Jun 17
The Nature of Comprehension Instruction
Posted by FOR-PD at 7:40 am in Comprehension and Instruction
E. Keene (2007), in her book To Understand she asks and argues:
- Is the text we’re using more appropriate for fluency instruction or comprehension instruction?
- Do students need comprehension strategy instruction if all they’re expected to do is retell and answer questions?
- We may need to rethink our ideas about the nature of comprehension.
“Are we teaching kids to do all the things that comprehension strategy instruction asks us to do if we are only expecting kids to live up to an out-of-date, low-level definition of comprehension? Kids have intellectual capacity to do so much more. I asked far, far, far too little of students when I was in the classroom and I wonder how far-spread this habit is in our country today, both in the richest and poorest districts.”
What are your thoughts about what we do or not do in the area of comprehension instruction?
The Nature of Comprehension Instruction has 9 Comments
-
-
Subscribe to our Blog
June 18th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Keene has a valid point: not every text used for fluency development works for comprehension development. To drop a name-Read Naturally® does a nice job as fluency instruction. However, the comprehension questions leave much to be desired. I suggest that teachers should allocate a few 15-20 minute sessions per week for fluency practice. Teachers can differentiate the instruction, using the modeled reading/repeated reading design, along with CDs of varied reading levels and reading rates. I also have worked with intermediate teachers on an instructional fluency strategy in which the teacher quickly rotates from group to group to pre-teach the few tough words and begin the reading at the appropriate “challenge pace.” Peer leaders stand at each group and lead choral reads, carrying on after the teacher moves to the next group. The integrated behavioral plan is key here. See penningtonpublishing.com/blog/reading/how-to-differentiate-reading-fluency-practice/ for details. Teachers and students love this strategy.
June 21st, 2009 at 9:36 am
Fluency has long been misunderstood and even today, many teachers assume that if a student is able to ‘read’ at a sixth grade level (in the third grade) that they are comprehending what they read when, in fact, they have not really understood the words that they are able to decode and recognize. There has to be more in the way of comprehension strategies intregrated from the very beginning of reading instruction - writing has to be integrated with reading - all of the six components need to be taught as a process, not in isolation. Asking lots of questions while children are reading, encouraging them and teaching them to visually organize what they read, modeling how to engage text with curiousity and how to find the information that they don’t know, etc., all are strategies that have to be taught not only to students but to many teachers as well!
June 24th, 2009 at 7:37 am
I agree with you regarding the importance of asking questions and makings sure that fast readers are understanding what they read. I remember my own time in 2nd grade when I began rushing through The Little House on the Prairie book series but I really wasn’t truly understanding all that I read. While this was for pleasure reading I was lucky enough to have a teacher understand what was happening and within just a few weeks I was back on track. Asking questions, and taking the time to ask questions, can make all the difference.
Lourdes
June 24th, 2009 at 7:39 am
Hi Mr. Penning,
I liked your idea regarding peer leaders for the choral readings. What are the traits the teachers use to decide who will be a peer leader? Does everyone get a turn?
Lourdes
June 24th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
I agree that comprehension won’t happen if a child is struggling with fluency but comprehension goes beyond just fluency. LIke Mr Pinning wrote there are programs that do a nice job with increasing fluency but then what. We’ve got to get beyond just comprehending what is in the text and go deeper. Until a child is prediciting, inferring or analyzing they haven’t started to really comprehend what they are reading.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
I received an email/joke the other day that fits this discussion posting perfectly:
This is a true story, proving how fascinating the mind of a six year old is. They think so logically.
A teacher was reading the story of the Three Little Pigs to her class. She came to the part of the story where first pig was trying to gather the building materials for his home. She read . ‘and so the pig went up to the man with the wheelbarrow full of straw and said: ‘Pardon me sir, but may I have some of that Straw to build my house?’
The teacher paused then asked the class: ‘And what do you think the man said?’
One little boy raised his hand and said very matter-of-factly ..’I think the Man would have said - “Unbelievabe!! A talking pig!’
