to construct lit-eracy lessons centered around the literacy needs of students. Webelieve that with the population of poor readers continuing to in-crease (Gonzalez, Brusca-Vega, & Yawkey, 1997; Graves, Van denBroek, & Taylor, 1996), institutions of higher learning have a re-sponsibility to train future literacy educators to effectively adminis-ter and interpret informal assessments to meet the individual read-ing needs of students in their classrooms and to equip preserviceteachers with the skills needed to create and provide alternativesto traditional reading instruction for those students who have notexperienced much success with traditional approaches.

The findings of this study contribute in three ways to the lit-erature related to the use of individualized, integrated languagearts instruction as a reading approach and the use of informal as-sessments. First, the strongest implication of the findings of thisstudy is that individualized, integrated language arts instruction asa reading approach designed to meet the student’s reading needsappears to enhance the reading comprehension of struggling read-ers. The findings underscore the benefits of reading instructionthat encourages students to refine their abilities to think critically,talk, listen, read, write, and visually represent ideas from narrativeand expository texts, and the results support the use of differen-tiated instruction for students based on assessment information.Since our sample was comprised mostly of African American stu-dents from low socioeconomic neighborhoods, the findings makea significant contribution to the literature related to effective in-structional approaches for students with similar backgrounds.

Second, the importance of designing reading instruction forstruggling readers based on the results of diagnostic, informal as-sessments was clearly indicated by our findings. For example, if astudent scored low on a particular type-of-comprehension ques-tion (e.g., RIF, PIT, CAR, or EAS) across passages, then the pre-service teacher’s lesson plans would include activities and teacher-student interactions that focused on strategies for improving thestudent’s understanding of how to use information from the textin combination with his or her own critical thinking processes toanswer the various types of questions. Although Shell and Hanna(1981) advised against interpreting low scores on particular types


of comprehension questions (measured by IRIs) as indicating adeficit in a particular area, because they believe there are too fewquestions of a particular type to be a reliable indicator of a weak-ness, we found that using this information to plan instruction inthe context of a holistic approach benefits students’ comprehen-sion skills. It is important to clarify that in our study, the entirelesson for each instructional session did not focus on a particularweakness but that a portion of each lesson consistently addressedidentified weaknesses. More research is needed to determine theextent to which holistic instruction that includes attention to oneor more type(s) of comprehension questions, as identified throughinformal assessment, influences comprehension performance ofstruggling readers.

Third, the findings of the study provide evidence that assess-ment data, obtained from ARI data or from some other informalreading inventory, may be used both to inform instruction and toevaluate program and group performance. This may be the firststudy that has used diagnostic data for the purposes of individ-ual assessment, instruction, and analyses of group performance,and while there may be some researchers who question using di-agnostic data to evaluate group performance, we believe that theoutcomes of this study demonstrate the value of using diagnosticdata to examine the performance of individual students as well asgroups of students; the results of group analyses based on diag-nostic data may be used to identify the salient traits exhibited bygroups of students as well as to identify strengths and weaknessesof instructional approaches designed to address the specific liter-acy needs of students. We are hopeful that the results of this studywill prompt additional study of the effectiveness of individualized,integrated language arts instruction as a reading approach on thecomprehension performance of elementary students in other ge-ographical locations and settings.

References

Adams, M. (2001). Theoretical approaches to reading instruction. In E. Cushman,E. Kintgen, B. Kroll, & M. Rose (Eds.), Literacy: A critical sourcebook (pp. 309–315). New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Anderson, W. (1977a). Commercial informal reading inventories: A comparativereview. Reading World, 17, 99–104.


Anderson, W. (1977b). Informal reading inventories commercial or conven-tional? Reading World, 17, 64–68.

Blair-Larsen, S., & Williams, K. (1999).The balanced reading program: Helping allstudents achieve success. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Bottomley, D., Truscott, D., Marinak, B., Henk, W., & Melnick, S. (1999).An affective comparison of whole language, literature-based, and basalreader literacy instruction.Reading Research and Instruction, 38(2), 115–129.

Caldwell, J. (1985). A new look at the old informal reading inventory.ReadingTeacher, 39, 168–193.

