ebook

THE GUILFORD PRESS

Comprehension Instruction
Comprehension
Instruction
Research-Based
Best Practices

Third Edition

edited by
Sheri R. Parris
Kathy Headley
Foreword by Lesley Mandel Morrow

THE GUILFORD PRESS

New York  London
© 2015 The Guilford Press
A Division of Guilford Publications, Inc.
370 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1200, New York, NY 10001
www.guilford.com

All rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,

or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Last digit is print number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Comprehension instruction : research-based best practices / edited by Sheri R. Parris,
Kathy Headley ; foreword by Lesley Mandel Morrow. — Third edition.
  pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4625-2078-7 (paperback) — ISBN 978-1-4625-2079-4 (hardcover)
1. Reading comprehension. 2. Cognitive learning. 3. Action research in
education. I. Parris, Sheri R. II. Headley, Kathy.
LB1050.45.C69 2015
372.47—dc23
2015015753
 About the Editors

Sheri R. Parris, PhD, is Associate Research Scientist with the Institute of Child Develop-
ment at Texas Christian University and Adjunct Professor in the Master of Education
program at Concordia University Texas. A former high school English language arts
teacher and middle school computer literacy teacher, she has held a variety of educa-
tional research positions. Dr. Parris’s areas of expertise include reading comprehension,
adolescent literacy, and neuroscience as it relates to literacy, learning, and child develop-
ment, with an emphasis on at-risk populations. She has published articles in the Journal
of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, The Reading Teacher, Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, Contemporary School Psychology, Child and Youth Services, Child Abuse and
Neglect, and Child Abuse Review, among others. She has also coauthored many book
chapters and coedited the books Adolescent Literacy, Field Tested: Effective Solutions
for Every Classroom and Comprehension Instruction, Second Edition: Research-­Based
Best Practices.

Kathy Headley, EdD, is Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies in the College
of Health, Education, and Human Development and Professor of Literacy in the Eugene
T. Moore School of Education at Clemson University. She began her career as a teacher
and reading specialist in Georgia. Dr. Headley’s areas of expertise include adolescent
literacy and writing, with specialized interests in comprehension and vocabulary. She
has published articles on young adult and children’s literature in journals such as The
Reading Teacher and The ALAN Review, and research on adolescent motivation in the
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy. Dr. Headley served an elected 3-year term on
the board of directors of the International Reading Association (now the International
Literacy Association). She remains active regarding policy development and implementa-
tion for literacy improvement in South Carolina.

v
 Foreword
Celebrating Cathy Collins Block

T o the question “How and why did you first write Comprehension Instruction:
Research-Based Best Practices?” Cathy Collins Block replied:

“I was teaching a summer class at Notre Dame that Michael Pressley had invited me
to do. At the same time Michael was editor of the Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, and in a conversation one evening, sitting on his back porch, we noticed the lack
of comprehension articles being submitted to the journal. We talked about how a
book related to comprehension instruction had not been written in a very long time.
We wanted to ensure that attention toward comprehension instruction did not wane.
We were also aware that several of our colleagues were doing cutting-edge research
on the topic. We thought that we could do a service to our profession if we collected
together several of the authors who were working on comprehension instruction
into a single volume, and that attention toward comprehension instruction might
increase. We worked hard all summer identifying authors who agreed with us and
began to edit the book. It was truly a work of love and pleasure.”

Cathy and Michael edited the first edition of this book. Cathy edited the second edi-
tion with Sheri Parris and dedicated it to Michael, who passed away in 2006. Cathy has
now retired and turned over the third edition to Sheri Parris and Kathy Headley. They
invited me to write this foreword to honor Cathy for what she began some years ago.
I first met Cathy at the Literacy Research Association, then called the National
Reading Conference. She was blond, pretty, very well dressed, and as charming and
Southern as anyone could be. One wondered if this attractive, well-groomed person with
long, red, manicured nails could possibly be a serious academic. Well, she was and is and
always will be.
Cathy received her BS degree, in Elementary Education, with a minor in English,
from Lamar University in Texas. She went to North Texas State University for her

vii
viii Foreword

master’s degree as a reading specialist. Her PhD, from the University of Wisconsin, is in
Curriculum and Instruction and includes a minor in Educational Psychology.
Cathy’s resume is filled with an impressive list of achievements. She began her aca-
demic life as a classroom teacher. She moved on to being a visiting lecturer, assistant
professor, associate professor, and, of course, a full professor—all at Texas Christian
University. She has been a guest lecturer at multiple universities and a co-investigator at
many fine institutions. She has received grants from multiple sources.
Cathy has studied, researched, and written about many aspects of reading instruc-
tion. What stands out is her work on comprehension and on the importance, effectiveness,
and practices of exemplary teachers. Cathy’s list of presentations on the international,
national, state, and regional levels, as well as in school districts, is extensive. Cathy’s pub-
lications are also numerous. She has published books, chapters in books, refereed articles,
tests, and many invited articles. She has published in scholarly books and in the best jour-
nals in her field, such as Reading Research Quarterly, The Reading Teacher, Journal of
Educational Research, National Reading Conference Yearbook, Journal of Adolescent
and Adult Literacy, among others. She has been active in numerous literacy associations,
has chaired committees, and has served on editorial advisory boards and as a member of
the board of directors of the International Reading Association and the Literacy Research
Association. She has received multiple awards from her university and other associations.
I had the great pleasure of working with Cathy, Michael Pressley, and others in
identifying and describing characteristics of exemplary teachers. Each in different states,
we spent hours in classrooms observing teachers selected for their exemplary practice by
administrators, other teachers, parents, and children. To qualify, they had to have taught
at least 5 years, and their students had to score well on standardized tests. Our purpose
was to see what they did, what they said, how they organized their day, and how they
treated children. When we got together, we would look for themes that emerged from our
reams of data to create a composite of the exemplary teacher. The work was important to
us, and the findings were important.
When asked about her retirement, Cathy said, “My treasured friend, I am enjoying
it so much.” She went on to say:

“My husband and I worked so hard throughout our careers that it is a joy to have
time to be together every day now. We sit on the couch and hold hands and talk,
and exercise, and have the best time every day. We have three grandchildren and
love spending time with them. Three days a week I take little Texas road trips with
my mother and sister, play cards, or work in the yard with them. We have visited
54 towns in Texas. Can you imagine? So much fun. We also visit museums and are
members of a lecture group that reports on the history of Fort Worth. I am playing
the piano again and now have time to read novels and nonfiction that I did not have
time for when working. I am reading nine books all at the same time now. I want to
acknowledge how much I love and have been blessed by the support of my husband,
Stanley B. Block; my mother, JoAnn N. Zinke; and my sister, Wanda, throughout
my career and life.”

Cathy is not what we would call the “typical professor” from outward appearances.
She is always dressed to the nines in bright colors and looks perfect. However, she really
is that quintessential academic who ponders over best practices, is a wonderful teacher,
and always has time to chat with her students. She has enjoyed advising and guiding
Foreword ix

them. In addition, she has been a good friend and colleague. She wrote things on time,
shared in collaborative work, and came to listen to her friends speak. Cathy’s enthusiasm
would motivate others who worked with her, had dinner with her, or chatted with her
about a new project. She always had a smile on her face. Cathy gave an enormous amount
to the world of literacy. She deserves the time she is giving to herself and her family now.

Lesley M andel Morrow, PhD

Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
 Contents

Introduction 1
Sheri R. Parris and Kathy Headley

I · Comprehension Instruction within Theoretical Frameworks

1 · Beyond Borders: A Global Perspective on Reading Comprehension 7
Sheri R. Parris, Linda B. Gambrell, and Andreas Schleicher

2 · Comprehension Instruction from a Critical Theory Viewpoint 17

Bogum Yoon

3 · Using Inquiry Dialogue to Promote the Development of Argument Skills: 29

Possibilities, Challenges, and New Directions
Alina Reznitskaya, Judy Yu‑Li Hsu, and Richard C. Anderson

4 · Reading Comprehension, Embodied Cognition, and Dual Coding Theory 45

Mark Sadoski

5 · Executive Function and Reading Comprehension: 56

The Critical Role of Cognitive Flexibility
Kelly B. Cartwright

6 · Metacognition in Comprehension Instruction: New Directions 72

Linda Baker, Laura U. DeWyngaert, and Alisa Zeliger‑Kandasamy

7 · Constructivist Theory as a Framework for Instruction and Assessment 88

of Reading Comprehension
Donna Caccamise, Angela Friend, Megan K. Littrell‑Baez, and Eileen Kintsch

xi
xii Contents

II · Comprehension Instruction Contexts

8 · Comprehension Instruction within the Context of the Common Core 105
Evelyn Ford‑Connors, Dana A. Robertson, Christine M. Leighton,
Jeanne R. Paratore, C. Patrick Proctor, and Michelle Carney

9 · Using Neuroscience to Inform Reading Comprehension Instruction 123

Sheri R. Parris and Cathy Collins Block

10 · Comprehension Instruction in Culturally Responsive Classrooms: 136

A Review of Research and Practice
Ellen McIntyre

11 · New Insights on Motivation in the Literacy Classroom 147

Jacquelynn A. Malloy

12 · Research on Response‑to‑Intervention Supplemental Interventions: 162

Where’s the Comprehension Instruction?
Deborah MacPhee, Elizabeth Bemiss, and Diane Stephens

13 · Comprehension Instruction for At‑Risk Students 175

Irma F. Brasseur‑Hock, Michael F. Hock, and Donald D. Deshler

14 · Comprehension Instruction for English Language Learners: 193

New Perspectives, New Challenges
Robert Rueda, Norman J. Unrau, and Elena Son

III · Comprehension Instruction in Action

15 · Best Practices for Comprehension Instruction 211
in the Elementary Classroom
Nell K. Duke and Nicole M. Martin

16 · Fiction Comprehension Instruction: 224

Attending to Characters’ and Readers’ Emotional States
Laura B. Smolkin and Erin M. McTigue

17 · Improving Comprehension of Informational Texts 238

in the Elementary Classroom
Lisa S. Pao and Joanna P. Williams

18 · Best Practices for Comprehension Instruction 253

in the Secondary Classroom
Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey
Contents xiii

19 · Improving Comprehension of Fictional Texts 266

in the Secondary Classroom
Tiffany Ohlson, Heather Monroe‑Ossi, and Sheri R. Parris

20 · Improving Comprehension of Informational Texts 278

in the Secondary Classroom
Vicki A. Jacobs and Jacy Ippolito

IV · Multimodal Literacies and Comprehension

21 · Multimodal Literacy: Best Practices for Comprehension Instruction 293
Sally Lamping

22 · Beyond Differentiation: Multimodal Literacy Learning 311

B. P. Laster

23 · Research on Instruction and Assessment in the New Literacies 324

of Online Research and Comprehension
Jill Castek, Julie Coiro, Laurie A. Henry, Donald J. Leu,
and Douglas K. Hartman

24 · Reading Digital: Teaching and Learning with eBooks and Digital Text 345
Bridget Dalton and David Rose

25 · Games and Comprehension: The Importance of Specialist Language 356

James Paul Gee

26 · New Literacies and Comprehension: Resources for Educators 367

Jan Lacina

27 · Summing Up: Putting Comprehension Instruction in Context 381

Kathy Headley and Sheri R. Parris

Author Index 387

Subject Index 402

Contributors 416
 v

Introduction

Sheri R. Parris and Kathy Headley

The process of scientific discovery is, in effect,

a continual flight that emerges from wonder.
—A lbert E instein

T he first edition of Comprehension Instruction: Research-­Based Best Practices was

published in 2002, and was in its final stages of production when 9/11 occurred.
All chapters had been written, and all authors who contributed to that volume had not
experienced the changes that this single event initiated: a new generation of learners; an
increased need to stay connected to family and friends through many technologies not
yet on our collective radar (e.g., texting, blogging, Facebook, Instagram); an increased
awareness and interest in the global community; the exploding need to develop new lit-
eracies and genres to express our emotions and visions for the future, as well as break
down communication barriers; and, the necessity to develop advanced digital literacies
so we could surf among the ever-­increasing waves of information that were entering our
“internetted” lives. In 2002, Mike Pressley, Steven Stahl, Marie Clay, James Flood, and
Peter Mosenthal were still alive and actively researching comprehension instruction.
Although No Child Left Behind legislation had been enacted by 2002, there had not
been enough time to research its impact on students’ comprehension or the ensuing new
comprehension methods that were generated to meet the demands of its mandates. J. K.
Rowling had not led Harry Potter into the Goblet of Fire and Pluto was still a planet.
By the time work had begun on the second edition in 2007 (published in early 2008),
the global economic crisis of 2008 had not yet happened, the iPhone had just been intro-
duced to the marketplace, iPads did not exist, you could still drive to a nearby Block-
buster to rent a DVD, and Netflix was the company you used for renting DVDs via mail
delivery. In addition, the National Reading Conference had not yet become the Literacy
Research Association, and Common Core had not yet been conceived.

1
2 Introduction

When we pause to consider how rapidly our world has changed since the first and
second editions of Comprehension Instruction, it was exciting to us, as the editors of this
edition, to read how the comprehension researchers represented in this third edition not
only embraced the changing landscape but also led the field in innovations to help stu-
dents thrive in a society that will place increasing demands their comprehension abilities.
Our purpose in this volume is to update the knowledge that has been created since the
second edition by bringing together the latest works by many of the leading researchers
in the field of reading comprehension.

What’s New in This Edition

Many authors have returned to provide updated chapters, while new chapters have been
added to address the changing landscape in comprehension instruction. Within each
chapter, there is a description of established research and practice, as well as what we
have done to advance our body of knowledge since the previous edition. Every chapter
ends with a series of study questions entitled “Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Ques-
tions for Discussion.” These inquiries can be used by (1) individuals who read and reflect
on the contents in the text, (2) teams of school-­based educators who engage in a book
study to further their collective knowledge about comprehension and its instruction, and
(3) college educators and students who wish to explore new ways to expand our body of
knowledge through their future work.
We also believe that one of the most effervescent realizations you may experience
after having read all the chapters in the third edition is that the field of literacy research
and instruction is now viewing comprehension with the complexity it deserves. For
instance, were you to place the table of contents of the first, second, and third volumes
side by side, you would view stark differences between the chapter foci as represented
by their titles alone. In the first edition, you would notice how every chapter focused
on what we were beginning to realize as emerging, separate domains within the field of
reading comprehension instruction (e.g., metacognition, self-­assessment strategies, indi-
vidual differences, transactional strategy instruction, comprehending information texts,
and imagery).
In contrast, the chapter titles in the second and third editions demonstrate a more
integrative conceptualization as to the nature of comprehension. As you will read within
these pages, many of the chapters look at the whole of what it means to comprehend,
without artificial divisions or blindfolds. Contemporary researchers are designing studies
in which they can simultaneously try to understand how multiple variables (e.g., motiva-
tion, dual coding, neuroscientific data, schemas, background knowledge, cognitive flex-
ibility, vocabulary development, constructivism, native language, games and technology,
teacher intervention) coexist to teach students how to make meaning. All these elements
make up the colorful spectrum within the single light beam of comprehension. Research-
ers, acting as prisms, must separate the colors so they can be seen and studied, all the
while knowing that when the prism is removed, these colored components will merge
back into their natural state of being a single, integrated beam that illuminates the path
to textual understanding.
Throughout this edition, you may also notice how often chapter authors send out
a call for comprehension instruction to occur throughout the school day. These authors
also illustrate how methods used to make meaning in one genre may or may not transfer
to another format. Likewise, we all have experienced a room full of students who read
Introduction 3

the same chapter in a textbook. Some remember most of the information, whereas others
cannot discuss in any depth anything that they have read. This volume leads us closer to
understanding how we can overcome this commonly occurring, contemporary classroom
challenge in the future.

How to Read This Book

This text is divided into four parts: (1) Comprehension Instruction within Theoretical
Frameworks; (2) Comprehension Instruction: Contexts; (3) Comprehension Instruction
in Action; and (4) Multimodal Literacies and Comprehension. Our goal in this third edi-
tion of Comprehension Instruction is that upon the completion of your reading, you will
have developed an expanded understanding of the state of comprehension instruction and
research. The final chapter (Chapter 27) provides a cohesive view of the book as whole,
including highlights from each chapter. We believe that these chapters deserve careful
consideration as new research and school-­based programs are being designed. When each
of the pressing issues that lie before us is examined in the high-­quality research-­based
practices described in this book, we can change the lives of many alliterates and illiterates
throughout the world. May the work reported herein make the “joys of reading become
a more permanent state for countless generations to come. May the work you will do in
reading this book and thereafter] enable comprehension to forever fall more directly and
completely under [every student’s] control (Pressley & Block, 2002, p. 392).

Acknowledgments

We want to thank the entire team that has worked hard to create this excellent third edition. Cindy
Hartman provided her meticulous proofreading and formatting expertise, providing a third set
of eyes to ensure that each chapter reached The Guilford Press in top form. Each of the chapter
authors and coauthors submitted work that was a testament to his or her passion and dedication
to reading comprehension research and practice, and to keeping the field moving forward. The
staff at The Guilford Press provided the guidance and patience we needed to produce this excellent
volume. Finally, Cathy Collins Block has continued to provide her support and encouragement as
we continue this work that she and Michael Pressley initiated over a decade ago.

Reference

Pressley, M., & Block, C. C. (2002). Summing up: What comprehension instruction could be. In
C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-­based best practices
(1st ed., pp. 383–392). New York: Guilford Press.
 Pa r t I
Comprehension Instruction
within Theoretical Frameworks
 Chapter 1

Beyond Borders
A Global Perspective
on Reading Comprehension

Sheri R. Parris, Linda B. Gambrell,

and Andreas Schleicher

Literacy educators share a vision and a hope that

crosses borders, time zones, and political systems.
—Timothy Shanahan (2006)

T his opening chapter looks at literacy from a broad context. We feel that only when
educators and researchers understand the field from a global perspective can they fully
understand developments and trends that are occurring in their own region or com-
munity. By answering the question “How are each of us, as researchers and educators,
affected by global changes in literacy practices and policies?” we can more clearly see that
changes happening at an international level have significant impact in our own schools
and classrooms.
In an article written for the electronic journal of the International Reading Associa-
tion, Jan Turbill (2002) speaks to the historical positioning of comprehension research
within the field of reading. She divides the past into five paradigms: (1) the age of reading
as decoding (1950s–1970s); (2) the age of reading as meaning making (mid-1970s–late
1970s); (3) The age of reading–­writing connections (early 1980s–late 1980s); (4) the age
of reading for social purposes (early 1990s–­millennium); and (5) the age of multiliteracies
(2000 to the present).
We proposed in the second edition of this book that another stage had emerged
alongside multiliteracies, an era of global literacy discourse. Increasing discourse at an
international level was propelled by many factors that emerged after the turn of the
century: advances in technology, including widespread use of the Internet; an interna-
tional spotlight on literacy originating from the United Nations (e.g., the literacy decade
2003–2012); and an increased awareness among nations that they must be competitive

7
8 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

in a global economy. For this third edition of Comprehension Instruction, we propose

that the term discourse no longer captures the full extent of the global literacy landscape.
Across the globe, people with an interest in promoting literacy are increasingly inter-
acting and collaborating across borders, including crossing borders to compare student
achievement and find best practices in literacy instruction. We propose that the term
global interactivity is now more reflective of the international literacy environment.
At the turn of the century, and in the years since, countries around the world have
been involved in nationwide efforts to improve their national literacy rates and to help
their students to participate effectively in increasingly diverse and globalized societies. To
name a few, the United States government introduced the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (NCLB; 2002; an extension of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994), with
the state led Common Core State Standards (CCSS) introduced in 2010; the Philippines
introduced its Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001 and has since created a national
action plan called “Functionally Literate Filipinos: An Educated Nation” as part of the
Philippine Education for All 2015 National Action Plan, which is used by its department
of education as a policy and planning framework; Australia introduced The Adelaide
Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century, which was
replaced by the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians in
2008; the Japanese government in 2008 created its first comprehensive plan for education
called the Basic Plan for the Promotion of Education; and Great Britain introduced its
National Standards for all schools in 1998, implementing a revised national curriculum
with higher standards in 2014.
The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) serves as a platform by
which all participating countries can compare their students with those of other countries
on common educational achievement indicators. PISA measures students’ educational
progress through assessments that occur every 3 years and with a main focus on a differ-
ent discipline during each assessment year (a more extensive assessment is performed on
the discipline of focus for a certain testing year, while other disciplines are still assessed
at a basic level when they are not the focus discipline). Reading was the focus of the first
assessment in 2000, Math in 2003, Science in 2006, then Reading again in 2009 to begin
a new cycle.
Overall, research is showing that there is common ground as defined and measured
by the international community, and that common competencies can be addressed in the
domain of reading comprehension, even across different languages. Thus, the interest and
interactivity around global literacy efforts will likely continue to be at the forefront of
international educational and economic conversations and actions.
This chapter highlights the following:

• Development of the focus on international literacy

• The common international benchmark assessments
• International interactivity to improve literacy

What’s Out There Today: Established Research and Practice

To give a broad perspective on the growth in international literacy interactivity over the
past few decades, we have assembled a time line showing some of the most notable events
that have led up to the current status. For the reader’s convenience, most entries on the
Beyond Borders 9

time line are accompanied by a website that may be accessed for further information on
that topic.

•• 1956: International Reading Association founded, with its first World Congress
on Reading held in 1966. www.reading.org/general/aboutira.aspx
•• 1959–1962: The newly formed, and still unofficial, International Association for
the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) conducted a pilot test to determine
the feasibility of conducting international assessments of educational achievement. This
study, known as the Pilot Twelve-­Country Study, included 13-year-old students in 12
countries. Testing was carried out in five areas: reading comprehension, mathematics,
geography, science, and nonverbal ability. www.iea.nl/brief_history.html
•• 1970–1971: IEA conducted the first full-scale international student achievement
assessment (21 countries participated), the Six Subject Survey, which included reading
comprehension as one of six major subjects assessed. Reading comprehension contin-
ues to be a central component of these international literacy assessments. www.iea.nl/
brief_history.html
•• 1990: International Literacy Year proclaimed by the United Nations General
Assembly. www.ericdigests.org/pre-9216/international.htm
•• 1990–1991: IEA conducted the Reading Literacy Study, which was the first inter-
national study devoted fully to the assessment of literacy abilities. The study included
9- to 14-year-old students in 32 counties. http://books.nap.edu/html/icse/study_n.html
(see pp. 89–96 for study summary)
•• 2000: First PISA assessment (the focus was on reading)
•• 2003–2012: Literacy Decade: Proclaimed by the United Nations General Assem-
bly, the Literacy Decade (Resolution 65/183) was a manifestation of strong global agree-
ment that the ability to read is a fundamental necessity for full participation in one’s
society and economy (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
[UNESCO], 2004), and that a joint effort was needed to increase worldwide literacy. The
Literacy Decade was spurred in part by statistics showing that approximately 860 mil-
lion adults (20% of the adult population) worldwide were illiterate, and over 100 million
children worldwide did not have the opportunity to attend school. But the focus of this
literacy decade also extended to the majority of countries that wanted to attain and/or
maintain educational competitiveness in order to participate successfully in the global
marketplace.
United Nations description of the literacy decade: www.unesco.org/new/en/­
education/themes/education-­building-­blocks/literacy/un-­literacy-­decade
United Nations final report on the Literacy Decade, including recommendations
for continued literacy efforts beyond 2015 www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.
asp?symbol=a/68/201
•• 2005–2015: Literacy Initiative for Empowerment (LIFE), a UNESCO-sponsored
10-year collaborative action plan (targeting 35 of the world’s most challenged countries)
was designed to achieve a 50% improvement in levels of worldwide adult literacy by
2015. This program focuses on implementing research-­based literacy programs, as well
as a number of other projects designed to improve literacy. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0014/001411/141177e.pdf
10 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

•• 2010: The final version of CCSS was released in June 2010. These standards were
created with support of state leaders who recognized the need for U.S. students to remain
globally competitive (see further discussion later in this chapter).
CCSS joint international benchmarking report www.corestandards.org/assets/
0812benchmarking.pdf
•• 2013: To underscore the growing importance of the PISA, the Alliance for Excel-
lent Education and its partners hosted the first PISA day on December 3, 2013 to explore
results of the 2012 PISA, increasing awareness about PISA in the United States. www.
pisaday.org

New Developments

Researchers, policymakers, and educators around the globe are continuing to find
ways to collaborate on investigations that will provide insights about essential goals
for improving global literacy. While individual countries differ with respect to specific
social, economic, and literacy goals and practices within their borders, there is much to
be learned from comparative studies of reading comprehension from a global perspec-
tive. PISA and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) are pioneers
in this work.

Program for International Student Assessment

Since 2000 (and every third year thereafter), PISA has administered standardized tests
in reading, math, and science. Over 1 million 15-year-old students in over 70 countries
(accounting for over 90% of the world economy) have participated in this assessment
(PISA, 2013), which was developed by literacy experts selected from many of these coun-
tries. The primary aim of PISA is to determine the extent to which young people have
acquired the wider knowledge and skills in reading, mathematics, and science that they
will need in adult life, including assessment of cross-­curricular competencies. It examines
the extent to which students are able to extrapolate from what they have learned and
apply their knowledge in both familiar and novel settings, including school and non-
school contexts.
For PISA, reading literacy is defined as “an individual’s capacity to: understand,
use, reflect on and engage with written texts, in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop
one’s knowledge and potential, and to participate in society” (Organisation for Economic
Co-­operation and Development [OECD], 2009, p. 14). The concept of reading literacy in
PISA is defined by three dimensions: (1) text format: including print and electronic texts
that occur in both continuous (e.g., texts or prose organized in sentences and paragraphs)
and noncontinuous (e.g., lists, forms, graphs, diagrams) texts (the addition of electronic
texts began with the 2009 assessment); (2) reading processes (aspects): including access
and retrieval of information, forming a broad general understanding of the text, inter-
preting it, reflecting on its contents, and reflecting on its form and features; and (3)
situations: including the use for which the text was constructed (e.g., personal, public,
occupational, or educational). Thus, PISA results report on students’ ability to access and
retrieve, integrate and interpret, and reflect and evaluate using both print and electronic
texts written for a variety of situations (see OECD, 2009, for a full description of the
conceptual framework underlying the PISA assessment of reading literacy).
Beyond Borders 11

For reporting of PISA results, countries are placed into one of three categories: (1)
statistically significantly above the OECD average, (2) not statistically different from the
OECD average, and (3) statistically significantly below the OECD average. For the 2012
assessment, the United States was in the second category—­not statistically different from
the average. Shanghai and Hong Kong in China, Singapore, Japan, and Korea were the
five highest performing countries and economies in reading. Shanghai had a mean score
of 570 points—­the equivalent of more than 1.5 years of schooling above the OECD
average of 496 points. Twenty-two other countries and economies performed above the
OECD average. Interestingly, the top five countries in 2000 (Finland, Canada, New Zea-
land, Australia, and Ireland) were no longer in the top five by 2012, although all still
performed in the above average range.
The United Kingdom, the United States, Denmark, and the Czech Republic per-
formed in the average range (scores between 493 and 499), and 39 countries performed
below the average. The United States had a score of 504 in 2000 and 498 in 2012, remain-
ing relatively unchanged (see OECD, 2014, p. 183, for a complete summary of results). In
2000, PISA began with 43 participating countries and subnational educational systems,
growing to 64 countries in 2012 (http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/countries.asp).
The OECD piloted a new test in 2012, based on frameworks used in the PISA assess-
ment and statistically linked to the PISA scales. This assessment, called the “OECD Test
for Schools” in the United States, is available to individual schools to benchmark their
performance internationally (www.americaachieves.org/oecd).

Progress in International Reading Literacy Study

Begun in 2001, PIRLS is the successor to the IEA studies that started in 1970 and con-
tinued through the 1991 Reading Literacy Study. This assessment is given every 5 years.
It is an international comparative study measuring trends in reading achievement, and
reading behaviors and attitudes of fourth-­grade students in the United States and other
participating countries. Participation in PIRLS has grown from 36 educational systems
(including the United States) in 2001, to 53 participating entities in 2011. In the United
States alone, PIRLS has grown from 174 participating schools (3,763 students) to 370
schools (12,726 students). Like PIRLS, the Trends in International Mathematics and Sci-
ence Study (TIMSS) is also sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences and provides
an international benchmark of these content areas.
PIRLS, which comprises a written reading comprehension test and a background
survey about reading behaviors and attitudes, focuses on three aspects of reading: (1)
purposes of reading (both for literary experience and to acquire and use information);
(2) processes of comprehension (constructing meaning from text, which includes retriev-
ing information, making inferences, interpreting and integrating ideas and information,
and examining and evaluating content, language, and textual elements; and (3) reading
behaviors and attitudes. A written test of reading comprehension encompasses the first
two aspects, and a student background questionnaire is used to collect data for the third
aspect (http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/international/faqs.asp).
PIRLS and PISA work together to provide data on students at two key points in
schooling: fourth grade and at age 15 (which is the end of compulsory education for
most students worldwide). They also provide countries with data regarding within-­
school, between-­school, and between-­country variance, as well the possible factors for
these variances. These tests also supply data regarding achievement variances among and
within different domains of literacy, including reading comprehension.
12 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

Common Core State Standards

The CCSS initiative is a state-led effort begun under the sponsorship of the National
Governors Association and the Council of Chief of State School Officers. The foreword
for a report published by the National Governors Association states that “the new eco-
nomic realities mean it no longer matters how one U.S. state compares to another on a
national test; what matters is how a state’s students compare to those in countries around
the globe” (National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers, &
Achieve, 2008, p. 1). To remain competitive, state leaders within the United States, as
well as leaders in many other countries, have recognized that they must benchmark their
education systems with the best in the world. This has become even more salient for U.S.
leaders, who have seen their international rankings on educational assessments decline in
recent years. The report published by the National Governor’s Association states that the
U.S. global rankings are not slipping because U.S. education is regressing, but because
educational progress in other countries has surged. Many countries that formerly lagged
behind have now caught up to or surpassed the United States (National Governors Asso-
ciation et al., 2008; see p. 16).
To maintain competiveness it is important to know best practices used in other coun-
tries, to help in seeking insights into strengthening education in our own country.
Within the report, the International Benchmarking Advisory Group called on state
leaders to take the following action steps to help states update policy in areas that will
have high impact on student performance and where research has shown significant dif-
ferences between high-­performing countries or states and approaches traditionally used
by the United States (National Governors Association et al., 2008; see p. 23).

• Action Step 1: Upgrade state standards by adopting a common core of internation-

ally benchmarked standards in math and language arts for grades K–12 to ensure
that students are equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills to be globally
competitive.
• Action Step 2: Leverage states’ collective influence to ensure that textbooks, digi-
tal media, curricula, and assessments are aligned to internationally benchmarked
standards and draw on lessons from high-­performing nations and states.
• Action Step 3: Revise state policies for recruiting, preparing, developing, and sup-
porting teachers and school leaders to reflect the human capital practices of top-­
performing nations and states around the world.
• Action Step 4: Hold schools and systems accountable through monitoring, inter-
ventions, and support to ensure consistently high performance, drawing on inter-
national best practices.
• Action Step 5: Measure state-level education performance globally by examining
student achievement and attainment in an international context to ensure that,
over time, students are receiving the education they need to compete in the 21st-­
century economy.

How This New Knowledge Can Improve Comprehension Instruction

The international plan of action proposed by UNESCO for the Literacy Decade included
six components (1) policy change, (2) development of flexible programs that suit peo-
ple’s different needs, (3) capacity building to reinforce the professional corps working in
Beyond Borders 13

literacy, (4) research to better understand the problems and how they can be dealt with,
(5) community participation, and (6) monitoring and creating evaluations to measure
progress (“United Nations launches,” 2003). The unifying concept of a global literacy
movement is one that, by its nature, will highlight strategies that work across borders.
By broadening our geographic reach and interactivity though technology, programs, and
partnerships, we are creating new possibilities to help in our quest of achieving literacy
for all.
Reading comprehension instruction will also be enhanced by student engagement
in the global literacy discourse itself. Such interactions will foster connections that bring
relevance to instructional activities, as well as empowerment to students. Advancements
in technology will continue to dismantle barriers to multinational student interactions,
and a growing number of websites foster such discourse (see “Summary” for website
examples).

Directions for Future Research

1. What are some ways that we can utilize data from PIRLS and PISA to inform
comprehension research and practice? For example, U.S. researchers (e.g., Binkley &
Kelly, 2003) performed a comparison of the PIRLS and National Assessment of Educa-
tional Progress (NAEP) test (both of which assess fourth-­grade reading skills) to see how
data from both tests can work together to create a richer understanding of fourth-­grade
reading achievement. We need to create other, new ways to utilize this rich data source
effectively.
2. How can classroom instructional practices that have been shown to be successful
in one country be modified to meet the needs of another country? For instance, how can
we identify where the cultural climate of the classroom is different or how differences
between languages limit the international transferability of data? Researchers will need
to explore methods that are working in other countries, then validly transfer such prac-
tices into workable formats for their own country. When this goal is attained, we can
more rapidly build a stronger foundation of what comprehension truly entails.
3. How can research in comprehension instruction (for one language) inform com-
prehension instruction in another language? Should language differences be seen as a bar-
rier to providing insightful reading comprehension research data? For instance, Goswami
(2002, 2006; Goswami, Ziegler, Dalton, & Schneider, 2003; Ziegler & Goswami, 2005)
has investigated the ease and difficulty of learning to read across languages and compared
the differences in learning to read across various languages. Such future research projects
hold promise for expanding the ability of literacy researchers and practitioners to reduce
language barriers, and to increase their opportunities share and learn from each other.

Summary

While it is important to focus on individualized instruction and the individual needs of

students, it is equally important to balance that approach with a broader perspective
of what students around the globe have in common. The skills of good comprehension
are universal and transcend languages. Through international benchmark assessments,
educators, researchers, and policymakers from all countries now have data to help them
14 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

gain or retain competitiveness in the global economy by discovering the best practices of
high-­ranking countries and adapting these to their own educational systems.
Also, educators and students will increasingly self-­identify as being part of a global
community as they increasingly interact and are assessed across international borders.
The websites listed below show how five forward-­thinking groups have already entered
into this new global literacy interactivity and the impact they are having on how we con-
ceptualize reading comprehension research and practice.

Literacy.org
Literacy.org (http://literacy.org/home) includes both the National Center for Adult Lit-
eracy (NCAL) and the International Literacy Institute (ILI). The ILI was established by
UNESCO and the University of Pennsylvania to provide leadership in research, develop-
ment, and training in the field of international literacy and educational development.
This website is an important resource for research and information on literacy in the
United States and internationally, with an emphasis on developing countries.

Kidlink
Kidlink (www.kidlink.org) is an award-­winning website owned by a nonprofit Norwe-
gian organization called the Kidlink Society. It is a place at which kids can collaborate
and network with friends around the world, while receiving help in understanding them-
selves, identifying personal interests, and defining goals for life. This site is designed to
alleviate language barriers and offers translations in many different languages. If a child’s
language is not found among the 40 translations listed, he or she can request a translation
into his or her language. This site also offers teachers ideas on how to use Kidlink website
activities to build reading comprehension skills.

Global Nomads Group

Founded in 1998, the Global Nomads Group (GNG; www.gng.org) is a nonprofit organi-
zation dedicated to heightening children’s understanding and appreciation for the world
and its people. Using interactive technologies such as videoconferencing, GNG brings
young people together face-to-face to meet across cultural and national boundaries to
discuss (through translation devices) their differences and similarities, and the world
issues that affect them. These videoconferences engage multiple regions of the brain and
infuse real-time instruction to build immediate reading comprehension.

Global SchoolNet
Global SchoolNet (www.globalschoolnet.org/FAQs.cfm#50) is a nonprofit organization
that brings innovative collaborative learning activities that are Web-based or on CD-
ROM to educators and students around the world, free of charge.

Global Conversations in Literacy Research

Global Conversations in Literacy Research (GCLR; http://globalconversationsinliteracy.
wordpress.com) was established to engage global audiences in significant conversations
about literacy. GCLR is a series of interactive, open access Web seminars that feature
Beyond Borders 15

current literacy research conducted by international literacy researchers. The mission of

GCLR is to use networked technologies to connect global audiences in a virtual space
that allows participants to exchange ideas on literacy theory, research, and practice. Each
year, GCLR features scholars whose work addresses a range of literacy areas of interest
to international audiences.
There are multiple ways to participate in GCLR:

• Web seminars using the chat format allow participants to pose questions to the
speaker and engage in discussions.
• Learning groups in which participants can engage in discussions with others dur-
ing a Web seminar and form learning groups around issues.
• After-­session Twitter discussions following each presentation allow participants
to tweet (#gclr_gsu) their thinking about issues raised during the session.
• Facebook provides updates on the Web seminar series.
• GCLR YouTube channel allows access to Web seminars presented since 2011.

GCLR can be a helpful and informative resource for courses, organizations in lit-
eracy, and individuals interested in global literacy issues. In 2013–2014, seminars were
conducted by Brian Street (United Kingdom), Hilary Janks (South Africa), Jack Richards
(Australia), Joyce King (USA), Ryuko Kubota (Canada), Kenneth and Yetta Goodman
(United States), and Catherine Beavis (Australia).

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. In what specific ways has the information in this chapter expanded your understanding about how
your work is situated within a global context? List one action you can take to move beyond the literal
and figurative borders of your work so as to continue to advance a global perspective of reading
comprehension.
2. As you visit two or more of the websites discussed in this chapter, list ideas, projects, or activities
contained within them that might inspire action for your own classroom or research. Thinking about
items on your list, choose one on which you would like to focus. Why does this appeal to you?
How might you use this idea, project, or activity to bring a broader focus to your own instruction or
research?
3. Think about one country other than your own that interests you, or that has shown a high level of
literacy achievement recently through the PISA or the PIRLS. See if you can find out what types of
literacy instructional practices are commonly used in this country for the subject area and grade
level(s) that interest you. What are similarities and differences compared to common practices in your
own country? How does this knowledge affect your thinking about your own instruction or research?

References

Binkley, M., & Kelly, D. A. (2003). A content comparison of the NAEP and PIRLS fourth-­grade
reading assessments. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Goswami, U. (2002). Phonology, reading development, and dyslexia: A cross-­linguistic perspec-
tive. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 141–163.
Goswami, U. (2006). Reading and its development: Insights from brain science. Literacy Today,
46, 28–29.
Goswami, U., Ziegler, J. C., Dalton, L., & Schneider, W. (2003). Nonword reading across
16 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

orthographies: How flexible is the choice of reading units? Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(2),
235–247.
National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers, & Achieve (2008).
Benchmarking for success: Ensuring U.S. students receive a world-class education. Wash-
ington, DC: National Governors Association. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/
assets/0812benchmarking.pdf.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002). Public Law No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425. Retrieved from
www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.
Organisation for Economic Co-­operation and Development (OECD). (2009). PISA 2009 assess-
ment framework: Key competencies in reading, mathematics, and science. Paris, France:
Author.
Programme for International Student Assessment. (2013). PISA website. Retrieved from www.
oecd.org/pisa/about pisa.
Shanahan, T. (2006). Letter of greetings (Program from the 21st World Congress on Reading).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Turbill, J. (2002, February). The four ages of reading philosophy and pedagogy: A framework for
examining theory and practice. Reading Online, 5(6). Retrieved from www.readingonline.
org/international/inter_index.asp?href=turbill4/index.html.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2004). The Lit-
eracy Decade: Getting started. Paris: Author. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0013/001354/135400e.pdf.
United Nations launches literacy decade. (2003). Reading Today, 20(5), 44.
Ziegler, J., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled read-
ing across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychology Bulletin, 131(1), 3–29.
 Chapter 2

Comprehension Instruction
from a Critical Theory Viewpoint

Bogum Yoon

Reading the world by reading the word.

—Paulo F reire (1998, p. xiii)

W hat is the goal of teaching reading? Is it for comprehension? If so, comprehension

about what? What is the purpose of comprehension? In this chapter, these funda-
mental questions are considered from a viewpoint of critical theory to discuss teachers’
comprehension instruction in the U.S. context. The opening quotation signals the frame-
work of this chapter: The purpose of comprehension instruction is to empower students
by assisting them to read the world and recreate it for social justice. As I write this chapter
within a particular theoretical framework of critical literacies, teachers also often con-
duct their practice using a certain conceptual lens. By discussing reading from critical
perspectives, this chapter aims to help teachers expand their lens on reading and invites
them to implement critical literacies concepts into their comprehension instruction.
Critical literacies involve both reading and writing practices. However, for the
purpose of this chapter on comprehension instruction, I particularly focus on reading
practices. I broadly define critical literacies as cultural, social, and political practices
that examine the relationship between language and power in texts. The term critical
originated from the Greek word kriticos which is “the ability to argue and judge” (Luke,
2012, p. 5). Accordingly, the meaning of critical can be understood from the concept of
“critique.” I intentionally use the plural form critical literacies in this chapter to empha-
size that rather than being a fixed practice, it is diverse and multiple processes and prac-
tices in cultural, social, and political contexts. Within these plural forms of literacies,
texts are defined as printed and nonprinted materials, such as pictures.
I write this chapter based on the gap in the previous dominant discourse on reading
comprehension in the United States. Over decades, reading comprehension has often been

17
18 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

viewed using linguistic and cognitive lenses that tend to focus on reading as individual
and isolated skills sets, without much attention to the influence of cultural and histori-
cal contexts on reading (Muspratt, Luke, & Freebody, 1997). I challenge this view of
reading as limited and incomplete, aligned with the contemporary critical scholars (Gee,
1996; Luke & Freebody, 1999; Morrell, 2008; Moje & Luke, 2009; Shannon, 2002) who
emphasize sociopolitical aspects of reading.
Another rationale for writing this chapter is related to my experiences. I work with
preservice and inservice teachers on a daily basis. For the past 10 years, I have found that
many teachers who are taking the first literacy foundation course in a graduate program
have not heard about “critical literacies.” Although there are some who have heard about
them, they seem to understand them in a different way. For example, I observed that
many preservice and inservice teachers view critical reading and thinking as equivalent
to higher order thinking. Higher order thinking, such as reasoning and inferring skills, is
not necessarily critical thinking, which involves critical consciousness and social action
(Freire, 1970), but I found that these two concepts are often viewed as being identical.
Based on these experiences as a teacher educator and researcher in the field of critical
literacies, I attempt to provide teachers with broader perspectives of reading from a criti-
cal stance. Throughout this chapter, I discuss the overview of critical literacies and sug-
gest future directions relative to comprehension instruction. More specifically, I highlight
critical reading in this chapter by discussing the following:

• Theoretical foundation of critical literacies.

• Contemporary research on critical literacies.
• Practical suggestions for promoting instructional practice of reading comprehen-
sion through critical literacies.

Theoretical Foundation of Critical Literacies

In this section, I discuss the theoretical foundation of critical literacies by focusing on

how the theory is linked to other existing relevant theories that were developed and are
now prominent in the United States.

Critical Literacies Theory and Relevant Theories

No literacy theory is constructed alone, and critical literacy theory is no exception. It is
important to examine relevant theories, because they give insights into how the theory
of critical literacies has developed. First, critical literacies theory shares common aspects
with sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) by being rooted in constructivism. By focus-
ing on the reader’s identities, both sociocultural and critical literacies theories emphasize
the agency of the reader in comprehending the text. Both theories see reading compre-
hension as an active and complex process, as opposed to behaviorist perspectives, which
view it as a passive linear skill and “a behavior composed of isolated skills” (Tracey &
Morrow, 2012, p. 41). The view of reading as a dynamic process shapes the teacher’s role
as a facilitator so that the student is able to construct and reconstruct the text rather than
transmit what the author says.
Critical literacies theory is also relevant to sociocultural theory, which pays atten-
tion to the cultural, historical, and social context to understand the text. The importance
of the context in critical literacies practices is shown through the work of sociocultural
A Critical Theory Viewpoint 19

scholars. For instance, Bakhtin’s (1981) concept of heteroglossia, simultaneous existence

of diversity within a language (Ivanov, 2001), indicates that reading is multiple and com-
plex, and can be understood from a particular context. Another sociocultural theorist,
Gee (1990, 1996, 2008) also illustrates the importance of the context through his semi-
nal work on the difference between discourse (small d to represent language itself) and
Discourse (capital D to represent language in use for social practice). Gee (1990) stresses
that “what is important is not language, surely not grammar, but saying (writing)–doing–
being–­valuing–­believing combinations” (p. 142). These combinations are what he termed
Discourse, the language use in social context. The context includes not only the place and
the time but also the reader’s past experiences. Therefore, sociocultural theory implies
that the teacher’s role is to help students bring their cultural identities and backgrounds to
the forefront in understanding the language and the text, which is the major component
of critical literacies.
Along with these sociocultural perspectives of reading, Rosenblatt’s (1978) trans-
actional theory also shares similar aspects with critical literacies theory by focusing on
the significance of the reader’s identities and the social context to interpret beyond a
single meaning of the text. Transactional theory implies that the reader transacts with
the author to make meaning of the text, which is only ink and paper without the reader
(Rosenblatt, 1978). It illustrates that reading is not a one-way transfer of the author’s
point of view to readers; rather, it is a back-and-forth, active transaction between the
reader and the author in a given context. Rosenblatt intentionally used the term “transac-
tion,” compared to the term interaction, to illustrate the equal and dynamic role between
the reader and the text.
In her quote, Rosenblatt (1984) recognizes the relationship between the word and
the world, as does critical theory, by describing aesthetic reading as “what we are seeing
and feeling and thinking, on what is aroused within us by the sound of the words, and by
what they point to in the human and natural world” (p. 70). In transactional theory, the
word and the world are not separate concepts, since the reader is “living through during
his relationship with that particular text” (Rosenblatt, 1978, p. 25). This aspect implies
that the teacher’s role is to help the student to understand the world through the word by
actively transacting with the author.
With these shared commonalities among the theories, however, the major differ-
ence is that critical literacies theory focuses more on language of power and ideology in
the text than sociocultural theory and transactional theory. Critical literacies involve all
dimensional reading practices: “second guessing, reading against the grain, asking hard
and harder questions, seeing underneath, behind, and beyond texts, trying to see and
‘call’ how these texts establish and use power over us, over others, on whose behalf, in
whose interests” (Luke, 2004, p. 4). As shown in this quote, compared to sociocultural
and transactional theories, critical literacies pay more attention to whose voice is heard
or silenced and how the power structure exists in the language. The premise of critical
literacies is that the text and the language are never neutral (Bakhtin,1981; Hunt, 1992;
Luke & Freebody, 1999; Vasquez, 2010), and they are designed to position the reader in
a particular way.
In this frame, there is no absolute truth, and all texts including printed and non-
printed materials need to be examined and re-­created. The fundamental ideas of critical
literacies have developed against the principles of New Criticism that promotes “close
reading.” By focusing on the structure in the analysis of the text, New Criticism does not
pay much attention to the social, cultural, and historical context, the reader’s response,
and the author’s intention. Compared to this New Criticism movement, by eliciting
20 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

students’ critical consciousness about the text and the world, critical literacies empha-
size the teacher’s role in adding the dimension of “critical edge” to the student’s reading
comprehension. The premise of the teacher’s role based on critical literacies theory is that
the student’s different perspectives and identities need to be involved in teaching reading
comprehension.

Critical Literacies in the U.S. Historical Context

These pluralistic views of reading are important to consider in regard to how critical
literacies have developed in the United States, in which they have a comparatively short
history. It was fueled by the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s that focused on social
justice. Perspectives of critical literacies are rooted in critical theory, which is concerned
with the empowerment of human beings (Creswell, 2003). The basic tenets of feminist
theory and culturally relevant pedagogy (Au & Jordan, 1981; Ladson-­Billings, 1994,
1995) that challenge the status quo of the dominant culture are aligned with the com-
ponents of critical literacies theories. By paying particular attention to underrepresented
minority groups of students, critical literacies in the United States have been initiated
and have developed along with the multicultural education movement, which focuses on
educational equality and social justice.
Some scholars (e.g., Gee, 1996; Morrell, 2008) note that critical literacies theory
originated from Greek scholars such as Socrates and Plato. However, the modern concept
of critical literacies that focuses on language, ideology, and power has been largely influ-
enced by Brazilian scholar Paolo Freire, a pioneering philosopher of critical pedagogy
(McLaren, 2000). Freire’s (1970) contribution to the literacy field is immense (Glass,
2001). Through his seminal book Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), he describes teach-
ers’ roles as empowering students through the process of critical consciousness that he
defined as conscientization. This critical consciousness cannot be developed when stu-
dents are not given the opportunities to explore existing knowledge about the world.
Freire challenges the teacher’s role as a knowledge transmitter by addressing the issue
of “banking education.” In the banking education model, in which teachers “deposit”
their knowledge in students who are “depositories,” there is no room in the instruction to
empower students to read the text. Due to the social and political characteristic of texts,
Freire reminds teachers not to position students as passive ones who simply absorb the
author’s statements as truth and fact. McLaughlin and DeVoogd (2004) eloquently sum-
marize Freire’s (1970) critical literacy concept: “Critical literacy views readers as active
participants in the reading process and invites them to move beyond passively accepting
the text’s message to question, examine, or dispute the power relations that exist between
readers and authors. It focuses on issues of power and promotes reflection, transforma-
tion, and action” (p. 14).
The legacy of Freire’s reading comprehension concept is shown throughout many
scholarly works in the literacy field. Critical literacy theory has been developed by many
educational scholars, including Ira Shor, Colin Lankshear, Peter McLaren, Henry Gir-
oux, Patrick Shannon, Allan Luke, Hilary Janks, and Barbara Comber. The Australian
scholar, Allan Luke, made a particularly noticeable contribution to the U.S. literacy field.
Under the criticism that critical literacy is complex and vague in terms of implementation
in the classroom, Luke makes critical theoretical concepts more applicable for teachers
by developing four resource models with his colleague (Luke & Freebody, 1999). These
models (e.g., code breaking, meaning making, text using, and text critiquing) provide
teachers with guidelines on how to teach reading comprehension. Luke reminds teachers
A Critical Theory Viewpoint 21

that the models are not hierarchical in order and need to be integrated with each other.
The models show that reading comprehension is incomplete when text-­critiquing prac-
tices are missing in teachers’ instruction. These particular practices allow students to
position themselves as analysts and critics of texts, which is crucial for students’ owner-
ship of reading to name and rename the world.
Compared to Luke’s models on how to use texts on a microlevel of discourse analy-
sis, Lewison, Flint, and Van Sluys (2002) seem to provide a broader guideline on how to
teach critical reading by synthesizing previous research. They provide a four-­dimensional
framework: disrupting the commonplace, interrogating multiple viewpoints, focusing on
the sociopolitical issues, and taking action. As shown in multiple studies (e.g., Luna et
al., 2004; Lee, 2012), these four dimensions seem to be used continuously as guidelines
when teachers implement critical literacy in the classroom. The incorporation of Lewison
et al.’s (2002) framework within the classroom indicates that these scholars have made a
noticeable contribution to the U.S. critical literacy field.
These specific models have continuously been developed for classroom teachers, but
researchers with diverse lenses and foci often use critical literacies concepts within the
U.S. educational field. For example, critical literacies have often been discussed through
the lens of “new literacies” (New London Group, 1996) by focusing on technology (e.g.,
Alvermann, 2008; Alvermann, Moon, & Hagood, 1999; Lankshear & Knobel, 2011),
popular culture (e.g., Mahiri, 1998; Morrell, 2008), or multiple literacies (e.g., Harste,
2003). The approaches among these “new literacies” are slightly different, but their theo-
retical orientation is similarly rooted in poststructuralism, which values pluralistic ideas
of reading and different forms of representation.
Diverse approaches are key to critical reading: “There is no single or simple or uni-
fied approach to critical literacy. . . . They don’t purport to provide a universal, incon-
testable, scientific answer about how to teach. Instead, they very deliberately open up
a universe of possibilities, of possible critical readings, critical reading positions and
practices” (Luke, 2004, p. 5). Due to this nature of complex and diverse forms of criti-
cal literacies, scholars in the field have a dilemma in completely capturing what critical
literacies actually are and what applications of critical literacies theory look like. The
dilemma comes from the basic tenets of critical literacies. Since critical literacy promotes
diverse approaches to reading, a critical approach is not reducible to a fixed and stable
teaching technique, method, or approach (Pennycook, 1999). This dilemma of the critical
researcher might continue unless the criticism is resolved: “Critical theory is abstract and
far removed from the everyday life of schools” (Breunig, 2005, p. 110). These critiques
appear to prompt researchers in relevant fields to focus more on classroom applications,
and to urge them to design more specific models and guidelines, as shown in the examples
in Luke and Freebody’s (1999) and Lewison et al.’s (2002) work.

Contemporary Research Trend on Critical Literacies

As discussed in the previous sections, critical literacies have a strong theoretical, histori-
cal, and philosophical foundation, rooted in critical theory, which is concerned with the
empowerment of human beings. Critical literacies have increasingly become recognized
as important in the literacy field, as evidenced by the fact that the current edition of this
book has added this as a new chapter. However, the complex definitions and applica-
tions of critical literacies seem to cause misunderstanding for teachers. In response to the
urgent call for teacher applications of critical literacies, contemporary researchers tend to
22 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

pay more attention to classroom examples. This section focuses on several studies con-
ducted from 2000 to the present that reflect the current trend of research in the critical
literacies field.
The studies that use the framework of critical literacies are diverse and discuss ado-
lescent reading in terms of issues including technology and identity, thereby broadening
the realm of reading to adolescents’ cultures and environments outside of the classroom.
Much research in these areas uses the framework of “new literacies” that include digital
literacy, media literacy, and popular culture. For example, Morrell (2008) shares how his
urban adolescent students in an English language arts class construct and reconstruct
their identities by using hip-hop music as an important text. Teachers need to provide
many opportunities for students to connect their outside lives to texts, and can do so with
more creativity, such as that demonstrated by Morrell.
Along with the earlier study by Morrell (2008), Yoon’s study (2013) also targets ado-
lescents in the classroom. Yoon discusses how the teacher who defines herself as a critical
teacher promotes students’ critical thinking by encouraging them to think from multiple
perspectives rather than reading the text from one side, the author’s point of view. The
interesting finding is that despite the teacher’s implementation of critical literacy concepts
in the classroom through dialogue, students feel that this is a routine and less engaging
way to focus on multiple perspectives. The study suggests that the teacher’s passion about
critical literacy is not sufficient, and more dynamic activities that enable adolescent stu-
dents to connect to their current life are needed.
Aside from these studies focusing on adolescents, recent studies in the field of critical
literacies also focus on teachers who work with younger students (e.g., de Silva & Hill,
2013; Leland & Huber, 2008; Rogers & Labadie (in press); Sahni, 2001; Vasquez, 2010;
Wetzel, Peterson, Weber, & Steinbach, 2013). Some teachers may think that critical lit-
eracy is appropriate for older students but not for younger children. Due to the nature of
social and political reading, teachers might not believe it is an age-­appropriate practice
for younger students. The lack of young participants in past studies seems to confirm this
concern. Before the 2000s, critical literacy practice among younger students had not been
widely discussed in the United States. Although there are some studies (e.g., Comber,
2001; O’Brien, 2001), these were situated in countries outside of the United States, such
as Australia.
However, since 2000, critical literacies research has targeted more young students,
as shown in the numerous studies that focus on PreK–6 grade levels. Students need to be
aware of this concept in order to develop a richer understanding of the world as they age
and develop. For example, Vasquez (2010) provided specific examples of eight teachers
who work in the K–6 classroom settings. The students engaged in the critical literacy
practice by doing daily activities such as talking about books and acting on social issues
that come from their conversation. The Wetzel et al. study (2013) was also conducted
in an elementary classroom. In a fourth-­grade classroom setting, the three participant
teachers promoted students’ critical thinking through discussions of social issues during
read-aloud and independent reading.
Another distinctive point of current research is that critical literacies do not focus
solely on students in mainstream classrooms. Contemporary researchers also discuss
how critical literacy applies to all learners, including English language learners (ELLs) in
diverse classroom settings. For instance, Chun’s study (2009) focuses on promoting ELLs’
critical thinking by using a graphic novel, Maus, in the English as a second language (ESL)
classroom setting. In the study, students were encouraged to position themselves in the
character’s shoes and reconstruct the text with critical consciousness. In addition, Lau’s
A Critical Theory Viewpoint 23

study (2013) focused on beginning ELLs’ literacy practices through the curriculum of
discrimination and cultural adjustment. This study suggests that the students learned not
only language skills but also a sense of efficacy for social change. Both the Chun (2009)
and the Lau (2013) studies of ELLs indicate that critical literacy practice is successful
when teachers design curricula that are relevant to students’ social lives and culture.
Besides these empirical studies, several researchers who used content-­analysis meth-
odology discuss critical reading by using various texts, including multicultural literature.
For example, Yoon, Simpson, and Haag (2010) reviewed multicultural literature books
to examine the issues of cultural assimilation and cultural pluralism. They found that
some multicultural books are not “multicultural” but instead promote an assimilation
ideology. Based on these findings, the authors suggested the following ideas: (1) Teachers
help students read the book not only from a literary element perspectives but also from
social and political perspectives; (2) teachers help students to examine whether the text is
for all students, not just mainstream students; (3) teachers may also think about whether
their use of the text can develop students’ critical thinking, beyond higher order thinking.
In summary, the reviewed studies suggest that, although the focus of the studies is
different, the common idea is that the teacher’s role in comprehension instruction is to
use diverse materials and approaches to challenge the status quo of the more traditional
canon and to create a potential model for social justice (Gates & Mark, 2006). Also, this
brief literature review of current studies indicates that critical literacies can be applied
to both young and older students, across the classroom settings, and across materials,
including multicultural literature and graphic novels.

Suggestions to Improve Comprehension Instruction

These findings of contemporary research, along with my experiences as a teacher educa-

tor and researcher, suggest several important implications for teachers’ instruction to
improve students’ comprehension. These practical suggestions are grounded in the frame-
work of Freirean theory, which advocates the teacher’s role as an agent for social change.
Freire asserts that teachers should encourage students to read text with an awareness of
power structures at work in society. Teachers who help students engage in reading might
consider the following:

1. Add more authentic dialogue in the classroom before reading around the topic.
Freire (1970) suggests that the dialogic form of education, rather than the banking educa-
tion model, be employed in the classroom. Dialogue is a necessary process for students’
empowerment: “Only those who listen, speak. Those who do not listen, end up merely
yelling, barking out the language while imposing their ideas” (Freire, 1997, p. 306). In this
dialogic process, a teacher might not position him- or herself as an authority figure who
delivers knowledge but as a listener and learner who produces knowledge with students.
Human beings are ontologically incomplete, and they learn and grow through question-
ing and examining the world (Freire, 1970). Teachers’ support to facilitate this process
through dialogue is necessary for students’ reading comprehension and empowerment.
2. Build in students’ minds a habit of posing questions and critiquing sociopolitical
issues on a daily basis. Developing students’ critical consciousness might be daunting in
the beginning, when students are familiar with traditional forms of reading: that is, find-
ing answers from the text as a passive reader. Teachers can be models for challenging this
24 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

practice. For example, they can start by questioning a political issue that they watched in
the news, such as the relationship and power issue between the United States and China.
In this 21st century, students need to work with students from outside of their own coun-
try. The teacher can promote students’ dialogue by talking about current political and
social issues around the world, such as Syrian chemical weapons and nuclear weapons in
North Korea. Through this exercise, teachers might encourage students to apply critical
literacies outside the classroom, such as when they are at home or communicating with
their parents and friends.
3. Provide students with as many opportunities as possible to reconstruct and rede-
sign the text. Freire (1970) notes that it is important for students to name and rename
the world by being engaged in texts. For instance, the picture book My Name Is Yoon
(Recorvits, 2003) can be recreated from the reader’s perspectives. Students can redesign
the book by presenting a voice that is silenced in the book. The key component of critical
literacy is to empower students by encouraging them to position themselves with agency.
Rather than just following what the authors present, encourage students to redesign the
text with their own voice (Janks, Dixon, Ferreira, Granville, & Newfield, 2013).
4. Broaden the realm of materials by including nonprinted reading materials and TV
shows. The classroom should be the safest place for students to feel comfortable to talk
about any issues around them and around the world. Ask students to bring any materi-
als that help them think critically. For example, encourage students to compare two TV
companies, such as Fox News and CNN, and how and why they portray the news in a
different way. Since critical literacies can be implemented using any types of materials,
bringing the news media and movies into the classroom might be useful for students to
make connections. More specifically, critiques of movies such as Red 2 can be based
on the stereotypes of certain ethnic groups. It is important to help students connect the
school curriculum to outside cultural, social, economic, and political issues. In this way,
students may feel that their learning in the classroom is connected to their daily life and
find meaningful social and political issues to explore.
5. Bring students’ cultures into the classroom. Accommodating students’ differ-
ent backgrounds and identities is another major component of critical literacy practices.
Among numerous reading strategies, making connections might be one of the most
important strategies that many related theories, including transactional theory, support.
Research shows that students are more engaged when reading materials are relevant to
their lives (Kamil, Pearson, Mosenthal, Afflerbach, & Moje, 2011). To help students act
for social justice, more dynamic activities that allow students to be involved with real-life
experiences might be needed for successful critical reading development.
6. Apply critical literacies concepts to any content area, with any student, and across
the year. The topic of critical literacies does not need to be covered as a curriculum at
a certain time, but it does need to apply to any content area, and across the year. Given
that studies indicate that critical literacies are for not only older students but also younger
students, it is important to involve all students, including ELLs, in the practice. As Lee
(2011) claims, it is a myth that the subject of critical literacies is for high-­ability students
only. All students’ critical consciousness can be developed earlier, and the practice needs
to be started earlier to build the habits of the critical mind.

There is no fixed form of critical literacies practice, and there are many diverse
dimensions of critical literacies (Lewison et al., 2002). The practice of critical litera-
cies can focus on not only social actions but also promotion of multiple perspectives.
A Critical Theory Viewpoint 25

However, the basic tenet of critical literacies is to empower students to read the world by
reading the word.

Summary

In this chapter, I have discussed comprehension instruction from a critical theory view-
point. My major purpose was to provide theoretical perspectives of critical literacies and
practical suggestions for teachers to help students engage in “a critical reading of reality”
(Freire & Macedo, 1987, p. 36). More specifically, I began this chapter by discussing the
need for critical reading in the 21st century. Relevant theories, including sociocultural
theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and transactional theory (Rosenblatt, 1978), are examined to
provide insights on how critical literacies theories have developed and how these theories
are interconnected with each other through major tenets.
By focusing on the historical and theoretical perspectives of critical literacies and
current research and practice of critical literacies, teachers will better understand how
comprehension instruction can play a role in helping students become global citizens in
the 21st century (Yoon & Sharif, in press). Given that teachers have traditionally taught
reading in a top-down manner, forcing students to be passive consumers of knowledge,
it is time to invite the new theoretical and pedagogical ideas of critical literacies into the
classroom to develop our students’ critical consciousness and transform our society.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

There are three questions that the reader of this chapter might consider when practicing critical literacies
for reading comprehension in the classroom. I hope teachers think about these questions and conduct
studies in their own classrooms with research questions that expand or confirm the existing research body
on comprehension instruction.

1. How can critical literacies practices be integrated across the curriculum in the classroom?
2. What happens to students’ participation and engagement in texts when critical literacies practices are
integrated for reading comprehension?
3. How do participation and engagement through critical literacies practices link to students’ becoming
citizens of the world?

As stated by Freire (1970), “Human activity consists of action and reflection: it is praxis, it is a
transformation of the world. And as praxis, it requires theory to illuminate it” (p. 125). I invite teachers
to involve with the praxis process to examine their own identities to build the possible world that they
imagine. Transformation of the world is only possible when teachers work with students as partners, not
over them, through a genuine dialogic process in the classroom. Like Freire (1998), who examined his
critical literacy theory’s strengths and limits, I hope we as literacy educators continue to question our own
theory and practice for our students’ successful learning and reading.

References

Alvermann, D. E. (2008). Commentary: Why bother theorizing adolescents’ online literacies Jour-
nal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52, 8–19.
Alvermann, D. E., Moon, J. S., & Hagood, M. S. (1999). Popular culture in the classroom:
26 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

Teaching and researching critical media literacy. Newark and Chicago: International Read-
ing Association and the National Reading Conference.
Au, K., & Jordan, C. (1981). Teaching reading to Hawaiian children: Finding a culturally appro-
priate solution. In H. T. Trueba, G. P. Guthrie, & K. H. Au (Eds.), Culture and the bilingual
classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography (pp. 139–152). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination:
Four essays (pp. 269–422). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Breunig, M. (2005). Turning experiential education and critical pedagogy theory into praxis, Jour-
nal of Experiential Education, 28(2), 106–122.
Chun, C. W. (2009). Critical literacies and graphic novels for English-­language learners: Teaching
“Maus.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53(2), 144–153.
Comber, B. (2001). Critical literacies and local action: Teacher knowledge and a “new” research
agenda. In B. Comber & A. Simpson (Eds.), Negotiating critical literacies in classrooms
(pp.271–282). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods approaches
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
de Silva, C. S., & Hill, M. A. (2013). Higher order reading skills and reader response theory:
Strategies for the classroom, International Journal for Innovation Education and Research,
1(2), 87–108.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Freire, P. (1997). A response. In P. Freire, J. Fraser, D. Macedo, T. McKinnon, & W. Stokes (Eds.),
Mentoring the mentor: A critical dialogue with Paulo Freire (pp. 303–329). New York: Peter
Lang.
Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare teach. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. P. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. South Hadley, MA:
Bergin & Garvey.
Gates, P. S., & Mark, D. L. H. (2006). Cultural journeys: Multicultural literature for children and
young adults. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Falmer Press.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London: Taylor
& Francis.
Gee, J. P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (3rd ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Glass, R. D. (2001). On Paulo Freire’s philosophy of praxis and the foundations of liberation edu-
cation. Educational Researcher, 30(2), 15–25.
Harste, J. (2003). What do we mean by literacy now? Voices from the Middle, 10(3), 8–12.
Hunt, P. (1992). Literature for children: Contemporary criticism. New York: Routledge.
Ivanov, V. (2001). Heteroglossia. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Key terms in language and culture
(pp. 95–97). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Janks, H., Dixon, K., Ferreira, A., Granville, S., & Newfield, D. (2013). Doing critical literacy:
Texts and activities for students and teachers. New York: Routledge.
Kamil, M., Pearson, P. D., Mosenthal, P., Afflerbach, P., & Moje, E. B. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook
of reading research (Vol. IV). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis.
Ladson-­Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teaching for African American stu-
dents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-­Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educa-
tional Research Journal, 32, 465–491.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learn-
ing (3rd ed.), Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Lau, S. M. (2013). A study of critical literacy work with beginning English language learners: An
integrated approach. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 10(1), 1–30.
A Critical Theory Viewpoint 27

Lee, C. J. (2011). Myths about critical literacy: What teachers need to unlearn. Journal of Lan-
guage and Literacy Education, 7(1), 95–102.
Lee, C. J. (2012). From disrupting the commonplace to taking action in literacy education. Journal
of Thought, 47(2), 6–18.
Leland, C., & Huber, K. (2008). Vignette: How critical picture books changed a first-grade class-
room. In M. Lewison, C. Leland, & J. Harste (Eds.), Creating critical classrooms: K–8 read-
ing and writing with an edge (pp. 61–63). New York: Erlbaum.
Lewison, M., Flint, A., & Van Sluys, K. (2002). Taking on critical literacy: The journey of new-
comers and novices. Language Arts, 79(5), 382–392.
Luke, A. (2004). Foreword. In M. McLaughlin & G. Devoogd (Eds.), Critical literacy: Enhancing
students’ comprehension of text (pp. 4–5). New York: Scholastic.
Luke, A. (2012). Critical literacy: Foundational notes. Theory Into Practice, 51, 4–11.
Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1999). A map of possible practices: Further notes on the four resources
model. Practically Primary, 4(2), 5–8.
Luna, C., Botelho, M. J, Fontaine, D., French, K., Iverson, K. & Matos, N. (2004). Making the
road by walking and talking: Critical literacy and/as professional development in a teacher
inquiry group. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(1), 67–80.
Mahiri, J. (1998). Shooting for excellence: African American and youth culture in new century
schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
McLaren, P. (2000). Paulo Freire’s pedagogy of possibility. In S. Steiner, H. Frank, P. McLaren, &
R. Bahruth (Eds.), Freirean pedagogy, praxis and possibilities: Projects for the new millen-
nium (pp. 1–21). New York: Falmer Press.
McLaughlin, M., & DeVoogd, G. (2004). Critical literacy: Enhancing students’ comprehension
of text. New York: Scholastic.
Moje, E. B., & Luke, A. (2009). Literacy and identity: Examining the metaphors in history and
contemporary research. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(4), 415–437.
Morrell, E. (2008). Critical literacy and urban youth: Pedagogies of access, dissent, and libera-
tion. New York: Routledge.
Muspratt, S., Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (Eds.). (1997). Constructing critical literacies: Teaching
and learning textual practice. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard
Educational Review, 66, 60–92.
O’Brien, J. (2001). Children reading critically: A local history. In B. Comber & A. Simpson (Eds.),
Negotiating critical literacies in classrooms (pp. 271–282). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pennycook, A. (1999). Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3),
329–348.
Recorvits, H. (2003). My name is Yoon. New York: Frances Foster.
Rogers, R., & Labadie, M. (in press). Critical literacy in a kindergarten classroom: An examina-
tion of social action. In B. Yoon & R. Sharif (Eds.), Critical literacy practice: Applications of
critical theory in diverse settings. Singapore: Springer.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary
work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1984). Literature as exploration. New York: Modern Language Association.
Sahni, U. (2001). Children appropriating literacy: Empowerment pedagogy from young children’s
perspective. In B. Comber & A. Simpson (Eds.), Negotiating critical literacies in classrooms
(pp. 19–35). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shannon, P. (2002). Critical literacy in everyday life. Language Arts, 79(5), 415–424.
Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. (2012). Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories and mod-
els (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Vasquez, V. (2010). Getting beyond “I like the book”: Creating spaces for critical literacy across
the curriculum. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

Wetzel, M. M., Peterson, K., Weber, N. U., & Steinbach, E. (2013). Public voices: Critical literacy
and newspaper writing in a fourth grade classroom. Critical Literacy: Theories and Prac-
tices, 7(1), 33–47.
Yoon, B. (2013, December). Toward critical multicultural literacy in the classroom: The teacher’s
practices and the student’s reactions. Paper presented at the annual conference of Literacy
Research Association, Dallas, TX.
Yoon, B., & Sharif, R. (in press). Future directions for critical literacy practice. Critical literacy
practice: Applications of critical theory in diverse settings. In B. Yoon & R. Sharif (Eds.),
Critical literacy practice: Applications of critical theory in diverse settings. Singapore:
Springer.
Yoon, B., Simpson, A., & Haag, C. (2010). Assimilation ideology: Critically examining underly-
ing messages in multicultural literature. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54(2),
109–118.
 Chapter 3

Using Inquiry Dialogue to Promote

the Development of Argument Skills
Possibilities, Challenges, and New Directions

Alina Reznitskaya, Judy Yu‑Li Hsu,

and Richard C. Anderson

Answers, solutions, and agreements are fleeting things in human history—­

while the fabric of dialogic interchange sustains the very human capacity
to generate and revise those provisional outcomes.
—Nicholas C. Burbules (1993, p. 144)

O ne of the most significant changes in literacy instruction today is the increased atten-
tion given to helping students develop the skills of argument. The latest edition of
the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative, currently adopted by 45 states,
describes “the unique importance of argument in college and careers,” stating that argu-
ment skills are “broadly important for the literate, educated person living in the diverse,
information-­rich environment of the twenty-­first century” (National Governors Associa-
tion Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010, p. 25). This
new direction reflects decades of theory and research supporting the need for students to
engage in argumentation throughout their schooling (e.g., Alexander, 2008; Anderson,
Chinn, Waggoner, & Nguyen, 1998; Kuhn, 1992; Lipman, 1991; Wegerif, Mercer, &
Dawes, 1999).
Unfortunately, typical classroom instruction today is not well aligned with the lofty
pedagogical goals of developing rational and independent thinkers. Instead of engaging
students in argumentation about meaningful problems, teachers often dominate class-
room discussions, during which they avoid contestable issues and require students “to
report on someone else’s thinking, rather than to think for themselves” (Alexander, 2005,
p. 2; Nystrand, Wu, Gamoran, Zeiser, & Long, 2003; Smith, Hardman, Wall, & Mroz,
2004). Such teaching practices have been termed monologic (Alexander, 2006; Nystrand
et al., 2003), because they reflect disproportionate authority over the content and form of

29
30 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

communication exercised by the teacher through asking scripted questions, which func-
tion simply to test students’ knowledge of predetermined, right answers.
In contrast, the use of dialogue in teaching assumes that students are active partici-
pants in their own learning, who make meanings and negotiate new understandings in
interaction-­rich communities of practice (Alexander, 2006; Mercer & Littleton, 2007;
Wells, 1999). During dialogic discussions, student participants share responsibility for
the key functions of talk traditionally reserved for teachers: They ask questions, nomi-
nate speakers, and evaluate the quality of the each other’s reasoning. Dialogic discussions
allow students to grapple with contestable questions or themes raised by the material
they read. The answers to these questions do not simply come from the teacher or the
textbook; they evolve as a result of the collective efforts of classroom members to reach
the most reasonable judgment.
In this chapter, we discuss the educational potential of classroom dialogue for help-
ing elementary school students become better thinkers. Specifically, we do the following:

• Revisit previously discussed theoretical framework of argumentation development

through dialogue, focusing on important clarifications and additions to the theory.
• Review empirical research examining the transfer of knowledge from dialogic dis-
cussions to individually performed tasks, and highlight more recent studies that
extend the use of a dialogue-­intensive pedagogy to different populations, learning
outcomes, and disciplinary contexts.
• Critically assess the strength of evidence in relation to transfer performance, dis-
cuss common methodological problems and inconsistencies in findings, and sug-
gest new fields of study.

Argument Schema Theory: Revisited and Expanded

In the previous edition of this volume, we presented a theoretical account of argumen-

tation development, which we named argument schema theory (AST). AST combines
social constructivist ideas about learning (e.g., Wells, 1999) with structuralist notions of
knowledge organization and storage (e.g., Anderson, 1977). Specifically, we suggested
that as students engage in dialogic group discussions around big, contestable questions
raised by their readings, they experience new ways of speaking and thinking. During the
discussions, students explain their thinking to others and react to the positions of their
peers by agreeing or disagreeing with them. This enables students to observe, practice,
and eventually internalize the skills of argumentation, made “visible” in interaction with
others. Consistent with sociocultural perspectives (Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Vygotsky,
1968; Wells, 1999), new behaviors observed in a social, external plane gradually become
part of one’s cognitive and social competence.
To further specify the learning outcomes resulting from students’ participation in
dialogic group discussions, we drew upon structuralist ideas about knowledge organi-
zation to develop the concept of an argument schema, which is a generalized mental
structure that represents knowledge about and skills of argumentation. To identify the
elements of an argument schema, we consulted the normative models proposed by argu-
mentation scholars (e.g., Toulmin, 1958; Walton, 1996). A developed argument schema
includes knowledge of logical structures, standards of evidence, and cognitive and social
strategies useful in argumentation. Because schemas are abstract, they can be generalized
across multiple contexts. Thus, we have proposed that learners with developed argument
Using Inquiry Dialogue to Promote the Development of Argument Skills 31

schemas should be able to access and use their abstract mental structures in new contexts
or, in other words, transfer their knowledge of argumentation.
In the past several years, we have continued to clarify and expand our theory of argu-
mentation development (Reznitskaya & Gregory, 2013; Reznitskaya & Wilkinson, 2015).
One important clarification has to do with the kind of dialogue that serves to enhance the
pedagogical potential of group discussions. Walton (1992) described six types of dialogue
with different origination points, individual objectives, and common goals. For example,
persuasion dialogue is initiated by a conflict of opinions. It has an individual goal of win-
ning over an opponent and a common goal of resolving disagreements. On the other hand,
inquiry dialogue starts with an open question. Its individual and collective goal is to find
the most reasonable judgment, thus adding to a group’s existing body of knowledge and
mutual understanding (Walton & Macagno, 2007). While discussion participants may
switch among different dialogue types (Gregory, 2006), we privilege inquiry dialogue as
the normative discourse for class discussions aimed at supporting argumentation develop-
ment. The reason is that the key feature of dialogue-­intensive instruction is the collabora-
tive nature of the engagement, during which individual participants are willing to revise
or abandon their initial positions to help with the common goal of moving the group
inquiry toward a sound conclusion. In other words, the focus is not on the claims and
reasons offered by individuals, but on building a complex group argument that integrates
the diversity of individual perspectives. Being aware of the normative discourse type is
important, because it determines the appropriateness of “moves” used during the dialogue
and the criteria for evaluating the quality of argumentation.
In the past several years, we also have continued to explore the relationship between
personal epistemology and argumentation. Following Kuhn and colleagues (Kuhn, 1999;
Kuhn, Cheney, & Weinstock, 2000; Kuhn & Udell, 2003), we propose that an advanced
level of epistemology is both a precondition for productive participation in inquiry dia-
logue and a learning outcome for the students (Reznitskaya & Gregory, 2013). In other
words, in order for teachers and students to work toward the main goal of inquiry dia-
logue, which is reaching the most reasonable judgment, they need to embrace the under-
lying assumptions about knowledge and knowing that make this goal worthwhile and
meaningful.
Let us illustrate the latter point using Kuhn’s (1991) hierarchical framework of epis-
temological development. According to Kuhn’s framework, people’s views about knowl-
edge and knowing can be grouped into three levels: absolutist, multiplist, and evalu-
atist. People with the most naive conceptions, or absolutists, fail to appreciate the need
to engage in inquiry dialogue, because they view knowledge as fixed, unchanging, and
known to authorities. Similarly, inquiry dialogue would not appear useful for multiplists,
who consider all viewpoints to be equally legitimate, discounting the role of counterar-
gument and refutation in improving the quality of resulting conclusions. In the words of
Bakhtin (1984), “both relativism and dogmatism equally exclude all argumentation, all
authentic dialogue, by making it either unnecessary . . . or impossible” (p. 69). Thus, we
propose that inquiry dialogue is better aligned with evaluatist epistemology. Represent-
ing the most advanced stage, evaluatists accept that knowledge is subjective and evolving.
However, they also recognize that certain methods of inquiry guard against certain kinds
of errors; that it is possible to evaluate different viewpoints in a systematic and rational
manner; and that, as a result, we have to consider some judgments to be more reasonable
than others.
To summarize, we believe that teachers need to embrace evaluatist epistemology
in order to model and support the normative participatory and discursive practices of
32 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

inquiry dialogue. As students take part in inquiry dialogue facilitated by a skilled teacher,
the capacities of the teacher and more advanced peers spread to other group members.
Consistent engagement in inquiry dialogue helps students to develop their argument sche-
mas and to advance their epistemology. In a cyclical process of individual and group
transformation, students with more developed argument schemas and epistemologies
act to enhance the quality of inquiry dialogue in the collective. Importantly, our theory
states that the new knowledge of argumentation acquired during group discussions can
be transferred to other tasks performed independently by individual students, such as
writing an essay about a contestable question. In the next section, we review empirical
evidence on transfer, discussing research that examines the possibility of internalization
of argument skills from social to individual planes.

Transfer of Knowledge from Social Contexts to Individual Tasks

Previously Documented Effects of Participation in Inquiry Dialogue on Reflective
Essay Writing
In our discussion of empirical research in the previous edition of this volume, we reviewed
four studies that examined the transfer potential of a dialogue-­intensive pedagogy called
collaborative reasoning (CR; Waggoner, Chinn, Yi, & Anderson, 1995). During CR, ele-
mentary school students engage in inquiry dialogue about controversial issues raised by
their readings. In small groups of six to eight participants, students present their positions
on the issue, offer reasons and evidence from the story and other sources, challenge peers
with counterarguments, and respond to challenges with rebuttals. The teacher’s role in
CR discussions is to support the social and cognitive development of the group by making
various facilitation moves, including prompting, asking for clarification, challenging, and
summarizing (Collaborative Reasoning Research Group, 2011).
Four studies of CR discussed in the previous edition of this volume used the same
quasi-­experimental design to investigate the effects of engagement in inquiry dialogue on
student performance. Intact elementary school classrooms were assigned to two treatment
conditions. In the CR condition, students participated in four to 10 CR discussions, while
in the control classrooms students engaged in their regular reading instruction. Following
the treatment, students in both conditions were asked to write a reflective essay. Students
were read a brief story, then were asked to write an essay about a moral dilemma facing
one of the story characters. The story was about an unpopular boy named Thomas, who
breaks the rules of the Pinewood Derby race by not building his car by himself. Thomas,
who eventually wins the race, confides to his classmate Jack that he did not follow the
rules of the competition. Jack faces the dilemma of whether or not to tell on Thomas. Stu-
dents in both treatment conditions were given 40–50 minutes to write a reflective essay
about whether Jack should tell on Thomas.
Raters blind to treatment condition scored the essays for the number of (1) reasons
supporting the chosen position, (2) reasons opposing the chosen position, (3) rebuttals,
and (4) total argument components (i.e., supporting reasons, opposing reasons, rebut-
tals). CR students generally performed better on outcome measures compared to controls.
The difference in the total number of argument components was statistically significant
in all four studies, “although not all multiple comparisons conducted to examine group
differences within individual schools or on separate outcome variables reached statisti-
cal significance” (Reznitskaya et al., 2008). We concluded that participation in dialogic
interaction led students to internalize common elements of argumentation, or develop
Using Inquiry Dialogue to Promote the Development of Argument Skills 33

their argument schemas. Students with more developed argument schemas were able to
transfer their knowledge of argumentation to the individual writing task, on a topic they
had not discussed previously.

Using CR with New Student Populations, Transfer Tasks, and across

Content Areas
Since the publication of the previous edition of this volume, researchers have further
investigated educational potential of CR using different student populations, various
transfer tasks, and new disciplinary contexts. To illustrate these recent developments, we
look closely at six representative studies that examined students’ transfer performance,
following their participation in CR discussions. Table 3.1 summarizes the methodology
and main findings of these studies.
These CR studies involved students from the United States, South Korea, and China
(Hsu, Zhang, & Anderson, 2013; Kim, Anderson, Miller, Jeong, & Swim, 2011; X.
Zhang et al., 2013). The studies included elementary-­age students and young adults who
participated in their native and second languages (Hsu et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2014; J.
Zhang et al., 2013; X. Zhang, Anderson, & Lin, 2014). In some of the studies, research-
ers continued to use the posttest reflective essay about Jack’s moral dilemma described
earlier (Kim et al., 2011; X. Zhang et al., 2013; X. Zhang et al., 2014). Other studies
examined new learning outcomes, such as oral narrative ability, oral argumentation,
reading comprehension, and attitudes toward learning English (Hsu et al., 2013; Ma et
al., 2014; J. Zhang et al., 2013). Finally, although CR research is typically conducted in
Language Arts classrooms, more recent studies adapted this approach to a new disciplin-
ary context of social studies (Ma et al., 2014; X. Zhang et al., 2014).
Methodologically, all of the previous studies were quasi-­experiments, with class-
rooms, rather than students, assigned to treatment conditions. The number of classrooms
in each treatment condition ranged from one to 12. In five studies, pretests were used to
match classrooms across treatment conditions (Hsu et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2011; Ma et
al., 2014; J. Zhang et al., 2013; X. Zhang et al., 2014). In two related studies, classrooms
were assigned to treatment conditions randomly (Ma et al., 2014; X. Zhang et al., 2014).
Five studies used non-­nested designs for statistical analysis, with a unit of analysis being
an individual student rather than a classroom. In the X. Zhang study (2014), researchers
used multilevel models to account for the nested structure of the data.
The results from these different investigations were generally positive, with CR stu-
dents outperforming their control counterparts on several measures. Specifically, these
studies revealed that students outside of the United States were able to benefit from par-
ticipating in CR discussions (Hsu et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2011; X. Zhang et al., 2013).
For example, after South Korean fourth graders participated in four CR discussions,
they wrote reflective essays containing significantly more reasons, counterarguments,
and rebuttals, compared to the students from control classrooms (Kim et al., 2011). How-
ever, in this study, the effects of CR intervention were not significant for U.S. students.
The authors emphasized the importance of documenting transfer effects of CR in South
Korea, because argumentation is not commonly practiced in Korean school or home set-
tings.
Similarly, another study reported that CR students from Chinese elementary class-
rooms demonstrated better reasoning in their reflective essays, compared to controls (X.
Zhang et al., 2013). When the authors further examined the types of reasons offered by
students from Chinese versus U.S. cultures, they found that Chinese students were more
 34 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

TABLE 3.1. Summary of Selected CR Studies

Authors Sample Design Results
Hsu, Chinese •• CR: 1 classroom 1. Significant CR effects in spontaneous
Zhang, & college •• Control: 1 classroom consideration of counterarguments and
Anderson students, •• Pretests: vocabulary test, rebuttals.
(2013) 19.5 years reading cloze test, language 2. Significant CR effects in rate of talk,
old, second history survey mazes, number of different words, mean
language, •• Posttests: oral interview length of utterance, and pauses within
n = 47 (other posttests were C-units (an independent clause plus all if
administered, but not its dependent clauses, if any).
examined in this study) 3. No significant CR effects on syntactic
complexity.

Kim, South •• CR: 5 Korean classrooms, 5 1. Significant CR effects for Korean students
Anderson, Korean and U.S. classrooms in the number of argument components
Miller, American •• Control: 5 Korean (i.e., reasons, counterarguments, and
Jeong, students, 4th classrooms, 5 U.S. rebuttals).
& Swim grade, first classrooms 2. No significant CR effects for U.S. students
(2011) language, •• Pretests: sociometric in the number of argument components.
n = 434 questionnaire, Gates– 3. Significant difference between the essays
MacGinitie reading of Korean and U.S. students in types of
comprehension test for reasons, use of argument elements, and use
U.S. students, standardized of rhetorical forms.
language arts test for 4. No significant difference in essay
Korean students organization between cultures or
•• Posttests: reflective essay conditions.

Ma et al. Hispanic •• Collaborative group work 1. Significant CG effects (vs. Direct

(2014) American (CG): 6 classrooms Instruction and Control conditions) in the
students, 5th •• Direct instruction: 6 number of errors and omissions.
grade, second classrooms 2. Significant CG effects on the length of
language, •• Control: 6 classrooms reasoning chains.
n = 210 •• Pretests: Gates–MacGinitie 3. Significant CG effects in syntactic
reading comprehension test, complexity between CG and Control
vocabulary assessment, conditions only.
rapid automatized naming 4. Mixed results on several measures of story
task, home-literacy survey, quality and coherence.
sociometric questionnaire 5. No significant CG effects in the length of
•• Posttests: narrative narrative, number of mazes, and language
storytelling (other posttests fluency among three conditions.
were administered but not
examined in this study)

J. Zhang, Hispanic •• CR: two classrooms (1 1. Significant CR effects on the number of

Anderson, American mainstream; 1 sheltered- argument components in reflective essays
& students, 5th bilingual) (i.e., reasons, counterarguments, and use
Nguyen- grade, second •• Control: two classrooms (1 of text evidence).
Jahiel language, mainstream; 1 sheltered- 2. Significant CR effects on SVT (Sentence
(2013) n = 75 bilingual) Verification Technique) reading test.
•• Pretest: vocabulary 3. Significant CR effects on positive attitudes
checklist, sentence toward learning English and motivation to
grammaticality judgment engage in discussions.
test, Gates–MacGinitie 4. Significant CR effects on SVT listening
reading comprehension test test in mainstream classrooms but not in
•• Posttest: SVT listening and sheltered-bilingual classrooms.
reading comprehension, 5. Mixed results on several measures of story
cloze reading quality, using the narrative storytelling
comprehension, narrative test.
storytelling, reflective essay, 6. No significant CR effects on cloze reading
attitude questionnaire test.
(continued)
 Using Inquiry Dialogue to Promote the Development of Argument Skills 35

TABLE 3.1. (continued)

Authors Sample Design Results
X. Zhang Chinese and •• CR: 2 Chinese classrooms, 1. Significant difference in consideration of
et al. U.S. students, 3 U.S. classrooms different moral principles and practical
(2013) 4th and 5th •• Control: 2 Chinese considerations between Chinese and
grades, first classrooms, 3 U.S. U.S. children, with Chinese children
language, classrooms considering a greater number of moral
n = 268 •• Pretest: none principals and practical considerations.
•• Posttest: reflective essay

X. Zhang, Hispanic •• CG: 12 classrooms 1. Significant CG effects vs. Direct

Anderson, and African •• Direct Instruction: 12 Instruction and Control conditions
& Lin American classrooms on the reflective essay task in terms of
(2014) students, 5th •• Control: 12 classrooms considering reasons on both sides of the
grade, first •• Pretests: Gates–MacGinitie issue and explicitly weighing different
and second reading comprehension test, options.
language, vocabulary assessment, 2. Significant CG effects vs. Direct
n = 764 rapid automatized naming Instruction, but not Control, on
task, home literacy survey, the reflective essay task in terms of
sociometric questionnaire recognizing the presence of a dilemma.
•• Posttests: reflective essay
(other posttests were
administered but not
included in the analysis in
this study)

concerned with collective well-being and raised more altruistic concerns than did U.S.
students, who focused more on the individual consequences of a given action. Closer
analysis and cross-­cultural comparisons of the type of reasoning displayed by students
in reflective essays are promising directions of CR research that can help to build a more
nuanced understanding of the quality of students’ argumentation.
In several other studies, effects of CR generalized to students who were learning
English as their second language (e.g., Hsu et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2014; J. Zhang et al.,
2013). Hispanic English language learners (ELLs) from two mainstream and two bilin-
gual classrooms, who participated in eight CR discussions, wrote reflective essays that
contained more reasons, counterarguments, and uses of text evidence (J. Zhang et al.,
2013). The authors noted that the effects of CR on argumentative writing appeared to
be stronger for ELLs, compared to native speakers. Although tentative, this finding may
encourage educators to offer more language-­rich, authentic, and challenging learning
opportunities for ELLs.
The study by J. Zhang and colleagues (2013) exemplifies another feature of recent
CR research—­the use of new and diverse measures of students’ postintervention perfor-
mance (Hsu et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2014; J. Zhang et al., 2013). For example, in addition
to the reflective essay, J. Zhang et al. administered a battery of posttests, including tests
of listening and reading comprehension, a storytelling task using a wordless picture book,
and a questionnaire about students’ attitudes toward discussion and learning English. CR
participants outperformed control students on several measures of language production
and comprehension, such as the reflective essay and a reading test using the Sentence
Verification Technique. Extending CR findings to noncognitive outcomes, J. Zhang et al.
also found that students who experienced CR reported being more motivated to engage
in discussions and to learn English, compared to students who did not. In addition, CR
students felt more comfortable about their ability to speak English. On the other hand, J.
36 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

Zhang et al. reported mixed results for the narrative storytelling test and no statistically
significant difference between treatment conditions on a cloze reading comprehension
measure. Performance on the listening test improved only for CR students in mainstream
classrooms, not for those in bilingual classrooms. The authors suggested that students
with low initial English proficiency might need more scaffolding from their teachers and
more extended practice in order to benefit from dialogue-­rich interventions such as CR.
The benefits of CR were further examined in a new disciplinary context of social
studies in a large-scale investigation involving 36 classrooms from school districts serving
low-­income minority students (Ma et al., 2014; X. Zhang et al., 2014). Students learned
about wolf reintroduction and management using either Collaborative Group Work (CG)
or Direct Instruction (DI), or they were wait-­listed in a Control condition. In the CG
condition, students participated in CR discussions about wolf management and engaged
in other cooperative group activities, during which they studied several related topics,
including ecosystem, economy, and public policy. In the DI condition, the same wolf
management topics were studied via teacher-­guided whole-class activities and indepen-
dent seatwork. The Control students were not exposed to the unit on wolf reintroduction
and management.
Following the wolf management unit, students completed a variety of postinter-
vention tasks. X. Zhang and colleagues (2013) analyzed student performance on the
reflective essays involving the moral dilemma described earlier about a boy telling on
a classmate who cheated in a model car race. CG students performed better than DI
and Control students on two measures of argumentation: considering reasons on both
sides and explicitly weighing different reasons. CG students significantly exceeded DI
students, but not Control students, in the ability to recognize the dilemma. As pointed
out by the authors, this study documented far transfer, since there is little topical overlap
between the wolf management problems and the model car race dilemma. The study is
also notable because the DI condition constitutes a more valid comparison to the experi-
mental treatment of CG, as it better isolates the variable of interest—­dialogic engagement
with contestable questions. This is an improvement over many previous CR studies that
used less defined Control conditions, in which Control students continued regular class-
room activities (e.g., Kim et al., 2011; Reznitskaya et al., 2001; J. Zhang et al., 2013).
In another analysis of far transfer following the wolf management unit, Ma and her
colleagues (2014) examined the performance of Hispanic American students. Following
the intervention, students were asked to tell a story, prompted by a wordless picture book
about a boy, a dog, and a frog. CG students produced a significantly lower number of
language errors and omissions. They told stories that contained longer chains of reason-
ing, compared to DI or Control students. However, mixed results were observed on mea-
sures of language production related to story elements. Also, CG participants performed
similarly to DI and Control students in terms of the length of the narrative, number of
mazes, and language fluency.
To summarize, recent applications of CR expand knowledge about dialogue-­
intensive pedagogies to new populations, learning outcomes, and content areas. The
skills practiced during inquiry dialogue often transfer to the task of reflective writing,
and to several other measures of language comprehension and production. At the same
time, methodological limitations of CR studies and inconsistencies in treatment effects
invite us to look deeper into how inquiry dialogue works to enhance student learning
and what conditions are most favorable for fully realizing the potential of this approach.
We discuss new directions for building a more robust understanding of the pedagogical
potential of inquiry dialogue next.
Using Inquiry Dialogue to Promote the Development of Argument Skills 37

Building a Stronger Case for Transfer Performance

The results of CR studies reviewed in this chapter are representative of other investi-
gations of transfer effects from dialogic group discussions to individual performance.
Often, although not always, research shows positive transfer from dialogic discussions
to individual argumentation and related learning outcomes (e.g., Asterhan & Schwarz,
2007; Kuhn & Crowell, 2011; Mercer, Wegerif, & Dawes, 1999; Morehouse & Wil-
liams, 1998). For example, in a study of young adolescents, Kuhn and Crowell (2011)
used electronically conducted dialogues on social issues as an instructional strategy to
improve students’ argumentative writing. Compared to students from control classrooms,
participants in the experimental condition produced more “integrative arguments” that
gave serious consideration to both positive and negative attributes of contrasting posi-
tions. Notably, the treatment effects appeared only in the third year of the intervention.
Despite generally positive results, it is too early to conclude that we now have a
thorough and complete understanding of the transfer potential of dialogue-­intensive
pedagogies. One of the key reasons for the need to strengthen the research on transfer is
that many previous studies have serious methodological limitations. The problem with
research methodologies used to investigate transfer was underscored in two related meta-­
analytic reviews that examined the effects of dialogic approaches on student performance
of new tasks (Murphy, Soter, Wilkinson, Hennessey, & Alexander, 2009; Wilkinson,
Murphy, & Binici, 2015). Through a systematic review of the literature, the authors iden-
tified nine approaches to conducting discussions around texts that have demonstrated
evidence of consistent application in language arts settings and an established record
of published research. CR was selected as one of the approaches. Others included Phi-
losophy for Children (Lipman, Sharp, & Oscanyon, 1980), Junior Great Books Shared
Inquiry (Great Books Foundation, 1987), and Questioning the Author (Beck, McKeown,
Hamilton, & Kucan, 1997).
The authors of the meta-­analyses systematically searched key educational databases,
with the second study covering publications up to August 2011. They included studies
that used both commercially available and researcher-­developed measures of postinter-
vention outcomes. The constructs measured with transfer tasks ranged from literal read-
ing comprehension to critical thinking, argumentation, and metacognition. Importantly,
the authors used “best evidence” criteria for inclusion of studies in their meta-­analyses.
For example, in order to qualify, a quasi-­experimental study should (1) include at least
two teachers and 15 students in each treatment group, (2) present information about
matching between conditions or describe adjustments made to take into account initial
group differences, and (3) administer reading and/or writing posttests that are “indepen-
dent of the texts” that students discussed previously. Based on these and other method-
ological requirements, the researchers had to exclude the vast majority of studies from
their analyses, ending up with only nine qualified articles.1
These meta-­analytic reviews highlight methodological problems that are common
in studies of transfer from dialogue-­intensive environments to independently performed
tasks. The problems include the following:

• Lack of direct tests of hypothesized mechanisms of learning.

• Deficient measurement tools.
• Small sample sizes.
1 Of the nine studies, three were conducted by CR researchers.
38 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

• Design limitations, such as the absence of randomization or pretest data.

• Flawed data analysis, including the use of statistical procedures that do not take
into account the nested structure of the data.

Let us now examine the more pressing methodological problems in greater detail.
First, although researchers of dialogue-­intensive approaches often use sociocultural theo-
ries, as well as related processes of scaffolding and internalization, to ground their studies
theoretically, they typically do not design their studies to allow for the direct testing of
specific learning processes (Wilkinson et al., 2015). Dialogic discussions are contextually
rich experiences, during which multiple learning events take place. With pre- to posttest
designs that do not isolate distinct facets of instruction, questions about how and why
(rather then merely whether) inquiry dialogue works remain largely unanswered. We
need more studies that closely analyze well-­defined processes of instruction and test their
influence on individual performance.
For example, researchers can build on innovative methodologies for investigating the
mechanisms of learning, such as the one used in the study by Anderson and colleagues
(2001). In this research, the authors tracked the acquisition of new language patterns
characteristic of argumentation, called argument stratagems. Examples of argument
stratagems included positioning oneself in relation to a classmate’s argument, acknowl-
edging uncertainty, and using story evidence to support a chosen position. The study
showed that the initial occurrence of a given stratagem increased the likelihood of its
later use. The authors concluded that the use of argument stratagems “snowballed,” thus
supporting the idea that students were able to acquire the tools of inquiry that were first
introduced and modeled by their peers (Anderson et al., 2001). Further expanding the use
of this methodology, Lin et al. (2012, 2015) tracked the development of students’ ana-
logical reasoning and relational thinking within and across CR discussions. The authors
analyzed the role of peer support and refutation in students’ cognitive development and
investigated the mediating effects of peer relationships and social status.
The studies by Anderson, Lin, and colleagues (Anderson et al., 2001; Lin et al.,
2012, 2015) provide much-­needed information about how complex processes of peer
interactions contribute to individual cognitive growth. However, this research is focused
on student learning during group discussions. Thus, it does not address the issue of trans-
fer to new contexts, in which students are required to perform novel argument tasks
independently, without the social support of their peers. In future studies, researchers
can use experimental designs to manipulate specific argument stratagems by deliberately
introducing them into discussions in order to examine how they become adapted into
individual argument schemas and used to perform new tasks. Furthermore, as discussion
participants may internalize both normative and fallacious argument stratagems (e.g.,
unjustified appeals to tradition or emotion), we need more studies that examine how
to minimize acquisition of reasoning patterns that may seem effective but are, in fact,
flawed and misleading.
Another important issue requiring researchers’ attention has to do with measure-
ment. Despite the increased emphasis on the need to improve higher order learning out-
comes, including argument skills (e.g., National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010; Partnership for 21st Century
Skills, 2012), we currently lack valid measures of these constructs, especially at the ele-
mentary school level. Commercially available tests of argument skills and related abili-
ties (e.g., reasoning and critical thinking) often have insufficient evidence to support the
intended interpretation of scores (Hughes, 1992; Poteet, 1989; Sutton, 1992). Common
Using Inquiry Dialogue to Promote the Development of Argument Skills 39

criticisms include inadequate conceptualization and operationalization of the measured

construct, few and inconclusive validity studies, questionable keyed “right” answers, and
problems with the content and format of test items.
In addition to standardized measures, there are several custom-­made instruments
designed by researchers who study argumentation development (e.g., Chambliss & Mur-
phy, 2002; Kuhn & Crowell, 2011; Reznitskaya et al., 2001). These tools offer interest-
ing insights into how argument skills can be measured in reading and writing. However,
instruments used in research studies have limited information about their psychometric
properties. In many CR studies, for example, researchers have used a reflective essay
task about a moral dilemma facing a story character, as described earlier (e.g., Dong,
Anderson, Lin, & Wu, 2009; Kim et al., 2011; Reznitskaya et al., 2009; X. Zhang et al.,
2013). Student performance on this task was typically evaluated by counting the number
of argument elements, including supporting reasons, opposing reasons, and rebuttals.
Although this method provides initial information about student reasoning, Nussbaum
(2011) criticized instruments based solely on counting propositions as being “only crude
measures of argument quality . . . because argument content is not taken into account”
(p. 94). In other words, a better argument is not the one with more propositions, but
the one with clear language and structure, acceptable premises, and valid inferences.
Nussbaum suggested an alternative measurement framework based on Walton, Reed,
and Macagno’s (2008) concept of argumentation schemes, or distinct formal inference
structures that allow for a systematic evaluation of individual arguments. We need to
continue searching for creative ways to measure argument quality in order to build accu-
rate knowledge about student development and to generate robust evidence regarding the
effectiveness of specific pedagogical approaches.
In addition, more studies that measure student outcomes other than argumentation
are needed. In several CR studies reviewed here, researchers made important new steps
in this direction by using measures of language production, comprehension, and attitudes
toward English learning (e.g., Hsu et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2014; J. Zhang et al., 2013).
Other investigations should consider the assessment of student epistemological develop-
ment, as well as social and emotional competencies relevant to participation in inquiry
dialogue with others.
Let us turn now to the substantive results of the two meta-­analytic reviews described
earlier (Murphy et al., 2009; Wilkinson et al., 2015). Although the treatment effects for
most studies included in the reviews were positive, they were not entirely consistent. Out
of nine qualified studies, two reported small negative effects, and one, a CR study, had
both positive and negative intervention effects for different learning outcomes (Reznits-
kaya, Anderson, & Kuo, 2007). Discrepant results were also noted in several recent stud-
ies of CR reviewed here (e.g., Kim et al., 2011; Ma et al., 2014; J. Zhang et al., 2013).
We believe that inconsistent findings in transfer studies should not be viewed simply as
atypical performance because they provide an opportunity to refine our understanding of
what makes—and doesn’t make—­dialogue-­intensive approaches work.
An example of an important factor that might be responsible for the mixed results
in studies of dialogue-­intensive pedagogies is the quality and variability of treatment
implementation. In many CR studies, for example, teachers in experimental classrooms
received a 1-day workshop on CR approach, which was followed up with informal class-
room support delivered by researchers during the study (e.g., Kim et al., 2011; Li et al.,
2007; Reznitskaya et al., 2007; J. Zhang et al., 2013; X. Zhang et al., 2013). Such train-
ing may not be sufficient because facilitating inquiry dialogue represents a significant
change for most teachers in terms of both their conceptions of teaching and their routine
40 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

practices (e.g., McKeown & Beck, 2004; Windschitl, 2002). “To invite students to artic-
ulate and explore their ideas . . . is to require that teachers hear those ideas, diagnose
their virtues and weaknesses, and incorporate them into the substance of instruction. . . .
This is a new role for teachers whose practice has been defined by traditional goals and
methods, and it comes with different and strenuous intellectual demands” (Hammer &
Schifter, 2001, p. 442).
Furthermore, based on our theory and emerging research, teachers’ epistemological
commitments may play an influential role in their classroom practices (e.g., Schraw &
Olafson, 2002; Sinatra & Kardash, 2004; Stipek, Givvin, Salmon, & MacGyvers, 2001).
For example, in a study by Johnston, Woodside-­Jiron, and Day (2001), researchers found
that teachers’ epistemologies were directly aligned with their instruction, influencing the
power relations between teachers and students and their interactional patterns, including
the type of questions discussed and the feedback given to students. Several scholars have
argued for the need to help aspiring and practicing teachers to advance their theories
of knowledge through the use of explicit instruction, personal reflection, and coach-
ing (Richardson, Anders, Tidwell, & Lloyd, 1991; Schraw & Olafson, 2002; Sinatra &
Kardash, 2004; Windschitl, 2002). Yet only a few studies have evaluated the effective-
ness of specific educational interventions (Brownlee, Purdie, & Boulton-­L ewis, 2001;
Hill, 2000). We need to develop and test instructional models that help teachers reflect
on their epistemological commitments in relation to the advocated classroom practices.
We also need studies of professional development programs that identify instructional
content, activities, readings, and other materials that can support teachers in their use of
dialogue-­intensive pedagogies.