How cute and funny, but when you really think about this, the boy’s answer wasn’t what the teacher expected or wanted, but in fact, he’s a perfect example of THINKING outside the box (which is what we call higher level thinking) and showing a realistic understanding of the entire situation.
Fluency, of course, is connected to comprehension. We all know you must first be able to read fluently and not struggle to decode the words in order for the brain to focus on meaning. I use Readers Theater and rereadings of familiar text to practice fluency in my 6th grade Social Studies class.
However, speaking about comprehension, I know I definitely ask more low level questions because students aren’t even able to answer them. The “Right There” or “Search and Find” questions are difficult for most students. I can read a passage, ask a question that’s right there, in black and white, in the passage, and the majority of students have tuned me out or not connected to what was read and they can’t come up with the answer.
Of course I do lots and lots of “connecting to the text” use highlighters, sticky notes, text-to- (text/world/self), predictions, questions, etc. etc. etc. and yet, the majority of students still can’t answer a simple question that’s right there. In a perfect world, in a perfect classroom, I know I am expected to ask higher level questions that they can answer on their own, based on their life’s experiences or past knowledge or using common sense, but reality is that very few of them can do it. Even my AP and Gifted students have difficulty finding the Right There answers and thus I get very discouraged.
So, I agree, kids do have the intellectual capacity for higher level thinking and they show it when they are playing video games on line or sports, however, in the classroom, with “boring” information, they still aren’t connecting and using their super brain ability.
As a teacher, I tend to ask the lower level questions and expect them to, at the very least, be able to find the answer in the book, because the students can’t answer those questions on a consistent basis.
If we can’t get them to answer “easy” questions (even using ALL of the great strategies and lots of modeling and practicing), then how in the world CAN WE ask higher level questions? How can we get them to “think outside the box” and use their vast memory to apply and analyze and conclude other answers that aren’t right there?
July 6th, 2009 at 12:08 am
As a fourth grade teacher, I use my county-adopted basal AND novels during my 90 minute reading block. When I am teaching reading from the basal, my lessons consist of guided reading, vocabulary development, and a few focus skills. Although I try to “jazz” up my instruction with supplemental activities, I believe the text is more suitable for developing fluency rather than comprehension. (We read the selection several times during the week-even using an audio tape at times). When we read novels, my students respond in literature logs, work in cooperative groups, and are more engaged in higher-level thinking activities/projects. I guess that is why I tend to plan my reading program around more novels than my basal reader! Karen
July 18th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Comprehension is indeed an important area. It has been described in many different ways. Sometimes we refer to it as having three levels, literal, inferential, and critical. Sometimes it is referred to as interactive, critical, and responses. At other times we examine it from the strands the FCAT identify. So much discussion and so many terms trying to get at the same thing.
As educators, we want our students to be able to do more than just retell the information. If all they can answer is who, what, when, where, then the question remains- have they really understood or have they just given back information. It is similar to the discussion in the mathematics field. We don’t just want students to be able to add, subtract, multiply, and divide; we want students to be able to apply these skills. In reading we want students to be able to make connections so that they hold onto the information and apply it in new situations.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
As a literacy coach, I spend lots of time in various classrooms and the two things that I would like to see increased is the amount of reading that takes place and the bar raised on the level of comprehension instruction. I have often found that many teachers ask questions and often end up answering them for students. I am not guiltless here. I can remember situations where students could not answer a question and I would spend a great deal of time breaking the question down by asking more questions (easier ones) to lead students to the original answer I was seeking. There is so much more we can do with texts that include but are not limited to cooperative learning and connecting to texts for deeper understanding.
I believe fluency instruction is important, but fluency is just one aspect of comprehension. We need to do so much more with the texts we expect our students to read. We need to move beyond reading and asking questions.
The higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy can be used to guide teachers to take comprehension beyond just asking questions. Even the key words used to support the various levels of Bloom’s encourage taking comprehension beyond lower level questions: adapt, build, compile, prioritize, deduce, disprove. We can push our students to higher levels and the tools we need are out there. Students are capable; we need to keep our expectations high.