Calfee, R. C., & Curley, R. (1984). Structures of prose in content areas. In J. Flood(Ed.), Understanding reading comprehension: Cognition, language, and the structureof prose (pp. 161–180). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Clary, L. M. (1992). Integrated language arts for adolescents with learning dis-abilities. The Clearing House, 65(5), 315–318.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eldredge, J. L., & Butterfield, D. (1986). Alternatives to traditional reading in-struction. The Reading Teacher, 40, 32–27.

Fletcher, J. M., & Lyon, G. R. (1998). Reading: A research-based approach. In W.M. Evers (Ed.), What’s gone wrong in Americas classrooms? (pp. 49–90). Stanford,CA: Hoover Institution Press.

Gerke, R. (1980). Critique of informal reading inventories: Can a valid instruc-tional level be obtained? Journal of Reading Behavior, 22(2), 155–158.

Gonzalez, V., Brusca-Vega, R., & Yawkey, T. (1997). Assessment and instruction of cul-turally and linguistically diverse students with or at-risk of learning problems. Boston:Allyn & Bacon.

Goodman, K. S. (1984). Unity in reading. In A. C. Purves & O. S. Niles (Eds.),Becoming readers in a complex society (pp. 79–114). Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Goodman, K. S. (1989). Whole-language research: Foundation and development.Elementary School Journal, 90(2), 207–221.

Graves, M. F., Van den Broek, P., & Taylor, B. M. (Eds.). (1996). The first R: Everychild’s right to read. New York: Teachers College Press.

Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (Eds.). (1995).The literacy dictionary: The vocabularyof reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Helgren-Lempesis, V., & Mangrum, C. (1986). An analysis of alternate-form reli-ability of three commercially-prepared informal reading inventories. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 21(2), 209–215.

Henk, W. (1987) Reading assessments of the future: Toward precision diagnosis.The Reading Teacher, 40, 860–870.

Jongsma, K. S., & Jongsma, E. A. (1981). Test review: Commercial informal read-ing inventories. The Reading Teacher, 34, 697–705.

McGee, L. M., & Richgels, D. J. (1985). Teaching expository text to elementarystudents. The Reading Teacher, 38, 739–748.

McKenna, M., & Kear, D. (1990). Measuring attitude toward reading: A new toolfor teachers. Reading Teacher, 43, 626–639.


Meyer, B. J. F., & Rice, G. E. (1984). The structure of text. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.),Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman.

Micro Power and Light. (1995a). Readability calculations. Dallas, TX: Author.Micro Power and Light. (1995b). Vocabulary assessor. Dallas, TX: Author.National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000).Report of

the national reading panel: Teaching children to read (NIH Pub. No. 00-4754).Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Pappas, C. C. (1993). Is narrative “primary”? Some insights from kindergartners’pretend reading of stories and information books. Journal of Reading Behavior,25, 97–129.

Piccolo, J. A. (1987). Expository text structure: Teaching and learning strategies.The Reading Teacher, 40, 838–847.

Shell, L. M., & Hanna, G. S. (1981). Can informal reading inventories revealstrengths and weaknesses in comprehension subskills? The Reading Teacher, 35,263–268.

Silvaroli, N. (1976). Classroom reading inventory (3rd ed.). Dubuque, Iowa: WilliamC. Brown.

Snow, C., Burns, M., & Griffin, P. (1998).Preventing reading difficulties in youngchildren. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Stahl, S. A., McKenna, M. C., & Pagnucco, J. (1994). The effects of whole languageinstruction: An update and a reappraisal. Educational Psychologist, 29(4), 175–185.

Stahl, S. A., & Miller, P. A. (1989). Whole Language and language experienceapproaches for beginning reading: Quantitative research synthesis. Review ofEducational Research, 59, 87–116.

Stephens, D. (1990). Research on whole language: Support for a new curriculum.Katonah, New York: Richard C. Owen.

Sucher, F., & Allred, R. (1973). Sucher-Allred reading placement inventory. OklahomaCity: Economy.

