CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON LEARNING AND TEACHING
2.3 T EACHING R EADING FOR M EANING
2.3.1 Comprehension instruction
Traditionally, comprehension has been taken to mean ―understanding what is read‖, assessed in schools by the ability to accurately recall what was read in order to answer some type of
―comprehension questions.‖ This approach to comprehension is particularly prevalent in relation to approaches to reading which emphasise letter and word recognition as a prerequisite to understanding. An alternative definition of comprehension would be
―thinking about and responding to what is read‖. ―Top-down‖ and some ―integrated‖ and
―social practice‖ approaches to reading emphasise the text-to-self, text-to-texts and text-to- world connections which the reader can make when reading with understanding (Allington, 2001, p. 90), as well as summarising, synthesising, analysing and evaluating the ideas in the text.
Traditionally also, schools have tended to see the first three years of schooling as focusing on learning to read (in many cases, implying learning word-recognition skills), and thereafter focusing on reading to learn. Consequently, ―comprehension‖ has tended to be seen as a function of the later primary school, and not part of the brief of Foundation Phase classrooms.
It is, however, important to focus on comprehension right from the start, as the foundations
for comprehension are laid in the early years (Burns, 2006). An important research finding in the USA has been that, while schools routinely provide comprehension practice and testing, comprehension strategies are seldom taught explicitly (see, for example, P. M. Cunningham
& Allington, 2003; Durkin, 1978-79; Pressley, Wharton-McDonald, Mistretta-Hampston, &
Echevarria, 1998; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002). It is probable that this is also the case in South African classrooms. There is now increasing consensus among researchers and policy-makers that this situation needs to change, including in Foundation Phase classrooms.
It is increasingly recognised that demonstrations of (modelling and talking about) comprehension skills from the start of school can be highly effective (Wray, Medwell, Fox,
& Poulson, 2000; Wray et al., 2002).
Students who have developed fluent decoding skills often experience a sharp drop in reading comprehension scores when the instructional focus changes from learning to read (Grades 1- 3) to using reading as a tool for learning (Grades 4 and up) (Cummins, 2003). This finding is supported by Macdonald in the South African context (Macdonald, 1990). Nation and Angell (2006) consider a number of reasons why poor comprehenders fail to understand text. At the text level, they have difficulties making inferences (Cain, Oakhill, Barnes, & Bryant, 2001), monitoring their comprehension and appreciating story structure (Cragg & Nation, 2006).
These findings highlight aspects of reading comprehension that should be taught to children.
Secondly, Nation and Angell (2006) note that there is considerable evidence that poor comprehenders exhibit oral language weaknesses in relation to vocabulary and word knowledge (semantics), sentence comprehension and inflection (morphosyntax) and understanding figurative language. However, importantly, poor comprehenders do not always have difficulties with phonological processing and awareness (Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2000;
Nation & Angell, 2006). In the context of this study, where children are learning to read in an additional language in which they have very limited proficiency, these findings are very important.
The third set of reasons for poor comprehension identified by Nation and Angell relate to poor working memory, but research in this regard has not been able to show whether difficulties with memory cause difficulties with comprehension or vice versa. However, as any learner of a second or additional language will attest, it is harder to hold newly acquired words in a new language in memory than newly acquired words in one‘s first language.
Again, this points to the significant difficulties faced by children learning to read in an additional language.
Several reviews of research on the development of enhanced comprehension skills (Block &
Pressley, 2001; Dole, Brown, & Trathen, 1996; Duke & Pearson, 2002; Pearson, Roehler, Dole, & Duffy, 1992) agree that:
Reading comprehension can be improved by effective teaching (it is not about intelligence). Comprehension involves active thinking which is improved when comprehension strategies are made visible to the learner through explicit demonstrations.
Teachers need to stop relying on ―comprehension questions‖ which assess immediate recall of information and neither improve proficiency nor promote independent and effective thinking skills while reading. Again teacher demonstration of useful strategies is important.
It takes time and repeated practice to learn comprehension strategies. Allington argues that it takes between four and ten weeks of focused instruction to learn to use a strategy (Allington, 2001, p.97).
One productive line of research regarding comprehension has been to identify the characteristics of good comprehenders. Remarkable agreement has been reached in this regard. Pearson et al. (1992) suggest that expert readers are distinguished from novice readers by the use of the following seven comprehension strategies:
1. Activating prior knowledge about the topic and the text organisation e.g. through making predictions.
2. Monitoring comprehension and adjusting strategies according to the text.
3. Repairing comprehension e.g. through re-reading, skipping ahead.
4. Determining important ideas.
5. Synthesising or summarising while reading.
6. Drawing inferences by combining prior knowledge and textual information.
7. Asking questions before, during and after reading to activate prior knowledge, check comprehension, and clarify ideas.
Duke and Pearson (2002) and the National Reading Panel (2000) add to this list using text structure and constructing mental images and visual representations.
There is also a great deal of consensus as to how such comprehension strategies could optimally be taught: explicit teaching, with the teacher describing the strategy and when it should be used, modelling the use of comprehension strategies, thinking aloud about the strategies, providing scaffolded practice (guided reading) and then gradually withdrawing scaffolding until the learner practices the strategy independently. Both Duke and Pearson (2002) and the NRP report (2000) support teaching more than one strategy in one lesson and helping learners to use multiple strategies at the same time.
Cunningham et al. (2002) caution that, while teaching reading comprehension is important, the teacher‘s key objective should be to get learners to be intrinsically motivated to read and enjoy reading. For this, independent reading practice and being read to by a competent reader are crucial and should not be sacrificed for strategy instruction.
Duke and Pearson (2002, p. 235) have created a checklist for assessing the comprehension environment and instruction in the classroom. This checklist notes the extent of:
Time students spend reading;
Clear purpose for reading;
Availability of different genres in the classroom;
Opportunities to develop vocabulary and content knowledge through texts, discussion of new ideas and direct instruction;
Direct instruction in decoding of words;
Time spent writing texts (emphasis on reading-writing connections);
Talk-about text in the classroom environment;
The range of comprehension strategies taught to students and whether they are encouraged to use more than one strategy at a time;
Explicit description, modelling, collaborative use, guided practice and independent practice of comprehension strategies taught;
Ongoing assessment of comprehension skills;
Concern for motivation to engage with literacy;
Matching of texts to strategies and students.
I shall use this list to analyse data from my case study in Chapter 5.