Summary

To conclude, dialogue-­intensive pedagogies are grounded in well-­recognized theoretical

models of social constructivism (e.g., Vygotsky, 1968; Wells, 1999). They continue to
appeal to educators who embrace the egalitarian and rational qualities of inquiry dia-
logue (Gregory, 2004; Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Webb, 2009). There is also emerging
empirical evidence to support the pedagogical value of these approaches for the devel-
opment of higher order thinking (Kim et al., 2011; Kuhn & Crowell, 2011; Wilkin-
son & Murphy, 2011; J. Zhang et al., 2013). In several studies of the dialogue-­intensive
approach reviewed in this chapter, called CR, Asian and American students, including
native speakers and ELLs, improved their reasoning, language skills, and attitudes toward
learning as a result of participating in discussions with peers, although not all treatment
comparisons showed positive effects.
Notwithstanding these generally encouraging results, more theoretically driven and
methodologically strong studies are necessary in order to improve our understanding
of the role that inquiry dialogue plays in individual learning. Future studies need to be
designed in a way that allows us to distill key mechanisms responsible for student cogni-
tive and social development. We also need to improve our measures of argumentation
by going beyond basic quantitative indicators and focusing on logical coherence, com-
prehensiveness, and soundness of students’ reasoning. Also, inconsistencies in findings
should be used to pose new questions about the possibilities and limitations of dialogic
instruction.
The Common Core Standards Initiative (National Governors Association Center
for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) and similar policy
Using Inquiry Dialogue to Promote the Development of Argument Skills 41

documents (e.g., Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2012) place high demands on teach-
ers by requiring them to support the development of argument skills in their students.
According to contemporary theory and emerging research, these skills are best promoted
through the use of dialogue-­intensive pedagogies that engage students in group argu-
mentation about complex issues. Yet effective use of inquiry dialogue is rarely observed
in U.S. classrooms (Alexander, 2005; Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003;
Nystrand et al., 2003). Furthermore, many teachers find such pedagogies challenging,
and require extended and varied opportunities to learn new practices (Adler, Rougle,
Kaiser, & Caughlan, 2003; Alvermann & Hayes, 1989; Juzwik, Sherry, Caughlan,
Heintz, & Borsheim-­Black, 2012; Nguyen, Anderson, Waggoner, & Rowel, 2007). More
work is needed to help us understand how to best prepare today’s practitioners to engage
students in rigorous and collaborative inquiry, thus supporting the development of argu-
ment skills.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. What are the key processes of learning through inquiry dialogue?
2. What are the new ways to assess the development of argument skills in a classroom?
3. How can we best integrate inquiry dialogue into reading and writing instruction?

References

Adler, M., Rougle, E., Kaiser, E., & Caughlan, S. (2003). Closing the gap between concept and
practice: Toward more dialogic discussion in the language arts classroom. Journal of Adoles-
cent and Adult Literacy, 47(4), 312–322.
Alexander, R. J. (2005, July). Culture, dialogue and learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy.
Paper presented at the Conference of the International Association for Cognitive Education
and Psychology, University of Durham, Durham, UK.
Alexander, R. J. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (3rd ed.). York,
UK: Dialogos.
Alexander, R. J. (2008). Essays on pedagogy. New York: Routledge.
Alvermann, D. E., & Hayes, D. A. (1989). Classroom discussion of content area reading assign-
ments: An intervention study. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 305–335.
Anderson, R. C. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise. In R. C. Ander-
son, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge
(pp. 415–431). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Waggoner, M., & Nguyen, K. (1998). Intellectually stimulating story
discussions. In J. Osborn & F. Lehr (Eds.), Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning
(pp. 170–186). New York: Guilford Press.
Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-­Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S., Reznitskaya, A., et
al. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across
groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 1–46.
Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-­based approaches
to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and
high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730.
Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumenta-
tion on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3),
626–639.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (Vol. 8). Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota.
42 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Hamilton, R., & Kucan, L. (1997). Questioning the author: An
approach for enhancing student engagement with text. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Brownlee, J., Purdie, N., & Boulton-­L ewis, G. (2001). Changing epistemological beliefs in pre-­
service teacher education students. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 247–268.
Burbules, N. (1993). Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Chambliss, M. J., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Fourth and fifth graders representing the argument
structure in written texts. Discourse Processes, 34(1), 91–115.
Collaborative Reasoning Research Group. (2011). Collaborative Reasoning. University of Illinois:
Urbana–­Champaign: Reading Research Center, Center for the Study of Reading.
Dong, T., Anderson, R. C., Lin, T.-J., & Wu, X. (2009). Concurrent student-­managed discussions
in a large class. International Journal of Educational Research, 48(5), 352–367.
The Great Books Foundation. (1987). An introduction to Shared Inquiry. Chicago: Author.
Gregory, M. (2004). Conflict, inquiry and education for peace. In S. N. Chattopadhyay (Ed.),
World peace: Problems of global understanding and prospects of harmony. (pp. 265–278).
Calcutta, India: Naya Prokash.
Gregory, M. (2006). Normative dialogue types in Philosophy for Children. Gifted Education
International, 22(2–3), 160–171.
Hammer, D., & Schifter, D. (2001). Practices of inquiry in teaching and research. Cognition and
Instruction, 19(4), 441–478.
Hill, L. (2000). What does it take to change minds?: Intellectual development of preservice teach-
ers. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1), 50–62.
Hsu, J. Y., Zhang, X., & Anderson, R. C. (2013, October). Collaborative Reasoning as task-based
second language teaching and learning. Paper presented at the International Conference on
Task-Based Language Teaching, Banff, Alberta, Canada.
Hughes, J. N. (1992). Review of the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests. In J. J. Kramer, J. C. Conoley,
& L. L. Murphy (Eds.), The eleventh mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros
Institute of Mental Measurements.
Johnston, P., Woodside-­Jiron, H., & Day, J. (2001). Teaching and learning literate epistemologies.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 223–233.
Juzwik, M. M., Sherry, M. B., Caughlan, S., Heintz, A., & Borsheim-­Black, C. (2012). Supporting
dialogically organized instruction in an English teacher preparation program: Video-based,
web 2.0-mediated response and revision pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 114(3), 1–42.
Kim, I., Anderson, R. C., Miller, B., Jeong, J., & Swim, T. (2011). Influence of cultural norms and
collaborative discussions on children’s reflective essays. Discourse Processes, 48(7), 501–528.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155–177.
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2),
16–46.
Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understand-
ing. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309–328.
Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adoles-
cents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22, 545–552.
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5),
1245–1260.
Li, Y., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-­Jahiel, K., Dong, T., Archodidou, A., Kim, I., et al. (2007). Emer-
gent leadership in children’s discussion groups. Cognition and Instruction, 25(1), 75–111.
Lin, T.-J., Anderson, R. C., Jadallah, M., Kuo, L., Wu, X., Hummel, J. E., et al. (2012). Children’s
use of analogy during Collaborative Reasoning. Child Development, 83(4), 1429–1443.
Lin, T.-J., Anderson, R. C., Jadallah, M., Nguyen-­Jahiel, K., Kim, I.-H., Kuo, L.-J., et al. (2015).
Social influences on the development of relational thinking during small-group discussions.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 83–97.
Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Using Inquiry Dialogue to Promote the Development of Argument Skills 43

Lipman, M., Sharp, A. M., & Oscanyon, F. S. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Ma, S., Anderson, R. C., Lin, T.-J., Zhang, J., Morris, J. A., Nguyen-­Jahiel, K., et al. (2014). Influ-
ence of collaborative group work on English language learner’s oral narratives. Manuscript
submitted for publication
McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (2004). Transforming knowledge into professional development
resources. Elementary School Journal, 104(5), 391–408.
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A socio-­
cultural approach. London: Routledge.
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in
the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95–111.
Morehouse, R., & Williams, M. (1998). Report on student use of argument skills. Critical and
Creative Thinking, 6(1), 14–20.
Murphy, P. K., Soter, A., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Exam-
ining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-­analysis.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 740–764.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Offi-
cers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Author.
Nguyen, K., Anderson, R. C., Waggoner, M., & Rowel, B. (2007). Using literature discussions
to reason through real life dilemmas: A journey taken by one teacher and her fourth-­grade
students. In R. Horowitz (Ed.), Talking texts: Knowing the world through the evolution of
instructional discourse (pp. 187–206). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative
frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84–106.
Nystrand, M., Wu, L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. A. (2003). Questions in time: Inves-
tigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes,
35(2), 135–200.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2012). A framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from
www.p21.org/index.php.
Poteet, J. (1989). Review of the Ennis–Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test. In J. C. Conoley & J. J.
Kramer (Eds.), The tenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of
Mental Measurements.
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., Dong, T., Li, Y., Kim, I., & Kim, S. (2008). Learning to think
well: Application of Argument Schema Theory. In C. C. Block & S. Parris (Eds.), Com­
prehension instruction: Research-­based best practices (pp. 196–213). New York: Guilford
Press.
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., & Kuo, L. (2007). Teaching and learning argumentation. Ele-
mentary School Journal, 107(5), 449–472.
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-­Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim,
S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32(2/3),
155–175.
Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013). Student thought and classroom language: Examining the
mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 114–133.
Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Clark, A., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., et al. (2009).
Collaborative Reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 39(1), 29–48.
Reznitskaya, A., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (2015). Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking and positively
transforming classroom practice. In S. Joseph (Ed.), Positive psychology in practice (2nd ed.,
pp 375–399). Hoboken: NJ: Wiley.
Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers’
beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research
Journal, 28(3), 559–586.
Schraw, G., & Olafson, L. (2002). Teachers’ episitemological world views and educational prac-
tice. Issues in Education, 8(2), 99–149.
44 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

Sinatra, G. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2004). Teacher candidates’ epistemological beliefs, disposi-
tions, and views on teaching as persuasion. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(4),
483–498.
Smith, F., Hardman, F., Wall, K., & Mroz, M. (2004). Interactive whole class teaching in the
National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3),
395–411.
Stipek, D. J., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and prac-
tices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(2), 213–226.
Sutton, R. E. (1992). Review of the New Jersey Test of Reasoning Skills. In J. J. Kramer, J. C.
Conoley, & L. L. Murphy (Eds.), The eleventh mental measurements yearbook (pp. 606–
608). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1968). Thought and language (newly revised, translated, and edited by Alex Kozu-
lin). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Waggoner, M., Chinn, C. A., Yi, H., & Anderson, R. C. (1995). Collaborative reasoning about
stories. Language Arts, 72, 582–589.
Walton, D. (1992). Types of dialogue, dialectical shifts and fallacies. In F. H. van Eemeren, R.
Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 133–147).
Amsterdam: SICSAT.
Walton, D. (1996). Argument structure: A pragmatic theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Walton, D., & Macagno, F. (2007). Types of dialogue, dialectical relevance and textual congruity.
Anthropology and Philosophy: International Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 101–119.
Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. Brit-
ish Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 1–28.
Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: An
empirical investigation of a possible sociocultural model of cognitive development. Learning
and Instruction, 9(6), 493–516.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Murphy, P. K. (2011, September). What we know and need to know about
the role of dialogue-­intensive pedagogies in improving reading comprehension. Paper pre-
sented at the meeting of the Socializing Intelligence through Academic Talk and Dialogue,
University of Pittsburgh, PA.
Wilkinson, I. A. G., Murphy, P. K., & Binici, S. (2015). Dialogue-­intensive pedagogies for promot-
ing reading comprehension: What we know, what we need to know. In L. B. Resnick, C. A.
Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue
(pp. 35–48). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An
analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers.
Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175.
Zhang, J., Anderson, R. C., & Nguyen-­Jahiel, K. (2013). Language-­rich discussions for English
language learners. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 44–60.
Zhang, X., Anderson, R. C., Dong, T., Nguyen-­Jahiel, K., Li, Y., Lin, T.-J., & Miller, B. (2013).
Children’s moral reasoning: Influence of culture and collaborative discussion. Journal of
Cognition and Culture, 497–516.
Zhang, X., Anderson, R. C., & Lin, T.-J. (2014, April). Improving children’s competence in deci-
sion making. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Philadelphia, PA.
 Chapter 4

Reading Comprehension,
Embodied Cognition,
and Dual Coding Theory

Mark Sadoski

The tendency has always been strong to believe that whatever received a
name must be an entity or thing, having an independent existence of its own;
and if no real entity answering to the name could be found, people did not
for that reason suppose that none existed, but imagined that it was something
peculiarly abstruse and mysterious, too high to be an object of sense.
—John Stuart M ill (1869, p. 15)

M ill’s observation of our tendency to embrace abstractions as being too far beyond our
simple ability to understand is an apt introduction to the changing face of reading
comprehension theory. Historically, the reification of abstractions has been a powerful
force in all theorizing. Even hard-nosed physical scientists have not been immune. In
the 1700s physical scientists theorized phlogiston, an unobserved substance that made
things flammable. Phlogiston theory became obsolete when scientists found that burning
was merely a form of rapid oxidation, just as rusting was a form of slow oxidation. This
theoretical shift led to a better understanding of oxidation in combustion, rust, and even
human metabolism.
Or take the ether. As late as the 1880s, the ether was theorized to be the unobserv-
able universal substance in which all matter swam. Just as sound waves passed through
air or ocean waves passed through water, light waves in outer space passed through ether.
The famous Michelson–­Morley experiments of 1887 determined that if ether existed at
all, it had no function. This finding soon allowed Einstein to develop special relativity
free of this nonexistent constraint.
What does all this have to do with reading comprehension? Much. Since its inception,
reading comprehension theory has been beset by abstractions that have embedded it in
enigma. This may be because reading comprehension is a theoretical construct itself—­we
cannot see or hear reading comprehension directly; we construe its existence from what

45
46 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

we can observe: answers to questions, verbal recall, following directions accurately, and
so on. While theoretical constructs are unavoidable, recent advances have brought read-
ing theory to a more empirically adequate state, that is, one that can be understood in
observable, experiential terms available to our sensory modalities. These recent advances
are associated with a movement away from abstract, amodal theories toward theories of
embodied cognition. In this chapter I review some of these recent developments and their
implications.
Specifically, this chapter summarizes:

• The recent movement in cognitive science from abstract, amodal theories toward
theories of embodied cognition.
• The embodied dual coding theory (DCT) account of reading comprehension and
how it differs in important ways from some other theories.
• How embodied principles can be applied to teaching reading comprehension in
new and effective ways on both small and large scales.

What’s Out There Today: Established Research and Practice

What is reading comprehension and by what principles does it operate? Just how do
we understand and interpret texts? Influential early theories relied on ephemeral con-
structs such as innate linguistic “deep structures” (Chomsky, 1965), panoptic “theories
of the world” (Smith, 1971), and even the tongue-­in-cheek “Merlin,” who processed
sentence elements into the “place where sentences go when they are understood” (Gough,
1972). The next generation, heavily influenced by developments in artificial intelligence,
produced abstract “schemata” (Rumelhart & Ortony, 1977) or abstract “propositions”
(Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978) that were formed into “propositional text bases” by equally
abstract schematic processes. These impalpable constructs and their terminology were
criticized from the outset (e.g., Brown, 1979; Dresher & Hornstein, 1976; Paivio, 1971).
Moreover, their operationalization and empirical testing posed major problems for their
development (e.g., Alba & Hasher, 1983; Sadoski, Paivio, & Goetz, 1991). Modifications
of some of these theories ensued, but many of the original problems persist. These prob-
lems have so concerned some proponents that they have now moved to embodied views
(e.g., Zwaan, 2004).
While their status as scientific theoretical explanations for reading comprehension
remains controversial, most of these early terms are still popular in our professional
vocabulary. In the field of literacy, the term schema, for example, has informally come
to be synonymous with prior knowledge, memory, cognition, and the general idea that
these are structured in some way. However, the popularity of terms is no evidence of their
scientific validity, as phlogiston, ether, and a host of other obsolete theoretical ideas dem-
onstrate. Moreover, there are other theories of the way in which cognition and memory
might be structured that do not include the assumption of schemata, propositions, or
other abstract entities. Furthermore, these theories can explain evidence that abstract,
amodal theories cannot (e.g., Sadoski et al., 1991).
From an applied educational perspective, the effect of several generations of theo-
ries of reading comprehension on student achievement has not been as strong as hoped.
Large-scale reading comprehension testing programs such as the National Assessment
of Educational Progress (2013) have shown little or no long-term improvement since
the early 1970s. Perhaps this is because the theoretical scene of reading comprehension,
Reading Comprehension, Embodied Cognition, and Dual Coding Theory 47

like the scene of cognitive theory itself, is pluralistic: There are numerous theories with
varying degrees of acceptance. Similarly, there are numerous instructional practices with
varying degrees of research support. Unfortunately, too few efforts have been made
directly to link specific, established theory with specific, established practices to close the
circle of theory and practice.
To illustrate, Rosenshine and his colleagues meta-­analyzed a popular instructional
strategy, reciprocal teaching (e.g., Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). They also meta-­analyzed
one of its components, student-­generated questions (Rosenshine, Meister, & Chapman,
1996). They noted that a gulf existed between theory and practice in the studies they
reviewed. In the studies, researchers typically stated that their theoretical base was to
foster active processing, comprehension monitoring, or the like. However, none provided
a specific cognitive theory to explain their results. Rosenshine et al. (p. 197) concluded
that the theoretical basis of these studies was “more metaphorical than practical” and
that these comprehension strategies did not truly flow from theory.
Likewise, Anderson (2013) proposed the following instructional implications sup-
ported by schema theory: (1) Activate relevant personal knowledge before reading; (2)
build prerequisite knowledge when it cannot be presupposed; (3) lead children to integrate
what they already know with what is presented on the page; (4) highlight text structure
through developmentally appropriate advance organizers and structured overviews; and
(5) match instructional materials to the cultural knowledge of minority groups. These are
surely valuable educational suggestions, but they are not unique to schema theory and
could have been just as easily derived from any theory that emphasizes the structure of
knowledge in memory, including embodied DCT.
Therefore, a continuing challenge to researchers and teachers of reading comprehen-
sion is to more directly link specific theory with specific practice to better understand
reading comprehension, to better explain our instructional successes and failures, and to
point to productive new directions. To ignore this challenge is to accumulate more, some-
times contradictory, findings that lack an interpretive scientific anchor. In this chapter,
I propose that embodied theories such as DCT can provide a useful interpretive anchor
for reading comprehension theory and practice. In order to set the background for that, I
first review the new embodied trend in cognitive theorizing.

New Research in Cognition and Reading Comprehension

A new development in the world of cognitive theory is embodied cognition. This per-
spective holds that cognitive processes are rooted in the physical body’s interactions with
the world. The central assumption of embodied cognition has been well summarized by
Thelen, Schöner, Scheier, and Smith (2001, p. 1):

To say that cognition is embodied means that it arises from bodily interactions with the
world. From this point of view, cognition depends on the kinds of experiences that come from
having a body with particular perceptual and motor capacities that are inseparably linked
and that together form the matrix within which memory, emotion, language, and all other
aspects of life are meshed.

In an influential work, Lakoff and Johnson (1999, p. 3) stated that three central
findings that have emerged from cognitive science are the basis of embodied cognition:
(1) The mind is inherently embodied; (2) thought is mostly unconscious; and (3) because
48 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

direct sensory experience is concrete, abstract concepts are largely metaphorical (e.g.,
time is a journey with the past behind us and the future ahead of us). One of the better
documented claims of embodied cognition is that unconscious cognition is body-based
(Wilson, 2002). That is, many internal, allegedly abstract cognitive activities may make
use of sensorimotor representations and processes in an unconscious, covert way. More
on this later.
In another influential article published around the same time, Glenberg (1997) pro-
posed that all memory is embodied and evolved for the purpose of dealing with a world of
sensory action and motion. Language comprehension is accomplished by creating embod-
ied conceptualizations of concrete situations the language was describing. The compre-
hension of highly abstract language is accomplished by conceptualizing it in concrete
ways, similar to what was proposed by Lakoff and Johnson (1999). This explanation is
highly consonant with the DCT view. Glenberg (2011) has applied the theory specifically
to reading comprehension including instructional applications. More on this later as well.
To explain in a commonsense way, your brain has never been outside your head.
How does it know what the world is like? The only logical answers are that (1) knowledge
is innate, or (2) knowledge is derived from the experience of our five sense modalities.
Theories that lean toward the first answer include those in which certain linguistic knowl-
edge is innate (e.g., Chomsky) or those in which relatively stable schemata are abstracted
from sensory experience but are stored in a disembodied, amodal form. Embodied cogni-
tion is the second kind of theory, emphasizing flexible, contextually changing networks
of bodily representations as the basis of knowledge, thought, and emotion. DCT is cur-
rently the only empirically established, fully embodied theory of reading comprehension.
Dove (2010) has even proposed that DCT was the precursor of the embodied cognition
movement.
A basic premise of DCT, like other embodied theories, is that all mental representa-
tions retain some of the concrete qualities of the external experiences from which they
derive. These experiences are derived from our five senses and can be linguistic or non-
linguistic. Their differing characteristics develop into two separate mental systems, or
cognitive codes. One code is specialized for representing and processing language, and
the other is specialized for representing and processing nonlinguistic objects and events.
The latter is often referred to as the imagery code, because its functions include the
generation, analysis, and transformation of mental images in various modalities (visual,
auditory, haptic, olfactory, gustatory). Each code, and each modality within a code, has
its own characteristic mental units and organization, and the codes are neurologically
based and interconnected. The qualitative differences between the two codes afford great
flexibility and diversity to thought.
One can theorize reading comprehension as a contextually constrained activation
in a network of sensory-­specific verbal and nonverbal mental representations of various
sizes, including those for graphemes, phonemes, written and spoken words and phrases,
visual images, auditory images, kinesthetic images, and so on (for a detailed model and
explanation, see Sadoski, McTigue & Paivio, 2012). This spreading activation is not
random but is probabilistically constrained by our life experience and situational con-
texts including cultural contexts. Together, activity within and between the two codes
accounts for knowledge of language and knowledge of the world, the entire basis of read-
ing comprehension.
A basic distinction between DCT and schema theory or similar single-­code theories
(e.g., construction–­integration theory; Kintsch, 1998) is that such theories assume that
knowledge in memory is basically abstract and amodal, existing in a disembodied state
that is not associated with our sensory modalities. How any knowledge becomes divorced
Reading Comprehension, Embodied Cognition, and Dual Coding Theory 49

from sensory input is an important theoretical and epistemological question that has not
been well explained. Schema theory and similar single-­code theories propose no apparent
answer to this question; rather, they simply postulate the existence of abstract, amodal
knowledge.
Specific descriptions of constructing embodied text meaning from the DCT perspec-
tive have been provided in detail by Sadoski (2008) and Sadoski and Paivio (1994, 2001,
2013a, 2013b). For example, consider the situation of someone reading the following
sentence in a story about a sailing ship in a storm: The howling wind drove whitecaps
over the gunwales, flooded the decks, and tore loose the jib. For a person unfamiliar with
nautical terminology, a superficial reading might leave him or her with the impression
that the ship was taking water and suffering damage. In some situations, that might be
enough.
But for closer, more precise comprehension, one would soon have to deal with spe-
cific vocabulary terms and a mental image of the ship’s situation. Dictionaries might
not help much. Consider the dictionary definition of a gunwale: “the upper edge of the
side or bulwark of a vessel.” That might be enough help for the reader to imagine waves
splashing over the side rails of the ship and flooding the deck. But now consider the dic-
tionary definition of a jib: “a triangular sail stretching from the foretopmast head to the
jib boom and in small craft to the bowsprit or the bow.” That’s not much help, unless you
can visualize the sail and its connections, complete with understanding what foretopmast
heads and jib booms are, and so on. Pictures or diagrams sometimes found in dictionaries
could help here, but eventually comprehending the sentence fully involves a fairly detailed
mental image of a sailing ship in a storm with flooded decks and a loose jib.
The theoretical point is that the comprehension of the entire sentence can be
explained by the interplay of vocabulary in context and a mental image of the described
situation—­no abstract, amodal propositions or schemata are needed. The meaning of
the sentence can be explained by associations between specific, embodied, verbal and
nonverbal mental representations, including written word forms recognized in a given
syntax; their contextually constrained verbal definitions, synonyms, or paraphrases; and
the images they evoke in memory from our real or vicarious world experience (without
such experience the sentence remains vague at best). This meaning is then extended by
inference. For example, if students read that a jib tore loose in a storm, one reasonable
inference is that it would be flapping around the front of the ship, not the rear of the ship.
One might further infer (imagine) how this might affect steering the ship, or what might
happen to sailors who had to reattach it. The assumption of a disembodied “sailing ship
in a storm” schema that governs the instantiation of the episode adds nothing more to the
explanation and therefore serves no necessary role.
However, that sentence is very concrete, referring to things and actions that can be
directly sensed. How would a more abstract sentence be understood? Consider this more
abstract counterpart: The potent disturbance inundated the vessel and caused associated
structural issues. Aside from being very bad writing, many of the words in this sentence
are as familiar as those in the more concrete sentence. But without some concrete refer-
ent, how would one interpret it? A ship in a gale? A vase knocked over? High blood pres-
sure? It sounds meaningful until you try to put your finger on what, exactly, is going on.
Abstract language without reference to concrete, real-world events produces verbalism,
not comprehension.
From a practical educational perspective, DCT translates into strategies that are
more specific than simple admonitions to “activate prior knowledge.” To illustrate, com-
prehension instruction in the ship example becomes a matter of teaching specific vocabu-
lary in context (e.g., gunwale, deck, whitecap, jib) and vicarious or imagined experiences
50 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

with ships in stormy seas through concrete examples such as pictures, videos, or induced
imagery.
This implies that teaching students to form relevant mental images when reading
should improve comprehension, a consistent research finding for decades (see reviews by
Denis, 1984; Gambrell & Koskinen, 2002; Pressley, 1977; Rasinski, 1985; Sadoski, 1999;
Sadoski & Paivio, 1994, 2001, 2013a, 2013b; Suzuki, 1985; National Reading Panel
[NRP], 2000). These studies provide a substantial knowledge base that can be stated con-
clusively: Teaching readers to form mental images when reading is a successful practice in
improving reading comprehension. Most of this imagery has been visual imagery in which
students were instructed to visualize the objects or events being discussed in the text, but
it could include images in other modalities as well. Also, presenting pictures, videos, or
graphics with matching text or spoken language has been shown to be effective in multi-
media learning (e.g., Kealy & Webb, 1995; Mayer, 2009; Purnell & Solman, 1991).

Large‑Scale Implementation
Small-scale studies of instruction in effective comprehension strategies abound in the
literature, but very few have been scaled up to the curriculum level for delivery to whole
schools or school districts. However, a reading comprehension program explicitly based
on DCT principles was implemented on a large-scale basis with success (Sadoski & Will-
son, 2006).
In 1997, the Lindamood-­B ell Learning Processes Corporation began work with
Pueblo School District 60 (PSD60) in southern Colorado to implement a DCT-based
program to improve reading comprehension on the state-­mandated test, the Colorado
Student Assessment Program (CSAP). PSD60 was a heavily minority, urban district of
about 18,000 students. This program focused on grades 3, 4, and 5, in which CSAP test-
ing was conducted most years from 1997 to 2003.
Similar to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the CSAP used a variety
of item formats, including multiple-­choice and student-­constructed responses with a vari-
ety of text genres, and divided scores into four ranges: unsatisfactory, partially proficient,
proficient, and advanced. The 1997 CSAP results for PSD60 were below the state average,
with over half of students scoring in the unsatisfactory or partially proficient ranges.
During implementation years (1997–2003), comprehension was taught through the
Verbalizing and Visualizing® (V/V®) program (Bell, 1986). The V/V instructional pro-
gram systematically guides students to form mental images and describe them in increas-
ing detail, beginning with pictures and moving on to words, sentences, and longer text
passages. Higher order comprehension skills such as inference, prediction, and evaluation
are dealt with through mental imagery and verbal elaboration as well. The emphasis on
associating language with multisensory mental images in the V/V program is a direct
application of DCT to reading comprehension instruction. The program was imple-
mented at the school level through extensive inservice teacher and support staff training
and the use of special program materials that scaffolded to standard materials including
basal readers and content-­area textbooks. Program fidelity monitoring was conducted
onsite by a trained staff. Increasing numbers of PSD60 elementary and middle schools
implemented the program during the period 1997–2003, providing a robust, large-scale
test across years and grades.
An independent evaluation study (Sadoski & Willson, 2006) focused on CSAP
results in grades 3, 4, and 5. Data were analyzed through a series of repeated measures
analyses of covariance between PSD60 schools and the statewide CSAP average, control-
ling for school size, minority student percentage, socioeconomic status (SES), and the
Reading Comprehension, Embodied Cognition, and Dual Coding Theory 51

total time a school was included in the intervention. Statistically significant and increas-
ing gains favoring the DCT-based reading comprehension intervention were found in all
three grades.
Figure 4.1 illustrates the results for grade 4. As more schools in the district imple-
mented the intervention, the proportion of unsatisfactory and partially proficient scores
declined relative to the state average, while the proportion of proficient and advanced
scores increased relative to the state average. These results show that DCT-based inter-
ventions can be successfully taught to teachers and implemented at the district curricular
level with success.

Haptic Imagery in Reading Comprehension

DCT recognizes mental imagery in modalities other than visual imagery, including kin-
esthetic and other forms of haptic imagery (Paivio, 1971, 1986, 2007; Sadoski & Paivio,
1994, 2001, 2013a, 2013b). Likewise, a principle of embodied cognition is that uncon-
scious cognitive processing may be more sensorimotor than has been previously theo-
rized. Wilson (2002, pp. 632–633) explained:

Consider the example of counting on one’s fingers. In its fullest form, this can be a set of crisp
and large movements, unambiguously setting forth the different fingers as counters. But it
can also be done more subtly, differentiating the positions of the fingers only enough to allow
the fingers to keep track. To the observer, this may look like mere twitching. Imagine, then,
that we push the activity inward still further, allowing only the priming of motor programs
but no overt movement. If this kind of mental activity can be employed successfully to assist
a task such as counting, a new vista of cognitive strategies opens up. Many centralized, alleg-
edly abstract cognitive activities may in fact make use of sensorimotor functions in exactly
this kind of covert way.

FIGURE 4.1. PSD60 versus Colorado state average on grade 4 CSAP score categories (U, PP, P,
A), 1997–2003. Statistically controlled for school size, percent minority, percentage of free and
reduced price lunch (SES), and school years of implementation. U, unsatisfactory; PP, partially
proficient; P, proficient; A, advanced. From Sadoski and Willson (2006, p. 146). Copyright 2006
by the American Educational Research Association. Reprinted with permission of Sage Publica-
tions.
52 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

Cathy Collins Block and her colleagues developed the Comprehension Process Motions
(CPM) method for teaching young readers to learn comprehension processes and initiate
them without teacher prompting (Block, Parris, & Whiteley, 2008). CPM lessons teach
students kinesthetic hand gestures that portray the comprehension processes of main
idea, inferring, drawing conclusions, clarifying, making predictions, and so on. CPM
lessons were designed so that children would internalize comprehension processes, not
through verbal repetition and drill, but through dual-coded learning inputs to provide
students with concrete images that help signal how, when, and where to engage specific
comprehension processes. In effect, the hand gestures became what was meant by the
strategies, rather than abstract verbal definitions that might amount to mere verbalism
for a child.
In an experimental study, children in grades K–5 from high-­minority, low-SES urban
schools were taught to use CPMs through teacher introduction and scaffolding as stu-
dents internalized the strategy. The control group was taught the same comprehension
strategies verbally, without the assistance of CPM kinesthetic gestures. Teachers were
provided 2 days of professional development in the techniques, and teachers delivered the
instruction for 12 weeks.
Students were tested on standardized, norm-­referenced comprehension tests and
criterion-­referenced tests of drawing conclusions, clarifying, following a story’s plot,
identifying writing patterns in nonfiction, and finding main ideas. Students receiving
CPM instruction significantly outperformed control subjects on every measure. Using
η2 effect sizes, more than 70% of the students’ achievement was attributable to CPM
instruction on every measure. These are very large effect sizes, perhaps among the larg-
est in reading comprehension strategy instruction. Moreover, the largest effects in the
study were found for younger learners in grades K–2, those who typically have difficulty
in understanding abstract language definitions. What this research may be showing us
is how children really think, not how strategies more suitable for adult competencies can
be imposed on them.
Another instructional program based in kinesthetic imagery developed by Arthur
Glenberg and his colleagues is entitled Moved by Reading (MBR). The technique involves
a two-stage intervention in which children first read stories of a particular scenario. For
example, one scenario involves a farm, complete with farmer, farm equipment, animals,
buildings, and so on. Another scenario involves a home with a family, house, furniture,
appliances, and so on. During reading, children have access to toy models or images of
these objects on a computer screen. Children first read aloud text segments and physi-
cally manipulate the objects to conform to the content (e.g., reading “The farmer drives
the tractor into the barn” while physically moving the tractor into the barn). This tech-
nique involves referencing words to objects and actions, with the child producing the
actions in a multimodal way. The next stage involves transfer to imagined manipulation
in which the objects are not physically present. This involves multimodal mental imagery,
including at least the visual and kinesthetic modalities. Children using both the versions
with actual objects or their computerized counterparts demonstrated large improvements
(Cohen’s d effect sizes approaching or exceeding 1.0) in reading comprehension over con-
trol groups that read and reread the texts and had the toys visible but did not move them
(Glenberg, 2011).
DCT principles can explain these research results directly. The verbally labeled and
explained comprehension strategy (e.g., “main idea” in CPM or moving objects in the
manner denoted in MBR) was referentially associated with a nonverbal physical act that
gave the language additional, embodied meaning (i.e., dual coding). The strategy was
then easier to understand and apply, because there were multiple avenues to grasp and
Reading Comprehension, Embodied Cognition, and Dual Coding Theory 53

remember it. The results of the dual encoding provided very large increases in learning to
apply a variety of common comprehension strategies over single coding. Why kinesthetic
gestures or acts should embody meaning better than language alone is virtually impos-
sible for single-­coding, abstract knowledge theories to explain.

How This New Knowledge Can Improve Comprehension Instruction

There is now a rich and established body of empirical evidence that reading compre-
hension instruction based on embodied DCT principles can be effectively applied with
individual learners, in classrooms, and at the school district level. The theory and its prin-
ciples have been clearly and successfully communicated to teachers. The practical effects
are highly educationally significant, as the previous examples attest.
Actually, DCT principles are consistent with many traditional practices in reading
comprehension instruction. But the additional values that it offers are (1) a more specific,
concrete, and understandable theoretical account of the concept of reading comprehen-
sion, and (2) exciting new vistas in research and practice. DCT is an embodied theory
of cognition, and embodied theories have great promise for a better understanding of all
cognition. In fact, the nonverbal basis of mind in the form of imagination, augmented
later in human history by language, may be one of the least understood of the driving
forces behind the dramatic divergence of human intelligence in evolution (Paivio, 2007).
We may be on the verge of a better understanding of what the mind is really like and,
consequently, what reading is like.

Summary

This chapter has briefly summarized the embodied account of reading comprehension
and its instruction, and the status of DCT in that account. Although this theory is con-
sistent with current views of embodied cognition, it is in fact one of the oldest and most
empirically established theories of cognition, dating from the early days of the cognitive
revolution in the 1950s and 1960s (Paivio, 1971). Its principles are well articulated and
consistent with current neuroscientific evidence, as well as decades of behavioral evidence
on many fronts. This theory provides a tangible, practical definition of reading compre-
hension that can readily be put into practice by teachers and has had success in doing so.
Perhaps most importantly, it offers exciting, expansive, and creative new possibilities for
both theory and practice.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. I noted that embodied DCT is consistent with many traditional educational practices in reading.
Some long-­established examples include overtly sounding out words, using pictures in basal readers
that explicitly illustrate the text, performing the actions of written directions in hands-on science or
math activities, and so on. Can you think of other educational practices in reading that would involve
multiple sensory modalities and both verbal and nonverbal codes?
2. I have only mentioned the emotional aspects of reading comprehension, but emotions are felt in
the body as well as occurring as mental states. Emotions frequently accompany the imagination of
affecting events we read about in fiction or nonfiction. How could we develop the emotional lives of
our students as well as improve their reading comprehension by enhancing the sensuous imagining of
literary, historical, or other texts commonly used in schools?
54 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

3. The use of multimedia technology in learning offers rich possibilities. Some multimedia technology
techniques have been directly applied to teaching reading comprehension (e.g., computerized MBR).
How might classroom technology be realistically extended to improve reading comprehension? For
example, computer texts have been constructed with simple links to illustrative multimedia material for
elaboration of difficult concepts. Looking ahead, imagine that virtual reality learning may not be too far
in the future. How could it improve multimodal, verbal–­nonverbal learning?

References

Alba, J. W., & Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin, 2, 203–231.
Anderson, R. C. (2013). Role of reader’s schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. In D. E.
Alvermann, R. B. Ruddell, & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of read-
ing (6th ed., pp. 476–488). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Bell, N. (1986). Visualizing and verbalizing for language comprehension and thinking. Paso
Robles, CA: Academy of Reading Publications.
Block, C. C., Parris, S. R., & Whiteley, C. S. (2008). CPMs: Helping primary grade students
self-­initiate comprehension processes through kinesthetic instruction. Reading Teacher, 61,
460–470.
Brown, A. L. (1979). Theories of memory and problems of development: Activity, growth and
knowledge. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory
(pp. 225–258). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Denis, M. (1984). Imagery and prose: A critical review of research on adults and children. Text,
4, 381–401.
Dove, G. (2010). On the need for embodied and dis-­embodied cognition. Frontiers in Psychology,
1, 129–141.
Dresher, B. E., & Hornstein, N. (1976). On some supposed contributions of artificial intelligence
to the scientific study of language. Cognition, 4, 321–398.
Gambrell, L., & Koskinen, P. S. (2002). Imagery: A strategy for enhancing comprehension. In C.
C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-­based best practices
(pp. 305–318). New York: Guilford Press.
Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What is memory for? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1–55.
Glenberg, A. M. (2011). How reading comprehension is embodied and why that matters. Interna-
tional Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4, 5–18.
Gough, P. B. (1972). One second of reading. In J. F. Kavanagh & I. G. Mattingly (Eds.), Language
by ear and by eye (pp. 331–358). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kealy, W. A., & Webb, J. M. (1995). Verbal learning with maps and diagrams. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 20, 340–358.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production.
Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mill, J. S. (1869). [Editorial comments] Analysis of the phenomena of the human mind (Vol. 2,
Chapter 14, p. 15). London: Longmans, Green, Reader, & Dyer.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2013). The Nation’s report card: Trends in aca-
demic progress 2012 (NCES 2013–456). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Reports of the subgroups.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Reading Comprehension, Embodied Cognition, and Dual Coding Theory 55

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Paivio, A. (2007). Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical approach. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Pressley, M. (1977). Imagery and children’s learning: Putting the picture in developmental per-
spective. Review of Educational Research, 47, 585–622.
Purnell, K. N., & Solman, R. T. (1991). The influence of technical illustrations on students’ com-
prehension of geography. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 277–299.
Rasinski, T. V. (1985). Picture this: Using imagery as a reading comprehension strategy. Reading
Horizons, 25, 280–288.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of
Educational Research, 64, 479–530.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A
review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.
Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. C.
Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge
(pp. 99–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sadoski, M. (1999). Mental imagery in reading: A sampler of some significant studies. Reading
Online [electronic journal of the International Reading Association]. Retrieved from www.
readingonline.org/research/sadoski.html.
Sadoski, M. (2008). Dual coding theory: Reading comprehension and beyond. In C. C. Block
& S. R. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-­based best practices (2nd ed.,
pp. 38–49). New York: Guilford Press.
Sadoski, M., McTigue, E. M., & Paivio, A. (2012). A dual coding theoretical model of decoding
in reading: Subsuming the LaBerge and Samuels model. Reading Psychology, 33, 465–496.
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (1994). A dual coding view of imagery and verbal processes in reading
comprehension. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and
processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 582–601). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2013a). Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing
(2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2013b). A dual coding theoretical model of reading. In D. E. Alver-
mann, R. B. Ruddell, & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th
ed., pp. 886–922). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Sadoski, M., Paivio, A., & Goetz, E. T. (1991). A critique of schema theory in reading and a dual
coding alternative. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 463–484.
Sadoski, M., & Willson, V. L. (2006). Effects of a theoretically based large-scale reading interven-
tion in a multicultural urban school district. American Educational Research Journal, 43,
137–154.
Smith, F. (1971). Understanding reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Suzuki, N. S. (1985). Imagery research with children: Implications for education. In A. A. Sheikh
& K. S. Sheikh (Eds.), Imagery in education: Imagery in the educational process (pp. 179–
198). Farmingdale, NY: Baywood.
Thelen, E., Schöner, G., Scheier, C. & Smith, L. B. (2001). The dynamics of embodiment: A field
theory of infant perseverative reaching. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 1–34.
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 625–
636.
Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language com-
prehension. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of language and motivation (Vol. 44,
pp. 35–62). New York: Academic Press.
 Chapter 5

Executive Function
and Reading Comprehension
The Critical Role of Cognitive Flexibility

Kelly B. Cartwright

And so, to completely understand what we do when we read would

almost be the acme of a psychologist’s achievements, for it would be
to describe very many of the most intricate workings of the human
mind, as well as to unravel the tangled story of the most remarkable
specific performance that civilization has learned in all its history.
—E dmund Burke Huey (1908, p. 6)

R eading is indeed a remarkable mental accomplishment that requires individu-

als to coordinate many features of print simultaneously—­semantic, phonological,
orthographic—­while consciously monitoring their ongoing understanding of a text and
deploying intentional strategies to support that understanding. Even a half-­century ago,
Dolch (1960, p. 189, emphasis in original) recognized the cognitive juggling inherent in
reading comprehension for young learners: “We keep meaning foremost. But the children
still must know the words. It is not a case of words or meaning. It is a case of meaning
and words.” Yet ask beginning or struggling readers what good readers do, and they will
usually tell you that good readers “get all the words right” or they “don’t make mistakes
when they read.” For many of these children, reading is about accurate decoding, not
comprehension (Dewitz & Dewitz, 2003; Gaskins, Satlow, & Pressley, 2007; Oakhill &
Yuill, 1996). In fact, work in developmental psychology indicates that elementary-­age
children have difficulty shifting attention between phonological and semantic aspects
of words, with a tendency to focus on phonological aspects of print exclusively (Bialys-
tok & Niccols, 1989). In classrooms, teachers are surprised to find students who sound
like good readers, but whose comprehension lags far behind their age-­appropriate word
reading (Applegate, Applegate, & Modla, 2009). These students, often called word call-
ers, exhibit specific reading comprehension deficits (RCDs); they show surprisingly poor

56
Executive Function and Reading Comprehension 57

comprehension, despite having fluent word-­ decoding skills (Buly & Valencia, 2002;
Cartwright, 2010). In the words of Dolch (1960), these children focus on words, not
meaning. To focus on only one aspect of a task or situation to the exclusion of others is
the hallmark of cognitive inflexibility (Zelazo & Frye, 1998). In contrast, skilled readers
exhibit massive flexibility, managing a complex orchestration of multiple cognitive vari-
ables, switching between them when appropriate to preserve comprehension (Cartwright,
2009; Pressley & Lundeberg, 2008). And, not surprisingly, this kind of cognitive flex-
ibility is an executive function ability that plays a significant role in the development of
reading comprehension.
Executive functions are cognitive skills that enable us to manage complex tasks
and purposefully direct our thinking toward particular goals (Dawson & Guare, 2010).
Thus, it is no surprise that they contribute to success on a task as complex as reading com-
prehension! Executive functions include processes such as working memory, inhibition,
planning, and cognitive flexibility (also called shifting) (Dawson & Guare, 2010; also
see Cartwright, 2012, for a review of the role of executive functions in reading) and are
more strongly related to reading comprehension than to word reading (Sesma, Mahone,
Levine, Eason, & Cutting, 2009). Although the contribution of working memory to
reading comprehension has been recognized for quite some time (e.g., Carretti, Borella,
Cornoldi, & De Beni, 2009; Daneman & Carpenter, 1980), and the role of inhibition
in reading comprehension also has been studied fairly extensively (e.g., Cain, 2006; Hen-
derson, Snowling, & Clarke, 2013), other aspects of executive function have received far
less attention. For example, not until recently was planning found to contribute uniquely
to reading comprehension (Locascio, Mahone, Eason, & Cutting, 2010; Sesma et al.,
2009), and cognitive flexibility has received relatively little research attention as well.
Because skilled reading comprehension requires the active coordination of multiple ele-
ments, and struggling comprehenders are characteristically inflexible in their approach
to print (Dewitz & Dewitz, 2003; Gaskins et al. 2007; Oakhill & Yuill, 1996), work on
the development of cognitive flexibility may be particularly helpful to advance our under-
standing of reading comprehension processes and instruction (Cartwright, 2008, 2009).
From this perspective, readers who are less cognitively flexible should be less likely to
coordinate the many meaning-­making clues necessary for skilled comprehension. Given
the potential importance of cognitive flexibility for reading comprehension processes,
this chapter highlights the following:

• Contemporary research on the development of cognitive flexibility and its applica-

tions to reading comprehension.
• The significant role that cognitive flexibility plays in the development of reading
comprehension across the lifespan.
• Ways to assess and foster cognitive flexibility for improved reading comprehen-
sion, especially for students who struggle in this area.

What’s Out There Today: Established Research and Practice

Flexibility has been recognized as central to reading comprehension for quite some time.
For example, as early as 1944, researchers demonstrated that skilled comprehenders were
significantly more cognitively flexible than their less skilled counterparts, with flexibility
defined as the ability to adjust reading rate according to reading purpose and task dif-
ficulty (e.g., Blommers & Lindquist, 1944). Scholars have emphasized the importance
58 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

of flexible attention to multiple text cues to support comprehension, such as graphopho-

nological, semantic, and syntactic cues (e.g., Clay, 1985, 2001; Goodman, 1976). Fur-
thermore, the importance of flexible representation of and access to knowledge has been
recognized as important to comprehension as well (see Spiro, 2004, for a review). Central
to each of these views is the notion that the reader is able to adjust his or her own mental
processing of text in ways that support the goal of understanding. Such goal-­directed
thinking is the essence of executive function abilities. Wagner and Sternberg (1987) were
among the first researchers to link successful reading comprehension to executive func-
tion abilities, though systematic investigation of the role of executive functions in reading
comprehension from a neuropsychological perspective has emerged only in recent years
(e.g., see Cartwright, 2012, for a review).
Children begin to develop cognitive flexibility—the ability to consider and actively
switch between multiple aspects of tasks—in the preschool years (Jacques & Zelazo,
2001; Zelazo, Müller, Frye, & Marcovitch, 2003), and the development of cognitive
flexibility continues into adolescence and beyond (Davidson, Amso, Anderson, & Dia-
mond, 2006). Even adults vary in their natural abilities to demonstrate cognitive flexibil-
ity (Cartwright, 2007; Diamond & Kirkham, 2005), and some adults demonstrate lower
levels of cognitive flexibility than children (Cartwright, Isaac, & Dandy, 2006; Kuhn
& Pease, 2006). Finally, and important to our discussion, is the notion that cognitive
development is often domain-­specific (e.g., Case, 1992; Case & Okamoto, 1996), and
cognitive flexibility is no exception. This means that cognitive flexibility that occurs in
particular kinds of thinking tasks does not necessarily transfer to other tasks, suggesting
that interventions intended to improve flexible thinking in reading must be tailored to the
particular demands of reading tasks (for evidence that training in domain-­specific cogni-
tive flexibility produces improvements in flexible thinking in particular domains, while
training in general cognitive flexibility does not, see Bigler & Liben, 1992; Cartwright,
2002). Because reading comprehension is a cognitive process that requires representation
and coordination of multiple elements, contemporary work on cognitive flexibility has
important implications for understanding the development of comprehension processes.
Unfortunately, these kinds of cross-­disciplinary connections occur infrequently (Siegler,
2000; Sternberg & Lyon, 2002). Thus, my work has applied what is known about cog-
nitive flexibility to better understand reading comprehension, producing assessments of
reading-­specific cognitive flexibility to inform understanding of reading processes across
the lifespan, and yielding intervention techniques that improve reading-­specific cogni-
tive flexibility and reading comprehension (Cartwright, 2002, 2006, 2007, 2010; Cart-
wright, Bock, Guiffré, & Montaño, 2006).
Typically, classification tasks are used to assess the flexibility with which individuals
can attend to multiple aspects of complex tasks (e.g., Bigler & Liben, 1992; Inhelder &
Piaget, 1964; Zelazo et al., 2003). These tasks use items that can be sorted along multiple
features, such as pictures of fruit and flowers that can also be sorted by colors, such as
yellow and red. Some tasks that assess cognitive flexibility involve sequential sorts of
such items and require students to sort first by one dimension (e.g., by color), then switch
the sorting rule midtask (e.g., switch to sorting by shape). The Dimensional Change Card
Sort (DCCS) task used by Zelazo and colleagues is an example of this kind of sequential
flexibility task. (The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test requires similar shifts in rule use as
evidence of flexibility in thinking; see Berg, 1948.) Another kind of task that taps cog-
nitive flexibility is a simultaneous sorting task, the multiple classification task, which
requires that students sort items along multiple dimensions at the same time (Bigler &
Liben, 1992; Cartwright, 2002, 2010; Inhelder & Piaget, 1964). For example, the stimuli
Executive Function and Reading Comprehension 59

in the last example would be sorted by color (red or yellow) and type (fruit or flowers)
concurrently into a 2 × 2 matrix. As you might expect, performance on the DCCS and
multiple classification tasks are significantly correlated in elementary students (Bock,
Gallaway, & Hund, 2014).
Because the multiple classification task requires that students maintain continu-
ous, flexible attention to multiple dimensions at the same time, it seems to be a better
assessment of the type of cognitive juggling required in reading comprehension. Thus,
I modified the multiple classification task to tap students’ flexibility in considering the
aspects of printed words that beginning and struggling readers seem to have particular
difficulty coordinating: semantic and phonological features (Cartwright, 2002). In this
reading-­specific cognitive flexibility task, students might sort sets of 12 printed words
(e.g., coat, cap, cape, cup, can, crate, boot, belt, bonnet, box, basket, and bag) by initial
phoneme (/k/ and /b/) and word meaning (clothing and containers) into a 2 × 2 matrix
(see Figure 5.1), with accuracy and speed of sorting providing an index of the flexibility
with which students can consider both letter–­sound information and meaning associated
with printed words. Other aspects of print could certainly be tapped with this type of
task. However, beginning readers’ tendency to focus inflexibly on phonological aspects
of words rather than meaning may be particularly detrimental to developing comprehen-
sion. Thus, these particular aspects of print were selected for initial investigations of the
role of reading-­specific cognitive flexibility in reading comprehension (see Cartwright,
2010, for more information on the assessment, including assessment materials).

Unique Contribution to Comprehension

Across studies and across multiple ages, the ability to consider flexibly the semantic
and phonological features of printed words, graphophonological–­semantic cognitive

coat can

boot box

FIGURE 5.1. Example of a correct sort on the graphophonological–­semantic flexibility task; four
sets of 12 word cards (e.g., coat, cap, cape, cup, can, crate, boot, belt, bonnet, box, basket, bag)
are sorted by initial phoneme (/k/ and /b/) and word meaning (clothing or container) simultane-
ously.
60 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

flexibility (GSF), has contributed significant, unique variance to reading comprehension

beyond phonological and semantic processing assessed independently. These findings are
highly significant and have been observed in samples as early as beginning first- and
second-­grade readers (Cartwright, Marshall, Dandy, & Isaac, 2010), intermediate read-
ers in second to fourth grades (Cartwright, 2002), and even adults (Cartwright, 2007).
Moreover, across studies, the unique contribution of GSF to reading comprehension
remained significant even when general cognitive ability and age were controlled. These
findings indicate that reading-­specific cognitive flexibility plays an important role in
reading comprehension across skill levels, from beginning readers to adults. Furthermore,
this research demonstrates that phonological decoding and semantic processing are not
sufficient domains of knowledge to explain skilled reading comprehension. Readers must
also be able to coordinate flexibly these aspects of print to comprehend successfully, and
the ability to do so improves significantly with age (Cartwright, Isaac, et al., 2006).

Teaching Flexibility for Improved Comprehension

Because this initial work indicated that GSF contributed significant, unique variance
to comprehension, I suspected that interventions that target improvement of children’s
reading-­specific cognitive flexibility might improve reading comprehension. My theory
was based on research demonstrating that cognitive flexibility can be taught, but such
teaching is only effective if done with domain-­specific cognitive flexibility tasks (e.g.,
Bigler & Liben, 1992). Thus, I assigned students to a GSF training condition (students
sorted printed words by initial phoneme and word meaning), a general cognitive flexibil-
ity training condition (students sorted pictures by color and shape), and a control condi-
tion (students played dominoes with the experimenter) to compare the effects of cognitive
flexibility training on reading comprehension. These interventions occurred with individ-
ual students in 15-minute sessions, across 5 days, and I assessed reading comprehension
before and after the intervention using raw scores on different forms of the Passage Com-
prehension subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test—­Revised (WRMT-R; Wood-
cock, 1987).Children who experienced the GSF intervention made significant gains in
GSF and reading comprehension, as expected, while children in the other conditions did
not. Recently, this intervention was adapted for small-group administration with a sam-
ple of teacher-­identified struggling readers, who received 30- to 40-minute intervention
sessions once a week for 5 weeks. Control children received regular, small-group read-
ing instruction. This quasi-­experimental comparison indicated that children who expe-
rienced a small-group GSF intervention made significant gains on school-­administered
and researcher-­administered measures of reading comprehension (Cartwright, Clause, &
Schmidt, 2007) as well as measures of GSF and color–shape cognitive flexibility (Cart-
wright, Guiffré, Bock, & Coppage, 2011). Taken together, these findings indicate that
GSF training can be delivered in classroom settings today and in the future, and the
result will be significant increases in reading comprehension for able and less able readers
beginning as early as second grade. (See Cartwright, 2010, for instructions for the indi-
vidual and small group GSF interventions, including intervention materials.)

Extensions
As reported in the second edition of this book, extensions of this work by other scholars
have expanded our knowledge of the role of cognitive flexibility instruction in reading
across cultures and in other instructional formats. For example, Yan and Yu (2006)
Executive Function and Reading Comprehension 61

found that cognitive flexibility played an important role in reading comprehension for
Chinese children. Additionally, a recent adaptation of Cartwright’s (2002) original GSF
task was created for computerized administration in a collaborative learning situation. It
was demonstrated to be a promising means for improving students’ cognitive flexibility
(Yuill, Kerawalla, Pearce, Luckin, & Harris, 2008). Further work is underway to exam-
ine the effects of this instructional format on students’ reading comprehension (Yuill,
personal communication, March 22, 2007).

New Research and Developments in This Area

Since the second edition of this book was published, we have learned much about the role
of cognitive flexibility in the development of reading comprehension in my own and oth-
ers’ research. The discussion of this research focuses on advances in the following areas:
(1) the role of cognitive flexibility in prereaders’ comprehension; (2) the development of
GSF in elementary students; (3) the role of GSF in RCD in children and adults; (4) use of
GSF intervention for Tier 2 instruction in a response to intervention (RTI) framework;
(5) placement of GSF in the larger context of executive skills; and (6) other work that
confirms the important relation of cognitive flexibility to reading comprehension.

The Role of Cognitive Flexibility in Prereaders’ Comprehension

Because executive skills play a significant role in the development of reading comprehen-
sion, researchers have recently begun to investigate the contributions of executive skills to
prereaders’ story comprehension (e.g., Strasser & del Rio, 2014). If prereaders’ executive
skills do indeed contribute to developing comprehension at an early age, these skills may
be useful targets of intervention to support comprehension development before children
begin formal reading instruction! In one recent study with forty-eight 3- to 5-year-old
preschool students, my colleagues and I assessed cognitive flexibility (using the general
color–shape task), inhibition, working memory, and theory of mind. Theory of mind is
considered a “hot,” or emotion-­laden, executive skill, because it taps children’s ability
to consider others’ emotions, thoughts, desires, and intentions deliberately, which helps
them predict actions and understand social situations, thus supporting comprehension of
social narratives (see Cartwright & Guajardo, 2015). We found that all of these executive
skills were significantly related to children’s story comprehension, and that cognitive flex-
ibility predicted unique variance in children’s expressive vocabulary. What’s more, chil-
dren who were high in cognitive flexibility made significant improvements in response to
an inferential story comprehension intervention, whereas children low in these executive
skills made no such improvements; similar findings emerged for theory of mind (Cart-
wright, Debruin-­Parecki, Vaughn, Badalis, & Orelski, 2014). In a second study with
preschool students, my colleague Nicole Guajardo and I confirmed that cognitive flex-
ibility and theory of mind contribute significant, unique variance to preschoolers’ phrase
and sentence comprehension even when vocabulary, working memory, counterfactual
reasoning, family income (an indicator of socioeconomic status), and age were controlled
(Guajardo & Cartwright, 2015). These results suggest cognitive flexibility provides an
important foundational skill that supports comprehension, even in preschoolers. Because
cognitive flexibility can be taught, this research suggests that cognitive flexibility inter-
ventions may be useful for prereaders and help to prepare them for successful comprehen-
sion development.
62 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

The Development of GSF in Elementary Students

In the second edition of this text, I noted that we need to understand better the develop-
ment of reading-­specific cognitive flexibility in order to appreciate how it might support
the development of reading comprehension. Thus, I conducted a study of the development
of GSF in 254 elementary school students in second to fifth grades (Cartwright, 2011).
Because children focus on phonological features of print before they focus on semantic
features across the elementary years (Bialystok & Niccols, 1989), I expected that students
would show a similar developmental pattern as they learned to coordinate flexibly the
phonological and semantic features of printed words in the GSF task. Recall that the GSF
task requires children to sort four sets of 12 printed words, one set at a time, by initial
phoneme and word meaning into a 2 × 2 matrix and provide a verbal explanation for each
correct (or corrected) sort (see Figure 5.1 for a correct sort). Diagonal sorts are not per-
mitted. Thus, children’s mistakes could occur in sorting or in explanation. As predicted,
developmental progressions emerged in sorting errors across grades: first word decoding
errors, then sound-only sorts, then meaning-­only sorts, and then diagonal sorts, which
indicate attention to multiple components of print but violate sorting rules. Children’s
explanation errors changed developmentally in similar ways: initially, children focused
on irrelevant features of words, then on sound only, then on meaning only, and finally on
independent quadrants in the 2 × 2 matrix, which indicated attention to two dimensions
for each quadrant but not yet for the overall 2 × 2 sort. These findings suggest that across
elementary school, as the ability to handle flexibly the complex features of print emerges,
children first focus on irrelevant features of print as they learn to decode, followed by a
focus on letter–­sound information, then on meaning, and finally students begin to inte-
grate sound and meaning in their processing of print. In this study I did not assess the
effects of the GSF intervention on the development of students’ GSF. However, because
past work indicates that GSF intervention does improve GSF (Cartwright, 2002; Cart-
wright et al., 2011), I suspect that the intervention might support progression through
these patterns quickly, resulting in an earlier ability to integrate sound and meaning
features of print when thinking about text. These findings suggest that the use of the
GSF assessment among students in the classroom may help teachers understand where
students are developmentally in their progression toward integrating sound and meaning.

The Role of Cognitive Flexibility in Reading Comprehension Deficits in Children

and Adults
Although many students struggle with reading comprehension because they have dif-
ficulty with word decoding, some children (and adults) who have no trouble at all with
word decoding processes still struggle with reading comprehension (Duke, Cartwright,
& Hilden, 2013). As noted earlier, these students often surprise teachers and parents,
because they sound like skilled readers (Applegate et al., 2009). However, their RCDs
impact their performance in reading and in other content areas, such as math (e.g., Jer-
man, Reynolds, & Swanson, 2012). In the previous edition of this text, I suggested that
the inflexible focus on decoding processes observed in these children might be due to a
lack of cognitive flexibility. Since then, I have found that cognitive flexibility is indeed
significantly lower in children and adults with RCDs than in peers with age-­appropriate
decoding and comprehension skills. In both studies, reading comprehension and decod-
ing ability were assessed with the Passage Comprehension and Word Attack subtests of
the WRMT-R (Woodcock, 1987), and good and poor comprehenders were matched on
nonverbal ability and age-­appropriate decoding skills. In a comparison of 24 good and
 Executive Function and Reading Comprehension 63

24 poor comprehenders (i.e., children with RCDs) in first to fourth grades, we found
that children with RCDs were significantly lower in both general (color–shape) cogni-
tive flexibility and GSF than their peers with better reading comprehension (Cartwright
& Coppage, 2009). In a similar study with adults, we found adults with RCDs scored
significantly lower on GSF and a newly developed measure of semantic– ­syntactic cog-
nitive flexibility (the ability to consider flexibly the semantic and syntactic aspects of
printed words), and marginally significantly lower on color–shape cognitive flexibility
(Cartwright, Coppage, Guiffré, & Strube, 2008). These findings held in both samples,
even when verbal ability was controlled. See Table 5.1 for summary data on both sam-
ples. These findings confirm the important contribution of cognitive flexibility to reading
comprehension in children and adults, and suggest that children with RCDs might be
especially prone to benefit from GSF interventions in the classroom setting. The study I
describe in the next section supports this notion.

Using Cognitive Flexibility Intervention for Tier 2 Instruction

in an RTI Framework
My past GSF intervention findings (Cartwright, 2002; Cartwright et al., 2007; Cartwright,
Guiffré, et al., 2011) suggested that GSF intervention might be a viable supplemental

TABLE 5.1. Descriptive Statistics for Children (Cartwright & Coppage, 2009)
and Adults (Cartwright, Coppage, Guiffré, & Strube, 2008) with and without Specific
Reading Comprehension Difficulties
Children Adults
(n = 48; 24 in each group) (n = 48; 24 in each group)
Poor Good Poor Good
comprehenders comprehenders comprehenders comprehenders
Standard Standard Standard Standard
Measure Mean deviation Mean deviation Mean deviation Mean deviation
Age in months 92.00 8.11 97.5 13.10 242.29 13.23 245.58 29.07

K-BIT Verbal 96.17 16.98 103.79 9.72 99.17 7.55 109.50 6.51††

K-BIT Matrices 105.67 11.60 106.04 10.61 103.46 6.78 105.92 5.00

WRMT-R
Word Attack 22.42 4.86 22.42 4.69 37.33 2.08 37.38 2.18
Passage 22.96 4.46 31.96 3.80** 51.46 4.06 60.63 1.66††
Comprehension

Cognitive flexibility
Graphophonological– 4.26 5.28 12.68 6.71** 43.26 18.62 59.07 19.35††
semantic
Color–shape 14.92 11.35 22.56 12.39* 53.51 22.23 63.64 17.87†
Semantic–syntactic — — — — 32.32 15.46 44.91 16.22††

Note. Good and poor comprehenders at each age were matched on age-appropriate decoding ability (WRMT Word Attack
scores) and nonverbal IQ (K-BIT Matrices scores). K-BIT Verbal and Matrices scores are standard scores with M = 100 and
SD = 15. WRMT-R Word Attack and Passage Comprehension scores could range from 0 to 45 and 0 to 68 correct, respec-
tively. Graphophonological–semantic, color–shape, and semantic–syntactic cognitive flexibility scores are composite scores
of sorting accuracy/speed * 100. There is no explicit range for these scores because there was no ceiling on participants’
sorting speeds (they were allowed as much time as necessary to complete each sort).
*p < .05, **p < .01 for the child study; † p < .10, †† p < .01 for the adult study.
64 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

intervention for students with RCDs who have an inflexible, decoding-­focused approach
to reading, and who usually do not respond to typical, evidence-­based classroom read-
ing instruction (see Fuchs, Fuchs, & Vaughn, 2008, for more on RTI approaches to
reading instruction). To test this notion, I recently completed a study of the effectiveness
of a classroom teacher-­delivered individual GSF intervention for improving comprehen-
sion in third-grade children with RCDs (Cartwright, Lane, & Singleton, 2012). These
children (n = 19), identified in collaboration with classroom teachers, had word reading
scores at or above grade level and reading comprehension scores at least one grade level
behind their word reading. Additionally, teacher observations of the children’s classroom
reading behaviors confirmed that these students had little difficulty with word read-
ing but struggled with grade-level reading comprehension. We compared these children
with 21 typically developing students who had word reading and reading comprehension
scores at or above grade level. All children received typical classroom reading instruction
in the fall term, and children with RCDs received a teacher-­delivered GSF intervention
(Cartwright, 2010) in the spring term. Consistent with an RTI framework, children with
RCDs showed little growth in reading comprehension in the fall when receiving regular,
evidence-­based classroom reading instruction; that is, they did not respond to typical
reading instruction, and their October and January reading comprehension scores were
not significantly different! However, children with RCDs more than doubled their read-
ing comprehension growth in the spring after receiving the GSF intervention, and their
yearlong comprehension growth was comparable to that of typically developing peers (see
Figure 5.2).

Placing Graphophonological–Semantic Cognitive Flexibility in the Larger Context

of Executive Functions
Although findings regarding the important role of GSF in reading comprehension are
consistent with other relatively recent findings that executive functions, such as working

1.2

1
Grade Equivalent Reading
Comprehension Growth

0.8

0.6 Students with RCD

Typical Students
0.4

0.2

0
Fall Term Spring Term Full Year
(Oct-Jan) (Jan-June) (Oct-Jun)

FIGURE 5.2. Comprehension growth in grade-­equivalent units (1 = 1 academic year’s growth) for
students with and without RCDs; all students received typical classroom instruction in fall, and
students with RCDs received a GSF intervention in spring.
Executive Function and Reading Comprehension 65

memory, planning, and inhibition, contribute significantly to reading comprehension

(e.g., Cain, 2006; Carretti et al., 2009; Sesma et al., 2009), no study has examined GSF
alongside other measures of executive function in the same sample. Thus, my students
and I recently did just that in a sample of 122 college students (Cartwright & DeWyn-
gaert, 2014). We found that GSF was significantly related to inhibition, switching, and
planning, assessed with the Delis–­Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS), and ver-
bal and nonverbal working memory, assessed with the Test of Memory and Learning–2
(TOMAL-2). These correlations with other, established measures of executive function
provide further validation that the GSF assessment taps a reading-­specific executive func-
tion. In addition, GSF contributed significant, unique variance to reading comprehension
(assessed with the WRMT-R Passage Comprehension subtest) beyond the contributions
of inhibition, switching, planning, and working memory. The unique contribution of GSF
to reading comprehension beyond other executive functions remained significant even
when word identification, nonword decoding, reading rate, verbal ability, and age were
controlled. The only other executive function that contributed significantly to reading
comprehension in that analysis was switching, another measure of cognitive flexibility,
assessed with the D-KEFS Trail Making subtest. These findings confirm the significant,
unique contribution of GSF to reading comprehension and support the importance of
cognitive flexibility to reading comprehension more generally (Cartwright & DeWyn-
gaert, 2014).

Other Work That Confirms the Important Relation of Cognitive Flexibility

to Reading Comprehension
Since the second edition of this text was published, a number of additional studies (other
than those from my laboratory) have confirmed the important role of cognitive flex-
ibility in reading comprehension. For example, Altemeier, Abbott, and Berninger (2008)
found that rapid automatic switching (alternating between naming printed words and
double-­digit numbers) played a significant, unique role in reading comprehension. Fur-
thermore, in a study of fourth-­grade students, Kieffer, Vukovic, and Berry (2013) found
cognitive flexibility, assessed with the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (which requires suc-
cessive shifts between sorting dimensions such as color and shape of objects), contributed
uniquely to reading comprehension. Similar findings have emerged in adolescent students
as well (Latzman, Elkovitch, Young, & Clark, 2010). Moreover, Yeniad, Malda, Mes-
man, van IJzendoorn, and Pieper (2013), who conducted a meta-­analysis of research
investigating the role of cognitive flexibility in reading and math performance in chil-
dren, found several additional studies that confirm the significant relationship between
this important executive function and reading comprehension (see Yeniad et al. for a
review of those studies).
Finally, Colé, Duncan, and Blaye (2014) recently replicated and extended my find-
ings on the role of GSF in elementary students’ reading comprehension (Cartwright,
2002; Cartwright et al., 2010) in a sample of second-­grade students in France. They sug-
gested that GSF might play an important role in English reading comprehension because
English has an opaque orthography in which there are many variations of sound-to-print
mappings, which may require more cognitive flexibility for successful processing. French,
on the other hand, has a much more transparent (direct) mapping of sound to print and
may not require cognitive flexibility for successful processing. Additionally, to provide
a more careful control than my color–shape cognitive flexibility control task, Colé et al.
(2014) devised a cognitive flexibility task that was parallel to the GSF task except that it
66 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

required the sorting of pictures by sound and meaning. Results confirmed my original
findings, indicating that GSF (assessed with the printed word sorting task) contributed
unique variance to reading comprehension beyond decoding, word recognition, picture
flexibility, and general cognitive ability. Thus, even in a transparent orthography, such as
French, and even with a control task closely matched to the GSF task, GSF still contrib-
uted significant, independent variance to elementary students’ reading comprehension.

How This New Knowledge Can Improve Comprehension Instruction

The research reviewed in this chapter indicates that cognitive flexibility plays a unique
and critical role in reading comprehension and can be taught to individuals with vary-
ing reading abilities. These data inform classroom instruction several ways: We need to
(1) assess cognitive flexibility in preschool students as an indicator of their preparedness
to respond to inferential comprehension instruction; (2) assess cognitive flexibility in
elementary students as an indicator of children’s potential success or difficulty with read-
ing comprehension, as well as to determine which of our students might benefit from tar-
geted cognitive flexibility intervention; (3) teach cognitive flexibility to improve reading
comprehension; and (4) use cognitive flexibility as a Tier 2 intervention for children with
RCDs who have difficulty with reading comprehension despite adequate decoding ability.
My work indicates that a particular kind of cognitive flexibility, GSF, can be assessed
in children and adults, and that such flexibility varies across the lifespan (see Cartwright,
2007, 2009, 2010; Cartwright, Isaac, et al., 2006). Thus, we should expect variabil-
ity in GSF across children at particular grade levels and even across children within
classrooms. Additional research shows that this particular kind of cognitive flexibility
is a significant predictor of reading comprehension in beginning readers (Cartwright et
al., 2010), intermediate-­level readers (Cartwright, 2002), and adults (Cartwright, 2007).
Assessment of elementary children’s GSF may therefore provide a useful classroom-­based
measurement of a cognitive process that is critical for successful comprehension, assisting
teachers in the identification of children at risk for comprehension difficulties.
As would be expected, struggling readers across the lifespan—­particularly those
with RCDs—show significantly lower levels of GSF than their typically developing peers.
However, the research reviewed in this chapter is encouraging in this regard: Experimen-
tal and quasi-­experimental work indicate that GSF can be taught to elementary children,
changing the way that these children process information about print and producing
significant improvements in their reading comprehension and cognitive flexibility (Cart-
wright, 2002; Cartwright et al., 2007, 2012; Cartwright, Guiffré, et al., 2011). Thus,
this type of intervention seems to be a promising avenue for assisting struggling read-
ers. Additionally, the GSF intervention is relatively brief, occurring over five sessions,
each lasting approximately 15 minutes for individual intervention and 30–40 minutes
for small-group intervention (Cartwright, 2010). The individual intervention format,
because of its brevity, is ideal for administration by a reading resource teacher, trained
tutor, or teacher’s aide. However, the small-group intervention might be a more practi-
cal means if several children in a class demonstrate an inflexible focus on phonological
aspects of print, with little attention to meaning. Furthermore, the small-group inter-
vention may be a more manageable addition to a reading program than the individual
intervention, because small-group instruction is a more typical instructional format in
elementary classrooms and for reading resource teachers.
Executive Function and Reading Comprehension 67

Summary

Historically, researchers have recognized the importance of flexibility in skilled reading

comprehension, and although various conceptions of flexibility in reading have emerged,
they are not unified by a common theoretical foundation. This chapter highlights new
neurocognitive work on cognitive flexibility, the ability to coordinate flexibly, and, simul-
taneously, multiple aspects of complex cognitive tasks. This new perspective is consistent
with historical conceptions of flexibility in reading and provides a unifying, theoretical
foundation for continued work in this area. The primary focus of this chapter concerns
ways contemporary work on flexibility has been adapted to advance our understanding of
reading comprehension processes and instruction. The research described in this chapter
indicates that reading-­specific cognitive flexibility can be assessed; that it develops across
childhood into adulthood; that it is significantly lower for disadvantaged readers (partic-
ularly those with RCDs); and that it makes a significant, unique contribution to reading
comprehension, from beginning readers to adults. More importantly, this research shows
that reading-­specific cognitive flexibility can be taught, thereby producing significant
improvements in flexibility and reading comprehension. These findings have important
implications for work with struggling readers, who are often inflexible in the ways they
approach reading tasks. More broadly, these findings have important implications for the
ways we conceptualize reading comprehension, because they indicate that comprehension
processes are more complex than we have traditionally assumed.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. Think about the students in your classroom. Do you have students who seem to focus inflexibly on
word-level features of print, without attention to meaning? Or do you have students whose high levels
of oral reading skill might hide an underlying struggle with comprehension? How might the research in
this chapter help you to target these children’s difficulties?
2. Take a look at your classroom assessment data. Do you have assessments of both word reading
and comprehension for your students that could provide an indication of whether they are equally
skilled at these tasks and are able to focus on letter–­sound information, as well as meaning, while
reading? If you do not have assessments that allow you to compare these skills, do some research
and find ways to assess both reading comprehension and word reading, so that you can determine
whether your students are able to think about both sound and meaning while reading at grade-­
appropriate levels.
3. Do you use sorts in your reading instruction? If so, what kinds of sorts do you use (e.g., beginning
sound, rhyme, meaning)? Given what you have learned about assessing cognitive flexibility in this
chapter, how might your typical classroom sorts promote or hinder your students’ cognitive flexibility?

References

Altemeier, L. E., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2008). Executive functions for reading and
writing in typical literacy development and dyslexia. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 30, 588–606.
Applegate, M. D., Applegate, A. J., & Modla, V. (2009). “She’s my best reader; she just can’t
comprehend”: Studying the relationship between fluency and comprehension. The Reading
Teacher, 62, 512–521.
68 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

Berg, E. A. (1948). A simple objective technique for measuring flexibility in thinking. Journal of
General Psychology, 39, 15–22.
Bialystok, E., & Niccols, A. (1989). Children’s control over attention to phonological and semantic
properties of words. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 369–387.
Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. (1992). Cognitive mechanisms in children’s gender stereotyping: Theo-
retical and educational implications of a cognitive-­based intervention. Child Development,
63, 1351–1363.
Blommers, P., & Lindquist, E. F. (1944). Rate of comprehension of reading: Its measurement and
its relation to comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 35, 449–473.
Bock, A. M., Gallaway, K. C., & Hund, A. M. (2014). Specifying links between executive func-
tioning and theory of mind during middle childhood: Cognitive flexibility predicts social
understanding. Journal of Cognition and Development. [Epub ahead of print]
Buly, M. R., & Valencia, S. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of students who fail state reading
assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 219–239.
Cain, K. (2006). Individual differences in children’s memory and reading comprehension: An
investigation of semantic and inhibitory deficits. Memory, 14, 553–569.
Carretti, B., Borella, E., Cornoldi, C., & De Beni, R. (2009). Role of working memory in explain-
ing the performance of individuals with specific reading comprehension deficits: A meta-­
analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 246–251.
Cartwright, K. B. (2002). Cognitive development and reading: The relation of reading-­specific
multiple classification skill to reading comprehension in elementary school children. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 94, 56–63.
Cartwright, K. B. (2006). Fostering flexibility and comprehension in elementary students. The
Reading Teacher, 59, 628–634.
Cartwright, K. B. (2007). The contribution of graphophonological-­semantic flexibility to reading
comprehension in college students: Implications for a less simple view of reading. Journal of
Literacy Research, 39, 173–193.
Cartwright, K. B. (Ed.). (2008). Literacy processes: Cognitive flexibility in learning and teaching.
New York: Guilford Press.
Cartwright, K. B. (2009). The role of cognitive flexibility in reading comprehension: Past, present,
and future. In S. E. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehen-
sion (pp. 115–139). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cartwright, K. B. (2010). Word callers: Small-group and one-to-one interventions for children
who can “read” but don’t comprehend. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cartwright, K. B. (2011, April). The development of graphophonological–semantic cognitive
flexibility: Insights from children’s mistakes. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the
Society for Research in Child Development, Montreal, Canada.
Cartwright, K. B. (2012). Insights from cognitive neuroscience: The importance of executive func-
tion for early reading development and education [Special issue]. Early Education and Devel-
opment, 23, 1–13.
Cartwright, K. B., Bock, A., Guiffré, H., & Montaño, M. (2006). Using classification tasks to
assess and improve reading-­specific cognitive flexibility. Cognitive Technology, 11(2), 23–29.
Cartwright, K. B., Clause, J., & Schmidt, J. (2007, December). Effects of a small-group graphopho-
nological–semantic flexibility intervention on reading comprehension in elementary stu-
dents. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
Cartwright, K. B., & Coppage, E. A. (2009, December). Cognitive profiles of word callers: Cog-
nitive flexibility, vocabulary, and word identification in elementary school-­aged good and
poor comprehenders. Paper presented at the 59th annual meeting of the Literacy Research
Association (formerly the National Reading Conference), Albuquerque, NM.
Cartwright, K. B., Coppage, E. A., Guiffré, H., & Strube, L. (2008, July). A comparison of meta-
cognitive skills and cognitive flexibility in good and poor comprehenders. Poster presented at
the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Asheville, NC.
Cartwright, K. B., Covington, M., Huemer, C., Paparelli, S., & Payne, J. (2011, December).
Executive Function and Reading Comprehension 69

Exploring the role of executive function in reading fluency: Effects of cognitive flexibil-
ity training on elementary students’ rate and expressiveness. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Literacy Research Association, Jacksonville, FL.
Cartwright, K. B., Debruin-­Parecki, A., Vaughn, S., Badalis, J., & Orelski, J. (2014). The role of
theory of mind and executive skills in preschoolers’ expressive vocabulary, narrative com-
prehension, and response to comprehension intervention. Poster to be presented at Head
Start’s 12th National Research Conference on Early Childhood, Washington, DC.
Cartwright, K. B., & DeWyngaert, L. U. (2014, December). The contribution of EF and motiva-
tion to reading comprehension in former elementary students with good and poor reading
comprehension. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Literacy Research Association,
Marco Island, FL.
Cartwright, K. B., & Guajardo, N. R. (2015). The role of hot and cool executive functions in
pre-­reader comprehension. In A. DeBruin-­Parecki & S. Gear (Eds.), Pre-­reader comprehen-
sion: One of the essential building blocks to becoming a successful reader (pp. 151–178).
Baltimore: Brookes.
Cartwright, K. B., Guiffré, H., Bock, A., & Coppage, E. A. (2011, October). Effects of executive
function training on reading comprehension and cognitive flexibility in second to fifth grade
struggling readers. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Cognitive Development
Society, Philadelphia, PA.
Cartwright, K. B., Isaac, M. C., & Dandy, K. L. (2006). The development of reading-­specific
representational flexibility: A cross-­sectional comparison of second graders, fourth graders,
and college students. In A. V. Mittel (Ed.), Focus on educational psychology (pp. 173–194).
New York: Nova Science.
Cartwright, K. B., Lane, A. B., & Singleton, T. S. (2012, December). Effects of an executive skills
intervention for reading comprehension in an RTI framework. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Literacy Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Cartwright, K. B., Marshall, T. R., Dandy, K., & Isaac, M. C. (2010). The development of
graphophonological–­semantic cognitive flexibility and its contribution to reading compre-
hension in beginning readers. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11, 61–85.
Case, R. (1992). Neo-­Piagetian theories of child development. In R. J. Sternberg & C. A. Berg
(Eds.), Intellectual development (pp. 161–196). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Case, R., & Okamoto, Y. (1996). The role of central conceptual structures in the development of
children’s thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61(1–2,
Serial No. 246).
Clay, M. M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heine-
mann.
Clay, M. M. (2001). Change over time in children’s literacy development. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Colé, P., Duncan, L. G., & Blaye, A. (2014). Cognitive flexibility predicts early reading skills.
Frontiers in Psychology: Cognitive Science, 5, Article 565.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual difference in working memory and reading.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.
Davidson, M. C., Amso, D., Anderson, L. C., & Diamond, A. (2006). Development of cognitive
control and executive functions from 4 to 13 years: Evidence from manipulations of memory,
inhibition, and task switching. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2037–2078.
Dawson, P., & Guare, R. (2010). Executive skills in children and adolescents: A practical guide to
assessment and intervention (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Dewitz, P., & Dewitz, P. K. (2003). They can read the words, but they can’t understand. The Read-
ing Teacher, 56, 422–435.
Diamond, A., & Kirkham, N. (2005). Not quite as grown up as we like to think: Parallels between
cognition in childhood and adulthood. Psychological Science, 16, 291–297.
Dolch, E. W. (1960). Teaching primary reading (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Garrard Press.
Duke, N. K., Cartwright, K. B., & Hilden, K. (2013). Difficulties with reading comprehension. In
70 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & G. P. Wallach (Eds.), Handbook of language and

literacy: Development and disorders. New York: Guilford Press.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (2008). Response to intervention: A framework for read-
ing educators. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Gaskins, I. W., Satlow, E., & Pressley, M. (2007). Executive control of reading comprehension in
the elementary school. In L. Meltzer (Ed.), Executive function in education: From theory to
practice. New York: Guilford Press.
Goodman, K. S. (1976). Behind the eye: What happens in reading. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell
(Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (2nd ed., pp. 470–496). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Guajardo, N. R., & Cartwright, K. B. (2015). A longitudinal study of the role of false belief
understanding in elementary students’ reading awareness and reading comprehension. Man-
uscript in preparation.
Henderson, L., Snowling, M., & Clarke, P. (2013). Accessing, integrating, and inhibiting word
meaning in poor comprehenders. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 177–198.
Huey, E. B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. New York: Macmillan.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1964). The early growth of logic in the child (E. A. Lunzer & D. Papert,
Trans.). New York: Humanities Press. (No publication date provided for original work)
Jacques, S., & Zelazo, P. D. (2001). The flexible item selection task (FIST): A measure of executive
function in preschoolers. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20, 573–591.
Jerman, O., Reynolds, C., & Swanson, H. L. (2012). Does growth in working memory span or
executive processes predict growth in reading and math in children with reading disabilities?
Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 144–157.
Kieffer, M. J., Vukovic, R. K., & Berry, D. (2013). Roles of attention shifting and inhibitory
control in fourth-­grade reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 333–348.
Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2006). Do children and adults learn differently? Journal of Cognition and
Development, 7, 279–293.
Latzman, R. D., Elkovitch, N., Young, J., & Clark, L. A. (2010). The contribution of execu-
tive functioning to academic achievement among male adolescents. Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Neuropsychology, 32, 455–462.
Locascio, G., Mahone, E. M., Eason, S. H., & Cutting, L. (2010). Executive dysfunction among
children with reading comprehension deficits. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 441–454.
Oakhill, J., & Yuill, N. (1996). Higher order factors in comprehension disability: Processes and
remediation. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Pro-
cesses and intervention (p. 69–92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M., & Lundeberg, M. (2008). An invitation to study professionals reading professional-­
level texts: A window on exceptionally complex, flexible reading. In K. B. Cartwright (Ed.),
Literacy processes: Cognitive flexibility in learning and teaching (pp. 165–187). New York:
Guilford Press.
Sesma, H. W., Mahone, E. M., Levine, T., Eason, S. H., & Cutting, L. (2009). The contribution of
executive skills to reading comprehension. Child Neuropsychology, 15, 232–246.
Siegler, R. S. (2000). The rebirth of children’s learning. Child Development, 71, 26–35.
Spiro, R. J. (2004). Principled pluralism for adaptive flexibility in teaching and learning to read.
In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.,
pp. 654–659). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lyon, G. R. (2002). Making a difference in education: Will psychology pass up
the chance? Monitor on Psychology, 33(7), 76.
Strasser, K., & del Río, F. (2014). The role of comprehension monitoring, theory of mind, and
vocabulary depth in predicting story comprehension and recall of kindergarten children.
Reading Research Quarterly, 49, 169–187.
Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Executive control in reading comprehension. In B. K.
Britton, & S. M. Glynn (Eds.), Executive control processes in reading (pp. 1–21). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Executive Function and Reading Comprehension 71

Woodcock, R. W. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Test—­Revised. Circle Pines, MN: Ameri-
can Guidance Service.
Yan, R., & Yu, G. (2006). Cognitive flexibility of reading-­disabled children: Development and
characteristics. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 14(1), 33–35.
Yeniad, N., Malda, M., Mesman, J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Pieper, S. (2013). Shifting ability
predicts math and reading performance in children: A meta-­analytical study. Learning and
Individual Differences, 23, 1–9.
Yuill, N., Kerawalla, L., Pearce, D., Luckin, R., & Harris, A. (2008). Using technology to teach
flexibility through peer discussion. In K. B. Cartwright (Ed.), Literacy processes: Cognitive
flexibility in learning and teaching. New York: Guilford Press.
Zelazo, P. D., & Frye, D. (1998). Cognitive complexity and control II: The development of execu-
tive function in childhood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 121–126.
Zelazo, P. D., Müller, U., Frye, D., & Marcovitch, S. (2003). The development of executive func-
tion in early childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
68(3, Serial No. 274).
 Chapter 6

Metacognition in
Comprehension Instruction
New Directions

Linda Baker, Laura U. DeWyngaert,

and Alisa Zeliger‑Kandasamy

The popular appeal of metacognition in relation to comprehension

continues to be strong. An April 2014 Google search by the chapter
authors yielded 104,000 results for “metacognitive reading strategies.”

E mpirical inquiry on metacognition continues to flourish, and the importance of meta-

cognition to education is widely acknowledged (Elfklides & Misailidi, 2010; Hacker,
Dunlosky, & Graesser, 2008). Research evidence is sufficiently strong that government-­
sponsored panels in the United States and elsewhere have recommended that students be
taught metacognitive skills as part of their reading instruction (e.g., National Reading
Panel, 2000). Our purpose in this chapter is to review the research on metacognition as
it relates to reading comprehension instruction, with particular attention to work com-
pleted since this volume was last updated (Baker, 2008a). Metacognition is defined herein
as knowledge about cognition and regulation of cognition. Metacognitive control in read-
ing is often referred to as comprehension monitoring, which involves deciding whether or
not one understands (evaluation) and taking appropriate steps to correct comprehension
problems that are detected (regulation).
This chapter highlights the following:

• Research illustrating how metacognition contributes to reading comprehension in

conjunction with basic processes such as word recognition, and working memory
and other executive functions.
• Research illustrating how self-­system variables such as motivation, interest, and
self-­concepts of ability relate to metacognition and the effectiveness of strategy
training.

72
Metacognition in Comprehension Instruction 73

• Research on the accuracy with which students evaluate their comprehension of

expository text in preparation for testing and training efforts to increase compre-
hension monitoring.
• Research designed to enhance reading comprehension by fostering metacognitive
awareness and control.

What’s Out There Today: Established Research and Practice

It is well established that older and better readers possess more sophisticated metacogni-
tive knowledge about reading and are more capable of evaluating and regulating their
own comprehension processes than younger and less skilled readers (Baker, 2008b; Baker
& Brown, 1984). Developmental studies conducted early in the 21st century have yielded
remarkably similar patterns to those found in the 1970s and 1980s. To illustrate, Eme,
Puustinen, and Coutelet (2006) interviewed French children about their metacognitive
knowledge of reading and their awareness of control strategies. Fifth graders were more
likely than third graders to cite understanding as characteristic of a good reader, whereas
the younger students described a good reader as one who reads quickly without a mis-
take. The researchers also documented limitations in the approaches the students used
during an authentic reading task. Students in both grades focused on comprehension dif-
ficulties at the level of individual words rather than at higher levels of meaning construc-
tion, and they did not use strategies to help address their misunderstandings.
We also know that metacognitive skills do not develop automatically with increasing
age and experience. Children with weaker skills than their peers in the primary grades
(e.g., third grade) continue to have weaker skills in middle school (e.g., eighth grade)
(Roeschl-­Heils, Schneider, & van Kraayenoord, 2003). In fact, a substantial body of
research indicates that metacognitive monitoring is poor among college students (Thiede,
Griffin, Wiley, & Redford, 2009).
The mounting evidence of links between metacognition and reading comprehension
led to the design of experimental studies that teach students metacognitive knowledge
and control skills. Although such efforts were successful, it is now clear that an exclusive
focus on metacognition is not sufficient to improve reading comprehension. Many other
factors play a role, including word recognition skills; cognitive, motivational, and affec-
tive factors; and background knowledge (Baker, 2008b). Engaging in laborious decoding,
for example, taxes working memory, interfering with not only the construction of mean-
ing but also comprehension monitoring (Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2004). Motivation and
related self-­system constructs, such as perceptions of competence and interest, are also
associated with metacognition and reading comprehension (Roeschl-­Heils et al., 2003).
These basic descriptive and experimental studies helped set the stage for the more com-
plex intervention studies that began to appear in the literature.
Intervention studies have been part of the metacognitive literature almost from the
outset, with small-scale researcher-­led training studies giving way to research conducted
in the much more challenging environment of real classrooms. Most of these efforts were
based on the principles that the best way to promote metacognition is to discuss, model,
and practice it explicitly, and that there should be a gradual transfer of responsibility for
regulating performance from the teacher to the child. Representative of the instructional
approaches still being used today is reciprocal teaching, first developed by Palincsar and
Brown (1984). In this seminal study, seventh-­grade children working within small groups
were taught to use the strategies of predicting upcoming text, clarifying unknown words
74 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

and concepts, summarizing what was read, and generating deep questions about the
material. These particular strategies were selected for their potential to help students
comprehend, as well as monitor, their comprehension. The intervention was successful in
promoting strategy use, as well as reading comprehension, and it stimulated many suc-
cessful multiple-­strategies interventions in the 1990s (e.g., Brown, Pressley, Van Meter, &
Schuder, 1996; Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997; Klingner, Vaughn, & Shumm,
1998) and early 2000s (e.g., Guthrie et al., 2004; Houtveen & van de Grift, 2007; Sou-
vignier & Mokhlesgerami, 2006; Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005).
Given the number of well-­designed studies examining the impact of metacognitively
oriented reading comprehension instruction over the years, and the high degree of inter-
est among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in the outcomes, it is fitting that
several comprehensive meta-­analyses have been undertaken (Dignath & Buttner, 2008;
Haller, Child, & Walberg, 1988; National Reading Panel, 2000; Rosenshine & Meister,
1994). A strong consensus has emerged that such instruction does in fact have positive
effects on not only metacognitive knowledge and control but also reading comprehen-
sion. The most recent of these meta-­analyses, by Dignath and Buttner (2008), examined
interventions in different content domains (math, reading–­writing, and other), at differ-
ent grade levels (primary, secondary), and with different instructional components (cog-
nitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, metacognitive reflection, and motivation). We
highlight three important conclusions within the reading domain that we revisit through-
out this chapter:

1. Strategy instruction yields greater benefits for students at secondary rather than
primary levels. (Note that the term primary is used in Europe and elsewhere to refer
to students in elementary school, not just students in the first few years of schooling,
as in the United States.) This conclusion of Dignath and Buttner (2008) reflects in part
that older students may have already acquired some metacognitive knowledge from their
more extensive schooling history and so are better able to build on prior experiences.
The developmental difference may also have neurobiological underpinnings; the brain’s
prefrontal lobes, which are involved in higher order cognitive processes and executive
control, are more fully mature in adolescence. The meta-­analysis did not contrast out-
comes for older and younger students at the elementary level, but research shows that
older elementary children (e.g., fifth graders) benefit more from metacognitively oriented
instruction than younger students (e.g., second graders) (Williams & Atkins, 2009). If
children are not yet fluent in the basic processes of reading, they must allocate their
limited cognitive resources to these rather than to higher level processes. Nevertheless,
children have shown gains in both metacognition and comprehension as early as second
grade (e.g., Brown et al., 1996).
2. Classroom-­based interventions are more effective the longer they are implemented
(Dignath & Buttner, 2008). This conclusion reflects the fact that learning to use metacog-
nitive strategies effectively does not happen quickly. Students need ample time to practice
the strategies, to receive feedback on their use, and to take on full responsibility for their
application. The likelihood of transfer of strategies to new contexts also increases with
more instructional time. Interventions have varied considerably in length, ranging from
as little as four sessions over a few weeks to daily sessions over an entire academic year.
Dignath and Buttner did not explicitly link longer duration of implementation to better
retention of the taught strategies, but there is likely a connection, and many studies do
address the issue of maintenance over time.
Metacognition in Comprehension Instruction 75

3. Effects of strategy training are stronger when it is provided by researchers rather

than classroom teachers (Dignath & Buttner, 2008). Researcher-­led interventions are less
common now than they were in earlier years, but they are still undertaken when the goal
is to demonstrate the promise of a novel approach. This conclusion highlights the impor-
tance of strong professional development in order to give teachers the knowledge and
skills to implement metacognitively oriented reading interventions in their classrooms. It
also shows why fidelity of implementation needs to be carefully documented in interven-
tion research. Although metacognition has long held popular appeal, many teachers still
have limited knowledge and experience in fostering it (Williams & Atkins, 2009).

In the first decade of the millennium, metacognitive strategies interventions were

most often implemented in classrooms with older students (intermediate and secondary
levels) and over longer durations. Teachers most often delivered the instruction, thereby
giving the research greater ecological validity but at the risk of weaker effects. The les-
sons incorporated both cognitive and metacognitive strategies shown through meta-­
analyses to be effective when taught individually or in combination (National Reading
Panel, 2000). The instructional package typically included both teacher-­led and student-­
centered components that also had been documented as effective, including explicit
explanation of how, when, and why to use the strategies, modeling, guided practice, and
peer collaboration. Other common features of the research were randomized controlled
trials, assessments of implementation fidelity, multilevel data-­analyticv techniques with
large samples, and assessments of generalization and maintenance. Many of the studies
were undertaken outside of the United States, reflecting the international interest in fos-
tering students’ metacognition. An illustrative study was conducted in the Netherlands by
Houtveen and van de Grift (2007). Instruction in cognitive and metacognitive strategies
was delivered to 10-year-olds by their teachers, and performance was compared with stu-
dents in standard practice classrooms. The strategies intervention students gained more
in metacognitive knowledge and in reading comprehension. Moreover, this comprehen-
sion advantage (on a standardized test) was maintained until the beginning of the next
school year.
An innovative feature of some turn-of-the-­ century interventions was to include
instructional components in addition to multiple strategies. Two studies of note built in
motivational supports that yielded stronger outcomes than strategies instruction alone.
In the first, Guthrie and colleagues (2004) developed Concept-­Oriented Reading Instruc-
tion (CORI), an intervention that combines multiple strategies instruction with moti-
vational support for reading and learning within theme-based science units. Classroom
teachers used CORI with their third graders in a 12-week implementation, with 90 min-
utes of instruction a day. In order to determine whether creating a motivating instruc-
tional context had effects on reading comprehension beyond strategies instruction alone,
a strategies-­only group was included, as was a traditional instruction comparison group.
CORI fostered greater gains in reading comprehension on a standardized test than did
the strategies-­only condition, which in turn had better outcomes than traditional instruc-
tion. In addition, CORI increased strategy use and motivation more than the other two
instructional conditions. In the second study, implemented by Souvignier and Mokhles-
gerami (2006), German fifth graders and their teachers participated in one of three strat-
egies conditions: (1) cognitive and metacognitive strategies alone; (2) same as the first but
with support for cognitive self-­regulation; and (3) same as the second but with support
for motivation self-­regulation. Relative to a standard practice comparison condition, stu-
dents in all three strategy groups improved in reading comprehension (as assessed on a
76 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

standardized test) and in understanding and application of reading strategies. Moreover,

long-term follow-­up effects were greatest when instruction included strategy instruction
and both cognitive and motivational self-­regulation.
Intervention researchers in the early 2000s also manipulated conditions under which
multiple-­strategies instruction was delivered, in order to determine whether certain con-
figurations were more effective than others, such as group size and student grade level.
Van Keer and Verhaeghe (2005) compared performance of second and fifth graders in
Belgium, who participated in teacher-­led whole-class strategies instruction, reciprocal
same-age peer tutoring, or cross-age peer tutoring. The second graders demonstrated
gains in reading comprehension from teacher-­led and cross-age tutoring activities, but
not from same-age tutoring, whereas fifth graders in all three practice conditions showed
greater gains relative to peers in a comparison group. However, the comprehension
gains of the second graders were not maintained 6 months after program completion.
These findings confirm that children as early as second grade can benefit from multiple-­
strategies instruction when it is practiced with more knowledgeable others (i.e., teachers
or older students) but not with same-age peers. Relatedly, the fifth graders assigned to
work with the younger children did not retain their long-term benefits.
In summary, the results of research in the early 2000s continued to illustrate develop-
mental and ability-­related differences in metacognitive knowledge and control of reading.
At the same time, it provided further evidence that students did not automatically acquire
the metacognitive skills that would support effective comprehension and learning of text.
The practical implications remained clear: Such skills should be deliberately fostered in the
classroom. The intervention studies of the decade were similar to one another in instruc-
tional approach and in the mix of strategies taught, revealing positive effects of multiple-­
strategies interventions on reading comprehension. However, the strength of the effects
was moderated by the age of the students, the length of the intervention, the inclusion of
motivational supports, and the group configuration in which strategies were practiced.