Thames, D. G., & Reeves, C. K. (1994). Poor readers’ attitudes: Effects of usinginterests and trade books in an integrated language arts approach.ReadingResearch and Instruction, 33(4), 293–308.

Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. L. (1996). Content area reading (5th ed.). New York: Long-man.

VanSciver, J. H. (2005). Motherhood, apple pie, and differentiated instruction.Phi Delta Kappan, 86(7), 534–535.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962).Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Eds. &Trans.) Cambridge: MIT Press.

Walmsley, S., & Walp, T. (1990). Toward an integrated language arts curriculumin elementary school: Philosophy, practice and implications. The ElementarySchool Journal, 90(3), 252–259.

Weaver, C. (1990). Understanding whole language: From principles to practice.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Woods, M. L. & Moe, A. J. (1977). Analytical reading inventory. Columbus:Merrill.

Woods, M. L. & Moe, A. J. (1999). Analytical reading inventory (6th ed.). Columbus:Merrill.


Appendix A

Sample Lesson Plan, CIR 412L

PRESERVICE TEACHER’S NAMESTUDENT’S NAMEInstructional Time: 8–9:30 a.m. Grade: 2

Storybook

Numeroff, L. (1998). If You Give a Pig a Pancake. New York: LauraGeringer Book.

Information Text

Burns, D. (1990). Sugaring Season: Making Maple Sugar. Minneapo-lis: Carolrhoda.

Children’s Dictionary

Thorndike, E. L., & Barnhart, C. L.(1997). Thorndike Barnhart Stu-dent Dictionary. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman Addison Wesley.

Student’s Reading Needs

The student needs to know how to use compounds to decode gradeappropriate words. The student needs to retell stories in her ownwords to convey the beginning, middle, and end of the main eventsin the story in proper order. She also has difficulty answering literaland inferential questions about what she has read.

Student’s Reading Strengths

The student reads with some voice expression. She enjoys readingaloud, using the popcorn strategy. She is positive about attendingthe reading sessions with the tutor.

Objective(s) for This Lesson

� The student will identify and circle words in sentences that pro-vide context clues to the meanings of the underlined vocabularywords.


� The student will make predictions about what will happen in thestory based on the title and pictures on the cover before readingand prove or revise her predictions based on the text and picturecues during reading.

� The student will identify smaller words in compound words todecode new words.

� The student will retell the main events in the story in their propersequence, using a circular graphic organizer and picture cues.

Vocabulary

Word DefinitionHomesick Missing home and family while awaySuitcase A flat rectangular traveling bagMailbox A box that holds letters and envelopesWallpaper Paper with decorations for pasting on walls

Presenting Vocabulary in Sentence Contexts

(Underlined words omitted on sentence strips)

1. The pig was homesick and wanted to go to the farm to see herfamily.

2. She packed her suitcase before she traveled back to the farm.3. You’ll have to give her some envelopes and stamps and take her

to the mailbox.4. She’ll ask for wallpaper and glue to decorate her walls at home.

Integrated Language Arts Reading Lesson

Note: All of the following language arts components are integratedthroughout the lesson: listening, speaking, reading, writing, view-ing, visual representation, and metacognitive/cognitive thinking.Parenthetical references at the end of each subsection identifylanguage arts components integrated in the preceding section.


Lesson Description

Before Reading the Storybook

� Preteach the Vocabulary Words

Prewrite the words: home, sick, wall, paper, mail, box, suit, and caseon eight 3” by 5” note cards. Mix the cards up and place thewords in front of the student and read the words aloud to thestudent, pointing to and pronouncing each one correctly. Ask,“Do you notice anything special about these words?” Help thestudent discover that the words can be combined to form com-pound words: homesick, wallpaper, mailbox, and suitcase. Explainthat a compound word is two words combined to make oneword. Next, present vocabulary in context by showing the stu-dent the four sentences on sentence strips. Point out that eachsentence is missing a word. Say, “One of the four compoundwords completes this sentence best. Can you guess which one?”Have the student write the missing word in the blank. Ask, “Howdid you know which word fit best here?” Help the student findand circle the clue words in the sentences that hint at the mean-ing of the missing word. For example, in the following sentencethe words envelopes and stamps provide clues to the meaningof the vocabulary word mailbox: “You’ll have to give her someenvelopes and stamps and take her to the mailbox.” Guide thestudent in finding and circling the clue words and filling in theblank in the other sentences in the same manner.(listening, speaking, reading, viewing, writing, thinking)