New Research on Metacognition in Comprehension Instruction

Recent research on metacognition in relation to reading comprehension continues to

address a broad range of issues, with a mix of basic descriptive/correlational studies and
intervention research conducted in classrooms. One new facet of current research is a
focus on executive functions and how they relate to metacognition and reading compre-
hension. This focus parallels the increased attention to executive control processes among
developmental and cognitive science researchers more broadly. Another facet of research
that we consider in this chapter, reading for remembering, is not new but is receiving
more attention with younger students. Reading for remembering involves the same skills
as reading for understanding, but it also requires skills for self-­regulated studying (Baker
& Brown, 1984). Particular attention is given to metacomprehension accuracy, a skill
that comes into play when students appraise whether or not they understand material
well enough to achieve a particular goal, such as a test (Thiede et al., 2009, Vidal-­Abarca,
Mañá, & Gil, 2010). In this section, we begin by highlighting recent descriptive and
correlational research, then move on to consideration of training/intervention studies
designed to improve metacognitive skills, with the ultimate goal of improving reading
comprehension. Some of the interventions were conducted within reading comprehension
instruction itself (e.g., multiple-­strategies instruction), whereas others were conducted as
researcher-­led experiments or more self-­contained interventions in the classroom.
Metacognition in Comprehension Instruction 77

Recent Descriptive and Correlational Research

Descriptive studies are less common today than in decades past, but we see further evi-
dence of interconnections among metacognition, cognition, and motivation in relation
to reading comprehension (Dermitzaki, Andreou, & Paraskeva, 2008; Roebers, Cimeli,
Röthlisberger, & Neuenschwander, 2012; van Kraayenoord, Beinicke, Schlagmüller, &
Schneider, 2012). For example, van Kraayenoord et al. investigated the relations among
metacognitive knowledge, self-­concept, interest, word identification, and reading com-
prehension in third and fourth graders in Australia. Reading comprehension was strongly
predicted by the cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational variables.
The Roebers et al. (2012) study demonstrated similar interconnections but also
included assessments of executive functions and cognitive monitoring, as well as self-­
concept. The executive function tasks tapped inhibition, verbal fluency, and cognitive
flexibility. The metacognitive task required children to spell a set of words varying in
difficulty, to indicate their confidence in the correctness of the spellings (monitoring),
and to revise their spellings if they thought it necessary (control). Relations among meta-
cognition, executive functioning, and self-­concept were strong, both concurrently and
longitudinally, among Swiss children assessed at the end of first grade and second grade.
Furthermore, both executive functioning and metacognitive control were significant pre-
dictors of literacy, as indicated by school achievement test data. Perceptions of compe-
tence in reading did not predict reading scores, unlike in the van Kraayenoord et al.
(2012) study, but relations between self-­concept and achievement are often not as strong
among beginning readers.
Real-time behavioral evidence of interconnections among cognition, motivation,
and metacognition was provided in a study of the strategic reading behaviors of Greek
third graders identified as either good or poor comprehenders (Dermitzaki et al., 2008).
Students read a passage aloud and stopped periodically to respond orally to different
types of comprehension questions. Through observational analysis of verbal and nonver-
bal behaviors captured on video recordings, the researchers identified strategic and self-­
regulatory behaviors in the three domains. High-­achieving students regulated both their
cognition and motivation more effectively than low-­achieving peers, and they used more
metacognitive and cognitive strategies (i.e., planning, awareness of errors, and adjust-
ment of aims).

Accuracy of Monitoring Comprehension

With increasing attention to children’s comprehension of expository text (Common Core
State Standards; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of
Chief State School Officers, 2010), efforts to increase children’s ability to evaluate how
well they have understood such materials seem well justified. This is a metacognitive skill
not often mastered well by college students, but Thiede and his colleagues (2009) have
extended their successful training efforts with adults downward to include younger stu-
dents. de Bruin, Thiede, Camp, and Redford (2011) investigated whether children would
benefit from generating key words that capture the important ideas in a passage prior to
making judgments about comprehension. In one experiment, seventh graders from the
United States read a set of expository passages, and half of them generated key words.
All students then judged how many questions they thought they would be able to answer
in a test on each passage. Next, students chose passages they thought they needed to
reread for better comprehension; this task provided an indication of regulation of study.
78 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

Students who generated key words had better metacomprehension accuracy than those
who did not, and they were also better able to identify which texts required further study.
In a second experiment with fourth and sixth graders from the Netherlands, outcomes
for the sixth graders were similar to those for the seventh graders, but fourth graders
did not benefit from generating key words. This developmental difference likely reflects
increased familiarity with expository texts among middle school students and the more
frequent demands for reading to learn.
Taking advantage of an unusual opportunity, Thiede, Redford, Wiley, and Griffin
(2012) examined differences in metacomprehension accuracy as a function of how long
students had been attending a school with an innovative curriculum. Participants were
seventh and eighth graders who were either newcomers to the school or had been attend-
ing for more than 4 years. The school was a charter school in which curricula emphasized
reading for meaning, inference making, and deep comprehension, and where students
engaged regularly in the metacognitive strategies of summarization, discussion, and pre-
diction. In one experiment, students read expository texts and judged their comprehen-
sion, then answered questions that focused on either details or inferences. All students
performed better on the lower level detail questions, but the long-time students outper-
formed the newcomers on the inferential questions. Moreover, the long-time students
were better at judging their comprehension of the testing material. In a second experi-
ment, the long-time students were better able to regulate their study efforts by accurately
choosing which texts they needed to reread. The results of this natural experiment are
particularly pertinent in the context of this chapter, because they reveal that when school-
wide instructional practices include metacognitive strategies and an emphasis on deep
comprehension, students develop more adaptive ways of reading for understanding and
remembering.

Interventions That Include Multiple Strategies Instruction

In this section we present several recent studies involving multiple-­strategies instruction
within the context of reading comprehension lessons. The studies contribute to the litera-
ture in multiple ways, including a full-scale efficacy trial of an already well-­established
intervention, Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR; Vaughn, Klinger, Swanson, &
Boardman, 2011); an assessment of intervention effectiveness with struggling adoles-
cent readers (Berkeley, Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 2011; Cantrell, Almasi, Carter, Rinta-
maa, & Madden, 2010); a further exploration of optimal group configurations (Spörer,
Brunstein, & Kieschke, 2009); and a comparison of modalities of instructional deliv-
ery (reading vs. listening) (Caretti, Caldarola, Tencati, & Cornoldi, 2013). In addition,
we consider studies in which multiple-­strategies instruction is supplemented with other
features to determine whether effectiveness is increased, including metacomprehension
accuracy training (Huff & Nietfeld, 2009), attribution retraining (Berkeley et al., 2011),
and working memory training (Caretti et al., 2013). The instructional programs gener-
ally reflect best practices in the field and include teaching students strategies to monitor
comprehension and helping them understand that the cognitive and metacognitive strate-
gies facilitate understanding.

Efficacy Trial of CSR

Despite the widespread use of multiple-­strategies interventions in classrooms, implemen-
tations vary from study to study, and randomized controlled trials are seldom conducted.
Metacognition in Comprehension Instruction 79

Recently, however, CSR was put to a rigorous test in a large-scale efficacy trial. Vaughn
et al. (2011) implemented the program in six middle schools and 61 language arts/read-
ing classes. Teachers were trained to administer the program and received classroom
coaching and support to ensure fidelity of implementation. The intervention took place
over 18 weeks with seventh- and eighth-­grade students. Multilevel modeling indicated
that students in the CSR classes made greater gains in reading comprehension than those
receiving standard instruction. Additionally, even when students had comparable pre-
test scores on a metacognitive strategies questionnaire, those participating in CSR made
greater gains. This indicates that having metacognitive knowledge alone is not sufficient;
students need to have opportunities to practice metacognitive control and strategy use.

Manipulations of Group Structure

Spörer et al. (2009) created small groups of four to six students that were taught to
use reciprocal teaching in pairs or that received instructor-­guided strategies instruction.
Graduate students led all of the intervention groups after regular reading instruction
for 14 lessons over 7 weeks. Students were administered pretests and posttests, and a
follow-­up test 12 weeks later. Testing included standardized and researcher-­developed
comprehension tests, as well as assessments of the use of the four taught strategies (sum-
marizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting). Students in all intervention conditions
improved in reading comprehension more than standard practice comparison students
at both posttest and follow-­up, but the advantage was greatest for the reciprocal teach-
ing groups. Long-term retention of strategies was also greater in the reciprocal teaching
groups. Outcomes did not differ across the grade levels. Of note is that children as young
as third graders benefited from working in pairs with one another, in contrast to results
from Van Keer and Verhaeghe (2005), in which second graders did not benefit.

Metacomprehension Accuracy
Given recognition of the value of self-­assessing comprehension, a recent study examined
the combined effects of multiple-­strategies instruction with metacomprehension accuracy
training. Working with U.S. fifth graders, Huff and Nietfeld (2009) implemented two
researcher-­led training conditions, conducted over 12 consecutive school days. Students
in the comprehension monitoring group were taught to become aware of their compre-
hension of texts and use strategies of summarizing, rereading, self-­questioning, adjust-
ing reading speed, and making connections. Students in the comprehension monitoring
plus monitoring accuracy condition received the same training but also had opportuni-
ties to reflect on relations between confidence ratings and actual performance. Students
read short passages and answered multiple-­choice questions from the Gates–­MacGinitie
Reading Test. After answering each question, students indicated how confident they
felt in their answer. Students in both of the comprehension monitoring groups became
more confident and more accurate than students who did not receive training in judg-
ing how successful they were in answering comprehension questions. However, those
receiving training in monitoring accuracy became overconfident in their responses. This
may indicate that fifth graders have not yet fully developed the skills to judge their own
comprehension accurately, a suggestion that is consistent with the results of de Bruin et
al. (2011). Neither type of metacognitive training led to improvements in reading com-
prehension, an outcome that may be explained by the relatively limited duration of the
training (Dignath & Buttner, 2008).
80 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

Working Memory
Research clearly indicates that students who are unable to hold information from the text
in memory while processing subsequent text have difficulty constructing a coherent men-
tal representation (Cain et al., 2004). Based on this evidence, Carretti et al. (2013) devel-
oped a multiple-­strategies intervention that also included instruction in working memory
skills and text integration. An additional novel element is that this study included a com-
parison of modality effects, with training provided either via reading, the usual approach,
or via listening. Classroom teachers administered instruction over the course of 11 weeks
to fourth- and fifth-grade students in Italy. Both intervention groups showed greater gains
in metacognitive knowledge and control than a standard instruction comparison group,
but all three groups improved. All three groups also improved comparably in text integra-
tion skills. Perhaps the standard instruction students received in these schools included
metacognitive components, as well as instruction in integrating passage content. On a
test of working memory, only the intervention group that received training via reading
improved from pre- to posttest. In addition, students who received the instruction via
reading showed improved comprehension on both listening and reading comprehension
tasks, indicating transfer of training from one modality to another. However, students
in the listening group improved on listening comprehension alone. In addition, the read-
ing group members maintained their postintervention gains some 8 months later, but
the listening group members did not. The authors suggested that the benefits in working
memory skills for the reading group helped sustain their comprehension advantage.

Struggling Adolescent Readers

Interventions of longer duration yield larger effects (Dignath & Buttner, 2008), and
length is arguably of greater importance for students who are struggling readers. Cantrell
et al. (2010) implemented a multiple-­strategies intervention including both cognitive and
metacognitive strategies. The strategies of self-­questioning and paraphrasing are com-
mon to many studies, but this project also included training in visual imagery. The pro-
gram implemented in middle and high schools compared a whole-­school model with a
targeted intervention for sixth- and ninth-grade students reading 2 years below grade
level. The whole-­school model included professional development for all literacy teach-
ers, and all students in the school participated in this model. Intervention teachers also
received professional development to administer the strategies-­focused curriculum, which
was delivered approximately 250 minutes a week over an entire school year. Delivery
adhered to recommended practices (i.e., explicit instruction, followed by guided practice,
culminating in student-­initiated strategy use). Sixth graders in the targeted intervention
outperformed sixth graders in the whole-­school model on measures of reading compre-
hension and the reported use of some metacognitive strategies but not others. In contrast,
ninth graders in the targeted intervention did not show gains relative to their peers. This
outcome led Cantrell et al. to suggest that older students may require different types of
intervention strategies. It may be that motivational supports are needed for these students
who have such a long history of struggling to read, a suggestion supported by Berkeley et
al. (2011), which we discuss next.

Motivational/Affective Training
Students who struggle with reading frequently develop negative perceptions of their com-
petencies, and research shows the importance of providing self-­system support, as well
Metacognition in Comprehension Instruction 81

as metacognitive instruction. Attribution retraining is one way to address the self-blame

of students who seldom experience success. Berkeley et al. (2011) implemented a reading
comprehension strategy instruction program with or without attribution retraining for
struggling readers in grades 6 through 9. Project and school staff members provided strat-
egies instruction over a 4-week period that included purpose setting, self-­questioning,
and strategy monitoring. Students in the strategy plus attribution retraining group were
taught to use self-talk to increase persistence and flexible strategy use, and teachers pro-
vided attribution feedback to help students make connections between the use of strate-
gies and academic outcomes. At a 6-week delayed posttest, students in both strategy
groups outperformed students who were receiving the standard curriculum for struggling
readers on metacomprehension strategy awareness, as well as reading comprehension. Of
particular significance is that students in the attribution retraining group retained the
benefits of intervention to a greater degree than those who received strategy instruction
alone. This outcome further confirms the increased durability of strategies training when
motivational supports are also provided.

Comparison with a Content‑Based Instructional Approach

Increasing attention is being given to development of students’ content knowledge dur-
ing reading comprehension instruction, as well as their strategy knowledge. As discussed
previously, CORI (Guthrie et al., 2004) included content lessons, along with strategies
instruction. The studies considered thus far in this chapter involve multiple-­strategies
instruction with or without additional components, and with a comparison to standard
classroom practice. Until recently, researchers have not compared multiple-­strategies
instruction to other programs that do not include strategies instruction. In an important
contribution to the literature, McKeown, Beck, and Blake (2009) compared a multiple-­
strategies approach with Questioning the Author (QtA), an approach that focuses on
content that has been well-­documented as effective. The researchers implemented the
two interventions in fifth-grade classrooms over a 5-week period, and they also included
a third group receiving basal lessons. The materials used in the lessons were the same
across the three conditions, but the questions that were posed varied. All texts used in
the first year of the study were narratives, but expository texts on science topics were
added in a replication year. In all three conditions, classroom teachers stopped at preset
points within the text and began a discussion. In the content approach, teachers initiated
discussion with questions such as “What is going on here?”; “How does this connect to
what we read earlier?”; and “What does this mean?” In the strategies approach, teach-
ers prompted discussion about a particular strategy and reminded students how to use it
(i.e., summarizing, predicting, drawing inferences, generating questions, and monitoring
comprehension). In the basal condition, the questions were those provided in instructors’
guides. The researchers tested understanding and remembering by asking students to
recall specific lesson texts orally and to verify the truth value of sentences based on literal
or inferential information from the passages. At the end of the intervention, students
completed a comprehension monitoring assessment and an assessment of strategy use.
The quality of the discussions that took place during the lessons was also analyzed.
Results of the McKeown et al. (2009) study indicated that the content and basal
groups produced significantly longer recalls than the strategy group, and the quality of
recalls was higher in the content group than in the strategy group for both narrative and
expository texts. Scores on the sentence verification tasks did not differ across groups.
Comprehension monitoring improved from pre- to posttest for all conditions, and strat-
egy use did not improve across any condition. Additionally, content and basal students
82 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

made more text-based comments in discussion than strategy students, who often spoke
about the application of the strategies as opposed to the information in the texts. This
study did not include a standardized assessment of reading comprehension, and the trans-
fer task the researchers developed did not reveal a significant advantage of one approach
over another. The authors concluded that the content approach was more effective than
the strategies approach, because it led students to consider text content directly, whereas
a strategies approach led them to content only indirectly. McKeown et al. suggested that
the strategy approach did not provide the students with an advantage over their peers,
even on the comprehension monitoring and strategies measures, because the basal cur-
riculum that was used in the district addressed strategies.

Other Forms of Metacognitively Oriented Interventions

Multiple strategies instruction is the most common type of metacognitively oriented inter-
vention research, but it is not the only type. Researchers also focus on other skills consid-
ered important to reading comprehension, such as executive functions (Garcia-­Madruga
et al., 2013) and metalinguistic awareness (Zipke, Ehri, & Cairns, 2009). In addition,
researchers who focus on content learning, as opposed to reading comprehension per se,
often use metacognitively based interventions (Michalsky, Mevarech, & Haibi, 2009). In
this section we consider several recent studies that reveal other ways in which fostering
metacognitive skills can in turn improve comprehension.

Executive Functioning
As discussed previously, it is increasingly recognized that executive functions play a role
in skilled comprehension. Garcia-­Madruga et al. (2013) tested a program designed to
increase reading comprehension skills by training executive functions. Third graders in
Spain received either standard instruction from their teachers or researcher-­led execu-
tive functioning training over 4 weeks, with tasks that gradually increased in difficulty.
Tasks included organizing sentences into correct sequence to create a story, interpreting
complex written instructions about a sequence of actions, solving semantic and syntactic
anaphora or analogy problems, identifying internal and external inconsistencies in texts,
integrating multiple sources of information, and actively keeping track of changing infor-
mation. Note that these executive function tasks are closely tied to metacognitive skills
involved in reading. Each task was explicitly taught with modeling, guided practice, and
independent practice. The intervention group exhibited greater gains in reading compre-
hension than did the comparison group. Of particular importance is that poorer readers
benefited more from the training than did better readers.

Metalinguistic Awareness
Correlational research has suggested that metalinguistic awareness, a skill closely related
to metacognitive awareness, may contribute to reading comprehension. Children need
to be able to reflect on language itself to detect and resolve processing difficulties that
may arise from lexical, syntactic, or semantic ambiguities. Zipke et al. (2009) designed
an experimental study to determine whether training in metalinguistic awareness would
improve the reading comprehension and comprehension monitoring skills of third grad-
ers. Although the authors did not frame their research in this way, the cognitive flexibility
required to deal with linguistic ambiguities is a type of executive functioning. Students
Metacognition in Comprehension Instruction 83

participated in four sessions over four weeks, taught one-on-one by the lead researcher,
wherein they were taught to reprocess ambiguous words, sentences, and longer texts to
decipher alternative meanings. Students who received ambiguity training showed greater
improvement from pretest to posttest on metalinguistic awareness, comprehension moni-
toring, and a standardized test of reading comprehension than did children in a compari-
son condition.

Metacognitive Guidance for Content Learning

Michalsky and his colleagues have demonstrated in a number of studies that students
taught to use metacognitive guidance develop greater proficiency in learning from con-
tent texts. In this section we consider a recent study that examined metacognitive guid-
ance during fourth-­grade science lessons in Israel (Michalsky et al., 2009). The key
manipulation was whether students working in small groups received metacognitive
guidance (1) before reading the text, (2) during the reading of the text, (3) after reading
the text, or (4) not at all. The metacognitive guidance consisted of self-­addressed ques-
tions dealing with comprehension of the scientific phenomenon, constructing connec-
tions between old and new knowledge, using inquiry strategies, and reflecting. Teachers
implemented the interventions, with sessions taking place several times per week over
the course of 4 months. In all conditions, students read scientific texts and performed
specific tasks, such as formulating hypotheses and describing experimental results. On a
measure of scientific literacy, the group that received metacognitive guidance after read-
ing outperformed all other groups, whereas the group receiving guidance during reading
scored no higher than the control group. The after-reading group also scored highest on
a measure of metacognitive awareness, followed in order by the before-reading group,
the during-reading group, and the control group. Michalsky et al. suggested that the stu-
dents receiving metacognitive instruction after reading outperformed the others because
they had to reflect on their reading after the fact. They further suggested that the during-
reading group may have scored lower due to the extra demands of balancing cognitive
and metacognitive strategies when reading scientific texts, especially at this grade level.
This suggestion is consistent with evidence that when cognitive resources are taxed (e.g.,
working memory), it is difficult to attend concurrently to metacognitive activities and
text comprehension.

How This New Knowledge Can Improve Comprehension Instruction

The new research on metacognitively oriented strategies instruction provides further evi-
dence of its value in promoting reading comprehension across a range of grade levels and
for both struggling readers and better readers. A notable exception to this generalization
is the study by McKeown et al. (2009), which indicated that an emphasis on content was
more effective than an emphasis on strategies. The authors concluded that it is better
to have children focus on meaning directly than to get at meaning indirectly through
strategies. However, if students in their studies were already using strategies because
of the nature of the comprehension instruction they were receiving in their classrooms,
this conclusion is not necessarily warranted. Both types of interventions in fact build
metacognitive awareness (Baker & Beall, 2008). One of the premises of QtA is that the
author’s ideas are fallible; reflection on the truth or value of what has been written goes
beyond surface-­level understanding.
84 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

It is important for teachers to realize that comprehension monitoring is not a strat-

egy in the sense that summarizing, predicting, and questioning are strategies. Rather, it
is an underlying process that goes on automatically in proficient readers. Although the
National Reading Panel (2000) included this on its list of strategies shown to be effec-
tive in improving comprehension, it is counterproductive to consider it as something that
readers should stop periodically and do. Rather, students should be taught to adjust their
approaches to reading depending on purposes and task demands (Vidal-­Abarca et al.,
2010); to recognize when they do not understand, such as when text is ambiguous (Zipke
et al., 2009); and how to regulate comprehension difficulties. Generating summaries,
key words, concept maps, and the like are external tools that students can use both to
enhance understanding and to clarify for themselves the degree to which they do or do
not understand the content.
Research continues to indicate that strategy training is more effective if motivational
supports are included (Berkeley et al., 2011; Guthrie et al., 2004; Souvignier & Mokhles-
gerami 2006). Not only will students exhibit better performance on immediate tests but
they will also retain their new approaches to comprehension for a longer time. Teachers
can create a motivating climate for their students by providing interesting texts and sup-
porting self-­regulation.
The new Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association, & Coun-
cil of Chief State School Officers, 2010) call for children to begin to acquire compe-
tencies with informational text as early as kindergarten. Efforts to increase children’s
expository text comprehension will be strengthened if they are taught how to evaluate
their understanding of the material and their readiness to be tested on it. Research on
metacomprehension accuracy shows that students of all ages are not very proficient at
evaluating how well they have understood informational text and that efforts to improve
their monitoring skills are warranted. Many of the classroom-­based intervention studies
discussed in this chapter include careful documentation of implementation fidelity, and
results are clear that variations influence treatment outcomes. Teachers differ consider-
ably in how well and how confidently they deliver metacognitively oriented instruction.
The meta-­analysis showing that interventions are more effective when led by researchers
rather than teachers (Dignath & Buttner, 2008) attests to the importance of having a firm
understanding of the principles and processes to be taught.
Until recently, evidence that teachers are addressing metacognition in their stan-
dard classroom instruction has been scarce (Williams & Atkins, 2009). However, we
now see promising indications that students are learning how to implement strategies
to enhance their comprehension and that their knowledge about them is increasing. For
example, the basal curriculum in place at participating schools in one study included
strategies instruction, and students seemed to be familiar with these strategies (McKe-
own et al., 2009). Students in Italy increased in their metacognitive knowledge to the
same degree whether they received a metacognitively oriented intervention or standard
practice (Caretti et al., 2013), again suggesting ongoing instruction as part of standard
practice. Finally, a charter school that was the site of another study had an innova-
tive curriculum that emphasized deep comprehension and strategies; students attending
that school for at least 4 years were more successful in evaluating and regulating their
comprehension of expository text than were students attending for a shorter period of
time (Thiede et al., 2012). This latter finding reveals once again that it takes a long time
to realize the full benefits of metacognitively oriented instruction (Dignath & Buttner,
2008) and implies that teachers should not be discouraged if they do not quickly see
benefits of such instruction.
Metacognition in Comprehension Instruction 85

Summary

Our purpose in this chapter was to provide a brief overview of previous research on
metacognition in relation to reading comprehension, and to present new research that
informs our understanding of best practices in metacognitively oriented comprehension
instruction. Recent descriptive and correlational studies illustrate the important intercon-
nections among cognition, metacognition, and motivation, and their combined effects on
reading comprehension. A number of well-­designed classroom-­based interventions con-
firm previous evidence that reading instruction that includes metacognitive strategies can
enhance comprehension. Recent interventions have also gone beyond the classic studies
that compared multiple-­strategies instruction with standard classroom instruction. They
often included manipulations of potentially important variables (e.g., optimal group con-
figurations for learning to use strategies, relative benefits of providing strategies instruc-
tion via reading or listening), and they often included enhancements to the instructional
programs (e.g., motivational support, working memory support, metacomprehension
accuracy training). Research also has addressed the challenge of enhancing younger stu-
dents’ comprehension of expository text by means of instruction that helps them better
assess whether they are understanding and remembering what they are reading. Future
research is needed to determine the extent to which strategies instruction should be bal-
anced with content-­based instruction and how to increase automaticity in comprehension
monitoring so that it does not consume vital cognitive resources.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. Despite the evidence that cognitive and metacognitive strategies are helpful to reading comprehension,
some researchers are questioning whether certain adaptations or alternatives might be preferable.
What modifications do you think would be most helpful to your own students and why?
2. When students read expository texts, the goal is not only to understand them but also to remember
important content. Based on the information presented in this chapter, how might you foster reading
for remembering, as well as reading for understanding?
3. It appears that teachers today are more familiar with metacognition than those in years past, and that
they receive instruction and professional development on how to foster it in their students. Reflecting
on your own experience, would you say this is true of yourself and your colleagues? Have you tried
to teach students to monitor their comprehension and/or use reading strategies, and if so, how did it
work?

References

Baker, L. (2008a). Metacognition in comprehension instruction: What we’ve learned since NRP.
In C. C. Block & S. R. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-­based best prac-
tices (2nd ed., pp. 65–79). New York: Guilford Press.
Baker, L. (2008b). Metacognitive development in reading: Contributors and consequences. In K.
Mokhtari & R. Sheorey (Eds.), Reading strategies of first and second language learners: See
how they read. Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon.
Baker, L., & Beall, L. C. (2008). Metacognitive processes in reading comprehension. In S. Israel
& G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of reading comprehension research (pp. 373–388). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, M. Kamil,
86 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

R. Barr, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of research in reading (Vol. 1, pp. 353–395). New
York: Longman.
Berkeley, S., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2011). Reading comprehension strategy instruc-
tion and attribution retraining for secondary students with learning and other mild disabili-
ties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 18–32.
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, 18–37.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: concurrent
prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 96, 31–42.
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, 257–280.
Carretti, B., Caldarola, N., Tencati, C., & Cornoldi, C. (2013). Improving reading comprehen-
sion in reading and listening settings: The effect of two training programmes focusing on
metacognition and working memory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 1–17.
de Bruin, A. B. H., Thiede, K. W., Camp, G., & Redford, J. (2011). Generating keywords improves
metacomprehension and self-­regulation in elementary and middle school children. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 109, 294–310.
Dermitzaki, I., Andreou, G., & Paraskeva, V. (2008). High and low reading comprehension
achievers’ strategic behaviors and their relation to performance in a reading comprehension
situation. Reading Psychology, 29, 471–492.
Dignath, C., & Buttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering self-­regulated learning among stu-
dents: A meta-­analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level. Meta-
cognition and Learning, 3, 231–264.
Efklides, A., & Misailidi, P. (Eds.) (2010). Trends and prospects in metacognition research. New
York: Springer.
Eme, E., Puustinen, M., & Coutelet, B. (2006). Individual and developmental differences in read-
ing monitoring: When and how do children evaluate their comprehension? European Journal
of Psychology of Education, 21, 91–115.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-­assisted learning strategies:
Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal,
34, 174–206.
Garcia-­Madruga, J. A., Elosua M. R., Gil, L, Gómez-Veiga, I., Vila, J. Ó., Orjales, I., et al. (2013).
Reading comprehension and working memory’s executive processes: An intervention study in
primary school students. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 155–174.
Guthrie, J., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. Taboada, A., Davis, M., et al. (2004). Increas-
ing reading comprehension and engagement through Concept-­Oriented Reading Instruction.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403–423.
Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of metacognition in educa-
tion. New York: Routledge.
Haller, E. P., Child, D. A., & Walberg, H. J. (1988). Can comprehension be taught?: A quantitative
synthesis of “metacognitive” studies. Educational Researcher, 17(9), 5–8.
Houtveen, A. A. M., & van de Grift, W. J. C. M. (2007). Effects of metacognitive strategy
instruction and instruction time on reading comprehension. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 18, 173–190.
Huff, J. D., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2009). Using strategy instruction and confidence judgments to
improve metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning. 4, 161–176.
Klingner, J., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social stud-
ies in heterogeneous fourth-­g rade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 99, 3–22.
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, 218–255.
Metacognition in Comprehension Instruction 87

Michalsky, T., Mevarech, Z. R., & Haibi, L. (2009). Elementary school children reading scientific
texts: Effects of metacognitive instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 102, 363–374.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Offi-
cers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in his-
tory/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/
the-­standards.
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.
Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-­ fostering and
comprehension-­monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117–175.
Roebers, C. M., Cimeli, P., Röthlisberger, M., & Neuenschwander, R. (2012). Executive function-
ing, metacognition, and self-­perceived competence in elementary school children: An explor-
ative study on their interrelations and their role for school achievement. Metacognition and
Learning, 7, 151–173.
Roeschl-­Heils, A., Schneider, W., & van Kraayenoord, C. E. (2003). Reading, metacognition and
motivation: A follow-­up study of German students in grades 7 and 8. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 18, 75–86.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of
Educational Research, 64, 479–530.
Souvignier, E., & Mokhlesgerami, J. (2006). Using self-­regulation as a framework for implement-
ing strategy instruction to foster reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 16,
57–71.
Spörer, N., Brunstein, J. C., & Kieschke, U. (2009). Improving students’ reading comprehension
skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction, 19,
272–286.
Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Redford, J. (2009). Metacognitive monitoring during
and after reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of meta-
cognition in education (pp. 85–106). New York: Routledge.
Thiede, K. W., Redford, J. S., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2012). Elementary school experience
with comprehension testing may influence metacomprehension accuracy among seventh and
eighth graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 554–564.
Van Keer, H., & Verhaeghe, J. P. (2005). Effects of explicit reading strategies instruction and peer
tutoring on second and fifth graders’ reading comprehension and self-­efficacy perceptions.
Journal of Experimental Education, 73, 291–329.
van Kraayenoord, C. E., Beinicke, A., Schlagmuller, M., & Schneider, W. (2012). Word identifica-
tion, metacognitive knowledge, motivation, and reading comprehension: An Australian study
of grade 3 and 4 pupils. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35, 51–68.
Vaughn, S., Klingner, J. K., Swanson, E. A., & Boardman, A. G. (2011). Efficacy of collaborative
strategic reading with middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 48,
938–964.
Vidal-­Abarca, E., Mañá, A., & Gil, L. (2010). Individual differences for self-­regulating task-­
oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 817–826.
Williams, J. P., & Atkins, J. G. (2009). The role of metacognition in teaching reading comprehen-
sion to primary students. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook
of metacognition in education (pp. 26–45). New York: Routledge.
Zipke, M., Ehri, L. C., & Cairns, H. S. (2009). Using semantic ambiguity instruction to improve
third graders’ metalinguistic awareness and reading comprehension: An experimental study.
Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 300–322.
 Chapter 7

Constructivist Theory as a Framework

for Instruction and Assessment
of Reading Comprehension

Donna Caccamise, Angela Friend,

Megan K. Littrell‑Baez, and Eileen Kintsch

Among the many short cuts to science, we badly need someone to teach us
the art of learning with difficulty.
—Jean-­Jacques Rousseau, “Emile” (1763/2007, Book III, p. 150)

T he assessment of reading comprehension serves multiple purposes in today’s schools

(Carlisle & Rice, 2004). These include large-scale, summative assessments for account-
ability purposes or for admission to particular programs (e.g., Scholastic Aptitude Test
[SAT]), diagnostic testing to determine student placement and intervention options for
struggling readers, screening for students at risk for reading failure, and the ongoing
monitoring of student progress. While our subject here is the use of technology in assess-
ing reading comprehension, it would be unwise to view this issue as being divorced from
a broader discussion of how the role of testing and assessment, and their delivery, is
changing in response to the changes in curriculum mandated by the new Common Core
State Standards (CCSS).
With breakthroughs in technology, as well as advances in cognitive science, the
role of assessment is beginning to move from a relatively isolated activity, all too often
misaligned with curriculum, to practices that follow a constructivist model of learning
and embed assessment within the actual learning process. The latter kind of assessment
takes place as part of classroom activities and is formative, in that it allows immediate
judgments about where individuals are in their learning of particular instructed subject
matter. Formative assessment provides specific feedback on gaps in understanding that
directs future instruction and allows for optimal progress in mastering a skill or subject.
With increasing use of such assessments throughout the learning process, the outcome of

88
Constructivist Theory as a Framework 89

a summative assessment becomes a natural progression in the assessment of a student’s

achievement (Shepard, 2000). When assessment is framed within a cognitive theory of
learning and coupled with a model of appropriate domain knowledge at various stages in
the learning trajectory, it can be a powerful tool for guiding the learning process.
This chapter highlights the following:

• The general categories of reading assessment.

• The qualities of an adequate assessment.
• The cognitive theory that drives the design of some of the latest computer-­based
tools for reading comprehension, learning, and assessment.
• How these issues affect the design of assessments that align with the instructional
goals of the CCSS.

What’s Out There Today: Established Research and Practice

Defining Assessment for Reading Comprehension
We might first ask ourselves, what do we mean by assessment? The answer is a complex
one. In fact, the National Research Council formed a committee of leading cognitive
scientists, psychometricians, and educators to look at this question. It is generally agreed
that assessment is the gathering of information that enables “teachers, administrators,
policymakers, and the public [to] infer what students know and how well they know it”
(Pellegrino, 2002, p. 49). Although assessments take on the roles identified earlier, many
existing assessment vehicles for learning in general, and reading comprehension in par-
ticular, are typically more limited than users of this information realize.
In characterizing the nature of assessment of reading comprehension, it is important
to be clear about the purpose for which a given assessment has been created. Assessments
are often developed by researchers to better understand the actual cognitive process-
ing during reading. Some of these are transparent to the reading process (e.g., reading
times for various activities) and some are more intrusive (e.g., questioning throughout
the text), requiring further consideration as to whether these assessments actually inter-
rupt the reading process or help the reader engage in more expert reading activities (e.g.,
E. Kintsch, 2005). Assessments that look at comprehension artifacts after reading require
further processing after the actual reading has occurred (e.g., questions, summarization,
metacognitive queries). The assessments we describe below fall into this latter category.

Qualities of Good Assessments

Given today’s advances in learning theory, technology, and measurement, it is surpris-
ing that many large-scale assessments rely on static, once-a-year snapshots of a limited
number of activities that are thought to represent the full breadth and depth of ability in
the domain tested. As a matter of cost and efficiency, these tests have traditionally con-
sisted of easily machine-­scored items such as multiple-­choice questions. More recently,
some short-­answer questions have been added to the items in some measures. This is not
sufficient, however, to allow test takers to demonstrate more complex aspects of their
reading comprehension skills that could be better reflected in tasks, such as writing a
critical essay based on the readings or applying the content to a practical activity (e.g.,
solving a real-world problem, designing an experiment to test an hypothesis) that would
demonstrate transfer and generalization of what the test taker gleaned from reading.
90 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

Clearly, large-scale assessments to evaluate knowledge acquisition could not accomplish

these more sophisticated test activities requiring extended written responses.
However, the advent of computer-­mediated testing, together with advances in sta-
tistical and natural language processing, will soon make it possible to deliver and score
more sophisticated test protocols, which are based on scientific models of expert ability
and learning progressions (Shepard, 2009). More specifically, advances in cognitive sci-
ence will guide us in defining explicit learning goals that lead students to become experts
in reading comprehension, and advances in technology will help us to teach and assess
student skills better in a dynamic, efficient, and accurate manner. In fact, research shows
that formative assessment in particular, assessment that is embedded in instruction with
timely feedback and that includes targeted next steps in instruction, provides students
with learning tools that can lead to dramatic achievement gains (Black & Wiliam, 1998;
Shepard, 2003, 2009; Snyder & Caccamise, 2010).

The Goal of Assessment

Summative tests assess mastery in a subject area and are typically large-scale tests of
entire schools, districts, or states, administered at fixed times and intervals to track stu-
dent progress over longer time spans. In contrast, formative assessments are typically
small-scale tests performed more frequently at the classroom level to assess growth in
particular subject areas.
In addition to the purpose of an assessment, from a psychometric point of view, we
also need to know to what extent an assessment has criterion validity (i.e., achievement
of specific learning goals) versus predictive validity (e.g., an SAT score predicts to some
degree how successful one will be in college). Mosher (2004) goes further to claim that
this murky confounding of achievement with aptitude even affects the National Assess-
ment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the “gold standard” of large-scale assessment
of academic achievement, including reading achievement. Chudowsky and Pellegrino
(2003) argue that large-scale standardized tests are typically based on unclear underlying
constructs and lack a theoretical basis. They suggest that assessment would be greatly
improved with today’s cognitive theories (as presented in this volume by Yoon, Chapter
2; Reznitskaya, Anderson, & Hsu, Chapter 3; Sadoski, Chapter 4; Cartwright, Chapter
5; Baker, DeWyngaert, & Zeliger-­Kandasamy, Chapter 6) to guide conceptual refine-
ment and operationalization. However, pragmatic decisions such as efficient and reliable
scoring issues often drive what we see today in high-­stakes standards testing, as well as
large-scale standardized assessment, and all too often provide the model for formative
testing in the classroom. Advances in technology and cognitive science are changing the
options for the better.

Theoretical Framework for Assessing Reading Comprehension

The constructivist viewpoint that now dominates research on learning and instruction
has brought the realization that comprehension is not a uniform quality that one either
has or does not have, say, after reading a text or solving a problem; rather, it involves mul-
tiple processes that affect comprehension in qualitatively different ways, with important
consequences for learning. More precisely, following W. Kintsch (1988, 1998), passive,
unengaged reading results in a shallow mental representation of the text content versus
active, interpretative reading by which a reader makes a mental model of the situation the
text is about that is fully connected with the reader’s existing knowledge. For convenience,
Constructivist Theory as a Framework 91

we typically speak of “deep” versus “shallow” understanding (e.g., Caccamise & Snyder,
2005; Graesser, 2007; Graesser & Person, 1994). Thus far, this differentiated view on
depth of comprehension for the most part has yet to be incorporated into our assessment
tools, despite the obvious need for transforming both how and why we test according to
constructivist principles (Shepard, 2000).
Graesser (2007) provides an overview of representative models of text compre-
hension. At a general level, current models (e.g., Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994;
W. Kintsch, 1998; van den Broek, Virtue, Everson, Tzeng, & Sung, 2002; Zwaan &
Radvansky, 1998) view reading as a multilevel process by which readers strive (to vary-
ing degrees and with varying success) to construct a coherent memory representation
of the text being read. Local meaning operations such as decoding word meanings and
determining syntactic relations typically result in memory for some surface features, such
as some of the actual words and phrases used. If reading is unproblematic, what readers
mainly remember is the gist of the text, that is, the main ideas, topics, and theme of an
expository text or the plot of a story. The need to establish coherence in text meaning
drives processing at the local and overall meaning level, because natural texts are never
fully explicit: Readers must, for example, figure out the referents for pronouns and syn-
onymous expressions; they must infer how individual sentences are related; and they
must understand how groups of sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and sections are related
to the overall topic.
W. Kintsch’s (1988, 1998) construction–­integration (CI) model of reading compre-
hension refers to the resulting memory for text content as the textbase. This level of
understanding is sufficient for many kinds of reproductive tasks, such as providing a
summary of the text or a list of the main ideas or being able to identify particular facts or
define key concepts. However, full understanding of the implications of the text requires
deeper and often more effortful processing in order to connect the new content with
what one already knows about the topic. The reader’s goal is to form a mental model of
the situation implied by the text, called the situation model. Processing at this level is
mainly interpretative and inferential: The reader elaborates the text content with pieces
of personal knowledge, forming new connections among text ideas, forging relation-
ships that go beyond what is explicitly stated. For example, readers may generate causal
explanations and analogies, make unique comparisons, form visual images, explore con-
sequences, critically evaluate the material, use the material to solve a problem, and so
on. The situation model is therefore a multidimensional meaning representation, which
may include visual, spatial, temporal, and emotional aspects, as well as abstractions that
are implied by the text. However, a major weakness of comprehension instruction in our
schools and of the methods we have developed to assess comprehension has been the fail-
ure to address deep understanding at the level of the situation model. Text comprehension
is more complex than we formerly realized, and our ways of assessing understanding and
attempts to remedy students’ difficulties with learning from instructional text should, but
rarely do, reflect this complexity.

Implications for Assessment

A first step, we would argue, is the need to devise tests that differentiate between readers’
memory for the text content, at different levels of generality, and the mental model they
have formed. This is easier said than done, because the different comprehension levels
described earlier do not comprise discrete entities; rather, they are different aspects of
a single meaning representation that is formed during reading. Meaning construction
92 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

occurs at all levels, more or less simultaneously. However, the reader may switch focus
from local to global to situational meaning construction as needed in order to address
particular problems with comprehension of the text (e.g., an unfamiliar word, concept,
or relationship) or depending on the purpose of reading (e.g., reading for entertainment,
to support a strongly held opinion or belief, or to study for a test). To assess whether
students’ comprehension is fully successful, we need to devise more complete tests that
target all levels, but we especially need to devise ways to measure whether students are
acquiring deep, lasting, and usable knowledge.
Giving students a chance to reason about a topic and to express their understanding
in an extended written format is more likely to yield an accurate and informative account
of what students really do or do not understand from a text and what they can do with
the new knowledge (E. Kintsch, 2005). Summaries and essay questions, for example,
that tap the ability to generalize text content, to reason about it, to evaluate it in a criti-
cal manner, to generate inferences, and to apply the content in novel contexts reveal not
only whether an individual’s understanding is faulty or incomplete but also exactly where
the problems lie. As Shepard (2000, 2009) and others have pointed out, these kinds of
informative tests are necessary to guide instruction and further learning.
However, feedback from such formative assessment is hardly useful if it is at too
general a level. For example, generic essay prompts do not tell a teacher how to fill stu-
dents’ conceptual gaps in a subject area, or what should be the next steps in his or her
instruction. Formative tests are only informative when they are tied to learning of par-
ticular content within a rich curriculum and are guided by models of expertise and typi-
cal learning progressions in that area (Shepard, 2009). A well-­designed formative test in
this context not only informs the course of instruction but also provides a useful learning
activity in itself.
This view of formative assessment is quite different from the multiple-­choice format
of traditional assessments, both summative and formative, but scoring is problematic. It
requires labor-­intensive, usually human effort to score essay questions, and results are
not always reliable. For this reason, “objective” questions that can be machine-­scored
have dominated standardized assessments in this country for generations of students.
Some of the newer technologies for machine scoring of students’ constructed responses
seem promising and are briefly described in the next section.

New Developments in This Area (Since 2008)

A National Set of Standards
The need for better standards was illuminated in a telling figure by McCombs and col-
leagues in their 2005 RAND report comparing data from the NAEP for reading pro-
ficiency with state assessments. Their results showed that while none of the 50 states
performed above the 50th percentile on the NAEP, performance of students on the state
assessments varied dramatically, ranging from 20th to the 90th percentile. This discrep-
ancy highlights the difficulty in determining student proficiency across state lines because
of the variability of state tests and standards. In 2009, a team of leading educators was
selected by the National Governors Association (NGA) to create K–12 curriculum stan-
dards for mathematics and literacy as a step toward addressing the decreasing capability
of a high school education to meet 21st-­century college and career demands. The purpose
of the initiative was to provide a common set of learning criteria that would better help
to prepare U.S. high school graduates to meet these demands. The initiative led to the
Constructivist Theory as a Framework 93

development of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which has had a substantial
impact on the educational landscape (NGA Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief
State School Officers, 2010).
The progression of the standards across grade levels in CCSS is based on the assump-
tion that reading comprehension should develop concurrently with acquiring domain
knowledge. Furthermore, education experts argue that the standards should embody
a constructivist model of comprehension, such as W. Kintsch’s (1988, 1998) CI model
(cf. Pearson, 2013). Among other improvements, CCSS recommend that students should
be reading a great deal more challenging informational texts. They should be guided
through the processes that expert readers use to build a coherent memory representation
of what the text says, combining it with their own knowledge to construct a plausible
mental model of the situation it depicts. Further knowledge growth occurs when students
are given opportunities to apply their new knowledge to tasks requiring critical thinking
about the content and using it to solve problems. Thus, the CCSS focus not only on the
development of basic literacy strategies and skills but also on the use of knowledge from
informational texts for reasoning and critical evaluation. This kind of learning, accord-
ing to the CCSS, needs to happen in major content-­area classes, aided by texts that form
a sequence in terms of both linguistic and conceptual difficulty.
Thus, implementing the new standards not only poses some tricky problems for
assessing students’ learning but also requires developing more reliable methods for
assessing text difficulty than are currently available. The thorny issue of text complexity,
described in the next section, presents an additional complication to obvious practical
considerations.

Text Complexity
One of the measures of text difficulty suggested by the CCSS is the Lexile® framework
(MetaMetrics, www.lexile.com), which provides estimates of reading ability and text
difficulty based mainly on easily quantifiable text characteristics such as word frequency
and sentence length. However, the CCSS also call for a more balanced system using
additional, qualitative measures for matching readers to texts that are appropriate to
their level of skill (cf. Hiebert & Mesmer, 2013). In reviewing his own and other studies
performed from the 1970s to the 1990s, W. Kintsch (1998) argued that the underlying
semantic structure, such as the number of propositions per sentence and the hierarchi-
cal organization of the content, also has important effects on ease of comprehension
and recall. These characteristics of texts are largely neglected by lexical feature counts
(e.g., word frequency and sentence length). Nevertheless, pragmatic convenience has
prevailed: Readability formulas that generally correlate with text difficulty, such as the
Lexile framework, have dominated the industry because they are easy to measure. Many
publishers of children’s books and reading series index them using this framework, which
have been yoked to existing grade-level determinations.
Text complexity, however, is still not well defined (Landauer, 2011). Results show-
ing high correlations among automated measures such as Lexile have utilized carefully
designed texts derived from normed tests (Nelson, Perfetti, Liben, & Liben, 2012). These
kinds of texts tend to be more cohesive than the natural texts a teacher may use in the
classroom. Thus, Caccamise, Friend, Kintsch, and Kintsch (2013) argue that it does not
necessarily follow that these formulas have tapped into measures of text complexity that
are important for designing a curriculum. It is more likely that they measure overall text
difficulty by grade level, which makes them less useful for determining the sequence of
94 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

texts that increase in complexity as instruction progresses. Benjamin (2011) notes this
problem in a detailed review of readability formulas and issues surrounding text dif-
ficulty measurements.
An important component of the development of a curriculum to foster skilled reading
comprehension is to be able to accurately measure text complexity so that it maps onto
theoretically based comprehension processes. The CCSS include text structure, knowl-
edge demands, levels of meaning, language conventionality and clarity, as well as text
cohesion as measures that are important for determining text complexity (Gamson, Lu,
& Eckert, 2013). Although some of these can be measured using automated systems such
as Coh-­Metrix (Graesser, McNamara, & Kulikowich, 2011), it is unclear how these fac-
tors influence comprehension. Caccamise, Friend, Kintsch, and Kintsch (2013) analyzed
a published curriculum that comprised 21 texts whose sequencing was based on increas-
ing complexity, as established by experts in curriculum development and education. The
expert raters’ sequencing, however, did not match the values derived using automated
measures of text complexity. Across the texts, some constructs indicated increasing ease
(e.g., narrativity), and others indicated increasing difficulty (e.g., decreasing cohesion).
This rather discouraging pattern highlights the need to consider more global factors influ-
encing text difficulty, beyond word- and sentence-­level metrics. Thus, text complexity
remains a challenging component for curriculum developers and educators alike.

Aligning the Assessments with the CCSS

The movement to create national educational standards that better prepare American
students for 21st-­century career and college demands has also influenced policy funding
for the creation of assessments that align with CCSS goals. Thus in 2009, the Ameri-
can Recovery and Reinvestment Act authorized funding under the Race to the Top pro-
gram for consortia of states to “develop assessments that are valid, support and inform
instruction, provide accurate information about what students know and can do, and
measure student achievement against standards designed to ensure that all students gain
the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in college and the workplace” (U.S. Depart-
ment of Education, 2013, p.1). Two consortia, the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consor-
tium (SBAC) and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers
(PARCC), described below, secured funding under this program in 2010 and have been
developing assessments, which will be fully implemented in the 2014–2015 school year.
As with all good assessment tools, large-scale assessments of reading comprehension
should start with a scientific model of how students learn to read, including the activi-
ties in which expert readers engage as they deeply process text and competently use that
information in subsequent activities (Pellegrino, Chudowsky, & Glaser, 2001; Shepard,
2009). This goes beyond testing the simple components of decoding and vocabulary (the
primary focus at the early stages of reading instruction) and extends into the realm of
complex meaning construction activities representing the range and depth of what we
expect good comprehenders to do.
Both consortia, SBAC and PARCC, have adopted the evidence-­ centered design
(ECD) to develop and validate their summative assessments of CCSS curricula. The ECD
has frequently been used for the development of large-scale assessments and focuses on
accountability. It is based on the view that an assessment is an argument derived from
imperfect evidence of performance/learning, which is then framed as an operational pro-
cess (Mislevy, Steinberg, & Almond, 2003; Mislevy & Haertel, 2006). The ECD, draw-
ing inspiration from complex systems analysis in architecture and software engineering,
Constructivist Theory as a Framework 95

identifies five interacting layers: Domain Analysis, Domain Modeling, Conceptual

Assessment Framework, Assessment Implementation, and Assessment Delivery. Iteration
and refinement is encouraged within and across layers.
Both PARCC and SBAC have used the CCSS standards as their Domain Analysis
layer for their ECD models, which provides the learning goals for the assessment. The
next layer, the Domain Modeling layer, involves conceptually defining what will be mea-
sured, how, and why it will be measured, and structuring each of these elements as a
narrative argument. The Conceptual Assessment Framework layer involves specifying
the arguments into measurement models, scoring methods, and delivery requirements.
This is the level in which elements are expressed concretely to guide implementation and
ensure coordination across layers. The Assessment Implementation layer involves opera-
tionalizing elements, crafting materials, and collecting pilot test data to refine evalua-
tion procedures, as well as fitting measurement models while relating each back to the
arguments. The Assessment Delivery layer involves coordinating assessment presenta-
tion, data collection of work products, and evaluation of these products. Although each
layer involves familiar processes in assessment design, the advantage of using ECD, for
large-scale assessments in particular, is the grounding of each layer on the arguments of
the domain model (Mislevy & Haertel, 2006). By using the CCSS standards as the source
for the Domain Analysis layer and continually referring back to the narrative arguments
derived from this source, the consortia are able to ensure that the assessment items cap-
ture CCSS goals for deeper learning.
Using the depth of knowledge (DOK) scheme developed by Webb, Alt, Ely, and
Vesperman (2005), Herman and Linn (2013) analyzed how well sample items released by
the PARCC and SBAC consortia align with CCSS goals for deeper learning. Webb et al.’s
DOK scheme includes four levels ranging in complexity that reflects the cognitive pro-
cesses necessary to produce an acceptable response (Webb et al., 2005). This scheme is
similar to the processes described for constructing the textbase and situation model levels
of reading comprehension in W. Kintsch’s (1998) CI model, and it captures the cognitive
perspective for depth of learning underlying the goals of CCSS. For example, DOK 1
(Recall and Reproduction) describes assessment tasks requiring students simply to recall
information directly from their reading of the texts, such as terms, facts, or properties
of objects. These kinds of reproductive tasks are representative measures of students’
textbase understanding. The intermediate DOK 2 and DOK 3 levels also represent stages
in the integration of textbase information, but they require additional inference making
as students begin to develop their situation model. For example, DOK 2 (Working with
Skills and Concepts) requires slightly more cognitive processing than DOK 1, including,
for example, the cognitive processing involved in comparing and contrasting concepts,
classifying and organizing ideas, or describing and explaining a problem. DOK 3 (Short-
Term Strategic Thinking) applies to tasks that require students to engage in higher order
cognitive processes to solve problems with predictable outcomes. The inferences required
in DOK 2 and DOK 3 are those that follow directly from the text. On the other hand,
DOK 4 (Extended Strategic Thinking) calls for tasks that require students to engage in
the higher order cognitive processes needed to solve complex problems with unpredict-
able outcomes that go beyond what students can garner from the textbase alone. To com-
plete tasks at this level, students need to make knowledge integration inferences, resulting
in a situation model of the text. At this level of understanding learners are extending their
newly acquired knowledge well beyond the inferences that can be made directly from the
text, which is the hallmark of true learning (e.g., W. Kintsch & Kintsch, 2005). SBAC
and PARCC sample tests include items specifically targeting DOK 3 and DOK 4 levels,
96 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

which have often been ignored in large-scale assessments due to the difficulty of scoring
such items (Herman & Linn, 2013).
Given the influence of the CCSS on the educational landscape, assessment makers
have had to shift from easy-to-­measure multiple-­choice items to short essay constructed
response items to assess DOK (Doorey, 2012). With this shift, it becomes necessary to
consider how technology might be used to assist in the presentation and scoring of such
items. In the following sections, we discuss several assessments and scoring methodolo-
gies, and how they are being adapted to better align with CCSS.

Scoring Open‑Ended Responses

Automated essay scoring (AES) systems allow the assessment of constructed item
responses, potentially replacing human scoring. AES systems typically rely largely on
grammar, coherence, and style, using machine learning methods or latent semantic
association to assess writing (e.g., Shermis, Burstein, Higgins, & Zechner, 2010). New
hybrid systems focus on capturing symbolic and statistical representations of meaning
that include machine learning and latent semantic analysis (LSA), as well as other natural
language processing tools, such as parts-of-­speech taggers to capture whether students
are focusing primarily on the text content or constructing a situation model (Magliano &
Graesser, 2012). However, these hybrid systems still comprise only a minority of the AES
systems currently being used. Although both consortia are creating systems that employ
technology-­based tasks in addition to more traditional paper-and-­pencil tasks, PARCC
provides separate scores for each of these components, whereas SBAC provides a single
aggregated score. Moreover, the consortia also differ in how the items are presented for
the technology-­based tasks: In the PARCC test, every student receives a fixed set of items,
whereas each student has a customized set of items using computer-­adaptive testing in the
SBAC assessment. However, the specific role of AES systems in scoring these items has
yet to be made available.

Common Core Measures of Academic Progress

As reviewed in Caccamise, Snyder, and Kintsch (2008), Measures of Academic Progress
(MAP; Northwest Evaluation Association [NWEA], 2003) is a Web-based assessment
that measures students’ performance in reading, language usage, and math. Their analysis
of a random selection of test items indicated that the test examines aspects of vocabulary
comprehension, gist comprehension, inferencing, evaluative thinking, and understanding
of literary devices and text genres. From the constructivist perspective, MAP sampled
key skills that contribute to the deep comprehension of text, especially students’ ability to
build an understanding at different levels of meaning, ranging from the word level to the
overall text level, and in expository text as well as literature. However, the earlier version
of MAP used a multiple-­choice format for the majority of test items, a response format
based on recognition. Consequently, it provided less information about students’ under-
standing of what they have read than is provided by short-­answer responses. Since then,
the NWEA, the developer of MAP, has revised this assessment to align with the CCSS
(NWEA, 2013a). While the original version of MAP is still available, educators now have
the option of adopting this new version called Common Core MAP.
The new Common Core MAP begins to address this depth of knowledge limitation
by including technology-­enhanced constructed response items in addition to multiple-­
choice questions that have been revised to better align with CCSS (NWEA, 2013a).
Constructivist Theory as a Framework 97

NWEA suggests that the Common Core MAP can be used to facilitate the transition
between states’ old standards and adoption of new CCSS, advocating for the use of Com-
mon Core MAP in combination with summative assessments provided by SBAC (NWEA,
2013b). Additionally, they are taking steps to categorize assessment items, according to
Webb et al.’s (2005) DOK levels. NWEA content specialists have assigned DOK levels to
all new items, as well as to many of the old items (NWEA, 2013a). However, they note
that they have only assigned items to DOK 1–3, arguing that DOK 4 items are better
used in classroom assignments rather than as assessment items. Both consortia, SBAC
and PARCC, acknowledge that concepts not addressed by the assessments are not likely
to receive as much attention in the classroom (Herman & Linn, 2013). Thus, given that
DOK 4 is at the core of deeper learning, it seems that more rather than less assessment
emphasis should be placed at this level.

Scholastic Reading Inventory

As reviewed in Caccamise et al. (2008), the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI; (Scho-
lastic, 2002, 2006) is a computer-­based assessment of reading comprehension that can
be used by school districts for accountability purposes, based on the District and School
Accountability Reports that it provides. SRI is often used as a formative assessment and
can be administered quarterly for progress monitoring and determining instructional
versus mastery levels of students’ reading comprehension based on the Lexile method for
determining those levels. Since 2008, the SRI has made some adaptations to its measure-
ment bands to better fit with the CCSS. For example, to meet the CCSS requirement that
students read increasingly more complex texts, the SRI has revised its proficiency bands
to create a “staircase” of complexity, so that by grade 12, students are reading texts that
are at the beginning level of postsecondary texts. In addition, half of their texts are infor-
mational and half are narrative, which is also aligned with the CCSS emphasis on reading
informational texts (www.scholastic.com).

Impact of the CCSS on Comprehension Instruction

From our theoretical viewpoint, the CCSS’s mandated increase in text complexity in
itself will not solve the problem of students failing to learn from informational texts,
unless the texts are embedded in knowledge-­building curricula. As Kintsch and others
have often pointed out (e.g., W. Kintsch, 1988, 1998; Caccamise & Snyder, 2005), deep
comprehension and learning processes cannot be separated from knowledge. Forming a
mental model of the situation conveyed by a text involves conscious, effortful process-
ing. One cannot make the kind of far-­reaching, knowledge-­integrating inferences needed
or draw analogies, or discover novel relationships between ideas, without finding some
related information in one’s prior knowledge repository on which to tie the new con-
tent. It takes at least some knowledge to build new knowledge. Thus, throughout his
long career, Hirsch (e.g., 1980, 1987, 2006) has maintained that a main goal of educa-
tion should be the acquisition of broad cultural literacy, because individuals who possess
such breadth of knowledge are better equipped to learn new subject matter even in a
totally unfamiliar domain. This perspective argues strongly against the value of teaching
comprehension strategies in isolation, using a broad array of text types, as is the wide-
spread practice in language arts classrooms today. Furthermore, it makes questionable
the notion that instruction should be based on a staircase of text complexity, such as that
98 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

used in SRI assessment: It will serve no useful purpose unless the texts are related topi-
cally and sequenced in terms of both conceptual and linguistic complexity.

Example of a Knowledge‑Based Curriculum

Caccamise, Friend, Kintsch, Littrell-­Baez, and Groneman (2013) have developed a cur-
riculum that instantiates the CI model at the middle-­school level to support the goals of
the CCSS for English language arts. The Boulder Reading Intervention, referred to as
BRAVO, focuses on teaching middle school students comprehension strategies as they
learn about the topic of Ecology (a CCSS science topic for middle school students), allow-
ing them to simultaneously build content knowledge and learn how to deal with difficult
text. Students engage in an iterative process in which the content from previous texts
serves as scaffolding for tackling increasingly difficult texts. Within this context, stu-
dents also learn about and practice the advanced reading comprehension skills needed
to understand these more complex texts. In order to foster comprehension and domain
knowledge building simultaneously, BRAVO is divided into four modules focusing on
strategies that contribute to reading comprehension at different levels: (1) local cohesion,
(2) global cohesion, (3) inferential complexity, and (4) integration and review. Formative
and summative assessments are integrated throughout and likewise focus on three levels
of comprehension: the textbase (information present in the text), situation model (integra-
tion of textbase with existing background knowledge), and metacognitive understanding
(awareness of and use of appropriate comprehension strategies for the problem at hand).
The assessments in BRAVO are designed to give a more complete picture of stu-
dents’ learning by targeting developing content knowledge, building coherence at local
and global levels, integrating knowledge, and developing metacognitive awareness. For
example, interspersed clicker questions, followed by discussion using a graphical display
of students’ answers, allow teachers to make adjustments in their pacing to move forward
or to review. Depending on the module or component being taught, these questions might
address a content issue, strategy and skills application, or a metacognitive question. Stu-
dents’ summaries of the readings assess their understanding of what the text says, that is,
their mental representation of the textbase, as they progress through the modules. Con-
cept mapping allows teachers to assess the development of students’ mental representa-
tion of domain knowledge by requiring them to identify and specify the relations among
key concepts within and across chapters. These types of formative assessments support
CCSS goals, because they provide ongoing feedback throughout the BRAVO unit relative
to students’ level of comprehension, revealing gaps and misconceptions, and their ability
to apply appropriate repair strategies.
BRAVO also includes summative assessments to capture students’ learning at the
end of each module and at the end of the entire program. Test questions take on various
forms, including fill in the blank, multiple choice, short answer, and matching vocabu-
lary and definitions; they target content knowledge and vocabulary, coherence building,
and metacognitive skills, as well as inferencing. Writing activities based on “independent
cold reads” examine transfer of reading comprehension skills to a new domain; a class
debate allows students to use their knowledge to argue a position in teams; and a final
essay allows students to formulate their own take on the content, citing information from
the text sources to support their position. These final activities assess students’ profi-
ciency in connecting ideas from multiple texts, using textual information to support an
argument, while also supporting the deeper comprehension called for by the CCSS. As
part of the design process, Caccamise, Friend, Kintsch, Littrell-­Baez, et al. (2013) have
Constructivist Theory as a Framework 99

collaborated with teachers to implement the curriculum in test classrooms. The effect size
on a pre–post comprehension test was 0.37 (p < .001) in a sample of 45 low-­performing
middle school students (grades 6–8) attending literacy support classes. When compared
to the annual reading gain effect size of 0.24 for average middle school students across
seven nationally normed tests (Bloom, Hill, Black, & Lipsey, 2008), BRAVO appears to
be a promising method for improving comprehension skills.

Assessing Text Complexity

As discussed previously, being able to measure the complexity of a text has been a long-
standing problem in curriculum development and is especially critical for a knowledge-­
building curriculum like BRAVO. Current measures are limited in that they are based on
the properties of words and sentences, and neglect discourse-­level properties. There is no
doubt that word and sentence properties are important, but there are reasons to believe
that discourse properties may also play a significant role. For example, Caccamise,
Friend, Kintsch, and Kintsch (2013) compared two versions of a text, one with an easy
readability rating, according to the Lexile rating method, that had a simplified sentence
structure (e.g., shorter sentences, fewer clauses, lower Lexile), and the other with a higher
Lexile rating that had longer, more complex sentences. Students who read the low Lexile
text demonstrated poorer recall (p = .023) than students who had received a version of
the text with more complex sentence structure (higher Lexile). These results suggest that
sentence length and grammatical complexity are not good measures of text complex-
ity, yet they are primary components of existing readability measures. Our laboratory
is currently exploring automated methods for assessing recall that include theoretically
motivated constructs such as macrostructure and idea units. A preliminary analysis using
this method on recalls from 56 college-­age participants demonstrated a strong correla-
tion with manual scoring of recalls (r = .79) and suggests potential avenues for assessing
students’ comprehension of the textbase.

Summary

The field of assessment is replete with pencil-­and-paper measures of reading comprehen-

sion, many of which do not assess these processes in a manner that is accessible for teach-
ers. Because reading comprehension is a dynamic and constructive process, computer-­
based assessments are often better suited to capture students’ performance relative to
these features. Technology-­based formative and summative assessments can adapt to stu-
dents’ mastery and instructional reading levels, control vocabulary levels, assign “next
step” reading materials, structure the presentation of questions, and examine students’
ability to construct coherence in their understanding of the content as well as extend their
understanding beyond the explicit text content.
Through advances in technology, test measurement, and theoretical advances in cog-
nitive science, we have argued that the nature of reading comprehension assessments is
beginning to look much different than the traditional tests of the past 100 years. We see
this as an exciting time for researchers and educators as assessments become a relevant
component of the actual day-to-day learning process, providing students and teachers
with substantive and timely feedback that will both drive highly relevant further instruc-
tion and provide more accurate conclusions about how and what students comprehend
and learn from their reading.
100 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. Create an experience for the teachers under your area of responsibility or for the students in your
classroom that assesses comprehension while teachers or students are actually reading a selection
about a topic you prepared for them. How did your assessment differ from the standardized or
informal measures typically used to assess comprehension? Did you think this assessment interfered
with the reading process, or did it help readers engage with the text more effectively? Where did you
insert the assessment? Do you think this played a role?
2. Create an assessment experience for teachers or students that reflects the qualities of good
assessment reported in this chapter. Allow this test to be as creative and as innovative as possible.
Share your results with colleagues who have also experimented with creating a reading comprehension
assessment. What did all of your assessments have in common?
3. Examine a reading comprehension test that was administered recently in your school building or that is
available on the Internet in one of the standardized reading tests cited in this chapter (e.g., Scholastic
Reading Inventory, Measures of Academic Progress). Tally how many of the test questions on that
assessment require students to make an inference or to problem-­solve to assess deep comprehension.
Report your results to a small group of colleagues who performed this same investigation. What does
this tell you about innovations that you could make in your area of responsibility to improve or to
acknowledge a student’s highest level of comprehension ability?

Acknowledgments

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department
of Education, through Grant No. R305A110467 to the Regents of the University of Colorado. The
opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S.
Department of Education.

References

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
Benjamin, R. G. (2011). Reconstructing readability: Recent developments and recommendations
in the analysis of text difficulty. Educational Psychology Review, 24(1), 63–88.
Bloom, H. S., Hill, C. J., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W. (2008). Performance trajectories and per-
formance gaps as achievement effect-­size benchmarks for educational interventions. Journal
of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1(4), 289–328.
Caccamise, D., Friend, A., Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (2013, July). Measuring text complexity.
Poster presented at the 23rd annual meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Valencia,
Spain.
Caccamise, D., Friend, A., Kintsch, E., Littrell-­Baez, M. K., & Groneman, C. (2013). BRAVO:
Boulder Reading Intervention; Ecology (ICS No. 2012-02). Boulder: University of Colorado.
Caccamise, D., & Snyder, L. (2005). Theory and pedagogical practices of text comprehension.
Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 5–20.
Caccamise, D., Snyder, L., & Kintsch, E. (2008). Constructivist theory and the situation model:
Relevance to future assessment of reading comprehension. In C. Block & S. R. Parris (Eds.),
Comprehension instruction (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Carlisle, J. F., & Rice, M. S. (2004). Assessment of reading comprehension. In A. Stone, E. Silli-
man, B. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy (pp. 521–540). New
York: Guilford Press.
Constructivist Theory as a Framework 101

Chudowsky, N., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2003). Large-scale assessments that support learning: What
will it take? Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 75–83.
Doorey, N. A. (2012). Coming soon: A new generation of assessments. Educational Leadership,
70(4), 28–34.
Gamson, D. A., Lu, X., & Eckert, S. A. (2013). Challenging the research base of the Common
Core State Standards: A historical reanalysis of text complexity. Educational Researcher,
42(7), 381–391.
Graesser, A. C. (2007). An introduction of strategic reading comprehension. In D. S. McNa-
mara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies
(pp. 3–26). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh-­Metrix: Providing multilevel
analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 223–234.
Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational
Research Journal, 31(1), 104–137.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text
comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.
Herman, J., & Linn, R. (2013). On the road to assessing deeper learning: The status of Smarter
Balanced and PARCC Assessment Consortia (CRESST Report No. 823, University of Cali-
fornia, Los Angeles, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student
Testing). Retrieved from http://cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/r823.pdf.
Hiebert, E. H., & Mesmer, H. A. E. (2013). Upping the ante of text complexity in the Com-
mon Core State Standards: Examining its potential impact on young readers. Educational
Researcher, 42(1), 44–51.
Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (1980). Culture and literacy. Journal of Basic Writing, 3(1), 27–47.
Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American should know. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (2006). Building knowledge. American Educator, 30(1), 8–51.
Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension theory as a guide for the design of thoughtful questions. Top-
ics in Language Disorder, 25(1), 51–64.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction–­integration
model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Current
issues on reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 71–92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Landauer, T. K. (2011). Pearson’s Text Complexity Measure (White Paper). Retrieved from http://
images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/PearsonsTextComplexity.pdf
Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (2012). Computer-­based assessment of student-­constructed
responses. Behavior Research Methods, 44(3), 608–621.
McCombs, J. S., & Carroll, S. J. (2005). Ultimate test: Who is accountable for education if every-
body fails? RAND Review, 29(1), 10–15. [Online]
Mislevy, R. J., & Haertel, G. D. (2006). Implications of Evidence-­Centered Design for educational
testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(4), 6–20.
Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2003). On the structure of educational assess-
ments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1(1), 3–67.
Mosher, F. A. (2004). What NAEP really could do. In L. V. Jones & I. Olkin (Eds.), The nation’s
report card: Evolution and perspectives. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Education Foun-
dation.
National Governors Association [NGA] Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Author.
Nelson, J., Perfetti, C., Liben, D., & Liben, M. (2012). Measures of text difficulty: Testing their
predictive value for grade levels and student performance. Washington, DC: Council of
Chief State School Officers.
102 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITHIN THEORE TICAL FRAME WORKS

Northwest Evaluation Association. (2003). Technical manual for the NWEA measures of aca-
demic progress and achievement level tests. Portland, OR: Author.
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2013a). Common core MAP: Supporting your transition to
the common core. Retrieved from: http://legacysupport.nwea.org/sites/www.nwea.org/files/
resources/Common%20Core%20MAP%20-%20Supporting%20Your%20Transition%20
to%20the%20Common%20Core_ June2013.pdf .
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2013b). Better together: How smarter balanced districts
can gain critical teaching and learning data with MAP—today and beyond. Retrieved from
http://legacysupport.nwea.org/sites/www.nwea.org/files/resources/CommonCoreMAP_
and_ SmarterBalanced_ July2013.pdf.
Pearson, P. D. (2013). Research foundations of the Common Core State Standards in English
LanguageAarts. In S. Neuman & L. Gambrell (Eds.), Quality reading instruction in the
age of Common Core State Standards (pp. 237–261). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Pellegrino, J. W. (2002). Knowing what students know. Issues in Science and Technology, 19(2),
48–52.
Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The
science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Rousseau, J.-J. (2007). Emile, or on education. Sioux Falls, SD: NuVision Publications. Retrieved
from http://books.google.com/books. (Original work published 1763)
Scholastic. (2002). Scholastic Reading Inventory. New York: Scholastic, Inc.
Scholastic. (2006). Scholastic Reading Inventory—­Enterprise Edition. New York: Scholastic, Inc.
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher,
29(7), 4–14.
Shepard, L. A. (2003). Reconsidering large-scale assessment to heighten its relevance to learning.
In J. M. Atkin & J. E. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 121–
146). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Shepard, L. A. (2009). Commentary: Evaluating the validity of formative and interim assessment.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 32–37.
Shermis, M. D., Burstein, J., Higgins, D., & Zechner, K. (2010). Automated essay scoring: Writing
assessment and instruction. International Encyclopedia of Education, 4, 20–26.
Snyder, L., & Caccamise, D. (2010). Comprehension processes for expository text: Building mean-
ing and making sense. In M. A. Nippold & C. M. Scott (Eds.), Expository discourse in chil-
dren, adolescents, and adults (pp. 13–39). New York: Taylor & Francis.
U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Race to the Top Assessment Program technical review
process. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-­
assessment/technical-­review-­process.pdf.
van den Broek, P., Virtue, S., Everson, M. G., Tzeng, Y., & Sung, Y. (2002). Comprehension and
memory of science texts: Inferential processes and the construction of a mental representa-
tion. In J. Otero, J. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text compre-
hension (pp. 131–154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Webb, N. L., Alt, M., Ely, R., & Vesperman, B. (2005). Web alignment tool (WAT): Training
manual 1.1. Retrieved from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/WAT/Training%20Manual%20
2.1%20Draft%20091205.doc
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and
memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162–185.
 Pa r t II
Comprehension Instruction
Contexts
 Chapter 8

Comprehension Instruction
within the Context
of the Common Core

Evelyn Ford‑Connors, Dana A. Robertson,

Christine M. Leighton, Jeanne R. Paratore,
C. Patrick Proctor, and Michelle Carney

The Standards establish what students need to learn, but they do not dictate
how teachers should teach. Teachers will devise their own lesson plans
and curriculum and tailor their instruction to the individual needs of the
students in their classrooms.
—National G overnors A ssociation C enter for Best P ractices
and Council of C hief State School Officers (2014)

T he Common Core State Standards (CCSS) situate literacy as a centerpiece of class-

room curriculum, calling for the powerful trio of reading, writing, and language
to be used as tools for learning. In particular, the key components of the CCSS (i.e.,
incorporation of multiple texts and genres; increasingly complex texts; close, sustained
reading; vocabulary and language development; speaking and listening; and a steady
supply of writing) are widely recognized as important contributors to students’ aca-
demic growth. When implemented systematically and progressively across grades and
disciplines, these learning experiences can be expected to lead students toward the
literacy competence and knowledge growth necessary for citizenship in a democratic
society and global economy.
Although the CCSS establish guidelines for students’ literacy learning, they do not
dictate how teaching and learning will be accomplished. Decisions about implementa-
tion rest in the hands of teachers, ensuring that those closest to students are making the
instructional decisions for the communities in which they teach. We return to this idea in
the sections that follow, because we believe that in the hands of capable, knowledgeable

105
106 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

teachers, the CCSS hold great promise for students’ literacy learning and long-term aca-
demic achievement. But first, we take a look at the Standards themselves.

What Do the CCSS Require?

The CCSS identify 10 anchor standards each in reading and writing as a framework to
build knowledge and skills systematically from one grade to the next, from kindergarten
through grade 12. The CCSS also establish standards for language and for speaking
and listening; and they, too provide a systematic progression across grade levels. Taken
together, the standards comprise a road map for teaching and learning that supports cur-
ricular coherence not only in English language arts (ELA) but also across content areas
and grade levels that serve to guide teachers in navigating the integration of important
knowledge and skills into their instruction.

Reading
The literacy and ELA CCSS are divided into general categories intended to address dif-
ferent aspects of skilled reading and writing: Key Ideas and Details; Craft and Structure;
Integration of Knowledge and Ideas; and Reading Range and Text Complexity. Within
these various categories, the CCSS call for synthesis, critical reading, and analysis of
information, and require students to integrate information across multiple texts. This
demands that students identify, summarize, and synthesize important ideas, concepts,
or themes, and that they draw conclusions based on their developing understandings.
The CCSS also require students to examine the development of central themes and ideas
across texts, using appropriate textual evidence and summarizing relevant details. Stu-
dents must also recognize and analyze text structure and the uses of language in text,
both to develop greater awareness of writers’ purposes and craft, and to align with the
standards’ expectations for close reading of text.
The anchor standards refer to both informational and literary texts, and reflect the
same expectations for the two genres. This increased focus on informational texts is an
important aspect of the CCSS, because it will help ready students for the reading tasks,
diversity of text types, and varied content they will encounter in college and throughout
their careers (Duke, Pearson, Strachan, & Billman, 2011). The CCSS recommend the
same distribution of texts as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),
moving from 50% literary and 50% informational by fourth grade to 30% literary and
70% informational by 12th grade.
Because the Standards call for shared responsibility for literacy instruction across con-
tent areas, the distribution of text types and genres may also be shared. So while ELA
classes continue to focus predominantly on literature and literary nonfiction (i.e., autobiog-
raphy, biography, memoir, essay), other disciplines are expected to incorporate additional
reading with relevant informational texts. However, simply assigning more and varied
texts is not a productive pathway to CCSS achievement. Duke and Roberts (2010) argue
that students must be taught how to engage productively with different text types, since
each holds unique features, may require different kinds of reading strategies or processes,
and may demand some disciplinary knowledge to facilitate comprehension. Overall, then,
the overriding intent of the CCSS is to build both skillful reading and world knowledge sys-
tematically by engaging students in frequent, cognitively challenging interactions with var-
ied text genres addressing interesting and engaging topics of cross-­disciplinary importance.
Comprehension Instruction within the Context of the Common Core 107

The Issue of Text Complexity

Anchor Standard 10 of the CCSS demands increasing complexity in the texts students
read as they advance through school. The CCSS define text complexity as “the inherent
difficulty of reading and comprehending a text combined with consideration of reader and
task variables” (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices [NGACBP],
Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2010, Appendix A, Glossary of Key
Terms, p. 43).
Several characteristics contribute to text complexity, with the most obvious being
the quantity and nature of the words and sentence length. Detailed explanations and
analyses of measures (e.g., Lexiles®) based on these features are available elsewhere (e.g.,
Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, 2012; Williamson, Fitzgerald, & Stenner, 2013). But as Hiebert
(2013) argues, quantitative measures alone fail to capture other, qualitative dimensions
of texts that also contribute to complexity. For example, some informational texts feature
elaborate explanations of phenomena with sophisticated and content-­specific vocabulary
that may seem quite complex. Yet they may also contain sentences of similar length that
incorporate repetition and vivid descriptions, with text features that make the informa-
tion readily accessible to readers. In contrast, other texts may feature sentence lengths,
language structures, and vocabulary that seem straightforward and even simple (e.g.,
Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath), yet the complexity of ideas, nuanced vocabulary and
idioms or required background knowledge render the texts suitable only for older, more
sophisticated readers and thinkers. For these reasons, determining the complexity of
classroom texts requires a teacher’s thoughtful consideration and familiarity with focal
texts.
In addition to quantitative and qualitative aspects of the text, teachers must consider
the characteristics of the readers, the nature of the reading task itself, and the contexts for
reading. Readers’ background knowledge and experiences strongly influence their under-
standing during reading, as does their familiarity with the vocabulary, concepts, and top-
ics or themes that the texts address. Similarly, the purposes set for reading (e.g., reading
for enjoyment, reading to remember, or reading to gather information) play important
roles in successful comprehension.
Text complexity, then, does not reside solely in the characteristics of the words on the
page. Rather, as is evident in the CCSS definition, it depends on the interaction between
and among an array of factors that relate to the text, the reader, the task, and the con-
text (RAND Reading Study Group, 2002). This transactional stance (Rosenblatt, 2005)
offers direction for teachers as they consider ways they might mediate their students’ abil-
ity to read and understand complex texts.

Writing
The CCSS require more writing than previous reform efforts (e.g., No Child Left Behind)
in which writing received little mention. Writing supports critical reflection and provides
a means for responding to text, aesthetically or critically (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000;
Martinez & Roser, 2008). Writing also offers a vital tool for investigating, integrat-
ing, and synthesizing information and ideas (Keys, 2000). As a complement to reading,
writing extends and deepens comprehension and strengthens learning (Nelson & Calfee,
1998; Shanahan, 2004).
The CCSS acknowledge writing as a developmental process through an emphasis on
both the process of creating a text and the finished product. General categories of writing
108 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

standards include Text Types and Purposes, Production and Distribution of Writing,
Research to Build and Present Knowledge, and Range of Writing. The Standards call
on students to generate different text types to suit various purposes, including opinion
pieces, informative or explanatory texts, and narratives. They demand that students learn
to develop logical, written arguments. With increasing facility, students are expected to
build and present knowledge by participating in shared research, gathering information
to answer a question, and writing about their findings. The Standards also ask students
to generate texts of varying lengths and to incorporate the language and conventions of
academic writing with increasing skill.
The variety in writing tasks, purposes, and audiences found in the CCSS is a welcome
acknowledgment of the long-held understanding of the importance of authentic and rel-
evant writing tasks and contexts to students’ development and growth as writers (Calkins,
1994; Duke, Purcell-­Gates, Hall, & Tower, 2007). In addition, the emphasis on integrating
reading and writing is likely to support curricular coherence, and this, too, is an important
correlate of student achievement (Newmann, Smith, Allensworth, & Bryk, 2001).

Speaking and Listening

Oral language development is highlighted in the Speaking and Listening anchor stan-
dards. Standards focus on two general categories, Comprehension and Collaboration,
and Presentation of Knowledge and Ideas, and broadly emphasize development of stu-
dents’ abilities to participate in academic discussions; to work effectively with others; to
express their views clearly and listen to others’ perspectives; and to present their opin-
ions, information, and/or findings in a clear, organized manner. The CCSS further call
on students to provide oral reports, audio recordings, and visual displays, and to under-
stand appropriate language use for different contexts, such as discussions, debates, or
presentations.

Language
Developing students’ academic language represents another important dimension of the
CCSS, with categories that include Conventions of Standard English, Knowledge of Lan-
guage, and Vocabulary Acquisition and Use. As early as kindergarten, the Standards ask
students to discuss the meaning of unknown words and phrases, and to explore words’
meanings. Developing this knowledge strongly supports reading comprehension by open-
ing up the language of academic texts and tasks. To meet these requirements, students
need explicit instruction in content-­related vocabulary and academic language through-
out their academic careers to acquire knowledge of not only word meanings but also strat-
egies to apply during reading (e.g., use of context, knowledge of word parts, word analy-
sis, and use of reference materials). Developing this knowledge also helps students meet
the expectation to understand the conventions of standard written and spoken English.

What Does It Mean to Comprehend a Text?

The RAND Reading Study Group (2002) defines comprehension as a process of extract-
ing and constructing meaning from text. Successful comprehension results from the inter-
action between the reader and the text, and this interaction can be greatly influenced by
the context and the activity (including the reader’s task and purpose).
Comprehension Instruction within the Context of the Common Core 109

Extraction of meaning from text occurs on two levels: first, as the reader recognizes
and apprehends the words’ meanings, and second, as the reader integrates important
ideas in the text with existing knowledge to develop a macrostructure, or mental rep-
resentation, of the text. According to Kintsch’s construction–­integration model (1994;
Kintsch & Rawson, 2005) as readers extract information from the text and build mean-
ing (i.e., construction), they simultaneously look for relationships among the ideas and
combine them with their existing knowledge of the topic (i.e., integration). In doing so,
readers use what the text says to create a coherent model or representation of the text
(i.e., what the text is about) and referred to by Kintsch (2013) as the situation model. This
process requires that readers use inferential abilities to draw together ideas from the text
and “fill in the blanks” to create a coherent mental representation while simultaneously
calling on their prior knowledge (by some estimates, 50-60% of the variance in a reader’s
comprehension ability results from skills in accessing relevant prior knowledge during the
comprehension process; e.g., Duffy, 2009).
At the same time, successful comprehension is influenced by factors outside the
reader. Reading is at once a cognitive process and a social practice, situated in school-­
based norms and expectations (Purcell-­Gates, 2012). As a result, comprehension can
be influenced by the context (i.e., the school, classroom, and specific setting) in which
reading occurs. Classroom contexts in which students collaboratively engage with their
peers strongly influence students’ motivation to engage in reading (Guthrie & Ozgun-
gor, 2002), scaffold students’ abilities to successfully complete academic tasks (Certo,
Moxley, Reffitt, & Miller, 2010; Reznitskaya et al., 2012), and encourage students’
epistemic beliefs about what counts as knowledge (Afflerbach, Cho, Kim, Crassas, &
Doyle, 2013).
It is here that the teacher’s greatest influence takes shape. Through instructional
and curricular choices, teachers build students’ capacities to comprehend challenging
texts, use academic language, and engage in the kinds of thinking that are hallmarks
of academic success. Such instruction helps students find relevance in their reading and
provides sufficient scaffolds to bring challenging texts and tasks into the “zone of pos-
sibility” for all readers.
Considering both the cognitive and contextual aspects of skilled comprehension, and
in light of the CCSS demands for close readings and complex texts, teachers’ actions in
the instructional contexts they create take on particular importance. Since we are expect-
ing more from our students in terms of texts and reading tasks, as teachers, we must do
more with the classroom contexts and tasks we create to make high levels of reading
comprehension attainable for all our students.
So what contexts and conditions facilitate this process? In the remaining sections of
this chapter, we explore this question. We begin by looking at instructional models that
have proven effective in supporting students’ comprehension. We then examine instruc-
tion that facilitates comprehension and brings the goals of CCSS within reach. Finally, we
describe our current work in urban elementary schools with teachers who are working
toward these goals, and wrap up by considering what all of this means for our work in
classrooms.

Instructional Models That Support Comprehension and Deepen Learning

A central tenet of the Common Core is the integration of literacy (i.e., reading, writing,
speaking, listening, and language development) throughout the school day. Integrating
110 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

literacy into the curriculum supports knowledge building and strengthens students’ learn-
ing experience.
A number of instructional models that align well with this objective currently exist,
and in this section we highlight a few. We intend this not as an exhaustive examination
but as evidence that meeting goals of the CCSS does not require us to reinvent the wheel.
In fact, these models serve as illustrative examples of the diverse ways that teachers can
integrate literacy into their classroom instruction and, by doing so, strengthen students’
text comprehension to advance learning.
As we look at these models, we note the instructional components that together
facilitate more productive interactions with text. Effective implementation of these mod-
els requires that teachers consider how best to (1) ready students for reading by building
background knowledge and introducing important vocabulary and concepts; (2) struc-
ture the reading event to enable students’ access to complex text; (3) provide students
adequate time to engage in reading; and (4) create instructional “space” for students to
respond to their reading through discussion and writing. By addressing each of these
components, teachers are better able to integrate the varied facets of literacy learning into
a coherent learning opportunity, both within and across a series of lessons.
One model that incorporates these components and aligns with the demands of
CCSS is Book Club (Raphael & McMahon, 1994). At the center of the Book Club model
are student-­led, small-group discussions of high-­quality literature (mostly fiction and
biography) with rich themes about which students respond and talk. Instruction to sup-
port Book Clubs includes four parts: close reading of text in advance of discussion; writ-
ing in preparation for and following discussion; whole-class discussion or “community
share” (p. 104), either in preparation for or following Book Club events; and instruction
that includes vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension strategies, both in preparation for
and following reading. In addition to their enhanced comprehension of text, Book Club
participants developed increasingly sophisticated skills and strategies for understanding
texts, participating in discussions, and writing. Students also found Book Clubs to be
highly motivating and over time demonstrated increased efficacy for their own learning.
A second model that also reflects dimensions of the CCSS is collaborative reasoning
(CR; Chinn, Anderson, & Waggoner, 2001). Here, teachers use questioning and col-
laborative inquiry to engage students in discussions around a text-based issue or theme.
This model encourages students to take responsibility for leading the discussion as they
engage in critical analysis and debate of a “big question” related to the text. Researchers
found that discussions based on the principles of CR led to increases in student-­directed
talk about content and better learning outcomes when compared with less structured
classroom discussions. In comparing CR with more traditional approaches, research-
ers noted that the CR discussions facilitated more extended exploration and improved
understanding of important ideas. Such discussions were highly engaging, because
they emphasized multiple viewpoints that, in turn, promoted higher order thinking.
In another study that examined the relationship of CR to students’ appropriation of
language and understanding of “reasoned argumentation,” researchers identified the
positive effects of CR on students’ ability to compose persuasive essays that included
relevant arguments, counterarguments, and text information (Reznitskaya et al., 2001).
Although studies of CR do not explicitly define the steps required to prepare students for
productive engagement in discussions of text, our experience with this model suggests
that for students to participate effectively, they must first be introduced to important
vocabulary and concept knowledge, and engage in close reading of focal texts prior to
small-group discussions.
Comprehension Instruction within the Context of the Common Core 111

The instructional approaches of Book Club and CR advance different stances regard-
ing text. Because Book Club supports general discussions of text, it also encourages a range
of responses, either aesthetic and expressive or analytical, depending on students’ experi-
ences and understanding of the text. CR, on the other hand, encourages a more critical ana-
lytic stance, as students take a position and search for text-based evidence to support their
views. Despite these differences, researchers have found both approaches to strengthen
comprehension by engaging students in close reading and productive discussions through
which they interact productively with peers and arrive at new understandings about text.
As we noted earlier in this chapter, the CCSS are expected to redistribute the respon-
sibility for teaching and learning of literacy practices across the curriculum. As a result,
all teachers have a role in developing students’ ability to access complex, content-­rich
texts within their disciplines. An instructional model that has been carefully explored in
science instruction is Concept-­Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI; Guthrie, Anderson,
Alao, & Rinehart, 1999; Guthrie & Ozgungor, 2002). In this model, teachers organize
instruction around a conceptual, interdisciplinary theme intended to make content acces-
sible to all students and to increase active engagement in reading. Key to the CORI model
is establishing relevant knowledge goals and explicit comprehension strategy instruction
with extensive guided practice, within the authentic context of reading to find out. To
make goals achievable, teachers provide a range of reading materials at varied levels of
difficulty and incorporate some student choice with tasks and texts. Discussion is an
important component of this model, with regular opportunities for peer collaboration in
a variety of grouping structures that include pairs, small groups, and the whole group.
As well, inquiry into focal themes and topics allows students to apply their developing
understandings further in project-­based writing projects. Studies have shown that CORI
students at both intermediate and middle school levels make significantly greater gains
in reading comprehension and content acquisition than students in classrooms in which
instruction is structured in a more traditional manner (Guthrie et al., 1999). In addition,
students participating in CORI classrooms demonstrated greater motivation for reading
than students receiving traditional instruction (Guthrie, Wigfield, & Von Secker, 2000).
The models presented in this section represent a small sample of recognized instruc-
tional approaches that support students’ comprehension of text and stimulate learning.
Each model calls on teachers purposefully to create contexts in which students interact
productively and in multiple ways through reading, writing, and talking around text.
In all cases, discussion figures prominently and offers a motivating context in which
students engage with text and with each other. Discussion creates instructional space
for students to co-­construct meaning, internalize new ways of thinking and talking, and
extend their learning. As well, these dialogic approaches to text contextualize compre-
hension strategies, placing them at the point of authentic use during collaborative discus-
sions as students repeatedly turn back to the text for relevant information, evidence, and
themes. Students’ interactions with classmates and texts in turn create opportunities to
organize their ideas in relation to the text and to develop the mental representations, or
situation models of text (Kintsch, 2013), necessary for understanding and learning.
Also emerging from this overview is awareness that although the Common Core
provides a powerful incentive to develop new means of instruction that activate all com-
ponents of literacy (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) in service of high-level
comprehension competencies across the curriculum, existing approaches also meet its
requirements. By integrating the various components of literacy learning, teachers not
only meet the standards but also create motivating contexts that deepen comprehension
and strengthen learning as students read, discuss, and write about their understandings.
112 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

Creating Classroom Contexts That Support Comprehension:

What’s a Teacher to Do?

As teachers, when we pause and think about our students who are good comprehenders,
we usually find that they share a particular set of behaviors. For example, good com-
prehenders construct knowledge from texts by integrating text-based and reader-­based
ideas; they are motivated, engaged, and strategic (Alexander, 2005; Blachowicz & Ogle,
2008; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995); they see relevance in reading tasks and learning; and
they believe they can accomplish their goals and are in turn persistent in their pursuit.
At the same time, good comprehenders are individuals. They read about different top-
ics, read different types of books, and prefer to use their literacy skills in different ways
(Blachowicz & Ogle, 2008).
When we act on this vision of “good comprehenders” to frame our roles and respon-
sibilities as teachers, we are likely to foster engaged, strategic, and knowledge-­driven
reading in all of our students. By doing so, we help our students become readers who
develop the motivation and persistence to approach new and intriguing topics or texts
and to delve deeply into understanding a particular topic or genre in detail. In this section
we examine teaching actions that are consistent with this vision and explain how teachers
can set up the reading event and mediate complex texts to support students’ productive
interactions with text and strengthen comprehension.

Setting Up the Reading Event

We know that instruction that incorporates interesting tasks and texts helps build stu-
dents’ willingness to participate in the hard work of developing deep understanding
about complex topics and ideas (Guthrie & Humenick, 2004). Integrating such texts
into instruction brings to the fore new and intriguing curricular or situational interests
as it fosters deeper, more individual interests (Alexander, 2005). To set up reading events
geared toward students’ existing and budding interests, we begin by considering three
instructional decisions: knowledge goals, text selection, and effective grouping practices.

Supporting Knowledge‑Driven Reading

Teachers create engaging classroom environments when they find ways to make learning
relevant to students’ interests and lives (Guthrie, 2011). Reading and writing are social
tools that we use to learn about the world and to communicate with others. We also use
these practices as a means to analyze, to reason, and to evaluate our own thoughts and
ideas in light of others’ (Gee, 2004). To recognize the relevance of literacy-­related tasks,
students need to understand how literacy skills and strategies help them engage with the
larger world.
Creating and ensuring relevance in classroom literacy tasks means planning with the
big picture in mind. To design classroom contexts that meet the CCSS promise of devel-
oping a foundation of “literary and cultural knowledge and a foundation of knowledge
in . . . all content areas” (NGACBP & CCSSO, 2010, p. 10), we first focus on knowledge
goals. Knowledge goals establish relevance and purpose for school-­related tasks by mak-
ing visible “the forest as well as the trees” (Duffy, 2009, p. 35); when students approach
their reading with knowledge goals in mind and an understanding of their relevance, they
are more likely to persist in the task (Guthrie & Humenick, 2004). By wrapping instruc-
tion around knowledge goals, reading, writing, and discussion become useful tools that
lead to more robust and meaningful comprehension experiences.
Comprehension Instruction within the Context of the Common Core 113

Selecting Cognitively Challenging Texts across Literacy Genres

A key takeaway from the CCSS is the call for more variety in text type, particularly
informational texts that represent a band of complexity appropriate for the particular
grade level. Increased emphasis on informational text does not mean that literary texts
are not taught; rather, it means that literacy instruction is integrated across all of the
disciplines and throughout the school day. The importance of using informational text
in the classroom is grounded in the claim that proficiency in reading informational text,
particularly complex informational text, is necessary for students to be college and career
ready. However, the push for more informational texts in the classroom is not new. More
than a decade ago, Duke (2000) found a scarcity of informational texts in first-grade
classrooms. This finding was considered a threat to the reading achievement of all stu-
dents, but particularly students in high-­poverty schools who often have less exposure
and familiarity with text in general, and in particular, with the types of texts that are
predominant in the upper grades.
Identifying and selecting texts around important topics with variety in text types
and reading levels supports motivation as it builds comprehension and supports learning
(Duke et al., 2011). Hiebert (2012) suggests that students can acquire “funds of informa-
tion” by reading “narrative and informational texts widely, but also deeply, in particular
topics” (p. 16). Students can select a topic of interest related to a particular curricular
area, and through their reading come to view themselves as experts on a topic. Working
in conjunction with librarians, teachers can help identify a variety of texts related to a
student’s topic of choice.
Hiebert’s “funds of information” initiative acknowledges the important role of
choice in students’ reading widely and deeply. In fact, choice is one of the strongest fac-
tors to influence students’ motivation for literacy tasks, because it establishes some sense
of autonomy in the curriculum (Guthrie & Humenick, 2004). Often, however, when
teachers hear about this finding, their first concern is that they have a mandated curricu-
lum that limits their ability to offer students reading choices. This is true, but it should
not deter us from considering the other sorts of choices we can make in every literacy
context (Guthrie, 2011). That is, in addition to allowing time for independently selected
reading, choices can be related to a particular text within a topical text set, where to sit
when doing the work (e.g., at a desk, in the classroom book corner), how to respond (e.g.,
orally or in writing), and/or how to work (e.g., independently, with a partner, in a group).

Choosing Productive Grouping Options

Student grouping options (i.e., whole-class, small-­groups, partner, independent) should
be planned strategically not only to match the goals of the lesson but also to maximize
the amount of time students are engaged in extended reading, writing, and discussing
(Paratore, 2000). If the goal is to introduce every child to a new topic and important
underlying concepts, whole-class instruction may be a good fit. If the goal is to maximize
the level of all students’ input and engagement in a discussion to reason through argu-
ments, small groups of about five students each match that purpose better than whole-
class or partner work. Alternatively, if the goal is to develop and present newly acquired
information on a particular topic, partner work might provide enough scaffolding to
deepen understanding, while also offering enough “space” for each student to contribute
meaningfully. Students who struggle often benefit from additional explicit instruction in
targeted areas of need, and this may be best provided within teacher-­led small groups.
Finally, students must have time during the day that is devoted to reading on their own at
114 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

an independent reading level in self-­selected texts that match their interests and in which
they will meet with high success (Atwell, 1998; Fountas & Pinnell, 1996).
As we consider the grouping options for use throughout a day and week, we must be
mindful of the implications of each grouping option relative to students’ opportunities for
collaborative work. Providing time for collaboration makes our literacy instruction more
purposeful and also increases student motivation (Guthrie & Humenick, 2004). It also
facilitates students’ abilities to think critically about the ideas presented in texts, and as
such, deepens understanding (Chinn et al., 2001; Reznitskaya et al., 2009). As students
participate in dialogue with the teacher and with their peers, they see their role in knowl-
edge development and feel greater autonomy in their own learning (Gambrell, Malloy,
& Mazzoni, 2011). On the whole, then, we must be vigilant about grouping students in
ways that provide sufficient teacher-­led instruction and plentiful opportunities to learn
in collaboration with each other.
With our students in mind, our knowledge goals identified, and our texts carefully
selected and scaffolded through strategic grouping practices, we are well on our way
toward helping our students become good comprehenders. That said, we still need to pro-
vide our students with practices that support comprehension and mediate complex text,
while also building motivation and developing students’ reading, writing, and language
skills.

Tools for Comprehension

Through their skilled instructional actions, teachers mediate complex text to make grade
level texts (and the associated vocabulary and conceptual knowledge) available to all
students. The types of mediation may vary depending on the text and the contexts that
the teacher has designed to support reading events. In some cases, skilled mediation may
involve explicit instruction in strategic approaches to text to support development of
students’ metacognition and strategic knowledge, thereby enabling students to attend to
the overall meaning of the text. In other cases, teacher mediation may take the form of
a series of instructional scaffolds through which they bring difficult and complex texts
closer to students’ targeted reading range. To mediate complex texts effectively in support
of students’ comprehension also calls on teachers to integrate the varied components of
literacy instruction that, together, deepen understanding by keeping the primary focus on
the goal of comprehension: making meaning.

Developing Strategic Readers

The CCSS demand that students “acquire the habits of reading independently and
closely” (NGACBP & CCSSO, 2010, p. 10), and fundamental to meeting this demand is
the development of strategy knowledge. There is a strong correlation between students’
strategy knowledge and their motivation for literacy tasks (e.g., Taboada, Tonks, Wig-
field, & Guthrie, 2009). However, having strategy knowledge is not sufficient for read-
ing independence. Strategic readers not only have knowledge about what to do to con-
struct meaning as they read, but they also understand when and why particular strategic
actions are needed to support comprehension, especially when the texts become increas-
ingly complex (Almasi & Hart, 2011; Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1983). That is, they flex-
ibly and adaptively scaffold their own understanding by employing a range of strategies
before, during, and after reading (Duke & Pearson, 2002). In doing so, they monitor
their understanding, read between the lines, and evaluate the ideas in text against their
own knowledge and that in other texts they have read.
Comprehension Instruction within the Context of the Common Core 115

To give students this kind of strategic knowledge and skill requires that teachers first
provide explicit instruction and extensive modeling, followed by many opportunities to
apply these strategies with a variety of real texts (not worksheets) and in authentic con-
texts. The goal of instruction is to provide students with a set of procedures for navigat-
ing text that they can use flexibly and with increasing skill in order to strengthen their
comprehension and support learning (Brown, Pressley, Van Meter, & Schuder, 1996;
Palincsar & Brown, 1984).

Mediating Complex Text

The CCSS call for students to read complex texts, often described as “grade-level,” and
this raises many educators’ concern that some students will be assigned texts that far
exceed their instructional level (i.e., the level at which they can read most of the words).
Given evidence of the importance of ease of reading to both motivation and comprehen-
sion outcomes, this demand has caused many teachers to exclaim, “We can’t give our
students texts that are too difficult to read!” We agree entirely with this sentiment, but
we argue that there are empirically grounded instructional practices that, if used strategi-
cally, will bring difficult text within the range of readability for most struggling readers
(McKeown, Beck, & Blake, 2009).
Such scaffolds can take a variety of forms. For example, they may entail prereading
activities to introduce key vocabulary, develop concept knowledge, and engage students
in activities to preview the text. Some teachers set up “Early Bird” groups in which strug-
gling students participate in prereading activities that include reading aloud and initial
discussion of key parts of the classroom text in preparation for rereading and discussion
with the whole class during their usual class meeting period (Radencich et al., 1995).
Teachers may also create advance organizers or reading guides that help to organize the
reading process and highlight important information from grade-level text (Deshler &
Schumaker, 2006; Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, 2008).
Stahl (2012) presents shared reading as one method to mediate students’ access to
complex texts. During shared reading, the teacher uses texts that may be “stretch texts”
for students, in that the reading level may be higher than what would be considered stu-
dents’ instructional level. With thoughtful scaffolding that considers grade level, instruc-
tional goals, and variety of texts, teachers can ensure that “difficult text does not have to
be frustrating for students” (p. 51).
While these practices describe approaches to mediate students’ access to complex
texts, they are not the only type of reading that is important. As acknowledged in the
CCSS, “Students need opportunities to stretch their reading abilities but also to experi-
ence the satisfaction and pleasure of easy, fluent reading within them” (NGACBP &
CCSSO, 2010, Appendix A, p. 9). High-­success reading experiences that do not demand
substantial teacher support and scaffolding provide opportunities for application of
taught strategies and skills, increase students’ positive beliefs about themselves as read-
ers, and motivate students to want to read more (Allington, 2011; Guthrie, 2011).

Integrating Reading, Writing, and Oral Language

According to the CCSS, to reach toward the promise of college and career readiness, stu-
dents must be provided “ample opportunities to take part in a variety of rich, structured
conversations—­as part of a whole class, in small groups, and with a partner” (NGACBP
& CCSSO, 2010, p. 22). Providing students with opportunities to discuss with their peers
interesting and challenging texts supports motivation and engagement, and this in turn
116 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

supports deepened comprehension and understanding (Wu, Anderson, Nguyen-­Jahiel, &

Miller, 2013).
The CCSS also call on students to write “as a way of offering and supporting opin-
ions, demonstrating understanding of the subjects they are studying” (NGACBP &
CCSSO, 2010, p. 18). In short, writing is yet another way to deepen comprehension of
text. Writing in response to reading and in anticipation of discussion can both promote
better discussions and solidify the understanding of ideas gleaned from texts (Graham
& Harris, 2005; Graham & Perin, 2007). When teachers integrate the areas of reading,
writing, listening, and speaking they create a classroom environment conducive to deep
understanding and higher order thinking.
While the CCSS outline curricular goals and learning expectations, they leave deci-
sions about implementation to teachers (i.e., those closest to the students and the commu-
nities in which they teach). So how might teachers act on these goals and expectations to
develop an instructional plan that both addresses the CCSS and is responsive to students’
needs? In the next section, we describe one approach to do so.

Enhancing Literacy Instruction through Coaching and Interactive Technology

For the past 3 years, through a partnership with urban elementary school teachers and
principals, we have engaged in a project to support teachers’ implementation of CCSS
through high-­quality literacy instruction. The approach, Enhancing Literacy Instruction
through Collaboration and Interactive Technology (ELICIT), is guided by the under-
standing that strengthening teachers’ literacy instruction offers the clearest path to realiz-
ing the high standards for students’ literacy learning and academic achievement. Toward
that end, the project is intended to establish at partner schools a culture of critical self-­
reflection among teachers and to create a self-­sustaining model of teachers coaching
teachers for greater capacity in literacy instruction and improved student learning.
Here’s how it works: ELICIT joins traditional, monthly school-­based workshops
with technology and social media, as participating teachers video-­record two lessons
per month targeting focal issues in students’ literacy learning. They then upload their
videos to an online portal and participate in individual, remote coaching. During these
coaching sessions, we (as coaches who are also university-­based literacy and language
specialists) view each teacher’s uploaded video, then asynchronously engage in online
“conversations” with the teacher (and often her school-­based colleagues) to analyze and
discuss teaching actions and student responses to instruction, and to raise questions for
mutual consideration. We may also work together to plan subsequent lessons based on
our coaching conversations. During monthly onsite meetings, the entire team (classroom
teachers and university coaches) co-views and discusses selected videotaped lessons; these
co-­viewings often spark lively discussions and offer a context to explore instructional
decisions or troubleshoot teacher-­identified problems.
Early in the project, we identified CR as a model that would help teachers focus their
instructional goals and develop students’ literacy capacities through careful reading of
texts that were both engaging and high-­interest, important to the school’s curriculum,
and vital to daily discussion of a “big question” that required critical reasoning together
about those texts. In the instruction leading up to and following students’ discussions, we
viewed this as a model in which teachers could seamlessly integrate many of the reading,
writing, speaking, and language-­based requirements of the Common Core. That is, to
prepare to consider and discuss the “big question” of the day, students must read care-
fully and look for evidence from the text that supports their ideas; as they listen to and
Comprehension Instruction within the Context of the Common Core 117

debate their peers, they must carefully evaluate ideas and provide evidence to substanti-
ate their positions; and finally, through writing, students must integrate what they read
and what they heard during discussion to develop a persuasive essay that addresses the
day’s question. In implementation of the CR model, teachers in our study have used both
narrative (e.g., Amos & Boris by William Steig; “Was Amos a good friend?”) and nonfic-
tion (e.g., American Slave, American Hero: York of the Lewis and Clark Expedition by
Laurence Pringle; “Was Clark fair to York?”).
An important objective of ELICIT is to strengthen the culture of teaching and learn-
ing in the schools where we work. Through our coaching and monthly meetings, we
aim to establish professional learning communities (PLCs; Dufour, 2004; Vescio, Ross,
& Adams, 2008) with a structure sufficient to sustain them for the long run. Our work
brings together teachers within and across elementary grade levels, from PreK to grade
5. Together, we examine elements of instruction that are unique to each grade and also
explore approaches that support students’ literacy learning across grades: selecting high-­
quality texts; preteaching important vocabulary and concepts; close reading; establishing
norms for discussion; posing “big questions” that invite multiple perspectives and rich,
engaging conversations; and writing in response to the text or to the day’s question. All
of these elements address basic components of the CCSS and support teachers’ seamless
integration of the Core Standards into their instructional routines.
Although this project remains a work in progress, we see promising indications of
its impact. At the conclusion of the project’s first year, we explored perceptions about
school culture and teacher learning by interviewing staff members, asking them to fill out
surveys, and analyzing video recordings of their instruction. Our interviews began with
the principal, who commented that “the combination of teachers working together and
working with university partners is powerful. It’s more common to see outside organiza-
tions come in and take over. So we’re working together toward a shared vision; and the
partners’ vision is our vision: what’s best for the school.” Emerging patterns in interviews
with the participating teachers suggested several key areas of impact from the project that
included (1) strengthened student participation in learning activities; (2) greater instruc-
tional focus through knowledge goals and close reading of text; (3) improved planning;
(4) opportunities for reflection; and (5) opportunities for feedback from coaches and
colleagues.
In addition to teachers’ reflections, viewings of the teachers’ videos revealed positive
changes in instructional practices between the first and last posted videos, as teachers
acquired new skills and engaged students in discussions in new ways. Analysis of tran-
scripts from these lessons also showed a reduction in the proportion of teachers’ talk rela-
tive to students’ talk; this characteristic is a frequent marker of academic discussions that
have positive effects on student learning (Soter, Wilkinson, Murphy, Rudge, Reninger, &
Edwards, 2008).
As we continue engaging teachers in this process, we hope to help build school cul-
tures that foster critical reflection and collaboration among teachers that focus on impor-
tant issues related to teaching and learning. We anticipate continued progress toward our
goal of strengthening students’ literacy learning in alignment with the CCSS and with
long-term effects on students’ achievement.

Summary: The Promise of the CCSS

The kinds of reading and writing required by the CCSS demand a range of literacy abili-
ties and skills, and hold students to high levels of text understanding. The outcomes of
118 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

current national and international literacy assessments (e.g., NAEP, 2013; Organisation
for Economic Co-­operation and Development [OECD], 2010) indicate that if we maintain
a “business as usual” approach to instruction and learning, many (if not most) students
will fall short of meeting the CCSS. However, supporting student achievement requires
not that teachers throw out everything they’ve been doing up to this point, but rather that
they critically reflect on their practice and consider what’s missing or, perhaps, what is
present but receiving insufficient articulation or emphasis. We know that teachers have
at their disposal a range of models and instructional approaches that integrate and use
literacy (i.e., reading, writing, speaking, and listening), as tools to deepen comprehension
and build knowledge. When teachers incorporate these various components into their
instruction across grades and disciplines, the resulting contexts can help to lead students
toward the literacy competence and knowledge growth that is necessary for citizenship in
a democratic society and global economy.
Teachers are not being asked nor are they expected to start anew. Although there
is much to be explored in this new frontier, there is much that is already known about
the contexts that engage students productively with texts and content, and the kinds of
instruction that support student learning. Most teachers are already putting some of this
knowledge into practice. Although developing reading comprehension in the context of
the CCSS will require more of teachers and students—­more reading of complex texts,
with greater variety and numbers in the texts read; more writing, in pursuit of deepened
understandings about texts and content; more language, including academic and concep-
tual vocabulary as tools for engaging with and learning from content; and more discus-
sion in varied contexts and configurations (e.g., with partners, in small groups, and as
a whole class, as collaborators in building knowledge)—few teachers are starting from
scratch.

Key Ideas to Remember

•• Although the CCSS establish guidelines for students’ literacy learning, they do not
dictate how teaching and learning will be accomplished. Decisions about implementation
rest in the hands of teachers, ensuring that those closest to students and the communities
in which they teach are making the instructional decisions.
•• The CCSS provide a road map for teaching and learning that supports curricular
coherence, not only in ELA but also across content areas and grade levels as teachers
develop and integrate important knowledge and skills into their instruction.
•• By integrating the various components of literacy learning, teachers not only meet
the standards but they also create motivating contexts that deepen comprehension and
strengthen learning as students read, discuss, and write about their understandings.
•• To set up reading events geared toward students’ existing and budding interests,
teachers should begin with three instructional decisions: knowledge goals, text selection,
and effective grouping practices.
•• Through their skilled instructional actions, teachers mediate complex text to make
grade-level texts (and the associated vocabulary and conceptual knowledge) available to
all students. The types of mediation may vary depending on the text and the contexts that
the teacher has designed to support reading events.
Comprehension Instruction within the Context of the Common Core 119

•• Providing students with opportunities to discuss with their peers interesting and
challenging texts supports motivation and engagement, and this in turn supports deep-
ened comprehension and understanding.
•• Structuring units thematically allows exploration of important concepts through
purposeful literacy-­based activities that incorporate a variety of reading materials (i.e.,
genres, reading levels), while also offering some choice, either in texts or tasks, to main-
tain motivation and sustain student engagement.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. In this chapter we have described the array of factors involved in successful comprehension of
complex text. These factors include not only the text’s semantic and conceptual characteristics but
also the reader’s interactions with the text, the nature of the reading task, and the context surrounding
the reading event. Consider how you might (a) include a greater focus on knowledge goals; (b)
incorporate students’ interests and embed choice in texts, contexts (e.g., online vs. inclass writing
assignments) or instructional activities; (c) use text sets; and (d) create opportunities for discussion-­
based learning. Which of your current practices would you keep or extend? What would you change in
your instruction and framing of reading events in your classroom?
2. Consider the instructional scaffolds introduced in this chapter that help to mediate complex and grade-
level texts. What combinations of instructional scaffolds and grouping would best meet the needs of
your students? How might these be adapted to your grade level (e.g., prereading instruction to build
vocabulary, develop conceptual knowledge, and to set a purpose; “Early Bird” groups to preview texts
and prepare for reading and discussion; shared reading activities; focused discussion groups; extended
writing activities; advance organizers or reading guides)? In what ways do these scaffolds complement
the detailed instructional principles explored in other chapters of this book?
3. As you plan instruction that addresses the CCSS expectations for integrating more reading, writing,
and language into classroom instruction, think about ways you and your colleagues could serve
as resources for one another. What supports are needed to analyze the vertical and horizontal
demands of the CCSS and strengthen coherence from one grade level to the next? How might you
analyze student work and establish common expectations? In which curricular areas can you coplan
instructional units around a central theme? Where can you incorporate greater variety in text genres
across content areas with increased use of informational text? How might different instructional
models like those mentioned in this chapter (e.g., Book Club [Raphael & McMahon, 1994], CORI
[Guthrie et al., 1999], CR [Chinn et al., 2001]), or in other chapters of this book be adapted in
particular grades or the school as a whole?

References

Afflerbach, P., Cho, B. Y., Kim, J. Y., Crassas, M. E., & Doyle, B. (2013). Reading: What else mat-
ters besides strategies and skills? The Reading Teacher, 66(6), 440–448.
Alexander, P. A. (2005). A path to competence: A lifespan developmental perspective on reading.
Journal of Literacy Research, 37(4), 413–436.
Allington, R. L. (2011). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research based
programs (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Almasi, J. F., & Hart, S. J. (2011). Best practices in comprehension instruction. In L. M. Morrow
& L. B. Gambrell (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (4th ed., pp. 250–275). New
York: Guilford Press.
Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents (2nd ed.). Upper
Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
120 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

Blachowicz, C., & Ogle, D. (2008). Reading comprehension: Strategies for independent learners
(2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
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.
Calkins, L. (1994). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Certo, J., Moxley, K., Reffitt, K., & Miller, J. A. (2010). I learned how to talk about a book:
Children’s perceptions of literature circles across grade and ability levels. Literacy Research
and Instruction, 49, 243–263.
Chinn, C., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of
literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 378–411.
Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (2006). Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the
general curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Duffy, G. G. (2009). Explaining reading (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a professional learning community? Educational Leadership, 61(8),
6–11.
Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Read-
ing Research Quarterly, 25(2), 202–224.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In
A. E. Farstrup & S. J Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction
(pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, A. K. (2011). Essential elements of fos-
tering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What
research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 51–93). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Duke, N. K., Purcell-­Gates, V., Hall, L. A., & Tower, C. (2007). Authentic literacy activities for
developing comprehension and writing. The Reading Teacher, 60, 344–355.
Duke, N. K., & Roberts, K. M. (2010). The genre-­specific nature of reading comprehension. In D.
Wyse, R. Andrews, & J. Hoffman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of English,
language, and literacy teaching (pp. 74–86). London: Routledge.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2008). In a reading state of mind: Brain research, teacher model-
ing, and comprehension instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2012). Text complexity: Raising rigor in reading. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Edu-
cational Psychologist, 35(1), 39–50.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Ports-
mouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gambrell, L. B., Malloy, J. A., & Mazzoni, S. A. (2011). Evidence-­based best practices in com-
prehensive literacy instruction. In L. M. Morrow & L. B. Gambrell (Eds.), Best practices in
literacy instruction (4th ed., pp. 11–36). New York: Guilford Press.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. In R. B. Ruddell &
N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 116–132). New-
ark, DE: International Reading Association.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Improving the writing performance of young struggling writ-
ers: Theoretical and programmatic research from the Center on Accelerating Student Learn-
ing. Journal of Special Education, 39, 19–33.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adoles-
cents in middle and high schools—­A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Wash-
ington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Guthrie, J. T. (2011). Best practices in motivating students to read. In L. M. Morrow & L. B.
Gambrell (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (4th ed., pp. 177–198). New York:
Guilford Press.
Comprehension Instruction within the Context of the Common Core 121

Guthrie, J. T., Anderson, E., Alao, S., & Rinehart, J. (1999). Influences of concept oriented read-
ing instruction on strategy use and conceptual learning from text. Elementary School Jour-
nal, 99(4), 343–366.
Guthrie, J. T., & Humenick, N. M. (2004). Motivating students to read: Evidence for classroom
practices that increase reading motivation and achievement. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra
(Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 329–354). Baltimore: Brookes.
Guthrie, J. T., & Ozgungor, S. (2002). Instructional contexts for reading engagement. In C. C.
Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-­ based best practices
(pp. 275–288). New York: Guilford Press.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Von Secker, C. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on motiva-
tion and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 331–341.
Hiebert, E. H. (2012). The Common Core State Standards and text complexity. Teacher Librar-
ian, 39(5), 13–19.
Hiebert, E. H. (2013). Supporting students’ movement up the staircase of text complexity. The
Reading Teacher, 66(6), 459–466.
Keys, C. W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the compo-
sition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 676–690.
Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49(4),
294–303.
Kintsch, W. (2013). Revisiting the construction–­integration model of text comprehension and its
implications for instruction. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theo-
retical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 807–839). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Kintsch, W., & Rawson, K. A. (2005). Comprehension. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The
science of reading: A handbook (pp. 209–226). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Martinez, M., & Roser, N. L. (2008). Writing to understand lengthy text: How first grade readers
use response journals to support their understanding of a challenging book chapter. Literacy
Research and Instruction, 47, 195–210.
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. K. (2009). Rethinking comprehension instruction:
Comparing strategies and content instructional approaches. Reading Research Quarterly,
44(3), 218–253.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2013). Reading assessment (U.S. Depart-
ment of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics).
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/moreabout.aspx.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGACBP) & Council of Chief State
School Officers (CCSSO). (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts
and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects (Appendix A). Washing-
ton, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/assets/appendix_a.pdf.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGACBP) & Council of Chief
State School Officers (CCSSO). (2014). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC:
Author. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/about-the-­standards/frequently-­asked-­
questions/#faq-2303.
Nelson, N., & Calfee, R. C. (1998). The reading-­writing connection. In N. Nelson & R. C. Calfee
(Eds.), The reading–writing connection (97th yearbook of the National Society for the Study
of Education, Part II, pp. 1–52). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional program coher-
ence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297–321.
Organisation for Economic Co-­operation and Development (OECD). (2010). PISA 2009 results:
Executive summary. Paris: OECD.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-­fostering and
comprehension-­monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. Retrieved
from www.jstor.org/stable/3233567.
122 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

Paratore, J. R. (2000). Grouping for instruction in literacy: What we’ve learned about what works
and what doesn’t. The California Reader, 33(4), 2–10.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 8, 293–316.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively
responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pringle, L. (2006). American slave, American hero: York of the Lewis and Clark expedition.
Honesdale, PA: Calkins Creek.
Purcell-­Gates, V. (2012). Epistemological tensions in reading research and a vision for the future.
Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 465–471.
Radencich, M. C., McKay, L. J., Paratore, J. R., Plaza, G. L., Lustgarten, K. E., Nelms, P., et al.
(1995). Implementing flexible grouping with a common reading selection. In M. C. Radencich
& L. J. McKay (Eds.), Flexible grouping for literacy in the elementary grades (pp. 42–65).
Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Towards an R&D program in
reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Raphael, T. E., & McMahon, S. I. (1994). Book Club: An alternative framework for reading
instruction. The Reading Teacher, 48(2), 102–116.
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-­Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S.
(2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32, 155–175.
Reznitskaya, A., Glina, M., Carolan, B., Michaud, O., Rogers, J., & Sequeira, L. (2012). Exam-
ining transfer effects from dialogic discussions to new tasks and contexts. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 37, 288–306.
Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L.-J., Clark, A.-M., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., et al. (2009).
Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 39(1), 29–48.
Rosenblatt, L. (2005). Making meaning with texts: Selected essays. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Shanahan, T. (2004). Overcoming the dominance of communication: Writing to think and to learn.
In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 59–73).
New York: Guilford Press.
Soter, A. O., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Murphy, P. K., Rudge, L., Reninger, K., & Edwards, M. (2008).
What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International
Journal of Educational Research, 47, 372–391.
Stahl, K. A. D. (2012). Complex text or frustration-­level text: Using shared reading to bridge the
difference. The Reading Teacher, 66, 47–51.
Steig, W. (2009). Amos & Boris. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Taboada, A., Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects of motivational and
cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 22(1), 85–106.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional
learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Edu-
cation, 24, 80–91.
Williamson, G. L., Fitzgerald, J., & Stenner, A. J. (2013). Common Core State Standards’ quanti-
tative text complexity trajectory: Figuring out how much complexity is enough. Educational
Researcher, 42(2), 59–69.
Wu, X., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-­Jahiel, K., & Miller, B. (2013). Enhancing motivation and
engagement through collaborative discussion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3),
622–632.
 Chapter 9

Using Neuroscience to Inform

Reading Comprehension Instruction

Sheri R. Parris and Cathy Collins Block

The road to a real understanding of mind must pass

through the cellular pathways of the brain.
—Eric R. K andel (2006, p. 429)

In this chapter we discuss the neuroscientific influences that are transforming our under-
standing of how reading comprehension occurs. Our knowledge of these meaning-­
making processes has evolved as a product of the cumulative integration of many discov-
eries across many research disciplines. In the last part of the 20th century, the emergence
of neuroscience has caused the fields of philosophy, psychology, linguistics, education,
and others to merge in new and previously unconceivable ways. This movement was
fueled in the last several decades by advancements in technology that better enabled
researchers to monitor brain activity during reading. These advancements led Edelman
(2006) to declare that the field of neuroscience so integrated biological sciences of the
brain into what was once the exclusive domain of philosophers that a “paradigm shift” in
cognitive science had occurred. The result of this integration is the ability to understand
more deeply the cognitive and emotional processes involved in reading comprehension.
This chapter highlights the following:

• Historical perspective of neuroscience as applied to reading comprehension.

• Neuroimaging tools used to quantify and identify reading comprehension pro-
cesses in the brain.
• Neuroimaging research findings related to reading comprehension processes.
• New research regarding genes and neurotransmitters.

123
124 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

Bringing Neuroscience to Reading Comprehension

Jean Piaget (1963), pioneer of the theory and research that support the tenet that cogni-
tive development occurs in stages, has greatly influenced thinking in the field of reading
comprehension today. Piaget labeled his body of work “genetic epistemology” (Edelman,
2006, p. 47). His goal was to explain knowledge and how we acquire it. Unlike others
of his time and those before him, he chose not to rely on single, isolated observations
to formulate conclusions. He insisted that research concerning mental processes needed
to be triangulated to ensure that conclusions could be transferable, valid, and reliable.
He challenged the position that knowledge is a static entity. Instead, Piaget showed that
knowledge is developed in the brain over a period of time. His work has led the way for
educators of today to view cognitive functions such as reading comprehension through
the lens of neuroscience. Such a lens requires a relationship between thought and lan-
guage, psychology and linguistics (Piaget, 1963; Piaget & Kamii, 1978). Until the advent
of neuroimaging technology, however, we could not have documented Piaget’s theory.
We now know that multiple centers in the brain are indeed activated during the reading
comprehension process.

Cognitive Neuroscience Meets Reading Comprehension

The term cognitive neuroscience, coined in the late 1970s (Cognitive Neuroscience
Society, n.d.), is the branch of neuroscience that intersects with cognitive psychological
research. Its focus is to determine “how brain function[s] give rise to mental activity”
(Kosslyn & Shin, 1992, p. 146). The study of reading processes and other intellectual
activities is a component of this domain within neuroscience. In the early 1980s, reading
researchers and cognitive neuroscientists began working together to investigate the pro-
cesses of reading. P. David Pearson (1985) attributed this union to three forces:

1. In early reading instruction, consensus had been reached by experts in the field
overwhelmingly to support the need to teach phonics. Thus, the mental energies
of the reading field were now free to turn toward the next level of reading instruc-
tion, comprehension.
2. The 1981 National Association of Educational Progress (NAEP) report found
that 13- to 17-year-olds struggled with inferential and interpretative comprehen-
sion. So, much attention was given to the need for more insight into this area.
3. The relatively new field of cognitive psychology began to recognize that the read-
ing process was an important object of study (U.S. Department of Education,
1981).

In the 1990s, widespread use of neuroimaging technologies caused cognitive psy-

chologists to usher in the use of formal neuroscientific study as an important component
within the realm of reading research. This fact is evident by the growing number of
published research studies using neuroimaging to identify reading processes in the brain.
That said, neuroimaging is also commonly used as a means to identify subjects with dam-
age in specific areas of the brain. These subjects can then be given a variety of reading
comprehension tasks to determine how damage to a particular part of the brain affects
certain thinking processes. The most common types of brain imaging used by cognitive
researchers today are discussed below.
Using Neuroscience to Inform Reading Comprehension Instruction 125

Three Types of Neuroimaging

The first type of neuroimaging, electroencephalography (EEG), is a diagnostic test that
is used to create an audio recording of the electrical activity within brain. The recording
is generated by attaching electrodes to the scalp that can detect electrical noise variations
within the brain as specific thinking tasks are performed. For example, researchers can
use electrodes to collect data during episodes of silent reading. The audio recordings
are called event-­related potentials (ERPs). Each ERP or experimental mental “event” is
recorded as a visual image that shows how brain activity changes when students read.
The resulting collection of ERPs measure three changes in a brain’s activity during read-
ing comprehension: (1) the amount of time needed to comprehend (latency); (2) the depth
of thoughts and amount of brain activity that occurs as each new sentence is decoded
(amplitude or magnitude or brain activity); and (3) the distribution of various sound
waves across all regions of the brain that emerges at different points during comprehen-
sion. See Figure 9.1 for an example of an EEG recording.
The second type of neuroimaging, magnetoencephalography (MEG), creates an
image of the brain that allows researchers to measure its magnetic activity during spe-
cific thinking tasks (magnetic activity is a by-­product of the electrical activity within
the brain). Since nerves send messages via electrical impulses, an MEG can measure the
latency, amplitude, and distribution of these electrical impulses through the magnetic
data that are retrieved. This method has become increasingly popular with cognitive neu-
roscientists, because advances in magnetic technology enable more precise measurements
of distinct nerve impulses.
The third type of neuroimaging is functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).
Introduced in 1990 (Moffett, 2006, p. 47), fMRI is a brain imaging procedure that uses
radio waves combined with a strong magnetic field to illuminate areas with increased
blood flow during specific types of thinking tasks (e.g., specific types of reading compre-
hension tasks). Thus, fMRI creates a “map” of the most active regions of the brain during
various mental processes. See Figure 9.2 for an example of an fMRI image.

Neuroscience Research and Reading Comprehension

Neuroimaging has allowed scientists to identify regions of the brain that are engaged
when text processing occurs. Thus, we can now “see” (through neuroimaging) that read-
ing comprehension comprises many dynamic subprocesses. Some major findings follow.
Figure 9.3 provides a visual reference to each of the regions in the brain that are discussed.

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

FIGURE 9.1. EEG reading: 1-second sample.

126 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

FIGURE 9.2. fMRI sample showing brain activation in the primary visual cortex.

fMRI research has revealed that the brain region most activated during sentence
comprehension is located in the left, frontal–­temporal lobe (which contains the basal gan-
glia and thalamus) (Fiebach, Vos, & Friederici, 2004; Friederici, 2002; Kaan & Swaab,
2002). Neuroscience has also demonstrated that during a complete reading comprehen-
sion episode, the brain utilizes most of its major regions, including regions previously
thought to be uninvolved in the reading process. For instance, Fulbright et al. (1999)
proved that the cerebellum plays a role in reading. This was a surprising finding, because
the cerebellum (see Figure 9.3) had long been primarily associated with motor control
and balance. In another study, Ferstl, Rinck, and von Cramon (2005) found that the
emotional structures of the brain are activated during reading when emotional moments
in a story are encountered. One of the main emotional structures of the brain is the

FIGURE 9.3. Regions of the brain.

Using Neuroscience to Inform Reading Comprehension Instruction 127

amygdala. Furthermore, in a review of literature on the neurobiological bases of reading

comprehension, Landi, Frost, Mencl, Sandak, and Pugh (2013) found that skilled reading
comprehension involves a highly overlapping language circuit for single-­word reading,
reading comprehension, and listening comprehension.

Word Identification and Decoding

Word identification and decoding are foundational to the comprehension process, and
through neuroimaging studies, we have learned that these processes occur in the left
posterior cortical region (temporal, parietal, and occipital lobes of the brain, with both
dorsal [top] and ventral [bottom] components; Fiez & Peterson, 1998; Henderson, 1986;
Nobre, Allison, & McCarthy, 1994; Puce, Allison, Asgari, Gore, & McCarthy, 1996;
Pugh, Mencl, Jenner, Lee, et al., 2001). Sandak, Mencl, Frost, and Pugh (2004) found
significant converging evidence that development of a highly integrated cortical system,
including left-­hemisphere dorsal, ventral, and anterior subsystems, is essential for skilled
word recognition. Shaywitz et al. (2002) found that activation in the temporal–­occipital
lobes (which largely overlap the posterior left hemisphere) increases as word decoding
skill increases, further substantiating the importance of this area of the brain for read-
ing ability. In normal development of fluent decoding skills, the temporal-­parietal area
predominates, along with the premotor cortex, for analytic processing. This union is
essential if readers are to integrate word recognition and word meaning for printed words
(Pugh et al., 2001a). Pugh, Mencl, Jenner, Katz, et al. (2001) also found that some stu-
dents with reading disabilities rely on the inferior (lower) frontal and right-­hemisphere
posterior (rear) regions, which suggests that their left posterior pathways are not effi-
ciently allowing fluent word identification and provides additional evidence that these
left posterior regions are needed for optimal reading ability.

Working Memory
In addition to the recognition that areas of the left hemisphere are important to reading,
Sesma, Mahone, Levine, Eason, and Cutting (2009) have demonstrated that executive
function processes (i.e., working memory and planning) that occur in the frontal lobe of
the brain are also essential for comprehension. Fiebach et al. (2004) found that the right
basal ganglia and thalamus (housed in the left frontal–­temporal lobe) are more strongly
activated in poor readers who have a low-level of working memory. The basal ganglia are
thought to help the brain choose from several available options to make the best meaning
(Copland, Chenery, & Murdoch, 2001), and the thalamus serves as the central switch-
board for most of the information entering the brain, routing incoming messages to the
appropriate place. These data suggest that less able readers’ basal ganglia and thalamus
must work harder to interpret meaning from text and help to explain why less able read-
ers have more difficulty finding correct responses. These data also show why, in general,
readers with a low working memory have more difficulty in comprehending syntacti-
cally difficult sentences (Caplan & Waters, 1999; Friederici, Steinhauer, Mecklinger, &
Meyer, 1998; Just & Carpenter, 1992; MacDonald, Just, & Carpenter, 1992; Mitchell,
1994). Reading syntactically similar sentences together, though, increases reading flu-
ency, because the brain adapts itself to the similarly styled sentences, therefore requir-
ing less effort as each additional sentence is read (Noppeney & Price, 2004). This find-
ing helps to explain why young readers can more quickly comprehend patterned books.
It also supports the need to use high-­quality literature in comprehension instruction.
128 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

Award-­winning authors have their own distinctive styles based on the masterful repeti-
tion of similarly styled sentences.

Brain Region Differences

Ferstl, Guthke, and von Cramon (2002) also used fMRI to determine that the left pre-
frontal lobe of the brain is active during inferencing tasks. In another study, Ferstl, Wal-
ther, Guthke, and von Cramon (2005) gave brain-­damaged subjects a story comprehen-
sion test. Results indicated that subjects with left-­hemisphere damage had more problems
remembering details, subjects with right hemisphere damage had more problems finding
main ideas, and subjects with prefrontal damage (and area of the brain associated with
executive function) had more difficulty determining implicit main ideas. In addition,
Landi, Mencl, Frost, Sandak, and Pugh (2010) found reduced brain activation for ado-
lescents with reading disabilities (relative to nonimpaired controls) across a number of
left-­hemisphere reading-­related areas, and across all processing tasks regardless of task
type (semantic vs. phonological) or modality (auditory vs. visual).
Constable et al. (2004) found that reading printed sentences activates several areas
in the posterior left hemisphere. Regarding sentence complexity, object-­relative sentences
evoked more intense responses than subject-­relative sentences in several left-­hemisphere
areas. These areas also showed modulation of activity based on the structure of the rela-
tive clause in the sentences, which were either object-­relative (e.g., The biologist—­who
showed the video—­studied the snake) or subject-­relative (e.g., The biologist—­who the
video showed—­studied the snake). Constable et al. also found that whether subjects lis-
tened to sentences or read them from a print-based text, some common brain areas were
activated, however the amount of activity, and exact location within these brain regions
was modulated by the modality of the input (auditory vs. visual). Ni et al. (2000) found
that grammar (syntactic) errors (e.g., Trees can grew) and meaning (semantic) errors (e.g.,
Trees can eat) are also processed in different areas of the brain. Syntactic errors were
processed in Broca’s area, while semantic errors were processed in Wernicke’s area. The
latter study, however, used verbal rather than text-based cues (e.g., the sentences were
read aloud to the participants rather than having the participants read the sentences in a
silent reading format).
In addition, Molfese et al. (2006) found that above-­average readers show more activ-
ity in their left hemisphere during reading, while average and below-­average readers show
more activity in their right hemisphere. As reading ability decreases, there is also slower
processing of text and less differentiation in brain activity. Therefore, it seems that the
best readers have developed more highly specialized, efficient, and differentiated process-
ing systems, while less advanced readers’ brains have not developed such processing speed
or mental specializations to enlist the power in various regions of the brain to better
comprehend.

Multiple Pathways
Additionally, analyses of neuroimaging studies have indicated that there are multiple
neural pathways through which reading comprehension can be achieved. A prominent
and influential model proposes that when we read a word, the information is transmitted
from the primary visual cortex [when we see the printed words] to the angular gyrus,
where the message is matched with the auditory form of the word, then processed for
comprehension in Wernicke’s area as if the word has been heard. Other studies, however,
Using Neuroscience to Inform Reading Comprehension Instruction 129

using positron emission tomography (PET), have demonstrated that in some people, the
act of reading does not activate Wernicke’s area or the angular gyrus. These results sug-
gest that, at least for some people, there is a neural pathway for reading that does not
involve speech–­sound recoding of the visual stimulus before the processing of either
meaning or speaking. Other studies with patients have indicated that familiar words may
not need to be recoded into sound before they can be understood (Carey, 2005, p. 21).
These data afford hope for struggling readers because as more information is gathered,
new instructional methods may be created to strengthen regions of the brain that are
necessary for certain types of comprehension processing. These neuroscientific findings
also support dual coding theory (DCT; Paivio, 1971, 1986, 1991; Sadoski, Paivio, &
Goetz, 1991; also see Sadoski, Chapter 4, this volume), that is, that words can be encoded
through two avenues of input. These input systems, linguistic (verbal) and nonlinguistic
(nonverbal), function either independently or together to form vivid mental representa-
tions of text. Neuroimaging also provides support for cognitive flexibility theory, which
demonstrates that readers attend to print through multiple pathways simultaneously (e.g.,
phonological, semantic) in order for comprehension to occur (Cartwright, 2002; also see
Cartwright, Chapter 5, this volume).

Genes and Neurotransmitters

The advent of brain imaging technology has allowed us to see regions in the brain where
reading processes occur. However, recent advances in our ability to identify genes, and
also the chemicals that spur brain activity, are providing new ways to understand reading
processes.

Genes
Genes can be defined as “segments of DNA that issue chemically coded ‘messages’ to
the cells to make a product (protein) that the cells can use” (see http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/
handbook/­basics/gene). In a review of research, Bates (2006) reported that advances in
molecular genetics have made it possible to identify specific genes for reading. He reported
that reading and spelling appeared to share a common genetic basis, and that genes have
been identified for various reading processes and reading disorders. For instance, there
are genes that enable the processing of irregular words, and those that aid in nonword
or grapheme–­phoneme processing. Landi, Frost, Mencl, Preston, et al. (2013) found that
variations in the COMT (catechol-O-methyltransferase) gene, which is associated with
higher-­order cognition, are also associated with reading and other related skills, influenc-
ing both brain and behavior. They found a variation of the gene that was associated with
better performance on measures of critical reading and included patterns of functional
neural activation that are linked to better readers.
Genetic studies in reading are also identifying genes, or specific regions of these
genes, that play a role in dyslexia. Identified thus far are the CYP19A1 (aromatase)
gene, likely involved in the human cognitive functions of reading, speech, and language
(Anthoni et al., 2012); the KIAA0319 (protein-­coding) gene that likely contributes to
dyslexia (Elbert et al., 2011); and the DCDC2 (doublecortin) gene that likely influences
variations in reading and spelling abilities, including expression of dyslexia (Lind et al.,
2010). Haworth et al. (2009) also found genetic correlations between (1) reading and
math disabilities, (2) language and math, and (3) reading and language. They also found
130 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

evidence for generalist genes that are involved in both disabilities and abilities of reading,
language, and math traits.
Other studies have shown that genes involved in reading ability may be influenced
by environmental factors, and that continued research in this area could yield informa-
tion to identify interventions that would improve this ability (Pennington et al., 2009;
Rosenberg, Pennington, Willcutt, & Olson, 2012). For instance, Kegel and Bus (2013)
found that inefficiency of dopamine production (caused by the dopamine D4 receptor
gene [DRD4]) obstructs executive attention, leading to problems in learning to read for
young children. The authors suggest that for many children, early reading interventions
should support children’s ability to engage in tasks, as well as reading skills.

Neurotransmitters
Neurotransmitters are chemicals that transmit signals between neurons in the brain
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/neurotransmitter). Thus, knowledge about neurotransmit-
ters and therapies to modulate them can also inform researchers about how reading and
language processes occur in the brain. Pugh et al. (2014) published the first study that
examines neurochemistry in reading skill during childhood, a time in which neurological
circuits that support skilled reading are still developing. They found that higher levels of
the neurotransmitters choline and glutamate are correlated with poorer performance in
reading and linguistic measures in phonology and vocabulary. They discussed a possible
association between choline and glutamate to white-­matter irregularities and hyperexcit-
ability.
In another study, Breitenstein et al. (2004) found that d -amphetamine (AMPH), a
chemical that causes the release of excess dopamine, was associated with significantly
faster and more accurate novel word learning in stroke patients (when compared to a
placebo group). The increased learning was maintained 1 month later, as measured in
a posttest. Dopamine has also been associated with language production (Simonyan,
Horwitz, & Jarvis, 2012) and language processing (Chenery, Angwin, & Copland,
­
2008).
Studies have also shown that modulation of serotonin can affect cognitive functions
associated with language-­related tasks (Peran, Demonet, & Cardebat, 2008), executive
function, and logical reasoning (Madsen et al., 2011). Finally, folate vitamin supple-
ments have been found to improve cognitive test scores significantly in children, includ-
ing scores in reading (i.e., recognizing and naming letters, pronouncing words, spelling
words, and writing single words; Nguyen, Gracely, & Lee, 2013). The authors report
that the importance of folate in cognitive functioning may be due to its vital role in neu-
rotransmitter metabolism (the buildup and breakdown of neurotransmitters for utiliza-
tion by the organism; see http://en.dict.md/definition/neurotransmitter). While scientists
are just beginning to scratch the surface of what neuroscience can teach us about reading
and language, the studies discussed here provide some insight into the different ways that
neuroscience will inform the field of reading research into the future.

How This Knowledge Can Improve Comprehension Instruction

Through a review of neurobiological research of reading processes, Landi, Frost, Mencl,

Sandak, et al. (2013) found that there is plasticity (i.e., an ability to change) within the
brain circuitry used for reading that can be modulated with appropriate interventions.
Using Neuroscience to Inform Reading Comprehension Instruction 131

Such studies have shown that poor reading circuitry can be rewired to improve reading
ability. They also found that certain evidence-­based interventions don’t work for every
individual, and that more research is being done to identify “what will likely work for
whom based on their initial neural response to spoken and written language” (Landi,
Frost, Mencl, Preston, et al., 2013, p. 14). In addition, studies are being conducted with
reading interventions to determine the types of brain changes that accompany them.
For instance, Shaywitz et al. (2004) found that an experimental reading intervention
for improving fluency not only yielded significant improvements in fluency among chil-
dren but also produced increased activation in their left-­hemisphere regions. A follow-­up
assessment 1 year after the experimental intervention indicated a continuation of the
increased brain activation in areas previously activated, plus activation in several addi-
tional areas of the neurological system, thus demonstrating that appropriate interven-
tions can facilitate development of neural pathways necessary for skilled reading. Also,
Gebauer et al. (2012) investigated effects of a morpheme-­based spelling intervention on
children with poor spelling and reading abilities. After 5 weeks of the intervention, both
spelling and reading comprehension improved significantly, and there was increased acti-
vation in several regions of the left hemisphere of the brain.
To review, we know that different areas of the brain are called upon to handle spe-
cific reading comprehension processes. Thus, excellent comprehenders are able concur-
rently to utilize all of the aforementioned subprocessing regions more rapidly than less
able readers, so that comprehension strategies operate together almost simultaneously in
an efficient system. Those who research reading processes through the lens of neurosci-
ence must stay abreast of the burgeoning flow of information that is being published
in journals from multiple fields, assemble this new data into the increasingly complex
model of how we comprehend text, then build theoretical bridges that will bring this
information into the field of reading so that more effective, practical learning guidelines
and applications can be produced. For instance, Pugh, Mencl, Jenner, Katz, et al. (2001;
Pugh, Mencl, Jenner, Lee, et al., 2001) examined a large number of neuroimaging studies
on reading and created a tentative model of the neural circuitry for reading. Much new
neuroscientific data has been added since then, and other models, including more special-
ized models for various aspects of the reading process, have emerged (Taylor, Rastle, &
Davis, 2013; Wasserman, 2012). Researchers must constantly update their own models
of reading comprehension to include new data.
Moreover, even though we can make some general assumptions about brains through
neuroscientific studies, each brain is still as unique as the individual it represents. With
over 100 billion nerve cells in every brain, no two brains ever think exactly alike. Neu-
roscience, like any other aspect of reading research, can give us a general framework
for how the brain functions during comprehension, but in the end, as with all other
approaches to teaching and learning, we must treat each student as an individual. That
said, neuroscience can be a useful tool in improving reading comprehension instruction.

Summary

To date, this growing body of knowledge can tell us fairly precisely what parts of the
brain are operating during specified mental tasks. The intention of most studies cited
in this chapter was to diagnose children and adults who have specific learning/reading
disorders, and to know which area of the brain may or may not be functioning at peak
capacity. However, we are now seeing more studies that seek not only to provide data
132 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

to diagnose reading problems and learning disabilities but also to create interventions
that target rehabilitation efforts for specific areas of the brain to improve its functioning
and minimize reading problems. Progress can be seen (literally) as the brain changes in
response to the intervention. Thus, for the researcher with ambitions to use such infor-
mation to develop practical applications for the classroom, we are still in the beginning
stages of creating bridges from brain research laboratories to classrooms. As the future
of such research unfolds, we will likely see more studies designed to develop, assess, and
improve reading interventions and instructional practices.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. Consider information that was new to you while reading this chapter. What information was most
interesting and why?
2. Envision your professional realms of responsibilities (e.g., your classroom, administrative team,
university research center). Describe a concrete action you can take in your environment to implement
a neuroscience-­based perspective to one or more of the actions you take.
3. What additional neuroscientific processes or issues do you think researchers who investigate reading
comprehension should examine in the future? Why?

References

Anthoni, H., Sucheston, L. E., Lewis, B. A., Tapia-Paez, I., Fan, X., Zucchelli, M., et al. (2012).
The aromatase gene CYP19A1: Several genetic and functional lines of evidence supporting a
role in reading, speech, and language. Behavioral Genetics, 42, 509–527.
Bates, T. C. (2006). Genes for reading and spelling. London Review of Education, 4(1), 31–47.
Breitenstein, C., Wailke, S., Bushuven, S., Kamping, S., Zwitserlood, P., Ringelstein, E. B., et
al. (2004). d -Amphetamine boosts language learning independent of its cardiovascular and
motor arousing effects. Neuropsychopharmacology, 29, 1704–1714.
Caplan, D., & Waters, G. (1999). Online syntactic processing in aphasia: Studies with auditory
moving window presentation. Brain and Language, 69, 330–333.
Carey, J. (2005). Brain facts: A primer on the brain and nervous system. Washington, DC: Society
for Neuroscience.
Cartwright, K. B. (2002). Cognitive development and reading: The relation of reading-­specific
multiple classification skill to reading comprehension in elementary school children. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 56–63.
Chenery, H. J., Angwin, A. J., & Copland, D. A. (2008). The basal ganglia circuits, dopamine,
and ambiguous word processing: A neurobiological account of priming studies in Parkinson’s
disease. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 14, 351–364.
Cognitive Neuroscience Society. (n.d.). What’s in a name? Retrieved from www.cogneurosociety.
org/about.
Constable, R. T., Pugh, K. R., Berroya, E., Mencl, W. E., Westerveld, M., Ni, W., et al. (2004).
Sentence complexity and input modality effects in sentence comprehension: An fMRI study.
NeuroImage, 22(1), 11–21.
Copland, D. A., Chenery, H. J., & Murdoch, B. E. (2001). Discourse priming of homophones in
individuals with dominant nonthalamic subcortical lesions, cortical lesions and Parkinson’s
disease. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 23, 538–556.
Edelman, G. M. (2006). Second nature: Brain science and human knowledge. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Elbert, A., Lovett, M. W., Cate-­Carter, T., Pitch, A., Kerr, E. N., & Barr, C. L. (2011). Genetic
Using Neuroscience to Inform Reading Comprehension Instruction 133

variation in the KIAA0319 5’ region as a possible contributor to dyslexia. Behavior Genetics,

41(1), 77–89.
Ferstl, E. C., Guthke, T., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2002). Text comprehension after brain injury: Left
prefrontal lesions affect inference processes. Neuropsychology, 16(3), 292–308.
Ferstl, E. C., Rinck, M., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2005). Emotional and temporal aspects of situa-
tion model processing during text comprehension: An event-­related fMRI study. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(5), 724–739.
Ferstl, E. C., Walther, K., Guthke, T., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2005). Assessment of story compre-
hension deficits after brain damage. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,
27, 367–384.
Fiebach, C. J., Vos, S. H., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). Neural correlates of syntactic ambiguity in
sentence comprehension for low and high span readers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
16(9), 1562–1575.
Fiez, J. A., & Peterson, S. E. (1998). Neuroimaging studies of word reading. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Science, 95, 485–497.
Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cogni-
tive Sciences, 6, 78–84.
Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K., Mecklinger, A., & Meyer, M. (1998). Working memory con-
straints on syntactic ambiguity resolution as revealed by electrical brain responses. Biological
Psychology, 47, 193–221.
Fulbright, R. K., Jenner, A. R., Mencl, W. E., Pugh, K. R., Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., et al.
(1999). The cerebellum’s role in reading: A functional MR imaging study. American Journal
of Neuroradiology, 20(10), 1925–1930.
Gebauer, D., Fink, A., Kargl, R., Reishofer, G., Koschutnig, K., Purgstaller, C., et al. (2012). Dif-
ferences in brain function and changes with intervention in children with poor spelling and
reading abilities. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e38201.
Haworth, C. M. A., Kovas, Y., Harlaar, N., Hayiou-­T homas, M. E., Petrill, S. A., Dale, P. S., et
al. (2009). Generalist genes and learning disabilities: A multivariate genetic analysis of low
performance in reading, mathematics, language, and general cognitive ability in a sample of
8000 12-year-old twins. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(10), 1318–1325.
Henderson, V. W. (1986). Anatomy of posterior pathways in reading: A reassessment. Brain and
Language, 29, 119–133.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences
in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.
Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2002). The brain circuitry of syntactic comprehension. Trends in Cogni-
tive Sciences, 6, 350–356.
Kandel, E. R. (2006). In search of memory: The emergence of a new science of mind. New York:
Norton.
Kegel, C. A. T., & Bus, A. G. (2013). Links between DRD4, executive attention, and alphabetic
skills in a nonclinical sample. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(3), 305–312.
Kosslyn, S. M., & Shin, L. M. (1992). The status of cognitive neuroscience. Current Opinion in
Neurobiology, 2, 146–149.
Landi, N., Frost, S. J., Mencl, W. E., Preston, J. L., Jacobsen, L. K., Lee, M., et al. (2013). The
COMT Val/Met polymorphism is associated with reading-­related skills and consistent pat-
terns of functional neural activation. Developmental Science, 16(1), 13–23.
Landi, N., Frost, S. J., Mencl, W. E., Sandak, R., & Pugh, K. R. (2013). Neurobiological bases
of reading comprehension: Insights from neuroimaging studies of word-level and text-level
processing in skilled and impaired readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 29(2), 145–167.
Landi, N., Mencl, W. E., Frost, S. J., Sandak, R., & Pugh, K. R. (2010). An fMRI study of mul-
timodal semantic and phonological processing in reading disabled adolescents. Annals of
Dyslexia, 60, 102–121.
Lind, P. A., Luciano, M., Wright, M. J., Montgomery, G. W., Martin, N. G., & Bates, T. C. (2010).
Dyslexia and DCDC2: Normal variation in reading and spelling is associated with DCDC2
134 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

polymorphisms in an Australian population sample. European Journal of Human Genetics,

18(6), 668–673.
MacDonald, M. C., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). Working memory constraints on the
processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 56–98.
Madsen, K., Erritzoe, D., Mortensen, E. L., Gade, A., Madsen, J., Baare, W., et al. (2011). Cogni-
tive function is related to fronto-­striatal serotonin transporter levels—­a brain PET study in
young healthy subjects. Psychopharmacology, 213, 573–581.
Mitchell, D. C. (1994). Sentence parsing. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguis-
tics (pp. 375–409). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Moffett, S. (2006). The three-pound enigma: The human brain and the quest to unlock its myster-
ies. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.
Molfese, D. L., Fonaryova Key, A., Kelly, S., Cunningham, N., Terrell, S., Fergusson, M., et al.
(2006). Below-­average, average, and above-­average readers engage different and similar brain
regions while reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(4), 352–363.
Nguyen, C. T., Gracely, E. J., & Lee, B. K. (2013). Serum folate but not vitamin B-12 concentra-
tions are positively associated with cognitive test scores in children aged 6–16 years. Journal
of Nutrition, 143(4), 500–504.
Ni, W., Constable, R., Mencl, W., Pugh, K. R., Fulbright, R. K., Shaywitz, S. E., et al. (2000). An
event-­related neuroimaging study distinguishing form and content in sentence processing.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 120–133.
Nobre, A. C., Allison, T., & McCarthy, G. (1994). Word recognition in the human inferior tem-
poral lobe. Nature, 372, 260–263.
Noppeney, U., & Price, C. J. (2004). An fMRI study of syntactic adaptation. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 16, 702–713.
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect an current status. Canadian Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 45, 255–287.
Pearson, P. D. (1985). Changing the face of reading comprehension instruction. The Reading
Teacher, 38(8), 724–738.
Pennington, B. F., McGrath, L. M., Rosenberg, J., Barnard, H., Smith, S., Willcutt, E. G., et al.
(2009). Gene × environment interactions in reading disability and attention-­deficit/hyperac-
tivity disorder. Developmental Psychology, 45(1), 77–89.
Peran, P., Demonet, J., & Cardebat, D. (2008). Paroxetine-­induced modulation of cortical activity
supporting language representations of action. Psychopharmacology, 195, 487–496.
Piaget, J. (1963). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: Norton.
Piaget, J., & Kamii, C. (1978). What is psychology? American Psychologist, 33(7), 648–652.
Puce, A., Allison, T., Asgari, M., Gore, J., & McCarthy, G. (1996). Differential sensitivity of
human visual cortex to faces, letters strings, and textures: A functional magnetic resonance
imaging study. Cerebral Cortex, 6, 600–611.
Pugh, K. R., Frost, S. J., Rothman, D. L., Hoeft, F., Del Tufo, S. N., Mason, G. F., et al. (2014).
Glutamate and choline levels predict individual differences in reading ability in emergent
readers. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(11), 4082–4089.
Pugh, K. R., Mencl, W. E., Jenner, A. R., Katz, L., Frost, S. J., Lee, J. R., et al. (2001). Neuro-
biological studies of reading and reading disability. Journal of Communication Disorders,
34(6), 479–492.
Pugh, K. R., Mencl, W. E., Jenner, A. R., Lee, J. R., Katz, L., Frost, S. J., et al. (2001). Neuroim-
aging studies of reading and reading disability. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,
16(4), 240–250.
Rosenberg, J., Pennington, B. F., Willcutt, E. G., & Olson, R. K. (2012). Gene by environment
interactions influencing reading disability and the inattentive symptom dimension of attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53(3), 243–251.
Using Neuroscience to Inform Reading Comprehension Instruction 135

Sadoski, M., Paivio, A., & Goetz, E. T. (1991). A critique of schema theory in reading and a dual
coding alternative. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 463–484.
Sandak, R., Mencl, W. E., Frost, S. J., & Pugh, K. R. (2004). The neurobiological basis of skilled
and impaired reading: Recent findings and new directions. Scientific Studies of Reading,
8(3), 273–292.
Sesma, H. W., Mahone, E. M., Levine, T., Eason, S. H., & Cutting, L. E. (2009). The contribution
of executive skills to reading comprehension. Child Neuropsychology, 15, 232–246.
Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Blachman, B. A., Pugh, K. R., Fulbright, R. K., Skudlarski, P., et
al. (2004). Development of left occipitotemporal systems for skilled reading in children after
a phonologically-­based intervention. Biological Psychiatry, 55(9), 926–933.
Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Pugh, K. R., Mencl, W. E., Fulbright, R. K., Skudlarski, P., et
al. (2002). Disruption of posterior brain systems for reading in children with developmental
dyslexia. Biological Psychiatry, 52(1), 101–110.
Simonyan, K., Horwitz, B., & Jarvis, D. (2012). Dopamine regulation of human speech and bird
song: A critical review. Brain & Language, 122(3), 142–150.
Taylor, J. S. H., Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2013). Can cognitive models explain brain activation
during word and pseudoword reading?: A meta-­analysis of 36 neuroimaging studies. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 139(4), 766–791.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics (NAEP). (1981). Reading assessment. Washington, DC: Author.
Wasserman, T. (2012). Attention, motivation, and reading coherence failure: A neuropsychologi-
cal perspective. Applied Neuropsychology, 19, 42–52.
 Chap t er 10

Comprehension Instruction
in Culturally Responsive Classrooms
A Review of Research and Practice

Ellen McIntyre

Schools should consider families and their children as positive resources;

they constitute the foundation for educational improvement.
—R ichard R. Valencia (2010, p. 133)

T he field of literacy instruction has made great strides in understanding the most effec-
tive ways to teach and support students’ comprehension of a variety of texts. Indeed,
the 2010 Institute for Education Sciences (IES) practice guide, Improving Reading Com-
prehension in Kindergarten through Third Grade (Shanahan et al., 2010), lists the fol-
lowing primary recommendations for improving comprehension instruction:

• Teach students how to use reading comprehension strategies.

• Teach students to identify and use the text’s organizational structure to compre-
hend, learn, and remember content.
• Guide students through focused, high-­quality discussion on the meaning of text.
• Select texts purposefully to support comprehension development.
• Establish an engaging and motivating context in which to teach reading compre-
hension.

These five guidelines are aligned with the practices described in this book. Also,
they could and should be aligned with culturally responsive instruction. How so? Why?
What is culturally responsive instruction anyway, and how does it fit with comprehen-
sion instruction? This chapter addresses these questions through a summary of the estab-
lished research and theory on culturally responsive instruction, an introduction to new
research and development on the topic, and a brief discussion of the principles for align-
ing research-­based comprehension instruction with culturally responsive instruction.

136
Comprehension Instruction in Culturally Responsive Classrooms 137

Established Research, Theory, and Practice

on Culturally Responsive Instruction

Culturally responsive instruction is based on the idea that teachers can tailor curricula
and instruction to make students’ school experiences more compatible with their natal
culture (Tharp, 1989). Culturally responsive instruction includes approaches that “value,
identify, and implement aspects of students’ culture and vernacular in ways that promote
academic achievement” (Jiménez, 2013, p. 11). The concept has its roots in sociocultural
theory (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986), which emphasizes the importance of history and cul-
ture regarding what is learned and how it is learned; that is, students’ academic success
or failure is grounded in their histories, cultures, schooling, and instructional interac-
tions within homes, schools, and communities (Heath, 1983; Rogoff, 2003; Wells, 1986;
Wertsch, 1991). Hence, teachers who seek to practice culturally responsive instruction
find out as much as possible about their learners’ backgrounds (and possibly the history
of learners’ demographic groups) and ways of knowing and interacting (Heath, 1983) to
shape both the curriculum and pedagogy in ways that include, engage, and inspire learn-
ers so that they learn more.
One of the classic studies of instruction from a sociocultural perspective was con-
ducted in the 1970s and 1980s by Shirley Brice Heath in North Carolina (Heath, 1983).
She studied poor, rural white students; poor, rural black students; and middle-­class,
small-town white students—­all of whom went to the same school in North Carolina.
She examined cultural and linguistic learning patterns of the children in their homes
and communities, then followed the children into schools to examine the match (or mis-
match) of learners’ ways of knowing and their interactions with the ways teachers imple-
mented instruction. Because of the great mismatch between some students’ (the poor and
working-­class students) and the middle-­class teachers’ cultural and linguistic routines and
patterns, Heath worked to help the teachers see strengths in all children and learn how
to connect curriculum to the students’ backgrounds and language patterns, and she did
so with remarkable success. Tharp and Gallimore (1993) conducted a similar study with
native Hawaiian children. When teachers learned to recognize and value the overlapping
speech of native Hawaiians (“talk story”), they were able to see these language patterns as
strengths rather than deficits, and to work with these patterns to strengthen instruction.
These studies were followed by many others, illustrating that it is not just the students who
are the problem in classrooms characterized by low achievement, but also the teaching.
Indeed, scholars have shown that when teachers acknowledge the legitimacy of stu-
dents’ histories and cultures, students engage and learn more (Banks, 2003, 2006; Gay,
2000; Irvine, 2006; Ladson-­Billings, 1995; Valdés, 1996). Gay (2000) recommends that
teachers be deliberate about “incorporating specific aspects of the cultural systems of
different groups into instruction” (p. 6). Cultural systems are the social values, cognitive
understandings, behavioral standards, worldviews, and beliefs we all use to give meaning
to our lives (Delgado-­Gaitan & Trueba, 1991). For example, how children respond to
their teachers, how they show interest and engagement, how they stand up for themselves
and their classmates, what they value for leisure activity, what they believe in, and what
they know about are all part of their culture (McIntyre, Hulan, & Layne, 2011). These
cultural systems are different for individuals, but there are some group similarities as well
(i.e., a specific population). Importantly, the culture of European American middle-­class
people in the United States is so “deeply ingrained in the structures, ethos, programs, and
etiquette of schools that it is considered simply the ‘normal’ and ‘right’ source for things
to do” (Gay, 2000, p. 9).
138 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

Cultural systems also include the knowledge that groups of people know and use in
order to work and thrive in communities. As I have summarized previously (McIntyre
& Hulan, 2013), one body of work that has emerged on how teachers use students’ cul-
tural systems to adapt instruction and foster student success is called funds of knowledge
work, championed by Moll and González (2003). Funds of knowledge, a term coined
by Vélez-Ibáñez and Greenburg (1992), refers to the social and linguistic practices and
knowledge that are essential to the economic well-being of families. In some house-
holds, funds of knowledge might consist of candy making, car mechanics, or farming.
In another, they might include the Bible, gardening, or even television (McIntyre, Kyle,
& Rightmyer, 2005). My work on the topic of funds-of-­knowledge teaching has shown
that when teachers explore families’ knowledge, they can more easily adapt curricular
activities to engage students. This sort of planning and teaching serves not only to moti-
vate children and families, but it also contextualizes instruction in what the children
already know, increasing the likelihood of higher academic achievement (Tharp, Estrada,
Dalton, & Yamauchi, 2000). Moll and González (1994) claimed that when students are
encouraged to participate in ways that respect their language and cultural patterns (e.g.,
collaboration or overlapping speech), they perform in ways unexpected by their teachers,
resulting in less misevaluation of the learner.
Funds-of-­knowledge work is essential for understanding culturally responsive read-
ing comprehension instruction, because it relates directly to theory about how children
learn to read. A foundational concept of reading comprehension is schema theory, which
explains how knowledge is stored in the mind (Anderson, Heibert, Scott, & Wilkinson,
1984) Schemata can be thought of as mental file folders that categorize the data the
mind holds. Schemata organize data in our brains into meaningful chunks of relations.
They are based on our background knowledge, gained through experiences, and include
things, emotions, senses (e.g., smell), people, and more. The more schemata a reader has
about the topic of a reading lesson or text, the more easily the child will comprehend the
book (McIntyre et al., 2011). It makes sense that students who read texts about or that
are compatible with their demographic group’s history, culture, and language patterns
will make connections across schemata and learn more. Furthermore, reading will be
easier.

Discourse Styles
Culturally responsive instruction is especially attentive to how students use language with
other students and in interaction with the teacher (Adger, Wolfram, & Christian, 2007;
Gay, 2000; Irvine, 2006; Ladson-­Billings, 1995; Michaels, 1981; Nieto, 1999; Tharp
et al., 2000; Williams, 1996). These scholars of interactional speech styles have shown
that some classroom interaction patterns support learning, whereas others dramatically
constrain learning. As I have written before (McIntyre et al., 2011), some people, like
myself, grew up in homes in which family members spoke and reacted directly (“Shut the
door”; “Give that to me”), with gestures and body language that communicate in ways
that others may view as blunt. Others were raised in homes in which overlapping speech
is expected, while still others were taught that overlapping speech is rude. These differ-
ences matter; no way of communicating is better than another. What is important is that
teachers recognize language patterns as cultural—­that they see language patterns differ-
ent from their own as just that, different. If teachers attend closely to students’ interaction
styles, they can ask themselves whether styles with which they are unfamiliar might be
cultural. In doing so, they may be more inclined to see language differences as strengths
and build on those strengths.
Comprehension Instruction in Culturally Responsive Classrooms 139

Some scholars have done just that. They have illustrated how teachers can learn to
modify their own discourse and/or teaching practices to build on students’ linguistic
styles. For instance, Lee (1998) illustrated how teachers can honor students’ cultures by
using students’ home discourse to teach literary concepts such as metaphor, irony, and
symbolism. Lee described a language pattern called signifying, a discourse style often
called “playin’ the dozens,” “rappin’,” “soundin’,” or “talkin’ shit.” It is characterized by
use of innuendo and double meanings, and it can be used to teach literary concepts. This
sort of teaching must be conducted with deep knowledge of students’ backgrounds and
dispositions to avoid “essentializing” (Jiménez, 2013; Valencia, 2010) students’ cultures,
which I address in the next section.

Participation Patterns
Teachers can also attend to students’ cultural understandings around participation tak-
ing into account differential practices around competition or cooperation (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1993). Studies have indicated that some students prefer working in groups,
while others may prefer working alone, and these patterns can and often do fall along
group demographic lines. For instance, some African American scholars have advocated
much group work and dialogic instruction, because many African Americans prefer such
opportunities (Foster & Peele, 2001). In such settings, students must have opportunities
to practice academic talk in safe environments and with expert scaffolding by the teacher
to clarify misconceptions or nudge students’ thinking. Students should learn from one
another, they should have opportunities for frequent movement, and they should have
high levels of support in the name of direct and explicit teaching of skills as needed. Hale
(2003) has also suggested that the curriculum be heavily tied to the arts, while Williams
(1996) has promoted the development of resilience-­promoting strategies in students,
teachers, and schools that reduce the burden of adversity and advance opportunities for
learning.

High Standards
Finally, culturally responsive instruction does not communicate low standards or an
unconstrained approach (Dalton, 2008). Irvine (2006) emphasized student achievement
as the ultimate goal. The curriculum ought to be rigorous and focus on high expecta-
tions, problem solving, an unwillingness to give up on any student, an advanced cur-
riculum with regular feedback and celebration of progress, and uplifting curricular mate-
rials grounded in students’ experiences. Another classic example is Marva Collins of
Chicago, who was known to be highly rigorous while being highly nurturing. Her goal
was to nurture in students the belief that they are destined to become important people.
In summary, culturally responsive instruction can be characterized by teaching that is
meaningful, challenging, collaborative, dialogic, and connected to students’ home and
community experiences (McIntyre & Turner, 2013).

New Developments in Culturally Responsive Instruction

Recent work in culturally responsive instruction has reiterated many of the previously
discussed themes, but with more attention devoted to how teachers think about their
students and their students’ families and communities, the practice of culturally respon-
sive instruction, and how teachers can simultaneously implement research-­based literacy
140 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

practices within a culturally responsive classroom. Some attention is given to how the
practice of culturally responsive instruction can be and is aligned to research-­based prac-
tices, such as the five bulleted points on comprehension instruction that opened this
chapter. Each topic is addressed below.

Disrupting Deficit Thinking

Many scholars of multicultural education have for a long time focused on the language
people use to describe nonwhite people, the poor, and those with working-­class back-
grounds, creating an entire literature on deficit thinking about students, families, com-
munities, and whole ethnic and cultural groups. Valencia (2010) has worked to dismantle
the construct of deficit thinking to reveal racist and classist views of some groups. Others
have written of these views as well. Ladson-­Billings (1995) wrote of teachers’ romantic
views of what they will accomplish with students in classrooms, especially poor children
of color, and how these notions are problematic. Sherry Marx (2006) writes of teachers’
misguided savior mentalities. Under each of these complex and well-­meaning attitudes
toward students often lies a more disturbing, blame-the-­victim view (Ford, 1996; Valen-
cia, 2010). Indeed, when some teachers attempt to explain the failure of individuals or
groups of students, they often revert to suggesting that some students are less capable
than others, or that particular languages or dialects are barriers to learning (McIntyre,
2010). Others have suggested that poor children or children of immigrants lack the
appropriate experiences (e.g., visiting museums) that are necessary to learn, or that the
families of learners were themselves deficient parents and perhaps could not assist their
children in learning.
Recent scholarship on the topic continues to deconstruct these notions. Gloria
Ladson-­Billings (2011), one of the current leaders in the field of education who has writ-
ten extensively about culturally responsive instruction, wrote that “the problem is rooted
in how [teachers] think; and it is how they think about their students that is of central con-
cern” (p. 35). While many teachers have been trained to use the “proper” language when
speaking of their students, and they have learned to chant, “All children can learn” and
other trite clichés, it is still often the case that the thinking must be deconstructed. When it
is, it can sometimes reveal ignorance or even racism (Marx, 2006). Ladson-­Billings (2011)
and Milner (2012) recommend that teachers engage in critical self-­reflection and dialogue
around several principles of culturally responsive instruction, one of which is to transform
deficit thinking about students. In doing so, race needs to be a critical element in this dia-
logue (Milner, 2011). Furthermore, continual attention to teachers’ mindsets about chil-
dren is critical to the development of more culturally responsive educators (Milner, 2012).
Even when deficit views become disrupted and teachers begin to open their minds
about students’ culture and language, they run the risk of essentializing cultural groups,
or assume the presence of innate characteristics that are associated with racial, cultural,
or ethnic backgrounds (Jiménez, 2013; Valencia, 2010). Of course, there is no single
“culture” for any demographic group, even though there are things that some groups do
share, such as a history of discrimination and being historically underserved and disen-
franchised by schools. Still, rejecting deficit views of learners, particularly the view that
the poor, minorities, and children with language differences are devoid of proper experi-
ences necessary for learning, is perhaps the most important job a teacher must take on.
Scholars today emphasize strengths-­based teaching. Culturally relevant teachers envision
their students as being filled with possibilities (Ladson-­Billings, 2011) and help students
learn about themselves and their histories (Milner, 2012).
Comprehension Instruction in Culturally Responsive Classrooms 141

Doing Culturally Responsive Instruction

Recent scholarship has also focused on the practice of culturally responsive instruction. In
2011, Ladson-­Billings wrote about teachers learning about culturally responsive instruc-
tion or multicultural education, then asking her, “Yes, but how do you do it?” Teachers
want to be provided with lessons or specific strategies that “work” in their classrooms.
Indeed, Milner (2011) writes of the importance of teachers moving their good intentions
to effective practices. Still, the recent scholarship on culturally responsive instruction
(Jiménez, 2013; Ladson-­Billings, 2011; Milner, 2011, 2012) makes it clear that there are
“no one-size-fits-all approaches to the work of teaching” (Ladson-­Billings, 2011, p. 41).
It may be why scripted reading lessons do not engage students (Powell, McIntyre, &
Rightmyer, 2006). The idea is that what is effective or engaging for one group might not
be so engaging or effective for another.
Recent scholars have posited several principles or guidelines for culturally responsive
instruction, just as the IES did for comprehension instruction. For instance, in both her
early and more recent work, Ladson-­Billings (1995, 2011) says that teachers must learn
to deconstruct and reconstruct the curriculum for the particular group of students in
the classroom. Robert Jiménez (2013) agrees. He says culturally responsive teaching is
“about critically examining the existing curriculum and finding ways to supplement and
expand it to promote equity” (p. 3). He suggests that the curriculum never be ossified.
“It needs to constantly be challenged, critiqued, and examined to determine whether it is
achieving its intended purposes” (p. 3).
A second principle posited by several scholars is to help students become culturally
competent (Jiménez, 2013; Ladson-­Billings, 2011; Milner, 2011). This means helping
students “recognize and honor their own cultural beliefs and practices while acquiring
access to the wider culture, where they are likely to have a chance of improving their
socioeconomic status and making informed decisions about the lives they wish to lead”
(Milner, 2011, pp. 79–80). Teachers must teach children their history and help them to
foster learning about themselves.
A third principle for culturally responsive instruction is developing a sociopoliti-
cal consciousness (Jiménez, 2013; Ladson-­Billings, 2011; Milner, 2011). Ladson-­Billings
(2011, p. 34) says, “Teachers who I term culturally relevant assume that an asymmetrical
(even antagonistic) relationship exists between poor students of color and society. The
vision is one of preparing students to combat inequity by being highly competent and crit-
ically conscious.” Milner (2011) recommends that teachers learn to distinguish between
equality (sameness for all) and equity (tailoring instruction to meet the needs of particu-
lar students), and that they understand and articulate what power is and how it works
in the classroom. He suggests that teachers rethink who owns the knowledge in class-
rooms, seek to find ways to build on what students know, and bring out what they know.
This concept can be enacted in comprehension lessons by focusing on self-­questioning
to improve comprehension (Pearson & Fielding, 1991). When readers question them-
selves while reading—­about the content, about how well they understand—­they compre-
hend better. Comprehension instruction should move away from having students answer
questions toward having students ask questions as they read. In doing so, teachers learn
alongside their students, and both are holders of the content to be learned.
A fourth principle is highlighted by Jiménez (2013), who suggests that instructional
practices and solutions to low achievement issues in schools “need to be developed in con-
sultation with the communities most affected” (p. 9), and to do this, teachers must have
“firsthand knowledge about students and their communities” (p. 12). An essential key to
142 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

becoming a culturally responsive teacher is to find out about learners, their families, and
their communities.

Connecting Research‑Based Practices and Culturally Responsive Instruction

How might the principles for excellent comprehension instruction and culturally respon-
sive instruction be enacted? The importance of this is not lost by scholars of cultur-
ally responsive instruction. Ladson-­Billings (2011) suggests that all culturally relevant
pedagogy should “attend to the context while simultaneously preparing students for the
traditional, societal demands” (p. 37), such as high school completion or postsecondary
education. Milner (2011) also recommends aligning culturally responsive instruction to
traditional outcomes. He featured a teacher who worked to win the most influential kids
on his side first, knowing that this would inspire all to engage, while simultaneously
being fair to all kids and holding all to high standards.
In a recent study (McIntyre & Hulan, 2013), my colleague and I used a design-­based
approach to study whether and how four teachers implemented research-­based reading
instruction while adhering to premises and practices of culturally responsive instruction.
The four teachers were participants in a graduate class that theorized and illustrated
the potential of this model of instruction; they then participated in a postcourse study
that lasted 8 months. The teachers’ goal was to implement research-­based instruction
using strategies shown to increase student achievement, while also attending to students’
backgrounds, linguistic patterns, text interests, participations patterns, and more. These
four teachers were all successful in hybridizing (Gutiérrez, Baquedano-­Lopez, & Alvarez,
2001) their practices in these ways, illustrating the potential for this kind of teaching. Yet
they spoke of the struggles they had in maintaining the balance of this sort of teaching
day in and day out. At times, the teachers felt that they diluted good reading instruction
when they focused on students’ interests and texts, or they became inattentive to cultural
relevance when teaching phonics because they did not know how to adapt the instruction
culturally. Sometimes, it was merely the materials that drove the instruction. All four
teachers focused on the needs of the individuals and on being flexible enough to adapt
any lesson to the needs of their students (McIntyre & Hulan, 2013). Other recent stud-
ies (May, 2011a, 2011b) also illustrate the importance and challenge of implementing
research-­based strategies and culturally responsive instruction.

Improving Comprehension Instruction in Culturally Responsive Classrooms

Culturally responsive instruction is not a set of activities or practices. It is based on what

teachers think and believe about teaching and learning, and especially students. Because
of this, one can easily identify the classroom of a teacher with a belief system aligned
with culturally responsive instruction. I have observed in many such classrooms and have
written about them:

There is an atmosphere of care and respect for the children. Teachers rarely use harsh lan-
guage, never publicly embarrass a child, do not allow putdowns of any kind, and work hard
to help make each child successful. These teachers intentionally use materials that reflect
the backgrounds and identities of the students in the class. They also often ask questions of
the students that illustrate their interest in the children’s lives and minds, such as “How did
you learn that?” “How did you spend your weekend?” “What sorts of texts would you like
Comprehension Instruction in Culturally Responsive Classrooms 143

to read?” and “Are you doing OK?” The teachers maintain high standards for all children
through rigorous activities and high-level questioning, and they have high expectations that
all students will be able to accomplish the interesting and challenging work in their class-
rooms. (McIntyre et al., 2011, p. 54)

Comprehension instruction probably lends itself to culturally responsive instruction

more than any other component of reading instruction. From IES work mentioned earlier
(Shanahan et al., 2010), three guidelines of research-­based comprehension instruction
include (1) guiding students through focused, high-­quality discussion on the meaning
of text, (2) selecting texts purposefully to support comprehension development, and (3)
establishing an engaging and motivating context in which to teach reading comprehen-
sion. These three guidelines are aligned with principles for culturally responsive instruc-
tion.

Discussion
High-­quality discussion comes about when teachers appropriately choose texts for les-
sons. This in turn helps create a motivating and engaging environment that respects the
learners. Implementing carefully planned conversations around content so that students
have an opportunity to learn, develop, and practice the language of disciplines, while
constructing new understandings about content, is essential. Dalton (2008) recommends
that teachers who do the following establish environments for effective instructional con-
versations:

1. Arrange the classroom to accommodate conversation between the teacher and a

small group of students on a regular and frequent basis.
2. Have a clear academic goal that guides conversation with students.
3. Ensure that student talk occurs at higher rates than teacher talk.
4. Guide conversation to include students’ views, judgments, and rationales using
text evidence and other substantive support.
5. Ensure that all students are included in the conversation, according to their cul-
tural and linguistic preferences.
6. Listen carefully to assess levels of students’ understanding.
7. Assist students’ learning throughout the conversation by questioning, restating,
praising, encouraging, and so forth.
8. Guide the students in preparing a product that indicates the instructional conver-
sation’s goal was achieved (Dalton, 2008, pp. 188–189).

The instructional conversation is a tool for effectively guiding students to construct

meanings of texts, and through the previously mentioned indicators, teachers can also
move toward culturally responsive practice.

Texts
To select texts purposefully to support comprehension, teachers might find books that
reflect their students’ backgrounds, communities, and identities. They might seek to find
history books from a non-­Western perspective, if it is appropriate for their students.
Teachers can select texts that focus on important messages with social justice themes,
such as antibullying, from which they want their classes to learn. They can choose texts
144 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

with particular language and dialect forms that match those of their students and expose
students to new language forms. To meet standards and continue to practice research-­
based instruction, teachers should also have students read a variety of texts, including fic-
tion, nonfiction, poetry, and digital and visual texts, ensuring that most match students’
reading levels (Mesmer, 2005).

Context
Establishing an engaging and motivating context in which to teach reading comprehen-
sion can come about if teachers believe in their students and continually unpack their
potentially deficit views of students. It can also be accomplished if teachers find the texts
that match learners’ backgrounds and learn to conduct meaningful discussions about
them. Students of all backgrounds want to be engaged in school, and they want to learn
to read. Moving toward research-­based culturally responsive comprehension instruction
can support those goals.
Teachers can better teach comprehension if they teach in an environment of trust,
open-­mindedness, care, respect for others, and a deep commitment to helping their stu-
dents achieve academically. They can teach comprehension better if they know their stu-
dents well and seek to find out about their students’ families and communities, in order
to adapt instruction to include community knowledge. Teachers with classrooms such as
this are often characterized as culturally responsive.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. Carefully prepare a reading comprehension lesson from one of the chapters in this book or the IES
guide mentioned in this chapter. As you are preparing, ask yourself: How can I ensure that this lesson
first the population of students I will be teaching? How does this lesson need to be adapted to be sure
it is culturally responsive?
2. Implement the same lesson with two very different populations of learners. Reflect on how the lesson
worked or did not work with particular populations. Was it the text used? Was it specific pedagogical
strategies used? What it the language used to teach the lesson? If the lesson was successful with both
groups, why? How was success measured?
3. Observe in three or four classrooms in your school building, paying attention to what teachers do to
create culturally responsive environments or what they could do to create environments that can be
characterized that way.

References

Adger, C. T., Wolfram, W., & Christian, D. (2007). Dialects in schools and communities. New
York: Erlbaum.
Anderson, R. C., Heibert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. (Eds.). (1984). Becoming a nation of
readers. Washington DC: National Institute of Education.
Banks, J. A. (2003). Teaching literacy for social justice and global citizenship. Language Arts,
81(1), 18–19.
Banks, J. A. (2006). Race, culture, and education. London: Routledge.
Dalton, S. S. (2008). Five standards for effective teaching: How to success with ALL learners.
New York: Jossey-Bass.
Comprehension Instruction in Culturally Responsive Classrooms 145

Delgado-­Gaitan, C., & Trueba, H. (1991). Crossing cultural borders: Education for immigrant
families in America. New York: Falmer.
Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement of gifted Black students: Promising practices and
programs. New York: Teachers College Press.
Foster, M. L., & Peele, T. (2001). Ring my bell: Contextualizing home and school in an Afri-
can American community. In E. McIntyre, A. Rosebery, & N. González (Eds.), Classroom
­diversity: Connecting curriculum to students’ lives (pp. 27–36). Portsmouth, NH: Heine-
mann.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive instruction: Theory, research, and practice. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano-­L opez, P., & Alvarez, H. H. (2001). Literacy as hybridity: Moving
beyond bilingualism in urban classrooms. In M. D. L. L. Reyes & J. J. Halcon (Eds.), The
best for our children: Critical perspectives on literacy for Latino students (pp. 122–141).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Hale, J. E. (2003). Learning while black: Creating educational excellence for African American
children. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Irvine, J. J. (2006). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye. New York: Teach-
ers College Press.
Jiménez, R. T. (2013). Optimal outfitting: The need for culturally responsive instruction. In P. J.
Dunstan, S. K. Fullerton, C. C. Bates, P. M. Stecker, M. W. Cole, A. H. Hall, et al. (Eds.),
62nd yearbook of the Literacy Research Association. Altamonte Springs, FL: Literacy
Research Association.
Ladson-­Billings, G. (1995). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-­Billings, G. (2011). “Yes, but how do we do it?”: Practicing culturally relevant pedagogy. In
J. G. Landsman & C. W. Lewis (Eds.), White teachers/diverse classrooms: Creating inclusive
schools, building on students’ diversity, and providing true educational equity (pp. 29–42).
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Lee, C. D. (1998). Signifying in the zone of proximal development. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky
(Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collab-
orative inquiry (pp. 191–225). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Marx, S. (2006). Revealing the invisible: Confronting passive racism in teacher education. New
York: Routlege.
May, L. A. (2011a). Animating talk and texts: Culturally relevant teacher read alouds of informa-
tional texts. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 3–38.
May, L. A. (2011b). Situating strategies: An examination of comprehension strategy instruction in
one upper elementary classroom oriented to culturally relevant teaching. Literacy Research
and Instruction, 50, 31–42.
McIntyre, E. (2010). Sociocultural perspectives on children with reading difficulties. In R. Alling-
ton & A. McGill-­Franzen (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading disabilities (pp. 41–56).
New York: Routledge.
McIntyre, E., & Hulan, N. (2013). Research-­based, culturally responsive reading practice in ele-
mentary classrooms: A yearlong study. Literacy Research and Instruction, 52, 28–51.
McIntyre, E., Hulan, N., & Layne, V. (2011). Reading instruction for diverse classrooms: Research
based, culturally responsive practice. New York: Guilford Press.
McIntyre, E., Kyle, D. W., & Rightmyer, E. C. (2005). Families’ funds of knowledge to mediate
teaching in rural schools. Cultura y Educacion, 17(2), 175–195.
McIntyre, E., & Turner, J. (2013). Culturally responsive literacy instruction. In B. Taylor & N.
Duke (Eds.), Handbook of research on effective literacy instruction (pp. 137–161). New
York: Guilford Press.
146 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

Mesmer, H. A. E. (2005). Test accessibility and the struggling reader. Reading and Writing Quar-
terly, 21, 1–5.
Michaels, S. (1981). “Sharing time”: Children’s narrative styles and differential access to literacy.
Language in Society, 10, 423–442.
Milner, H. R. (2011). But good intentions are not enough: Doing what’s necessary to teach for
diversity. In J. G. Landsman & C. W. Lewis (Eds.), White teachers/diverse classrooms: Creat-
ing inclusive schools, building on students’ diversity, and providing true educational equity
(pp. 79–92). Sterling, VA: Stylus, Inc.
Milner, H. R. (2012). Developing culturally relevant classrooms for urban African American stu-
dents. In J. L. Moore & C. W. Lewis (Eds.), African American students in urban schools
(pp. 143–160). New York: Peter Lang.
Moll, L. C., & González, N. (1994). Lessons from research with language-­minority children.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 439–456.
Moll, L. C., & González, N. (2003). Engaging life: A funds of knowledge approach to multicul-
tural education. In J. Banks & C. A. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural education
(pp. 299–614). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P.
Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 815–860).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Powell, R., McIntyre, E., & Rightmyer, E. (2006). Johnny won’t read and Susie won’t either: Read-
ing instruction and student resistance. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 6, 5–31.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., et al.
(2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through third grade. (NCEE
2010-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assis-
tance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from what-
works.ed.gov/publications/practiceguides.
Tharp, R. G. (1989). Psychocultural variables and constants: Effects on teaching and learning in
schools. American Psychologist, 44, 349–359.
Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L. (2000). Teaching transformed: Achieving
excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1993). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling
in social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Valdés, G. (1996). Con respect: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and
schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Valencia, R. R. (2010). Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking: Educational thought and
practice. New York: Routledge.
Vélez-Ibañez, C., & Greenberg, J. (1992). Formation and transformation of funds of knowledge
among U.S. Mexican households. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 23, 313–335.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Williams, B. (1996). Closing the achievement gap: A vision for changing beliefs and practices.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
 Chap ter 11

New Insights on Motivation

in the Literacy Classroom

Jacquelynn A. Malloy

Adequate skills alone are not sufficient to guarantee that students

will develop into motivated, independent, life-long readers. Clearly,
motivation to read must be central to our research agenda.
—L inda B. Gambrell (2013, p. 51)

T eaching students to read independently and with deep understanding is a topic of high
national interest, and reading comprehension is a clear and comprehensive goal of the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for the English Language Arts (ELA; National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Offi-
cers, 2010) that have been adopted by most of the United States. Similarly, reading com-
prehension is important to accessing the texts required for learning in all subjects. While
effective comprehension instruction provides the tools and practices for students to gain
meaning from text, cultivating engaged and independent readers who develop a lifelong
habit of reading for pleasure, as well as for information, is quite another matter. Students
who are motivated to read are strategic, persistent, and engaged in reading for personal
as well as academic reasons (Gambrell, 2013; Guthrie, Wigfield, & You, 2012). Further-
more, reading motivation and comprehension are demonstrably correlated, and these
ties are well supported by the research literature (Guthrie & Humenick, 2004; Pintrich,
2003; Taboada, Tonks, Wigfield, & Guthrie, 2009). Therefore, addressing reading moti-
vation is essential to improving reading comprehension and achievement, and is a topic
that requires the deliberate attention of teachers who wish their students to succeed in
school as well as in life.
While it is common to think of motivation as an individually determined con-
struct, varying according to personal attitudes and beliefs, recent research efforts pro-
vide increased support for how teachers can influence student motivation by creating
enhanced contexts for learning. Personal attitudes and beliefs interact with the values

147
148 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

and messages that are prevalent in the classroom, as well as the prevailing sense of what
is possible (Guthrie et al., 2012; Nolen, 2007). Urden and Schoenfelder (2006) describe
certain contextual factors culled from the literature as being well within the purview of
the classroom teacher. These factors include attention to increasing the value of academic
work and achievement, empowering students to own their learning and their work, and
influencing how students perceive their academic abilities. These general contextual fac-
tors are further reinforced in the established, as well as the more recent, reading-­specific
literature on motivation and are the focus of this chapter. Specifically, highly motivating
reading teachers do the following:

• Understand the relationship of motivation and engagement to comprehension.

• Attend to student interests when choosing texts for instruction.
• Support students in developing strong self-­concepts for reading.
• Situate learning within a literate community.
• Design learning tasks that are relevant, authentic, and purposeful.
• Provide opportunities for choice, collaboration, and integration to support stu-
dents in constructing meaning and personalizing their learning.

Understanding Motivation and Engagement

In the field of literacy research, a fair amount of activity has been aimed toward under-
standing the construct of reading motivation and the components of that construct.
Reading motivation is defined for the purpose of this discussion as the likelihood of
participating in a reading task and in persisting in the activity despite challenges. Engage-
ment, a term often used interchangeably with motivation, is described here as behavioral,
cognitive, and/or affective involvement in reading tasks. Behavioral engagement is often
observed as attention to reading or time on task; cognitive engagement moves beyond
attention to the actual processing of information in the working memory and is most
closely tied to comprehension; and, affective engagement indicates an emotional response
to the task, such as enthusiasm or boredom (Malloy, Parsons, & Parsons, 2013). Moti-
vation, then, describes a choice to become involved in an activity or task, as well as a
willingness to maintain that involvement. Engagement, on the other hand, is a more use-
ful term for describing what occurs during that involvement. Teachers do well to become
aware of both of these constructs—­motivation and engagement—­in order to entice stu-
dents to choose to involve themselves in tasks and persist in them, and once involved, to
maximize their involvement by ensuring behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement.
In 1983, Eccles introduced a theory of motivation that has been highly influen-
tial in current reading motivation research. The expectancy–­value theory poses that an
individual’s perception of potential success (expectancy) in performing a task and the
perceived value attributed to the activity are determinants of his or her willingness to
engage in achievement behaviors. Eccles posited three essential components of an indi-
vidual’s perceived value of engaging in a task: importance (attainment value), intrinsic
value (personally generated), and utility value (usefulness). Perceptions of expectancy
are influenced by an individual’s sense of competence in completing a specific task suc-
cessfully and are based on Bandura’s (1982) work on self-­efficacy. The expectancy–­value
theory serves as a suitable initial framework for organizing the more specific research on
literacy motivation.
New Insights on Motivation in the Literacy Classroom 149

Established Research on Reading Motivation

Reading is an activity that is initially full of effort. In learning to read, children make
a purposeful transition from a world of oral language to one of printed language. In so
doing, the relationship of letters to sounds and the visual negotiation of symbols situated
on pages that beg to be decoded seems a monumental task, but one that children have
seen others successfully accomplish. If children perceive a value in learning to read, and
if the environment provides resources and opportunities to guide the endeavor, it is quite
likely that they will attain some level of comprehension. But what then? Once the code
is broken and the mystery is solved, what is to maintain their interest and engagement in
the process of developing into mature and discerning literate beings?
Perhaps the most concentrated and foundational effort to understand literacy motiva-
tion and instruction was the research conducted through the National Reading Research
Center (NRRC), which received funding from the Office of Educational Research and
Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education in the 5-year period that spanned 1992
to 1997. It was during this time that the engagement perspective of literacy motivation
was used to guide investigations into reading instruction that would develop “motivated
and strategic readers who use literacy for pleasure and learning” (NRRC, 1997, p. 5).
Drawing on the body of research that led up to the 5-year research initiative, the engage-
ment perspective assumes that desire to read and strategies to improve reading ability,
knowledge, and social interactions are key components to cultivating “highly engaged,
self-­determining readers who are architects of their own learning” (Alvermann & Guth-
rie, 1993, p. 2). Several studies were conducted to explore home, school, and community
contexts of literacy motivation for preschool, elementary, and secondary students. The
importance of the NRRC initiative was that motivation to read was integrated with a
broader understanding of reading engagement as it affected social and instructional con-
texts for reading. Their research findings highlight the interrelatedness of values, beliefs,
and social factors for reading engagement and rich comprehension.

Dimensions of Reading Motivation

Early research on reading motivation sought to identify the dimensions of motivation
that could be understood and therefore manipulated. Building on research by Wigfield
and Guthrie (1997), which indicated that the construct of reading motivation is multidi-
mensional, Baker and Wigfield (1999) explored the dimensions of reading motivation by
exploring intrinsic and extrinsic motivators (Deci & Ryan, 1985), self-­efficacy (Bandura,
1982), and the social aspects of reading behaviors and reading avoidance. These dimen-
sions figure prominently in the established and more recent research efforts on reading
motivation.

Cognitive Engagement and Reading Comprehension

Reading comprehension is a cognitive act; that is, without a cognitive investment on the
part of the reader, comprehension is not likely to occur. The strategies and self-­regulation
that are required to understand text, especially at an instructional reading level, necessi-
tate a continued cognitive effort on the part of the student. Cognitive engagement occurs
when the student voluntarily accesses strategies for understanding and employs self-­
regulation and monitoring strategies (Blumenfeld & Meece, 1988).
150 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

To address this issue of cognitive engagement in reading texts, it is important to

review a well-­established theory of cognitive architecture known as information process-
ing (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974). The theory posits a three-stage model of the components
of learning, which includes sensory memory, working memory, and a long-term store.
In this model, sensory input is either attended to and passed on to the working memory
or it is ignored and lost.
Once sensory input is received in the working memory, the cognitive engagement
that leads to comprehension can take place, but it may not. The activity that occurs
in the working memory, where new information can be encoded, or integrated, into
existing knowledge, is an essential part of the learning process. Encoding involves the
use of strategies or frameworks for incorporating new information into an existing
schema and occurs once an appropriate schema has been activated to accept it. It is
incumbent upon teachers to activate prior knowledge and present a way of organizing
the new content into the established schema in the long-term store. Learning occurs
when schema are enlarged, expanded, or connected to other developing schema. The
field of literacy instruction has, for the past few decades, focused diligently on strate-
gies for comprehending texts that support students in cognitively engaging with the
texts they read.
In his 1999 theoretical piece, Brophy proposed that we mirror the progress we have
made in matching content to learning strategies by creating optimal matches of content to
motivational strategies. Here, Brophy agreed with Turner (1995; Turner & Paris, 1995)
that the source of a student’s engagement with the content we present does not exist solely
within the student, but in the interaction between the student and the material. Students
might be predisposed to learn material in which they already hold an interest, or cur-
rently hold some level of curiosity, but what about the things we feel they should learn
that have no intrinsic value to them at all? Brophy (1999, 2008) proposes that we tease
out the utility value of the content and scaffold the student toward some appreciation of
the worth of the learning target. He suggests ways that teachers increase students’ interest
in and comprehension of content.

1. Create a situational interest in the learning domain by presenting enough infor-

mation to make the topic familiar and relevant to the student. Teachers who connect
the topic or learning target to some aspect of their students’ lives make it relevant and
therefore more valuable. Brophy terms this the motivational zone of proximal develop-
ment (1999, p. 77), and proposes that it influences both the willingness to attend to new
information and the ability to encode it.
2. Encourage the development of curricula that tie learning outcomes to students’
lives. Students need to know that what they are learning is important to some future
goal or profession. Students who are encouraged to think like scientists, mathematicians,
historians, and authors are more likely to see the utility value in what they learn. Current
instructional trends, such as thematic units and project-­based learning, are expressions
of these curricular ties.
3. Create optimally motivated school learning (Brophy, 2008, p. 134). Teachers
create optimal experiences for learning by providing reasons for the activity that are
meaningful for students, activating relevant background knowledge so that students can
cognitively engage with the content, and promoting acquisition and use of the content.
Presenting strategies that are suitable for accessing the content are important but must be
New Insights on Motivation in the Literacy Classroom 151

fine-tuned to each student’s optimal level of challenge—­neither too easy nor too difficult.
This is what makes it optimal.

Reading Motivation and Classroom Instruction

The research that began in the 1990s is marked by a focus on the influence of instruc-
tion on reading motivation and engagement. This led to an understanding of how certain
aspects of the classroom environment and the instructional practices used by teachers
can encourage reading engagement and increased comprehension. Classroom environ-
ments that provide appropriate materials, strategic support, and instructional resources
are more likely to nurture literacy engagement (Anderman & Midgley, 1992; Gambrell,
1996). Additionally, other researchers suggest that classrooms with an abundance and
variety of print materials positively affect the quality and frequency of literacy behaviors
in the classroom (Morrow, 1992; Neuman & Celano, 2001).
Concept-­Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI), introduced by Guthrie, McGough,
Bennett, and Rice (1996), was designed to merge reading comprehension strategy instruc-
tion and content material, such as science or social studies texts, in order to produce a
combined positive effect on both reading comprehension and motivation. Their results
suggest that strategic instruction that utilizes text-to-self connections, interesting trade
books, student choice in reading, and small-group collaborations results in significantly
higher measures of motivation (Guthrie, Wigfield, & Perencevich, 2004).

Designing Engaging Literacy Tasks

In her research with 84 six-year-olds, Turner (1995) utilized classroom observations and
student interviews to understand the effects of classroom tasks on student engagement
with literacy tasks. Based on a view that intrinsic motivation to learn is key to literacy
engagement, certain tasks were found to increase students’ internal locus of control and
intrinsic motivation to participate. These were described as open tasks and were distin-
guished from closed tasks. Open tasks involve several of the factors found in previous
research to be motivating, such as (1) choice of topics, partners, or materials; (2) person-
ally relevant or authentic tasks that relate to student interests, goals, and abilities; (3)
enough challenge to make the outcome personally rewarding; and (4) social collabora-
tion, in which interactions expand students’ knowledge and points of view. When tasks
were closed, students were forced to find the “one right answer” or complete a task that
was not relevant or connected to their lives, or one that involved a product or outcome
determined by the teacher. Turner found that open tasks predisposed students to associ-
ate literacy with cognitive involvement and provided a focus for the uses and purposes of
literacy (Turner, 1995, p. 415).
A body of research emerged to suggest that students are more motivated to engage
in literacy activities that are authentic—­that is, activities based on real-world purposes—­
and that connect them to their home cultures (Cunningham & Allington, 1999; Purcell-­
Gates, 2002; Purcell-­Gates, Duke, & Martineau, 2007). Students are also more engaged
in tasks that permit them to choose materials for reading and set their own goals (Cam-
bourne, 1995; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997; Turner, 1995), and students report a higher
level of interest and enjoyment in books that they have personally chosen (Schiefele, 1991;
Spaulding, 1992). Supporting these findings, Turner and Paris (1995) stated: “The most
reliable indicator of motivation for literacy learning is not the type of reading program
152 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

that districts follow, but the actual daily tasks that teachers provided in their classrooms”
(p. 662).

New Research on Reading Motivation and Engagement

More recent research on task engagement reveals that besides being a multidimensional
construct, student engagement is also fluid across and within tasks during an instruc-
tional period. Methods for describing engagement in response to tasks were developed in
a yearlong descriptive study with students of high, average, and low reading ability in a
sixth-grade integrated social studies/ELA classroom (Malloy, Parsons, & Parsons, 2013).
The purpose of the study was to describe the engagement of students of varying ability
levels when engaged in tasks that were rated on a continuum of closed, moderately open,
or open, using a rating scale developed by Parsons (2008). The rating scale was used to
evaluate the level of authenticity, challenge, sustainability, and opportunities for collabo-
ration and choice inherent in the task.
During weekly observations of lessons, one researcher observed and described the
tasks that the teacher presented, while another researcher observed three focal students,
one representing each ability level. In the following week, a second set of three focal stu-
dents was observed, returning to the first triad in the next week. The researcher observed
each student for 1 minute, describing in notes what the student was doing—or behav-
ioral engagement (e.g., level of attention, facial expression, demeanor), rating the level of
engagement according to a 4-point scale, then moving on to the next focal student (see
Lutz, Guthrie, & Davis, 2006). These 1-minute sweeps continued throughout the length
of the lesson and across all tasks presented.
After the lesson, the focal students were interviewed to ascertain their perceptions
of interest (affective engagement) and level of thinking (cognitive engagement) for each of
the tasks presented. Rating scales were developed to evaluate their responses, as indicated
in Figures 11.1 and 11.2. All rating scales used in the study were piloted and refined in
the year prior to the study.
The findings suggest that while these focal students demonstrated their highest over-
all behavioral and affective engagement with open tasks (those that presented authentic,
challenging, and collaborative work that extended across lessons and offered choice),
students were more cognitively engaged in moderately open tasks—that is, tasks in which
there was some teacher guidance in organizing or interpreting the new content. The role
of teacher-­as-­facilitator in providing strategic guidance during more open tasks appears
to be important in maintaining higher levels of cognitive engagement and therefore more
opportunities for comprehension to develop. The openness of the task may be important

1 Not interested in topic or task and/or low efficacy

2 Some interest in topic or task; few details regarding interest

3 Reports efficacy in topic or task and/or many details regarding interest

4 Enthusiastic or curious about topic or task

FIGURE 11.1. Affective Engagement Rating Scale. From Malloy, Parsons, and Parsons (2013).
Reprinted with permission of the Literacy Research Association and Jacquelynn A. Malloy.
New Insights on Motivation in the Literacy Classroom 153

1 No awareness of thinking

2 Surface level thinking or aware of challenge

3 Focusing on the content or the task

4 Thinking beyond the content or the task (comparing it to something; e.g., their
own life or making connections) and/or using strategies to complete the task

FIGURE 11.2. Cognitive Engagement Rating Scale. From Malloy, Parsons, and Parsons (2013).
Reprinted with permission of the Literacy Research Association and Jacquelynn A. Malloy.

to involving students in the first place, as indicated by their behavioral and affective
engagement; however, opportunities for comprehension and understanding may require
continued and adaptive teacher support. The study was also useful in demonstrating that
behavioral engagement is a fluid construct that varies both across and within tasks, as
indicated in Figure 11.3.
This research supports Urden and Schoenfelder’s (2006) assertion that the teacher
is an important influence in determining the level of student engagement in tasks. While
closed tasks that involve lecture-­style presentation of content are necessary at times,
designing follow-­up activities that are authentic, collaborative, challenging, and sustain-
able across more than one lesson have the potential to increase engagement and learning
when well facilitated by teachers.

Choice and Topic Interest

Choice and topic interest are also foregrounded elements in recent research. These two
elements are intuitively related: When given a choice of topics to read, we typically choose

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50
AGL
2.00
OGL
1.50 BGL
1.00

0.50

0.00
Task Task Task
1 2 3

FIGURE 11.3. Behavioral engagement across three tasks during Observation 15 for above-grade-
level (AGL), on-grade-level (OGL), and below-grade-level (BGL) students. From Malloy, Parsons,
and Parsons (2013). Reprinted with permission of the Literacy Research Association and Jacque-
lynn A. Malloy.
154 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

those that are of personal interest to us. In a study by Fulmer and Frijters (2011) with
fifty-six 10- to 14-year-old students of varying reading abilities, descriptive titles of four
reading passages were presented and students were asked to rank them from most inter-
esting to least interesting. According to their assignment group, students were asked to
read either a high interest passage or a low interest passage. When they finished reading,
students were given a second part of the passage and told that they could continue read-
ing if they chose to do so, but that it was not required. They found that students who were
interested in what they read reported higher levels of interest and enjoyment, and more
frequently chose to keep reading when given the option to stop. These effects were found
even when the reading passage was challenging for the student.
In a study that explored the influence of topic experience on mind wandering dur-
ing reading, Unsworth and McMillan (2013) found that reading about a topic of interest
increased attention to reading and decreased mind wandering. As information-­processing
theory supports, attention is important in the engagement of working memory while
reading, and the working memory needs to be engaged for comprehension to occur.