� Make a Prediction

Introduce the story. Read the title to the student and show herthe picture on the cover of the book. Ask: “What do you thinkhappens when you give a pig a pancake?” “Do you think this iswhat will happen in the book?” Look at the pictures together.Ask the student, “Do you want to add anything to or changeanything in your prediction based on the pictures?” Tell thestudent to write her prediction on the white board. Say, “Let’sread and see what happens.”


� Introducing the Concept of Circular Stories

Introduce the concept of circular stories by drawing half of a circleon a sheet of paper. Pass the paper to the student to draw therest of the circle. When the student has completed the circle,ask, “How do you know where the circle will end?” Explain thestorybook today is a circular story, so it follows the path of acircle and ends where it begins.(listening, speaking, reading, viewing, writing, visual represen-tation, thinking)

During the Reading of the Storybook

Read a few pages of the story and stop at a predetermined stoppingpoint that enables predicting. Ask the student to predict what willhappen next. Continue reading the story aloud taking turns withthe student. Pause at other predetermined points in the story andask, “What do you think will happen next?

(listening, speaking, reading, thinking)

After Reading the Storybook

At the end of the story discuss how each event caused anotherevent to take place, emphasizing the cause/effect pattern in thebook. Also, discuss how the story ended up in the same place itbegan. Remind the student this is what a circular story does.

� Retelling the Story

Tell the student that she is going to retell the story, using picturesas cues. Spread out a set of cards with pictures from the story.Ask the student, “Can you tell me which of these events in thestory came first?” Have the student sequence the pictures of theevents in the appropriate order. Encourage “look backs” if thestudent has difficulty remembering the order of events. Tell thestudent to sequence the cards by laying them out in a circle onthe table (forming a graphic organizer). Then have the studentretell the story in her own words, using the cards in the circle toprompt her retelling of the events. Write the students retellingon paper as she dictates it. Tell the student to read her retelling


aloud and give her positive feedback regarding the strengths ofher retelling. Give her some tips for future retellings.

� Writing a Creative Story

Next, tell the student she will write a creative circular story thatbegins, “If you give a a .” “Ask, what animaldo you want to be the main character in your story?” Use a circu-lar graphic organizer on mapping paper to draft the student’sstory. Ask, “What food item will you give to your animal at thebeginning of the story?” Write the story as the student dictatesit. Continue in the same manner until the student dictates sev-eral cause/effect elements in her creative story. Ask the student,“How can you get back to the beginning now?” Discuss how shemight move her story in a circular direction back to the begin-ning. Have the student read her creative story aloud. Say, “Goodjob. You created your own circular story.”(listening, speaking, reading, writing, visual representation,thinking, viewing)

Before Reading the Information Text

Tell the student that you will read information to her about makingmaple syrup. Say, “Because you told me in the interview that yourfavorite food is pancakes covered with lots of maple syrup, I chosethis information book with pictures for us to explore, so we canlearn more about maple syrup.”

During Reading the Information Text

Tell the student to listen as you read aloud the information onthe process of making maple syrup. Read the information to thestudent. Show the pictures and stop at predetermined stoppingpoints to talk about the process with the student.

After Reading the Information Text

Say, “We are going to retell how maple syrup is made. What do youremember about the how it is made or the steps in the process?”Spread cards with picture cues out in front of the student. Say, “I


have prepared these pictures to help you retell. Put the pictures inorder. Use “look backs” if needed. Guide the student through thesequencing process. Once the cards are in order, let the studentuse the photos to retell the process.”

Conclusion

Tell the student, “Today you accomplished many things. Youlearned about using small words to decode compound words, us-ing context clues to figure out the meanings of words, and usingcircular story maps and pictures to retell stories and informationthat you learned about maple syrup.”

reading comprehension: effects of ...jgarich.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/55141328/effects of...reading...

Documents