Types of Texts
The CCSS for ELA suggest that teachers provide reading instruction that approaches a
balance of literary and informational texts, especially as students move from the primary
to the secondary grades. They also recommend guiding students toward independent
reading of increasingly challenging texts. Ho and Guthrie (2013) explored this atten-
tion to text type to discover whether seventh-­grade students presented differing motiva-
tional variables for reading literature versus informational texts. They found that their
participants were either more or less motivated to read literary works based on their
perceived difficulty of the text and estimations of self-­efficacy for successfully reading
it. Their findings regarding how students approach informational texts revealed a more
complex picture: Students who perceived the texts to be difficult, and who reported low
confidence in reading informational text, demonstrated low reading achievement for the
genre. Interestingly, multivariate analyses indicate that students report a separate con-
stellation of efficacy traits for reading informational texts than they do for literary texts.
Regarding informational texts, students’ motivations were related to beliefs about read-
ing ability in general, as well as their more specific perceived competence in negotiating
text structures to gain information and make inferences. Students who lack confidence
for reading in general seem to find the challenges of content-­area texts to be particularly
daunting, whether due to the structural differences of the texts, gaps in background
knowledge, or some combination of factors yet to be discovered. The important implica-
tion from this work is that readers need to be explicitly and strategically primed to read
informational text in the early grades to prepare them for the increasingly challenging
texts to come in the later grades.

Task Authenticity
The authenticity of tasks has also emerged as an important element of literacy instruc-
tion. Based on the foundational research on task authenticity by Purcell-­Gates (2002)
and Purcell-­Gates et al. (2007), an exploration of student motivation and higher order
thinking skills was conducted in third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade classrooms (Gambrell,
Hughes, Calvert, Malloy, & Igo, 2011). Authentic tasks are those that mirror real-world
events, such as discussing books and writing letters. In this study, students were paired
New Insights on Motivation in the Literacy Classroom 155

with adult pen pals, and the students and adults read the same books. Following an intro-
ductory letter, exchanges regarding the books began, with students supported by teachers
in discussing books in small groups. Literacy motivation was found to increase across the
intervention for boys and girls in the study, as measured by an adaptation of the Motiva-
tion to Read Profile (Gambrell, Palmer, Codling, & Mazzoni, 1996). Students responded
to having an adult with whom they could discuss books, but who did not grade them,
creating a personally relevant task that mirrors real-world communications. In addition,
analysis of the discussions and interviews with focal students indicated that students
demonstrated accountability to content and to the community, engaging cognitively in
discussion to prepare themselves to respond to their pen pals. This research suggests that
attention to situational interest by providing an authentic and personally relevant task,
when combined with the support of peer discussions (Almasi, 1995; Malloy & Gambrell,
2011), resulted in both increased motivation and cognitive engagement in reading.

Gender Differences
Marinak and Gambrell (2010) investigated gender differences in reading motivation that
indicated a reported decline in motivation for boys (McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995;
Smith & Wilhelm, 2002). They investigated gender differences in reading motivation
with 288 third-grade students of average reading ability. Using the Motivation to Read
Profile (Gambrell et al., 1996), which is based on the expectancy–­value theory (Eccles,
1983), the subconstructs of self-­concept as a reader and value of reading were assessed.
Girls revealed higher total reading motivation at a significant level. While there were no
differences in self-­concepts for reading (perceptions of reading ability), there were signifi-
cant differences in value for reading. This sheds light on an element of motivation in the
elementary grades that can have far-­reaching implications for the later reading develop-
ment of boys. The authors suggest that this lack of preference for reading may be related
to a mismatch between the types of books used in reading instruction and the interests of
young boys (Ivey, 1999; Sanford, 2005/2006), as well as a lack of personal value for the
tasks that are presented (Purcell-­Gates et al., 2007).
In a practitioner article that addresses specific classroom implications of this lack of
interest in reading for boys, Senn (2012) presents a detailed list of suggestions that include
providing male role models, appealing to boys’ interests in selecting texts and tasks, pro-
viding choice in reading materials, and demonstrating how reading can be important to
their lives. The author also provides an interesting discussion of the biological bases of
the differences between boys and girls as they develop as readers.

Motivating Classroom Contexts

Pressley’s 2006 research on exemplary classroom teachers provided strong evidence that
attention to motivation leads to highly effective teaching. He noted that supporting stu-
dent interests while bolstering reading skills allowed students to develop both motivation
and ability. In a more recent study of five New Zealand schools, expert teachers in later
primary grades were interviewed regarding their methods for increasing reading achieve-
ment and engagement (Fletcher, Grimley, Greenwood, & Parkhill, 2012). A common
theme that emerged was that these teachers developed a strong reading community in
their classrooms, as well as multiple social contexts for reading. Students were encour-
aged to move toward personal reading goals and to engage in socioculturally based activi-
ties such as debating and problem solving. Students were guided in choosing texts that
156 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

were of interest to them but appropriate to their reading level, and supported in develop-
ing reading skills in a way that promoted positive views of ability and minimized frustra-
tion and discouragement.
An instrument for determining class-wide and individual motivation for reading was
introduced by Gambrell et al. (1996) and revised by Malloy, Marinak, Gambrell, and
Mazzoni (2013). The Motivation to Read Profile—­Revised (MRP-R) includes a 20-item
survey that can be administered to the whole class or to small groups of students to
determine their perceived value for reading and self-­concept as a reader. A conversational
interview is included that can be individually administered to tease out specific interests,
values, and perceptions of ability. This information is important to teachers in designing
instruction that supports value and self-­concept, and can guide the teacher in developing
strong motivational contexts for reading. Pitcher et al. (2007) developed an adolescent
version of the instrument for middle and high school classrooms.

How Motivation and Engagement Can Improve Comprehension Instruction

Research is converging to reveal specific and actionable elements of instruction that can
influence both reading motivation and reading comprehension in students across grades,
gender, and ability levels. The elements of interest, choice, support within a literate com-
munity, and the use of authentic and relevant tasks can be blended in the literacy class-
room to enhance the reading development and motivation of all students, as well as their
learning across the content areas. The following are suggestions for implementing these
elements in the classroom:

•• Attend to student interests when choosing texts for instruction. The element of
interest has been demonstrated in the established and recent research on motivation for
reading. Interest in a topic serves as a buffer when reading challenging text (Fulmer
& Frijters, 2011) and guards against mind wandering (Unsworth & McMillan, 2013).
Providing texts that are of interest to students requires that teachers first know their
students—­something that can be the focus of those early weeks of the school year when
schedules, transitions, and procedures are being practiced in the classroom. Interests can
be explored by giving students opportunities to talk and write about themselves, sharing
common and unique interests. Marinak and Gambrell’s (2010) research reminds us to
consider the gender-­distinctive interests in the classroom, and choosing texts for read-­
alouds and guided reading should include attention to these differences. Allowing stu-
dents select from a bounded choice of books to be used for an after-lunch read-aloud,
or encouraging students to suggest books, are ways to make sure that all students hear
something that interests them at regular intervals. Once student interests are known,
teachers can work with the media specialist to find books of interest in appropriate read-
ing levels for students to use during independent reading as well.
•• Support students in developing strong self-­concepts for reading and learning
within a literate community. Pressley (2006) and others (Fletcher et al., 2012) have dem-
onstrated that a literate community supports students in using text as a means of gain-
ing and sharing knowledge. Literacy is communication—­both receptive and expressive.
Reading, viewing, and listening should be tied to writing, representing, and discussing
what is known, so that members of the community learn together. Creating a community
New Insights on Motivation in the Literacy Classroom 157

that is risk-free, where students feel safe in sharing ideas and asking questions, neces-
sitates that teachers honor the process of learning over the product. As Miss Frizzle of
the Magic School Bus series says, “Take chances, make mistakes, get messy!” Teachers
who encourage questions, appreciate the journey of learning through mistakes, and guide
student thinking from novice to expert create just this type of community.
Within a literate community, supports are important to move students from where
they are to where they can be. Guided groups based on formative assessments, and tied to
well-­coordinated center activities, are central to differentiating instruction for the variety
of ability levels found in today’s inclusive classrooms. Guided groups allow the teacher to
serve as a more knowledgeable other in modeling and practicing new skills with students
in their zones of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). Center activities give students
opportunities to practice new skills, engage in discussions, and solve problems with the
new content while teachers are guiding others. This guidance at the instructional level
and center group practice that move students incrementally toward independence are the
supports that keep students engaged by avoiding the frustration and discouragement of
tasks that are beyond their abilities.
•• Design learning tasks that are relevant, authentic, and purposeful. The reading
activities that are provided in classrooms are more motivating when they mirror real-
world tasks. Writing a book report that the teacher reads, grades, and returns is not
as engaging a task as creating a book review that will be orally shared or posted on a
board, or in a blog, so that others might choose to read that book. In our adult lives, we
regularly recommend books to each other, discussing the ones we like, as well as the ones
we did not enjoy. Similarly, reading in the content areas should be aimed at a purposeful
conclusion, an end product that is a response to the text that shows what is known in a
meaningful way. Designing units of instruction around purposeful culminating products
increases the likelihood that students will be engaged, strategic, and thoughtful in their
approaches, and provides a reason to expend the effort required to comprehend.
•• Provide opportunities for choice, collaboration, and integration to support stu-
dents in constructing meaning and personalizing their learning. Within a literate commu-
nity, students engage in reading to understand and create demonstrations of their under-
standing in socially constructed ways. Across a unit of instruction, whether addressing
the ELA or a content area, students comprehend best when they have opportunities to
make personal choices in what they read and how they demonstrate their understanding.
Working in groups permits students the opportunity to share their understanding of what
they read, in order to know more deeply, to share or explain strategies for comprehend-
ing, to solve problems, or to create a product. The aspect of collaboration, when well
structured and facilitated by the teacher, supports students in learning together, which
strengthens community as well as personal knowledge.
Similarly, integrating reading activities across the content areas allows teachers to
reinforce strategies taught for approaching information text and, therefore, comprehen-
sion of these subject area topics. Thematic units, in which reading, writing, and discussion
are used as tools for comprehending, help to move the language arts out of the ELA silo
and into the generalized understanding of all instructional topics. Project-­based learning,
in which students work in groups to answer a “driving question,” is one mastery-­oriented
method for deeply exploring topics that position reading and researching as purposeful
and meaningful ways to get to a reasonable solution. For inspiration in creating project-­
based units, explore the edutopia.org and bie.org (Buck Institute for Education) websites.
158 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

Summary

My intent in this chapter is twofold: to inform and to inspire. Research on reading moti-
vation is converging on the factors of instructional tasks that are positively correlated
with higher levels of student engagement and achievement. These include attention to
interest, choice, collaboration, authenticity, and support in the face of challenge within
a risk-free literate community. I hope that this focus on designing motivational contexts
in which engaging learning tasks can be effectively structured and integrated across all
content areas will inspire educators to become agents of change in their classrooms, grade
levels, and schools in ways that will lead to a brighter future for all students.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. What we believe affects how we behave and therefore what we become. These “three B’s” are helpful
when we consider our expectations for our students, and they influence the motivational context of the
classroom. In considering how you might create a literate community in your classroom, spend time
reflecting on your vision for teaching—­what it is you want for your students as a result of being in your
classroom. Writing a classroom mission statement is one way to create community in your classroom
by exposing what you value and your expectations for your students. For example, if working together
is a personally valued goal for your students, you might post a mission statement that says, “In our
classroom, we will work together to understand deeply, share without risk, and grow what we know.”
Write a mission statement for your classroom that will guide the type of community that grows in your
classroom.
2. Consider the learning tasks that you present to your students. Which of these can be tied to a real-
world purpose for reading or responding to what is read? Purposes and products that are teacher-­
centered, in that they are simply a means of evaluating students, can be redesigned to be more
personally relevant to students, and therefore more motivating and engaging. Work toward tasks that
create personal connections, or that lead to real-world expressions of knowledge, such as finding
solutions to problems that matter to students; developing personal interests; serving the classroom,
school, or larger community; or representing adult professions in science, social studies, math, or
communication.
3. Think of one area of reading instruction in which you feel that motivation and engagement are issues
for you. Perhaps your read-­alouds, guided instruction, or center activities are not as engaging as
you would like. Using as a guide the section titled “How Motivation and Engagement Can Improve
Comprehension Instruction,” consider how these elements can be used to improve the motivational
aspects of that area of instruction and challenge yourself to integrate one or two of these elements.
Reflect on the effectiveness of the modification you implement and consider what enhances the
implementation, as well as what inhibits engagement. By continuing the enhancing factors, and
modifying and evaluating the effectiveness of modifications to your instruction, you can continue
to refine your methods systematically and effectively. Then share what you have learned with your
colleagues!

References

Almasi, J. F. (1995). The nature of fourth graders’ sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-­
led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 314–351.
Alvermann, D. E., & Guthrie, J. T. (1993). Themes and directions of the National Reading
Research Center, Project Report 1. Athens, GA: NRRC.
New Insights on Motivation in the Literacy Classroom 159

Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (1992). Changes in achievement goal orientations, perceived aca-
demic competence, and grades across the transition to middle-­level schools. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 22(3), 269–298.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of
learning and motivation (pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.
Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and their rela-
tions to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 452–477.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-­efficacy mechanism in human agency. The American Psychologist, 37(2),
122–147.
Blumenfeld, P. C., & Meece, J. L. (1988). Task factors, teacher behavior, and students’ involve-
ment and use of learning strategies in science. Elementary School Journal, 88(3), 235–250.
Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: Developing
appreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist, 34(2),
75–85.
Brophy, J. (2008). Developing students’ appreciation for what is taught in school. Educational
Psychologist, 43(3), 132–141.
Cambourne, B. (1995). Towards an educationally relevant theory of literacy learning: Twenty
years of inquiry. The Reading Teacher, 49(3), 182–192.
Cunningham, P. M., & Allington, R. L. (1999). Classrooms that work: They all can read and
write (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-­Wesley/Longman.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-­determination in human behav-
ior. New York: Plenum Press.
Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achieve-
ment and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75–146). San
Francisco: Freeman.
Fletcher, J., Grimley, M., Greenwood, J., & Parkhill, F. (2012). Raising reading achievement in
an “at risk,” low socioeconomic, multicultural intermediate school. Journal of Research in
Reading, 36(2), 149–171.
Fulmer, S. M., & Frijters, J. C. (2011). Motivation during an excessively challenging reading task:
The buffering role of relative topic interest. Journal of Experimental Education, 79(2), 185–
208.
Gambrell, L. B. (1996). Motivating contexts for literacy learning. In L. Baker, P. Afflerbach, & D.
Reinking, (Eds.), Developing engaged readers in school and home communities. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Gambrell, L. B. (2013). Reading motivation and engagement: Research trends and future direc-
tions (Oscar Causey Award/LRA 2012). In P. Dunston & S. Fullerton (Eds.), The 62nd year-
book of the Literacy Research Association (pp. 43–52). Altamonte Springs, FL: Literary
Research Association.
Gambrell, L. B., Hughes, E., Calvert, W., Malloy, J. A., & Igo, B. (2011). Authentic reading, writ-
ing, and discussion: An exploratory study of a pen pal project. Elementary School Journal,
112(2), 234–258.
Gambrell, L., Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M., & Mazzoni, S. A. (1996). Assessing motivation to
read. The Reading Teacher, 49(7), 518–533.
Guthrie, J. T., & Humenick, N. (2004). Motivating students to read: Evidence for classroom prac-
tices that increase reading motivation and achievement. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.),
The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. pp. 329–354). Baltimore: Brookes.
Guthrie, J. T., McGough, K., Bennett, L., & Rice, M. E. (1996). Concept-­oriented reading instruc-
tion: An integrated curriculum to develop motivations and strategies for reading. In L. Baker,
P. Afflerbach, & D. Reinking (Eds.), Developing engaged readers in school and home com-
munities (pp. 165–190). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. C. (Eds.). (2004). Motivating reading comprehen-
sion: Concept-­Oriented Reading Instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
160 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & You, W. (2012). Instructional contexts for engagement and achieve-
ment in reading. In S. Christensen, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on
student engagement (pp. 601–634). New York: Springer Science.
Ho, A. N., & Guthrie, J. T. (2013). Multiple motivations and aspects of achievement in reading.
Reading Psychology, 34(2), 101–147.
Ivey, G. (1999). A multicase study in the middle school: Complexities among young adolescent
readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(2), 172–192.
Lutz, S. L., Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2006). Scaffolding for engagement in elementary
school reading instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 3–20.
Malloy, J. A., & Gambrell, L. B. (2011). The contribution of discussion to reading comprehension
and critical thinking. In R. Allington & A. McGill-­Franzen (Eds.), Handbook of reading dis-
abilities research (pp. 253–262). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Malloy, J. A., Marinak, B. A., Gambrell, L. B., & Mazzoni, S. A. (2013). Assessing motivation
to read: The Motivation to Read Profile—­Revised. The Reading Teacher, 67(4), 273–282.
Malloy, J. A., Parsons, S. A., & Parsons, A. W. (2013). Methods for evaluating literacy engagement
as a fluid construct. In P. Dunston & S. Fullerton (Eds.), The 62nd yearbook of the Literacy
Research Association (pp. 124–139). Altamonte Springs, FL: Literacy Research Association.
Marinak, B. A., & Gambrell, L. B. (2010). Reading motivation: Exploring the elementary gender
gap. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(2), 129–141.
McKenna, M., Kear, D., & Ellsworth, R. (1995). Children’s attitudes toward reading: A national
survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 934–956.
Morrow, L. M. (1992). The impact of a literature-­based program on literacy achievement, use of
literature and attitudes of children from minority backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly,
27(3), 251–275.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Offi-
cers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for the English language arts. Washington, DC:
Author.
National Reading Research Center (NRRC). (1997). Engaged reading for pleasure and learning:
A report from the National Reading Research Center (J. F. Baumann & A. M. Duffy, Eds.).
Athens, GA: Author.
Neuman, S. B., & Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low- and middle-­income communities: An
ecological study of four neighborhoods. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 8–26.
Nolen, S. B. (2007). The development of motivation to read and write in young children: Develop-
ment in social context. Cognition and Instruction, 25(2), 219–270.
Parsons, S. A. (2008). Providing all students ACCESS to self-­regulated literacy learning. The
Reading Teacher, 61(8), 628–635.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Pitcher, S. M., Albright, L. K., DeLaney, C. J., Walker, N. T., Seunarinesingh, K., Mogge, S., et al.
(2007). Assessing adolescents’ motivation to read. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,
50(5), 378–398.
Pressley, M. (2006, May). What the future of reading research could be. Paper presented at the 51st
International Reading Association’s annual convention, Chicago, IL.
Purcell-­Gates, V. (2002). Authentic literacy in class yields increase in literacy practices. Literacy
Update, 11(1), 9.
Purcell-­Gates, V., Duke, N. K., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-­
specific test: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research Quar-
terly, 42(1), 8–45.
Sanford, K. (2005/2006). Gendered literacy experiences: The effects of expectation and opportu-
nity for boys’ and girls’ learning. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49(4), 302–315.
Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 299–
323.
New Insights on Motivation in the Literacy Classroom 161

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-­regulatory competence. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 32(4), 195–208.
Senn, N. (2012). Effective approaches to motivate and engage reluctant boys in literacy. The Read-
ing Teacher, 66(3), 211–220.
Smith, M., & Wilhelm, J. (2002). Reading don’t fix no Chevys: Literacy in the lives of young men.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Spaulding, C. L. (1992). Motivation in the classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Taboada, A., Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects of motivational and cog-
nitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 22(1), 85–106.
Turner, J. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for literacy.
Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 410–441.
Turner, J., & Paris, S. G. (1995). How literacy tasks influence children’s motivation for literacy.
The Reading Teacher, 48(8), 662–673.
Unsworth, N., & McMillan, B. D. (2013). Mind wandering and reading comprehension: Examin-
ing the roles of working memory capacity, interest, motivation, and topic experience. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(3), 832–842.
Urden, T., & Schoenfelder, E. (2006). Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal structures,
social relationships, and competence beliefs. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 331–349.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M.
Cole, V. John-­Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount
and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 420–432.
 Ch ap t er 12

Research on Response‑to‑Intervention
Supplemental Interventions
Where’s the Comprehension Instruction?

Deborah MacPhee, Elizabeth Bemiss,

and Diane Stephens

Learning to read and write is arguably the most

complex task humans face.
—Dorothy Strickland (1999, p. xix)

I n 2004, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was reauthorized and
included a general education initiative now known as response to intervention (RTI),
which is a research-­based approach to the identification and support of students with
learning and behavior needs. As part of RTI, before referring students to special educa-
tion, school districts can use up to 15% of their special education monies to provide
instruction (referred to as interventions) to students who cannot yet comprehend grade-
level texts. While most districts offer tiers of intervention (defining Tier I as classroom,
and Tiers 2 and 3, and sometimes 4, as supplemental), districts and schools have the
flexibility to develop systems that provide all children with the best possible reading
instruction. In theory, these systems ensure that students receive high-­quality responsive,
evidence-­based instruction grounded in systematic assessment, and that this instruction
enhances students’ ability to comprehend grade-level text.

Perspective and Process

The goals of the reauthorization of IDEA are to reduce the number of students who are
identified as having learning disabilities, and, much like No Child Left Behind (NCLB;
2002, p. 111), “to ensure that every student can read at grade level or above not later

162
Research on Response‑to‑Intervention Supplemental Interventions 163

than the end of grade 3.” Therefore, as we immersed ourselves in the literature on RTI,
we did so in search of studies of supplemental interventions (Tiers 2, 3, and 4) that
included comprehension instruction. Our purpose was to synthesize the literature on
how RTI supplemental intervention helps students comprehend grade-level texts and, as
a consequence, potentially reduces the number of students identified as having learning
disabilities because of a discrepancy between IQ and reading level.
We began with a search of EBSCO (Elton B. Stephens Company) Host using the
search terms “RTI” and “response to intervention.” We used the year parameters of
2008–2013 in order to find articles and reports published within the last 5 years. We
scanned the search results and sorted out all the documents referring to medical RTI
and focused solely on those pertaining to education. To identify additional publications,
we conducted a reference search of documents from the original search and from books
about RTI. Next, we looked at the tables of contents of journals in which articles about
RTI had been published and, when available, searched the Curriculum Vitae of all the
authors who appeared most often in the RTI articles we had found. All documents were
accessed electronically. We found 278 documents that addressed RTI in education. We
used abstracts to sort the documents into categories such as critique, implementation,
supplemental intervention, and nonreading fields (e.g., mathematics). We further identi-
fied the articles as research studies (or not) and as being (or not being) about comprehen-
sion. We then engaged in a close reading of the 40 studies that we initially categorized as
RTI supplemental reading intervention and comprehension to ensure that those articles
were about that topic. During our close read, we recategorized and excluded articles that
did not fit our definition of RTI. For example, we eliminated studies that did not pro-
vide supplemental instruction (e.g., Graves, Duesbery, Pyle, Brandon, & McIntosh, 2011;
Lipka & Siegel, 2010). We ended up with 19 studies.

RTI and Comprehension

Across the 19 studies, there were differences in both the foci of instruction and when com-
prehension was measured. We categorized interventions as having “some comprehension
instruction” when the instruction was described in the study as assessment (i.e., question-
ing to check for understanding, discussing predictions) or as a skill to be mastered (i.e.,
analyzing story structure, identifying main idea and details, writing summaries) and was
positioned as secondary to letter- and word-level skills instruction. We included studies in
the “focused comprehension instruction” category when comprehension was a primary
focus of the intervention and included interactive strategy instruction. Interestingly, all of
the studies in the “some comprehension instruction” category involved students in grades
K–2, and all of the studies in the “focused comprehension instruction” category involved
students in grades 4–8.
Eight of the studies (Case et al., 2010; Chambers et al., 2011; Denton et al., 2010,
2011, 2013; Murray, Woodruff, & Vaughn, 2010; Scanlon, Gelzheiser, Vellutino,
Schatschneider, & Sweeney, 2008; Wonder-McDowell, Reutzel, & Smith, 2011) included
interventions with some comprehension instruction (see Table 12.1). For instance, after
instruction on decoding and fluency, Denton et al. (2011) used the Read Well program
(Sprick, Howard, & Fidanque, 1998), because “it provide[d] systematic explicit instruc-
tion in both decoding and fluency” (p. 6), followed with “10–12 minutes of word level
instruction” (p. 7) and with about 20 minutes on text reading practice, “vocabulary and
comprehension instruction” (p. 7). Eleven of the studies (Faggella-­Luby, & Wardell, 2011;
164 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

TABLE 12.1. RTI Studies Based on Level of Intervention

and Comprehension Measures
Intervention included some Intervention focused on
comprehension instruction comprehension instruction
No comprehension measure Case et al. (2010) (1st); —
Scanlon et al. (2008) (K)

Comprehension measure Chambers et al. (2011) (1st, —

(post-only) 2nd); Denton et al. (2011) (1st)

Comprehension measure Denton et al. (2010) (1st); Denton et al. (2013) (2nd); Faggella-
(pre- and post-) Murray, Woodruff, & Luby & Wardell (2011) (5th, 6th);
Vaughn (2010) (1st); Wonder- Gelzheiser et al. (2011) (4th); Kim et
McDowell et al. (2011) (1st) al. (2010) (4th–6th); Ritchey et al.
(2012) (4th); Pyle & Vaughn (2012)
(6th–8th)a; Vaughn, Cirino, et al.
(2010)a; Vaughn & Fletcher (2012)a;
Vaughn, Wanzek, et al. (2010)a;
Vaughn et al. (2011, 2012)a; Wanzek
et al. (2011)a
aThese articles report on the same study.

Gelzheiser, Scanlon, Vellutino, Hallgren-­Flynn, & Schatschneider, 2011; Kim, Samson,

Fitzgerald, & Hartry, 2010; Pyle & Vaughn, 2012; Ritchey, Silverman, Montanaro,
Speece, & Schatschneider, 2012; Vaughn, Cirino, et al., 2010; Vaughn & Fletcher, 2012;
Vaughn, Wanzek et al., 2010; Vaughn et al., 2011, 2012; Wanzek, Vaughn, Roberts, &
Fletcher, 2011) included interventions focused on comprehension instruction.
Relative to when comprehension was assessed: Case et al. (2010) and Scanlon et al.
(2008) did not assess the impact of their intervention on comprehension, while Chambers
et al. (2011) and Denton et al. (2011) only administered their comprehension measure
after the intervention. The other 15 studies assessed comprehension both pre- and post­
intervention.

Some Comprehension Instruction, No Comprehension Measure

There were two studies (Case et al., 2010; Scanlon et al., 2008) in which Tier 2 interven-
tion included some comprehension instruction but did not assess comprehension. Case et
al. (2010) conducted an 11-week randomized controlled trial that measured the effects
of small-group intervention for 30 at-risk first graders across three non–Title I public
schools. Trained graduate research assistants with previous teaching experience delivered
instruction to small intervention groups of three to four students. They used adapted pub-
lished reading programs (e.g., Fundations [Wilson Language Training, 2002], Respon-
sive Reading Instruction [RRI; Denton & Hocker, 2006], and Read Naturally [Ihnot,
2002]) to target phonemic awareness, word attack skills, spelling, sight-word recogni-
tion, vocabulary, oral reading fluency, and comprehension. Case et al. (2010) reported
significant growth in decodable word fluency (Case & Speece, 2007) and spelling.
Scanlon et al. (2008) compared three approaches to reducing the incidence of read-
ing difficulties in low socioeconomic status (SES) kindergarten students considered to be
at risk based on a measure of early literacy skills: professional development only (PDO),
intervention only (IO), and both professional development and intervention (PD + I).
The authors followed three cohorts of beginning kindergartners to the beginning of first
Research on Response‑to‑Intervention Supplemental Interventions 165

grade. Kindergartners in the IO and PD + I schools received small-group instruction

(three or fewer students) from research staff twice a week. The researchers used the
Interactive Strategies Approach (ISA; Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002), which included read-
ing books, letter and letter sound instruction, phonemic awareness, and writing. The
Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening for Kindergarten (PALS-K; Invernizzi, Meir,
Swank & Juel, 1999/2000) and the Woodcock–­Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ III;
Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001) were used to assess basic reading skills; however,
no comprehension subtest was included in the study. The findings suggest that all three
intervention conditions were effective in reducing incidence of early reading difficulties,
and that the teachers who participated in the PDO reduced by half the number of stu-
dents who were considered at risk at the end of the year. Because of preintervention dif-
ferences in the quality of instruction, it was not possible for the researchers to determine
which condition was more or less effective in improving outcomes for at-risk students.

Some Comprehension Instruction, Postcomprehension Measure

Two studies (Chambers et al., 2011; Denton et al., 2011) included some comprehension
instruction and had only a postcomprehension measure. Chambers et al. (2011) evalu-
ated the relative effects of computer-­assisted tutoring in small groups and one-to-one
adult–child tutoring provided to the lowest scoring 20 students in first and second grades
across 33 high-­poverty Success for All (SFA; Slavin, Madden, Chambers, & Haxby, 2009)
schools in nine states. Students in both the treatment and control conditions received daily
tutoring sessions that focused on phonemic awareness, concepts about print, letter skills,
sight words, vocabulary, tracking, fluency, comprehension, and writing. Students in the
control group received individual daily tutoring for 20 minutes that focused on the same
objectives as those in the computer-­assisted program. The emphasis in both conditions was
on phonics, “because these students were struggling beginning readers” (Chambers et al.,
2011, p. 634). The researchers measured reading achievement using WJ III Letter Word
Identification (pre- and post-), Word Attack (post-), and Passage Comprehension (post-),
which “measures students’ ability to study a short passage, usually two to three sentences
long, and identify a key word missing from the passage” (p. 634). Findings indicated that
the computer-­assisted tutoring program significantly increased reading achievement for
first graders in the computer-­assisted group and equal reading achievement for second
graders across both groups, as compared with one-to-one tutoring.
The purpose of the Denton et al. (2011) study was to compare the effects of Tier
2 interventions provided to 192 first-grade students at risk for reading difficulties.
The interventions occurred on three different schedules—­extended, concentrated, and
distributed—­each designed to mimic the levels of intensity often provided by schools
implementing RTI models. The extended schedule provided Tier 2 intervention in four
sessions per week for 16 weeks, the concentrated schedule was four sessions per week for
8 weeks, and the distributed schedule was two sessions per week for 16 weeks. Parapro-
fessionals administered the interventions and followed a semiscripted program that was
chosen because it provided systematic, explicit instruction in both decoding and fluency.
The researchers modified the program by adding instruction in vocabulary and compre-
hension. They explained that

to support comprehension, tutors and students engaged in discussion of the text before, dur-
ing, and after reading. After reading, tutors spent about 5 to 8 minutes on comprehension
instruction, using a researcher developed protocol. For narrative texts, the primary focus was
story structure, while in expository text it was identifying main idea and details. (p. 215)
166 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

The researchers assessed comprehension using the PC subtest of the WJ III and the
Passage Comprehension subtest of the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evalu-
ation (GRADE; Williams, 2001). On this measure, for first-grade passage comprehen-
sion, students are asked to read a sentence and, using listed choices, identify a missing
word. The findings of the study revealed no significant difference between intervention
schedules.

Some Comprehension Instruction, Pre‑ and Postcomprehension Measures

Four studies (Denton et al., 2010, 2013; Murray et al., 2010; Wonder-McDowell et al.,
2011) included some comprehension instruction with a pre- and postintervention com-
prehension measure. Researchers in the Denton et al. (2010) study sought to determine
whether there were significant differences over a 2-year period in the reading ability of
first-grade students from 31 schools who were considered to be at risk for reading diffi-
culties. The treatment group received the Responsive Reading Instruction (RRI) interven-
tion (Denton, 2001; Denton & Hocker, 2006), and the control group received the read-
ing instruction and intervention typically provided in their schools (TPS). The research
intervention, a prepublication version of RRI, was implemented in 40-minute lessons that
included 10 minutes of word work, 10 minutes of print concepts/fluency and assessment,
10 minutes of supported reading, and 10 minutes of supported writing. In the supported
reading portion of the lesson, “teachers provided scaffolding, feedback, and instruction
as students read increasingly difficult text. Students were taught to use letter–­sound rela-
tionships (‘sounding out’ words) as the primary strategy for identifying unknown words
and were discouraged from using pictures and context to identify words” (Denton et al.,
2010, p. 399).
Forty-three percent of the TPS group received alternative interventions that were
aligned with their schools’ typical practice. The authors noted that “these interventions
varied in focus, intensity, and mode of delivery” (p. 402). The researchers assessed com-
prehension before and after the intervention for both groups using the PC subtest of the
WJ III. They reported that the RRI group of students scored significantly higher than the
comparison students.
Denton et al. (2013) conducted a study to evaluate the efficacy of an individual-
ized, intensive reading intervention for 72 second graders and repeating first graders who
demonstrated “insufficient response” (p. 635) to a highly standardized intervention the
previous year. The students in the study were randomly assigned to either research Tier
3 intervention or a Typical School Instruction (TSI) comparison group. Students in the
study participated in daily 45-minute intervention sessions over 24–26 weeks. Students
receiving Tier 3 intervention were grouped homogeneously for interventions, and teach-
ers planned lessons designed for one student in the group each day, rotating systemati-
cally among the students in the group. The primary program for Tier 3 intervention was
an adaptation of RRI (see Denton et al., 2010). In this intervention, teachers engaged
students in daily text reading that included integrated comprehension instruction. Before
reading, teachers provided a brief introduction to the text that focused on a comprehen-
sion skill and set a purpose for reading, with a guiding question that related to the skill.
Teachers and students discussed the question briefly during and after reading. In addi-
tion to regular classroom instruction, some TSI students received a supplemental reading
intervention provided by their schools outside the research interventions. The researchers
measured comprehension using the PC subtest of the WJ III and the Reading Comprehen-
sion subtest of the Gates–MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT; MacGinitie, MacGinitie,
Maria, Dreyer, & Hughes, 2000). They found significant differences between the RRI
Research on Response‑to‑Intervention Supplemental Interventions 167

and TSI groups on sentence- and paragraph-­level comprehension, but not on reading
comprehension in extended texts.
Murray et al. (2010) studied the effects of RTI on the retention rates of 64 at-risk
first-grade students from six Title I schools. The intervention occurred over a 13-week
period in 25- to 30-minute daily sessions with small groups of four to six students. The
Tier 2 intervention included instruction in letter and sound identification, word reading
and spelling, fluency, passage reading and comprehension, and vocabulary. However,
the authors did not provide additional information about the intervention. They noted
only that progress monitoring was performed weekly and “data were shared weekly
with classroom teachers and were used to make instructional decisions in both the class-
room as well as the intervention group” (p. 37). The Woodcock Reading Mastery Test—­
Revised (WRMT-R; Woodcock, 1998) Word Identification, Word Attack and Passage
Comprehension questionnaire was administered pre- and postintervention. No inferen-
tial statistics were used to report student outcomes. The researchers reported a decrease
in retention across cohorts (2002–2003, 2003–2004, and 2004–2005) but noted that the
differences in scores on outcome measures did not explain the retention pattern.
Wonder-McDowell et al. (2011) explored the effects of aligning classroom core read-
ing instruction with supplementary reading instruction for 133 struggling second-­grade
readers across 11 schools from a large urban district. The study included a treatment
group for which the researchers designed supplementary instruction that aligned with
the classroom core reading program, and a second group that used Read Well, a program
considered by the researchers to be unaligned. Each group received 30 minutes of sup-
plementary instruction daily. The first 15 minutes focused on word-level reading skills
using a synthetic phonics approach. The second 15 minutes “provided practice in reading
connected texts to develop oral reading fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension skills”
(p. 269). Comprehension was measured using a composite score based on the WRMT‑R
Vocabulary and Comprehension subtest standard scores. The researchers found that
both groups exhibited significant growth from pretest to posttest on the sentence-­length,
cloze-like comprehension measure, and that “providing aligned supplementary reading
instruction had a small but statistically significant positive effect on students’ WRMT-R
reading comprehension scores” (p. 273).

Focused Comprehension Instruction, Pre‑ and Postcomprehension Measures

There were 11 publications (Faggella-­Luby & Wardell, 2011; Gelzheiser et al., 2011; Kim
et al., 2010; Pyle & Vaughn, 2012; Ritchey et al., 2012; Vaughn, Cirino, et al., 2010;
Vaughn & Fletcher, 2012; Vaughn, Wanzek, et al., 2010; Vaughn et al., 2011, 2012;
Wanzek et al., 2011) in which RTI interventions focused on comprehension and included
a pre- and postcomprehension measure; however, seven of those publications (Pyle &
Vaughn, 2012; Vaughn, Cirino et al., 2010; Vaughn & Fletcher, 2012; Vaughn, Wanzek,
et al., 2010; Vaughn et al., 2011, 2012; Wanzek et al., 2011) were based on one study.
Faggella-­Luby and Wardell (2011) examined three Tier 2 reading comprehension
interventions for at-risk fifth- and sixth-grade students in an urban middle school. They
randomly assigned 86 students to Story Structure (SS), Typical Practice (TP), or Sustained
Silent Reading (SSR). In the SS group, they used a modified version of Embedded Story
Structure (ESS) routine (Faggella-­Luby, Schumaker, & Deshler, 2007). The intervention
took place in 30-minute sessions, 2 to 3 days per week for 18 weeks. The instructors
focused on three comprehension strategies: asking seven story-­structure-­related ques-
tions, engaging in story structure analysis, and writing a five-­sentence summary. The
TP condition mirrored the individual beliefs of the reading specialists and included
168 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

minilessons on previewing, predicting, identifying characters, summarizing, visualizing,

and questioning. The reading specialists also engaged students in guided reading and lit-
erature circles, taught vocabulary, and spent time on journal writing. Students in the SSR
group read silently for 30 minutes. Researchers used the GMRT to assess comprehension.
There were no significant differences among the three conditions.
Gelzheiser et al. (2011) examined the effects of the Interactive Strategies Approach–­
Extended (ISA-X; derived from Scanlon, Anderson, & Sweeney, 2010) on both the
word-level and reading comprehension skills of struggling intermediate readers and the
development of social studies content knowledge. The participants in this study were
50 fourth graders who had been identified as having learning disabilities (LD) and had
not responded to classroom and small-group interventions. Half of the students received
daily one-on-one intervention in the fall semester and the other half, in the spring semes-
ter. The Tier 3 intervention comprised a minilesson, reading and discussion, and writing.
Instructional goals and activities varied across students and changed based on students’
skills and progress. Interventions included word identification strategies, both meaning-
and code-based, explicit instruction for comprehension and monitoring, and collabora-
tive discussion to promote understanding and engagement. The researchers acknowledged
that “many struggling readers hold a view of reading that does not encompass meaning
making” (Gelzheiser et al., 2011, p. 284) and that “this view of reading may inadver-
tently be reinforced by teachers who overemphasize reading accuracy and fluency in their
instruction” (p. 284). Therefore, the interventions in this study focused on “explicit mod-
eling and guidance related to comprehension monitoring and the use of several ‘fix-up’
strategies to enable [students] to recover from points of confusion” (p. 284). Researchers
used the Qualitative Reading Inventory–4 (QRI-4; Leslie & Caldwell, 2006) to measure
comprehension. They reported statistically significant effects on reading comprehension.
Kim et al. (2010) conducted a dual-­purpose study that examined the causal effects of
READ 180 (Slavin, Cheung, Groff, & Lake, 2008), a mixed-­methods literacy interven-
tion, on (1) measures of word reading efficiency, oral reading fluency, reading compre-
hension, and vocabulary, and (2) whether print exposure among children in the experi-
mental condition explained variance in posttest reading scores. The study included 294
fourth through sixth graders who scored below proficient on the state standardized Eng-
lish language arts assessment. The students were randomly assigned to READ 180 or a
school district after-­school program. Both groups of students spent the first hour after
school having a snack and receiving homework help, and the second hour, four days per
week for 23 weeks, in interventions. Students in the READ 180 intervention participated
in three 20-minute literacy activities, including individualized computer-­assisted reading
instruction, independent and modeled reading practice with leveled books, and teacher-­
directed reading lessons. In the after-­school program group, students engaged in teacher-­
chosen enrichment activities designed to improve student attendance. Researchers used
the GRADE to measure comprehension. GRADE includes three subtests: Vocabulary,
Sentence Comprehension, and Passage Comprehension. There was no statistically signifi-
cant difference in comprehension between intervention groups.
Ritchey et al. (2012) examined the effects of a supplemental reading intervention for
fourth-­grade students identified as having a higher probability of reading failure com-
pared to children receiving typical classroom instruction. One hundred twenty three stu-
dents were randomly assigned to either an intervention condition or a nonintervention
control condition. The students in the two- to four-­person intervention groups received
a total of twenty-­four 40-minute scripted lessons, with interventions implemented three
times a week for 12 to 15 weeks. The focus of the intervention was comprehension of
Research on Response‑to‑Intervention Supplemental Interventions 169

expository science texts. The first 5–7 minutes of each session focused on fluency and
the next 25–30 minutes focused on comprehension, which included previewing texts,
monitoring for understanding, using strategies for decoding unfamiliar words, finding
the main idea, and question and answer relationships. Students had some choice in select-
ing passages for repeated readings. The nonintervention control group received regular
classroom instruction. Researchers assessed comprehension using the GMRT and the
Assessment of Strategy Knowledge and Use for Information Text (ASKIT), an assessment
designed for this study that measured students’ knowledge of and ability to use compre-
hension strategies. The researchers found no group differences for fluency, word-level
skills, broader measures of reading comprehension, or reduction of risks. However, the
students in the intervention group performed significantly better on identification and
application of comprehension strategies and on science knowledge, both of which were
closely aligned with instruction.
Pyle and Vaughn (2012) summarized the findings from a study conducted by Vaughn
and others (Barth, Cirino, Denton, Francis, Fletcher, Leroux, Roberts, Romain, Wan-
zek, and Wexler) with sixth, seventh, and eighth graders. The study involved 1,083 stu-
dents who scored “below proficiency” on the state accountability test. The students were
from seven middle schools in two large cities in the southwest. Prior to the intervention,
these students were given the AIMSweb Reading Maze and Passage Fluency (AIMSweb
Maze–­Curriculum-­Based Measurement, n.d.) every 2 months. Based on these results,
the students in the treatment conditions were divided into groups based on need (decod-
ing, fluency, or comprehension) and provided with supplemental Tier 2 instruction. The
sixth-grade students were in groups of 10–15, and the seventh and eighth graders were in
groups of either 5 or 10. There were three phases of instruction: word study and fluency
(7–8 weeks); vocabulary and comprehension (17–18 weeks); and application of reading
strategies on expository texts (8–10 weeks). Instruction was provided by teachers chosen
by the researchers, who provided the teachers with 60 hours of professional development
and “biweekly staff development meetings with ongoing feedback and coaching (once
every 2–3 weeks)” (Vaughn, Cirino, et al., 2010, p. 7). Students in the comparison group
did not receive Tier 2 intervention services. The outcome measures for both groups were
compared to those for a group of students who were considered proficient on the state test.
If, after 1 year in Tier 2, students in the treatment groups had a failing score on the
state test or less than 90 on the WJ III letter–­word identification or the GRADE, they
received another year of intervention, considered Tier 3. These students were considered
to be “minimal responders.” They received small-group instruction (same phases as the
previous year) in groups of five. The students who were considered “nonresponders” to
both Tier 2 and Tier 3 received a fourth year of the same type of intervention. This was
considered Tier 4.
The researchers found that the Tier 2 sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-­grade students
outperformed the comparison group on word attack, spelling, passage comprehension,
phonemic decoding efficiency, and the state test. Typical students outperformed the stu-
dents in both the treatment and control groups on all measures. In reporting the results
for the sixth graders, Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2010, p. 13) noted: “Findings for interven-
tion students were positive but did not change substantially over the course of the year.
On the other hand, performance did not decline over the course of the school year.”
The seventh and eighth graders were in groups of either five or 10 (both led by teacher
chosen by researcher) or school comparison group of 12 to 15, which primarily used the
Wilson Reading System (Wilson, 1996). Vaughn et al. (2011) reported that there were
no significant differences between treatment groups based on group size. The treatment
170 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

groups did not score significantly higher on any measure than the control group. The
researchers concluded: “Even with 2 years of intervention, most students do not evidence
grade-level reading for understanding and will require further intervention” (p. 405).
Four of the articles (Pyle & Vaughn, 2012; Vaughn & Fletcher, 2012; Vaughn et al.,
2011, 2012) reported findings from Tier 3. These students were “low responders” to the
Tier 2 intervention. Instruction that was “tailored” to meet their needs was provided in
groups of two to four students. Eighth-grade students receiving this intervention “dem-
onstrated significantly higher scores than comparison students on standardized measures
of comprehension (effect size = 1.20) and word identification (effect size = 0.49), although
most continued to lack grade-level proficiency in reading despite three years of interven-
tion” (Vaughn et al., 2012, p. 516).
Pyle and Vaughn (2012) report the results from Tier 4. The participants were stu-
dents considered to be “nonresponders” from Tiers 2 and 3. Students in the treatment
group scored statistically higher than the comparison students on word identification and
reading comprehension. The researchers noted, however, that

students in the comparison group declined on nearly all of the reading measures. Although
treatment students showed significant gains compared with comparison students, one must
consider that these very low-­performing readers participated in 3 years of reading interven-
tion and remained poor readers. The results also suggest that this individualized, intensive
intervention, followed by two years of daily reading intervention did not close the achieve-
ment gap for students in the treatment group compared with typically achieving students.
(p. 280)

Wanzek et al. (2011) reported on the performance of a subset of students in these

studies—­students previously considered to have LD. They found that “although improved
outcomes were realized in a few skills areas, overall gains were small to moderate and did
not appreciably close the gap between treatment and comparison group performance”
(p. 84).

Discussion

As the title of this chapter suggests, when we began this research on RTI and comprehen-
sion, we expected to learn about interventions that would help students be able to compre-
hend grade-level text. We soon became aware that few studies provided this information.
In two of the eight studies conducted with kindergartners and first or second graders,
there was no comprehension measure (Case et al., 2010; Scanlon et al., 2008), and in
two others (Chambers et al., 2011; Denton et al., 2011), the comprehension measure was
postcomprehension only. The other four (Denton et al., 2010, 2013; Murray et al., 2009;
Wonder-McDowell et al., 2011) included both a pre and postcomprehension measure;
however, for all but Denton et al. (2013), the only comprehension-­related measure was
the PC subtest from the WJ III. A cloze passage of two to three sentences with one word
missing is not a robust assessment of comprehension; at best, it is a limited measure of
literal comprehension. The GMRT was used with the second graders in Denton et al.
(2013), but there was no significant difference between treatment and control conditions.
The interventions studied by these researchers were predominately word-­focused,
and in their description of their interventions, the researchers provided little information
about whether or how they helped children understand that reading was a meaning-­making
Research on Response‑to‑Intervention Supplemental Interventions 171

process. In Case et al. (2010), students received 40 minutes of instruction. The only refer-
ence to comprehension instruction (which occurred as part of the last 15-minute block),
is that “developing comprehension” consisted of discussing children’s predictions after
they finished reading (pp. 406–407). Chambers et al. (2011) included no description of
comprehension instruction, noting only that it occurred, and added that “because these
students were struggling beginning readers, most of the activities they worked on were
related to phonics skills” (p. 634). In Denton et al. (2011), paraprofessionals used the
Read Well program to which the researchers added a script, vocabulary, and compre-
hension instruction. The comprehension segment involved students discussing the text
before, during, and after reading. The discussion revolved around story structure for
narrative text, and main idea and details for expository text. In Denton et al. (2010), the
authors noted that the “supported reading” part of the intervention involved encourag-
ing children to use “letter–­sound” relationships “as the primary strategy for identifying
unknown words” (p. 399). They “discouraged” children from using meaning, either from
contextual cues or pictures (p. 399). In Denton et al. (2013), the researchers provided
individualized instruction to second-­ grade students who “demonstrated insufficient
response” to the first-grade intervention. In this study, relative to comprehension instruc-
tion, the researchers mentioned that students were “taught to use context to self-­monitor
and self-­correct errors” (p. 637). Consistent with Denton et al. (2011), children were dis-
couraged from using meaning to problem-­solve words. Murray et al. (2010) simply men-
tioned that comprehension instruction was provided. Scanlon et al. (2008) described the
ISA as a method to help children enjoy and respond to text by facilitating “the learning of
unfamiliar printed words” (p. 353). As an exception to the near absence of information
about comprehension instruction in the previous studies, Wonder-McDowell et al. (2011)
indicated that as part of the second 15-minute instructional block and after students
studied vocabulary and reread familiar text, they received instruction in “asking ques-
tions, clarifying, and predicting” (p. 268). Later in their article, the authors mentioned
that students also were “learning to visualize and ask questions” (p. 270). Given that
this segment was only 15 minutes long and included vocabulary instruction and repeated
readings, there could not have been very many minutes per day spent on helping students
improve their comprehension of texts.
The slight attention paid to comprehension instruction and outcomes for young chil-
dren is problematic given that the purpose of reading is to construct meaning from text.
In their study of fourth graders, Gelzheiser et al. (2011, p. 284) cited an observation made
by Perfetti, Landi, and Oakhill that many “struggling readers hold a view of reading
that does not encompass meaning making, that is, they do not set a ‘high standard for
coherence’ as they read.” While eight studies on RTI with kindergartners through second
graders is a very small number of studies, in none of them was there an instructional
emphasis on meaning making. As a field, we are often dismayed by the high numbers of
students in third grade and higher who are not yet able to comprehend grade-level texts,
but based on these few RTI studies with young children, we worry that this pattern might
exist because so little attention is paid to comprehension when providing supplemental
instruction prior to third grade.
There were four separate studies conducted with fourth through sixth graders
(Faggella-­Luby & Wardell, 2011; Gelzheiser et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2010; & Ritchey et al.,
2012). The remaining seven articles reported on data collected from a single 3-year study
of sixth to eighth graders (Pyle & Vaughn, 2012; Vaughn, Cirino, et al., 2010; Vaughn
& Fletcher, 2012; Vaughn, Wanzek, et al., 2010; Vaughn et al., 2011, 2012; Wanzek et
al., 2011). Two of the studies assessed comprehension using the GMRT (Faggella-­Luby &
172 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

Wardell, 2011; Ritchey et al., 2012), while Gelzheiser et al. (2011), Kim et al. (2010), and
the Vaughn studies used a state English language arts test. Gelzheiser et al. (2011) also
used the QRI-4, and the Vaughn studies also used WJ III PC subtest and the AIMSweb
Maze. In these studies, there was more of an emphasis on meaning making. However,
in three of the studies (Faggella-­Luby & Wardell, 2011; Kim et al., 2010; and Ritchey et
al., 2012), there were no significant differences between or among treatment and control
conditions. Taken as a whole, the group of seven articles based on one study found that
while the treatment groups did better than the comparison groups, this was attributed to
the fact that the scores of the students in the comparison groups declined. The students
in the treatment groups did not change substantially, and they remained “poor readers”
(Pyle & Vaughn, 2012, p. 280). Across these studies, the treatment interventions included
ESS and SSR (Faggella-­Luby & Wardell, 2011); READ 180 (Kim et al., 2010); fluency;
vocabulary; text instruction that included previewing, monitoring, decoding, finding the
main idea, and question–­answer relationships (Ritchey et al., 2012); and word study, flu-
ency, and comprehension (the Vaughn studies).
The only study that indicated significant and practical improvements in comprehen-
sion was Gelzheiser et al. (2011). The researchers used a version of the ISA, which they
referred to as ISA-X. Compared to the ISA, their approach “placed great emphasis on
the development of comprehension . . . (and) less emphasis on some components of the
ISA [e.g., phonemic awareness, basic print concepts] that were not appropriate for the
majority of grade 4 students receiving the ISA-X” (p. 282). As noted earlier, each lesson
included a minilesson, reading, discussion, and writing. Students learned words by using
context. Students were taught both meaning-­based (e.g., think of what might make sense)
and code based (e.g., think about the sounds in words) strategies (p. 283).
It is problematic for the field of reading education that only one study out of 19
provided explicit information about how students were helped to comprehend texts and
yielded results with both practical and statistical significance. Vellutino, Scanlon, and
Tanzman (1998) suggested that perhaps only 1.5–3.0% of all struggling readers have LD.
They argued that, instead of having LD, it is likely that almost all students struggle as
readers because of “inadequate pre-­literacy experience, inadequate instruction, or some
combination of both” (p. 369). Based on this assessment, it is clear that if RTI is to meet
its promise of reducing the number of students who are identified as having LD, then the
quality of supplemental comprehension instruction needs to improve. In order for that to
happen, the field almost desperately needs more research on supplemental interventions
(Tiers 2, 3, and 4) whose outcomes make it possible for students to comprehend increas-
ingly complex texts.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. What approaches that help young children build their skills and strategies for comprehending texts
could be used as interventions?
2. What valid and reliable comprehension measures could be used to assess comprehension of young
children?
3. How may measures that examine reading processes of comprehending connected text (accuracy,
prosody, cue use) be combined with comprehension questions and be validly and reliably used as
assessment measures across grade levels?
4. How may measures that include leveled texts be used validly and reliably as assessment measures
across grade levels?
Research on Response‑to‑Intervention Supplemental Interventions 173

References

AIMSweb Maze-­Curriculum Based Measurement. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.aimsweb.com/

measures-2/maze-cbm.
Case, L. P., & Speece, D. L. (2007). Decodable Word Fluency Task. Unpublished instrument,
University of Maryland, Baltimore.
Case, L. P., Speece, D. L., Silverman, R., Ritchey, K. D., Schatschneider, C., Cooper, D. H., et al.
(2010). Validation of a supplemental reading intervention for first grade children. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 43(5), 402–417.
Chambers, B., Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Abrami, P., Logan, M. K., & Gifford, R. (2011).
Small-group, computer-­assisted tutoring to improve reading outcomes for struggling first and
second graders. Elementary School Journal, 111(4), 625–640.
Denton, C. A. (2001). Responsive reading. Unpublished curricular materials, University of Texas,
Houston.
Denton, C. A., Cirino, P. T., Barth, A. E., Romain, M., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., et al. (2011). An
experimental study of scheduling and duration of “tier 2” first-grade reading intervention.
Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(3), 208–230.
Denton, C. A., & Hocker, J. L. (2006). Responsive reading instruction: Flexible intervention for
struggling readers in the early grades. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Denton, C. A., Nimon, K., Mathes, P. G., Swanson, E. A., Kethley, C., Kurz, T. B., et al. (2010).
Effectiveness of a supplemental early reading intervention scaled up in multiple schools.
Exceptional Children, 76(4), 394–416.
Denton, C. A., Tolar, T. D., Fletcher, J. M., Barth, A. E., Vaughn, S., & Francis, D. J. (2013).
Effects of Tier 3 intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties and characteris-
tics of inadequate responders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 633–648.
Faggella-­Luby, M. N., Schumaker, J. S., & Deshler, D. D. (2007). Embedded learning strategy
instruction: Story-­structure pedagogy in heterogeneous secondary literature classes. Learn-
ing Disability Quarterly, 30(2), 131–147.
Faggella-­Luby, M., & Wardell, M. (2011). RTI in a middle school: Findings and practical impli­
cations of a Tier 2 reading comprehension study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(1),
35–49.
Gelzheiser, L. M., Scanlon, D., Vellutino, F., Hallgren-­Flynn, L., & Schatschneider, C. (2011).
Effects of the Interactive Strategies Approach–­Extended: A responsive and comprehensive
intervention for intermediate grade struggling readers. Elementary School Journal, 112(2),
280–306.
Graves, A. W., Duesbery, L., Pyle, N., Brandon, R. R., & McIntosh, A. S. (2011). Two studies of
tier II literacy development: Throwing sixth graders a lifeline. Elementary School Journal,
111(4), 641–661.
Ihnot, C. (2002). Read Naturally: Group and tutoring edition level 8. St. Paul, MN: Read Natu-
rally.
Invernizzi, M., Meier, J., Swank, L., & Juel, C. (1999/2000). PALS K: Phonological Awareness
Literacy Screening. Charlottsville: University of Virginia.
Kim, J. S., Samson, J. F., Fitzgerald, R., & Hartry, A. (2010). A randomized experiment of a
mixed-­methods literacy intervention for struggling readers in grades 4–6: Effects on word
reading efficiency, reading comprehension and vocabulary, and oral reading fluency. Reading
and Writing, 23, 1109–1129.
Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2006). Qualitative Reading Inventory–4. Boston: Pearson.
Lipka, O., & Siegel, L. (2010). The improvement of reading skills of L1 and ESL children using a
response to intervention (RtI) model. Psicothema, 22(4), 963–969.
MacGinitie, W., MacGinitie, R., Maria, K., Dreyer, L., & Hughes, K. (2000). Gates–MacGinitie
Reading Tests: Forms S and T (4th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Murray, C. S., Woodruff, A. L., & Vaughn, S. (2010). First-grade student retention within a 3-tier
reading framework. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 26, 26–50.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Public Law No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
174 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

Pyle, N., & Vaughn, S. (2012). Remediating reading difficulties in a response to intervention
model with secondary students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 273–284.
Ritchey, K. D., Silverman, R. D., Montanaro, E. A., Speece, D. L., & Schatschneider, C. (2012).
Effects of a Tier 2 supplemental reading intervention for at-risk fourth-­grade students. Excep-
tional Children, 78(3), 318–334.
Scanlon, D. M., Anderson, K. L., & Sweeney, J. M. (2010). Early intervention for reading difficul-
ties: The interactive strategies approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Scanlon, D. M., Gelzheiser, L. M., Vellutino, F. R., Schatschneider, C., & Sweeney, J. M. (2008).
Reducing the incidence of early reading difficulties: Professional development for classroom
teachers versus direct interventions for children. Learning and Individual Differences, 18,
346–359.
Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008), Effective reading programs for middle
and high schools: A best-­evidence synthesis, Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290–322.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Chambers, B., & Haxby, B. (2009). Two million children: Success
for all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Sprick, M. M., Howard, L. M., & Fidanque, A. (1998). Read well: Critical foundations in pri-
mary reading. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Strickland, D. (1999). Foreword. In L. B. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, S. B. Neuman, & M. Pressley
(Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C. D., et al. (2010).
Response to intervention for middle school students with reading difficulties: Effects of a
primary and secondary intervention. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 3–21.
Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2012). Response to intervention with secondary school students
with reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 244–256.
Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Barth, A., Cirino, P. T., Fletcher, J., et al. (2010). The relative
effects of group size on reading progress of older students with reading difficulties. Reading
and Writing, 23, 931–956.
Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Leroux, A., Roberts, G., Denton, C., Barth, A., et al. (2012). Effects of
intensive reading intervention for eighth-­grade students with persistently inadequate response
to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(6), 515–525.
Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Roberts, G., Barth, A., Cirino, P. T., Romain, M. A., et al. (2011). Effects
of individualized and standardized interventions on middle school students with reading dis-
abilities. Exceptional Children, 77(4), 391–407.
Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (2002). The Interactive Strategies approach to reading interven-
tion. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 573–635.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Tanzman, M. S. (1998). The case for early intervention in diag-
nosing specific reading disability. Journal of School Psychology, 36(4), 367–397.
Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., & Fletcher, J. M, (2011). Efficacy of a reading intervention
for middle school students with learning disabilities, Exceptional Children, 78(1), 73–87.
Williams, K. T. (2001). The Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE):
Teacher’s scoring and interpretive manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Wilson, B. (1996). Wilson Reading System. Willbury, MA: Wilson Language Training Program.
Wilson Language Training. (2002). Fundations. Oxford, MA: Wilson Language Training Corpo-
ration.
Wonder-McDowell, C., Reutzel, D. R., & Smith, J. A. (2011). Does instructional alignment mat-
ter?: Effects on struggling second graders’ reading achievement. Elementary School Journal,
112(2), 259–279.
Woodcock, R. W. (1998). The Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests—­Revised: Normative update.
Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock– ­Johnson III. Itasca, IL:
Riverside.
 Chap t er 13

Comprehension Instruction
for At‑Risk Students

Irma F. Brasseur‑Hock, Michael F. Hock,

and Donald D. Deshler

    I remember when I first realized that I was different from other students when it came to
    reading. My kindergarten teacher did not let me read aloud during our open-house
    presentation to parents. I was told to just sit there and listen to the other kids read. Things
    got worse after that, and school was something I dreaded and had to fight to overcome.
    And I did overcome it—I’m in college! I’m still a poor reader though.
—Student with R eading Disabilities1

T he opening quotation captures the essence of the consequence of ineffective reading

instruction for students with learning differences who are at risk of school failure
even at the beginning of what should be a stimulating extension of the natural desire to
learn. For some learners, early struggles with learning and ineffective instruction can
have a negative impact on reading achievement and social–­emotional dispositions as
well. Whether these challenges surface at the PreK level or later in school, they require
informed, intensive, personalized responses from educators.
For years, many educators and policymakers have made a compelling case for early
identification and intervention of at-risk students on the assumption that if these things
happen at a young age, many of the manifestations of learning problems would be mini-
mized or avoided altogether in later years. While such goals are important and laudable,
there is a potential danger in solely emphasizing early remediation and ignoring the need
for interventions during adolescence. The case for continued intervention for some stu-
dents with learning differences is highlighted by the general flatlining of reading achieve-
ment progress (or lack thereof) for subgroups of readers and the persistent low achieve-
ment scores over the last 35 years (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2012).

1 Authorinterview notes from a conference for students with learning differences, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

175
176 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

Indeed, the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress results under-
score the fact that the reading problems of a significant number of older students continue
to exist in staggering numbers. Specifically, 26% of eighth-­grade students cannot read
material essential for daily living, such as road signs, newspapers, or bus schedules. Over-
all, 68% of secondary-­level students score below the proficient level and read at a basic or
below-basic level (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2013).
Fortunately, during the past decade increased efforts have been made to understand
better the characteristics of older students who continue to struggle in becoming profi-
cient readers. Building on the findings of these efforts, instructional programs have been
designed, and data that are beginning to emerge point to promising practices for strug-
gling adolescent readers. Among the attributes that appear to be important for yielding
positive outcomes are direct and explicit comprehension instruction, engaging reading
materials that are motivating for students, formative assessments to help shape instruc-
tion in a timely fashion, extended time for intensive literacy instruction, deliberately link-
ing strategy instruction to subject-­matter curriculum demands, and comprehensive coor-
dinated literacy programs (Snow & Biancarosa, 2003).
To understand recent advancements in adolescent literacy better, this chapter has
been designed to address three main objectives:

• Describe the potential impact of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) on
student learning and instruction.
• Describe what’s out there in terms of an emerging research and practice base.
• Discuss how new knowledge can inform comprehension instruction designed for
struggling readers in middle school and high school.

The Impact of the More Rigorous Learning Standards

In response to increasing our ability to compete internationally, states have worked to

increase the rigor of educational standards. In turn, these rigorous standards are expected
to significantly increase our academic competitiveness and to better prepare students for
the growing knowledge-­based global economy. While the new standards may be theoreti-
cally sound, initial results from states that have administered reading measures closely
aligned with the new standards indicate that student performance will be well-below
desired outcomes. For example, student reading test scores in New York dropped about
35% from the previous year’s scores, and only 26% of students in the third through
eighth grades who took the English language version of the test earned passing scores
(Editorial Board of the New York Times, 2013). Similar results can be found in Kansas,
Kentucky, and North Carolina (Lentz, 2013; Tobias, 2012; Ujifusa, 2012). Given that
many students scored below proficient level on previous state tests and are now scoring
even lower on more rigorous measures, it seems likely that many reading teachers will
need to alter their instructional practices and curricula in order to respond to this new
reality.

What’s Out There: An Emerging Research and Practice Base

Some adolescents leave elementary school unprepared for the rigors of the secondary
school curricular demands that await them (Hock & Deshler, 2003). For example, nearly
Comprehension Instruction for At‑Risk Students 177

60% of struggling adolescent readers in poor urban settings fall between the 5th and the
30th percentile in reading performance. That is, they have some basic reading skills but
not at a level that is sufficient to deal fluently with subject-­matter reading demands, and
they lack the skills and strategies necessary to meet comprehension expectations (Curtis,
2002; Snow, 2002; Snow & Biancarosa, 2003). Some of these same students were profi-
cient readers in early elementary school but were unable to make the fourth-­grade shift
from learning to read to reading to learn (Cutting & Scarborough, 2006).
Reading comprehension results from proficiency in key text-based reading skills,
the acquisition of a wide-­ranging knowledge base, and proficiency in the strategic use of
comprehension strategies. These attributes allow the learner to create and apply knowl-
edge to novel learning situations. Thus, while decoding is essential for proficient read-
ing at the secondary level, it is not sufficient (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001;
Kamil, 2003; Pressley, 2002; Snow, 2002; Snow & Biancarosa, 2003). What is required
is fluent decoding and linguistic knowledge (vocabulary and general knowledge of the
world) for readers to effectively deploy reading strategies that allow them to bring mean-
ing to text (Gersten et al., 2001; Hoover & Gough, 1990; Kamil, 2003; Pressley, 2000;
Snow, 2002).

Reading Comprehension Defined

We define reading comprehension as a process in which the reader constructs meaning
from text-based information and information the reader has previously acquired through
formal learning or life experiences. During this process, the reader creates a mental repre-
sentation of the meaning of the text by using features of the text and his or her knowledge
of the world. When the reader integrates text-based knowledge with prior knowledge,
deep comprehension occurs (Duke & Carlisle, 2011; Kintsch, 1998; Snow, 2002). Thus,
rather than being limited to knowledge of textual information, reading comprehension
becomes the complex interaction of text, reader, and contextual factors (Duke & Carl-
isle, 2011; Duke, Pearson, Strachan, & Brillman, 2011; Snow, 2002).
While reading comprehension can be conceptualized as a “knowledge creation” pro-
cess, the nature of literacy requires that adolescent readers must be able to decode, read
with fluency, understand vocabulary, build background knowledge, and be critical com-
prehenders of difficult and diverse text and text structures (Snow, 2002). Additionally,
they must be motivated to put forth time and energy to improve their reading proficiency
(Curtis, 2002; Guthrie, Wigfield, & Perencevich, 2004; Kamil, 2003; National Reading
Panel, 2000; Snow, 2002). Thus, essential word-level skills proficiency and the social–­
emotional characteristics of the reader support purposeful and skilled comprehension. In
summary, word-level skills, motivation and effort, and deep comprehension competen-
cies are required for reading comprehension; none of these is sufficient in isolation.

What We Know about Effective Reading Instruction

While limited in number, evidenced-­based practices shown to significantly improve read-
ing comprehension outcomes for middle and high school students do exist (see http://
nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2013456). In this chapter, we review only
those practices and programs shown to be effective using the standards established by
the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) and found to be effective in improving reading
comprehension or reading achievement of middle and high school students. This is not to
say that other interventions and programs are not effective, only that they have not yet
178 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

been tested in rigorous studies. The full WWC Intervention Reports, including details of
the studies supporting each program, are available under the heading Adolescent Literacy
at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/topic.aspx?sid=8.

Apprenticeship in Reading
Apprenticeship in Reading is a framework for reading instruction delivered within a
ninth-grade course called Academic Literacy (Greenleaf, Schoenbach, Cziko, & Mueller,
2001). In contrast to typical skills-­based remedial reading courses, students engage in
ongoing collaborative discussion of text-based information, have scheduled time for inde-
pendent reading, and are able to access a variety of engaging materials directly related
to content class curricula. Subject-­area teachers deliver the interventions in their classes.

SpellRead
SpellRead is a small-group program for struggling readers in grades 2–12. The program
incorporates explicit instruction and skill mastery. Students practice skills and apply
them to reading-­level materials. The program takes 5–9 months to complete and is taught
in small groups of about five students in 60- to 90-minute classes. Professional develop-
ment and ongoing support are included in the program and include 5 days of initial
professional development, two follow-­up sessions, and regular onsite coaching support.
Teachers monitor student performance through a Web-based instructor support system.

Read 180
Read 180 is a comprehensive reading intervention for struggling readers in grades 4–12
(Scholastic, Inc., 2005). The program comprises four major components: (1) whole-class
instruction (with the teacher modeling fluent reading and the application of various read-
ing strategies); (2) intensive small-group instruction; (3) computer instruction designed
for building background information, vocabulary, reading comprehension, fluency, and
word study; and (4) silent reading in engaging, leveled books supported with audio books.
The initial project design for Read 180 was based on research on students with mild dis-
abilities (Hasselbring, 1996; Hasselbring & Bottge, 2000).

Reciprocal Teaching
Reciprocal Teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) is an instructional model that empha-
sizes teaching students key cognitive reading comprehension strategies for predicting,
clarifying, summarizing, and questioning in the context of authentic text. The strategies
are taught explicitly with the use of scaffolded guided practice to engage students in con-
versations about what they are reading and learning. Discussion gradually moves from
teacher-­mediated to student-­mediated interactions. After a while, students assume the
role of teacher as they use the strategies to support comprehension. Thus, instruction is
reciprocal between teacher and students.

Reading Plus
Reading Plus (2007) is a Web-based intervention that uses technology to scaffold silent
sustained reading practice for students in grades 3 and higher. The program provides
Comprehension Instruction for At‑Risk Students 179

instructional activities in fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. It is adaptive and

responds to individual student needs. The program includes multiple-­level reading les-
sons, assessments, and ongoing implementation support.

SuccessMaker
SuccessMaker (Pearson Education, 2013) includes a set of computer-­based courses that
supplement core class reading instruction in grades K–8. SuccessMaker adapts lessons
based on individual student performance and focuses on phonological awareness, pho-
nics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and print concepts. Two main program com-
ponents focus on Foundations (word-level skills) and Exploreware (analytical skills).

Project CRISS®
Project CRISS (CReating Independence through Student-­Owned Strategies), a profes-
sional development program for teachers of students in grades 3–12, uses existing cur-
ricular materials to teach reading, writing, and learning in whole-class settings. Given
that some middle schools include students in grades 5 and 6, we believe this program to
be appropriate for the chapter. Moreover, the WWC found Project CRISS to have poten-
tially positive effects on reading comprehension for general education students in grades
4–6 (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). The main thrust of the program is to support
teachers as they change instructional practices, not necessarily curricula. Teachers learn
how to teach their students comprehension-­monitoring strategies; how to integrate new
knowledge with prior knowledge; and strategies for active engagement in learning activi-
ties by discussion, organization, and analysis of text structure. Teachers also learn how
to support students’ application of these skills and strategies as they learn content. Some
of the reading strategies described in Project CRISS seem responsive to close reading.

Cooperative Integrated Reading and Comprehension

Cooperative Integrated Reading and Comprehension (CIRC ®) is a reading and writing
program for students in grades 2–6 (Stevens & Slavin, 1995). The key components of the
program include story-­related activities, direct instruction for reading comprehension,
and integrated language arts/writing instruction. Within the general education class-
rooms, students work in cooperative pairs or small groups reading to each other, using
strategies for prediction and summarization, writing responses to questions, and practic-
ing spelling, decoding, and vocabulary skills. Students work in cooperative teams of four
to understand main ideas and write summaries of the stories they have read. The CIRC is
part of the Success for All school reform model and focuses on reading and writing skills.
A Spanish version of the program is also available. Currently, CIRC has evolved into
two reading programs: Reading Roots (beginning readers) and Reading Wings (upper
elementary grades).

Talent Development Middle Grades Program

The Talent Development Middle Grades Program is a comprehensive school reform
model designed to improve learning outcomes for students in urban middle schools (Her-
lihy & Kemple, 2004). Key features of the model include small learning communities,
the use of an evidenced-­based curriculum aligned with standards, teacher teams, and
180 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

school–­family–­community connections. A key component of the model is a reading pro-

gram called Student Team Reading, which is a reading and language arts curriculum for
middle school students that utilizes cooperative learning; high-­interest reading material;
and explicit instruction to teach reading comprehension strategies, fluency in reading,
and writing. The instructional model involves teacher explanation, team and indepen-
dent practice, and peer and individual assessments.

Fast ForWord
Fast ForWord is a computer-­based reading program for all students in grades K–12,
including those who struggle with reading. The program is designed to be used 30–100
minutes a day, 5 days a week for up to 16 weeks. The program has two main components:
Fast ForWord Language and Literacy and Fast ForWord to Reading. The program is
designed to be responsive to individual student learning styles and capacity, and is adap-
tive to student responses. The programs include instruction in sound–­letter associations,
phonological awareness, word recognition, language conventions, vocabulary, and com-
prehension.

Student Team Reading and Writing

Student Team Reading and Writing is a cooperative learning program for secondary stu-
dents. There are two main components in the program: (1) Student Team Reading and
Writing and (2) Student Team Reading. The Student Team Reading and Writing program
(Stevens, 2003) is an integrated approach to reading and language arts for early adoles-
cents. The program includes (1) cooperative learning; (2) a high-­interest literature anthol-
ogy; (3) explicit comprehension instruction; (4) integrated reading, writing, and language
arts instruction; and (5) a writing process approach. Students work in heterogeneous
learning groups, and activities are designed to follow a regular cycle that involves teacher
presentation, team practice, independent practice, peer preassessment, and individual
assessments that form the basis for team scores.

New Research in Reading Comprehension for At‑Risk Students

Theoretical Underpinnings of Comprehension
Established research and practice are best understood in the context of reading theory,
because theory, in large measure, determines what comprehension is and how it is opera-
tionalized and measured (Cutting & Scarborough, 2006). The Simple View of Reading
proposes that reading comprehension is a product of word recognition and linguistic
comprehension (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990). This view recog-
nizes the complexities of reading and divides them into two parts: word recognition and
comprehension. The word recognition component is responsible for translating print into
language, and the comprehension component makes sense of this linguistic information.
While multiple theories about reading exist, the Simple View of Reading has garnered
interest and support through multiple studies (Catts, Adlof, & Ellis-­Weismer, 2006; Cut-
ting & Scarborough, 2006; Leach, Scarborough, & Rescorla, 2003; Vellutino, Tunmer,
James, & Chen, 2007).
While the Simple View of Reading provides us with a framework for thinking about
critical components of reading, it may not go deep enough in terms of explaining the
Comprehension Instruction for At‑Risk Students 181

nature of reading comprehension described earlier in this chapter. Foundational reading

skills and linguistic comprehension components do not fully explain the complex process
of comprehension. As a result, we feel that the limited view of comprehension described
in the Simple View of Reading can be extended by a theory of comprehension explained
by W. Kintsch (1998).
Walter Kintsch’s (1998) theory of reading, while complementing the language com-
prehension component of the Simple View, takes reading to a deeper level. In essence,
Kintsch expands the domain of language comprehension to include deep processing of
textual information and prior knowledge, and adds depth to the Simple View of Reading
framework by defining the importance and focus of reading comprehension strategies.
Kintsch suggests that these cognitive and metacognitive strategies can and must be taught
to struggling readers, especially when they encounter unfriendly texts, to help them com-
pensate for lack of prior knowledge. In what he calls Construction Integration, Kintsch
emphasizes the bottom-­up construction of incomplete propositions followed by an activa-
tion process that moves toward coherent understanding. Thus, a balance between basic
reading skill and language comprehension strategy knowledge supports learning in gen-
eral.
W. Kintsch’s model draws a clear distinction between reading for understanding
and learning from text. Reading for understanding allows the reader to answer typical
comprehension questions, such as those found at the end of reading selections. At this
level of understanding, we are able to determine whether the reader remembers and can
retell what he or she just read. While helpful, retelling is limited to memory for text. In
contrast, learning from text requires the reader to draw upon information from the text
and use prior knowledge to make inferences (highlighting the critical role of prior knowl-
edge in comprehension). This, in turn, allows the reader to use the information in new
and novel situations. Learning of this type is much deeper, and is referred to as situational
learning (W. Kintsch, 1998; Kintsch, E., 2005).

Balanced Instructional Needs of Adolescent Struggling Readers

Given the theoretical underpinnings of comprehension described earlier, reading instruc-
tion for adolescents should encompass a comprehensive approach. That is, all compo-
nents of reading that are related to the two critical strands identified in the Simple View
of Reading need to be considered as interventions are designed and as struggling readers’
needs are addressed. This point is highlighted in recent descriptive research on struggling
adolescent readers (Catts et al., 2006; Cutting & Scarborough, 2006; Hock et al., 2009;
Leach et al., 2003; Vellutino et al., 2007). This research has shown the need for bal-
anced instruction that includes attention to word-level skills, language comprehension,
acquisition of key reading comprehension strategies, and student motivation for reading.
Descriptive studies help to inform researchers and practitioners about the reading profiles
of struggling adolescent readers. These studies highlight the comprehensive nature of
comprehension instruction and have the potential to inform instruction.

What Are the Reading Skills of Adolescent Struggling Readers?

In a descriptive study to determine the reading component skills profile of struggling
adolescent readers in urban high schools, 345 adolescents were administered a battery of
reading measures (Hock et al., 2009). The average age of students in this study was 14.9
years. Fifty-five percent were males and 45% were females. The race and ethnicity profile
182 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

of the sample was 52% African American, 15% Hispanic, and 29% European American,
with 4% reporting in other categories. Fifty-one percent of the students received free/
reduced-­cost lunch, and 47% of the students paid for lunch. Struggling readers were
defined as those who scored at or below the 40th percentile (standard score of 96) on the
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery—­Revised (WLPB-R). Using this criterion, the
sample included 195 “struggling” readers and 150 “proficient” readers.
Instruments were selected and grouped within a reading components framework
identified in the literature as essential to the reading success of younger and adolescent
readers (Curtis, 2002; National Reading Panel, 2000; National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development [NICHD], 2000). The measures comprised a battery of lan-
guage and literacy tasks and selected student characteristics. Multiple measures of each
construct were included so that the relations among latent abilities could be examined
independent of task-­specific factors or measurement error (Kline, 2005). Component
skills differences between proficient and struggling readers were identified and found to
be significant. Data also indicated that the majority (63%) of struggling readers scored
poorly on all reading components measures. These results contradict some of the infor-
mation that has been commonly used to describe struggling adolescent learners. For
example, Buly and Valencia (2003) concluded that poor student performance on the state
reading assessment was due primarily to issues related to reading fluency and comprehen-
sion. Furthermore, they stated that word-level problems contributed minimally to poor
reading performance, and only about 9% of the students in the sample were poor readers
in terms of word recognition, fluency, and meaning. Thus, most struggling readers in
the study needed instruction primarily in comprehension and fluency; very few needed
instruction in all three areas.
The Hock et al. (2009) study provides a comprehensive set of descriptive data that
previously have not been available. In all component domains of reading (alphabetics,
fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension), struggling readers were found to score statisti-
cally lower than their proficient reader counterparts. Specifically, less able readers were
approximately one standard deviation below the mean in each reading domain and 20 to
25 or more standard score points lower than the good readers in some areas. While the
domains of greatest deficit were fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, many strug-
gling readers demonstrated significant deficits at the word level as well (i.e., word attack,
decoding, and word recognition). These data have many implications for assessment,
instruction, and policy.
Additional descriptive analyses for students who scored at or below the standard
score of 96 on at least one of the components were conducted. Examination of the resul-
tant group of 193 struggling readers with low scores on at least one reading domain
showed that 121 (63%) of them were low on every domain. Another 25 students were
low on every skill except alphabetics. The two reading domains with the largest number
of persons below the mean standard score of 96 were comprehension (91%) and fluency
(89%). Thus, more than half of the struggling reader sample was deficient in word-level
and comprehension skills.
In a latent class analysis of the dataset described earlier, researchers found that there
were five statistically different subgroups of struggling adolescent readers, which indi-
cates that struggling readers are not a homogenous group (Brasseur-­Hock, Hock, Kieffer,
Biancarosa, & Deshler, 2011). The subgroups were defined as readers with severe global
weaknesses, readers with moderate global weaknesses, dysfluent readers, weak language
comprehenders, and weak reading comprehenders. The profiles of these five subgroups
demonstrate considerable diversity and are distinguished by their specific strengths and
Comprehension Instruction for At‑Risk Students 183

weaknesses. Two of the subroups were similar with respect to component reading scores
that were relative though dissimilar with respect to severity of the deficits: those with
what were termed severe global weaknesses and those with moderate global weaknesses.
These two groups scored from one to two standard deviations below the mean on almost
all reading measures. Dysfluent readers showed weaknesses only on the measure of flu-
ency. Weak language comprehenders were distinguished by average to above-­average
performance on all component skills except listening comprehension, which was a half
a standard deviation below norms. This weakness in language comprehension distin-
guishes the group from the final group called the weak reading comprehenders that dem-
onstrated strengths, performing at or above average on all components skills, but were
still poor comprehenders. Weak reading comprehenders may lack skills that were not
assessed or have potential difficulties with strategic processing of extended text. They
may also lack experience with particular genres of texts or have limited background
knowledge necessary for comprehension.
Given the significant reading needs of adolescent struggling readers and the diversity
of subgroups of poor comprehenders, increasing student reading proficiency to the level
required by more rigorous standards will be a significant challenge.

A Comprehensive Response to Adolescent Struggling Readers: Fusion Reading

In response to the challenges faced by many adolescent struggling readers and in line with
current reading theory and research data described earlier, researchers at the University
of Kansas Center for Research on Learning (KUCRL) have developed and tested the
effects of a 2-year course for struggling readers who enter middle or high school reading
2 years or more below grade level. The course is called Fusion Reading (Hock, Brasseur,
& Deshler, 2012). Fusion Reading is described by the authors as the merging or blend-
ing of multiple reading skills and components into a comprehensive and aligned program
(Hock et al., 2012). This simple definition exemplifies the instructional and curricular
development of the Fusion Reading Program, which is designed to focus on the integra-
tion and application of multiple reading and motivational strategies necessary to improve
the reading comprehension of struggling adolescent readers. Most importantly, the pro-
gram has multiple structured lessons in which students generalize and apply the reading
strategies they are learning to core class reading materials with the direct support of the
teacher and peers.
Previous work with our own interventions and those of other researchers supports
specific instructional principles that help define the science of highly effective instruc-
tion. The principles include (1) direct or explicit instruction, (2) student engagement, (3)
transactional strategy instruction (metacognition), (4) elaborated feedback, (5) multiple
controlled and independent practice opportunities, (6) teacher modeling, (7) scaffolded
support, and (8) the use of small, interactive learning groups (Dole, Duffy, Roehler, &
Pearson, 1991; Ellis, Deshler, Lenz, Schumaker, & Clark, 1991; Gersten et al., 2001;
Kline, Schumaker, & Deshler, 1991; National Reading Panel, 2000; Schumaker &
Deshler, 1992; Snow, 2002; Swanson & Hoskyn, 1998; Torgesen, 2002).
Fusion Reading consists of newly developed reading interventions and has been
designed for teaching classes of 12 to 15 students. The course uses highly engaging
literature that disengaged teens find motivating. Through this literature, students are
taught a set of key reading strategies that have been organized or bundled into three
main components: (1) the Motivation Component, (2) the Bridging Component, and (3)
184 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

the Comprehension Component. The Motivation Component, Possible Selves for Read-
ers, is used to focus students’ attention on the importance of becoming an expert reader
and how the benefits of being an expert reader help them reach their hopes and dreams.
For example, during instruction in Possible Selves for Readers, students participate in a
structured interview in which they describe themselves as persons, as learners, and in a
desired career area. They also identify their hopes, expectations, and fears for the future
in each of these areas. Then they draw a “Possible Selves Tree” that visually depicts all
their hopes, expectations, and fears. A careful examination of the “tree” and the desire
to keep the tree strong and healthy brings to the surface the student’s specific goals for
maintaining and nurturing the tree and, in a sense, him or herself. From this examination
of what is possible for each individual, an action plan is developed that clearly shows the
link between reading and the attainment of the desired goals identified by the student.
Reading is now seen as something that supports the hopes and expectations of the stu-
dent and not an abstract, required course with seemingly little relevance to the student’s
personal goals. In short, the Possible Selves program serves as the “pillar” on which all
other instruction is supported, and it is designed to nurture student motivation for posi-
tive academic performance in general, and motivation for reading specifically, all while
being taught within the context of engaging literature.
The Bridging Intervention Component consists of four core elements: (1) decoding/
phonics skills, (2) word identification, (3) reading fluency, and (4) vocabulary. Bridging
is designed to address the needs of students who struggle with word-level reading skills.
When students apply the Bridging Strategy, they use multiple skills and strategies to help
them quickly and accurately recognize words in connected text. For example, if a stu-
dent encountered the word peripheral while reading a passage and did not recognize the
word, she would use the “PART” strategy. First she would Pronounce any letter sounds
within the word. In this case the student might recognize per and her. Those letter sounds
would be underlined, and the student would attempt to say each combination of letters
and blend them into a word. In this case, the groups of letters do not lend themselves to
word recognition, and the student would continue to attack the word using the next step
of the strategy, Analyze for beginnings and endings. In the case of peripheral, the student
would separate per and er and al (a compound suffix). Again, the student would say each
word part and blend them together. If the word was still unrecognizable, the student
would proceed to the next step of the strategy, Review the remaining letters to FIND the
syllable(s).
The remaining letters include iph. Students locate the vowel i and place a dot under
the i. Next, students look for consonants that might be after the vowel such as the ph
consonant blend. Next, the students look for the type of syllable represented by a vowel
followed by a consonant, and in this case the syllable is closed, so the vowel makes a
short i sound. Students say each part of the word per iph er al, then blend the parts to say
peripheral. If the student recognizes the word, then he or she rereads the word in context
to check the meaning. If the student still does not recognize the word then they use the
last step of PART, Try another resource. Students would ask another person, use a dic-
tionary, or use the computer to figure out how to say the word and what the word means.
As students work their way through the PART steps, they may find that they recognize a
word just using the first step of PART, or after using the first two steps. In other words,
students are taught to work their way through the PART steps as needed to identify the
unknown word. Throughout the process of applying the PART steps, students are guided
to think about what the word means by rereading the word in context and using their
knowledge of word beginning and ending meanings.
Comprehension Instruction for At‑Risk Students 185

Finally, the Comprehension Reading Component consists of two key strategies that
include multiple substrategies that support close reading and comprehension. For exam-
ple, the Summarization Strategy includes strategies for finding clues in reading material,
linking the material to prior knowledge, reading short chunks of information, finding
main ideas, paraphrasing, and summarizing sections of text material. The Prediction
Strategy, which is designed for making and confirming predictions, involves the follow-
ing steps (CLUE): Check for clues that give the reader an idea what the selection is about,
Link that information to what you already know about the topic, Uncover your predic-
tions about the information in the selection, and Evaluate your predictions.
Two additional overall program components, Thinking Reading and Book Study,
were developed to increase the amount of time students engage in the reading process.
First, Thinking Reading is an instructional process that teachers use to demonstrate
expert reading behaviors, to forecast strategy application, and to provide opportunities
for students to practice strategy application in the context of authentic reading mate-
rial. Highly engaging reading materials are used during Thinking Reading. For example,
when students are engaged in Possible Selves activities during Thinking Reading, they
might read a novel and discuss the main character’s hopes, expectations, and fears. In
addition, they might describe the main character as a person and learner. In this fashion,
students are given examples of what hopes, expectations, and fears are in the context of
what they are reading.
Second, a Book Study component designed for extension and application of learned
strategies is completed outside the classroom. Students select books of their choice and
liking to complete the Book Study assignments that are directly related to the strategies
and vocabulary being taught. Book Study assignments present opportunities for wide-­
ranging reading experiences that support student practice of skills and strategies, and the
development of vocabulary. During Book Study, students read books of their choosing
within a structure that requires that they read both challenging and easier materials.
Once students select a book, they read and apply reading strategvies independently. For
example, a student might read a rather challenging book that has several unfamiliar
multisyllabic words. The student would apply the word recognition strategy PART to
unfamiliar words. In his or her Book Study portfolio, the student would show evidence
that the word was “attacked” using the PART strategy. The portfolio is then scored using
the Book Study rubric. Thus, students read books independently and apply the strategies
they learned in the reading class.
A key element used with each component of the Fusion Reading Program is a struc-
tured procedural format designed to teach each of the reading strategies to classes of 12
to 15 students. Throughout each lesson in the course, the teacher engages students in a
teacher-­led reading activity for a part of each class period, wherein the class reads aloud
a series of engaging novels and short stories. During this activity, the teacher models
expert reader behaviors for approximately 15–20 minutes (e.g., asks questions, makes
inferences, talks about the images in his or her mind) and prompts the students to use
steps of the strategies (e.g., asks the students what they are wondering to prompt them
to ask questions). This Thinking Reading practice is scaffolded across time so that stu-
dents become more and more independent in using the strategy being taught. That is,
initially, the teacher takes the lead in reading the text and modeling expert reader behav-
iors. Later, and after students have become comfortable and learned some reading strate-
gies, students begin to read more during Thinking Reading and actually ask questions
and guide discussion much as the teacher did. Meanwhile, during the remainder of each
class hour (for approximately 20 to 25 minutes), and in addition to Thinking Reading,
186 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

explicit instruction of strategies and vocabulary takes place. Each strategy is described
and modeled, and the teacher ensures that the students can name the steps of the strat-
egy by engaging them in small-group, rapid-fire verbal practice of naming the steps. For
instance, the teacher displays the steps of the strategy and discusses each step. During
this discussion, the teacher models how to apply each step of the strategy and enlists
students to participate. Once the strategy has been described and modeled, the teacher
guides students through a variety of activities such as the Cooperative Learning Activity,
Numbered Heads Together, or “the Jeopardy Game” to help students memorize the steps
of the strategy, as well as expand on their understanding of how to apply each step. Then,
students engage in a variety of carefully scaffolded practice activities. For example, stu-
dents first work with a partner, using a list of words to apply the Bridging Strategy, then
move to working with their partner using 200–400 word passages, and eventually apply
the strategy on a book or novel selected by the partner. In each configuration, teachers
meet with individual students for the purpose of providing individual, detailed feedback.
While students are working with their partners, the teacher circulates around the room
and in a sense takes on the role of a coach. During this coaching time, the teacher pro-
vides positive feedback along with some reteaching or modeling to ensure that students
are practicing the strategy in the proper fashion.
As students practice using a strategy, they begin with narrative and informational
passages written at their instructional reading level. As they progress and become more
and more skillful in using the strategy and in understanding the passages they are read-
ing, students advance to a series of new reading ability levels. The final phase of instruc-
tion, Strategy Integration, is potentially the most important unit within the Fusion Read-
ing Program, in that under the direction of the teacher, students apply the strategies they
have learned to a variety of core class materials. This process situates reading instruction
within the context of actual core class materials in a controlled environment that sup-
ports student success. Student application of the strategies is monitored by using the inte-
gration checklist. The teacher and/or peer-­partner use this checklist as the student reads
the material chosen for the day.
In essence, Fusion Reading is a structured course that allows for individualized
instruction in targeted strategies, as well as large-group activities. Depending on stu-
dents’ needs, instruction involves teacher-­led, whole-group discussions and guided prac-
tice activities, as well as lessons in which students work independently or in partner pairs.
Classroom activities might include the following: (1) The teacher meets vwith one student
to measure his or her progress, while a pair of students practice a targeted reading strat-
egy aloud; (2) students work individually, practicing the strategies they have learned; (3)
pairs of students engage in fluency practice activities; (4) students design aids and study
cards for vocabulary words, and test each other over the words; and (5) students practice
integrating several strategies simultaneously, adapting a strategy, or applying a strategy
to subject-­area assignments.
All initial instruction involves high-­interest reading materials that have been cho-
sen to ensure that students reengage and address their academic needs. As students
engage and learn reading strategies, they begin to read core class materials and apply the
strategies to those materials. Progress measures are gathered as part of instruction for
each strategy during the various practice activities. The progress measures are embed-
ded within the curriculum. Some are administered by student partners during partner
practice, and others are administered by the teacher during independent practice. The
measures inform the learner and teacher as to the level of student understanding of the
strategy, mastery of skills being taught, and comprehension of reading material, and are
Comprehension Instruction for At‑Risk Students 187

used to provide immediate, individualized, and corrective feedback. These data allow
the teacher to determine when a student has mastered a strategy. Scores for each practice
session are plotted on a progress chart graph. Then, each student meets with the teacher
to discuss the student’s progress and goals for future practice attempts. These meetings
occur during partner practice sessions and while other students are involved in partner
practice activities. The teacher circulates and periodically joins each partner practice
session and takes the lead in providing feedback to the student reader and the partner
“coach.” Thus, feedback on reading performance is provided to the reader, and feedback
on how to provide good feedback is given to the student coach.

Foundational Empirical Support for Fusion Reading

During the past 35 years, a growing body of knowledge has emerged from the KUCRL
concerning the design and delivery of effective interventions for adolescents (Deshler &
Lenz, 1989; Deshler & Schumaker, 1986; Fisher, Schumaker, & Deshler, 2002; Peterson,
Caverly, Nicholson, O’Neal, & Cusenbary, 2000; Pressley, Graham, & Harris, 2006;
Pressley & Hilden, 2006; Schumaker & Deshler, 1992; Swanson & Deshler, 2003; Swan-
son & Hoskyn, 1998). Two major questions have guided this line of work:

1. Can struggling adolescent readers be taught to use complex learning strategies?

2. Does their use of the strategies result in improved performance on academic
tasks?

In general, this research has indicated that adolescents dramatically improve their
use of a particular strategy when the explicit instructional methodology found in Fusion
Reading is implemented. In the studies focusing on reading strategies (e.g., Clark, Deshler,
Schumaker, Alley, & Warner, 1984; Lenz & Hughes, 1990; Schumaker & Deshler, 2006;
Schumaker, Deshler, Alley, Warner, & Denton, 1982), generalization occurred across
materials written at varying reading levels in middle school and high school settings.
Several studies indicated that student performance on reading comprehension tasks also
improved when they used the strategies (Bulgren, Hock, Schumaker, & Deshler, 1995).

Studies on Fusion Reading

Data from an experimental study involved 72 students who were randomly assigned to
treatments (Hock et al., 2012). Students in the experimental condition were taught the
Fusion Reading Program, as described previously. Students in the control condition were
taught reading skills through a reading program called Second Chance Reading (Show-
ers, Joyce, Scanlon, & Schnaubelt, 1998). The Second Chance program mainly differed
from Fusion Reading in that instruction in the latter is more explicit than that in Second
Chance; strategies in Fusion Reading are more extensively described, modeled, and prac-
ticed. After instruction in Fusion Reading, students in the experimental condition (N =
37) made statistically significant gains on the Group Reading and Diagnostic Evaluation
(GRADE) test battery, a standardized measure of reading proficiency (Williams, 2001).
On the GRADE Passage Comprehension subtest, the calculated effect size (ES) was large
(Cohen’s d = 0.73).
In another study, a quasi-­experimental comparison design was conducted using
Fusion Reading and another district research-­based reading program. Participants were
middle school students with Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs) and reading goals.
188 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

Special education teachers taught the reading programs to 40 sixth-grade students from
three middle schools. Students in the experimental group (n = 20) received Fusion Read-
ing; students in the comparison group (n = 20) received Corrective Reading. The stan-
dardized reading measure was the GRADE measure (Williams, 2001). At the end of the
year, the difference in GRADE Total Test reading score was statistically significant. An
independent-­samples t-test was conducted to compare the difference in Total Test scores.
The results indicated that the posttest mean score for the experimental group (M = 33.60,
SD = 10.29) was significantly greater than the posttest mean score for the compari-
son group (M = 21.70, SD = 7.31; t(38) = 4.216, p < .001). The standardized ES index,
Cohen’s d, was very large, at 1.35.
The most recent study with Fusion Reading was conducted in a large, north cen-
tral metropolitan area and included students with IEPs and reading goals in urban and
suburban schools. Eight schools participated in the study, with 18 teachers serving stu-
dents. In this quasi-­experimental comparison group design, 40 students were selected to
receive the Fusion Reading Program, and 60 were selected as a comparison condition.
The comparison group received an elective course. In a univariate analysis of variance,
significance was (F(2,116) = 3.71, p = .017). The effect size was moderate to strong (np2 =
.057). Together, these early findings show the potential of Fusion Reading to close the
achievement gap for students with disabilities and reading goals in significant ways.

How This New Knowledge Can Inform Reading Comprehension Instruction

The search for solutions to improve outcomes for struggling adolescent readers has gen-
erally focused on the design and validation of instructional practices that produce large
ESs. While this target is both foundational and necessary for student growth, it is by no
means sufficient. That is, a host of other considerations must be taken into account to
help ensure that evidence-­based instructional practices are enthusiastically embraced and
used over a sustained period of time.
Faggella-­Luby and Deshler (2008) have articulated six questions that curriculum
designers and intervention researchers should ask to determine the degree to which their
interventions would be found acceptable to practitioners. Tending to the issues embodied
in these questions will determine, to a large degree, whether any sets of new instructional
practices (designed to improve reading comprehension) are ultimately embraced and suc-
cessfully implemented as commonplace, daily features in classrooms across the world.
These questions are as follows:

• To what degree is the intervention considered reasonable, appropriate, and unob-

trusive to teachers? (general acceptability)
• To what degree do teachers have the necessary background knowledge and skills
needed to use the intervention? (understanding)
• To what degree do teachers believe it is practical or reasonable to use the interven-
tion? (feasibility)
• To what degree do teachers believe that the intervention can be implemented as
prescribed? (integrity)
• To what degree do teachers feel positively about implementing the intervention?
(personal enthusiasm)
• To what degree are the necessary instructional conditions and supports in place
(administrative, school culture, etc.) to enhance the chances of teachers being suc-
cessful in implementation? (support systems)
Comprehension Instruction for At‑Risk Students 189

Summary

While progress on behalf of struggling adolescent readers has been made in terms of
effective reading intervention, much remains to be learned. Of particular importance
is learning how better to translate research findings relative to effective instructional
practices into broad-scale adoption in a host of school settings. Of equal importance is
personalizing instruction for struggling adolescent readers using technology that informs
instruction through assessment and supports multiple forms and levels of materials.
Reading instruction that supports student application of reading skills and strategies to
rigorous standards and core class content remains the ultimate goal. However, central to
any solution is Elmore’s (2004) contention that until both administrators and teachers
focus in an unrelenting fashion on things that are core to the instructional process, stu-
dent outcomes will not improve markedly.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. List each of the programs cited in this chapter. Create a 2 × 2 table. List in one column the benefits of
using each program. In the second column, rank-order which program you would recommend first to
your school or school district and the reason why.
2. This chapter described six questions that curriculum designers and intervention researchers should ask
to determine the degree to which their intervention would be found acceptable to practitioners. Reread
these six questions. What do they help you understand about the level of innovation that is present in
your school or school district? Specifically, based on these questions, do you judge your environment
to be one that is innovative enough to provide the type of comprehension instruction that at-risk
students need?
3. How would you suggest that we measure the effects of any type of intervention that is designed to
close the comprehension achievement gap? Share your results with colleagues.

References

Brasseur-­Hock, I. F., Hock, M. F., Kieffer, M., Biancarosa, G., & Deshler, D. D. (2011). Ado-
lescent struggling readers in urban schools: Results of a latent class analysis. Learning and
Individual Differences, 21, 438–452.
Bulgren, J. A., Hock, M. F., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1995). The effects of instruction
in a Paired Associates Strategy on the information mastery performance of students with
learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10(1), 22–37.
Buly, M. R., & Valencia, S. (2003). Meeting the needs of failing readers: Cautions and consider-
ations for state policy. Retrieved from https://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/pdfs/reading-­
mrbsv-04-2003.pdf.
Catts, H., Adlof, S., & Ellis-­Weismer, S. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A
case for the Simple View of Reading. Journal of Speech–­L anguage–­Hearing Research, 49,
278–293.
Clark, F. L., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Alley, G. R., & Warner, M. M. (1984). Visual imag-
ery and self-­questioning: Strategies to improve comprehension of written material. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 17(3), 145–149.
Curtis, M. B. (2002). Adolescent reading: A synthesis of research. Boston: Lesley College, The
Center for Special Education.
Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative con-
tributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on
how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 277–299.
190 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

Deshler, D. D., & Lenz, B. K. (1989). The strategies instructional approach. International Journal
of Disability, Development, and Education, 36(3), 203–224.
Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1986). Learning strategies: An instructional alternative for
low achieving adolescents. Exceptional Children, 52(6), 583–590.
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new:
Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2),
239–264.
Duke, N. K., & Carlisle, J., (2011). The development of comprehension. In M. L. Kamil, P. D.
Pearson, E. Birr Moje, & P. P. Afferbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4,
pp. 198–228). New York: Routledge.
Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, A. K. (2011). Essential elements of fos-
tering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What
research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 51–93). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Editorial Board. (2013, August 7). New York’s Common Core Test Scores. The New York Times.
Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/opinion/new-yorks-­common-­core-test-­
scores.html?_r=0.
Ellis, E. S., Deshler, D. D., Lenz, B. K., Schumaker, J. B., & Clark, F. L. (1991). An instruction
model for teaching learning strategies. Focus on Exceptional Children, 23(6), 1–24.
Elmore, R. (2004). School reform from the inside out. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Faggella-­Luby, M. N., & Deshler, D. D. (2008). Reading comprehension in adolescents with LD:
What we know; what we need to learn. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23(2),
70–78.
Fisher, J. B., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2002). Improving the reading comprehension
of at-risk adolescents. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction:
Research-­based best practices (pp. 351–364). New York: Guildford Press.
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), 279–230.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and
Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.
Greenleaf, C. L., Schoenbach, R., Cziko, C., & Mueller, F. L. (2001). Apprenticing adolescent
readers to academic literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 71(1), 79–129.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Scaffolding for motivation and engage-
ment in reading. In J. T. Guthrie, A. Wigfield, & K. C. Perencevich (Eds.), Motivating reading
comprehension: Concept-­oriented reading instruction (pp. 55–86). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hasselbring, T. S. (1996). Looking at technology in context: A framework for understanding tech-
nology and education research. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), The handbook of
educational psychology (pp. 807–840). New York: Simon & Schuster/Macmillan.
Hasselbring, T. S., & Bottge, B. A. (2000). Planning and implementing a technology program in
inclusive settings. In J. Lindsley (Ed.), Technology in special education (pp. 91–113). Austin,
TX: PRO-ED.
Herlihy, C. M., & Kemple, J. J. (2004). The talent development middle school model: Context,
components, and initial impacts on ninth-grade students’ engagement and performance.
Retrieved from www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_585.pdf.
Hock, M. F., Brasseur, I. F., Deshler, D. D., Catts, H. W., Marques, J., Mark, C. A., et al. (2009).
What is the reading component skill profile of adolescent struggling readers in urban schools?
Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(1), 21–38.
Hock, M. F., Brasseur-­Hock, I. F., & Deshler, D. D. (2012). The Fusion Reading Program. Colum-
bus, OH: McGraw-Hill Education.
Hock, M. F., & Deshler, D. D. (2003). Adolescent literacy: Ensuring that no child is left behind.
Principal Leadership, 13(4), 55–61.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.
Comprehension Instruction for At‑Risk Students 191

Kamil, M. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. Washington, DC:
Alliance for Excellent Education.
Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension theory as a guide for the design of thoughtful questions. Top-
ics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 51–64.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Kline, F. M., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1991). Development and validation of feedback
routines for instructing students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,
14(3), 191–207.
Kline, T. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Leach, J. M., Scarborough, H. S., & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-­emerging reading disabilities. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 211–224.
Lentz, J. (2013, November 7). New test scores show decline. The Pilot.com. Retrieved from
www.thepilot.com/news/new-test-­scores-­show-­decline/article_58837782-47f3-11e3-bdfd-
0019bb30f31a.html.
Lenz, K. B., & Hughes, C. A. (1990). A word identification strategy for adolescents with learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(3), 149–158, 163.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Reading 2010. Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2013). The nation’s report card: Reading 2012. Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000). Report of the
National Reading Panel. Washington, DC: Author.
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.
Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and
monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
Pearson Education. (2013). SuccessMaker: A digital learning curriculum. Retrieved from www.
pearsonschool.com/index.cfm.
Peterson, C. L., Caverly, D. C., Nicholson, S. A., O’Neal, S., & Cusenbary, S. (2000). Building
reading proficiency at the secondary school level: A guide to resources. Austin: Southwest
Texas State University Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL).
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. Kamil, P.
Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545–
561). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M. (2002). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York:
Guilford Press.
Pressley, M., Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2006). The state of educational intervention research as
viewed through the lens of literacy intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
76(1), 1–19.
Pressley, M., & Hilden, K. (2006). Cognitive strategies: Production deficiencies and successful
strategy instruction everywhere. In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Vol. Eds.) & W. Damon & R.
Lerner (Series Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Cognition, perception, and language
(Vol. 2, 6th ed., 511–556). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Reading Plus. (2007). Reading Plus national research project: Golden West High School overview
2005–2006. Huntington Station, NY: Taylor Associates/Communications.
Scholastic, Inc. (2005). The compendium of Read 180 research: 1999–2004. New York: Author.
Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1992). Validation of learning strategy interventions for stu-
dents with learning disabilities: Results of a programmatic research effort. In B. Y. L. Wong
(Ed.), Contemporary intervention research in learning disabilities: An international perspec-
tive (pp. 22–46). New York: Springer-­Verlag.
192 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2006). Teaching adolescents to be strategic learners. In D.

Deshler & J. B. Schumaker (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the gen-
eral education curriculum (pp. 121–156). New York: Corwin Press.
Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., Alley, G. R., Warner, M. M., & Denton, P. H. (1982). MultiPass:
A learning strategy for improving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5,
295–304.
Showers, B., Joyce, B., Scanlon, M., & Schnaubelt, C. (1998) A second chance to learn to read.
Educational Leadership, 55(6), 27–31.
Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehen-
sion. Santa Monica, CA: Science and Technology Policy Institute. RAND Education.
Snow, C. E., & Biancarosa, G. (2003). Adolescent literacy and the achievement gap: What do we
know and where do we need to go from here? (Adolescent Literacy Funders Meeting Report).
New York: Carnegie Corporation.
Stevens, R. J. (2003). Student team reading and writing: A cooperative learning approach to mid-
dle school middle school literacy instruction. Educational Research and Evaluation, 9(2),
137–160.
Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: Effects on students’
achievement, attitudes and social relations. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2),
321–351.
Swanson, H. L., & Deshler, D. D. (2003). Instructing adolescents with disabilities: Converting a
meta-­analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 124–135.
Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with learn-
ing disabilities: A meta-­analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research,
68(3), 277–321.
Tobias, S. P. (2012, September 18). Kansas student’s scores on reading assessments drop for
the first time in more than a decade. The Wichita Eagle. Retrieved from www.kansas.
com/2012/09/18/2495121/kansas-­students-­scores-­on-­a ssessments.html.
Torgesen, J. K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40,
7–26.
Ujifusa, A. (2012, November 19). Scores drop on Kentucky’s common core-­aligned tests. Edu-
cation Week. Retrieved from: www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/11/02/11standards.h32.
html.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). CReating Independence through Student- ­O wned Strat-
egies (CRISS). Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation
and Regional Assistance, What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/
wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=388.
Vellutino, F. R., Tunmer, W. E., James, J. J., & Chen, R. (2007). Components of reading ability:
Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development. SSSR Journal,
11(1), 3–32.
Williams, K. T. (2001). GRADE: Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation. Circle
Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
 Chap ter 14

Comprehension Instruction
for English Language Learners
New Perspectives, New Challenges

Robert Rueda, Norman J. Unrau, and Elena Son

We know in the 21st century that the absence of a certain developed ability because
of the absence of opportunity to learn should not be interpreted as absence of
ability to learn, and that the recognition of the fact of diverse human characteristics
demands accommodation and differentiation in pedagogical treatment.
—E dmund W. G ordon (2009, pp. ix–x).

In the last few years, significant developments in the field of education have impor-
tant implications for reading and literacy in general, and for English language learn-
ers (ELL)1 specifically. For example, charter schools and other nonpublic options have
become a growing force in education, offering more choices to students and families. At
the same time, however, access and quality may be uneven (Frankenberg, Siegel-­Hawley,
& Wang, 2010). While some charter schools do provide a quality education, there is also
some evidence that Latino and African American students do not fare as well in charter
schools as comparison groups in public schools (Center for Research on Education Out-
comes, 2010).
Another development is that the use of technology in education continues to grow,
offering the potential for new instructional options. There is at least some evidence that
their effects on reading outcomes are positive but small (Cheung & Slavin, 2012; Slavin,
Lake, Chambers, Cheung, & Davis, 2010). Interestingly, the continued increase of tech-
nology for educational, social, and recreational uses has led to the realization that new

1 Inthis chapter we use the term English language learner to describe students who are in the process
of acquiring English. There are many terms used for this heterogeneous group of students, and there is
no agreement in the literature about the most accurate or acceptable description. For expediency’s sake,
we use the term ELL here, in full recognition of its inadequacy and limitations in capturing the many
important considerations related to the education of these students.

193
194 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

forms of communication and New Literacies (Coiro, 2012; Wilber, 2012) exist, which
may involve new forms of reading and comprehension. These multiple literacies are
diverse, multidimensional, and acquired in a variety of different ways in a variety of set-
tings (McLaughlin, 2010). While disparities in access to technology have been a concern,
recent national data suggest that although school-­based differences have largely disap-
peared for students, home-based differences exist and are tied to key sociocultural vari-
ables, including parental education, family income, and race/ethnicity (Gray, Thomas, &
Lewis, 2010; Snyder & Dillow, 2012). In addition, it has also been noted that prevailing
instructional practices in low socioeconomic status (SES) schools, which often focus on
basic skills with traditional texts, may not support the skills needed to become proficient
in these new literacies (Leu & Zawilinski, 2007).
Along with these significant changes in educational practice, the movement
toward accountability for teachers and schools has continued to gain strength (Darling-­
Hammond, Amrein-­B eardsley, Haertel, & Rothstein, 2012), even as schools have con-
tinued to become more diverse along a variety of dimensions. This has been shown to
lead to practices such as reluctance to accept low-­achieving students, retaining students,
and other practices designed to artificially boost test scores (Darling-­Hammond, 2004).
There are other unintended consequences of current accountability methods as
well as policy. Saunders and Marcelletti (2013), for example, have shown that when
ELL students are reclassified as proficient based on standardized test scores, they are
no longer tracked as ELL students. This has the effect of underestimating the numbers
of ELLs, overestimating the achievement gap between ELLs and English-­only students,
and decreasing the likelihood of monitoring progress over time. Others have noted how
a focus on certain subjects that are tested leads to ignoring other subjects and narrowing
the curriculum (Chappell & Cahnmann-­Taylor, 2013).
Although all these developments will impact the academic lives of ELLs, the most
significant recent development is the implementation of Common Core State Standards
(CCSS), which focus on achievement expectations students should meet to be college- and
career-­ready before high school graduation (National Governors Association Center for
Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). The CCSS are research-
and evidence-­based, as well as internationally benchmarked. Forty-six states and the
District of Columbia have adopted the CCSS in English language arts and math, and
they are in the implementation process (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2013).
The CCSS in English language arts, in addition to being more rigorous in comparison
to prior standards (Kober & Rentner, 2012), place greater emphasis on language and
literacy across content areas, use of informational text, and argumentation (Duguay,
Massoud, Tabaku, Himmel, & Sugarman, 2013). Because ELLs are held accountable for
the same standards, including higher order thinking and 21st-­century skills, they need
support in meeting the standards, including qualified teachers who can provide scaffold-
ing for ELLs, literacy-­rich school contexts, English speaker models, and instruction that
emphasizes foundational skills in the English language (National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). With these
developments in mind, we focus in the remainder of the chapter on the following:

• Summarizing recent research developments with ELL students.

• Summarizing recent efforts to model comprehension factors and processes for
ELL students.
• Discussing and summarizing research, trends, emerging guidelines, and cautions
related to CCSS-related comprehension instruction for ELL students, including
Comprehension Instruction for English Language Learners 195

similarities and differences since the new standards began to impact instruction
and assessment.

Established Research and Practice: An Overview of the Previous Decade

Demographic and Achievement Patterns as a Backdrop
Before providing an overview of research developments, we first describe the context
forming the backdrop for this discussion. Whereas the preceding section provided a
glance at some new developments in the field of education with implications for ELL stu-
dents, two things have remained constant with respect to the focus of this chapter. First,
diversity (and poverty) within schools and classrooms has continued to increase, and sec-
ond, longstanding disparities in achievement continue. For example, public school enroll-
ment in PreK through 12th grade in U.S. public schools during the period from 2000
through the fall of 2010 increased from 7.7 to 11.4 million students, and Hispanic stu-
dents within that group increased from 16 to 23%. For ELLs, specifically, the percentage
was higher in 2010–2011 (10%, or an estimated 4.7 million students) than in 2002–2003
(9%, or an estimated 4.1 million students) (Aud et al., 2013). While this pattern is not
distributed evenly among states, it is widespread. In the Los Angeles Unified School Dis-
trict (LAUSD; 2013), for example, 73.4% of the students are Latino and approximately
25% of the entire student population consists of ELLs who speak 92 different languages.
In all but 12 states, the percentage of ELLs in public schools across the nation was higher
in 2010–2011 than in 2002–2003, with the largest percentage point increases occurring
in Kansas, South Carolina, Hawaii, and Nevada (all with four percentage points) and
the largest percentage point decreases occurring in Arizona (eight percentage points) and
New Mexico (six percentage points).
Incredibly, over 20% of students ages 5–17 live with families in poverty, rising from
17% to 21% in the short period from 1990 to 2011 (Aud et al., 2013). These rates were
higher for African American (39%) and Hispanic students (34%) than for European
American and Asian students (13% in each case). For students in this age group in a
mother-­only household, the rate was an astounding 45% of students living in poverty.
At the same time as these demographic patterns continue to unfold, achievement
patterns have remained stable. As indicated in a 2011 report on National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) test results, the achievement gap between non-ELL and
ELL students was 38 points at the 4th-grade level and 52 points at the 8th-grade level
(based on a 0- to 500-point scale). At grade 4, this achievement gap was not measurably
different from that in any assessment year since 2002. At grade 8, the achievement gap
between non-ELL and ELL students in reading scores was 3 points smaller in 2011 than
in 2009 (47 points), but not measurably different from the achievement gap in 2002
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2013).
Before trying to make sense of these patterns, and before exploring research develop-
ments, some characteristics about the population are worth noting. While the term ELL
often refers to a discrete analytical entity in educational research, in actuality it repre-
sents great within-­group diversity in not only country of origin and length of residence
in the U.S., but also levels of bilingualism and biliteracy abilities. Moreover, ELL status
is often highly correlated with other factors that contribute to reading and literacy devel-
opment, including SES, immigration status, family constellations, acculturation, prior
schooling, home literacy practices, exposure to literate adults, print access, and so forth
(Reese, Thompson, & Goldenberg, 2008; Zentella, 2005). As noted in the version of this
196 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

chapter in the previous edition (Rueda, Velasco, & Lim, 2008), all of these factors may
be correlated, and may have both independent and interactive effects on reading and lit-
eracy acquisition. These factors need to be kept in mind when considering the theory and
research on ELLs related to reading and literacy.

Summarizing Research Developments

Within the previous decade, there have been major syntheses of reading research that
have had a major influence on research, theory, and practice. The first of these was
the National Reading Panel (2000). The Panel’s report concentrated on the following
areas: alphabetics (including phonemic awareness and phonics); fluency; comprehension
(vocabulary, text comprehension, and comprehension strategies); teacher education; and
computer technology. In the specific area of comprehension, the National Reading Panel
(2000) found evidence for the effectiveness of the following strategies: comprehension
monitoring, cooperative learning, use of graphic and semantic organizers (including story
maps), question answering, question generation, story structure, and summarization.
However, the greatest impact of this report was to focus attention on the basic skills of
reading, especially phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency.
It was the subsequent RAND Reading Study Group (2002) that placed a more direct
focus on reading comprehension. The Group’s definition of reading comprehension,
which we adopt here, is

the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and
involvement with written language. Comprehension has these elements: the reader, the text,
and the activity, or purpose for reading. These elements define a phenomenon—­reading
comprehension—­that occurs within a larger sociocultural context that shapes and is shaped
by the reader and that infuses each of the elements. All are influenced by the broader context.
(p. xi)

Unfortunately, neither research synthesis included a focus on ELL populations.

However, the U.S. Department of Education charged the National Literacy Panel on
Language-­M inority Children and Youth with the task of identifying, assessing, and syn-
thesizing research on the second-­language literacy of language-­minority students ages
3–18 (August & Shanahan, 2006). The Panel considered for inclusion all studies from
1980 to 2002, when the review began. Given the numbers of ELLs in schools, however,
there were surprisingly few studies. These included 17 experimental or quasi-­experimental
studies that focused on instruction of a single, specific component of literacy. In addi-
tion, there were 11 studies that focused on multiple components simultaneously, and six
studies that focused on other aspects of literacy, such as tutoring or encouraging students
to read. While a complete synthesis of this extensive report is beyond the scope of this
chapter, key findings from the report included the conclusion that some amount of teach-
ing students in their home language is beneficial to English literacy learning (superior
to English immersion; i.e., English only). Another finding was that systematic and well-­
designed instruction of particular literacy components (e.g., decoding, spelling, writing,
comprehension, and fluency) is generally as beneficial with second-­language learners as
with native English speakers. Of special note here, however, was the finding that while
second-­language learners often match native language learners in mastery of English
word-level skills (e.g., phonological awareness, spelling, and decoding), mastery of higher
level English skills, such as comprehension, lags behind (August & Shanahan, 2006).
Comprehension Instruction for English Language Learners 197

In an earlier version of this chapter in the previous edition of this volume, Rueda et
al. (2008) noted that from 2000 to 2008, the focus in reading research and practice began
to shift from an exclusive emphasis on basic reading skills to a more balanced view that
included comprehension. In that earlier chapter, we focused on two important aspects of
this shift to a broader focus, including motivational aspects of reading and cultural issues
in reading comprehension instruction. However, research and intervention efforts have
still tended to favor the cognitive aspects of the comprehension process. For example, in a
follow-­up article related to the National Panel report, August and Shanahan (2010) noted
that since 2002, approximately 20 additional experimental and quasi-­experimental stud-
ies had been added to the available literature, including studies that targeted the com-
ponents of literacy skills, with a large number focusing on phonological awareness and
phonics. They also noted that between 2002 and 2010, there were 10 additional studies
with reading comprehension outcomes. Their conclusion, similar to the original National
Literacy Panel report (August & Shanahan, 2006), was that effective literacy instruction
works equally well with ELL students and with native English speakers, echoing the con-
clusion of other researchers (Goldenberg, 2006). However, they qualified their conclusion
by suggesting the need for adjustments to common instructional routines when appropri-
ate. Some of these adaptations included the following:

• Modify the curriculum according to the similarities between English and the
native language.
• Adjust the curriculum according to the student’s proficiency in the native lan-
guage.
• Identify and clarify difficult words and passages.
• Use summarization strategically.
• Offer extra practice time in reading.
• Emphasize vocabulary.
• Check for comprehension regularly.
• Provide clear presentation of ideas orally and in text.
• Paraphrase.
• Focus on redundancy.
• Provide physical gestures and visual cues to clarify meaning.

Most important, they also noted that too few studies on what works with ELLs regarding
comprehension have been conducted.
A review by Taboada (2009a) on reading comprehension with ELLs reflected many
of the same conclusions. However, it also highlighted the role of vocabulary in compre-
hension as a special area of focus for ELLs, including the content words that make up
a large part of what is called academic language (Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, Kieffer, &
Rivera, 2006). Teaching students to use their existing first-­language skills and knowl-
edge of cognates to foster comprehension is an especially useful approach. For Spanish-­
speaking students, this is especially true when texts are expository, nonfiction, and
content-­based. Such texts commonly contain words with the Latin-based roots that are
also shared with Spanish. For Spanish-­speaking students, such cognates are not found
as frequently in narrative texts and typical beginning English reader series, which often
have daily-use vocabulary with roots in German or Anglo-Saxon language ties (Hayes,
Rueda, & Chilton, 2009).
While a complete review of current studies is beyond the scope of the chapter, sev-
eral recent investigations reflect different emphases. Some investigations, for example,
198 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

examine correlates, predictors, and mediators of reading comprehension (Geva & Farnia,
2012; McElvain, 2010; Taboada, Bianco, & Bowerman, 2012; Taboada, Townsend, &
Boynton, 2013; Taboada & Rutherford, 2011; Vaughn et al., 2009). One of the more
promising avenues has been work on the development and refinement of models of read-
ing comprehension with a specific focus on ELLs.

New Research Developments: ELL Reading Comprehension Theoretical Models

Over the past few years, a major development in our knowledge about ELL readers has
been the articulation of second-­language reading comprehension theory and the evolu-
tion of research-­based ELL reading models based on that theory. While many models of
reading of different kinds have been created to represent the reading process (Alvermann,
Unrau, & Ruddell, 2013), until recently, few have attempted to integrate the database
generated from research on second-­language reading or the reading comprehension pro-
cesses of ELLs. In the following section, we explain the simple view of reading on which
several researchers have based their models of second language (L2) reading comprehen-
sion, summarize a network of structural equation models based on that view and derived
from ELL data, present some alternative models of ELL reading comprehension, suggest
the development and testing of more comprehensive theoretical models for ELL read-
ing comprehension, and convey instructional implications of the theoretical models we
reviewed.

Simple View of Reading and Models of L2 Reading Comprehension

Several researchers interested in L2 reading comprehension (Gottardo & Mueller, 2010;
Lesaux, Crosson, Kieffer, & Pierce, 2010; Mancilla-­Martinez & Lesaux, 2010; Naka-
moto, Lindsey, & Manis, 2008; Proctor, Carlo, August, & Snow, 2005; Yaghoub Zadeh,
Farnia, & Geva, 2012) have used the simple view of reading (SVR; Gough & Tunmer,
1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990) as a basis for their theoretical models. According to the
SVR, reading consists of two components: word reading and language comprehension.
Understanding the SVR and how its two components vary in their influence on the read-
ing comprehension of L2 learners contributes to our understanding of recent progress in
the study of L2 reading comprehension.

Using Structural Equation Models to Represent First‑ and/or Second‑Language

Reading Processes with ELLs
In the past few years, many researchers have begun asking: How can a map or model be
constructed to show variables, the pathways of their impact on other variables, and their
direct or indirect impact on reading comprehension? Recently, many researchers have
also begun using structural equation modeling (SEM) to accomplish that task. SEM is
basically a statistical method of representing and testing how observed and unobserved
variables affect each other, and the magnitude of those effects (Kline, 2011). It allows
researchers to design and test models of interacting variables and outcomes, including
latent or unobserved variables and English reading comprehension.
Guided by the SVR, and using SEM, researchers (Lesaux et al., 2010; Mancilla-­
Martinez & Lesaux, 2010; Nakamoto et al., 2008; Proctor et al., 2005; Yaghoub Zadeh
et al., 2012) have modeled the contributions of word reading and language comprehension
Comprehension Instruction for English Language Learners 199

to reading comprehension. Proctor et al. (2006) appear to have been among the first
researchers to confront the challenge of creating a model of native Spanish-­speaking chil-
dren reading in English (L2). They found that L2 oral language played a more predic-
tive role at the upper-­elementary level than decoding skills in reading comprehension.
The results suggested that if we assume a Spanish-­speaking ELL reader has adequate L2
decoding skills, L2 vocabulary knowledge for that reader is critical for improving English
reading comprehension. A short time after publication of the Proctor et al. (2005) study,
Nakamoto et al. (2008) published their SVR-based longitudinal study that was designed
to investigate the degree to which competence in Spanish (L1) transferred to English (L2).
Their study confirmed Proctor et al.’s (2005) finding that skilled decoders in English are
likely to benefit from higher Spanish oral language skills, and supported the belief that as
children become increasingly efficient at decoding, oral language skills become increas-
ingly better predictors of reading comprehension.
In a longitudinal study, Mancilla-­Martinez and Lesaux (2010) evaluated the effect
on English reading comprehension of growth rates in word reading skills and vocabulary
in English and Spanish from early childhood to age 11. As the researchers hypothesized,
students’ scores in L2 word reading and vocabulary positively predicted reading compre-
hension. The effect size of students’ word-­reading level when they were 4.5 years of age
approached 1.00, a finding that indicates students who are one standard deviation above
the average level on word reading at age 4.5 are predicted to be one standard deviation
above the average in reading comprehension at age 11. With respect to the predictive
power of within- and cross-­language effects, the findings in the Mancilla-­Martinez and
Lesaux (2010) study revealed that neither Spanish word reading nor Spanish vocabulary
contributed to English reading comprehension. However, Proctor, August, Carlo, and
Snow (2006) demonstrated that skilled English decoders derive more benefits from high
Spanish oral language abilities in the form of vocabulary than low-­ability English decod-
ers. These important findings confirmed that as children become more efficient decoders,
oral language skills become more important predictors of reading comprehension. Sub-
sequently, the results of another study (Lesaux et al., 2010) testing a SEM based on SVR
revealed that L2 oral language for language-­minority learners has a stronger impact than
word reading in L2 reading models.
In a later study, however, researchers (Yaghoub Zadeh et al., 2012) developed and
tested an SVR model, which revealed that, for their linguistically diverse sample, pho-
nological awareness at grade 1 had a strong indirect effect on reading comprehension at
grade 3 through the mediation of word-level reading at grade 2. Listening comprehen-
sion at grade 1, however, had a direct effect on reading comprehension. According to
their longitudinal study, we might suspect that weak performance of first graders on
phonological awareness and oral language comprehension could signal risk of relatively
poor performance on word reading, reading fluency, and reading comprehension in later
grades.
In examining this network of studies over nearly a decade using the SVR and SEM
to discover factors that influence reading comprehension at one point in time and longi-
tudinally, we see, sometimes with remarkable clarity, patterns of processes and emergent
problems that some ELLs manifest in reading comprehension as they progress through
school. Although findings related to crucial roles of decoding and vocabulary have been
found and reported in other research (Taboada, 2009a, 2009b), the network of SEM
studies reported here provides further evidence of their central effects. However, one
limitation of this work is that by drawing on the SVR, the scope of variables has been
narrowed. Recent efforts have sought to overcome this gap.
200 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

Beyond the Simple View of Reading: Alternative Models of ELL

Reading Processes
There are components of reading that contribute to the reading comprehension of ELLs
that the SVR does not include, even with the modifications some researchers have
made to it. Some of those components, such as working memory and motivation, have
been included in recent models of reading that have been developed to represent L2
acquisition—­but not SVR-based models. Two models of reading that present a wider
range of variables that influence ELLs’ reading comprehension and that might be consid-
ered in future SEM studies are those of Verhoeven (2010) and Bernhardt (2011).
Although Verhoeven’s (2010) model of language processing in L2 learners explicitly
reflects the two components of SVR, word decoding and listening comprehension, it does
so through the inclusion of a broader range of discrete components, such as textual abili-
ties (identifying cohesion and coherence in different text types), working memory, and
background knowledge. As Verhoeven observed, a child may attain L1 facility during
early childhood as a result of family and local community interactions; however, becom-
ing literate in an L2 when a child begins school presents a new set of challenges. With
relatively limited L2 phonological ability, a young reader is likely to encounter problems
with word identification, and with limited lexical, grammatical, and text knowledge in
L2, reading comprehension often becomes problematic. However, in Verhoeven’s model,
transfer of knowledge from a reader’s L1, sometimes referred to as the interdependence
hypothesis, contributes to cognitive and language development in the L2. Verhoeven
assumes that surface proficiencies, such as word identification, could develop indepen-
dently in bilinguals as underlying proficiencies across languages, such as metalinguistic
awareness, also develop.
By examining data generated from research on L2 readers, Bernhardt (2011) has
constructed an inclusive L2 reading model, what she refers to as a “compensatory model”
of L2 reading. The term compensatory in no way refers to a deficit model of reading but
to the interactive–­compensatory hypothesis developed by Stanovich (1980), which sug-
gests that all levels of knowledge activated by readers contribute to comprehension (“pat-
tern synthesis”), and that readers’ weaknesses in lower-level processes, such as alphabeti-
cal and morphological knowledge, are compensated by higher level processes, such as a
network of background knowledge about the text being read.
Bernhardt’s theory, which informs her model of L2 reading, relies on the notion
that L2 readers depend on a wide range of information sources. The model consists of
three arrays of variables: L1 Literacy, L2 Language Knowledge, and Unexplained Vari-
ance. In studies conducted across multiple languages, 50% of L2 reading processes were
accounted for (Bernhardt, 2011). Unfortunately, what contributed to the other 50% was
something of a mystery. However, there was no question that L1 proficiency made a
“critical contribution” (p. 33) to understanding L2 reading comprehension. For readers
acquiring L2 proficiency, 50% of their comprehension of L2 reading could be attrib-
utable to L1 literacy (20%) and L2 language knowledge (30%). The 20% of variance
explained by L1 literacy includes alphabetics, vocabulary, text structure, purposes for
reading, beliefs about word and sentence configurations, and other factors. The 30% of
variance explained by L2 language knowledge includes grammatical forms, vocabulary
knowledge, the impact of cognates, the linguistic distance between the L1 and L2, the
values attached to literacy, and other factors. Although it is difficult to know what fac-
tors comprise the unexplained variance, that mysterious 50% of total variance, those
unknown factors are suspected to include comprehension strategies, motivation, interest,
engagement, and content and domain knowledge.
Comprehension Instruction for English Language Learners 201

Up to this point, we have discussed some of the major developments in L2 reading

comprehension research and theoretical models. We next discuss a second major develop-
ment in reading comprehension: the CCSS.

The CCSS and Their Implications for the Reading Development of ELLs

and Comprehension Instruction

In this section we explore how the models we reviewed reflect important features in
the CCSS, and how those standards affect reading comprehension instruction for ELLs.
Although the standards specify the knowledge and skills students will need to achieve
success in college and the workplace, they do not specify how to achieve them. The
standards are to apply to all students, and their impact on educators and their students
is likely to be profound—­perhaps especially on ELLs. To rise to the expectations of the
standards, ELLs may need more time, instructional support, and alignment between
their reading proficiency and content-­area knowledge.
Several features identified in the CCSS directly or indirectly contribute to new devel-
opments in reading comprehension instruction for ELLs (National Governors Associa-
tion Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). These
include vocabulary, text complexity, informational text emphasis, argumentation and
persuasion, and strategy instruction. As we noted earlier, several of these features, such
as vocabulary, text complexity, and informational texts, were also key variables that
affected L2 reading comprehension in our review of SEMs based on ELLs. In the follow-
ing section, we describe these features and follow with a brief discussion of instructional
approaches for ELLs that have demonstrated a significant impact on their language and
literacy development.

Vocabulary
In our SEM review, we found that researchers repeatedly underscored the crucial role
of vocabulary development for ELLs in order to promote reading comprehension. With
the emphasis of the CCSS on text complexity and informational texts, the central role
of vocabulary knowledge is likely to escalate. Graves, August, and Mancilla-­Martinez
(2013) developed an approach to teaching word knowledge that is based on four key
elements: rich and varied language experience, word-­ learning strategies, a focus on
individual words, and word consciousness. The authors also recommended four empiri-
cally validated vocabulary development programs for ELLs. One of these, Acquisition of
Vocabulary in English (AVE), is a primary grade program for Spanish-­speaking ELLs to
develop academic vocabulary. Daily lessons include two segments, one that focuses on
content words (survive, delicate), the other on connectives (because, meanwhile). In an
experimental study of AVE (August, 2011), second graders from schools with high con-
centrations of poverty made significant gains in vocabulary growth.

Text Complexity and ELLs

The concern about text complexity in the CCSS reflects the belief that too many students
enter college and the workplace with too few experiences with the kinds of texts they
will encounter there. The CCSS define text complexity through three related dimensions:
quantitative, qualitative, and reader and task considerations. Quantitative dimensions
refer to measurable aspects of texts that are frequently found in readability formulas,
202 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

such as word length, word frequency, and sentence length. Qualitative aspects, which
cannot be measured by counting elements of a text, can only be measured by a mindful
reader attending to one or more of four variables that a reader can discern: the meaning
or purpose of a text, its structure, its clarity, and the demands it makes on the reader’s
knowledge base. These variables, and their relative importance in a text, may serve as a
complement or corrective to quantitative measures. Reader and task considerations refer
to variables that are dependent on a given reader, such as a reader’s cognitive capacities,
motivation, and experience, and to specific tasks, such as purpose and task complexity.
Teachers using their judgment based on experience and knowledge of both students and
the subjects they teach are in the best position to conduct this evaluation. Of the three
components involved in the measurement of text complexity, a teacher’s judgment is per-
haps of greatest importance for the determination and selection of progressively complex
texts for ELLs.
The new CCSS emphasis on progressively complex texts for students as they move
through the grades means that teachers, including those of ELLs, need to develop knowl-
edge and skills related to text selection and its instruction (Hiebert & Grisham, 2012).
They need to understand not only the nature of text complexity and its calculation but
also how to design instruction for students, including ELLs, that enables them to move
through progressively challenging reading assignments. All teachers, especially those
working with ELLs, should be able to answer questions such as these: What is text com-
plexity as presented in the CCSS? What features of a text determine text complexity for
beginning, struggling, and ELL readers?

Informational Text Emphasis

The new CCSS call for increased reading experiences with informational texts that
reflect the degree of emphasis given to them in the NAEP reading framework. Using
those guidelines, 50% of texts read in the fourth grade would be informational, 55% in
the eighth grade, and 70% in the 12th grade. Furthermore, the English Language Arts–­
Literacy elementary-­grade-level CCSS stipulate that students will be able to describe the
overall structure of events, ideas, concepts, or information in a text. That structure may
take a variety of forms, such as chronological, comparison, cause–­effect, or problem–­
solution (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief
State School Officers, 2010).
This focus has several instructional implications for all students, including ELLs.
Informational texts have significantly different structures from narrative texts. While a
narrative text commonly includes a setting, characters and their development, a plot with
rising tension and resolution, and perhaps an engaging tale to tell, informational texts
have quite different structures and appeals. All students, including ELLs, can benefit
from learning about types of informational text structures that writers use to organize
and present knowledge (Meyer & Poon, 2001; Meyer, Wijekumar, & Lin, 2011; Unrau,
2008; Wijekumar, Meyer, & Lei, 2012). Educators have identified five ways to orga-
nize informational discourse: description, sequence (including ordering by events or by
time), causation, problem–­solution (including effect or evaluation of the solution), and
comparison. We know from recent research (Meyer et al., 2011) that knowledge of these
structures acquired through a Web-based tutoring system enhanced fifth graders’ com-
prehension of nonfiction texts. Another text structure, that of argumentation, may use
one or more of these text structures within an argument; however, argumentative text
structures, which we address next, commonly have their own mix of claims and rhetori-
cal structures to persuade.
Comprehension Instruction for English Language Learners 203

Argumentation–Persuasion
With respect to reading persuasive or argumentative texts, the CCSS articulate the kinds
of knowledge and skills students, including ELLs, are expected to develop. For example,
students will need to identify central themes and ideas of a text, to analyze their devel-
opment, and to summarize a text’s central message and key supporting details. They
should also acquire the ability to explain how ideas develop and interact in a text and to
articulate the argument it makes. These are important and challenging expectations for
students, especially for ELLs who may struggle with comprehension.
Educators have developed reading and writing programs that address the emphasis
the CCSS have placed on close reading and effective writing of argumentation and per-
suasion in preparation for college and the workplace. For example, a group of Califor-
nia State University and high school educators (Katz, Brynelson, & Edlund, 2013) has
designed and implemented the Expository Reading and Writing Course (ERWC), which
integrates theories of reading comprehension and academic literacy to promote students’
development as critical readers and proficient writers of expository prose. The 1-year
course for high school seniors, which aligns with California’s CCSS for English language
arts, is designed to demonstrate several key principles to promote effective expository
reading and writing, such as the integration of reading and writing processes, a rhetorical
approach to texts that encourages critical thinking, and texts that engage students and
provide a base for principled debate. The designers of the modules were cognizant of text
complexity and provide support for teachers—­including those of ELLs—with activities
that guide students through reading and writing rhetorically. Modules to promote the
achievement of standards articulated in the CCSS have also been developed for students
in grades 7 through 11.

Strategy Instruction for ELLs

While the National Reading Panel (2000) concluded from over 200 studies that read-
ing strategies improved reading comprehension for English speakers, August and Sha-
nahan (2006) found only three published studies of reading comprehension strategies
that met the criteria for inclusion and that clearly included ELLs. With so few studies of
the effects of reading strategy instruction on ELLs, making claims about its effects—­or
lack thereof—­would be of questionable value. However, a meta-­analysis on the effects
of explicit reading strategy instruction on L2 reading comprehension by Taylor, Stevens,
and Asher (2006) found that reading strategy training for L2 readers, such as those devel-
oping metacognitive awareness, was only effective with older students and those with
more extensive L2 experience—­not with elementary-­level students or those in their first
year of L2 learning.
Some strategy-­oriented intervention programs to promote literacy for ELLs in sec-
ondary school have been designed, implemented, and tested. Educators (Olson & Land,
2007; Kim et al., 2012), working with the University of California, Irvine, Writing Project
have developed a research-­based cognitive strategies intervention program called Path-
ways to help readers and writers reinforce the reading–­writing connection and construct
meaning from and with texts. Their readers’ and writers’ “toolkit” of cognitive strategies
includes procedures to plan and set goals; to tap prior knowledge; to ask questions and
make predictions; to construct the gist of a text; and to monitor, reflect, evaluate, and
revise meaning by reconstruction of a draft. For example, students are taught the funda-
mental components of the program through teacher-­led tutorials, including how to use
sentence starters to address each of the elements mentioned in the process of reading and
204 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

responding to texts. In several studies (Olson & Land, 2007; Kim et al., 2012), ELLs who
received cognitive strategies instruction through Pathways have performed significantly
better in academic writing.
The previous paragraphs have highlighted important elements of the CCSS and the
factors that will require attention in comprehension instruction for ELL students. In addi-
tion to these factors, perhaps the most striking instructional implication arising from all
of the recent SEM studies and models of ELL comprehension factors and processes is the
seriousness of the need to enable ELLs to develop L2 vocabulary. For example, Lesaux et
al. (2010), who recognized that their subjects were at high risk for school failure, argued
that their findings highlighted “the profound need to enrich oral language competencies
(e.g., breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge) to improve reading comprehension
outcomes” (p. 482). Of parallel importance is assessing ELLs as early as possible to deter-
mine which students may need instructional support, and how that support could be best
administered.

Summary

In this chapter we have reviewed some current developments and trends in research and
theory related to ELLs and comprehension instruction. While significant progress has
been made in both the theory and practice of comprehension instruction, it appears that
we still do not have a complete understanding of all of the relevant factors that deter-
mine reading comprehension outcomes. Moreover, new instructional challenges due to
recent policy shifts, specifically the CCSS, add an additional layer of complexity to the
endeavor. However, there are well-­established principles and strategies that have been
shown to improve student outcomes but depend on knowledgeable and sensitive teach-
ers for their implementation. Therefore, the role of well-­qualified teachers with adequate
instructional resources and continuing professional development will persist as chal-
lenges for the field.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. Given that ELLs are such a heterogeneous group, what factors should teachers consider in adapting
instruction for them?
2. How can ELLs’ existing knowledge and skills be used to foster comprehension in English?
3. What types of professional development are most relevant to help teachers adapt comprehension
instruction for ELLs?

References

Alvermann, D. E., Unrau, N. J., & Ruddell, R. B. (2013). Theoretical models and processes of
reading (6th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Aud, S., Wilkinson-­Flicker, S., Kristapovich, P., Rathbun, A., Wang, X., & Zhang, J. (2013).
The condition of education 2013 (NCES 2013-037). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pub-
search.
August, D. (2011). Developing literacy in Spanish-­speaking children: Acquisition of vocabulary
in English (Technical Report No. 3, submitted to the National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Comprehension Instruction for English Language Learners 205

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of
the National Literacy Panel on language-­minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erl-
baum.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2010). Response to a review and update on “Developing literacy
in second-­language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-­M inority
Children and Youth.” Journal of Literacy Research, 42, 341–348.
Bernhardt, E. B. (2011). Understanding advanced second-­language reading. New York: Rout-
ledge.
Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2010). Multiple choice: Charter school perfor-
mance in 16 states. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved from http://credo.stanford.
edu.
Chappell, S. V., & Cahnmann-­Taylor, M. (2013). No child left with crayons: The imperative of
arts-based education and research with language “minority” and other minoritized commu-
nities. Review of Research in Education, 34, 243–268.
Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). How features of educational technology applications
affect student reading outcomes: A meta-­analysis. Educational Research Review, 7, 198–215.
Coiro, J. (2012). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: Future directions. Educa-
tional Forum, 46, 412–417.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2013). The Common Core State Standards Initiative
(CCSSI). Retrieved from www.ccsso.org/resources/programs/thecommoncorestatestan-
dardsinitiative.html.
Darling-­Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College
Record, 106(6), 1047–1085.
Darling-­Hammond, L., Amrein-­B eardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012). Evaluating
teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6), 8–15.
Duguay, A., Massoud, L., Tabaku, L., Himmel, J., & Sugarman, J. (2013). Implementing the
Common Core for English learners: Responses to common questions (Practitioner Brief).
Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Francis, D. J., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical guidelines
for the education of ELLs: Research-­based recommendations for instruction and academic
interventions. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
Frankenberg, E., Siegel-­Hawley, G., & Wang, J. (2010). Choice without equity: Charter school
segregation and the need for civil rights standards. Los Angeles: Civil Rights Project/Proyecto
Derechos Civiles at UCLA.
Geva, E., & Farnia, F. (2012). Developmental changes in the nature of language proficiency and
reading fluency paint a more complex view of reading comprehension of ELL and EL1. Read-
ing and Writing, 25, 1819–1845.
Goldenberg, C. (2006, July 26). Improving achievement for English learners: What the research
tells us. Education Week, pp. 34–36.
Goldenberg, C. (2010). Reading instruction for English language learners. In M. L. Kamil, P.
D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4,
pp. 684–710). New York: Routledge.
Gordon, E. W. (2009). Foreword: Every child must be visible if we are to succeed as a world-class
nation. In L. M. Morrow, R. Rueda, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on literacy and
diversity (pp. ix–xi). New York: Guilford Press.
Gottardo, A., & Mueller, J. (2010). Are first- and second-­language factors related in predicting
second-­language reading comprehension?: A study of Spanish-­speaking children acquiring
English as a second language from first to second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology,
101(2), 330–344.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and
Special Education, 7, 6–10.
Graves, M. F., August, D., & Mancilla-­Martinez, J. (2013). Teaching vocabulary to English lan-
guage learners. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Educational technology in U.S. public schools: Fall
206 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

2008 (NCES 2010-034, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Sta-
tistics). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Hayes, K., Rueda, R., & Chilton, S. (2009). Scaffolding language, literacy, and academic content
in English and Spanish: The linguistic highway from Mesoamerica to Southern California.
English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 8(2), 137–166.
Hiebert, E. H., & Grisham, D. L. (2012). What literacy teacher educators need to know about sup-
porting teachers in understanding text complexity within the Common Core State Standards.
Journal of Reading Education, 37(3), 5–12.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.
Katz, M., Brynelson, N., & Edlund, J. R. (2013). Enacting rhetorical literacies: The Expository
Reading and Writing Curriculum in theory and practice. In D. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, &
R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 978–1014).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Kim, J. S., Olson, C. B., Scarcella, R., Kramer, J., Pearson, M., van Dyk, D. A., et al. (2012). A
randomized experiment of a cognitive strategies approach to text-based analytical writing
for mainstreamed Latino English language learners in grades 6 to 12. Journal of Research on
Educational Effectiveness, 4, 231–263.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York:
Guilford Press.
Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2012). Year two of implementing the Common Core State Standards:
States’ progress and challenges. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
Lesaux, N. K., Crosson, A. C., Kieffer, M. J., & Pierce, M. (2010). Uneven profiles: Language
minority learners’ word reading, vocabulary, and reading comprehension skills. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 475–483.
Leu, D. J., & Zawilinski, L. (2007). The new literacies of online reading comprehension. New
England Reading Association Journal, 43(1), 1–7.
Los Angeles Unified School District. (2013). Los Angeles Unified School District Fingertip Facts,
2013–14. Retrieved from http://home.lausd.net/ourpages/auto/2011/12/22/46088560/fin-
gertip%20facts%2013-14-100913.pdf.
Mancilla-­Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for strug-
gling readers: The case of Spanish-­speaking language minority learners. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 102(3), 701–711.
McElvain, C. M. (2010). Transactional literature circles and the reading comprehension of English
Learners in the mainstream classroom. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(2), 178–205.
McLaughlin, M. (2010). Content area reading: Teaching and learning in an age of multiple litera-
cies. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Meyer, B. J. F., & Poon, L. W. (2001). Effects of structure strategy training and signaling on recall
of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 141–159.
Meyer, B. J. F., Wijekumar, K. K., & Lin, Y. (2011). Individualizing a web-based structure strategy
intervention for fifth graders’ comprehension of nonfiction. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 103(1), 140–168.
Nakamoto, J., Lindsey, K. A., & Manis, F. R. (2008). A cross-­linguistic investigation of English
language learners’ reading comprehension in English and Spanish. Scientific Studies of Read-
ing, 12(4), 351–371.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). NAEP Data Explorer. Retrieved from http://
nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Offi-
cers. (2010). Application of Common Core State Standards for English language learners.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/assets/application-­for-­
english-­learners.pdf.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to
read. Washington, DC: Author.
Comprehension Instruction for English Language Learners 207

Olson, C. B., & Land, R. E. (2007). A cognitive strategies approach to reading and writing instruc-
tion for English language learners in secondary school. Research in the Teaching of English,
41(3), 269–303.
Proctor, C. P., August, D., Carlo, M. S., & Snow, C. (2006). The intriguing role of Spanish lan-
guage vocabulary knowledge in predicting reading comprehension. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98(1), 159–169.
Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanish-­speaking children read-
ing in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2),
246–256.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in
reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Reese, L., Thompson, S. L., & Goldenberg, C. (2008). Variability in community characteristics
and Spanish-­speaking children’s home language and literacy opportunities. Journal of Multi-
lingual and Multicultural Development, 29(4), 271–290.
Rueda, R., Velasco, A., & Lim, H. J. (2008). Comprehension instruction for English learners. In
C. C. Block & S. R. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-­based best practices
(pp. 294–308). New York: Guilford Press.
Saunders, W. M., & Marcelletti, D. J. (2013). The gap that can’t go away: The catch-22 of reclas-
sification in monitoring the progress of English learners. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 35, 139–156.
Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., & Davis, S. (2010). Effective reading programs
for the elementary grades: A best-­evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79(4),
1391–1466.
Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2012). Digest of education statistics 2011 (NCES 2012-001).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
Institute for Education Sciences.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive–­compensatory model of individual differences in
the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 32–71.
Taboada, A. (2009a). Relationships of general vocabulary, science vocabulary, and student ques-
tioning with science comprehension in students with varying levels of English proficiency.
Instructional Science, 40, 901–923.
Taboada, A. (2009b). English language learners, vocabulary, and reading comprehension: What
we know and what we need to know. Yearbook of the College Reading Association, 30,
307–322.
Taboada, A., Bianco, S., & Bowerman, V. (2012). Text-based questioning: A comprehension strat-
egy to build English language learners’ content knowledge. Literacy Research and Instruc-
tion, 51(2), 87–109.
Taboada, A., & Rutherford, V. (2011). Developing reading comprehension and academic vocabu-
lary for English language learners through science content: A formative experiment. Reading
Psychology, 32(2), 113–157.
Taboada, A., Townsend, D., & Boynton, M. J. (2013). Mediating effects of reading engagement
on the reading comprehension of early adolescent English language learners. Reading and
Writing Quarterly, 29(4), 309–332.
Taylor, A., Stevens, J., & Asher, J. (2006). The effects of Explicit Reading Strategy Training on L2
reading comprehension. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language
learning and teaching (pp. 213–244). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Unrau, N. J. (2008). Content area reading and writing: Fostering literacies in middle and high
school cultures (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Vaughn, S., Martinez, L. R., Linan-­T hompson, S., Reutebuch, C. K., Carlson, C. D., & Francis, D.
J. (2009). Enhancing social studies vocabulary and comprehension for seventh-­grade English
language learners: Findings from two experimental studies. Journal of Research on Educa-
tional Effectiveness, 2, 297–324.
Verhoeven, L. (2010). Second language reading acquisition. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B.
208 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION CONTE X TS

Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 661–683). New
York: Routledge.
Wijekumar, K. K., Meyer, B. J. F., & Lei, P. (2012). Large-scale randomized controlled trial with
4th graders using intelligent tutoring of the structure strategy to improve nonfiction reading
comprehension. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(6), 987–1013.
Wilber, D. (2012). Trying to get ahead of the curve: Raising and understanding current themes in
new literacies practices. Educational Forum, 76, 406–411.
Yaghoub Zadeh, G., Farnia, F., & Geva, E. (2012). Toward modeling reading comprehension
and reading fluency in English language learners. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 25(1), 163–187.
Zentella, A. C. (2005). Building on strength: Language and literacy in Latino families and com-
munities. New York: Teachers College Press & Covina, CA: California Association of Bilin-
gual Education.
 Pa r t III
Comprehension Instruction
in Action
 Ch a p t er 15

Best Practices
for Comprehension Instruction
in the Elementary Classroom

Nell K. Duke and Nicole M. Martin

If reading is about mind journeys, teaching reading is about outfitting the

travelers, modeling how to use the map, demonstrating the key and the legend,
supporting the travelers as they lose their way and take circuitous routes, until,
ultimately, it’s the child and the map together and they are off on their own.
—Ellin Oliver K eene and Susan Zimmermann (1997, p. 28)

I f this quotation captures the task of teaching reading comprehension, then elementary
educators can be seen as both the travel agents and the tour guides. When students
begin their elementary education, most have never comprehended a text they have read
themselves (rather than had read to them). Elementary educators are the travel agents
responsible for helping students understand the journey toward reading comprehension
that they are about to take and for helping them want to take it. Then, as throughout the
journey, they serve as tour guides, providing the desire to comprehend; the knowledge to
bring to bear in comprehension; the habits of mind of good comprehenders; and the abil-
ity to apply comprehension in discussion, academic and nonacademic tasks. Elementary
teachers are charged with developing ways of interacting with text that students need in
order to become increasingly sophisticated comprehenders, confident travelers.
Given how multifaceted and formidable the task, it is easy to feel overwhelmed when
contemplating comprehension instruction in elementary school—­and it was easy to feel
overwhelmed trying to capture it in a single chapter! After providing a summary of some
of the established knowledge bases about comprehension instruction in the elementary
years, we focus on three trends in comprehension research and development in these
years:

211
212 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

• The need to increase attention to comprehending different types of text in differ-

ent disciplines.
• Attention to developing reading comprehension in dual language learners.
• The value of differentiating reading comprehension instruction.

We conclude with a summary and some questions to contemplate in relation to the

chapter.

What’s Out There Today: Established Research and Practice

Reading comprehension at the elementary level is a longstanding and thriving area of

research. Researchers have learned much about comprehension in elementary schools.
Among other things, it is well established that comprehension instruction in the elemen-
tary years

•• Should occur. That is, various approaches to deliberately and explicitly teaching
children to comprehend what they read does in fact help elementary-­age children to com-
prehend better. This has been the conclusion of multiple federal panels, including the
National Reading Panel (2000) and a panel convened to focus specifically on comprehen-
sion from kindergarten to grade 3 (Shanahan et al., 2010). Good comprehension does not
happen automatically; even students with good word recognition and oral language skills
may struggle (see Duke, Cartwright, & Hilden, 2013, for a review).
•• Should start early. Although there is considerably less research on comprehension
instruction in the primary grades, the research we have indicates that teaching compre-
hension at these grade levels can produce improvements for children (for reviews, see
Shanahan et al., 2010; Stahl, 2004) and without detracting from their decoding devel-
opment (e.g., Brown, Pressley, Van Meter, & Schuder, 1996). Indeed, studies of highly
effective teachers and schools have consistently found attention to comprehension, as well
as decoding and encoding, among primary-­grade teachers (Knapp & Associates, 1995;
Pressley et al., 2001; Taylor, Pearson, Clark, & Walpole, 2000; Wharton-­McDonald,
Pressley, & Hampston, 1998).
•• Should feature engaging texts and tasks. Students’ comprehension is likely to be
stronger when they are motivated to comprehend and are engaged by the texts and tasks
at hand (e.g., Dole, Brown, & Trathen, 1996; Guthrie et al., 2006). For example, involv-
ing elementary students in reading and writing texts like those outside a school context
and for reasons beyond “doing school” (e.g., to solve a problem in the community about
a subject or communicate with others about their understandings) is associated with
growth on reading measures (e.g., Halvorsen et al., 2012; Gambrell, Hughes, Calvert,
Malloy, & Igo, 2011; Purcell-­Gates, Duke, & Martineau, 2007).
•• Should attend to language knowledge. Although good reading comprehension is
not simply a matter of strong oral language skills, there is also no doubt that comprehen-
sion relies heavily on language knowledge and skills. Language difficulties are strongly
linked to reading comprehension problems in the elementary years (see Scarborough,
2001, for a review). Language instruction, such as vocabulary instruction, has a positive
impact on reading comprehension (see Elleman, Lindo, Morphy, & Compton, 2009, for
a meta-­analysis).
Comprehension Instruction in the Elementary Classroom 213

•• Should build students’ background knowledge. It has long been known that read-
ers’ background knowledge affects comprehension (e.g., Anderson & Pearson, 1984;
Recht & Leslie, 1988). Addressing elementary students’ conceptual knowledge base—by
focusing on the world and how it works—­during instructional activities can improve
students’ reading comprehension. Researchers have developed and tested reading com-
prehension interventions that focus heavily on building world knowledge, particularly
knowledge in science, along with teaching reading comprehension strategies or related
skills (Guthrie, McRae, & Klauda, 2007; Palincsar, Magnusson, Collins, & Cutter,
2001; Vitale & Romance, 2012).
•• Should include strategy instruction. A robust body of research demonstrates that
explicitly teaching children strategies for understanding what they read improves their
comprehension (for reviews, see Duke, Pearson, Strachan, & Billman, 2011; Shanahan et
al., 2010), with much of this research conducted with elementary-­age children. Although
the list of which strategies should be taught, and/or the names for these strategies, differs
somewhat from study to study and review to review, they generally include some version
of teaching students to activate and apply background knowledge relevant to the text; to
preview text and make predictions; to attend to text structure, which includes attending
to key elements of narrative text or seeking important ideas in informational text; to
monitor and fix up their understanding as necessary; to generate questions related to text;
to draw inferences; to visualize; to use graphic organizers; and to summarize. Moreover,
there is some indication that teaching groups of strategies simultaneously, rather than
slowly, one at a time, may be particularly powerful and seems to add a “value-added”
component to comprehension strategy instruction (Reutzel, Smith, & Fawson, 2005).
•• Should include rich discussion and writing. It is also well accepted that particu-
lar kinds of discussion and writing can improve comprehension (see Murphy, Wilkin-
son, Soter, Hennessey, & Alexander, 2009, for a review). For example, Beck, McKeown,
and their colleagues have demonstrated that a form of discussion called Questioning the
Author may help elementary-­age students construct meaning and monitor comprehen-
sion during reading and social studies lessons (e.g., Beck, McKeown, Sandora, Kucan, &
Worthy, 1996; McKeown, Beck, & Blake, 2009).

These well-­established insights, if implemented fully, would go a long way toward

improving reading comprehension in the elementary years and beyond. But some newer
emphases in research in this area can further deepen and refine our ability to improve
reading comprehension; we turn to these newer emphases in the next section of the chap-
ter.

New Research in This Area

It is beyond the scope of this chapter to review all recent research in reading comprehen-
sion in the elementary years. Some of this research is addressed in other chapters, and
some in recent reviews and handbooks (e.g., Block & Pressley, 2007; Duke & Carlisle,
2011; Israel & Duffy, 2009). Here we have chosen to focus on three trends in this area.
Not all of these trends represent new insights, but all have received particular attention
in recent years. And, of course, the list is not exhaustive, although within this list alone
there are many new and exciting developments.
214 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

The Need to Increase Attention to Comprehending Different Types of Text

across the Day
Students encounter a variety of different genres, or types of text with a particular pur-
pose and linguistic features to meet that purpose, in and out of school. These include
different kinds of narratives, such as fables and realistic fiction; informative/explanatory
texts, which teaches about the natural and social world; procedural texts, which tells
how to do something (recipes, how-to books, etc.); persuasive texts, which are intended
to persuade someone of a particular action or belief; and so on (Duke, 2014). Moreover,
students are asked to read different genres during different parts of the school day, such
as informative/explanatory and procedural texts in science lessons, and biography and
persuasive texts in social studies lessons.

Developing Genre Knowledge and Comprehension in the Elementary Grades

In recent years, there has been a growing realization that reading comprehension does not
occur in the same way with these different kinds of text and that, at least to some degree,
it is genre-­specific (Duke & Roberts, 2010). Genre affects the comprehension strategies
readers use (Kucan & Beck, 1997), the inferences they make (van den Broek, Everson,
Virtue, Sung, & Tzeng, 2002), and their overall approach to text (Langer, 1985). Stu-
dents who can comprehend one kind of text well may not comprehend another kind of
text equally as well (e.g., Hidi & Hildyard, 1983; Langer, Applebee, Mullis, & Foertsch,
1990). Thus, although we often refer to “comprehension” as a monolithic entity, it is not
a unitary construct (Duke, 2005), and comprehension instruction in one genre may not
transfer entirely or even in part to another genre.
This idea has sparked a flurry of research on students’ development of genre knowl-
edge and genre-­specific comprehension. For example, researchers have found that stu-
dents approach reading narrative and informational text differently (e.g., Kucan & Beck,
1996) and even approach reading different kinds of informational text differently (i.e.,
procedural or how-to text as compared to biography and persuasive text; Martin, 2011).
Different instructional strategies are being recommended for different text genres (e.g.,
Duke, Caughlan, Juzwik, & Martin, 2012), and standards documents are increasingly
specific about expectations for reading and writing specific types of text (e.g., Council
of Chief State School Officers & the National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices, 2010).

Learning to Comprehend Digital and Multimodal Texts

Closely related to the growth in attention to genre in general is an increase in attention
to comprehension of digital genres in particular. Technology has changed rapidly in the
last few decades, with more people using computers and other digital devices at their jobs
and during their leisure hours to accomplish a variety of goals. This has given rise to a
huge array of new genres. As we might expect given the research reviewed earlier, com-
prehension processes for these genres are not entirely the same as those for other genres.
For example, a study of sixth graders’ reading of informational websites revealed not only
similarities but also differences between comprehension strategies used in these contexts
and those that previous research has identified as being used with informational texts on
paper (Coiro & Dobler, 2007). The purpose for which websites are being read also seems
to impact comprehension processes (Zhang & Duke, 2008).
Comprehension Instruction in the Elementary Classroom 215

Given the uniqueness and importance of digital genres, there have been many calls
for more attention to these genres throughout schooling (e.g., Kinzer & Leander, 2003;
Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004). The literacy field has been responsive, with
professional books that provide guidance about teaching literacy of and with digital tech-
nologies in the elementary grades (e.g., Dobler & Eagleton, 2015; Taffe & Gwinn, 2007;
Wood, 2004) and with research, such as how to teach students to search and read on the
Internet (e.g., Castek, 2006; Kuiper, Volman, & Terwel, 2005). Additional studies exam-
ining the impact of specific instructional approaches to building comprehension of and
with digital genres and multiple texts in different modalities are needed to help students
grapple with texts of their increasingly digital and multimodal world.

Teaching Reading Comprehension in Disciplinary Contexts

In the past, it was popular to teach students “content-­area reading” strategies meant
to apply whether they were reading in science, history, mathematics, or other subjects.
Increasingly, researchers are finding that experts in different disciplines actually read
texts differently, and their ways of thinking and doing have influenced, and been influ-
enced by, the texts and genres used in their specific field (e.g., Bazerman, 1988; Sha-
nahan, Shanahan, & Misischia, 2011). Experts use their disciplinary knowledge (or
their beliefs and understandings about what is important to know, how written and
oral communication occurs, and the hallmarks of high-­quality knowledge building and
communication in their discipline) to direct their attention, uses of genre characteristics,
and genre-­specific activity when comprehending disciplinary texts (Shanahan, 2009).
What elementary students know about comprehending texts in different disciplines and
how teachers might improve students’ disciplinary comprehension is just beginning to
be studied (e.g., Cervetti, Barber, Dorph, Pearson, & Goldschmidt, 2012), but evidence
with older students suggests that teaching students discipline-­specific reading compre-
hension and writing practices may increase their reading comprehension (De La Paz,
2005; Greenleaf et al., 2011).
Certainly there is evidence at the elementary level that situating reading comprehen-
sion instruction in disciplinary contexts can be powerful. For example, Concept-­Oriented
Reading Instruction (CORI) is an integrated science–­literacy instructional model that has
resulted in significantly better performances on measures of reading comprehension and
reading motivation, even when compared to students receiving comprehension strategy
instruction in a general literacy block (see Guthrie et al., 2007, for a review). In CORI,
teachers teach coherent, thematic units in life science (and, more recently, other disci-
plines) and help students to develop reading strategies, collaborate with others, and direct
their own learning. Students move through four phases, in which they notice and connect
to a targeted phenomenon, spend time reading about and experimenting with it, pull
together what they have learned, and make their knowledge public (Guthrie, Wigfield,
& Perencevich, 2004). Similarly, in Romance and Vitale’s (1992, 2001, 2012) In-Depth
Expanded Application of Science (or IDEAS) model, comprehension instruction occurs
entirely in the context of student learning in science units (e.g., units on processes that
shape the earth and energy, force, and motion). Teachers teach comprehension instruc-
tion in the service of students learning science knowledge and skills, and students sig-
nificantly outperform their peers on standardized tests of reading comprehension and
science (Romance & Vitale, 2012). The studies in this section suggest that elementary
reading comprehension instruction may be going the way a considerable body of work
216 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

on writing and adolescent literacy instruction has gone (Graham & Harris, 2005; Moje,
Young, Readence, & Moore, 2000)—toward instructional approaches that are tailored
to develop skills with particular genres and within particular disciplines.

Attention to Developing Reading Comprehension in Dual Language Learners

Dual language learners (DLLs), or students learning two or more languages as a central
means of communication, are a significant portion of the U.S. school-­age population.
In recent years, reading researchers have increasingly attended to the reading compre-
hension development of this group. August and Shanahan’s (2006) Developing Literacy
in Second-­L anguage Learners: A Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-­
Minority Children and Youth did the following:

• Listed reading comprehension as an important instructional component for ELLs

(English language learners, the term used in the Report) and pointed out the per-
sistent reading comprehension performance gap between ELLs and native speak-
ers of English.
• Found links between reading comprehension in English and ELLs’ oral profi-
ciency, with four aspects of language appearing to play important roles: vocabu-
lary knowledge, listening comprehension, syntactical abilities, and metalinguistic
skills.
• Suggested a relationship between first-­ language literacy and English reading
comprehension and recommended that when teaching children who have already
become literate in their first language, teachers take into account the “transfer-
ability of some literacy skills” (August & Shanahan, 2006, p. 5).
• Endorsed “greater attention to word-level skills early in the process and more direct
and ambitious attention to reading comprehension later on. However, vocabulary
and background knowledge, [sic] should be targeted intensively throughout the
entire sequence” (August & Shanahan, 2006, pp. 4–5).

With respect to the second bulleted point, researchers have indeed found that vocab-
ulary knowledge appears to be central to DLLs whose native language is Spanish (e.g.,
Proctor, August, & Carlo, 2006; Proctor, Carlo, August, & Snow, 2005). As is not sur-
prising, attending to DLLs’ vocabulary knowledge may improve reading comprehension.
If presented in meaningful, varied contexts that are supported by their Spanish reading
comprehension skills and undergirded by a belief in multifaceted word knowledge, we
can help native Spanish speakers, for instance, learn academic word meanings while
we teach them about context clues, morphology, multiple meanings, and cognate-­based
inference making (August, Carlo, Dressler, & Snow, 2005; Carlo et al., 2004). Notably,
Silverman and Hines (2009) have found that DLLs’ vocabulary development is greater
when multimedia elements, in addition to read-­alouds, are involved in the instruction.
Instructional approaches that go beyond a focus on vocabulary have also been shown
to improve reading comprehension of DLLs. For example, an approach to discussion
known as Instructional Conversations and completion of literature logs can be effective
tools for increasing fourth- and fifth-grade DLLs’ reading comprehension achievement;
using both together can help students with limited English proficiency, although more
proficient English speakers may not benefit significantly (Saunders & Goldenberg, 1999).
Strategy instruction (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996; Proctor, Dalton, & Grisham, 2007);
instruction that combines vocabulary, fluency, and error correction (Tam, Heward, &
Comprehension Instruction in the Elementary Classroom 217

Heng, 2006); and supplemental instruction that includes fluency, phonemic awareness,
word study, and short instructional-­level reads (Linan-­Thompson, Vaughn, Hickman-­
Davis, & Kouzekanani, 2003), all show promise for boosting DLLs’ comprehension.

The Value of Differentiating Reading Comprehension Instruction

Differentiating reading instruction for not only DLLs but also other groups and individu-
als is a third important trend in work on reading comprehension. Students have differ-
ent interests, background knowledge, and profiles of strengths and weaknesses related
to comprehension. For example, one student may have strong word-­reading skills but
struggle to apply comprehension strategies, whereas another may have relatively strong
comprehension strategies but be continually hampered by poor word-­reading skills (Rid-
dle Buly & Valencia, 2002).
In a recent study, researchers examined a construct they called Support for Student
Learning:

This [construct] entails actions on the part of the teacher to engage students in the lessons,
assess their response to the content and activity of a lesson, and make use of students’ skills,
strategies, and knowledge (Guthrie & Knowles, 2001; Paris & Carpenter, 2004). Effective
teachers use instructional actions to promote students’ active involvement in literacy tasks
and to help them understand and regulate their own reading (e.g., Perry, VandeKamp, Mer-
cer, & Nordby, 2002). According to Porter and Brophy (1988), “effective teachers continu-
ously monitor their students’ understanding of presentations and responses to assignments.
They routinely provide timely and detailed feedback, but not necessarily in the same ways for
all students” (p. 82). Instructional actions in this dimension include providing students with
feedback about their reading and making sure that students have opportunities to ask ques-
tions and contribute ideas. (Carlisle, Kelcy, Berebitsky, & Phelps, p. 413)

They found that Support for Student Learning was positively related, at a level of
statistical significance, to third graders’ growth in reading comprehension on a standard-
ized test.
Indeed, it is increasingly clear that elementary students benefit from reading com-
prehension instruction that is differentiated to meet individual needs. For example, sup-
plementing whole-group comprehension instruction with small-group lessons and indi-
vidual activities may increase elementary students’ reading comprehension. To illustrate,
Connor and her colleagues (2011) found that providing different types and amounts of
instruction for third graders with low, average, and high language and literacy skills
resulted in greater growth in comprehension than an undifferentiated instructional
approach that focused on vocabulary and comprehension. The teachers who followed
computer-­generated recommendations for grouping students for teacher- and/or child-­
managed instruction that focused on reading words or comprehending ideas for specified
periods of time had students who scored significantly higher on a standardized reading
comprehension test in the spring than their peers.
It may also be fruitful to form groups based on specific sets of comprehension strate-
gies that students need to learn to apply more productively, specific genres with which
students are relatively strong or weak, specific gaps in students’ vocabulary or knowl-
edge, or reading topics that groups of students find to be particularly interesting (Guthrie
& McCann, 1996). Rather than “one size fits all,” researchers and educators are increas-
ingly examining the relative effectiveness of tailoring reading comprehension instruction
to specific students’ needs and interests.
218 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

Summary
In summary, recent research reveals at least three insights for reading comprehension
instruction in the elementary years about which we need to think carefully as we build
our practices (or help others build theirs). That is, we need to teach students to com-
prehend different genres, including digital and multimodal texts, during reading and
content-­area lessons. We need a new, or renewed, focus on instruction that takes into
account students’ existing knowledge, capacities, and dispositions and includes differ-
entiated approaches to teaching reading comprehension. Ideally, these efforts, combined
with well-­established practices for building reading comprehension, will yield more pro-
ficient comprehenders in the elementary grades.

How This New Knowledge Can Improve Comprehension Instruction

The three insights we have discussed have the potential to help us expand the reach of
comprehension instruction—­its reach to specific genres, digital, and disciplinary con-
texts; its reach for DLLs; and its reach to individual and groups of students. Research
seems to be pushing us ever further away from reading comprehension instruction as a
few minutes spent asking and answering questions about a passage in the basal reader,
and ever closer to comprehension as permeating the entire elementary curriculum and
addressing our entire school population.
These insights can also help us improve comprehension by bringing it closer to the
real comprehension demands that students face later in schooling, helping to address,
perhaps, the age-old problem of students having difficulties transferring skills from the
contexts in which they were learned to the contexts in which they are needed. These
insights can also help us improve comprehension by further persuading educators that
comprehension instruction is everyone’s job—the job of educators in specific disciplines,
who, even in elementary schools, are increasingly often not the regular classroom teacher;
the job of the technology teacher and media specialist; and the job of the specialists
responsible for specific groups of students, such as DLLs and students with learning dis-
abilities. And these insights can remind or reinforce for us that each individual student—­
his or her interests, motivation, and profile of strengths and weaknesses—­can profitably
inform reading comprehension instruction.
Of course, these insights can only improve comprehension if they influence pre-
service teacher education and professional development for teachers throughout their
careers. Integrating these insights into policies (e.g., creating policies that require a cer-
tain amount of attention to specific genres and disciplines), assessments (e.g., including
digital texts in assessments), and curricular materials (e.g., designed to enable differentia-
tion) will also influence the degree to which these insights can affect and improve com-
prehension instruction.

Summary

The quotation at the beginning of this chapter likened reading comprehension instruc-
tion to guiding travelers on journeys they will eventually carry out on their own. Just as
traveling often is, becoming a highly effective instructor of comprehension is an excit-
ing, challenging venture, with moments of peril and fatigue, paths that dead-end, majes-
tic vistas, unexpected surprises, and—­ultimately—­the joys of success. In this chapter,
Comprehension Instruction in the Elementary Classroom 219

we have discussed both longstanding and emerging knowledge that can inform these
travels, including insights about how increasing attention to comprehending different
types of text in different disciplines, attending to the development of reading comprehen-
sion in DLLs, and differentiating reading comprehension instruction has the potential to
improve comprehension. We hope this continually growing body of research will help you
and the next generation of travelers you teach to conquer the world of texts.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. In this chapter, we have argued that it is well established that comprehension instruction should occur
in the elementary school and even in the primary grades, and that it should feature engaging texts
and tasks, attend to language knowledge, build students’ background knowledge, and include strategy
instruction and rich discussion and writing. Which of these components of instruction do you think
you, or schools in general, are addressing best? Which need the most additional attention?
2. What new types of instruction can assist students in comprehending specific genres, including digital
genres, in specific disciplinary contexts? What elements of the methods found in this and other
chapters could you combine and expand to meet the new comprehension needs of your students?
3. Compare the research, instructional needs, and new methods being created to advance the
comprehension of individual students and particular groups of students (e.g., DLLs) in this chapter
with those presented in other chapters. What do these chapters have in common? What is different
from chapter to chapter?

References

Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-­theoretic view of basic processes in read-
ing. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1, pp. 185–224). New York:
Longman.
August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. E. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary develop-
ment for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20, 50–57.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-­language learners:
Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-­minority children and youth. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental
article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the
author: A yearlong classroom implementation to engage students with text. Elementary
School Journal, 96, 385–414.
Block, C. C., & Pressley, M. (2007). Best practices in teaching comprehension. In L. B. Gambrell,
L. M. Morrow, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (3rd ed., pp. 220–
242). New York: Guilford Press.
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, 18–37.
Carlisle, J., Kelcey, B., Berebitsky, D., & Phelps, G. (2011). Embracing the complexity of instruc-
tion: A study of the effects of teachers’ instruction on students’ reading comprehension. Sci-
entific Studies of Reading, 15, 409–439.
Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N., et al. (2004).
Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-­language learners in bilingual
and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 188–215.
Castek, J. (2006, April). Adapting reciprocal teaching to the Internet using telecollaborativeprojects.
220 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

In D. Leu (Chair), Developing Internet reading comprehension strategies among adolescents

at risk to become dropouts. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American
Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, P. G. (2012). The impact
of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 49, 631–658.
Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by
sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading
Research Quarterly, 42, 214–257.
Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B., Giuliani, S., Luck, M., Underwood, P., et al. (2011).
Testing the impact of child characteristics × instruction interactions on third graders’ read-
ing comprehension by differentiating literacy instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 46,
189–221.
Council of Chief State School Officers & the National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in
history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author.
De La Paz, S. (2005). Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy mastery in
culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 97, 139–156.
Dobler, E., & Eagleton, M. B. (2015). Reading the web: Strategies for Internet inquiry (2nd ed.).
New York: Guilford Press.
Dole, J. A., Brown, K. J., & Trathen, W. (1996). The effects of strategy instruction on the compre-
hension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 62–88.
Duke, N. K. (2005). Comprehension of what for what: Comprehension as a non-­unitary con-
struct. In S. Parris & S. Stahl (Eds.), Current issues in reading comprehension and assess-
ment (pp. 93–104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Duke, N. K. (2014). Inside information: Developing powerful readers and writers of informa-
tional text through project-­based instruction. New York: Scholastic.
Duke, N. K., & Carlisle, J. (2011). The development of comprehension. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pear-
son, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. IV, pp. 199–
228). New York: Routledge.
Duke, N. K., Cartwright, K. B., & Hilden, K. (2013). Difficulties with reading comprehension.
In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & G. P. Wallach (Eds.), Handbook of language
and literacy development and disorders (2nd ed., pp. 451–468). New York: Guilford Press.
Duke, N. K., Caughlan, S., Juzwik, M. M., & Martin, N. M. (2012). Reading and writing genre
with purpose in K–8 classrooms. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, A. K. (2011). Essential elements of fos-
tering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What
research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 51–93). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Duke, N. K., & Roberts, K. M. (2010). The genre-­specific nature of reading comprehension. In D.
Wyse, R. Andrews, & J. Hoffman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of English
language and literacy teaching (pp. 74–86). London: Routledge.
Elleman, A. M., Lindo, E. J., Morphy, P., Compton, D. L. (2009). The impact of vocabulary
instruction on passage-­level comprehension of school-­age children: A meta-­analysis. Journal
of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 1–44.
Gambrell, L. B., Hughes, E. M., Calvert, L., Malloy, J. A., & Igo, B. (2011). Authentic reading,
writing, and discussion: An exploratory study of a pen pal project. Elementary School Jour-
nal, 112, 234–258.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Writing better: Effective strategies for teaching students with
learning difficulties. Baltimore: Brookes.
Greenleaf, C. L., Litman, C., Hanson, T. L., Rosen, R., Boscardin, C., Herman, J., et al. (2011).
Comprehension Instruction in the Elementary Classroom 221

Integrating literacy and science in biology: Teaching and learning impacts of reading appren-
ticeship professional development. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 647–717.
Guthrie, J. T., & McCann, A. (1996). Idea circles: Peer collaborations for conceptual learning.
In L. B. Gambrell & J. F. Almasi (Eds.), Lively discussions!: Fostering engaged reading
(pp. 87–105). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., & Klauda, S. L. (2007). Contributions of Concept-­Oriented Reading
Instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivations in reading. Educational Psy-
chologist, 42, 237–250.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Humenick, N. M., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., & Barbosa, P.
(2006). Influences of stimulating tasks on reading motivation and comprehension. Journal of
Educational Research, 99, 232–246.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Motivating reading comprehension:
Concept-­Oriented Reading Instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Halvorsen, A., Duke, N. K., Brugar, K. A., Block, M. K., Strachan, S. L., Berka, M. B., et al.
(2012). Narrowing the achievement gap in second-­grade social studies and content area lit-
eracy: The promise of a project-­based approach. Theory and Research in Social Education,
40, 198–229.
Hidi, S. E., & Hildyard, A. (1983). The comparison of oral and written productions in two dis-
course types. Discourse Processes, 6, 91–105.
Israel, S. E., & Duffy, G. G. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of research on reading comprehension.
New York: Routledge.
Keene, E. O., & Zimmermann, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a read-
er’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kinzer, C. K., & Leander, K. (2003). Technology and the language arts: Implications of an
expanded definition of literacy. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.),
Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 546–566). Mah-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for
students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. Elementary School
Journal, 96, 275–293.
Knapp, M. S., & Associates. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high-­poverty classrooms. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1996). Four fourth graders thinking aloud: An investigation of genre
effects. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 259–287.
Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry,
instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67, 217–299.
Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2005). The Web as an information resource in K–12 educa-
tion: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information. Review of
Educational Research, 75, 285–328.
Langer, J. A. (1985). Children’s sense of genre: A study of performance on parallel reading and
writing tasks. Written Communication, 2, 157–187.
Langer, J. A., Applebee, A. N., Mullis, I. V. S., & Foertsch, M. A. (1990). Learning to read in our
nation’s schools: Instruction and achievement in 1998 at grades 4, 8, and 12. Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.
Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new litera-
cies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In
R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.,
pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Linan-­T hompson, S., Vaughn, S., Hickman-­Davis, P., & Kouzekanani, K. (2003). Effectiveness
of supplemental reading instruction for second-­grade English language learners with reading
difficulties. Elementary School Journal, 103, 221–238.
Martin, N. M. (2011). Exploring informational text comprehension: Reading biography,
222 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

persuasive text, and procedural text in the elementary grades. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
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, 218–253.
Moje, E. B., Young, J. P., Readence, J. E., & Moore, D. W. (2000). Reinventing adolescent literacy
for new times: Perennial and millennial issues. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43,
400–410.
Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009).
Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-­
analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 740–764.
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 (National
Institute of Health Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development.
Palincsar, A. S., Magnusson, S. J., Collins, K. M., & Cutter, J. (2001). Making science accessible
to all: Results of a design experiment in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly,
24, 15–32.
Pressley, M., Wharton-­McDonald, R., Allington, R., Block, C. C., Morrow, L., Tracey, D., et
al. (2001). A study of effective grade-1 literacy instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5,
35–58.
Proctor, C. P., August, D., & Carlo, M. S. (2006). The intriguing role of Spanish language vocabu-
lary knowledge in predicting English reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 98, 159–169.
Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. E. (2005). Native Spanish-­speaking children
reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology,
97, 246–256.
Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. L. (2007). Scaffolding English language learners and
struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction
and vocabulary support. Journal of Literacy Research, 39, 71–93.
Purcell-­Gates, V., Duke, N., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-­specific
text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 42,
8–45.
Recht, D. R., & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers’ memory of
text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 16–20.
Reutzel, D. R., Smith, J. A., & Fawson, P. C. (2005). An evaluation of two approaches for teaching
reading comprehension strategies in the primary years using science information texts. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 276–305.
Riddle Buly, M., & Valencia, S. W. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of students who fail state read-
ing assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 213–239.
Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (1992). A curriculum strategy that expands time for in-depth
elementary science instruction by using science-­based reading strategies: Effects of a year-
long study in grade four. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 545–554.
Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2001). Implementing an in-depth expanding science model in
elementary schools: Multi-year findings, research issues, and policy implications. Interna-
tional Journal of Science Education, 23, 373–404.
Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2012). Expanding the role of K–5 science instruction in educa-
tional reform: Implications of an interdisciplinary model for integrating science and reading.
School Science and Mathematics, 112, 506–515.
Saunders, W. M., & Goldenberg, C. N. (1999). Effects of instructional conversations and litera-
ture logs on limited- and fluent-­English-­proficient students’ story comprehension and the-
matic understanding. Elementary School Journal, 99, 277–301.
Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities:
Comprehension Instruction in the Elementary Classroom 223

Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of

early literacy research (pp. 97–110). New York: Guilford Press.
Shanahan, C. (2009). Disciplinary comprehension. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook
of research on reading comprehension (pp. 240–260). New York: Routledge.
Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., & Misischia, C. (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disci-
plines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 393–429.
Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., et al.
(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.
Silverman, R., & Hines, S. (2009). The effects of multimedia-­enhanced instruction on the vocab-
ulary of English-­language learners and non-­English-­language learners in pre-­kindergarten
through second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 305–314.
Stahl, K. A. D. (2004). Proof, practice, and promise: Comprehension strategy instruction in the
primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 57, 598–609.
Taffe, S. W., & Gwinn, C. B. (2007). Integrating literacy and technology: Effective practice for
grades K–6. New York: Guilford Press.
Tam, K. Y., Heward, W. L., & Heng, M. A. (2006). A reading instruction intervention program
for English-­language learners who are struggling readers. Journal of Special Education, 40,
79–93.
Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K. F., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools and accom-
plished teachers: Lessons about primary-­g rade reading instruction in low-­income schools.
Elementary School Journal, 101, 121–165.
van den Broek, P., Everson, M., Virtue, S., Sung, Y., & Tzeng, Y. (2002). Comprehension and
memory of science texts: Inferential processes and the construction of a mental representa-
tion. In J. Otero, J. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text compre-
hension (pp. 131–154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vitale, M. R., & Romance, N. R. (2012). Using in-depth science instruction to accelerate student
achievement in science and reading comprehension in grades 1–2. International Journal of
Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 457–472.
Wharton-­McDonald, R., Pressley, M., & Hampston, J. M. (1998). Literacy instruction in nine
first-grade classrooms: Teacher characteristics and student achievement. Elementary School
Journal, 99, 101–128.
Wood, J. M. (2004). Literacy online: New tools for struggling readers and writers. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Zhang, S., & Duke, N. K. (2008). Strategies for Internet reading with different reading purposes: A
descriptive study of twelve good internet readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 40, 128–162.
 Chap t er 16

Fiction Comprehension Instruction

Attending to Characters’ and Readers’ Emotional States

Laura B. Smolkin and Erin M. McTigue

The goal of storytellers . . . consists of fostering in the child, at

whatever cost, compassion and humanness—­this miraculous ability of
man to be disturbed by another being’s misfortune, to feel joy about
another being’s happiness, to experience another’s fate as one’ own.
—Kornei C hukovsky (1925/1965, p. 138)

W hen thinking of fiction comprehension instruction, perhaps the most ubiquitous

practice is the story map (e.g., Stahl, 2004). This long-­established practice (Beck
& McKeown, 1981; Cunningham & Foster, 1978; McGee & Tompkins, 1981) is also
highly recommended (Duke, Pearson, Strachan, & Billman, 2011; National Reading
Panel [NRP], 2000; Shanahan et al., 2010), both for primary (e.g., Morrow, Tracey,
& Healey, 2013) and upper elementary (e.g., Malloy & Gambrell, 2013) grades (even
though its effectiveness with normally developing, older elementary children is less clear;
e.g., Dreher & Singer, 1980; NRP, 2000).
Given the prominence of story maps in fiction comprehension instruction, in this
chapter we consider this instructional practice in light of the following:

• Its origins in story grammars and different emphases in early story grammars.
• Developmental research related to theory of mind and neuroscience imaging.
• Research designed to improve attention to character state.

We then consider implications for classroom fiction comprehension, as well as future

directions for fiction comprehension research.

Historical Review of Story Maps and Fiction Comprehension

The beginnings of story map instruction lie in the world of generative grammars. Chom-
sky’s (1957, 1965) theoretical works on language production introduced his elegantly
simple, mathematically based generative grammar (also referred to as transformational

224
Fiction Comprehension Instruction 225

grammar); in this system, a series of rewrite, or transformational, rules were imagined

to act on semantic deep structures (meaning units) to convert them into the multitude of
surface structures (sentences) found in our speech. The concept of rewrite rules acting on
a condensed kernel of language led psychologists (e.g., Mandler & Johnson, 1977; Stein
& Glenn, 1979; Rumelhart, 1975; Thorndyke, 1977) into a burst of research in which
they contemplated, then tested similar rule-based grammars for story. These grammars,
sometimes termed story schemata (e.g., Mandler & Johnson, 1977; Rumelhart, 1975;
Thorndyke, 1977), were derived from goal-­oriented stories, with a particular emphasis
on folktales and fables. These particular genres were seen, through generations of tell-
ing and retelling, to have been reduced to and to feature the most essential elements
of stories. And as with Chomsky’s mathematically based system, these story grammars
were seen as potentially supporting computer engineering (e.g., Stein & Glenn, 1979) as
the world of artificial intelligence, with its goal of machines capturing human meaning-­
making processes, blossomed.
In these goal-­oriented story grammars, characters, both human and animal, were
seen to exist in particular settings, and their adventures were launched by a particular
event or condition linked to character goals. Characters then engaged in a series of actions
and events that ultimately led to some form of resolution for these problems, which might
or might not be followed by an author comment, such as a stated theme in a fable.

The Place of Character States in Story Grammars

Examining those original story grammars is illuminating, especially in light of current neu-
roscience results that suggest a very prominent role for emotion in comprehension (a topic
we address shortly). Although the grammars all addressed goals, events, and outcomes,
there were notable differences with regard to protagonists’ internal states or internal
responses. Exact descriptions of these internal aspects differed but, in general, the states
addressed characters’ thoughts, plans, and emotions. Some (e.g., Mandler & Johnson,
1977; Rumelhart, 1975; Stein & Glenn, 1979) highlighted attention to these states promi-
nently in their models, placing state information high in their grammar rules, suggesting
that character states are critical to developing plots. Thorndyke (1977), however, did not;
he attended little to character states, providing sketchy definitions, and placing states late
in his rules system, chiefly representing states in terms of characters’ reactions to outcomes.

The Place of States in Children’s Story Comprehension

Relative to researching story grammars with elementary-­age children, early findings
appeared to justify Thorndyke’s (1977) relative lack of attention to states. When both
Mandler and Johnson (1977) and Stein and Glenn (1979) asked younger and older ele-
mentary students to retell stories they had been told, they found children attending little
to character thoughts, plans, and emotions. Children, instead, emphasized only particu-
lar story elements: settings, beginnings, and outcomes (the ordering of these elements
being age-­dependent). But contrary to researcher expectations, they made little mention
of character states. Mandler and Johnson (1977) speculated that the retelling methodol-
ogy itself might be at fault: Asking children to recall would naturally “emphasize the
outcomes of action sequences rather than the actions themselves or the internal events
motivating them” (p. 145, emphasis added).
Though their retelling findings initially mirrored those of Mandler and Johnson
(1977), Stein and Glenn (1979) enhanced both their analyses and tasks. For the retellings
226 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

analysis, they looked not only at the accurately recalled story information but also at the
nature of elaborations, or child-­produced additions (e.g., children altered the description
from “lonely” [found in the story text] to “lonely . . . old and poor,” p. 93). And here
Stein and Glenn found that 41% of this elaborated information addressed internal states
(defined as affect, cognition, and goals), with fifth graders twice as likely to provide story
elaborations as first graders. Even though these elaborations differed from internal states
actually presented in the text (at times being inaccurate), Stein and Glenn concluded that
“characters’ feelings, thoughts, and goals” (p. 95) were quite salient for children, espe-
cially for upper elementary students.
Further addressing the retelling methodology limitations, Stein and Glenn (1979)
added a unique importance rankings task (“What is most important in this story?”).
When asked this question, 63% of fifth graders’ accurate statements addressed internal
states (contrasting with 29% for first graders). Concluded Stein and Glenn, “the motives,
feelings, and thoughts of the characters . . . appear to be more central to what can be
considered the meaning of the story than the recall data indicate” (p. 113).

Changes in the Comprehension Research Field

With the appearance of Van Dijk and Kintsch’s (1983) situation model, the focus of read-
ing comprehension researchers shifted from top-down models, such as story grammars
and schemata, to more integrated representations of the comprehension process in which
reader inference building was highlighted. These cognitively focused models attended
little to readers’ emotions during reading (or other extratextual dimensions; e.g., imag-
ery), likely due to the difficulties such inclusions would cause in computational models
(see discussion by McNamara & Magliano, 2009).
Still, even though affect was disregarded in these new models, interest in both read-
ers’ emotions and character state persisted (e.g., Dijkstra, Zwaan, Graesser, & Magliano,
1994; Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994; Kneepkens & Zwaan, 1995). These research-
ers would distinguish between readers’ emotions (e.g., suspense, surprise, and curiosity,
sometimes termed artefact emotions, experienced as readers reacted to the text experi-
ence) and fictional emotions, experienced as readers empathized with characters. With
fictional emotions, readers were seen to imagine themselves in characters’ places, expe-
riencing “similar emotions” (Kneepkens & Zwaan, p. 132), a point to which we return
shortly.

The World of Others’ Minds

Simultaneous with the emerging story grammar research, other psychologists were
focused on children’s understanding of others’ mental states—­their thoughts, feelings,
beliefs, motives, and plans—that is, understandings that are essential to deep story com-
prehension. (We do note here that interest in the mind has long been a philosophical
topic; our focus is on research based on children’s developing concept of thinking about
others’ thinking). Selman (1976; revised framework, 2003), continuing in the Piagetian
tradition of perspective taking, set forth a developmental framework of social under-
standings that would account for Stein and Glenn’s (1979) recorded differences between
first- and fifth-grade subjects’ importance rankings. In Selman’s (1976) framework, first
graders, falling between egocentric (3–6 years) and differentiated perspective-­taking
(6–8 years) levels, understood that another individual could see a situation differently
from the child’s own perception. Fifth graders fell between reciprocal perspective taking
Fiction Comprehension Instruction 227

(8–10 years; increased ability to assess others’ perspectives) and mutual perspective tak-
ing (10–12 years), the difference here being an ability to consider multiple perspectives
simultaneously. Essentially, children’s understanding of others’ minds was quite visible in
the Stein and Glenn (1979) importance results.

The Emergence of Theory of Mind

A major paradigm shift in developmental psychology occurred in the early 1980s with
the appearance of theory of mind (ToM; e.g., Premack & Woodruff, 1978; Wimmer &
Perner, 1983). ToM, addressing “children’s understanding of people as mental beings who
have beliefs, desires, emotions, and intentions and whose actions and interactions can be
explained by taking account of these mental states” (Astington & Baird, 2005, p. 3,
emphasis added), snagged researchers’ attention. Findings in this area (for reviews, see
Astington & Dack, 2008; Miller, 2012), contrasting somewhat with earlier perspective-­
taking research, reveal that children’s understandings of others’ mental states change
significantly around 4–5 years of age, with the recognition that an individual (person A)
might hold a false belief. Elementary school-­age children developmentally increase their
understanding of others’ mental states, adding second-­order reasoning (person A’s belief
about person B’s mental state), along with accompanying growth in language-­related
abilities—­knowledge of advanced mental state terms, recognition of irony and persuasive
techniques, and increased understanding of introspection, among others—­all critical to
understanding character states in more advanced fiction.

Neuroimaging of ToM
ToM researchers (e.g., Baron-Cohen et al., 1994; see Frith & Frith, 2006, for a review
of this work) recognized that various newly available neuroscience scans (in particular,
functional magnetic resonance imaging [fMRI]) could substantiate and enhance their
understanding of neurological states relevant to various ToM tasks. Most of this work,
chiefly conducted with adults due to technological constraints, focused on locating the
biological brain centers and pathways involved in these tasks, but the work also produced
the significant concept of mirroring (Frith & Frith, 2006), the finding that precisely
the same brain centers and pathways involved during personal emotion experience are
activated during the experience of character emotion. This research provided biological
substantiation for Kneepkens and Zwaan’s (1995) assertion: Adult readers experience
emotions along with the characters they encounter in fiction.
The links between ToM and neuroimaging sparked additional psychological research
on fiction comprehension. These more recent findings (e.g., Mar, Oatley, Hirsh, de la
Paz, & Peterson, 2006; Oatley, 2011) demonstrate that reading fiction enhances readers’
empathy, as character emotions run along neural paths long-­established by the individ-
ual’s own emotions, likely strengthening those paths. Living through (Rosenblatt, 1968)
characters’ lives through the emotions they experience reinforces readers’ understanding
of and relationships with others, just as the poet Chukovsky first suggested in 1925.

Story Maps and Comprehension Strategy Instruction

Literally as soon as story grammars first appeared, their potential for reading compre-
hension instruction intrigued reading instruction researchers. Guthrie (1977) presented
Thorndyke’s story grammar model, asserting that “comprehension of a story . . . is
228 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

comprehension of the structure . . . the setting, the theme, the plot and resolution, their
components and their interrelationships” (p. 577). We note here that Guthrie’s “theme”
referred not to typical literary conceptions of theme but represented a macrostructural
story grammar element, seen as having two components—­the protagonist’s goal and the
events that led to that goal. Current story maps (e.g., Duke et al., 2011; Shanahan et al.,
2010) retain this term theme but now use it to designate its literary meaning.

Comprehension Instruction
State Reduction
With the publication of Guthrie’s (1977) article, story grammars burst into the world of
comprehension instruction (e.g., Cunningham & Foster, 1978; Dreher & Singer, 1980).
In 1981, Beck and McKeown would introduce the term story map, and McGee and
Tompkins would introduce the tabular format commonly seen in today’s story maps.
Sadly, at least from our review of the research, comprehension instruction researchers
followed the Thorndyke/Guthrie story grammar: emphasis on characters’ internal states
would narrow to goals; other internal elements, such as thoughts and, more particularly,
feelings, clearly experienced as adults read fiction (e.g., Mar et al., 2006; Oatley, 2011)
and clearly present in fifth graders’ assessments of important story elements (Stein &
Glenn, 1979), would slip from instructional attention. This limited emphasis on char-
acter state is quite visible in currently recommended story maps (e.g., Duke et al., 2011;
Shanahan et al., 2010); no space or heading is provided to record such information, limit-
ing discussion of internal states during story map instruction.

Returning to Character State

Despite the prominence of story map research based on the reduced state model, there has
been a modicum of research that deliberately addresses character thoughts and emotions.
Dunning (1992) addressed internal states (motives and feelings) in an experimental treat-
ment, stressing the why of story events (requiring many inferences), which he contrasted
with a control group focused on external events, on what happened (directly stated in
text, requiring minimal inferences). As in earlier story grammar research, the third grade
groups did not differ on a retelling measure, but both at post- and at delayed posttesting,
the internal states group outperformed the external states group on inferential, open-
ended questions, as well as probes of goals, problems, and resolutions.
Emery and Milhalevich (1992), influenced by Selman’s stage work (1976, 2003),
focused their research with fourth, fifth, and sixth graders on character perspectives,
defined as “motives, thoughts, beliefs, and feelings” (p. 51). Experimental subjects,
engaged in characters’ internal states, outperformed control students (who had focused
on improving text language) on comprehension questions attending to characters’ moti-
vations, feelings, and thought. Emery (1996), later commenting on the inability of many
upper-­elementary-­grade students to consider multiple characters’ perspectives, proposed
an innovative (but untested) change to story maps, story maps with character perspec-
tives (SMCP), designed to increase upper-grade students’ comprehension. In these maps,
events, the what happened of story plots, were listed in a middle column, while two dif-
ferent characters’ thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and desires at those particular event points
were listed on either side.
Critiquing existing story maps for their emphasis on “static structural properties
of text over . . . more dynamic and interactive qualities” (p. 672), such as character
Fiction Comprehension Instruction 229

relationships and reactions, Shanahan and Shanahan (1997) also innovated standard
story maps with character perspective charts (CPCs). These graphic organizers greatly
resembled standard story maps with some notable differences: (1) Two maps, represent-
ing two characters, appeared side-by-side, eliminating the long-held single-­protagonist
focus of story maps; (2) for Goal, children were specifically to attend to character desires
(as contrasted with stating what the protagonist attempted to accomplish); and (3) char-
acters’ emotions were emphasized, with the inclusion of the category Reaction to Out-
come (present in all early models of story grammars). Unfortunately, both the Shanahans
(1997) and Emery (1996), working with second through sixth graders and 9- to 11-year-
olds, respectively, provided only anecdotal data on their revised story maps’ effectiveness.

Revised Story Maps: Emphasizing Character States

Accordingly, we wished to contribute to this very limited set of empirically substantiated
studies considering the impact of a character state focus in story maps on children’s fic-
tion comprehension. We targeted third-grade readers who had difficulty with inferential
comprehension. Bearing in mind descriptions of post–first-grade developments in consid-
ering others’ mental states (e.g., Astington & Dack, 2008; Selman, 1976, 2003), as well
as Dunning’s (1992) results with third graders, we anticipated that struggling third-grade
students (ages 8–9) would be challenged with second-­order (perspective-­taking) tasks but
could create such inferences with structure and support. Based on our literature review,
we believed our instruction would deepen students’ comprehension of and engagement
with fictional children’s literature.

Design
For the beginning of our research in this area, we designed a multiple baseline, multiple
probe, single-­subject study to explore four participants’ comprehension, enabling us to
make subject-­specific instructional adjustments based on their progress. We included in-
depth data collection from the initial baseline phase (5 days) and the intervention phase
(15 days), as well as follow-­up probes (ranging from 2 to 5 days) in which students read
independently without graphic organizers. Unanticipated changes to the school calendar
prevented us from establishing full postintervention baseline phases for all students; how-
ever, we were able to work from established initial baseline data and trend lines. We also
considered qualitative data, such as teacher interviews and lesson transcripts.

Participants
Based on teacher judgment of inferential/deep comprehension, we recruited four students
from a single public charter school, serving high-needs populations in the southwestern
United States. Three students participated in the intervention; the other served as a for-
mal control. All read the same books with a tutor and answered the same comprehension
questions; the single difference was instruction with our graphic organizer for experi-
mental students.

Materials
Mindful of concerns related to story type (e.g., Mandler & Johnson, 1977; Stein &
Glenn, 1979), we selected our 40 texts from published children’s literature, focusing on
230 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

TABLE 16.1. Children’s Literature Criteria and Examples

Criteria used for book selection Sample titles
Second- to third-grade reading level •• Owen by Kevin Henkes
Plot: interpersonal conflict •• The Big Orange Splot by Daniel Pinkwater
Well-developed characters •• Verdi by Janell Cannon
Inferential reasoning required for character states •• Toot and Puddle by Hollie Hobbie
Relevant/engaging for third graders •• The True Story of the Three Little Pigs by
John Scieszka
Quality illustrations supportive of plot

books clearly presenting two characters’ perspectives. Table 16.1 summarizes the criteria
and supplies examples from our final list, which was screened by a team of teachers and
literacy education professors.

Intervention
During school hours, two experienced, certified reading intervention teachers who were
not affiliated with the school conducted the lessons, following typical before–­during–­
after cycles. Before reading, the teacher previewed the text and instructed students in pre-
determined vocabulary deemed essential for comprehension. During reading, the teacher
provided decoding support as needed. After reading, the students summarized the text
and answered comprehension questions.
The intervention phase (15 lessons) focused on the use of the “Character Perspective
Maps” (CPM; see Figure 16.1), employed at three predetermined stopping points in each
story, each such point determined as representing a key plot event. Thought bubbles,
successfully used in previous ToM research (e.g., Pelletier & Astington, 2004), signified
character’s internal states, either their feelings or thoughts. The square boxes provided
space for students to record evidence for their inferences. Their evidence could come
directly from the text, from picture clues (e.g., facial expressions; see Oatley, 2011), or
from personal experience (e.g., “I think that Toot is excited to get presents for his birth-
day because that is how I felt on my birthday”). Rather than focus on the sequencing of
events common in story map instruction, we coached the children to consider the story
through the lens of two characters experiencing conflict.

Data Sources
As indicated earlier, our primary data source was researcher-­created inferential compre-
hension questions, employing the same basic stems after each reading. We derived the
stems from previous research (Dunning, 1992; Emery, 1996) and constructed them so
they could be applied to multiple texts by substituting underlined words with specific text
words: Why did a character do an action? How did the character feel about an event?
We asked five such questions for each book. Following suggestions from Emery and Mil-
halevich (1992), we scored student answers with a 0- to 3-point rubric, using multiple
raters; possible scores for each text ranged from 0 to 15. Our secondary data sources,
transcripts from intervention sessions and teacher interviews, we analyzed qualitatively.
For each instructional session, we completed a detailed fidelity checklist (e.g., Sanetti &
Kratochwill, 2009; Horner et al., 2005).
Fiction Comprehension Instruction 231

APFT1

What Toot is thinking or feeling What Puddle is thinking or feeling

I know Toot is thinking or feeling this I know Puddle is thinking or feeling

because: this because:

Toot tells Puddle

to get him a
surprise birthday
present . . .

FIGURE 16.1. Example of CPM graphical support using Toot and Puddle (Hobbie, 1997).

Results
Although all three experimental participants demonstrated gains through the interven-
tion, for the sake of space, here we highlight only two, David and Belinda. (We note
also that our control student showed no growth during the weeks of our intervention,
validating that experimental children’s growth resulted from the intervention.) David’s
teacher (all children’s names are pseudonyms) described this African American male as
a strong decoder with poor comprehension skills. Belinda, a female, bilingual student
(Spanish–­English) also was performing below grade level on comprehension measures. In
accordance with single-­subject research, we present our results by child.

David

David made steady progress throughout the intervention, demonstrating strong response
to the 15-lesson intervention. Initially, David’s answers to questions were limited and
simplistic, and he typically scored a 0 or 1, as in this example from intervention lesson 5,
utilizing Owen (Henkes, 1993).

Teacher: How did Owen feel when his parents said he could not bring Fuzzy to
school?
David: Sad. Sad.
232 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

Teacher: How do you know he felt sad?

David: Because, because that, he was about to cry. [score of 1 out of 3 possible
points]

David enjoyed talking about his own life experiences and telling stories; we worked
to turn this proclivity into a comprehension strategy for empathizing with others. At
intervention lesson 7 (midpoint), we introduced the concept of proving his answers, in
order to help David connect his own experiences with those of the character (rather than
continually connecting to his life only). This emphasis prompted an immediate improve-
ment in the quality of his answers, as well a more sophisticated process of inferring
character emotions. Subsequently, David was able both to relate and differentiate his own
reactions to and from character’s reactions. Note his use of the word both during discus-
sion of The Big Orange Splot (Pinkwater, 1977).

Teacher: What did Mr. Plumbean think when the seagull dropped the paint [on
his house]?
David: When somebody broke my toy, and then Mr. Plumbean dropped the paint on
his house, then we both got mad and he tried, he tried to paint over and tried to
fix it, but he changed his house. [score of 2 out of 3]

David also became more able to identify states different from his own. For example,
in the book Max’s Words (Banks, 2006), Max starts a collection of words in competition
with his brothers’ more traditional collections of coins and stamps.

Teacher: What did Benjamin and Karl think when Max started creating a story
with his words?
David: They were laughing because they think it’s silly. But I didn’t think it was
silly. So, they kept teasing and teasing him. [score of 3 out of 3]

By intervention’s end, David consistently employed these character–­self states in

inferring the emotions and reactions of characters; additionally, his answers displayed
more sophisticated thinking.

Belinda

An English language learner of Hispanic origin, Belinda began our intervention with
higher overall comprehension scores than other participants. As we worked with her,
we recognized that her comprehension problems likely included limited decoding skills;
accordingly, Belinda initially showed limited response to the intervention. We noted addi-
tionally that she had difficulty with mental state vocabulary (Astington & Dack, 2008),
using description rather than precise terminology to explain emotional responses. For
example, in the traditional telling of The Three Little Pigs (Marshall, 1989), rather than
employing the word revenge, Belinda described its concept.

Teacher: What did the pig in the brick house think about when he ate the wolf?
Belinda: He felt, “Yeah, you ate my brothers, I ate you!” [score 2 out of 3]
Fiction Comprehension Instruction 233

An example from Verdi (Cannon, 1997) is similar; Belinda again lacked emotion
state vocabulary.

Teacher: What did Verdi want after he turned green?

Belinda: He felt, “Is this how I’m going to be now?” and like he just wanted to be
someone else, so he thought to himself for a really long time. [score 3 out of 3]

In short, although Belinda possessed complex and accurate understandings of the

stories, she was limited in her ability to express those thoughts. Providing individual
adjustments typical of single-­subject design, her tutor began introducing five new emo-
tion vocabulary cards per session. In response, Belinda’s answers to comprehension ques-
tions increased in specificity, and her confidence increased. When reading Max’s Words
(Banks, 2006), Belinda clearly understood and articulated the nuanced and negative
response of Max’s brothers.

Teacher: What did Benjamin and Karl think when Max started creating a story
with his words?
Belinda: Jealous.
Teacher: Ah, why do you think that?
Belinda: Because they couldn’t really make coins [from their collections] . . . like
stories. [score 3 out of 3]

Providing Belinda with more mental state vocabulary enabled her to communicate
her story understanding in a much more sophisticated manner. This led to a feedback
loop, as these enriched discussions and interactions with her tutor provided her with more
detailed responses, additional vocabulary, and even greater engagement with the narra-
tives. Belinda’s greater engagement in story comprehension reflected similar changes in
the other two intervention single subjects. And with this increased engagement, her stated
empathy also increased.

How Revising Story Maps Can Improve Fiction Comprehension Instruction

We will be the first to acknowledge limitations (participant screening, unpiloted com-

prehension measures, limited data points resulting from school scheduling changes,
standardized measures to examine transfer effects) in this first exploratory effort at
empirically substantiating the benefits of adding character state information to story
maps. However, our results provide evidence that fiction comprehension instruction
linked to ToM improved inferential comprehension and empathic response in students
with demonstrated comprehension difficulties. We attribute these improvements to the
combination of high-­quality children’s literature highlighting interpersonal conflict,
our revised story maps that compelled second-­order reasoning, adjustments that sup-
ported each child’s needs, and discussions that focused on character states. In the next
sections, we consider how character-­state-­enhanced story maps, such as our CPM,
Emery’s (1996) SMCP, and the Shanahans’ (1997) CPC can improve fiction compre-
hension instruction.
234 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

Character‑State‑Enhanced Story Maps Support Upper Elementary Students

As suggested by the NRP (2000) and Shanahan et al. (2010), instruction with existing,
single protagonist forms of story maps is appropriate for both normally developing kin-
dergarten, first graders, and second graders, as well as special needs students. What is key
here is the achievement of second-­order reasoning, that ability to consider multiple per-
spectives. Shanahan and Shanahan (1997) noted that second graders needed additional
scaffolding as they worked with the CPC story maps; a lack of second-­order reasoning is
likely the reason why.
Standard story map instruction is not deemed effective for promoting upper ele-
mentary students’ comprehension (NRP, 2000). Given the heavy event focus of these
maps and our knowledge that events are what children naturally stress during retellings
(Mandler & Johnson, 1977; Stein & Glenn, 1979), additional instruction highlighting
first-order reasoning is likely to be ineffectual once children have achieved second-­order
reasoning. At that point, children are able to conceptualize stories multidimensionally;
they can consider how different characters may think and feel about a single event. Given
the highly engaged responses of our third graders, as well as Emery and Milhalevich’s
(1992) research with fourth, fifth, and sixth graders, and the anecdotal reports supplied
by Emery (1996) and the Shanahans (1997), we see that completing dual-­character, state-­
enhanced story maps, either in small groups with teacher support for third and, possibly,
fourth graders, or alone or in pairs for fifth and sixth graders, provides graphic organizer
support bolstering critical inference making about multiple characters’ states, abilities
essential for comprehending award-­winning children’s literature such as The Wanderer
(Creech, 2000) or Liar and Spy (Stead, 2012).

Emphasizing Character‑State Vocabulary Supports Engagement and Empathy

As suggested in the ToM research (e.g., Astington & Baird, 2005) and substantiated in
our own study, children, even adolescents (e.g., O’Kearney & Dadds, 2004), may lack the
necessary lexicon for discussing character states. With English language learners such as
Belinda, this lack of lexicon is intensified, hampering students’ abilities to interpret, expe-
rience, and discuss the fiction they are reading. Once Belinda was supplied with appropri-
ate vocabulary, her engagement increased, and her discussions with her tutor intensified.
Fiction, such as the high-­quality literature expected for use in the Common Core
State Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council
of Chief State School Officers, 2010), abounds with challenging mental state terminol-
ogy; research (e.g., Dyer, Shatz, & Wellman, 2000) suggests that the variety and fre-
quency of mental state terms and expressions within children’s books increase with the
intended audience age. Astington and Dack (2008) spoke to the importance of mental
state vocabulary, a cognitive resource that enhances ToM as it enables further and deeper
conversations about others’ minds. This is why the character state vocabulary preteach-
ing procedures we employed in our CPM research enhanced both our students’ compre-
hension and their engagement. Once students can infer character states, they are increas-
ingly able to adopt an empathizing stance, which we have long known to be used by
good upper-­elementary readers in their fiction comprehension (e.g., Phillips, 1988), and
which current neuroimaging results demonstrate to occur during adult comprehension of
fiction (e.g., Oatley, 2011). To support this empathic development in children’s literary
experience, both in individual comprehension and in discussions, teachers can examine
Fiction Comprehension Instruction 235

fictional works themselves for words that describe character beliefs, desires, thoughts,
emotions, and intentions, and preteach such vocabulary.

Summary

This chapter has examined what, historically, has been a highly regarded practice in
fiction comprehension instruction, the story map, commencing with its origins in story
grammar research. In contemplating the limitations of this practice, we have recognized
that findings from ToM research and related neuroimaging research provide enlighten-
ment as to why the long-­established, state-­reduced story maps have been less effective in
improving fiction comprehension for upper-­elementary students who have moved beyond
first-order reasoning and a more limited recognition of story events into a greater capac-
ity for interpreting multiple characters’ internal states. These findings also suggest how
adjustments in these notable graphic organizers will not only enhance upper-­elementary
children’s second-­order reasoning but may also deepen their empathy for others.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. To increase your understanding of the single-­protagonist story map, create a flowchart tracing its
development from 1975 though 1981. Explain how character-­state-­enhanced story maps differ from
these original maps and what this may mean for upper-grade fiction comprehension instruction.
2. Select a Newbery winner and examine it for character state vocabulary, organizing these words into
the categories suggested by Astington and Baird (2005): beliefs, desires, emotions, and intentions.
3. To increase your understanding of neuroimaging research and its impact on our fiction comprehension
knowledge, read Oatley (2011), which was written for the general public.

References

Astington, J. W., & Baird, J. A. (2005). Introduction: Why language matters. In J. W. Astington &
J. A. Baird (Eds.), Why language matters for theory of mind (pp. 3–25). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Astington, J. W., & Dack, L. A. (2008). Theory of mind. In M. M. Haith & J. B. Benson (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of infant and early childhood development (Vol. 3, pp. 343–356). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Baron-Cohen, S., Ring, H., Moriarty, J., Schmitz, B., Costa, D., & Ell, P. (1994). The brain basis
of theory of mind: The role of the orbito-­frontal region. British Journal of Psychiatry, 16(5),
640–649.
Beck, I., & McKeown, M. G. (1981). Developing questions that promote comprehension: The
story map. Language Arts, 58(8), 913–918.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chukovsky, K. (1965). From two to five (M. Morton, Trans.). Berkeley: University of California
Press. (Original work published 1925)
Cunningham, J. W., & Foster, E. O. (1978). The ivory tower connection: A case study. The Read-
ing Teacher, 31(4), 365–369.
Dijkstra, K., Zwaan, R. A., Graesser, A. C., & Magliano, J. P. (1994). Character and reader emo-
tions in literary texts. Poetics, 23, 139–157.
236 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

Dreher, M. J., & Singer, H. (1980). Story grammar instruction unnecessary for intermediate grade
students. The Reading Teacher, 34(3), 261–268.
Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, A. K. (2011). Essential elements of fos-
tering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What
research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 51–93). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Dunning, D. B. (1992). Instructional questions that clarify story characters’ feelings and moti-
vation: Their effect on students’ narrative comprehension. Retrieved from http://eric.
ed.gov/?id=ED350579.
Dyer, J. R., Shatz, M., & Wellman, H. M. (2000). Young children’s storybooks as a source of
mental state information. Cognitive Development, 15(1), 17–37.
Emery, D. W. (1996). Helping readers comprehend stories from the characters’ perspectives. The
Reading Teacher, 49(7), 534–541.
Emery, D. W., & Milhalevich, C. (1992). Directed discussion of character perspectives. Reading
Research and Instruction, 31(4), 51–59.
Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2006). The neural basis of mentalizing. Neuron, 50, 531–534.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text
comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371–395.
Guthrie, J. T. (1977). Story comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 30(5), 574–575, 577.
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of
single-­subject research to identify evidence-­based practice in special education. Exceptional
Children, 71(2), 165–179.
Kneepkens, E. W. E. M., & Zwaan, R. A. (1995). Emotions and literary text comprehension. Poet-
ics, 23(1), 125–138.
Malloy, J. A., & Gambrell, L. (2013). Reading standards for literature. In L. M. Morrow, K. K.
Wixson, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Teaching with the Common Core Standards for English
language arts, grades 3–5 (pp. 22–49). New York: Guilford Press.
Mandler, J. M., & Johnson, N. S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and
recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9(1), 111–151.
Mar, R. A., Oatley, K., Hirsh, J., de la Paz, J., & Peterson, J. B. (2006). Bookworms versus nerds:
Exposure to fiction versus non-­fiction, divergent associations with social ability, and the
simulation of fictional social worlds. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(5), 694–712.
McGee, L., & Tompkins, G. (1981). The videotape answer to independent reading comprehension
activities. The Reading Teacher, 34(4), 427–433.
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension.
In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 297–383). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier.
Miller, S. A. (2012). Theory of mind: Beyond the preschool years. New York: Psychology Press.
Morrow, L. M., Tracey, D. H., & Healey, K. M. (2013). Reading standards for literature: Develop-
ing comprehension. In L. M. Morrow, T. Shanahan, & K. K. Wixson (Eds.), Teaching with
the Common Core Standards for English language arts, grades preK–2 (pp. 22–45). New
York: Guilford Press.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Offi-
cers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy, history,
social studies, science and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author.
National Reading Panel (NRP). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-­based assessment
of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction
(National Institute of Health Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development.
Oatley, K. (2011). In the minds of others. Scientific American Mind, 22(5), 62–67.
O’Kearney, R., & Dadds, M. (2004). Developmental and gender differences in the language for
emotions across the adolescent years. Cognition and Emotion, 18(7), 913–938.
Fiction Comprehension Instruction 237

Pelletier, J., & Astington, J. W. (2004). Action, consciousness and theory of mind: Children’s abil-
ity to coordinate story characters’ actions and thoughts. Early Education and Development,
15(1), 5–22.
Phillips, L. M. (1988). Young readers’ inference strategies in reading comprehension. Cognition
and Instruction, 5(3), 193–222.
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 1(4), 515–526.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1968). Literature as exploration (2nd ed.). New York: Noble & Noble.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1975). Notes on a schema for stories. In D. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.), Rep-
resentation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science (pp. 211–236). New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Sanetti, L. M. H., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2009). Toward developing a science of treatment integ-
rity: Introduction to the special series. School Psychology Review, 38(4), 445–459.
Selman, R. L. (1976). Social-­cognitive understanding: A guide to educational and clinical practice.
In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research and social issues
(pp. 299–316). St. Louis, MO: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Selman, R. L. (2003). The promotion of social awareness: Powerful lessons from the partnership
of developmental theory and classroom practice. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N.K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., et al.
(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.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, S. (1997). Character perspective charting: Helping children to develop
a more complete conception of story. The Reading Teacher, 50(8), 668–677.
Stahl, K. A. D. (2004). Proof, practice, and promise: Comprehension strategy instruction in the
primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 57(7), 598–609.
Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school
children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (Vol. 2, pp. 53–120).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Thorndyke, P. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse.
Cognitive Psychology, 9(1), 77–110.
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function
of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 13(1), 103–128.

Children’s Books

Banks, K. (2006). Max’s words. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Cannon, J. (1997). Verdi. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace.
Creech, S. (2000). The wanderer. New York: HarperCollins.
Henkes, K. (1993). Owen. New York: Greenwillow.
Hobbie, H. (1997). Toot and Puddle. Boston: Little, Brown.
Marshall, J. (1989). The three little pigs. New York: Dial.
Pinkwater, D. M. (1977). The big orange splot. New York: Scholastic.
Sciezka, J. (1996). The true story of the three little pigs. New York: Puffin.
Stead, R. (2012). Liar and spy. New York: Wendy Lamb.
 Chap t er 17

Improving Comprehension
of Informational Texts
in the Elementary Classroom

Lisa S. Pao and Joanna P. Williams

               Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge;

               it is thinking that makes what we read ours.
—John Locke1

O ver the past two decades, the percentage of American fourth graders reading at or
above grade level according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) slowly increased from a low of 28% in 1992 to a high of 35% in 2013. Similarly,
the number of eighth graders reading at or above grade level increased from 29% in 1992
to 36% in 2013 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). Although the gradual
improvement is encouraging, NAEP data show that the majority of fourth and eighth
graders in the United States continue to read below grade level. Additionally, one out of
five college freshmen must take a remedial reading course (Southern Regional Educa-
tion Board, 2006), and two out of five high school graduates lack the literacy skills that
employers seek (National Governors Association, 2005).
Spurred on by these findings, educators and policymakers have been searching for
ways to improve reading instruction. Of particular interest has been the role of informa-
tional text in the reading curriculum. The NAEP reading framework currently contains
the following distributions of literary and informational text: for fourth grade, 50%
of passages on the NAEP reading test are informational; for eighth grade, 55%; and
for 12th grade, 70% (National Assessment Governing Board, 2012). This emphasis on
informational text has been reinforced by other educational groups. According to the test

1 As quoted in “Hand Book: Caution and Counsels” by Horace Mann (1843, p. 371).

238
Comprehension of Informational Texts in the Elementary Classroom 239

blueprint for the redesigned SAT, 80% of reading passages on the new test will be infor-
mational (College Board, 2014). The NAEP distributions have also been integrated into
the Common Core State Standards as recommendations for the selection of instructional
texts; the new standards recommend that 50% of the texts used in K–5 reading instruc-
tion should be informational (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices
& Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).
Central to the new standards for reading is the aim to help students at all grade levels
build content knowledge along with comprehension ability through extensive exposure
to complex texts. Beginning in kindergarten, students will be taught to read texts for key
ideas and details, to analyze texts for craft and structure, and to integrate the knowl-
edge and ideas found in text. Under the new framework, reading is divided into three
distinct clusters of standards: foundational skills, literature, and informational text. A
sample informational text standard for second grade requires students to “identify the
main topic of a multiparagraph text as well as the focus of specific paragraphs within the
text (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.2.2),” and readers of informational text in the third grade
are expected to be able to “describe the logical connection between particular sentences
and paragraphs in a text (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.3.8)” (National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).
These are admirable—­albeit ambitious—­goals. We embrace the notion that students
should be taught to comprehend informational text, and we agree that early exposure to
expository text is essential. However, findings from studies in the research base—and
from studies by our own research group—lead to several concerns that we wish to share
with educators who are aiming to meet the new reading standards.
Informational texts can be difficult to read. Young readers often find that the con-
tents of informational texts are not only less familiar but also more complex (Hidi &
Anderson, 1986; Kucan & Beck, 1997). Compared to narrative texts, expository texts
tend to be less coherent (Wiley, Griffin, & Thiede, 2005) and require more background
knowledge (Graesser & Bertus, 1998; van den Broek, Virtue, Everson, Tzeng, & Sung,
2002) and more effort to generate inferences (Wiley & Myers, 2003). Additionally,
expository texts contain a variety of logical and rhetorical structures, such as description,
sequence, compare–­contrast, cause–­effect, problem–­solution, argument, and explana-
tion (Calfee & Chambliss, 1987; Meyer, 1985). Many expository texts are not organized
according to a single one of these structures but rather are combinations of two or more
of them (Meyer & Poon, 2001). As the complexity of the structures in a text increases, so
too does the challenge for the reader, who must map textual information onto his or her
existing representation of the structures.
For these reasons, young readers who lack experience with these structures may find
expository texts difficult to comprehend, and children who already struggle with reading
may find expository texts especially challenging. When children—­especially those with
language difficulties or deficits—­do not receive sufficient exposure to and instruction
about expository texts, they will have increasing difficulties in reading and in meeting
academic demands.
Findings from intervention research suggest that explicit instruction in text struc-
ture may be necessary in order for young readers to comprehend informational text. In
a review of the literature, the researchers concluded that instruction designed to teach
students to recognize the underlying structure of text improved their comprehension,
and that with systematic and intensive instruction, low-­achieving students also benefited
from this instruction (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001).
240 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

For several years, our research group has been focused on developing and evaluat-
ing educational interventions that teach young children to use the structure inherent in
expository texts to aid their comprehension (Williams, Hall, & Lauer, 2004; Williams et
al., 2005, 2007, 2014). With support from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), we
have developed a program that embeds text structure training in social studies lessons. In
this chapter, we examine the findings from our evaluation of this program and address
the following questions:

• How can we make students aware that text has structure?

• How can we teach them to identify the cues that exist in text?
• How can we provide practice, so that all students learn to respond to those cues?
• How can we teach students to apply their knowledge of structure when they come
upon texts that are not well organized?

What’s Out There Today: Established Research and Practice in Expository Text

Structure and Comprehension

Much has been learned about effective instruction in reading comprehension. Research
has shown the following to be elements of effective reading instruction: direct instruction
featuring clearly stated learning goals, frequent monitoring of student progress, and pro-
vision of ongoing feedback to students (Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez, 2002);
modeling of comprehension strategies with a focus on why, how, and when to use a spe-
cific comprehension strategy (Regan & Berkeley, 2012; Rupley, Blair, & Nichols, 2009);
scaffolding that is tailored to the diverse needs of the learners in a class and that is gradu-
ally withdrawn as students become more independent (Pentimonti & Justice, 2009); and
an explicit focus on print elements and story structures via read-­alouds and discussions
(Justice & Ezell, 2002; Lynch & van den Broek, 2007).
With respect to text structure, Bonnie J. F. Meyer, who began her seminal work on
this topic in the 1970s (see Meyer, 1975; Meyer & Freedle, 1984), has recently, with her
colleagues, developed an automated tutoring program for middle school students. The
program Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy (ITSS) teaches students to use the
structure of an expository text to organize their comprehension. Students learn how to
identify words and phrases that are commonly used to signal structure. They also learn
how to organize the information in a text into a main idea pattern. An evaluation of the
ITSS program indicated that it was successful in improving the reading comprehension of
fifth- and seventh-­grade students (Meyer & Wijekumar, 2007).
In our work, we have focused on young children. We have demonstrated that it is
possible to teach second-­grade students about text structure, and that this knowledge
improves their comprehension (e.g., Williams et al., 2004, 2005, 2007, 2014). In one
study, in which the compare–­contrast structure was taught to 128 second graders drawn
from 10 New York City public school classrooms, we found that students who received
our text structure program outperformed students who did not receive the program, that
students were able to demonstrate transfer of what they had learned to content beyond
that used in instruction, and that students at high, medium, and low levels of achieve-
ment on standardized reading tests were able to benefit from our program (Williams et
al., 2005). In another study, which involved 197 second graders in 14 classrooms, we
investigated the effectiveness of our cause–­effect program (Williams et al., 2014). We
Comprehension of Informational Texts in the Elementary Classroom 241

found positive effects for our text structure program on a posttest given immediately
after conclusion of the instruction and also on a delayed posttest administered the follow-
ing school year after students returned from summer vacation. In a study of our sequence
program, which taught the sequence structure to 247 second graders in 15 classrooms,
we again found positive evidence for our text structure program (Williams, Pao, Ordy-
nans, Atkins, & Cheng, 2015). In the next section of this chapter, we describe the general
design and rationale of our interventions, then present the results of our evaluation of
a program that integrates our instructional programs in all three of these structures:
sequence, compare–­contrast, and cause–­effect.

Close Analysis of Texts with Structure: Sequence, Compare–Contrast,

and Cause–Effect

Our research group is continuing its work on the development and evaluation of Close
Analysis of Texts with Structure (CATS), an intervention that embeds reading compre-
hension training within content-­area instruction. Our goal is to create a full-year inter-
vention that covers the five basic text structures: sequence, compare–­contrast, cause–­
effect, description, and problem–­solution (Meyer, 1985). Designed for second graders
at risk for academic failure, the aim of the intervention is to enable students to use the
structure of expository text to aid their comprehension. The text structure instruction is
embedded within social studies content. The intervention takes a structured and explicit
approach, and it follows classic principles of good instructional design: It introduces
content in small increments, moves from the simple to the complex, incorporates model-
ing by the teacher, provides scaffolding that fades as instruction progresses, and allows
substantial opportunity for practice and feedback.
Since many students in the second grade are not yet fluent readers, we included a
mix of listening–­speaking and reading–­writing tasks in the instruction. Our goal is to
improve students’ comprehension of both oral and written language, as well as their pro-
duction of oral and written summaries. Based on empirical evidence, we include in our
intervention three strategies, each of which has been studied extensively by researchers:
clue words (e.g., Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000; Lorch, Lorch, & Inman, 1993), generic
questions (e.g., Carnine & Kinder, 1985), and graphic organizers (e.g., Bos & Vaughn,
2002; Kim, Vaughn, Wanzek, & Wei, 2004). We also included a fourth strategy, analy-
sis of well-­structured text, which is unique to our program and was designed to help
students recognize relationships within paragraphs as highlighted by the explicit and
implicit signals contained in the text (Lorch & Lorch, 1995; Meyer, 1985). Training in
the strategies was integrated into a fully rounded second-­grade social studies curriculum,
including read-­alouds of biographies and trade books, classroom discussions, indepen-
dent writing, and vocabulary work.
The final version of the intervention will comprise a series of five instructional
modules, each of which focuses on a single text structure (sequence, compare–­contrast,
cause–­ effect, description, and problem–­ solution) and on the basic features of living
in a historical or contemporary community in the United States (the Sioux, colonists,
pioneers, immigrants at the turn of the 20th century, and present-­day New York City
residents). We describe here the development and evaluation of three of the modules
(sequence, compare–­contrast, and cause–­effect). The other two modules are currently in
development.
242 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

Overview of the Text Structure Intervention

The intervention comprises three modules, each focusing on one text structure and one
community. Instruction began in October and continued through June, and teachers
were asked to teach two lessons per week. There were forty-one 45-minute lessons: 10 for
the sequence (Sioux) module, 14 for the compare–­contrast (colonists) module, 15 for the
cause–­effect (pioneers) module, and two review lessons.

The Sequence Module

Two introductory lessons introduced the concept of sequence and provided a general
overview of the Sioux community. The remaining lessons focused on the sequence struc-
ture in relation to four features of life in the Sioux community: homes, schools, jobs, and
clothes. There were two lessons about each feature. Each pair of lessons comprised the
following 10 sections:

1. Introduction. Teachers defined sequence as the order in which things happen.

Students developed and practiced their understanding of the concept of sequence through
activities using familiar content.
2. Clue words. Teachers introduced four sequence clue words: first, next, then, and
finally.
3. Trade book reading and discussion. Teachers read aloud from three trade books
about the concept of community and about the Sioux. After reading, teachers directed a
short discussion about the reading.
4. Vocabulary. Teachers introduced vocabulary concepts related to the features of
the Sioux community (community, home, school, job, Native Americans, Sioux, buffalo,
clothes, moccasin, tipi, hunter, and home school).
5. Reading and analysis of the target paragraph. Students read one of the five
sequence paragraphs written specifically for the program. Each paragraph included three
to five sentences about a sequence followed by the Sioux. Paragraphs used in later les-
sons also included distracter statements, or general information that did not relate to the
sequence structure. The following paragraph was used in Lessons 3 and 4:
There were three steps the Sioux followed to build a tipi. First, they needed to find
poles and buffalo skins. Next, they lifted the poles and tied them together at the top.
The poles were very tall. Finally, they stretched the buffalo skins over the poles to
make walls.
Students first read the paragraph silently, then the teacher reread the paragraph aloud as
students followed along on their own copies. Students analyzed the text by circling all
sequence clue words and underlining each step in the sequence.
6. Graphic organizer. Students used a sequence graphic organizer to order the infor-
mation presented in each paragraph. Figure 17.1 shows the graphic organizer used in the
program.
7. Sequence questions. Teachers taught students to ask and answer three questions
about each sequence paragraph: (a) What came first? (b) What came next? and (c) What
came last?
8. Summary. Students used a summary frame to write a summary of each paragraph.
Comprehension of Informational Texts in the Elementary Classroom 243

FIGURE 17.1. Sequence graphic organizer.

9. Community chart. Teachers used a community chart to review the content

vocabulary used in the program.
10. Lesson review. At the end of each lesson, teachers and students reviewed the
definition of sequence, the sequence clue words, the sequence questions, and the vocabu-
lary words.

The Compare–Contrast Module

Two introductory lessons introduced the concept of compare–­contrast and provided
a general overview of the colonial community. The remaining lessons focused on the
compare–­contrast structure in relation to four features of life in the colonial community:
homes, schools, jobs, and communication. There were three lessons for each feature.
Each triad of lessons comprised the following 10 sections:

1. Introduction. Teachers defined compare– ­contrast as the way in which things

are the same and different. Students developed their understanding of the concept of
compare–­contrast through activities using familiar content.
2. Clue words. Teachers introduced four compare–­contrast clue words: both, also,
but, and however.
3. Trade book reading and discussion. Teachers read aloud from three trade books
about the colonial community. After reading, teachers directed a short discussion about
the reading.
244 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

4. Vocabulary. Teachers introduced vocabulary concepts related to the features of

the colonial community (colony, colonist, pilgrim, saltbox home, Dutch colonial home,
dame school, grammar school, silversmith, blacksmith, communication, town crier, and
post rider).
5. Reading and analysis of the target paragraph. Students read one of the five
compare–­ contrast paragraphs written specifically for the program. Each paragraph
included three to five sentences about colonial homes, schools, jobs, or communication.
Paragraphs used in later lessons also included distracter statements, or general informa-
tion that did not relate to the compare–­contrast structure. The following paragraph was
used in Lessons 9–11:
Blacksmiths and silversmiths were the same and different. Both blacksmiths and
silversmiths made things that the colonists needed. Blacksmiths made things out of
iron, but silversmiths made things out of silver. Blacksmiths made things that people
used for cooking and eating; silversmiths also made things that people used for cook-
ing and eating. Silversmiths made plates and silverware; however, blacksmiths made
iron pots.
Students first read the paragraph silently, then the teacher reread the paragraph aloud as
students followed along in their own copies. Students analyzed the text by using one color
of crayon to circle clue words and underline sentence phrases indicating the similarities
between two things, and by using a second color of crayon to circle clue words and under-
line sentence phrases showing the differences between two things.
6. Graphic organizer. Students used a compare–­contrast graphic organizer to order
the information presented in each paragraph. Figure 17.2 shows the graphic organizer
used in the program.

and

Different Same Different

FIGURE 17.2. Compare–­contrast graphic organizer.

Comprehension of Informational Texts in the Elementary Classroom 245

7. Compare– ­contrast questions. Teachers taught students to ask and answer three
questions: (a) What two things is this paragraph about? (b) How are they the same? and
(c) How are they different?
8. Summary. Students used the compare–­contrast questions to write a summary
of each paragraph.
9. Community chart. Teachers used a community chart to review the content
vocabulary used in the program.
10. Lesson review. At the end of each lesson, teachers and students reviewed the
definition of compare– ­contrast, the compare–­contrast clue words, the compare–­contrast
questions, and the vocabulary words.

The Cause–Effect Module

Three introductory lessons introduced the concept of cause–­effect and provided a general
overview of the pioneer community. The remaining lessons were taught in groups of three
and focused on the cause–­effect structure in relation to four features of life in the pioneer
community: homes, schools, jobs, and transportation. Each triad of lessons comprised
the following 10 sections:

1. Introduction. Teachers defined cause–­effect as things that happen and why those
things happen. Students developed their understanding of the concept of cause–­effect
through activities using familiar content.
2. Clue words. Teachers introduced four cause–­effect clue words: because, so, since,
and therefore.
3. Trade book reading and discussion. Teachers read aloud about the pioneer com-
munity from three trade books. After reading, teachers directed a short discussion about
the reading.
4. Vocabulary. Teachers introduced vocabulary concepts related to the features of
the pioneer community (transportation, pioneer, prairie, covered wagon, sod, sod house,
schoolhouse, and farmer).
5. Reading and analysis of the target paragraph. Students read one of the five cause–­
effect paragraphs written specifically for the program. Each paragraph included three to
five sentences about pioneer homes, schools, jobs, or transportation. Paragraphs used in
later lessons also included distracter statements, or general information that did not relate
to the cause–­effect structure. The following paragraph was used in Lessons 13–15:
Pioneers had to make money, and that caused everyone in a pioneer family to work.
Sometimes pioneer men worked on the railroad since it was a good way to make
some money. Other pioneer men worked in town. Stores paid money for eggs; there-
fore, pioneer children raised chickens and sold the eggs. The money from the eggs
helped pay for things the family needed. Farm workers got very hungry from work-
ing all day, so pioneer women made money by cooking for them. In the winter, it was
too cold to work on the farm.
Students first read the paragraph silently, then the teacher reread the paragraph aloud
as students followed along in their own copies. Students analyzed the text by using one
color of crayon to circle clue words and underline sentence phrases showing causes, and
another color of crayon for effects.
246 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

6. Graphic organizer. Students used a cause–­effect graphic organizer to order the

information presented in each paragraph. Figure 17.3 shows the graphic organizer used
in the program.
7. Cause– ­effect questions. Teachers taught students to ask and answer a cause
question (Why?) and an effect question (What happened?).
8. Summary. Students used the cause and effect questions to write a summary of
each paragraph.
9. Community chart. Teachers used a community chart to review the content
vocabulary used in the program.
10. Lesson review. At the end of each lesson, the teacher and students reviewed the
definition of cause–­effect, the cause–­effect clue words, the cause–­effect questions, and
the vocabulary words.

Evaluation of the Text Structure Intervention

Seventeen classroom teachers from four elementary schools in New York City volun-
teered to participate in the study. The schools were similar in terms of demographics.
Enrollment across the schools included 90% Hispanic, 4.6% African American, 4.4%
European American, and 1% Asian/other. Approximately 83% of students received state
aid in the form of free or reduced- price lunch, and 12% of students were enrolled in
either part-time or full-time special education services. The teachers varied greatly in age
and years of experience.
The teachers (and their respective classes) were randomly assigned to one of three
experimental conditions, with conditions blocked by school. Six teachers were assigned
to our text structure intervention, six to a content-­only control program, and five to a
no-­instruction control condition. A content-­only program was developed for use as an
experimental control. The content-­only program featured the same number of lessons,

FIGURE 17.3. Cause–­effect graphic organizer.

Comprehension of Informational Texts in the Elementary Classroom 247

the same amount of instructional time, and the same books and materials as did the
text structure intervention, but the content-­only program did not contain the embedded
text structure training. In lieu of the text structure training, the content-­only program
focused more extensively on social studies content by including more opportunities for
discussion, writing, and drawing. The content-­only program was designed to correspond
with the more traditional instruction one might find in a typical second-­grade social
studies classroom. It is intended to be a viable social studies program.
Instruction began in October and continued through June. Teachers were asked to
teach two lessons per week. They were provided with pretraining, lesson plans, and all
ancillary materials (books, posters, wall charts, copies of student handouts, etc.). Each
teacher was observed once a week during the instruction and participated in a debriefing
interview after the study was completed. The teachers taught the lessons to all students
in their classrooms. Students who returned letters from their parents/guardians grant-
ing permission to participate in the study were given a pretest and a posttest. Addition-
ally, students in the text structure and content-­only classrooms were given three end-of-­
module assessments, one at the conclusion of each module.

Assessing Performance
To assess performance, we developed our own intervention-­specific measures that were
administered at pretest and at posttest. There were three types of measures: (1) structure
outcome measures, (2) comprehension outcome measures, and (3) content outcome mea-
sures.

Structure Outcome Measures

Sentence combination tasks were used to assess students’ mastery of the structures
encountered in instruction. A trained tester read each item aloud as students followed
along in their own copies. The task required the students to combine two sentences using
the correct clue word for that text structure. The following is an example of a sentence
combination task. These two sentences were presented on the cause–­effect test:

We went swimming.
It was a hot day.

Acceptable answers in this task included the following:

We went swimming since it was a hot day.

It was a hot day, so we went swimming.
We went swimming because it was a hot day.
It was a hot day; therefore, we went swimming.

Responses were counted as incorrect if they failed to include a clue word or omitted
relevant content.

Comprehension Outcome Measures

Summary tasks and comprehension questions were used to assess students’ listening and
reading comprehension. Target paragraphs containing social studies content were written
248 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

for use as test items. These paragraphs were not used during instruction and had not been
encountered by students prior to the test session.
For listening comprehension tasks, a trained tester read paragraphs aloud to students
while they followed along in their own written copies. Students then provided oral sum-
maries of the paragraphs or responded orally to comprehension questions asked by the
tester. Responses were transcribed verbatim. For reading comprehension tasks, students
read paragraphs independently, then wrote summaries of the paragraphs. The summary
tasks yielded two comprehension measures: (1) the main idea, which assessed whether the
student was able to provide a summary statement of the paragraph that reflected its struc-
ture; and (2) structure statements, which assessed whether the student could accurately
report important information from the paragraph along with an appropriate clue word.
The comprehension questions tasks yielded three comprehension measures: (1) structure
statements, which asked for information included in the basic structure of the paragraph;
(2) details, which asked for information not related to the structure of the paragraph;
and (3) paragraph identification, which asked students to select the correct label (i.e.,
sequence, compare–­contrast, or cause–­effect) for the paragraph.
The following is an example of a test paragraph along with the accompanying com-
prehension questions. (We choose to present a compare–­contrast example, since we pre-
viously showed a cause–­effect example.)

Firefighters and police officers are the same and different. Firefighters wear a uniform; police
officers also wear a uniform. Firefighters put out fires, but police officers keep neighborhoods
safe. Police officers drive cars; however, firefighters drive trucks. Fire trucks have hoses. Both
police officers and firefighters are available all the time when people need them. Some police
officers ride horses.

1. How are firefighters and police officers the same?

2. How are they different?
3. When are police officers and firefighters available?
4. What type of paragraph is this?

Content Outcome Measures

Tasks were developed to assess students’ mastery of the vocabulary and social studies
features taught in the program. A mixture of multiple-­choice, fill-in-the-blank, and free
response items was used to assess content mastery.

Additional Measures
Three standardized measures were administered at pretest: (1) the Word Identification
subtest of the Woodcock–­Johnson Mastery Test, (2) the Passage Comprehension subtest
of the Woodcock–­Johnson Mastery Test, and (3) the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Oral Fluency Test. These measures confirmed that the groups
were equivalent following random assignment.

Results and Conclusions

The analysis included 212 students: 79 in the text-­structure condition, 73 in the content-­
only comparison condition, and 60 in the no-­instruction control condition. All statistical
Comprehension of Informational Texts in the Elementary Classroom 249

analyses were performed with the classroom as the unit of analysis. The results of our
analyses provide positive evidence for the effectiveness of our instructional program. At
posttest, students who received the text structure intervention performed better than the
other two groups on the sentence combination tasks and on all but one of the comprehen-
sion tasks. There was no difference among the three groups on answering comprehension
questions that involved details in the paragraph; this finding speaks to the precision of
our instructional effects, as we did not target details in the instruction.
As expected, there were no differences between the text structure group and the
content-­only group on the content outcome measures (vocabulary and social studies fea-
tures), although both groups outperformed the no-­instruction control group. This find-
ing shows that embedding explicit training in expository text structure into social studies
instruction did not detract from the amount of social studies content learned by students.
Students in the text structure and content-­only conditions were also given a short
written test at the end of each module. Results mirrored those of the posttest. The text
structure group scored higher than the content-­only group on the structure and compre-
hension tasks; however, the groups did not differ on content measures.

How This New Knowledge Can Improve Comprehension Instruction

In addition to our outcome measures, we also collected two additional types of data dur-
ing our study: classroom observations and teacher interviews. Although our test results
were positive, on the basis of the observations and interviews, we decided that we could
still improve the instruction. Anticipating our final goal of having an intervention that
covers all five basic text structures, we have made several types of revisions. First, we
have enhanced the introduction of each text structure by adding more activities that deal
with familiar content before moving to less familiar social studies content. Second, we
have made the graphic organizers more interactive by including picture cards and sen-
tence strips. Also, we have increased the amount of writing in the program by omitting
the summary frames; students now write summaries of the sequence target paragraphs
using only the generic questions.
We have also started to consider the issue of differentiation. We are currently col-
laborating with teachers in special education classrooms in order to develop methods
of adapting our instructional program to meet the needs of all learners. Analysis of
data from our studies has generally indicated that our intervention is as effective for
the lowest-­performing students in a class as it is for their higher-­achieving classmates.
However, we feel that these low-­achieving students might make even better progress with
differentiated lessons.
Our ultimate goal is to develop and evaluate two additional modules, each with a
new text structure and a new community: description (the immigrant community), and
problem–­solution (communities in present-­day New York City). All five modules will be
integrated into a whole-year curriculum that covers all of the basic expository structures
(Meyer, 1985).
We agree with those who argue that informational text must be emphasized within
the reading curriculum. However, we believe that it is essential for students to be given
sufficient instruction in reading expository texts. Our work to date has convinced us that
well-­designed explicit instruction can have a significant impact on children’s compre-
hension abilities. We encourage others to take up some of the issues that we have been
addressing:
250 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

1. How can text structure training be effectively transferred to all content area
courses?
2. How can text structure training be differentiated to best meet the needs of all
learners?
3. How can teacher–­researcher collaborations be designed to maximize the expert
contributions that each can make to a study?

Summary

Our work shows that second graders can benefit from an explicit, structured approach
to comprehension instruction. We are pleased about the enthusiasm with which the edu-
cational community has embraced the importance of exposing children to informational
texts, but we think it is essential to consider how to prepare readers of all ability levels for
the challenges of comprehending expository text.
We close by calling your attention to our opening quotation from John Locke. We
believe that by teaching students to recognize the structures inherent in a text and to use
those structures to guide their comprehension, our program teaches students novel ways
of thinking. They will come to expect structure when reading, and when they encounter
a text that is poorly structured, they will be able to reorganize it mentally in order to
better comprehend it. It is not sufficient simply to provide students with the materials of
knowledge. We must also teach them how to think about and to act upon those materials
in order to access the wealth of information they contain.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. Discuss with colleagues the challenges that exist in the instruction of expository texts.
2. An argument was made in this chapter that providing explicit instruction can increase children’s
comprehension of nonfiction text. Please describe the five most important steps in explicit instruction
that you will use, and encourage others to use, in the future instruction of nonfiction texts.
3. Prepare a lesson that contains the features described in this chapter. Select a specific content area,
trade book, or textbook on which to base this lesson. Share your lessons with colleagues. Discuss how
use of the features described in this chapter can improve students’ comprehension of nonfiction texts.

References

Bos, C. S., & Vaughn, S. (2002). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior prob-
lems (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Calfee, R. C., & Chambliss, M. J. (1987). Structural design features of large texts. Educational
Psychologist, 22, 357–378.
Carnine, D., & Kinder, B. D. (1985). Teaching low-­performing students to apply generative and
scheme strategies to narrative and expository material. Remedial and Special Education, 6,
20–30.
College Board. (2014). Test specifications for the redesigned SAT ®. New York: Author.
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, 279–320.
Goldman, S. R., & Rakestraw, J. A. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text.
Comprehension of Informational Texts in the Elementary Classroom 251

In M. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research

(Vol. 3, pp. 311–336). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graesser, A. C., & Bertus, E. L. (1998). The construction of causal inferences while reading expos-
itory texts on science and technology. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 247–269.
Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive opera-
tions and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56, 473–493.
Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2002). Use of storybook reading to increase print awareness in at-
risk children. American Journal of Speech-­L anguage Pathology, 11(1), 17–29.
Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the
reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 37(2), 105–118.
Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry,
instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67, 271–299.
Lorch, R. F., Jr., & Lorch, E. P. (1995). Effects of organizational signals on text-­processing strate-
gies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 537–544.
Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., & Inman, W. E. (1993). Effects of signaling topic structure on text
recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 281–290.
Lynch, J., & van den Broek, P. (2007). Understanding the glue of narrative structure: Children’s
on- and off-line inferences about characters’ goals. Cognitive Development, 22, 323–330.
Mann, H. (1843). Hand book: Caution and counsels. The Common School Journal, 5(24), 371.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effect on memory. Amsterdam: North
Holland.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In B. K. Britton & J. B.
Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 11–65). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Meyer, B. J. F., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational
Research Journal, 21(1), 121–143.
Meyer, B. J. F., & Poon, L. W. (2001). Effects of the structure strategy and signaling on recall of
the text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 141–159.
Meyer, B. J. F., & Wijekumar, K. (2007). A web-based tutoring system for the structure strategy:
Theoretical background, design, and findings. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading compre-
hension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 347–374). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
National Assessment Governing Board. (2012). Reading framework for the 2013 National Assess-
ment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The nation’s report card: A first look: 2013
mathematics and reading (NCES 2014-451). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sci-
ences, U.S. Department of Education.
National Governors Association. (2005). Reading to achieve: A governor’s guide to adolescent
literacy. Washington DC: Author.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Offi-
cers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Author.
Pentimonti, J. M., & Justice, L. (2009). Teachers’ use of scaffolding strategies during read alouds
in the preschool classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(4), 241–248.
Regan, K., & Berkeley, S. (2012). Effective reading and writing instruction: A focus on modeling.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 47, 276–282.
Rupley, W. H., Blair, T. R., & Nichols, W. D. (2009). Effective reading instruction for struggling
readers: The role of direct/explicit teaching. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25, 125–138.
Southern Regional Education Board. (2006). Getting students ready for college and careers.
Atlanta, GA: Author.
Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). Looking inside class-
rooms: Reflecting on the “how” as well as the ”what” in effective reading instruction. The
Reading Teacher, 56(3), 270–279.
van den Broek, P., Virtue, S., Everson, M. G., Tzeng, Y., & Sung, Y. (2002). Comprehension and
252 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

memory of science texts: Inferential processes and the construction of a mental representa-
tion. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text compre-
hension (pp. 131–154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wiley, J., Griffin, T. D., & Thiede, K. W. (2005). Putting the comprehension in metacomprehen-
sion. Journal of General Psychology, 132(4), 408–428.
Wiley, J., & Myers, J. L. (2003). Availability and accessibility of information and causal inferences
from scientific text. Discourse Processes, 36, 109–129.
Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., & Lauer, K. D. (2004). Building the basics of comprehension instruc-
tion: Teaching expository text to young at-risk learners. Exceptionality, 12, 129–144.
Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., Lauer, K. D., Stafford, K. B., De Sisto, L. A., & deCani, J. S. (2005).
Expository text comprehension in the primary grade classroom. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 97, 538–550.
Williams, J. P., Nubla-Kung, A. M., Pollini, S., Stafford, K. B., Garcia, A., & Snyder, A. E. (2007).
Teaching cause–­effect structure through social studies content to at-risk second graders.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 111–120.
Williams, J. P., Pao, L. S., Ordynans, J. G., Atkins, J. G., & Cheng, R. (2015). Teaching the
sequence text structure to at-risk second grade students. Manuscript in preparation.
Williams, J. P., Pollini, S., Nubla-Kung, A. M., Snyder, A. E., Garcia, A., Ordynans, J. G., et al.
(2014). An intervention to improve comprehension of cause–­effect through expository text
structure instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 1–17.
 Chap ter 18

Best Practices
for Comprehension Instruction
in the Secondary Classroom

Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey

. . . a very elaborate procedure, involving a weighing of each of many

elements in a sentence, their organization in the proper relations to one
another, the selection of certain of their connotations and the rejection of
others, and the cooperation of many forces to determine final response.
—E dward Thorndike (1917, p. 323)

A t the risk of stating the obvious, secondary students who cannot comprehend will
in all likelihood fail to achieve in school. While we have known this for decades,
the emergence of high-­stakes high school exit examinations has put struggling readers
at greater risk than ever before (Jacob, 1991). It is imperative that we focus on reading
comprehension across the middle and high school day. As Thorndike noted, comprehen-
sion requires a “cooperation of forces.” He was referring to the interaction between the
structures of language and the knowledge of the reader.
Since Thorndike’s time, additional forces have been identified for improving com-
prehension for adolescents. For example, the RAND Reading Study Group (2002) intro-
duced a tripartite heuristic for thinking about reading comprehension: “the reader, the
text, and the activity or purpose for reading” (p. xiii). We do not focus much attention on
the reader given that other chapters in this volume provide excellent information about
this force. Instead, we focus on the ways in which literacy tasks are constructed and dis-
cuss newer information about texts. Having said that, it is important to remember that

the reader brings to the act of reading his or her cognitive capabilities (attention, memory,
critical analytic ability, inferencing, visualization); motivation (a purpose for reading, interest
in the content, self-­efficacy as a reader); knowledge (vocabulary and topic knowledge, lin-
guistic and discourse knowledge, knowledge of comprehension strategies); and experiences.
(RAND Reading Study Group, 2002, pp. xiii–xiv)

253
254 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

In this chapter we highlight the following:

• What we already know about adolescent literacy, including effective instructional

routines for teaching and learning.
• Promising new research that has the potential to elevate literacy rates and raise
achievement.

What’s Out There Today: Established Research and Practice

in Secondary Schools

Adolescent literacy is not new. Back in 1964, Strang recognized the need to attend to the
unique challenges of adolescents, especially those who struggled to read. In 1970, Her-
ber argued that content-­area texts require effective literacy instruction. Since the time
of these early pioneers of adolescent literacy, evidence about improving their compre-
hension has grown considerably (e.g., Alvermann, 2002). There are at least 50 different
literacy-­related instructional routines that teachers can use to improve students’ under-
standing (e.g., Fisher, Brozo, Frey, & Ivey, 2014). One of the unintended consequences
of the proliferation of content literacy instructional routines is that many teachers are
overwhelmed and feel the need to collect strategies, then shove them into their already
full class periods. In the absence of an instructional framework, teachers are at risk of
becoming “strategy junkies.” Instead of focusing on more or better “strategies,” as teach-
ers and teacher-­leaders, we need to

• Develop a level of instructional consistency.

• Internalize an effective instructional infrastructure or framework.
• Examine student work with colleagues on a regular basis.

Developing a Level of Instructional Consistency

Our first recommendation scares some people. On the surface, it sounds like we’re rec-
ommending a scripted program or teacher-­proof curriculum. We are not. There are sim-
ply too many comprehension strategies to force a group of teachers to use a specific subset
of them. The problem is that because each teacher chooses different approaches, students
don’t get good at any of them.
Consider note taking, for example. It’s easy to imagine that the first-­period science
teacher requires outlining, while the second-­period art teacher requires graphic/visual
notes, the third-­period math teacher requires Cornell notes, the fourth-­period social stud-
ies teacher requires outlining, and the fifth-­period English teacher lets students choose
any style they want. As a result, students spend too much time attending to the ways in
which they are taught and not what they are taught. Furthermore, students are not devel-
oping a note-­taking habit.
In reading this and recognizing the problem, some might argue that mandating spe-
cific comprehension strategies is the solution. While that may be appealing, it probably
won’t work. Top-down solutions are often short-lived and highly contested. Sarason
(1990) acknowledges that billions of dollars have been spent on top-down reforms, with
little to show for it. Goodlad (1992) noted that “top-down, politically driven educa-
tion reform movements are addressed primarily to restructuring. They have little to say
about educating” (p. 238). Instead of mandating specific strategies, individual schools or
Comprehension Instruction in the Secondary Classroom 255

districts can develop literacy frameworks such that teachers own and implement content
literacy instructional strategies (Frey, 2006; Frey & Fisher, 2013). Through professional
development, coaching, accountability, and the like, teachers can begin to develop stu-
dents’ thinking within and across the school day.
Our review of research, our own research, and our experience working in schools
suggests that students need to develop habits. These habits must be transportable
from content area to content area for students to incorporate them into their reperto-
ries. For instance, at Hoover High School in San Diego, California, teachers agreed on
seven instructional routines that would permeate the school day, including anticipatory
activities (building background); read-­alouds/shared reading; vocabulary development;
graphic organizers; note taking; writing to learn; and Reciprocal Teaching (Fisher, Frey,
& ­Williams, 2002). Definitions of these can be found in Figure 18.1.
Similarly, a high-­poverty school with a significant population of homeless students
experienced significant success when teachers developed and implemented a schoolwide
literacy plan (Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, 2009). Their plan comprised four major elements:
daily silent sustained reading, read-­alouds and shared readings, note taking, and writ-
ing to learn. Like the teachers at Hoover, the teachers at this second school reached

Anticipatory activities. Strategies such as bellwork, anticipation guides, and KWL charts (i.e., what I
know, what I want to know, what I learned) are designed to activate background knowledge and make
connections between what students already know and what they are learning. These strategies also
help students see the relevance of the curriculum.

Cornell note taking. Students use split pages to take notes on the right side, identify key ideas on the
left, and write a summary at the bottom. This strategy improves listening comprehension and provides
students with a study tool.

Graphic organizers. Any number of tools display information in visual form. Common graphic organizers
include semantic webs, cause and effect charts, Venn diagrams, matrices, and flow charts.

Read-alouds and shared reading. On a daily basis, the teacher reads aloud material connected with
the content standards being taught. This short, 3- to 5-minute reading provides students with a context
for learning, builds their background knowledge, improves vocabulary, and provides them with a fluent
reading model.

Reciprocal Teaching. In groups of four, students read a piece of text and engage in a structured
conversation in which they summarize, clarify, question, and predict. In doing so, they learn to use
strategies that good readers use while reading for information.

Vocabulary development. In addition to the incidental vocabulary learning that is done through read-
alouds and anticipatory activities, students are taught specific content vocabulary words required in
various disciplines.

Writing to learn. These brief writing prompts provide for students an opportunity to clarify their
understanding of the content, and for teachers a glimpse into the students’ thinking. As a result,
teachers know when reteaching or clarifications are necessary.

FIGURE 18.1. Schoolwide content literacy strategies. From Fisher and Frey (2006). Copyright 2006
by the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Reprinted by permission. For more
information on NASSP products and services to promote excellence in middle-­level and high
school leadership, visit www.principals.org.
256 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

agreements about instructional routines that were transparent and transportable, which
means that over time, students paid less attention to the ways in which they were taught
and more attention to what they were being taught (transparent) and could apply what
they learned across content areas (transportable). There is sufficient evidence for instruc-
tional consistency across classrooms to recommend its implementation in middle and
high school (e.g., Fisher & Frey, 2007), yet there is no evidence that specific instructional
routines should be mandated. Instead, teachers must collaborate at the school or district
level to determine which approaches they can agree on and actually implement (Fisher &
Frey, 2008).

Internalizing an Instructional Framework

A second recommendation focuses on instructional design and delivery. Essentially, the
idea is to ensure that middle and high school students receive high-­quality instruction
and intervention, so that they achieve at high levels (Fisher & Frey, 2013b). There are
a number of instructional frameworks that have been proposed and studied, including
the commonly known reading instructional framework: before reading, during read-
ing, and after reading (Laverick, 2002) and the Concept-­Oriented Reading Instruc-
tion (CORI) framework for adolescents (Swan, 2003). Our work focuses on a different
instruction framework: the gradual release of responsibility model (Pearson & Gal-
lagher, 1983). We have documented success with this framework in middle school and
high school classrooms as teachers internalize components and monitor student prog-
ress (e.g., Fisher, Frey, & Lapp, 2011). The four interrelated components of the frame-
work are as follows:

1. Focused instruction in which teachers establish purpose and model their own
comprehension. This brief (5–15 minutes) instructional event is designed to ensure that
students understand the purpose of the lesson and are provided with an expert model.
Our experience suggests that teachers often do not provide modeling of comprehension
strategies and instead question students about their comprehension (Ivey & Fisher, 2005).
While questioning is important, we know that teachers must explain their thinking so
that students can incorporate these comprehension strategies into their own behaviors
(Duffy, 2009).
2. Guided instruction in which the teacher uses cues, prompts, and questions to
validate and extend students comprehension and comprehension strategy use. While
there are a number of useful instructional strategies during guided instruction, we know
that direct observation of students as they read and attempt to comprehend allows for
the identification of problem areas. Teachers can use these teachable moments to further
students’ understanding.
3. Collaborative learning includes opportunities for students to work with one
another to apply what they have learned in focused lessons and guided instruction. The
key to quality collaborative learning is the product that each student produces as a result
of the group interaction. We have seen too many group projects go wrong when a single
product is required (one student does all of the work and therefore all of the compre-
hension/thinking). Consistent with social learning theory, scaffolding, cognitive develop-
ment, and interaction theory (Bandura, 1977; Vygotsky, 1962; Wood, Bruner, & Ross,
1976), we believe that students need opportunities to consolidate their understanding
with peers before being asked to complete tasks alone. Unfortunately, this doesn’t happen
very often in most middle school and high school classrooms.
Comprehension Instruction in the Secondary Classroom 257

4. Independent learning is the final component of the gradual release of responsi-

bility model of instruction—­with increased responsibility for students. Students must be
provided opportunities to apply the skills, strategies, knowledge, and ideas to novel tasks.
Importantly, independent learning tasks should come after instruction, not instead of
instruction. One caution is in order here: Independent learning tasks are not rote memo-
rization tasks or worksheets. Instead, these tasks should be directly related to the unit
of study. The higher the degree of internal consistency between the components in the
gradual release of responsibility, the more likely it is that students will learn.

Over time and across units of instruction, teachers apply the gradual release of
responsibility model recursively and iteratively (Fisher & Frey, 2013a). This ensures that
students are acquiring new knowledge through focused instruction that provides model-
ing by an expert, guided instruction that creates space for teachers to differentiate expe-
riences, collaboration with peers as they refine their understandings, and independent
learning through tasks that require them to synthesize and evaluate. Importantly, as
many science teachers know, there is no specific order in which these components should
be implemented (Grant, Lapp, Fisher, Johnson, & Frey, 2012). Some lessons start with
an independent task, others open with a collaborative one, and still others begin with
modeling and purpose setting.

Examining Student Work, with Colleagues, on a Regular Basis

Our final recommendation based on the existing research focuses on the collaborative
analysis of student work (Langer, Colton, & Goff, 2003). There is a significant and
growing body of evidence that collaboratively developed, common formative assessments
focus teachers on the standards and what their students can and can’t do, or what they
have and have not yet mastered (Linder, Post, & Calabrese, 2012). In addition, common
formative assessments provide an opportunity for teachers to talk with one another, shar-
ing instructional ideas and innovation (Ainsworth & Viegut, 2006).
The process of examining student work with colleagues starts with a meeting of
teachers who teach the same course to develop pacing guides. These guides outline which
standards will be taught, as well as when. They also identify a range of instructional
materials and approaches that might be used to teach this particular content. Impor-
tantly, teachers’ pacing guides should incorporate schoolwide literacy strategies.
Along the way, teachers who teach the same course meet to develop a common
assessment. Typically, these assessments are brief and mirror the type of tasks students
are required to do both in class and on state accountability assessments. The process of
assessment development can result in teachers’ increased understanding of grade-level
standards. This is an important lesson learned in the era of standards-­based reform,
including the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).
Upon completion of the unit of study, all students in the particular course partici-
pate in the common assessment. The results are aggregated, then an item analysis is
conducted. During their course-­alike meetings, teachers discuss their hypotheses for the
correct and incorrect answers and plan “next steps” instruction. They can also make
decisions to change the pacing guide, change the assessment, and/or form an intervention
group. For example, one of the sixth-grade language arts common formative assessments
included the following question:

Directions: Read the words in the box very carefully. Look at the part that is underlined. If
the underlined part is correct, mark answer D, Correct as written. If the underlined part is
258 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

not correct, read all the answer choices carefully. Find the answer that shows the best way to
write the underlined part and mark that answer. There is only one correct answer for each
item.

4. She and I are going to the park.

A. She and me
B. Her and I
C. Me and her
D. Correct as written

Of the 242 students who attempted this item, only 16% answered it correctly
(answer D). Of the incorrect answers, A was most commonly selected (38%), C was the
next most common (27%) selection, and B was third most common (19%). This item
was the most missed item on the assessment and served as the basis for a great deal of
discussion among the English language arts teachers. Given the number of students who
got this wrong, these educators knew that they had to reteach this concept. They also
discussed the need to introduce language registers and focus their work on the differ-
ence between informal speech and formal writing. One of the teachers suggested that
they look at students’ authentic writing for errors such as this and use those samples for
instruction.
Together, these three forces—­schoolwide comprehension strategies, a gradual release
of responsibility framework of instruction, and common assessments with consensus
scoring of student work—can be used to improve student learning. Each has a long his-
tory and sufficient evidence to warrant support. Having said that, it is important to note
that there are new forces that have the potential to contribute to students’ success.

New Research and Developments in Improving Adolescent Literacy

Given all that we know, the question you’re probably asking at this point is “What will it
take to radically improve comprehension abilities and achievement at the middle and high
school levels?” Two recent areas of research, disciplinary literacy and teaching complex
texts, might just provide an answer.

Disciplinary Literacy
In the previous section, we discussed the important of generic literacy approaches, such
as note taking, creating graphic organizers, and learning lots of vocabulary words. We
noted that these can become habits that students take with them from class to class.
Unfortunately, too many middle and high school students move from class to class, using
a variety of different instructional routines, and for them learning is not predictable.
This is not intended to minimize the fact that there are discipline-­specific literacy
strategies. We know that reading like a scientist is different from reading like a historian
or art critic (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). However, there are simply too many students
who read, write, and think far below grade level to assume that generic strategies won’t
help. Having said this, we also believe that as students incorporate generic content lit-
eracy habits into their practices, teachers should also focus on discipline specific literacy.
As Shanahan and Shanahan note, disciplinary literacy focuses on the ways in which
experts in a particular community of scholars think and work. As they demonstrated in
Comprehension Instruction in the Secondary Classroom 259

a study of chemists, the ways in which members of one particular discipline interact with
texts differed from those in other disciplines (Shanahan, Shanahan, & Misischia, 2011).
For example, historians tend to engage in sourcing, contextualizing, corroborating,
and close reading (e.g., Reisman, 2012). In other words, when they read a text, they con-
sider the time period in which is was written (contextualizing), identify the source of the
information and potential biases of that source (sourcing), look to other sources to deter-
mine if the information is generally agreed upon (corroborating), and read the text care-
fully and repeatedly to ensure that they understand the nuances in the text (close read-
ing). Scientists, on the other hand, tend to determine information in a text that is vital,
use diagrams and texts together to understand concepts, and create their own examples
to illustrate concepts. They also evaluate the source, but more so to determine whether
or not to read a given text. Scientists also generate a lot of questions while they read and
find additional readings to answer their questions (e.g., Osborne, 2010).
The idea of student apprentices as disciplinary experts has gained considerable atten-
tion in the adolescent literacy world as of late (e.g., Moje, 2008). Having said this, there
are some concerns that an exclusive focus on disciplinary literacy will leave struggling
readers behind (Faggella-­Luby, Sampson Graner, Deshler, & Valentino Drew, 2012).
Others have argued that there is nothing wrong with being an amateur, and that many
of us are amateurs when it comes to complex disciplines, at least until we go to col-
lege and immerse ourselves in a particular discipline (Heller, 2010). Perhaps, as Brozo,
Moorman, Meyer, and Stewart (2013) suggest, there is room for both. It may very well
be that students need to develop their generic literacy habits, then practice some of the
discipline-­specific habits that allow them to attempt expert thinking so that they learn at
deeper levels.

Close Reading of Complex Texts

More recently, there has been increased pressure for adolescents to read complex texts.
This is evident in the CCSS, as articulated in Reading Standard 10: “Read and compre-
hend complex literary and informational texts independently and proficiently” (National
Governors Association, 2010, p. 10). In the past, middle school students were expected
to read and comprehend texts with a quantitative complexity Lexile level of 860 to 1010.
The Lexile level system (Lexile.org) analyzes texts using a number of quantifiable fac-
tors, such as vocabulary, average sentence length, average number of syllables per sen-
tence, and so on. The new expectation for middle school students is 925 to 1185. Similar
increases are expected in high school, as demonstrated in Figure 18.2.

Grade Band Former Lexile Range CCR-Aligned Lexile Range

860 1010
6–8
925 1185

960 1115
9–10
1050 1335

1010 1220
11–CCR
1185 1385

FIGURE 18.2. Comparison of former and college and career readiness (CCR)-aligned Lexile ranges.
260 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

It is unlikely that past approaches to improving students’ understanding will suddenly

ensure that they comprehend at these increased levels of expectation. Importantly, the
pressure to increase rigor in reading is not limited to states implementing the CCSS. There
are increasing expectations around the world for students to perform at higher levels (e.g.,
Paris, 2008). In part, the answer to these increased expectations is high-­quality instruc-
tion. It is logical and reasonable to suggest that students will fail to meet the expectations
for literacy in the 21st century unless they have access to instruction that builds their
confidence and competence. As part of these efforts, there has been a realization that a
procedure called close reading is warranted. Close reading is a form of guided instruction,
one that has been reserved for college-­level students or students in advanced programs.
Close reading begins with the selection of an appropriate text. First and foremost,
the text needs to be complex and worthy of this level of attention. As 11th-grade English
teacher Marisol Thayre says, “You don’t need to closely read Seventeen magazine. It [the
text] should be hard.” In other words, the quantitative level of text complexity should
ensure that students are provided an opportunity to struggle with the text. We’re not
suggesting that sixth graders read War and Peace, but the selected text should require
repeated readings and deep discussions to ensure understanding. In addition to the quan-
titative factors, the selected text should be analyzed qualitatively to determine the areas
that contribute to the complexity.
Quantitative measures, such as the Lexile of text, tell us that a text is complex;
qualitative elements tell us why the text is complex. For example, when Oscar Corrigan
analyzed Chief Joseph’s speech “I Will Fight No More Forever” (see Figure 18.3), he iden-
tified density, language conventions and clarity, prior knowledge, and cultural knowledge
as contributors to the complexity, understanding that these could become teaching points
for his students.
Close reading requires that students re-read the selected text a number of times. As
Shanahan (2013) noted, whereas early readings of a text focus on “What does the text
say?” later readings focus on “How does the text work?” and even later in the process,
the questions focus on “What does the text mean?” Students learn that subsequent read-
ings of the text allow them to dig deeper into the meaning of the text, comparing the text
with other texts and what they know or think.
Close reading also assumes that students know how to annotate a text, so that they
can incorporate evidence from the text into their discussions and subsequent writing
tasks. These habits, such as underlining key ideas, circling words and phrases that are
confusing, and writing questions or reactions in the margins, need to be developed at
the beginning of the year and used regularly. Although important, these procedures are
simply that: procedures. They are not the keys to close reading. There is more to close
reading than underlining key ideas and reading a text more than once.
There are three keys to close reading, the first of which focuses on the questions that
students explore as part of their reading. These text-­dependent questions should invite
students back into the text as they look for evidence or consider something new. The
risk is that text-­dependent questions will focus exclusively on details, recall, and “right
there” information, which is far too limiting for a high-­quality close reading. The text-­
dependent questions should allow teachers to explore all of the CCSS, including vocabu-
lary, text structure, author’s purpose, and cross-text analysis, not just the key details. In
addition, the text-­dependent questions should be kept in the teacher’s metaphorical “back
pocket,” only to be brought out when the conversation falters, or when students are ready
for a deeper dive into the text. Returning to the Chief Joseph speech, consider the follow-
ing text-­dependent questions:
Comprehension Instruction in the Secondary Classroom 261

I am tired of fighting.
Our chiefs are killed.
Looking Glass is dead.
Toohulhulsote is dead.
The old men are all dead.
It is the young men who say no and yes.
He who led the young men is dead.
It is cold and we have no blankets.
The little children are freezing to death.
My people, some of them, have run away to the hills and have no blankets, no food.
No one knows where they are.
Perhaps they are freezing to death.
I want to have time to look for my children and see how many of them I can find.
Maybe I shall find them among the dead.
Hear me, my chiefs, I am tired.
My heart is sad and sick.
From where the sun now stands,
I will fight no more forever.

FIGURE 18.3. “I Will Fight No More Forever” by Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce (1877).

What does the text say?

• What happened?
• Who delivered this speech?
• Without yet knowing who Looking Glass and Toohulhulsote are, what can we say
about their roles in this decision?
• What concerns does Chief Joseph have about the health and welfare of his people?
How do you know?

How does the text work?

• What does Chief Joseph mean when he says, “From where the sun now stands?”
• What is the tone of this speech? What words and phrases support your claim?
• How does the structure convey Chief Joseph’s mood?
• What is it about the inclusion of the word forever in the last line, “I will fight no
more forever,” that makes this statement so memorable?

What does the text mean?

• To whom is Chief Joseph referring to when he says, “I want to have time to look
for my children”? What other parts of the speech support your claim?
• How does the passage in Figure 18.4 help you to understand the surrender speech?
What inner conflict would Chief Joseph have experienced? Where do you see evi-
dence of this conflict in the speech?
262 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

My son, my body is returning to my mother earth, and my spirit is going very soon to see
the Great Spirit Chief. When I am gone, think of your country. You are the chief of these
people. They look to you to guide them. Always remember that your father never sold
his country. You must stop your ears whenever you are asked to sign a treaty selling your
home. A few years more and white men will be all around you. They have their eyes on this
land. My son, never forget my dying words. This country holds your father’s body. Never
sell the bones of your father and your mother.

FIGURE 18.4. Before his death, Chief Joseph’s father’s words to his son.

The second key to close reading relates to the discussions students should have with
one another as they read, and reread, the text. As noted in Speaking and Listening Stan-
dard 1 in the CCSS, “Prepare for and participate effectively in a range of conversations
and collaborations with diverse partners, building on others’ ideas and expressing their
own clearly and persuasively” (National Governors Association, 2010, p. 22), students
need to talk with others about their ideas. Close readings provide opportunities for stu-
dents to develop their collaborative conversation skills, thereby integrating evidence from
the text into their discussions. For example, while reading Chief Joseph’s speech, Marla
said, “He wants to go find his kids. It says it right here: ‘my children.’ ” Paulina differed,
saying “I disagree with you because he says ‘my people have run away,’ so I think that
he sees all of them as his children, because he is their chief.” These collaborative con-
versations allow students to make claims, provide evidence for their claims, and offer
counterclaims, all of which are important skills in college classrooms and a wide range
of careers.
The third key to close reading involves the postreading tasks. Unfortunately, comple-
tion of too many after-­reading tasks can be based on personal experiences and not the
actual reading of a text. The range of postreading tasks is fairly wide, including debates,
Socratic seminars, and writing prompts. We are especially interested in the role that writ-
ing from sources plays in close reading. For example, using Informational Task Template
12 from the Literacy Design Collaborative (www.literacydesigncollaborative.org), the
teacher constructed the following writing prompt related to Chief Joseph’s speech:

“What is the role of courage in surrender? After reading and discussing Chief Joseph’s
speech ‘I Will Fight No More Forever,’ write an essay that defines courage and
explains the courageousness of Chief Joseph’s decision. Support your discussion with
evidence from the text. What conclusions can you draw?”

Following their close reading, students used their annotations from the text, the informa-
tion they gleaned from their collaborative conversations, and the feedback they received
from their teacher as they constructed their responses. This is the power of close reading
and why there is hope that this approach will allow students access to increasingly com-
plex texts.

How This New Knowledge Can Improve Comprehension Instruction

Imagine that the ideas discussed earlier are in place in schools across the country. Sud-
denly, “adequate yearly progress” isn’t such a problem. Of course, there will be students
Comprehension Instruction in the Secondary Classroom 263

who challenge our ability to teach, newcomers to the language, students who have his-
tories of failure, and so on. But if these big ideas were enacted, could we collectively
raise our expectations for adolescent literacy achievement? Could we begin to dream of
a community in which members engage in complex reading, writing, and thinking tasks
as a matter of fact?
Michael Fullan and his colleagues (Fullan, Hill, & Crévola, 2006) have such a dream.
To reach the dream, they argue, we don’t need more prescriptive teaching. Instead, we
need increased precision teaching. And that precision requires that teachers know their
content well, know their students well, know how their students are performing, and
know how to apply strategies to facilitate learning. This precision, when applied system-
wide, will result in improved comprehension and therefore improved achievement for
middle and high school students.

Summary

The future of adolescent comprehension research must incorporate what is already

known about what works, while focusing on how to go to scale, so that all students
can profit. As the composition of our classrooms change, so must the ways in which we
conceive the creation of understanding. This means working together as never before not
only to identify the enduring data of our field but also to create new knowledge that will
help our students keep pace with changes in the ways we communicate. Thus, schoolwide
commitments to strategic learning, changing the ways in which content is designed and
delivered, and collaborating with fellow educators to understand our students’ learning
will yield the new knowledge that we need to support adolescents’ growth as successful
comprehenders in the 21st century.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. What is the current status of adolescent literacy in your school or district? Are there predicable
instructional routines that are transparent and transportable? And do teachers use an instructional
framework that builds students’ competence and confidence? What needs are evident when you
consider these forces?
2. Considering the differences between generic and disciplinary literacy, which do your students need
more? Or how can you ensure that students have access to generic literacy approaches while they
develop their discipline-­specific reading, writing, and thinking strategies?
3. What role might close reading play in the development of students’ ability to comprehend complex
text? Watch a few of the videos on the Fisher and Frey YouTube channel and determine which aspects
of close reading could be implemented in your classroom, school, or district.

References

Ainsworth, L., & Viegut, D. (2006). Common formative assessments: How to connect standards-­
based instruction and assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Alvermann, D. E. (2002). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Journal of Literacy
Research, 34(2), 189–208.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-­Hall.
264 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

Brozo, W., Moorman, G., Meyer, C., & Stewart, T. (2013). Content area reading and disciplin-
ary literacy: A case for the radical center. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56(5),
353–357.
Duffy, G. G. (2009). Explaining reading: A resource for teaching concepts, skills, and strategies
(2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Faggella-­Luby, M., Sampson Graner, P., Deshler, D., & Valentino Drew, S. (2012). Building a
house on sand: Why disciplinary literacy is not sufficient to replace general strategies for
adolescent learners who struggle. Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 69–84.
Fisher, D., Brozo, W. G., Frey, N., & Ivey, G. (2014). 50 instructional routines to develop content
literacy (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2006). Majority rules: A schoolwide literacy success. Principal Leadership,
6(7), 16–21.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007). A tale of two middle schools: The role of structure and instruction.
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51, 204–211.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Student and teacher perspectives on the usefulness of content lit-
eracy strategies. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47, 246–263.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2013a). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the
gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curricu-
lum Development.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2013b). Implementing RTI in a high school: A case study. Journal of Learn-
ing Disabilities, 46, 99–114.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2009). Meeting AYP in a high need school: A formative experi-
ment. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52, 386–396.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2011). What the research says about intentional instruction. In S.
J. Samuels & A. Farstrup (Eds.), What the research has to say about reading instruction (4th
ed., pp. 359–378). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Williams, D. (2002). Seven literacy strategies that work. Educational Lead-
ership, 60(3), 70–73.
Frey, N. (2006). “We can’t afford to rest on our laurels”: Creating a district-­wide content literacy
instructional plan. NASSP Bulletin, 90(1), 37–48.
Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2013). A district-­wide high school formative experiment designed to
improve student achievement. Planning and Changing: An Educational Leadership and Pol-
icy Journal, 44, 21–35.
Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crévola, C. (2006). Breakthrough. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Goodlad, J. (1992). On taking school reform seriously. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(3), 232–238.
Grant, M., Lapp, D., Fisher, D., Johnson, K., & Frey, N. (2012). Purposeful instruction: Mixing
up the “I,” “we,” and “you.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56, 45–55.
Heller, R. (2010). In praise of amateurism: A friendly critique of Moje’s “Call for Change” in sec-
ondary literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54(4), 267–273.
Herber, H. L. (1970). Teaching reading in the content areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-­Hall.
Ivey, G., & Fisher, D. (2005). Learning from what doesn’t work. Educational Leadership, 63(2),
8–17.
Jacob, B. A. (1991). Getting tough? The impact of high school graduation exams. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 99–121.
Langer, G. M., Colton, A. B., & Goff, L. S. (2003). Collaborative analysis of student work:
Improving teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curricu-
lum Development.
Laverick, C. (2002). B-D-A strategy: Reinventing the wheel can be a good thing. Journal of Ado-
lescent and Adult Literacy, 46, 144–147.
Linder, R., Post, G., & Calabrese, K. (2012). Professional learning communities: Practices for suc-
cessful implementation. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 78(3), 13–22.
Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A
call for change. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96–107.
Comprehension Instruction in the Secondary Classroom 265

National Governors Association. (2010). English language arts and literacy in history/social stud-
ies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org.
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Sci-
ence, 328, 463–466.
Paris, S. G. (2008, December 4). Constrained skills—­So what?? Presentation at the National
Reading Conference, Orlando, FL.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, G. (1983). The gradual release of responsibility model of instruction.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 112–123.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in
reading comprehension (Office of Educational Research and Improvement). Santa Monica,
CA: RAND Corporation.
Reisman, A. (2012). Reading like a historian: A document-­based history curriculum intervention
in urban high schools. Cognition and Instruction, 33(1), 86–112.
Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course before
it’s too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shanahan, T. (2013). Meeting the Common Core challenge: Planning close reading. Retrieved
from https://sites.google.com/site/tscommoncore/home/close-­reading.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking
content-­area literacy. Harvard Education Review, 78, 40–59.
Shanahan, C., Shanahan, T., & Misischia, C. (2011). Analysis of expert readers in three disci-
plines: History, mathematics, and chemistry. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 393–429.
Strang, R. (1964). Diagnostic teaching of reading. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Swan, E. A. (2003). Concept-­Oriented Reading Instruction: Engaging classrooms, lifelong learn-
ers. New York: Guilford Press.
Thorndike, E. L. (1917). Reading as reasoning: A study in mistakes in paragraph reasoning. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 8, 323–332.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring and problem solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
 Chap ter 19

Improving Comprehension
of Fictional Texts
in the Secondary Classroom

Tiffany Ohlson, Heather Monroe‑Ossi,

and Sheri R. Parris

Many researchers believe that literature is the foundation

for literacy development.
—Douglas F isher, James F lood, and Diane L app
(1999, p. 132)

A lthough some progress has been made in reading achievement over the past two
decades, many adolescents still do not have the literacy skills necessary to succeed in
secondary school and the workplace (Graham & Hebert, 2010). National reading data
indicate that a disproportionate number of eighth- and 12th-grade students read below
grade level. The 2013 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reading results for
eighth grade show 36% scoring at or above the proficient level and 64% scoring at the
basic level or below, while 12th-grade results show 38% scoring at or above the proficient
level, with 62% scoring at the basic level or below. These scores are alarming, especially
when coupled with the knowledge that 40% of high school graduates lack the literacy
skills employers seek (National Governors Association, 2005).
Literacy researchers called for greater attention to adolescent literacy instruction in
recent publication of numerous reports (e.g., Biancarosa & Snow, 2006; Boardman et al.,
2008; Graham & Hebert, 2010; Kamil et al., 2008; Torgesen et al., 2007). These publica-
tions provide recommendations for improving adolescent literacy through research-­based
instructional practices. Interestingly, many of these recommendations can be applied
when reading both fictional and informational texts.
The idea that we employ radically different reading strategies when attempting to
comprehend various text types, such as fictional, informational, or procedural text, is

266
Comprehension of Fictional Texts in the Secondary Classroom 267

called into question in this chapter. Numerous reports and practice briefs providing
research-­based recommendations for increasing the literacy levels of adolescents have not
made separate lists for dealing with fictional texts versus other text types (Boardman et
al., 2008; Graham & Hebert, 2010; Kamil et al., 2008). Therefore, in this chapter we
describe past and present research aimed at improving the comprehension of adolescents
(students in grades 4–12), paying close attention to strategies and recommendations that
have worked with fictional texts, many of which are also effective when reading infor-
mational texts.
This chapter highlights the following:

• Reading comprehension strategies with an established track record for improving

adolescent literacy.
• A review of effective instructional practices shown to support adolescent readers’
comprehension of fictional texts.

What’s Out There Today: Established Research and Practice

Reading comprehension skills for middle and secondary students go beyond the basic lit-
eracy skills of elementary readers and require the ability to read purposefully, to figure out
meanings of unfamiliar words, to integrate new information with existing knowledge, to
resolve conflicting information in different texts, and to recognize the perspective of the
writer (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006). Following the Reading First initiative in 2003 that
focused primarily on early elementary readers (Denton, 2003), a national panel of read-
ing researchers gathered to address the needs of adolescent readers to ensure that ongoing
literacy instruction occurs throughout the middle and secondary school years. Snow and
Moje (2010) refer to the misconception that students receive all the reading instruction
necessary to be successful in the elementary grades as the “inoculation fallacy—­the fal-
lacy that an early vaccination of reading instruction protects permanently against reading
failure” (p. 66). Long-term National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data
and additional studies (Perie, Moran, & Lutkus, 2005; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998)
indicate that literacy instruction in middle and high school must build on the elementary
foundational reading skills to help students acquire the more advanced skills necessary to
comprehend a variety of texts (Heller & Greenleaf, 2007).
Adolescent literacy experts report that as many as 70% of students struggle with
comprehension and require differentiated instruction (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006). These
struggling readers have a wide range of issues, including difficulty reading words accu-
rately, reading words without comprehending what they read, lacking enough fluency
to comprehend, and lacking strategies to help them comprehend what they are read-
ing. Reading comprehension of both fiction and informational texts requires students
to understand and apply a multitude of strategies in increasingly complex ways to make
meaning of what they read. Students can be taught to use a wide range of comprehension
strategies that will influence how they make meaning from text (Keene & Zimmermann,
1997; Pressley, 2000; Wilhelm, 2001).
Specific strategies found to promote reading comprehension of fictional texts do
not differ greatly from comprehension strategies for reading other genres. The follow-
ing strategies address the instructional opportunities that should be presented to adoles-
cent readers throughout the middle and high school years. The vast majority of reading
research indicates that reading comprehension instruction should include the following:
268 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

Direct Vocabulary Instruction

Numerous studies have documented the strong reciprocal relationship between vocabu-
lary knowledge and reading comprehension (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002; Graves,
2006; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986; Stanovich, 2000). By providing explicit instruction in
vocabulary, teachers help students learn the meaning of new words and strengthen their
independent skills of constructing the meaning of text. Making certain that students are
familiar with the vocabulary they will encounter in reading selections helps make the
reading task easier.

Explicit Comprehension Instruction

Explicit comprehension instruction involves teaching readers directly how to perform a
strategy that skilled readers use during reading; it includes four phases. First, the teacher
models and explains the strategy. Next, students are given guided practice in which the
teacher gradually gives them more responsibility for task completion. Then, students have
independent practice with feedback. Finally, they apply the strategy in real reading situa-
tions (Pearson & Dole, 1987). This explicit comprehension instruction follows the grad-
ual release of responsibility model (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983) in which teachers assume
all of the responsibility for performing a task at the beginning and gradually release
responsibility of the task to the student, until the student assumes complete responsibility
for performing the task. Teachers sometimes refer to the steps associated with the gradual
release of responsibility model as I do, we do, and you do. I do refers to the modeling or
demonstrating done by the teacher. We do refers to the guided instruction and practice
when the teacher is working alongside students, monitoring and providing feedback as
students practice the new strategy. You do refers to the independent practice that occurs
when students can perform the task without the assistance of the teacher.

Comprehension Monitoring and Metacognition Instruction

In the context of reading, instruction in metacognition explicitly teaches students how to
think about the goals, tasks, and strategies that will help them comprehend more deeply
as they read. Swartz and Perkins (1989) identified four levels of metacognitive aware-
ness: (1) tacit readers who lack awareness of their thinking; (2) aware readers who know
when meaning breaks down but do not use strategies to repair meaning; (3) strategic
readers who know when meaning breaks down and use strategies to fix meaning; and (4)
reflective readers who reflect on reading and intentionally apply strategies not only when
meaning is lost but also to deepen understanding. Snow et al. (1998) found that good
readers employ metacognitive techniques, whereas readers with difficulties often remain
at disequilibrium, using only decoding or word recognition techniques to comprehend.

Motivation for Reading and Self‑Directed Learning Opportunities

As students progress from elementary to middle school to high school, they may become
less motivated to apply themselves in an academic setting. Building student choices in
reading content is important to reawakening student engagement (Biancarosa & Snow,
2006). Another way to engage students in literacy and learning is to promote the rel-
evance of what students are reading and writing. Student engagement and motivation are
Comprehension of Fictional Texts in the Secondary Classroom 269

critical, because “competency in reading is necessary but insufficient by itself to engender

better academic performance” (p. 16).

New Research in This Area

Lately, educational researchers have paid attention to the issue of adolescent literacy, as
demonstrated by the numerous publications recommending research-­based instructional
practices (Boardman et al., 2008; Graham & Hebert, 2010; Kamil et al., 2008).
Boardman et al. (2008) published a practice brief to provide educators with effective
instructional practices for adolescents who struggle to read. The instructional recom-
mendations are organized into five general areas: word study, fluency, vocabulary, com-
prehension, and motivation. Under the comprehension category, specific research-­based
strategies are recommended, such as activating prior knowledge, summarizing, and using
graphic organizers.
A practice guide for improving adolescent literacy through effective classroom and
intervention practices was published by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) with the
goal of presenting evidence-­based recommendations for educators on how to improve the
literacy levels of adolescents (Kamil et al., 2008). In determining what recommendations
to include in the practice guide, the authors took into consideration that instructional
strategies must be evidence-­based and practical. The five recommendations for improving
adolescent literacy are as follows:

• Provide explicit vocabulary instruction.

• Provide direct and explicit comprehension strategy instruction.
• Provide opportunities for extended discussion of text meaning and interpretation.
• Increase student motivation and engagement in literacy learning.
• Make available intensive and individualized interventions provided by trained spe-
cialists for struggling readers.

A report written by Graham and Hebert (2010) reviewed research on how to improve
students’ reading through writing. This publication presents evidence-­based writing tech-
niques shown to enhance students’ reading, many of which focus on increasing compre-
hension. The recommended writing practices that enhance students’ reading comprehen-
sion include the following:

• Have students write about the texts they read.

||Respond to a text in writing (writing personal reactions, analyzing and inter-

preting the text).

||Write summaries of a text.
||Write notes about a text.

• Answer questions about a text in writing, or create and answer written questions
about a text.
• Teach students the writing skills and processes that go into creating text.
||Teach the process of writing, text structures for writing, paragraph or sentence

construction skills.
• Increase how much students write.
270 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

There are common themes in the recommendations made throughout the myriad
policy and practice briefs aimed at improving adolescent literacy. Many of these rec-
ommendations include increasing motivation to read and explicit instruction in specific
comprehension strategies. Interestingly, many of the reading strategies mentioned in
Boardman et al. (2008) and Kamil et al. (2008) are mirrored in the report on writing for
the purpose of improving reading comprehension. Strategies (e.g., summarizing, asking
and answering questions) are techniques that increase comprehension both in written
and oral formats. Most students show improvement in reading outcomes when they are
explicitly taught how to use reading comprehension strategies (Edmonds et al., 2009).
Although many comprehension strategies can be used successfully with both fictional
and informational texts, some have proven to be more important when reading one genre
over another. This section of the chapter provides research on current instructional prac-
tices that have been shown to improve adolescents’ comprehension of fictional texts.

Fictional Texts

Fictional texts, or narratives, serve to entertain and typically have a structure often
referred to as story grammar, which is organized around the goals and needs of specific
characters. Narratives typically follow a temporal sequence, beginning with an orienta-
tion, which introduces the reader to the main characters and setting of the story. A series
of events follows the orientation, during which a problem or complication usually arises.
Finally, a resolution of the complication is realized at the conclusion of the story. The
content of fictional texts is familiar to readers, since it usually focuses on topics in which
readers have a wealth of knowledge, such as social relationships and everyday situations.
Narratives have been the principal text type that is read and discussed in primary class-
rooms (Duke, 2000; Yopp & Yopp, 2006); therefore, children are able to rely heavily on
their familiarity with this text structure when asked to comprehend stories. However,
research demonstrates that explicit instruction in narrative structure from elementary
through high school improves comprehension, especially for struggling readers (Stetter
& Hughes, 2010).
Recently there has been increased emphasis on content-­area literacy at all grade lev-
els. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) call for a 50–50 balance between infor-
mational and literary reading in the elementary grades, and by the time students reach
sixth grade, the CCSS recommend that instructional time in English language arts classes
should shift substantially to include even more nonfiction (Coleman & Pimental, 2011).
In 2000, Venezky reported that approximately 75% of the texts read in school could be
classified as informational, but that percentage is expected to be even higher with the new
CCSS guidelines.
With this increased emphasis on informational texts, attention to fiction in adoles-
cent literacy is diminishing. However, reading complex fictional texts is important for a
couple of reasons. One argument for the importance of reading and discussing complex
fictional texts is that they provide opportunities for adolescents to ponder and debate
ethical dilemmas and challenges that human beings face (Lee & Spratley, 2010). Students
become engaged with the characters and stories that have relevance for their own lives
and cause them to think critically about the personal, social, and moral issues presented.
Fostering adolescents’ empathy for others is another important by-­product of engaging
with fictional texts. Students read and enter upon a journey with characters who encoun-
ter problems, and in relating to these characters, readers form empathic bonds. Reading
Comprehension of Fictional Texts in the Secondary Classroom 271

fictional texts has actually been used as a treatment in studies aimed at promoting empa-
thy in medical students. Results from a study performed by Boker, Shapiro, and Mor-
rison (2004) indicated that medical students’ understanding of the patient’s perspective
became more complex and detailed following participation in a literature course focusing
on texts about patients and doctors. For these reasons, narrative texts deserve a promi-
nent place in middle and secondary English language arts classes.

Instructional Practices for Improving Comprehension of Fictional Texts

Writing to Comprehend
Writing has been identified as a key element in a strong literacy program (Biancarosa &
Snow, 2006). Graham and Hebert (2010) presented results of a meta-­analysis highlight-
ing writing practices that enhance students’ reading of both fictional and informational
texts. The following recommendations for writing techniques that enhance reading com-
prehension of adolescents include (1) having students write about the texts they read and
(2) teaching them the writing skills and processes that go into creating text. Regarding
the first recommendation, students’ comprehension of fictional and informational texts
improved when they wrote about their reading. Specific writing practices that improved
comprehension included responding to a text in writing (personal reactions, analyzing
and interpreting the text), writing a summary of a text, and answering questions about
a text in writing. Writing about a text improved students’ comprehension better than
just reading the text, reading and rereading it, reading and studying it, reading and dis-
cussing it, and receiving reading instruction, all of which were activities in the control
conditions analyzed. The second recommendation was based on evidence demonstrat-
ing that students’ reading comprehension is improved by learning the writing skills and
processes that go into creating texts. Specifically, teaching text structures for writing or
teaching paragraph or sentence construction skills demonstrated positive outcomes with
the control conditions as reading or reading instruction. Results from this meta-­analysis
provide evidence for the inclusion of certain writing practices in order to improve reading
comprehension of adolescents. The effectiveness of writing about text and the teaching
of writing skills were investigated and shown to improve reading comprehension of both
fictional and informational texts.

Text Structure
Explicit instruction in text structure has proven to be an effective tool for improving
students’ comprehension of both fictional and informational texts (Gardhill & Jitendra,
1999; Hall, Sabey, & McClellan, 2005; Williams, 2005). The text structure of fiction,
often referred to as story grammar, is generally introduced in the primary grades and
starts with dividing stories into a beginning, middle, and end. As students progress in
schooling, the analysis of narrative structures becomes increasingly more sophisticated,
with the identification of setting, characters, rising action, climax, and a conclusion.
Explicit instruction in using story grammar, especially with students who have reading
difficulties, can improve their comprehension (Stetter & Hughes, 2010). In a review of
research on the use of story grammar as an instructional strategy to improve compre-
hension of struggling readers, Stetter and Hughes found that adolescents benefit from
explicit, effective instruction in story grammar and use it to improve understanding of
fictional texts. The research also indicated that the use of story mapping, which refers
272 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

to creating a visual representation of story grammar, typically using a graphic organizer,

leads to increased comprehension. On the whole, the reviewed studies demonstrated that
the inclusion of a metacognitive component, namely, self-­regulation in deciding when to
use the strategy, improved comprehension of narrative texts.

Text‑Based Discussions
Engaging struggling adolescent readers in thinking about text and discussing what they
know can lead to improved comprehension (Edmonds et al., 2009). Kamil et al. (2008)
created a practice guide for educators on effective classroom and intervention practices to
improve adolescent literacy. One of the five recommendations for increasing the reading
ability of adolescents was providing opportunities for extended discussion of text mean-
ing and interpretation. In examining research on discussion-­based approaches to improv-
ing reading comprehension, the authors stated that the majority of experimental studies
have used narrative texts.
In an analysis of the discourse patterns of discussion-­based approaches of narrative
texts, Soter et al. (2008) found that productive discussions were categorized as structured
and focused but not dominated by the teacher. Findings from this analysis provide evi-
dence that productive discussions occur when students participate for extended periods
of time; when they are prompted with authentic, open-ended questions; and when teach-
ers model and scaffold elaborated responses. These productive discussions of narrative
texts led to higher-­level thinking and reasoning by students, which resulted in deeper
understanding of the texts. The importance of text-based discussions was also revealed
in a study comparing comprehension instruction focusing on strategies versus instruction
focusing on content (McKeown, Beck, & Blake, 2009). The content approach concen-
trated on students’ comprehending the text by answering general, meaning-­based ques-
tions about the text. In the strategies approach, students were taught to use specific com-
prehension strategies such as predicting and drawing inferences to gain meaning from the
text. Content students outperformed strategies students on measures of narrative recall,
and lessons in the content condition showed an increased amount of text-based talk and
lengthier student responses. These results provide evidence for creating time for text-
based discussions to increase comprehension of narrative texts.

Reading Motivation and Engagement

Reading comprehension can be hindered by a lack of motivation to read. Even adoles-
cents with strong literacy skills may choose not to read if they are not actively engaged
(National Council of Teachers of English [NCTE], 2007). Common Sense Media (2014)
reported that reading for pleasure significantly decreases as children get older, and rates
among teens have fallen dramatically in recent years. The National Center for Educa-
tion Statistics (NCES), which examines long-term trend data regarding children’s reading
habits, has shown that the percentage of 13- and 17-year-olds reporting never or only
occasionally reading for fun has increased severely over the past three decades. In 1984,
8% of 13-year-olds and 9% of 17-year-olds reported never or hardly ever reading for fun,
and those percentages have nearly tripled to 22 and 27%, respectively (NCES, 2013). It is
critical for teachers to address motivation with students in middle and high school in order
to promote reading for enjoyment and the relevance of reading in their everyday lives.
One instructional feature that contributes to increasing students’ motivation to read
is supporting student autonomy (Guthrie & Humenick, 2004). In a study by Ivey and
Comprehension of Fictional Texts in the Secondary Classroom 273

Johnston (2013), eighth-­grade English teachers made engaged reading their central cur-
ricular goal by prioritizing self-­selected, self-paced reading of contemporary young adult
literature. The students were given choices in reading material and in how to respond to
their reading. Teachers devoted time for students to read, for the teacher to read aloud,
and for students to write daily. Teachers introduced students to personally relevant books
containing topics of high interest and encouraged them to read at home as well. Results
from the state test showed favorable results, with the percentage of students passing the
test increasing from 78% in seventh grade, which employed the traditional curriculum,
to 85% in eighth grade, using the engaged reading curriculum. The pass rate for certain
groups of students also increased, with the economically disadvantaged group increas-
ing from 69 to 81%, Hispanic students increasing from 82 to 91%, African American
students increasing from 63 to 65%, and boys increasing from 72 to 81%. Data were also
collected through student and teacher interviews, video/audio records of student-­initiated
book discussions, and biweekly classroom observations. Students reported numerous
perceived outcomes of engaged reading, including extended time periods spent reading
both inside and outside of school, more discussions related to students’ experiences with
books, and shifts in agency, demonstrating that students had a stronger sense that they
could have an effect on things such as relationships, emotions, and their own reading.
These findings suggest that supporting student autonomy through engaged reading can
have a positive impact on adolescent literacy and beyond.

What about Activating Prior Knowledge?

As previously mentioned, activating prior knowledge has been named as an instructional
practice that can improve students’ comprehension (Boardman et al., 2008). However,
recent research has shown differential effects for using this strategy with various genres.
Comprehension of a text relies on both knowledge-­driven and text-­driven processing.
The knowledge-­driven part includes not only text structure knowledge but also domain
knowledge, sometimes referred to as content knowledge. Since the purpose of informa-
tional texts is to communicate information about a topic, usually the students are reading
to gain knowledge they do not already have, forcing them to rely more heavily on what
is presented in the text to make connections and comprehend the text (Cote, Goldman,
& Saul, 1998; Horiba, 2000). If readers do possess domain knowledge about a text they
are reading, they use that prior knowledge along with what they process from the text to
create a “situation model” (Kintsch, 1988). This integration of knowledge gained from
the text with prior knowledge creates a situation model that changes as the reader con-
tinually adds more information.
Yet some research indicates that prior knowledge is utilized differently when pro-
cessing narrative and informational texts. Wolfe and Mienko (2007) found that readers’
processing of narrative and informational texts differs with respect to integration of prior
knowledge with text content. Regarding narrative texts, readers focused their process-
ing on creating a mental representation of events described in the text and were less
concerned with integrating the content with their prior knowledge. In contrast, memory
was positively correlated with prior knowledge in the informational condition when read-
ers’ processing focused on attempts to integrate the content of the text with their prior
knowledge.
This line of research indicates that the amount of prior knowledge readers have
about a topic may be differentially important considering the genre being read. If read-
ers attempt to integrate prior knowledge with text content more often while processing
274 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

informational texts, then the amount of prior knowledge may be more important when
reading informational texts than when reading narrative texts (Wolfe & Mienko, 2007).
This is not to say that activating prior knowledge when reading fictional texts is not help-
ful to the reader, but this strategy may be more beneficial when the reader attempts to
comprehend informational texts. Although the majority of comprehension strategies and
effective instructional practices have shown promise with narrative and informational
texts, there are times when one strategy may be more helpful than another.

How This New Knowledge Can Improve Comprehension Instruction

Several areas of research show promise in helping to develop the type of thinking skills
adolescents need to improve their comprehension abilities for reading fictional texts. For
instance, as discussed in this chapter, comprehension instruction can be used to develop
problem-­solving skills such as aiding students in thinking critically about ethical dilem-
mas that include personal, social, and moral issues. Comprehension lessons using fic-
tional texts in which students read about, enact, and/or discuss solutions to problems
described in the text should be encouraged. Secondary teachers need to plan assignments
in which students contemplate real-life dilemmas (Scales, 2003) and consider possible
responses, including making decisions and defending these decisions using logic and rea-
soning skills. Creating empathic bonds with characters and developing understanding
about underlying motivations for both protagonists and antagonists can help students
develop the ability to analyze situations from multiple perspectives, and where emotion
and logic are at odds, explore the possible consequences.
Reading fictional texts can help students develop a sense of agency, as discussed ear-
lier in this chapter. Through the stories in fictional texts, students should think about not
only their own abilities to be active participants in their world but also the future in antic-
ipation of future needs, and development of personal goals (Kellough & Kellough, 2008).
Agency can also be supported through character studies. Through literature, and literary
characters, students can place themselves vicariously in a variety of situations. By exam-
ining different scenarios through characters, students can proactively form opinions and
ideas about how they might act in similar situations they might encounter in their own
lives. As Roser and Martinez (2005) point out in their informative book, What a Charac-
ter!: Character Study as a Guide to Literary Meaning Making in Grades K–8, character
study allows students to consider characters’ traits and perspectives, understand their
motivations and goals, explore their feelings, and probe their relationships. Roser and
Martinez recommend that students be guided to think about characters through writing,
visual representations, and drama.

Summary

In this chapter, we have attempted to provide an overview of the research on what has
been learned about comprehension strategies for fictional texts with secondary students.
Because a large number of students continue to struggle with comprehension in their
middle and high school years, we must continue to provide effective literacy instruction
tailored to texts that secondary students read. Such instruction should include direct and
explicit vocabulary instruction and comprehension strategy instruction, opportunities
for extended discussion of text meaning and interpretation, comprehension monitoring
Comprehension of Fictional Texts in the Secondary Classroom 275

and metacognition instruction, increased engagement and motivation for reading, and
self-­directed learning opportunities. For struggling readers, intensive and individualized
interventions provided by trained specialists should be utilized. New research shows that
activating prior knowledge, summarizing, using graphic organizers, and writing instruc-
tion can be important tools in comprehension instruction. With fictional texts in par-
ticular, instruction about story grammar and exercises focusing on the goals, needs, and
dilemmas of characters are beneficial. However, while many comprehension strategies
are useful with fictional and nonfiction texts, when and how to use these strategies may
differ among these text types. Thoughtfully integrating such research-­based practices
into classroom instruction will aid students in becoming successful and confident read-
ers. Finally, we must remember that fictional texts are valuable to both the school cur-
riculum and to literacy learning for many reasons. Not the least is their ability to engage
students in grappling with complex levels of meaning about many facets of the human
experience, facilitating personal and authentic connections with reading.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. In this chapter we have discussed the role of supporting student autonomy as one way to improve
adolescents’ motivation to read. How might you incorporate student choice into your daily instructional
routine to increase your students’ motivation to read? Brainstorm other ideas that you believe would
increase adolescents’ motivation to read inside and outside of school, then try a few of these ideas in
your class.
2. Create and implement a discussion protocol that includes multiple opportunities for you to prompt
students with open-ended questions about narrative texts read in your classroom. Remember to build
in ample time for students to respond to the questions and to elaborate on their peers’ responses.
Share this discussion protocol with colleagues and make note of any changes in the amount of time
students spend in text-based discussions.
3. Reflect on how you encourage students to use writing techniques to improve their comprehension of
narrative texts. List three new writing practices that you would like to implement in your class as tools
for increasing students’ comprehension. After implementing the new writing practices, solicit feedback
from students on which ones they find the most helpful in deepening their understanding of the texts
they read.

References

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary
instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle
and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washing-
ton, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Boardman, A. G., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Murray, C. S., & Kosanovich, M. (2008).
Effective instruction for adolescent struggling readers: A practice brief. Portsmouth, NH:
RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
Boker, J. R., Shapiro, J., & Morrison, E. H. (2004). Teaching empathy to first year medical stu-
dents: Evaluation of an elective literature and medicine course. Education for Health, 17(1),
73–84.
Coleman, D., & Pimental, S. (2011). Publishers’ criteria for the Common Core Standards in Eng-
lish language arts and literacy, grades 3–12. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/assets/
publishers%5fcriteria%5ffor%5f3-12.pdf.
276 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

Common Sense Media. (2014). Children, teens, and reading. San Francisco: Author.
Cote, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text:
Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25, 1–53.
Denton, D. R. (2003). Reading First: Lessons from successful state reading initiatives (Report).
Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/
fulltext/ed477336.pdf.
Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Read-
ing Research Quarterly, 35, 202–224.
Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tackett, K. K., et al. (2009). A
synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older
struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262–300.
Fisher, D., Flood, J., & Lapp, D. (1999). The role of literature in literacy development. In L. B.
Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, S. B. Neuman, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy
instruction (pp. 119–135). New York: Guilford Press.
Gardhill, M. C., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: Effects on the read-
ing comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33,
2–17, 28.
Graham, S., & Hebert, M. A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve
reading: A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excel-
lent Education.
Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. New York: Teachers Col-
lege Press.
Guthrie, J. T., & Humenick, N. M. (2004). Motivating students to read: Evidence for classroom
practices that increase reading motivation and achievement. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra
(Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 329–354). Baltimore: Brookes.
Hall, K. M., Sabey, B. L., & McClellan, M. (2005). Expository text comprehension: Helping primary-­
grade teachers use expository texts to full advantage. Reading Psychology, 26, 211–234.
Heller, R., & Greenleaf, C. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to the core
of middle and high school improvement. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence in Educa-
tion.
Horiba, Y. (2000). Reader control in reading: Effects of language competence, text type, and task.
Discourse Processes, 29, 223–267.
Ivey, G., & Johnston, P. H. (2013). Engagement with young adult literature: Outcomes and pro-
cesses. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(3), 255–275.
Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Krai, C. C, Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving
adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A Practice Guide (NCEE
No. 2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc.
Keene, E. O., & Zimmermann, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a read-
er’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kellough, R. D., & Kellough, N. G. (2008). Teaching young adolescents: Methods and resources
for middle grades teaching (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A constructive–­integration
model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
Lee, C. D., & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The challenges of adolescent literacy.
New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruc-
tion: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research
Quarterly, 44(3), 218–253.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2013). 2013 mathematics and reading
assessments. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sci-
ences, National Center for Education Statistics.
Comprehension of Fictional Texts in the Secondary Classroom 277

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2013). The nation’s report card: Trends in aca-
demic progress 2012 (NCES 2013–456). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard.
National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). (2007). Adolescent literacy. Ann Arbor: Univer-
sity of Michigan, James R. Squire Office of Policy Research.
National Governors Association. (2005). Reading to achieve: A governor’s guide to adolescent
literacy. Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best Practices.
Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research and
new conceptualization of instruction. Elementary School Journal, 88(2), 151–165.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, G. (1983). The gradual release of responsibility model of instruction.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 112–123.
Perie, M., Moran, R., & Lutkus, A. D. (2005). NAEP 2004 trends in academic progress: Three
decades of student performance in reading and mathematics (NCES 2005–464). Washing-
ton, DC: Government Printing Office.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be instruction of? In M. L. Kamil,
P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3,
pp. 546–561). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Roser, N. L., & Martinez, M. G. (2005). What a character!: Character study as a guide to literacy
meaning making in grades K–8. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Scales, P. C. (2003). Characteristics of young adolescents. In National Middle School Association
(Ed.), This we believe: Successful schools for young adolescents (pp. 43–51). Westerville,
OH: National Middle School Association.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Snow, C., & Moje, E. (2010). Why is everyone talking about adolescent literacy? Phi Delta Kap-
pan, 91(6), 66–69.
Soter, A. O., Wilkinson, I. A., Murphy, P. K., Rudge, L., Reninger, K., & Edwards, M. (2008).
What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International
Journal of Educational Research, 47(6), 372–391.
Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based
meta-­analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 72–110.
Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading. New York: Guilford Press.
Stetter, M. E., & Hughes, M. T. (2010). Using story grammar to assist students with learning dis-
abilities and reading difficulties improve their comprehension. Education and Treatment of
Children, 33(1), 115–151.
Swartz, R. J., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Teaching thinking: Issues and approaches. Pacific Grove,
CA: Midwest.
Torgesen, J. K., Houston, D. D., Rissman, L. M., Decker, S. M., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., et al.
(2007). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Cen-
ter on Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
Venezky, R. L. (2000). The origins of the present-­day chasm between adult literacy needs and
school literacy instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 19–39.
Wilhelm, J. (2001). Improving reading comprehension with think-aloud strategies. New York:
Scholastic Professional Books.
Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-­grade students: A focus
on text structure. Journal of Special Education, 39, 6–18.
Wolfe, M. B. W., & Mienko, J. A. (2007), Learning and memory of factual content from narrative
and expository text. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 541–564.
Yopp, R. H., & Yopp, H. K. (2006). Informational texts as read alouds at school and home. Jour-
nal of Literacy Research, 38(1), 37–51.
 Chapter 20

Improving Comprehension
of Informational Texts
in the Secondary Classroom

Vicki A. Jacobs and Jacy Ippolito

To be ready for college, workforce training, and life in a technological society,

students need the ability to gather, comprehend, evaluate, synthesize, and report on
information and ideas, to conduct original research in order to answer questions or
solve problems, and to analyze and create a high volume and extensive range of print
and nonprint texts in media forms old and new. The need to conduct research and to
produce and consume media is embedded into every aspect of today’s curriculum.
—National G overnors A ssociation C enter for Best P ractices
and Council of C hief State School Officers (2010, p. 4)

I nformational texts have a lengthy historical role in middle and secondary school class-
rooms in the United States, and concern about how best to integrate the use of informa-
tional texts into curriculum has an equally long history (National Education Association,
1894; Maloch & Bomer, 2013). Nonetheless, research that explicitly addresses the com-
prehension of informational text is relatively recent and fairly scarce. Research focused
explicitly on the curricular scope of informational text at the secondary level (grades
6–12) is even scarcer. Furthermore, even within the existent research literature, there is
little agreement about the definition of informational text or its particular demands on
comprehension.
At the same time, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS; National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010)
emphatically note that “too many students [are] reading at too low a level” to be pre-
pared adequately “for college, careers, and life in general” (CCSS Appendix A, p. 3).
To address this lack of preparedness, the Common Core requires that 55% of middle
school and 70% of high school reading be anchored in informational texts (CCSS for
English Language Arts, p. 5). With the widespread adoption of the CCSS, the challenge
of ensuring that students can read and use complex informational texts “independently

278
Comprehension of Informational Texts in the Secondary Classroom 279

and proficiently” by the end of grade 12 (CCSS Appendix A, p. 2) weighs heavily on the
minds of administrators and teachers alike.
Our purpose in this chapter is to inform secondary educators’ curricular decisions
about using informational text. Drawing on historical research, theory, and practices
related to the reading of informational text, this chapter considers the following:

• The definition of informational text.

• The research on the comprehension of informational text.
• The practices associated with its use.

What’s Out There Today: Established Research and Practice

Definition of Informational Text
Research concerning the comprehension of informational text is either implicitly or
explicitly contextualized by definitions of that text. Minimally, these definitions dif-
ferentiate between “expository, information-­bearing texts” and “narrative, story-­telling
texts” (Fox, 2009, p. 205). The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP;
2012, p. iv) Reading Frameworks “include two types of texts. . . . [1] literary texts, liter-
ary nonfiction (e.g., ‘biographies, autobiographies, and memoirs’ [Frey & Fisher, 2013,
p. 34]), and poetry and [2] informational texts [exposition, argumentation and persuasive
text, and procedural text and documents]. There is general agreement that informational
texts include content-­based “texts in history/social studies, science, and technical sub-
jects” (CCSS for English Language Arts; National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices, 2010, p. 5) and that they investigate “the natural or social world” (Duke, 2004,
p. 40) (or, alternatively, the “physical, biological, or social world” [Frey & Fisher, 2013,
p. 34]) and “an actual phenomenon, event, situation, procedure, [or] a conceptualiza-
tion” about those worlds (Fox, 2009, p. 205).
Despite such lengthy articulations, researchers disagree about whether or not infor-
mational texts are a genre (see Duke, 2000, p. 207); however, they do agree that nonfic-
tion in general, and informational text in particular have distinct and complex text struc-
tures that pose particular challenges for reading comprehension that differ from those
posed by literary fiction (see Maloch & Bomer, 2013, p. 207). For example, some argue
that informational text structure can include “complex nominal (noun phrase) groups,
clausal subordination, and theme and information mechanisms” (Scott & Balthazar,
2010, p. 288) while others note the specific demands of vocabulary, grammatical meta-
phors, cohesion, lexical density, and grammatical intricacy (Fang & Pace, 2013) in infor-
mational texts. Those who seek to define and/or increase the use of informational text
(Duke, 2000, 2004; Maloch & Bomer, 2013) characterize such texts as

having many or all of the following features: (a) a function to communicate information
about the natural or social world, typically from one presumed to be more knowledgeable
on the subject to one presumed to be less so; (b) an expectation of durable factual content;
(c) timeless verb constructions; (d) generic noun constructions; (e) technical vocabulary; (f)
classificatory and definitional material; (g) comparative/contrastive, problem/solution, cause/
effect, or like text structures; (h) frequent repetition of the topical theme; and (i) graphical
elements such as diagrams, indices, page numbers, and maps. (p. 205)

While the CCSS (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010)
clearly strive to increase teachers’ and students’ use of informational texts, there is a
280 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

surprising lack of definition of the genre in the Standards themselves. The Standards were
developed, in part, because of concern about students’ performance on NAEP assess-
ments (pp. 4–5). However, while the CCSS explain that informational–­explanatory writ-
ing mostly takes the form of “arguments” and “explanations” (CCSS Appendix A, p. 23),
such definitions do not begin to define the range or characteristics of informational texts
that students read across content areas. Instead, the CCSS offer examples of informa-
tional texts and suggestions for how to use them at particular grade levels (CCSS Appen-
dices B and C).
The CCSS (Appendix A, p. 4) implicitly define the parameters of informational
text through their definition of text complexity, including (1) “qualitative dimensions”
(e.g., “levels of meaning or purpose; structure; language conventionality and clarity; and
knowledge demands”); (2) “quantitative dimensions” (e.g., “word length or frequency,
sentence length, and text cohesion”); and (3) reader–­text factors (for readers, factors
such as “motivation, knowledge, and experiences”) and task-­factors (e.g., “purpose and
the complexity of the task assigned and the questions posed”). Other features that can
influence text complexity include “subtle and/or frequent transitions”; “multiple and/or
subtle themes and purposes”; “density of information”; “unfamiliar settings, topics, or
events”; “lack of repetition” or “overlap or similarity in words and sentences”; “complex
sentences”; “uncommon vocabulary”; “lack of words, sentences or paragraphs that [help
students synthesize]”; “longer paragraphs”; and any text structure which is less narra-
tive and/or mixes structures (Howard, n.d., Slide 7). While some of these text features
(e.g., subtle transitions; complex sentences) can be found across genres, certain features
are particularly dominant in nonliterary texts (e.g., density of information; uncommon
vocabulary).
To confuse things further, disciplinary perspectives about the definition and param-
eters of informational text can vary widely, making cross-­disciplinary conversations
about the use of informational text difficult. For example, reading researchers have
focused largely on either the cognitive processes related to comprehension or the skills or
strategies required to meet the challenges of informational text structures. In fact, “com-
prehension strategy instruction” (popularized by the National Reading Panel’s report;
Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) has dominated conversations in the field of reading about
how best to help secondary students’ comprehension of texts across genres. To a lesser
degree, reading research has examined the role of various comprehension skills and strat-
egies for learning in specific content areas. By contrast, linguists have focused on syntax,
vocabulary, and intratext structures, while those in library science have examined both
the definition and the pedagogy of informational literacy.
In summary, despite the lack of a unified definition of informational text, most agree
that informational text poses particular demands on reading comprehension due to its
particular textual structures and features, vocabulary load and density, and linguistic
complexity. Furthermore, successful comprehension of informational text builds on the
elements of comprehension more generally (e.g., students’ background knowledge, socio-
cultural contexts for reading, motivation and engagement, purposes for reading, strategic
reading ability, and metacognition; see RAND Reading Study Group, 2002, pp. xiii–xvi).

Comprehension of Informational Texts

Research that specifically examines the comprehension of informational texts at the
secondary level is scant and relatively new (i.e., over the past 25 years) and has pri-
marily examined the skills and strategies required for reading informational text in the
Comprehension of Informational Texts in the Secondary Classroom 281

elementary grades—a trend that continues today (e.g., Duke, 2000; Duke & Bennett-­
Armistead, 2003; Duke & Purcell-­Gates, 2003; Englert & Hiebert, 1984; Hall & Sabey,
2007; Maloch & Horsey, 2013). Because research at the middle and secondary levels is
fairly nascent, we must turn to the more general literature on comprehension for insights
about the specific nature of the reading processes, skills, and strategies relevant to the
comprehension of informational text.
Researchers generally agree that to become successful readers of secondary- and
college-­level texts, students, minimally, must have acquired prerequisite “basic” skills
such as phonemic awareness, automaticity with applying principles of phonics, and
fluency with decoding (not only of letters but of meaning-­bearing units such as words
and phrases; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD],
2000; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008; Snow et al.,
1998). Theory about stages of reading (e.g., Chall & Jacobs, 2003; see CCSS Appen-
dix A [National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010, p. 9]) traces
developmental trends of these beginning-­to-read skills, as well as the development of
students’ knowledge and use of language (vocabulary and syntax). In addition, stages
describe the development of specific elements of comprehension, including acquisition
of vocabulary and conceptual knowledge (e.g., background knowledge and experience),
motivation, metacognition, general critical thinking skills (e.g., analysis and synthesis
within, between, and among texts and points of view), the specific application of these
skills given a discipline’s embedded habits of mind, and the ability to establish and pursue
personal and disciplinary purposes for reading (Chall & Jacobs, 2003). Stage theory rec-
ognizes that the development of reading skills is not necessarily linear, nor is it the same
for all students (cf. Chall, 1983; CCSS Appendix A [National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices, 2010, p. 9]). In fact, recent research has argued that increased
exposure to and scaffolded instruction with informational texts should begin in the ear-
liest elementary years if we are to ensure students’ college and work readiness (Duke,
2004; Duke & Bennett-­A rmistead, 2003; cf. CCSS Appendix A [National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices, 2010, pp. 9–10).
Several bodies of comprehension research are particularly relevant to the compre-
hension of informational texts (e.g., Condie, 2012), including research on text structures
and features, vocabulary, linguistic features of text, strategic reading, content-­area read-
ing and disciplinary literacy, informational literacy, and motivation and engagement. We
briefly review these elements below.

Text Structures, Features, and Linguistic Complexity

Perhaps the most common focus of research that is relevant to the comprehension of
informational text is on text structure. Research about the relation between text structure
and comprehension, however, has mostly focused on the elementary grades and on the
use of graphic organizers (Akhondi, Malayeri, & Samad, 2011). Limited research with
older students and adults suggests that some explicit instruction of text structure can
increase retention of information (Armbruster, Anderson, & Ostertag, 1987; Ohlhausen
& Roller, 1988) found in sophisticated canonical and noncanonical texts (i.e., texts with
traditional and nontraditional structures; Samuels et al., 1988). A review of research
on the comprehension of informational texts (Dickson, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 1995)
suggests that explicit instruction of kinds of text structures (e.g., description, sequence,
problem and solution, cause and effect, and comparison and contrast) and their features
(e.g., signal words) can improve comprehension.
282 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

In addition, and related to text structure, some researchers have examined the more
fine-­grained elements of linguistic complexity, including cohesion, lexical density, use of
grammatical metaphors, and grammatical intricacy (Fang & Pace, 2013). Cohesion (“the
degree to which a text hangs together”) (Fang & Pace, 2013, p. 105) can influence stu-
dents’ ability to understand a particular text and specifically the reference chains within
that text. Texts create chains of reference that range from simple connections (e.g., pro-
nouns referring back to proper nouns) to complex chains (e.g., connections between large
or abstract concepts across time and space). Novice readers have particular difficulty
tracking the relationship among referents (Fang & Pace, 2013). Lexical density (i.e., the
kinds of grammatical structures used to communicate information) can also affect cohe-
sion (Fang, Schleppegrell, & Cox, 2006), as can a text’s syntactic complexity (e.g., the
use of embedded dependent clauses, connective relationships, and punctuation).
Other linguistic features that have an impact on the comprehension of informational
text include grammatical complexity and the use of grammatical metaphors (Fang &
Pace, 2013, pp. 105–106). Grammatical metaphors can be best understood as “atypi-
cal” word combinations in which “processes and qualities are presented in nouns; and
logical–­semantic relations in nouns, verbs, or prepositional phrases” such as “business
failures and slowdowns; panic selling; proof of the superiority of their economic system”
(Fang & Pace, 2013, p. 105). Such grammatical metaphors appear throughout informa-
tional texts (regardless of complexity level), and understanding them requires both the
ability to parse language and knowledge of a particular discipline’s conventions (Fang &
Schleppegrell, 2008).

Vocabulary
Another focus common among studies and research reviews related to the comprehen-
sion of informational text is vocabulary. Simply put, texts with words that are less famil-
iar (e.g., more abstract; discipline-­specific), that are used less frequently, and/or that are
more abstract than concrete are harder to understand. All readability measures (e.g., the
Dale–Chall, Fry, and Spache readability formulae) include some measure of word dif-
ficulty (e.g., the number of syllables in a word, the language of a word’s root, frequency
of a word’s use, or a word’s grammatical function). Others characterize word difficulty
by “tiers” (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002). Tier I words generally represent com-
mon knowledge and everyday experience; they are the words most frequently used in
oral communication and in texts designed for practice with sight-­reading, decoding, and
fluency (Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990). Tier II words include academic vocabulary
that is common across disciplines (e.g., analyze, synthesis, extrapolate). Tier III words
include concepts and terms that are central to particular academic disciplines (e.g., mito-
chondria, hypotenuse, onomatopoeia, oligarchy) (Beck et al., 2002; Chall, 1983), as
well as those whose meaning varies according to the academic discipline in which it is
used (e.g., reproduction, advocate, revolution, and point of view). Research has rein-
forced the importance of explicit instruction of cross-­curricular, academic vocabulary
that is also characteristic of informational text (Coxhead, 2000; Lawrence, Maher, &
Snow, 2013; Snow, Lawrence, & White, 2009). Although the exact nature of effective
vocabulary instruction remains in question, research has firmly established that at least
some explicit teaching of vocabulary can foster the reciprocal relationship among word
knowledge, world knowledge, and reading comprehension (Dobbs, 2013; Lawrence et
al., 2013).
Comprehension of Informational Texts in the Secondary Classroom 283

Strategy Approaches
An impressive amount of the research over the past 25 years has focused on the effects
of instructional strategies on reading comprehension (Conley, 2008; Willingham,
2006–2007, p. 39). Strategy-­based research that is relevant to reading informational text
assumes that reading is a cognitive process that involves thinking, learning, and active
student engagement (McKeown, Beck, & Blake, 2009, p. 219). The assumption is that
successful readers are familiar with a range of strategies appropriate to the comprehen-
sion of particular text, can monitor their reading and identify reasons for challenges,
and can determine the most effective strategies to correct the course of their reading, as
needed. These strategies support reading skills such as metacognition (self-­monitoring
for coherence and accuracy regarding understanding), organizing information (e.g., using
graphic and semantic organizers), posing and answering text-based questions, applying
knowledge of story and other text structures, cooperative learning and collaborative dis-
cussion, summarization, prediction, and inference (Buehl, 2011; McKeown et al., 2009,
p. 245; cf. Snow et al., 1998). Other strategy-­based research has examined how students
process new information in light of prior knowledge and experience (Buehl, 2011; Con-
ley, 2008) and the efficacy of study plans (e.g., SQ3R [survey, question, read, recite,
review] and KWL [what I know, what I want to know, and what I have learned]; Ogle,
1986) in supporting readers’ progression through the comprehension process.
Highly relevant to the comprehension of content-­based textbooks is research that
has examined strategies for motivating students’ engagement with text (literary and
informational) in meaningful, purposeful, and authentic ways. Much of this research has
examined best practices associated with the gradual release of reading responsibilities
(GRR; see Buehl, 2011, pp. 26–29, for a current review of GRR research), with the sup-
port of students’ progression through stages of the comprehension process (e.g., prepara-
tion, guidance, and consolidation; see Jacobs, 2002), and with disciplinary apprentice-
ship (through modeling of the comprehension strategies that content-­specific experts use;
Buehl, 2011).
Most research on comprehension strategy instruction has been conducted in elemen-
tary settings, and there is a question about the relevance of this research to adolescent
reading, especially given the increasing demands on comprehension made by discipline-­
specific texts that grow increasingly complex, abstract, and technical throughout the
middle school and secondary school years (Beck et al., 2002; Chall, 1983; Willingham,
2012). There is also disagreement about how to teach reading strategies (McKeown et al.,
2009, p. 245) and debate about whether strategy instruction, with its focus on discrete
comprehension skills development, best supports students’ understanding of the “more
complex subject-­matter domains” (Conley, 2008, p. 99).

Content Approaches
Research on content-­based reading is particularly relevant to the comprehension of infor-
mational text. Generally, this research recognizes that comprehension is a cognitive pro-
cess that involves at least three stages—each requiring specific skills. The first stage (prep-
aration for reading) involves previewing vocabulary, developing hypotheses and questions
about the content of a text (which contributes to reading engagement and motivation),
and activating and organizing relevant background knowledge and experience. During
the second stage (guided, or strategic reading), readers actively engage in the investigation
of hypotheses and questions about text, constructing meaning through confirmation and
284 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

disconfirmation, analysis, and synthesis. During the third stage (consolidation), read-
ers articulate what they have learned and return to the text to test the validity of their
learning (Jacobs, 2002). Research has focused on the effectiveness of various strategies in
accomplishing the purposes of each “stage” of comprehension. For example, research has
examined the effectiveness of prereading strategies, such as previewing and the activation
and organization of relevant background knowledge and experience (Duke & Pearson,
2002; Hansen & Pearson, 1983); guided-­reading strategies, such as self-­regulation (meta-
cognition; Baker, 2008; Pressley, 2000) and questioning (Beck & McKeown, 2006); and
consolidation strategies, such as summarization (Bean & Steenwyk, 1984).
Content approaches also acknowledge that, although texts in each academic discipline
have common features, they also have text structures, linguistic styles, and vocabularies
that represent a discipline’s specialized content and reflect its logic. Relatedly, effective
comprehension of content text includes the ability to think critically and independently
given the requirements of a particular discipline’s language, literature, and habits of mind
(Jacobs, 2013; Moje, 2008). In part, to achieve disciplinary literacy (Shanahan & Sha-
nahan, 2008, p. 44), students must master (1) basic literacy (the development of “literacy
skills such as decoding and knowledge of high-­frequency words that underlie virtually
all reading tasks”); (2) intermediate literacy (the development of “literacy skills common
to many tasks, including generic comprehension strategies, common word meanings, and
basic fluency”); and (3) the development of “literacy skills specialized to history, science,
mathematics, literature, or other subject matter.”
Recent research on disciplinary literacy has direct implications for the comprehen-
sion of informational texts that are characteristically found in content-­area classrooms.
For example, some studies have examined how apprenticeship models of instruction can
foster comprehension of secondary, content-­specific texts (Phillips Galloway, Lawrence,
& Moje, 2013; Moje, 2008; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012). Other research, such as that
of Shanahan (2013) has investigated how strategies, such as READi (Reading, Evidence,
and Argumentation in Disciplinary instruction), best support students’ abilities to read,
understand, and craft arguments using multiple informational texts in the specific disci-
plines of English and history. Finally, others have studied how the recognition and use of
linguistic conventions affect comprehension of discipline-­specific text (e.g., Fang’s [2006]
examination of middle school students’ comprehension of science texts).

How This Knowledge Can Improve Comprehension Instruction

Certainly much of the research on comprehension, particularly that concerning complex

and/or informational text (e.g., Erickson, 1998; Frey & Fisher, 2013) can inform second-
ary classroom practice. In fact, dozens of textbooks on teaching reading in the content
areas have been published over the last 50 years, the bulk of which describe numerous
research-­based strategies for teaching a variety of reading skills (e.g., comprehension,
vocabulary, and study skills; Jacobs, 2008, pp. 37–39). As suggested earlier in this chap-
ter, there is also a host of textual features that secondary teachers can help students use
to comprehend nonfiction, disciplinary-­specific (and often informational) texts. Teachers
can highlight discipline-­specific text structures, model how to follow chains of reference
in densely written textbooks and primary sources, and explicitly teach both general aca-
demic and discipline-­specific vocabulary.
Textbooks on the teaching of content reading often offer examples of strategies (e.g.,
summarizing, predicting, visualizing, questioning, analysis, and synthesis) that can help
Comprehension of Informational Texts in the Secondary Classroom 285

students understand how content texts are organized; however, they rarely discuss how
comprehension strategies can best serve teachers’ content-­based goals or the development
of disciplinary literacy (and therefore membership in that disciplinary community; Jacobs,
2008, 2009; Phillips Galloway et al., 2013; Moje, 2008; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008).
As a result, subject-­based teachers, historically, have regarded reading as its own content,
and reading strategy instruction as something that “takes away” from that time allotted
for disciplinary instruction, and comprehension strategies as something to be “inserted”
into lessons (Jacobs, 2008; Jacobs & Wade, 1981; Moje, 2008). While there are theories
about how to use comprehension skills in the service of content-­based instructional goals
(Jacobs, 2002; Moje, 2008), there has been little research on their validity.
An additional challenge to translating research on comprehension into content-­based
pedagogy is posed by the structure of most secondary textbooks. Textbooks, especially in
the social studies, sciences, and mathematics, have essentially been informational refer-
ences—chronologies of facts, events, and theories, with little explicit attention to their
interconnections. Typically, teachers assign a number of pages to read from a textbook,
then quiz students to assess their memory of information. While it is important for stu-
dents to be able to locate information (e.g., main ideas, details, facts) and sequence (e.g.,
by using graphic organizers) or organize that information (e.g., compare and contrast),
it is equally, if not more important for students to learn how to use the information that
textbooks provide—that is, to understand something significant about information in
the service of disciplinary learning. When information becomes more than the matter
of memorization, textbooks become more of a means for learning rather than a simple
collection of facts to be delivered, memorized, and recited (Freire, 1971, p. 58). They
become resources from which students can gather information to answer questions, solve
problems, and craft arguments about real-world and discipline-­specific dilemmas.
In fact, for over 100 years, common wisdom has urged educators “to eschew” “short
courses of informational nature, isolated units without coherence or continuity” (Briggs,
1931, pp. 135, 140) in favor of curricula that can provide students with “the kind of
mental training [the disciplines are] fitted to supply” (p. 140; National Education Asso-
ciation, 1894). During the heart of the progressive education movement, Dewey (1910)
asked quite directly, “How shall we treat the subject-­matter supplied by textbook and
teacher so that it shall rank as material for reflective inquiry, not as ready-made intellec-
tual pabulum to be accepted and swallowed just as supplied by the store?” (pp. 197–198);
and, not long after, Vygotsky (1934/1962) asserted that “direct teaching of concepts is
impossible and fruitless. A teacher who tries to do this usually accomplishes nothing but
empty verbalism, a parrot like repetition of words by the child, simulating a knowledge
of the corresponding concepts but actually covering up a vacuum” (p. 83).
Progress concerning the use of information has been slow. Even though on “an intel-
lectual level, many teachers and school administrators recognize that lectures, textbooks,
materials . . . and tests that ask students to regurgitate data from these sources do not
create an active, much less a quality, learning experience,” students still are served “pre-
digested information from lectures and textbooks, and little in their environment fosters
active thinking or problem solving” (American Library Association [ALA], 1989, para-
graphs 24 and 25, respectively). The ALA, in its continuing efforts to convey the impor-
tance of pedagogies that treat information as a means for learning, has defined informa-
tional literacy as not only the ability to “recognize when information is needed, but . . .
also [the ability] . . . to identify, locate, evaluate, and use effectively information needed
for the particular decision or issue at hand” (paragraph 4). Similar to the requirements
of content literacy, informational literacy includes the ability to comprehend something
286 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

about information—about how to use information to solve authentic dilemmas, puzzles,

or issues “in ways that facilitate the development of knowledge” (paragraph 20) that is
characteristic of each academic discipline.
To help students achieve informational literacy, secondary content-­area teachers not
only need to develop students’ skills with and metacognitive awareness about general
comprehension strategies and those related to the comprehension of informational text,
but they also need to be clear with students about how to use those strategies to engage
in the learning process that is characteristic of a particular academic discipline’s hab-
its of mind and ways of working. This mandate is even more important in light of the
CCSS/Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (CCSS/PARCC)
currently being developed. These assessments require students to do more than locate
information to answer multiple-­choice questions. Students are asked to locate and syn-
thesize information within and across texts; weigh that information against assertions,
concepts, and multiple points of view; then use that understanding in written arguments.
(See sample test items at www.parcconline.org/samples/item-task-­prototypes). While the
CCSS do not acknowledge that each academic discipline has its own requirements for
argument, they do recognize that “all students, . . . even many students on course for col-
lege and career readiness[,] . . . are likely to need scaffolding as they master higher levels
of text complexity independently and proficiently within a given grade band by the end
of the band’s final year” (CCSS Appendix A; National Governors Association Center for
Best Practices, 2010, pp. 9–10). By including literacy goals across the content Standards,
the CCSS acknowledge that all teachers at all grade levels and in all content areas share
the responsibility for supporting students’ development of the higher-­order critical think-
ing skills required to succeed on CCSS/PARCC assessments, in postsecondary educa-
tion, and in the 21st-­century workplace. To do so, teachers need time to investigate how
various pedagogies can support students’ comprehension of informational text. Given the
increasing focus on teacher accountability, teachers more than deserve that time (Alliance
for Excellent Education, 2007).

Summary

The “unprecedented” (ALA, 1989) growth and availability of information and the recent
adoption of the CCSS (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010)
and their forthcoming assessments pose new challenges to both comprehension research
and practice. Both must recognize that, for practical purposes, information is not merely
the matter of memorization; it is also a means to construct deeper understanding about
an academic discipline and about the world. To achieve both information and disciplin-
ary literacy, secondary students need to develop facility with comprehension skills, and
they also need to develop the critical thinking skills required to comprehend something
about information across content and across texts. In effect, students need to “[learn]
how to learn” about information if they are to be prepared for “lifelong learning” (ALA,
1989, paragraph 3).
Multiple fields (e.g., reading, cognition, pedagogy, and library science) have exam-
ined the demands that informational texts can make on comprehension. Historically,
these fields have not referred to or built on each other’s findings. Because comprehen-
sion of informational text is as much a matter of critical thinking as it is a matter of
“reading,” it is imperative for the varied fields of research to inform each other. Equally
important, researchers need to establish a stronger partnership with the practitioners
Comprehension of Informational Texts in the Secondary Classroom 287

who, ultimately, are tasked with preparing today’s students to become tomorrow’s active
citizenry.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. What do the various definitions of informational text have in common? If informational text is its own
genre, how are the requirements for the comprehension of informational text the same as and different
from other genres?
2. How much experience with informational texts do students need to be prepared for the demands
of postsecondary education, the 21st-­century workplace, and lifelong learning? Who should be
responsible for that preparation? What are some of the varied purposes for using informational text
across and within disciplines? What research-­based pedagogies best serve each of those purposes?
3. How do the multiple fields of research on the comprehension, structure, and teaching and learning of
informational text inform each other? How do findings from comprehension research inform purposes
and practices associated with disciplinary teaching and learning?

References

Akhondi, M., Malayeri, F. A., & Samad, A. A. (2011). How to teach expository text structure to
facilitate reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 64(5), 368–372.
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to
the core of middle and high school improvement. Retrieved January 11, 2008, from www.
all4ed.org/files/litcon.pdf.
American Library Association (ALA). (1989). Presidential Committee on Information Literacy:
Final report. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January 10, 2014, from www.ala.org/acrl/
publications/whitepapers/presidential.
Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure/summarization
instruction facilitate learning from expository text? Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3),
331–346.
Baker, L. (2008). Metacognition in comprehension instruction: What we’ve learned since NRP. In
C. C. Block & S. R. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-­based best practices
(2nd ed., pp. 65–79). New York: Guilford Press.
Bean, T. W., & Steenwyk, F. L. (1984). The effect of three forms of summarization instruction
on sixth graders’ summary writing and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16,
297–307.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2006). Improving comprehension with questioning the author:
A fresh and expanded view of a powerful approach. New York: Scholastic.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary
instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
Briggs, T. H. (1931). The Committee of Ten. Junior-­Senior High School Clearing House, 6(3),
134–141.
Buehl, D. (2011). Developing readers in the academic disciplines. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). The classic study on poor children’s fourth-­grade slump.
American Educator, 27(1), 14–15, 44.
Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Condie, C. (2012). Teaching informational text comprehension. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, Salem State University, Salem, MA.
288 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

Conley, M. W. (2008). Cognitive strategy instruction for adolescents: What we know about the
promise, what we don’t know about the potential. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1),
84–106.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath.
Dickson, S. V., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (1995). Text organization and its relation to
reading comprehension: A synthesis of research. Eugene, OR: National Center to Improve
the Tools of Educators. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ed386864.pdf.
Dobbs, C. L. (2013). Vocabulary in practice: Creating word-­curious classrooms. In J. Ippolito, J.
F. Lawrence, & C. Zaller (Eds.), Adolescent literacy in the era of the common core: From
research into practice (pp. 73–83). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Read-
ing Research Quarterly, 35(2), 202–224.
Duke, N. K. (2004). The case for informational text. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 40–44.
Duke, N. K., & Bennett-­A rmistead, V. S. (2003). Reading and writing informational text in the
primary grades: Research-­based practices. New York: Scholastic Teaching Resources.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension.
In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction
(3rd ed., pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Duke, N. K., & Purcell-­Gates, V. (2003). Genres at home and at school: Bridging the known to the
new. The Reading Teacher, 57, 30–37.
Englert, C. S., & Hiebert, E. H. (1984). Children’s developing awareness of text structures in
expository materials. Journal of Education Psychology, 76 (1), 65–74.
Erickson, L. (1998). Informational literacy in the middle grades. The Clearing House, 71(3), 165–
168.
Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal
of Science Education, 28(5), 491–520.
Fang, Z., & Pace, B. G. (2013). Teaching with challenging texts in the disciplines: Text complexity
and close reading. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 57(2), 104–108.
Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-­based
pedagogy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Fang, Z., Schleppegrell, M. J., & Cox, B. (2006). Understanding the language demands of school-
ing: Nouns in academic registers. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(3), 247–273.
Fox, E. (2009). The role of reader characteristics in processing and learning from informational
text. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 197–261.
Freire, P. (1971). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.
Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2013). Points of entry: Students need skilled guides to help them master
complex informational texts. Educational Leadership, 71(3), 34–38.
Hall, K., & Sabey, B. (2007). Focus on the facts: Using informational texts effectively in early
elementary classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(3), 261–268.
Hansen, J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). An instructional study: Improving the inferential comprehension
of good and poor fourth-­grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(6), 821–829.
Howard, J. (n.d.). Common Core State Standards for ELA/literacy: Key instructional shifts and
the impact of assessment [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved January 10, 2014, from ed.sc.gov/
agency/ac/assessment/documents/ela-­smarter.ppt.
Jacobs, V. A. (2002). Reading, writing, and understanding. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 58–61.
Jacobs, V. A. (2008). Adolescent literacy: Putting the crisis in context. Harvard Educational
Review, 78(1), 7–39.
Jacobs, V. A. (2009). The landscape of adolescent literacy. In S. R. Parris, D. Fisher, & K. Headley
(Eds.), Adolescent literacy, field tested: Effective solutions for every classroom (pp. 5–20).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Comprehension of Informational Texts in the Secondary Classroom 289

Jacobs, V. A. (2013). Unpublished PowerPoint for H-810c: Advancing literacy through learning in
content classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Jacobs, V. A., & Wade, S. (1981). Teaching reading in the content-­areas. Momentum, 12(4), 8–10.
Lawrence, J. F., Maher, B., & Snow, C. E. (2013). Research in vocabulary: Word power for
content-­area learning. In J. Ippolito, J. F. Lawrence, & C. Zaller (Eds.), Adolescent literacy
in the era of the common core: From research into practice (pp. 61–72). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Maloch, B., & Bomer, R. (2013). Informational texts and the common core standards: What are
we talking about, anyway? Language Arts, 90(3), 205–213.
Maloch, B., & Horsey, M. (2013). Living inquiry: Learning from and about informational texts in
a second-­grade classroom. The Reading Teacher, 66(6), 475–485.
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.
Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A
call for change. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96–107.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2012). Reading framework for the 2013 National
Assessment of Educational Progress (20402-0328). Washington, DC: National Assessment
Governing Board & U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from www.nagb.org/content/
nagb/assets/documents/publications/frameworks/reading-2013-framework.pdf.
National Education Association. (1894). Report of the Committee of Ten on secondary school
studies with the reports of the conferences arranged by the committee. New York: American
Book Company.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Offi-
cers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy, history,
social studies, science and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January
10, 2014, from www.corestandards.org/the-­standards.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000). Report of the
National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-­based assessment of the
scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports
of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-
ing Office.
Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The
Reading Teacher, 39(6), 564–570.
Ohlhausen, M. M., & Roller, C. M. (1988). The operation of text structure and content schemata
in isolation and in interaction. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(1), 70–88.
Phillips Galloway, E., Lawrence, J. F., & Moje, E. B. (2013). Research in disciplinary literacy:
Challenges and instructional opportunities in teaching disciplinary In J. Ippolito, J. F. Law-
rence, & C. Zaller (Eds.), Adolescent literacy in the era of the common core: From research
into practice (pp. 13–36). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. Kamil,
P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545–
561). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program
in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Author. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from
www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/mr1465.pdf.
Samuels, S. J., Tennyson, R., Sax, L., Mulcahy, P., Schermer, N., & Hajovy, H. (1988). Adults’ use
of text structure in the recall of a scientific journal article. Journal of Educational Research,
81(3), 171–174.
Scott, C. M., & Balthazar, C. H. (2010). The grammar of information: Challenge for older stu-
dents with language impairments. Topics in Language Disorders, 30(4), 288–307.
Shanahan, C. (2013). Research in multiple texts and text support. In J. Ippolito, J. F. Lawrence,
290 COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION IN ACTION

& C. Zaller (Eds.), Adolescent literacy in the era of the Common Core (pp. 143–161). Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking
content-­area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Top-
ics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7–18.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children: Precursors and fallout. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Snow, C. E., Lawrence, J. F., & White, C. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language
among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness,
2(4), 325–344.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work pub-
lished 1934)
Willingham, D. (2006–2007). The usefulness of brief instruction in reading comprehension strate-
gies. American Educator, 30(4), 39–50.
Willingham, D. (2012, April 30). Collateral damage of excessive reading comprehension strategy
instruction [Web log message]. Retrieved January 19, 2014, from www.danielwillingham.
com/1/post/2012/04/collateral-­d amage-­of-­reading-­c omprehension-­s trategy-­i nstruction.
html.
 Pa r t IV
Multimodal Literacies
and Comprehension
 Chapter 21

Multimodal Literacy
Best Practices for Comprehension Instruction

Sally Lamping

The world told is a different world to the world shown.

—Gunther K ress (2003, p. 1)

“As I close in on the front door of the school, skating my way over the patches of ice
and salt from our newly arrived winter weather, I notice there is a crowd of parents
outside, a few visitors, and some people who look ‘official’ to me. Someone informs
me the school is on ‘lockdown.’ I catch a glimpse of a German shepherd, red ball in
his mouth, as he pulls a policeman in SWAT gear toward a set of lockers. ‘No one
will tell us anything!’ a parent shouts. ‘My child is in there throwing up—and I can’t
get to him. This will be his last day at this school.’ The parents shout a range of exple-
tives at the doors. I see the principal pass by; she glances at all the parents standing in
the cold and moves on her way, following the dogs and police officers. ‘Excuse me.
But can you tell me what is the problem?’ I turn to see a young girl, wearing a plaid
hijab, shivering in the cold. ‘I believe they’re doing a drug search,’ I say, with hesita-
tion. ‘Miss, I am afraid of dogs,’ she says. ‘Will they bring the dogs here?’ I assure her
that the dogs are working and won’t come outside. She smiles. I know she is here for
the holiday party. We’re headed to the same place. We stand together outside, peer-
ing through the doors at the eerie ‘lockdown’ procedure, knowing, but not speaking
of our mutual connection to a group of people on the other side of the doors. We can
see the ESL [English as a Second Language] students, faces huddled in front of their
classroom door, peering out at the dogs. They look up, see us, and wave with excite-
ment. Then, they laugh at their discovery that we are trapped, indefinitely, watching
the party from outside the school.”

Usually, when I ask English teachers to discuss the ways in which they address mul-
timodal literacy in their classrooms, I hear about a range of activities that serves as

293
294 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

technology-­driven eye candy for student engagement. These activities are great ways to
engage students initially, but they do little to create formative experiences that allow for
learner growth. Equally, what I don’t hear is that multimodal literacy is, really, every-
thing. It is silent and spoken, it is textual and oral, it is technology and analogue, and it
is reading but also listening. It is drama, art, visual representation.
Linguist Gunther Kress (2010) writes, “Communication is multimodal: by speech
at times, as spoken comment, as information or request; by gaze, by action—­passing an
instrument, reaching out for an instrument; by touch” (p. 32). In order to understand
fully the concept of multimodal literacy, we first have to identify both parts of the phrase.
Multimodal denotes many modes. The literacy piece is not simply a transition into using
a computer screen instead of paper and pen; it is instead a transition from written literacy
to image (moving and still), sound (speaking and listening), gesture, and touch. For exam-
ple, what was previously written and controlled by the author can now be reproduced in
parts, visualized, interpreted, responded to, and in many respects recycled as something
new (Kress, 2003). In written literacy, the author can control how things will appear in
the text. The reader, then, based on his or her background, education, context, and a
whole host of other pieces, interprets that writing. The writer, however, still has some
method of control in the way he or she shapes the text to guide the reader. For example,
if the administration in the above vignette were to have posted written notification of the
lockdown on the door of the school, it might look something like this:

Dear parents and guardians,

We are currently in a school lockdown. All students will be locked in classrooms from 9:00
A.M. –11:00 A.M. while we conduct the procedure. No one will be able to enter or leave the
building at that time. We assure you that your children will be safe and protected during that
time. Please come back to pick up your child or conduct other school business after 11:00
A.M. We are sorry for the inconvenience, but this is a time-­sensitive issue and, as a result, we
cannot give advance notice of the procedure. If you would like to discuss this, please call the
school during regular hours outside of the lockdown.

—A dmin

In this notice, the administration has the ability to control a potentially damaging
visual by opening the lines of communication, ensuring safety, and guiding parents with
the right amount of information to quell suspicion. The administration remains in power
by offering parameters and not disclosing the nature of the lockdown. Nevertheless,
because the administration did not control the situation in written form, the visual image
parents received from outside the school, and the ways in which they interpreted that
experience multimodally, became volatile. If that situation were transcribed as a note on
the door informing parents of the procedure, it would have looked something like this:.

Dear parents and guardians,

The school is in lockdown. You may not come in or go out. Students also cannot come in or
go out, as every classroom is being guarded by an assigned administrative member. There is a
K-9 unit of very large dogs in the building sniffing your children’s lockers, the hallways, the
classrooms, and the parking lot. You will be able to see this and the SWAT team from where
you are positioned outside in the cold. No amount of shouting, calling, or banging on the
front doors will get anyone’s attention. The administration will pass you several times and
Best Practices for Comprehension Instruction 295

not even look your way. At some point, when you begin shouting at the office door, someone
will come to the door and act like she can’t hear you. That person will make you feel stupid
for shouting at the door. She will then take her seat again in the office. This will allow any
negative ideas you carry about school to resurface. If anything illegal is discovered during this
procedure, students will be arrested. We are aware that some of the students in the school do
not speak English and/or are afraid of dogs. We can’t do anything about that. We are also
aware that you may not be familiar with the laws of searching school property. This will
work to our advantage during the lockdown.

—A dmin

Although this notice is completely absurd in writing, it is an accurate portrayal of

what occurred outside the school. In the first notice, parents would have been more likely
to go home and come back or run some errands, knowing the students were safe. Some
might have stayed and raised a ruckus, but, for the most part, what was communicated
in writing would be enough to control their responses. In reality, however, the group
engaged in a multimodal experience that was not controlled by anything in writing.
They saw what was happening (visual mode), interpreted it based on their own perspec-
tive (interpretation mode), discussed it with each other (speech mode), interpreted and
responded to the gestures given by those in power (interpretation/speech mode), and
reacted using chosen multimodal processes that were both communal and individual:
texting their children (technology/writing mode), banging on the door (gesture mode),
sending e-mails to the people they were supposed to meet (written mode), sharing frus-
tration with each other and planning a system of action (discourse mode), and shouting
(speech mode).
Likewise, the situation had an unforeseen consequence that could bring the greatest
amount of damage to the school—­strength in numbers. A group of people who would
otherwise not be interacting or connected (their children spanned grade levels, social
groups, and ethnic and linguistic backgrounds), were brought together by this visual
image and resulting multimodal response. One irate parent at the door of a school is
drastically different than 25–30 irate parents united behind a common cause.
Multimodality changes everything about the way we’ve viewed literacy in the past,
because everyone, including all of the ESL students standing at the classroom door wav-
ing and laughing, is multimodally literate. Although written literacy still dominates the
classroom, multimodal literacy does not allow for deficit pedagogical models. It can
bring groups of people together from vastly different backgrounds, because it relies on
so much more than the written word in a specific language. Because of the advancement
of technology, we can engage multimodally in innumerable ways within a classroom and
school context; it is, potentially, every great teacher’s dream.
In this chapter I explore the definition of multimodal literacy by expanding on cur-
rent theories in linguistics and literacy. This will serve as a tool to ground the discussion
on multimodality in classrooms and schools, specifically in one culturally and linguisti-
cally diverse (CLD) context in which multimodal engagement not only increased subject
matter comprehension across linguistic and cultural barriers but, similar to the vignette
in the introduction, also served to unite groups of students across these boundaries. As
a result, its use taps into research on social and experiential learning in adolescence,
which also is discussed. Inevitably, the chapter focuses largely on the secondary con-
text, with broader implications for elementary and postsecondary contexts as well. The
chapter, however, does not list a series of multimodal texts and activities for teachers
296 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

to transfer right into any teaching context. Instead, it outlines how a teacher, in a
technology-­rich or poor context, can create foundational multimodal experiences for
students, regardless of students’ linguistic or literacy backgrounds. This focus acknowl-
edges multimodal instruction as a fruitful response to current understandings about the
adolescent brain.

Review of the Literature

Communication is multimodal. Kress (2003) defines multimodality as the intricate

interplay of modes in communication. This can involve reading and writing, but it also
involves speech, gesture, image (moving and still), intonation, and a whole host of other
potential pieces as chosen by the composer. Equally, Kress (2003, 2010) writes that each
mode has a different significance to the composer and, inevitably, to the audience. Mul-
timodality, on its surface, is a simple idea; it’s not difficult to see that every person com-
municates multimodally, relying on certain modes more than others depending on the
context and audience. Nevertheless, it is the specific role that multimodality has played
(or, more aptly, not played) in education that is of specific concern here.

Social Semiotics and Multimodal Literacy

Like all communication (including writing), multimodal communication is a social
process. Viewing multimodality through a social semiotic lens allows us to focus on
meaning behind modes of communication. “Multimodality can tell us what modes are
used; it cannot tell us about this difference in style; it has no means to tell us what that
difference might mean . . . . Simple points often have profound consequences; and so
it is here: consequences for learning, for knowing and shaping information and knowl-
edge, for attending to and communicating about the world and our place in it” (Kress,
2010, p. 1). Similar to written literacy, it is a way of making meaning in the world, but
because it relies on various tools, it allows for greater flexibility in meaning making.
Writing is not a privileged mode in multimodal communication; instead it is one of
many modes students can choose to incorporate into the meaning-­making process. As
a result, the use of multimodality as a means of increasing classroom comprehension
must entail a complex discussion of the ways in which multiple literacy practices within
schools must be acknowledged as valid methods of making meaning. Teachers and stu-
dents must negotiate this new territory together, because social semiotic multimodality
has so much to do with the sign maker(s), the receiver(s), and the interplay between the
two sources.

The Troubled History of Classroom Multimodality

For several years now, educational researchers (Alvermann, 2008, 2011; Jewitt, 2008;
Kress 2010; Siegel, 2012) have commented on the necessity of relating students’ out-
of-­school literacy experiences, which are both multimodal and interactive (regardless
of their level of access to technology) with their in-­school literacy experiences, which
tend to be mono- or bimodal and transmitted from teacher to student. In the United
States, the broadly defined English language arts Common Core Anchor Standards for
College and Career Readiness account for multimodal experiences in reading, writing,
Best Practices for Comprehension Instruction 297

speaking–­listening, and language. Nevertheless, they contradict the English language

arts grade-­specific standards, which clearly focus on print-based reading and writing
experiences, even providing a suggested list of complex texts for secondary students,
none of which are multimodal (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices
& Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). In addition, research indicates that part
of the multimodal experience must be intricately tied to digital modes of communication,
as a means of preparing students for working in a rapidly changing world (Alvermann,
2008; Kress, 2008; Pacino & Noftle, 2011). Digital work is inherently multimodal. Stu-
dents not only compose digital texts multimodally, incorporating sound, image, and a
whole range of graphics, but they also employ multimodal literacy to read digital texts,
which provides the opportunity for the audience to interact with the text itself (Hull &
Nelson, 2005). Nevertheless, equal access to technology is not a norm for all schools,
teachers, and students. These conflicting forces often deter teachers from jumping into
multimodal instruction; they often fear the knowledge gap between themselves and their
students, the disenfranchisement that a reliance on technology can create in a classroom
(many students still do not have computers or Internet at home), and the imposed need
to teach the standards.
Regardless of how transformative teachers wish instruction to be, assessment and
accountability have often managed to crowd multimodality out of classrooms. Marjorie
Siegel (2012) writes, “More than ever, teachers and students are expected to adhere to
standards and assessment practices that look back to an imagined past where multimo-
dality might have a place in arts education, but not in the literacy curriculum” (p. 675).
Advocates of classroom multimodal literacy practices have long argued that relying on
standardized tests as a singular form of assessment upholds an archaic and monomodal
standard of language and literacy for students, inevitably contributing to inequalities in
U.S. schooling (Bezemer & Kress, 2008; Burke & Rowsell, 2007; Jewitt, 2008; Kress,
2008). These advocates have also strived to make alternate forms of assessment more
prominent in classrooms by essentially challenging our notions of what it means to be
literate in the 21st century and beyond (Siegel, 2012). Sadly, these changes have been slow
to occur or nonexistent.

Rewriting the Future with Multimodal Instruction

While the history of multimodal instruction is rocky, it has the power to change how we
regard literacy, to equalize access to curriculum for all students, and it is not necessarily
reliant on technology (remember, everyone is multimodal). Multimodal approaches to
literacy instruction shift the focus away from historically print-based literacy instruc-
tion. Such instruction has the potential to engage learners who have been historically
marginalized in print-based classrooms because of deficits in reading or writing. Because
multimodal instruction involves the interplay among several modes of communication,
it privileges student assets in the learning process. As a result, multimodal instruction
has been quite successful with ESLs (Ghiso & Low, 2013) and in CLD contexts (Jewitt,
2008; Jocius, 2013; Yamada-Rice, 2011).
The use of multimodal literacy practices are not, however, what will bring last-
ing engagement and increased comprehension to classrooms. It is the combination of
multimodal approaches with a regard for the social semiotic process embedded in this
type of communication that can profoundly shift the dynamics of instruction, experi-
ence, and comprehension. Kress (2010) reminds us that modes cannot be isolated from
298 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

each other or from their cultural or social contexts. Instead, it is the why and how of a
mode, as it is used to make signs, and its interweaving with other modes, along with the
process and context of communication, that gives multimodality meaning for the com-
poser and the audience. This is what differentiates multimodality from social semiotic
multimodality. Kress (2010) indicates that in social semiotic theory, it is the social aspect
of the expression of a mode that allows the mode to have meaning. “In a social-­semiotic
account of meaning, individuals, with their social histories, socially shaped, located in
social environments, using socially-­made, culturally-­available resources, are agentive and
generative in sign-making and communication” (p. 54, emphasis in original). Pedagogi-
cal applications of multimodality must take place with an understanding of the social
semiotic theory of multimodality that Hodge and Kress (1988) derive from the semiotic
perspective of M. A. K. Halliday (1978): “Social semiotics and the multimodal dimension
of the theory, tell us about interest and agency; about meaning(-making); about processes
of sign-­making in social environments; about the resources for making meaning and
their respective potentials as signifiers in the making of signs-as- ­metaphors; about the
meaning potentials of cultural/semiotic forms” (Kress, 2010, p. 59, emphasis in original).
Without a clear understanding of the social process within multimodal communication,
we are left with a new form of eye candy to mask the old forms of top-down models of
schooling.
It is appropriate here, however, to distinguish between a teacher’s use of multimo-
dality in a classroom and a teacher’s use of social semiotic multimodality as a means
of cultivating a “flow” experience. Rathunde and Csikszentmihalyi (2005) have inves-
tigated “flow” experiences at work with adolescents in specific school contexts. They
note that teachers in these contexts are “consistently trying to unite body with mind and
acting with thinking.” As a result, the teachers they observed “created an environment
that combined affective and cognitive engagement, the hallmark of deep engagement
and flow” (p. 364). Even with the advent of technology in classrooms, students are not
experiencing classroom “flow.” Instead, they still passively receive print and nonprint
information from a teacher through extensive Prezi and PowerPoint instruction, films,
webinars, websites, games, and a host of other practices that continue to provide ways
for teachers to transmit information to students, with very little interaction. This is mul-
timodal, as they engage in multiple modes of signifying (possibly eye rolling, heads down,
slouching, whispering, note passing, and silence). This type of classroom construction,
however, is based on the interest and agency of the teacher (to communicate as much
information as possible in a short amount of time); the meaning potential here varies
depending on the individual; some students might respond by taking notes and attempt-
ing to absorb the information, whereas others might dismiss the opportunity and engage
in other meaning-­making opportunities, using gesture, speech, writing, art, and action/
inaction, to communicate resistance. These student behaviors depend, in part, on their
sociocultural, linguistic, and literacy backgrounds. If we look at this classroom through a
multimodal social semiotic lens, however, we see that the previously discussed experience
is not a learning experience:

Learning is the result of the transformative engagement with an aspect of the world which
is the focus of attention by an individual, on the basis of principles brought by her or him
to that engagement; leading to a transformation of the individual’s semiotic/conceptual
resources. . . . The [social semiotic] multimodal view adds an insistence that meaning is made
in a multiplicity of modes, always in ensembles of modes. (Kress, 2010, p. 182, emphasis in
original)
Best Practices for Comprehension Instruction 299

It has never been more appropriate for teachers to create environments where their
interests align with the students’ interests in ways that engage each in a transforma-
tive learning process. These experiences not only increase comprehension but they also
develop the framework for lifelong learning. Rathunde (2010) reminds us that “if one
can sustain interest, and occasionally be rewarded with experiences of flow that renew
and deepen interest, then one will continue on a path of learning and growth” (p. 81).
The theory of social semiotic multimodality parallels Rathunde’s (2010) understanding
of flow and John Dewey’s (1938/1997) ideas about experiential learning. When students
have opportunities to choose from available resources and use multiple and personally
meaningful modes when interacting with content, their classmates, and teacher, they are
more likely to experience flow, which is a process that establishes learner agency and
helps build the foundation for future experiences that are personally meaningful and
transformative. In order for human beings to transform anything, they must be allowed
opportunities to engage in transformative action.

Social Semiotic Multimodality and the Design Theoretic Perspective

The use of technology and digital media outside of school has greatly influenced how we
communicate information and acquire new knowledge. The speed by which we can view,
collaborate on, respond, remake, and interact with new learning material, regardless of
time and place, has changed everything we’ve previously understood about human com-
munication and learning. It has placed a greater emphasis on nonprint semiotics, bringing
new literacies (New London Group, 2000) to the forefront of our experience. As a result,
it is only applicable that classroom practices, the design of lessons, and the delegation of
classroom power undergo a shift to accommodate these new understandings and endeav-
ors. Kress and Selander (2012) write:

From a design theoretic and multimodal point of view, not only professionals are design-
ers, everyone engaged in communication—­and learning—­is a designer/redesigner. Design is
the planning of something new to happen, either seen from the perspective of designer-­as-­
producer or from the designer-­as-user point of view. Design is about shaping products, but
also about shaping social interactions. Design is a way to configure communicative resources
and social interaction. (p. 266)

Within the classroom context, Kress and Selander (2012) identify four observable
components of the design theoretic perspective: communicative teaching and learning
activities, meaning making as a multimodal activity, agency, and cultures of recognition/
assessment (p. 266). In order for pedagogic shifts to take place and reposition school
learning as a crucial informant to out-of-­school learning, these pieces must be part of
the classroom/school experience. Teachers and students need to engage in communica-
tive practices as part of their co-­learning experiences; this shift gives way to the codesign
of curriculum and the opening to what students bring to the classroom, which is often
multimodal and dynamic; the multimodal meaning-­making process inherently privileges
student agency and promotes environments where students (and teachers) have greater
opportunities to transform their worlds as a result of learning. This observable transfor-
mation can be recognized by the school culture in the form of assessment. Assessment,
however, is the most cumbersome and critical part of this piece, as it is often disjointed
from the experience itself; it requires an exploration of both school/classroom culture and
the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in assessment of multimodal literacy.
300 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

A Snapshot of Social Semiotic Multimodal Instruction and Assessment

In an effort to further understanding of multimodality in the classroom, in the remainder

of this chapter I discuss one urban classroom context with high populations of students
from CLD backgrounds. I chose the header “11th Grade Anatomy?” because the course
is often seen as one with vast amounts of information to communicate to students. Even
well-­educated outsiders are not at home in the field of anatomy, unless it is their area of
expertise. Because of the amount of information and the ease with which a teacher can
fall into “transmission” mode, the incredible linguistic, literacy, and cultural diversity of
the students, and the low-to-­moderate use of technology within the project, this context
provides a remarkable example of social semiotic multimodal best practices for increas-
ing comprehension. I frame discussion of these best practices through the design theoretic
perspective articulated earlier by Kress and Selander (2012). I also investigate how mul-
timodal assessment works not only to recognize student knowledge but also to increase
comprehension and understanding of new tasks.

11th‑Grade Anatomy?: Understanding One Classroom’s Communicative Culture

Before I discuss a model for multimodal instruction that can increase comprehension, we
must first investigate the communicative culture of a classroom. In the Preface to Com-
munication and Culture: An Introduction, Gunther Kress (1988) writes:

Any discussion of communication can only make sense if we understand the context. The set
of values, the practices, the potent meanings of a culture. . . . In a view in which communica-
tion and culture are seen as different aspects of the same subject matter, the starting point
must be a description of the society and culture in which the communication takes place.
It is there, after all, where meanings originate and are constantly made, in the processes of
cultural production and in the processes of communication. (p. xv)

We cannot have a discussion of best practices for social semiotic multimodal literacy
instruction without first understanding the context within which these best practices
occur; more simply, the context is a significant part of the best practice.
On a day when everyone is present, Ms. Lipcott’s 11th-grade anatomy class has
24 students. Most days, however, there are 19–22 students in the class. She has nine
ELLs who receive assistance from the district through ESL services. Three of these stu-
dents have low-level English-­speaking skills and very little written literacy skills in any
language. Four have moderate to low English-­speaking skills and some written literacy
skills, and two have excellent English-­speaking skills and grade-level written literacy.
In addition to those nine students, she also has four non-­native English-­speaking stu-
dents who have already tested out of ESL services. There are 11 native English-­speaking
students in the classroom who come from various socioeconomic, racial, and cultural
backgrounds. Of the 24 students in Ms. Lipcott’s 11th-grade anatomy class, there are
12 countries represented and 17 different native languages; seven of the students identify
two or more languages as their native languages; in addition, there are 11 separate cul-
tural groups represented. Ms. Lipcott, a white, middle-­class female, represents 80% of
the teaching population. Thus, the classroom culture she has created with the students is
certainly remarkable.
Ms. Lipcott has assigned seats in her classroom but often allows students to move
seats based on their preferences. Most of the ESL students sit in the first row of laboratory
Best Practices for Comprehension Instruction 301

tables. Ms. Lipcott is comfortable with them using their native languages to translate
information and work through difficult areas of instruction. Ms. Lipcott is in a difficult
position, because the study of anatomy requires intricate understanding of the human
body and all of the scientific names for its parts. For students with limited English skills,
native English-­speaking students, and students with varying literacy levels, there is quite
a bit of print-based material that includes many unfamiliar terms and spellings.
On this particular day, students are finishing their study of bones and moving on to
the musculoskeletal system. Every day, Ms. Lipcott uses the bell ringer activity to review
work from the day before, allowing students to work together and with her to uncover
the answers. To an observer, it sometimes appears as though Ms. Lipcott is as unfamiliar
with anatomy as students are. On this particular day, the bell ringer asks students to
identify the iliotibial tract on their muscular system diagram, including its origin and
insertion, then identify what it does. Ms. Lipcott reads the bell ringer out loud, then looks
up at the sky—a common gesture in this class that means she’s thinking about something.
She wonders aloud, “Let’s see, if it’s got the word tibia in it, it must be. . . . ” Mariama, a
shy ESL student from the second row blurts out: “In the leg, teacher. It’s in the leg.” Ms.
Lipcott looks at Mariama. “Ah, if it’s in the leg, then I’ve only got about 50 places where
it could be, if I look at my skeleton here (she moves over to her skeleton). I can see where
the tibia is, but I’m not sure if this is lateral or anterior. Is this even a muscle?” This dia-
logue goes on for about 18 minutes, until the class and Ms. Lipcott solve the problem of
the iliotibial tract, which they then shade on their diagrams with a colored pencil chosen
from the heaping pile in the front of the room. During that time, and without cold calling,
Ms. Lipcott initiates a voluntary response from just about every student in the room. She
acts as though figuring out the iliotibial tract is the only thing they have to do that day,
even though her agenda on the board contains at least five bullet points.
In these 18 minutes, we can see a preview of a classroom culture that is intricately
tied to communicative teaching and learning. The laboratory tables are bolted to the
floor in this classroom, so students sit in rows, facing the front of the room, where the
action happens. They aren’t sitting in a circle, but the class operates like a miniculture
or family: wondering, exchanging, shouting out answers, reasoning, and disagreeing.
Everyone plays a part. Everyone gets Ms. Lipcott’s attention both individually and as a
group. I should also mention that in this school, if a student needs to use the restroom
during class, an administrative escort must be called; this classroom culture, however,
radiates trust and respect; it seems to be operating on its own set of rules. The students
are completely engaged, talking about the iliotibial tract—­something that most people
would immediately believe they either had no interest in or, more importantly, lacked the
language and literacy skills to grasp. Ms. Lipcott does three things in this classroom to
establish a communicative culture:

1. She makes the subject of anatomy the center of this classroom culture. No one
is telling stories about their weekends or listing their favorite food from their countries.
Instead, they are talking about adduction and abduction, the flexor digitorum profundus,
and the relationship the word trapezius must have with the words trapeze and trapeze
artist.They watch videos of surgeries, such as a hip replacement, then talk about it, re-­
watching the video in slow motion.
2. She introduces all the vocabulary in context and through her dialogue with stu-
dents. Nothing is arbitrary. Every bone, muscle, and so forth, has its own story, its own
conversation, and sometimes its own song that the class members compose together.
302 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

When they see the word, they imagine where it is in the body. When they take a test,
an observer can watch them pointing to parts of their bodies or the skeleton (from their
seats) and whispering the words out loud to themselves as they work out the parts.
3. Ms. Lipcott sees the students as fellow investigators. She seems aware that her
knowledge of the human body might be more plentiful right now, but that whatever stu-
dents are bringing or questioning or associating is valid. She doesn’t praise this validity
by saying “great job.” Instead, she regards students’ thoughts and experiences, and takes
them beyond what they are thinking with more questions. Even when her students are
being funny, she takes it seriously, knowing that this makes it funnier for them. This past
fall, when they had a terrible guest speaker and half the class fell asleep, she talked about
it with them. They got to voice their concerns and, as a class, they all owned the fact that
some experts just aren’t great speakers. There was never a question of whether doing so
is teaching students bad manners or usurping an elder’s authority by discussing his or her
merits as a speaker after the lecture. Instead, it was a true academic discussion—­one that
two people might have after seeing a lecture that they were excited about, but then found
underwhelming.

Meaning Making as a Multimodal Activity

Anatomy is an excellent subject for the study of multimodal meaning making. Because it
lends itself to traditional banking system (Freire, 1970/2000) models of depositing infor-
mation into an “empty vessel,” it would be easy to see it as subject that students just need
to get through. In the subject of English language arts, students and teachers can access
content easily, even when it has difficult language or contexts; readers can explore univer-
sal thematic ties with their own lives, videos, or images that allow teachers to frontload
contexts (images of Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre, or the images of Chaucer’s characters
from Richard Pynson’s [1492] editions of Canterbury Tales), or novels that parallel his-
torical events with which students may be unfamiliar, such as Marjane Satrapi’s Persepo-
lis (2004). Anatomy, however, has no aesthetic pull for the average teenager. It is a subject
in which students (and most people) have vast deficits in vocabulary and understanding.
Anatomy, at its base level, is bimodal. Students view the images, then copy the words that
go with them. So increasing student engagement through multimodal literacy instruction
in anatomy, especially in the diverse context of Ms. Lipcott’s 11th-grade anatomy class is
quite a task. Ms. Lipcott, however, approaches it from two unifying standpoints: We are
all multimodal, and we all have bodies.
On day one of the muscle unit, Ms. Lipcott had the computer cart checked out from
the library and the password written on the board, violating the first rule for computer
usage in the school: “Students are not allowed to know the Wi-Fi password.” No one chal-
lenged her decision to post the password and, more importantly, no one used the password
to log onto their phones during class and download the latest Beyoncé videos or upload
images of anatomy class to their Facebook pages. Instead, the students typed the pass-
words into the computers, helping those who didn’t quite understand how it all worked
(some of the students had never used a computer previously) and went directly to the web-
site Ms. Lipcott had posted on the board under the password. She spent all of 30 seconds
pointing to the different pieces that would unlock interactive anatomy for them. They
went to the website getbodysmart.com. From the front of the room, she briefly showed
them how to navigate the different parts of the website. This lasted about 2 minutes. Then,
she let them play. In their book Imagination and Play in the Electronic Age, Singer and
Best Practices for Comprehension Instruction 303

Singer (2005) write, “We believe the key principle of adaptive thought lies in what might
be, when the child at play moves beyond . . . the what is . . . to the what was, what could
have been, what can be tried, what might happen” (p. 167, emphasis in original). Singer
and Singer (2005) investigate the impact of technology on imaginative and pretend play
for children, but their discussion spans childhood and adulthood, as they propose that
what children do with imaginative play is actually what adults do when working through
analytical problems. Instead of telling the students step by step what to do, Ms. Lipcott
lets them imagine “what might be” if they click on certain links that lead them to concen-
trated areas of the muscular system, associating the specific terminology with the areas
of the body and, when clicked, demonstrating how those muscles work. She lets them
play for nearly 30 minutes. Some of them pair up and work together; others manage it all
alone. She works the room and makes suggestions about where to click, then, along with
her students, expresses wonder at what happened in each instance. Not only are the stu-
dents visualizing the muscular system, but they are also using technology, projecting what
might happen, confirming their ideas, writing them down on their musculature maps, and
shading them with their colored pencils. No one told them to do these things in any sort of
order; as they worked out what was on the website, it just seemed logical to communicate
their new understandings to each other through a discussion and, subsequently, to tran-
scribe/color them on paper. Everyone arrived at the intended goal by a different path: to
complete the map of the musculoskeletal system Ms. Lipcott had provided.

Multimodal Literacy as Agency

In the second phase of the muscle unit, the students had an opportunity to transform
their environments as a result of their multimodal classroom experiences with the muscu-
loskeletal system. The process of transformation—­what students do in their own worlds
with new information—­is what Kress (2003) defines as learning. In other words, what
they do and how they do it relates directly to what they have come to understand about
a new topic. This is true for all human beings. When we truly learn something new, we
are then able to use this in our own environments. This provides us with what Kress and
Selander (2012) identify as agency:

The move from “use” and “competence” to “making” and “design” gives rise to quite a dif-
ferent sense of agency. “Use” often refers to an instrumental approach, and competence to a
more or less pre-­defined and fixed set of “achieved” qualities. “Meaning-­making,” “making”
and “design,” on the other hand, refer to the very process of engagement, transformations,
and sign making to explore the world and take part and communicate with others in a certain
context. (p. 267)

It is also what young children learn to develop through the process of play. Singer
and Singer (2005) write:

Children strive to incorporate new material into their worlds, either from direct contact in the
physical and social environment or from print and the electronic media into their previously
formed mental organizations that we call schemas or scripts. When they can match the new
experiences with prior expectations, they are likely to feel the positive emotions of affirma-
tion and joy. (pp. 165–166)

Once agency exists, the pattern of use, meaning making, and design or redesign
becomes cyclical, similar to that of children who match new material with the old and
304 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

experience a heightened sense of agency at their new discoveries. The sense of “affirma-
tion and joy” that Singer and Singer (2005) discuss compares to learner agency in this
way; it leads children and learners to use this method over and over again as a way of
making sense of their worlds and communicating within them.
The third phase of the project allowed students to establish agency by collaborating
with each other to build on previously acquired knowledge about the musculoskeletal sys-
tem. Ms. Lipcott also allowed the students to work in groups on this phase of the project.
They were allowed to choose their own groups. Often, when this occurs, ESL students
choose to work together, but the culture of this classroom invites students to form bonds
outside of their smaller cultural or linguistic groups. In fact, when Ms. Lipcott asked a
group of Sudanese girls why their longtime companion was not in their group, one of
them humorously responded that she had left them for the “white boy,” indicating, in an
affectionate way, that it was okay for her to branch out. Choice allows students not only
to manipulate the information but also to take risks and reimagine or redesign previous
social patterns. Research shows us that students who feel comfortable taking these risks
feel safe in their learning environments and, as a result of the risk, tend to learn more.
Agency gives way to new forms of meaning making. In this context, Ms. Lipcott
developed a prompt that would help students use their new understandings multimodally
to demonstrate associations they made between individual knowledge and what was now
the shared group knowledge. She also allowed them to make choices about their social
learning environments. Kress and Selander (2012) note that choice is an important part
of this process: “The re-­design or inter-­active design is a central aspect for the theory
of learning. Here, acting, the engagement, and the doing in making choices during a
process to transform given information and given representations into new representa-
tions are emphasized” (p. 266). In the fourth phase of the project, we can see how the
prompt invited students to use multimodal work to further the transformation process;
this opened up a plethora of new choices for students to produce “new representations”
in their final products through the use of simple and accessible technology.
Once students had chosen their groups, Ms. Lipcott outlined the project. Each group
needed to choose a muscle and accurately draw a life-size model of it. She then showed
them how to project the muscle onto the whiteboard at the front of the class and trace
a scaled model onto a large sheet of white paper. She also offered them the alternative,
which was to draw it freehand. The scaled muscle needed to be shaded and labeled with
its scientific and common names. Students could add two choice items onto their life-size
drawings. Figure 21.1 shows one scaled drawing in progress.
Then, students had to compose one PowerPoint slide about the muscle. They had to
show a reproduced image of the muscle on that slide, label the slide, provide points of
insertion and origin (and point to those specific parts on the reproduced image). Then,
using yet another mode, they had to dramatize for the audience what the muscle does and
how it does it (adduction, abduction, flexion, extension, rotation, inversion, pronation,
supination, etc.), essentially showing why the muscle matters.
Once each group had chosen a muscle, Ms. Lipcott provided the appropriate amount
of scaffolding (Vygotsky, 1962) by giving each group a small card with the name of the
muscle, a tiny drawing of it, and its points of insertion and origin. This allowed them to
get started without her intervention, but it didn’t provide them with enough information
simply to copy it. For example, even though the origin and insertion points of the muscle
were listed on the card, the students had to locate these points, using the scientific names,
on the skeleton in the classroom or through the website they had used the day before.
Best Practices for Comprehension Instruction 305

FIGURE 21.1. A group works on a large-scale muscle drawing.

This simple multimodal activity leveled the literacy playing field in the classroom.
Because all the students (regardless of their native language) were learning the new lan-
guage of anatomy, whether they pronounced word incorrectly or got it wrong did not
matter, because everyone was fumbling through it; Ms. Lipcott served as their active
and nonjudgmental guide in the process. She was allowing them to “play” with lan-
guage, without risk of judgment, which promoted their engagement and autonomy in
the project. More importantly, student assets outside of language and literacy skills were
highlighted: Many students were excellent artists, and they truly had an opportunity to
show their skills with the scaled drawings, and the PowerPoint slide offered tech-savvy
students a range of choices for demonstrating the information, from font choices to color,
special effects; some students were even able to embed moving images. The direction the
students took the slide was up to them and had no bearing on their overall assessment, as
long as all the requested information was there, but many of them went above and beyond
Ms. Lipcott’s initial parameters. Also, students had to present the material orally for
the class, which gave all of them practice using PowerPoint effectively, along with other
visual images, as part of a small-scale presentation. It also gave them an opportunity to
work with language through oral and written processes. Each presentation was unique,
because each group’s response to the prompt depended on its own social interactions as
group members processed the information and transformed it, keeping in mind the audi-
ence of their peers who would receive the information.

Multimodal Assessment
Kress and Selander (2012) write that in multimodal assessment, “the teacher/assessor’s
task is to look at the interpretation of the prompt, to understand the principles of selec-
tion, and the other principles of transformation used in the interpretation, as indication
of the resources available to and used by the learner” (p. 267). They acknowledge that
when students are using multimodal formats to respond to prompts, assessment must go
beyond the standards by assessing not only how the students have transformed the infor-
mation for their own purposes but also how they build on that information for future
306 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

reference. This is not a new idea; we are more likely to gain and retain knowledge from
an experience in which we have a role in the design or redesign of the information and,
as a result, we are more likely to use that knowledge as a foundation for new experiences
(Dewey, 1938/1997):

If an experience arouses curiosity, strengthens initiative, and sets up desires and purposes
that are sufficiently intense to carry a person over dead places in the future, continuity works
in a very different way. Every experience is a moving force. Its value can be judged only on the
ground of what it moves toward and into. The greater maturity of experience which should
belong to the adult as educator puts him in a position to evaluate each experience of the young
in a way in which the one having the less mature experience cannot do. (p. 38)

Assessment should include the wisdom of the teacher to judge where the experience
is heading and how that experience will be used in the future; this should be the basis
by which teachers reflect on how they constructed the initial experiences and how they
will plan those that follow. Nevertheless, we are also part of a larger culture that imposes
educational standards, and, as a result, teachers must also incorporate these as part of the
overall assessment of the task.
As a reminder, this project occurred in a CLD classroom with a range of written
literacy and native-­speaking levels. The use of social semiotic multimodality, however,
increased the chances that each student could explore and, for many, master the Common
Core English/Language Arts Literacy Standard for Science and Technical Subjects. Under
the heading Key Ideas and Details, students determined the central ideas from the infor-
mation provided through multiple sources (discussion, the Internet, class videos, interac-
tions with each other, and their own notes) and summarized (in one PowerPoint slide) the
complexities of one skeletal muscle. They used summary and paraphrasing to simplify the
language for an audience of peers (CCSS ELA-Literacy RST 11-12.2; National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). In
Craft and Structure, they determined the meaning of key terms (origin, insertion, adduc-
tion, abduction, etc.) and used these terms correctly in their presentations to identify the
muscle, its location, and its actions (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RST.11-12.4; National Gover-
nors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers,
2010). In Integration of Knowledge and Ideas, they used the Internet to evaluate multiple
sources in diverse formats (websites on muscles, videos showing the use of that specific
muscle group, the teacher’s guidance and initial scaffolding sheet, the visual reference
of the skeleton, etc.) as a way of evaluating their chosen muscle and its importance in
our daily activities (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RST.11-12.7; National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). Also in Inte-
gration of Knowledge and Ideas, they worked together to synthesize all the information
from various sources and funnel it into one PowerPoint slide and one scaled drawing.
This forced them to collaborate in an effort to uncover the most important pieces of
this information and evaluate how to present it to their audience (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.
RST.11-12.9; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of
Chief State School Officers, 2010). Last, they demonstrated their ability to use this expe-
rience as a foundational piece in reading and comprehending future science or technical
texts, because they had acquired so much new vocabulary through the dynamic experi-
ence of manipulating the information (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RST.11-12.10; National Gov-
ernors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers,
Best Practices for Comprehension Instruction 307

2010). During a project that lasted a total of 4 days, the students hit at least five of the
Ten Common Core Literacy Standards for Science and Technology. Some of the students
in Ms. Lipcott’s class, who had been in the United States less than 6 months, might not
have been able to get home if they happen to get lost on public transit, but they could
show you the trapezius muscle is and explain what it does. The observable difference in
their understandings of this part of anatomy, not to mention the increased levels of social
interaction, use of technology, multimodal responses, and exploration of specific literacy
CCSS were exhilarating for students. It was a foundational experience not only because
of how they would use it in anatomy, other subjects, and beyond, but also because it gave
them so many opportunities to work on other skills, sometimes without even knowing it.

Summary

It would have been easy in this chapter to choose a few great graphic novels or picture
books and talk about how they may be used to increase struggling readers’ comprehen-
sion of Othello. In fact, I could have discussed a whole range of multimodal possibilities
for classroom use. I could have discussed about how students in English language arts use
fan fiction and wikis to redesign information they acquire through literary experiences
or create multigenre responses for research projects. All of these are valid multimodal
projects that increase comprehension, and many excellent researchers and educators have
written about these methods. Nevertheless, strictly discussing best practices in English
language arts without discussing the power shift that needs to occur for such practices
to challenge what it means to be literate in our society would be a disservice to the CLD
students who make up so much of all current classroom contexts. Looking at a very tech-
nical subject such as anatomy allows us to shift the literacy paradigm. It allows us see the
possibilities in such contexts, especially for students with what many perceive to be vast
deficits in formal schooling, literacy, and English language proficiency, as they begin to
grasp the subject of anatomy, not to mention hit the standards for English language arts
literacy in science. A social semiotic multimodal approach allowed the teacher in this
context to do the following:

1. Design a prompt that would allow students to have a dynamic classroom experi-
ence; this would serve as a positive foundation for future experiences with the
subject (and others).
2. Elicit engagement in that prompt through a communicative teaching style; this
allowed Ms. Lipcott to embed extremely technical vocabulary into the process
and, as a result, elevate the overall experience.
3. Position herself as a coinvestigator in this process, one with the knowledge and
experience to lead students through difficult pieces, but not overpower their own
meaning-­making processes.
4. Unite an entire group of students from a variety of backgrounds through their
engagement in a subject that is often seen by the general public as difficult and
inaccessible.
5. Cover several of the CCSS Literacy Standards for Science.

It allowed students in this context to do the following:

308 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

1. Play with language, technology, technical vocabulary, and art as part of their
meaning-­ making process, regardless of their background or familiarity with
each.
2. Collaborate with each other across cultural, racial, and linguistic barriers.
3. Establish agency through the choices they made with the subject, their groups,
and their presentations.
4. Transform the original information through a process of designing and redesign-
ing an ultimate product that incorporated previous individual knowledge, new
collective knowledge, and localized group knowledge uncovered during the inves-
tigation of their specific muscle.
5. Become experts in a specific area of anatomy through the use of technology,
multimedia, speaking, listening, collaboration, reading, writing, and visual rep-
resentation.

As I watched the students engage with this project in a school with instructional
challenges due to varying language proficiencies, underschooled students, socioeconomic
issues, behavior problems, and very little technological resources in comparison to its
suburban counterparts, I couldn’t help but think of all the students in other, possibly
monolingual, highly literate or wealthy high schools who might be sitting through a
55-minute PowerPoint lecture on the musculoskeletal system. It would certainly be mul-
timodal (students would be viewing, listening, writing, and reading), but it would denote
the kind of “mis-­educative” experience that Dewey (1938/1997) cautioned us about, one
that is isolated from prior experiences and builds on the students’ notion that anatomy is
boring and unrelated to the real world; it would not challenge the educational privileges
afforded to native English speakers, usurp written literacy as the most meaningful form
of literacy, or shift the power paradigm, even in today’s 21st-­century classrooms.
Ms. Lipcott’s multimodal musculoskeletal project is a very simple example of the
ways in which social semiotic multimodal instruction can provide for students the educa-
tional experiences necessary to increase their comprehension of the subject, of the written
word, and of oral language; the project also elevated their capacities to use technology
as a means of transforming and communicating information, yet, most importantly, it
expanded their meaning-­making potential within a classroom context, regardless of their
educational or linguistic backgrounds.
So, we return to the beginning of this chapter where the multimodal experience of
the school lockdown was in progress. In that experience, the participants had a prompt
(the locked doors) to which they responded multimodally and communally across cul-
tural and racial divides, and they became united over a subject, similar to the students
in Ms. Lipcott’s class. Nevertheless, what they didn’t have, what they were essentially
calling out for, was a person with more experience in the topic to lead them through,
respect their ideas, and offer them further information and discussion. They didn’t have
a designer to interact with (Kress & Selander, 2012). Dewey (1938/1997) writes:

The principle that development of experience comes about through interaction means that
education is essentially a social process. This quality is realized in the degree in which indi-
viduals form a community group. It is absurd to exclude the teacher from membership in
the group. As the most mature member of the group he has a peculiar responsibility for the
conduct of the interactions and inter-­communications which are the very life of the group as
a community. . . . When pupils were a class rather than a social group, the teacher necessar-
ily acted largely from the outside, not as a director of processes of exchange in which all had
Best Practices for Comprehension Instruction 309

a share. When education is based upon experience and educative experience is seen to be a
social process, the situation changes radically. The teacher loses the position of external boss
or dictator but takes on that of leader of group activities. (p. 58)

This chapter has at its focus the best practices of the teacher, whose goal is to develop
the resources to create a multimodal classroom experience, in any subject, that allows
students to establish agency through choice (low-level or substantial) and high levels of
interaction with the subject at hand. The teacher informs this process by scaffolding,
offering dialogue, building on previous knowledge, and ensuring that the experience is
dynamic in ways that serve as the foundation for future experiences, both inside and
outside the classroom. To do this, we must begin to communicate with students and posi-
tion ourselves as observers–­learners–­subject area facilitators in the process of meaning
making.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. How would a multimodal approach help all students access, practice with, and synthesize
state standards or CCSS for any subject? How would this be different from traditional models of
comprehension instruction?
2. How might you use some of the previously discussed methods right away, in your own teaching
context?
3. What types of multimodal assessment can you use in your own context? How might this help you to
assess student understanding and application of state standards or CCSS?

References

Alvermann, D. E. (2008). Why bother theorizing adolescents’ online literacies for classroom prac-
tice and research? Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(1), 8–19.
Alvermann, D. E. (2011). Popular culture and literacy practices. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E.
B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 541–560). New
York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic account of designs
for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166–195.
Burke, A., & Rowsell, J. (2007). Assessing multimodal learning practices. E-Learning, 4(3), 329–
342.
Chaucer, G. (1492). The Canterbury tales (R. Pynson, Ed.). London: R. Pynson.
Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and education. New York: Simon & Schuster. (Original work pub-
lished in 1938)
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: Bloomsbury.
(Original work published 1970)
Ghiso, M., & Low, D. E. (2013). Students using multimodal literacies to surface micronarratives
of United States immigration. Literacy, 47(1), 26–34.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and
meaning. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Hodge, B., & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press/Blackwell.
Hull, G. A., & Nelson, M. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Com-
munication, 22(2), 224–261.
Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Educa-
tion, 32(1), 241–267.
310 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

Jocius, R. (2013). Exploring adolescents’ multimodal responses to “The Kite Runner”: Under-
standing how students use digital media for academic purposes. Journal of Media Literacy
Education, 5(1), 310–325.
Kress, G. (Ed.). (1988). Communication and culture: An introduction. Kensington: New South
Wales University Press.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. (2008). Meaning and learning in a world of instability and multiplicity. Studies in Phi-
losophy and Education, 27(4), 253–266.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication.
London: Routledge.
Kress, G., & Selander, S. (2012). Multimodal design, learning and cultures of recognition. Inter-
net and Higher Education, 15(4), 265–268.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Offi-
cers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy, history,
social studies, science and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author.
New London Group. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In B. Cope
& M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures
(pp. 9–37). London: Routledge.
Pacino, M. A., & Noftle, J. T. (2011). New literacies for global, digital learners. International
Journal of Learning, 18(1), 477–485.
Rathunde, K. (2010). Experiential wisdom and optimal experience: Interviews with three distin-
guished lifelong learners. Journal of Adult Development, 17(2), 81–93.
Rathunde, K., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2005). Middle school students’ motivation and quality
of experience: A comparison of Montessori and traditional school environments. American
Journal of Education, 111(3), 341–371.
Satrapi, M. (2004). Persepolis. New York: Pantheon Books.
Siegel, M. (2012). New times for multimodality?: Confronting the accountability culture. Journal
of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 55(8), 671–681.
Singer, D., & Singer, J. (2005). Imagination and play in the electronic age. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Wiley.
Yamada-Rice, D. (2011). New media, evolving multimodal literacy practices and the potential
impact of increased use of the visual mode in the urban environment on young children’s
learning. Literacy, 45(1), 32–43.
 Chapter 22

Beyond Differentiation
Multimodal Literacy Learning

B. P. Laster

When we use multimodal text, we broaden the spectrum of student

learning. We provide opportunities for students to transact with elements
such as images, sounds, representations, expressions, and inspirations
they may not otherwise encounter. By tapping into multiple modalities,
we also encourage students to use their strengths as they learn.
—M aureen McL aughlin (2013, p. 20)

A dedicated percussionist and composer of synthesized music, Aiden was failing all of
his eighth-­grade courses except for band. He arrived in my remedial reading class
expecting to fail in one more way. Instead, I encouraged him to search the Internet to find
some of his favorite vocal selections. He explored the lyrics of popular music as a way to
expand vocabulary and enhance reading comprehension, especially visualizing, making
inferences, and summarizing. We talked explicitly about these facets of comprehension;
we practiced using these strategies with other texts of his choice, such as biographies of
musicians, the design and engineering of stringed instruments, and critical reviews of
contemporary musical groups. Aiden became a proficient comprehender of many kinds
of texts. When he started writing his own lyrics to some of his musical compositions, he
used an online dictionary and an online thesaurus to fine-tune his vocabulary choices;
he recorded his new songs using a popular app after getting feedback from peers on the
clarity of the theme of his new song. Aiden was the kind of student who needed to engage
with literacy—­not through the “front door” but via a side door; a door that was a better
match for him. He made significant progress in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and
viewing by using and creating texts that were more accessible to him, although they were
atypical for academic coursework. He taught me that sometimes the curriculum must
meet the student rather than always having the student bend to meet the curriculum.
When planning instruction, it is crucial to consider the learning needs of each stu-
dent, especially those children or adolescents who may learn best in ways that are not

311
312 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

typical in the traditional classroom. Below, I briefly explain how differentiating instruc-
tion is a key concept. Some students need to have visual in addition to the common audi-
tory delivery of directions. On the other hand, some students must hear, as well as see, a
lesson and the teacher can support these students by giving directions that are both visual
and auditory. Furthermore, some learners need to manipulate themselves or other objects
physically in order to learn or remember what they read (Marley, Levin, & Glenberg,
2007). Multimodal instruction includes these basic pathways plus much more. According
to a position statement by the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE; 2008),
“Young children practice multi-modal literacies naturally and spontaneously. They easily
combine and move between drama, art, text, music, speech, sound, physical movement,
animation/gaming, etc.”
In this chapter, I explore the vast world of multimodal learning as it relates to read-
ing comprehension and learners who benefit from atypical academic approaches. [Some
observers call these learners struggling readers, but similar to McDermott & Varenne
(1995), it is my contention that the culture of the school is disabling, rather than the
student being disabled.] An NCTE position statement (2008) explains that “multi-modal
literacies” include the integration of multiple modes of meaning-­making systems (alpha-
betic, oral, visual, etc.), which can enhance or transform meaning. Among typical text
comprehension pathways, there are many ways to reach understanding, including art,
music, movement, and drama; these should be considered as being central to the curricu-
lum rather than as luxuries (Short & Harste, 1996).
In this chapter, I present the research and praxis of reading comprehension specifi-
cally focused on just three pathways of multimodal learning:

• Manipulatives
• Arts integration.
• New literacies, including game-based learning.

Although there are many other approaches, I chose these because they present a
range from low-tech to high-tech learning environments, so that the use of even more
“side doors” is available. Each of these three pathways for learning can be aligned with
an inquiry-­oriented learning environment in which students are positioned to investigate
their own learning based on assets such as their cultural, linguistic, and experiential
resources (Greenleaf & Hinchman, 2009). From this, they can construct positive identi-
ties related to literacy. Before I examine these three major strands, I acknowledge the
helpful guidance of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles, provide a theoretical
frame, and give a very brief report on some of the research about atypical learners.

Universal Design for Learning

UDL principles state that teachers need to provide multiple means of representation,
expression, and engagement, so that all learners can access classroom instruction (Rose
& Meyer, 2009). UDL principles emphasize the need for inherently flexible, customiz-
able content, assignments and activities, and assessments characterized by the following:

• Multiple representations of information—­since there is no single method for the

presentation of information that will provide equal access for all learners, teachers
must provide auditory, visual, kinesthetic, and other means of conveying informa-
tion (Recognition Principle).
Beyond Differentiation 313

• Multiple methods of action and expression—­since no single method of expression

provides equal opportunity for all students, teachers must provide a variety of
opportunities for students to demonstrate knowledge (Strategic Principle).
• Multiple means of engagement—­since there is no single way to ensure that all
children are engaged in a learning environment, the learning environment should
provide multiple access points for students to engage (Affective Principle; Center
for Implementing Technology in Education [CITEd], 2013).

Differentiation for Literacy Instruction

Differentiated instruction is an approach to instruction that incorporates a variety of

strategies and is responsive instruction designed to meet unique individual needs (Watts-
Taffe et al., 2012/2013). As Tomlinson (2001) states, differentiating instruction can occur
by focusing on the process by which students learn, the products or demonstrations of
their learning, the environment in which they learn, and/or the content they are learn-
ing. Watts-Taffe et al. (2012/2013) point out that there is reciprocity among Tomlinson’s
four differentiation dimensions during literacy instruction; for example, encouraging and
supporting a small group of students as they create a digital story about a science topic
can be process, environment, and content of instruction. Later in this chapter, I illustrate
how manipulatives, arts integration, and digital learning can all be instrumental in dif-
ferentiating instruction.

A Theory for Multimodalities: Enactivisim

Having a theoretical base before proceeding to a review of research is helpful. So, I

­pre­sent the theory of enactivism, which emphasizes that the learning environment and
the mind of the learner are evolving simultaneously. Learning occurs in co-­emerging sys-
tems (Li, Clark, & Winchester, 2010). Some researchers point out that the use, produc-
tion, reproduction, and dissemination of “new” texts represent only one level of literacy;
students can also interpret, negotiate meaning, and create and/or transform texts (Gou-
nari, 2009). Enactivism helps us consider even one more layer of dynamic activity as the
learner’s mind is changed by the task of learning. Parallel to Leu’s (2000) concept of the
deitic nature of technology and his later work on the changing landscape of new literacies
theory (Leu, O’Byrne, Zawilinski, McVerry, & Everett-­Cacopardo, 2009), an enactivist
lens applies to all learning environments and explores how the actions, the materials, the
contexts, and the mind of the learner all affect each other in dynamic ways that change
learning from moment to moment. A subset of how the mind dynamically evolves is the
metacognitive knowledge, experiences, and strategies that Garner (1987) describes. She
explains how only through metacognitive experiences does one build up a storehouse of
metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategies.

What Do We Know?: Research in Multimodalities and Reading Comprehension

for a Range of Students

Some students who struggle with reading have labels, such as “learning disabled” or
“autistic,” whereas others do not. Those who have no label are sometime called students
with “garden-­variety” reading challenges. In this section, I review some seminal research
314 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

that addresses students with a few specific labels/conditions, while remembering that the
culture of too many schools insists on a “poor reader” identity for many students, labeled
or not. I agree with Greenleaf and Hinchman (2009) that students must construct posi-
tive academic identities, especially as readers and writers. Students must experience aca-
demic success to trust in their own personal strengths and to believe that they are capable
readers of a variety of difficult texts. The research reported here begins with students
identified with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), proceeds to students identified as having
learning disabilities (LD), and moves to “garden-­variety” types of learners.
The heterogeneous nature of reading skills of those students identified with ASD was
documented by Nation, Clarke, Wright, and Williams (2006). Students with ASD dem-
onstrate a range of cognitive, social, and developmental abilities. Each student’s unique
combination of strengths and challenges related to reading comprehension necessitates
individualized support. Some students with ASD are characterized by hyperlexia; that is,
they have excellent decoding abilities along with extreme difficulty with comprehension.
For example, in Nation et al.’s sample (n = 41), 65% showed poor reading comprehen-
sion at least one standard deviation below population norms. Multimodalities are crucial
in addressing the needs of students with ASD. For example, many respond very well to
learning spaces that are oriented toward technology.
On the other hand, students identified as having LD are a different heterogeneous
group. In a seminal review of research concerning students with LD and reading compre-
hension, Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, and Baker (2001) suggested the following:

1. There has been research with positive results on both cognitive and metacognitive
approaches for students with identified LD. Two components of metacognition
that have been addressed are awareness of skills/strategies/resources and execu-
tive control.
2. Explicit strategy instruction for comprehension monitoring (finding internal
inconsistencies in text; questioning strategies) assisted students with LD but did
not benefit students without disabilities.
3. Students with LD can be guided to “improve their comprehension of narrative
text, including the ability to draw inferences by using a pre-­reading strategy that
activates attention and prior knowledge” (p. 291).
4. Students with LD can successfully be taught themes of narrative text and multiple
strategies for comprehending expository text by using teacher explanation, mod-
eling, guided practice, and independent practice.
5. Reciprocal Teaching and PALS (Peer-­Assisted Learning Strategies)—a program
of partner reading, paragraph summary, prediction, and other activities—­
demonstrated that socially mediated instruction assists learners with LD.

Rose, Cundick, and Higbee (1983) found that the students with LD who were
instructed to take mental pictures or movies about what they read performed no better
than a group that were instructed to rehearse verbally what they were reading every few
sentences. Perhaps, then, some students need both opportunities for verbal rehearsal and
encouragement to visualize. In fact, Mayer (2003) contends that students learn more
deeply from a combination of words and pictures than from words alone, which is com-
monly known as the “multimedia effect.” This is particularly true for lower-­achieving
students (Moreno & Mayer, 2007).
Furthermore, various researchers have examined visual imaging and found that it
is crucial to reading comprehension (Pressley, 1976; Gambrell & Bales, 1986; Gambrell
Beyond Differentiation 315

& Jawitz, 1993). They found that visualizing while reading is a springboard for memory
recall and retention. Furthermore, using visualization makes reading an active rather
than passive process—­that is, comprehension is enhanced by stimulating the mental
interplay of new ideas and past experiences.
“Garden-­variety” students who have challenges with reading comprehension also
have a range of profiles. Valencia (2011) documents the existence of within-­reader vari-
ability and illuminates the fact that “although instruction that targets a student’s spe-
cific needs will increase learning, misdirected instruction may actually waste valuable
instruction time” (p. 31). Students’ abilities are multidimensional and dynamic, just as
the nature of reading is multifaceted. Furthermore, Valencia’s review of research points
out that reader profiles change with both development and instruction.

What Can We Do?: At the Intersection of Multimodal Research

and Practice—Manipulatives, Arts Integration, and New Literacies

In this section I examine three different strands of multimodal learning: manipulatives,

arts integration, and new literacies.

Differentiating Comprehension Instruction with Manipulatives

In a small-group session with Carlos and other third graders, Mr. Funn brought out a
handful of Legos. Carlos watched eagerly as his teacher used this prop to explain the con-
cept of the main idea of a story or nonfiction passage. Mr. Funn took a blue rectangular-­
shaped Lego and called it the “table.” This, he said, is the main idea. Then he picked up
many small, square red Legos, stacking them five high; these made the four legs for the
“table.” Mr. Funn had Carlos hold the red Legos of the miniature table as he explained
that these were the details. “They hold up the table,” Mr. Funn whispered. The teacher
had taken the time to assess for specific needs, so that his instruction was targeted and
powerful to address exactly what Carlos and the peers in his small group needed to
progress in his reading comprehension. Each day in Mr. Funn’s class, students read a
different story or nonfiction article. Carlos held the Legos, manipulating them to show
which part of the story or article was the main idea and which parts were the details as
he participated in small-group or large-group discussions of texts. Mr. Funn, a veteran
elementary school classroom teacher, had discovered something tangible that fit perfectly
with Carlos’s need to understand the abstract but essential concept of main idea.
An example of manipulatives that emerged from Towson Reading Clinic (Worthing
& Laster, 2002) and then migrated to several elementary classrooms was lightweight
balsa wood rods called Strategy Access Rods (SARs). Ms. Worthing, a classroom teacher
who was transitioning to become the reading specialist at her school, used SARs with
Tanya, who needed to learn independently how to choose comprehension strategies. She
was grouped with other students who needed similar instruction for a short segment
of their Reading/Language Arts block. Tanya had been receiving instruction in a small
group about multiple strategies for comprehension. Yet she had difficulty using compre-
hension strategies on her own. She was asked to read a variety of texts; in particular, the
nonfiction texts from her Social Studies class were challenging for her. Ms. Worthing
prepared SARs with Tanya so that she could tangibly choose a strategy to use; for some
texts, Ms. Worthing guided Tanya to help her use multiple strategies. She helped her
write on the balsa wood rods these aspects of comprehension: Make predictions; Draw
316 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

conclusions/Make inferences; Visualize; Determine important points; Distinguish main

idea and key details; Make connections; and Summarize. Ms. Worthing had modeled
these strategies repeatedly; Tanya could explain them. But it was not until she started to
pick up the SARs that Tanya began to “own” the strategies. She needed the manipulative
to help her select appropriate strategies for remembering, monitoring her comprehension,
linking the new content to what she already knew, and being able to recall what she read.
At first, Ms. Worthing gave Tanya significant amounts of prompting when she hesi-
tantly chose a strategy to use when reading a text. Gradually, Ms. Worthing released the
responsibility to Tanya. After some practice, Tanya was able to choose a SAR or multiple
SARs independently to help her understand what she read. After many months, Tanya
no longer needed the SARs to manipulate her choice of appropriate strategies physically;
mentally, she could automatically choose which strategies she needed for comprehension.
There has been some research related to using manipulatives for literacy learning.
For example, in a summary of 11 studies (Weiser & Mathes, 2011), K–3 or at-risk stu-
dents who used encoding strategies similar to Making Words (Cunningham & Cunning-
ham, 1992) experienced positive gains in both reading and spelling. A student doing the
Making Words activity manipulates letter tiles into two-­letter, three-­letter, four-­letter or
more words that are part of the word element focus of each day (word families such as
-an, -it, etc.; ). Manipulatives also were a support according to research in the area of
comprehension. Native American students, for example, were more effective when using
manipulatives to remember texts as they listened (Marley et al., 2007). The cognitive ben-
efits of physical manipulation were shown among kindergarten and first-grade students
using both stories with pictures or manipulation. In the pictures strategy, participants
listened to story content and viewed pictures. In the manipulation strategy, participants
moved manipulatives as directed by the stories. After a training period, the pictures or
manipulatives were removed and participants were instructed to imagine story events.
Significant differences in favor of the manipulation strategy in free and cued recall were
observed (Marley & Szabo, 2010). Although more research would be welcome, there is
a solid base for teachers to be creative in using manipulatives in their classrooms. Using
manipulatives is one helpful kinesthetic way to differentiate instruction using multimodal
learning.

A Sliver of Arts Integration

When learning is active and experiential, reflective, social, evolving,

and focused on problem-­solving, it becomes engaging and motivating.
Because arts integration aligns with how students learn best, students
find it personally meaningful and are drawn to it.
—K ennedy C enter A rtsE dge (2014)

Ariana is a participant in Ms. Curry’s summer reading camp, in which a variety

of arts expression has been integrated with literacy learning. Each morning, all of the
elementary-­age children gather in the gym and dance their “wake up.” Ariana and some
of the other older children helped to create this poem—and the movements that accom-
pany it—that they all recite and enthusiastically move to each morning:

The R eading Poem

We read left to right and up to down.
We listen very carefully to all the sounds.
Beyond Differentiation 317

Letters are shaped curvy and straight.

Just go with the flow; don’t hesitate.
Reading is MEANING with shape, sight, and sound.
What does it mean? You decide! Just spread it around!

—By Torens Johnson and Jaye Knutson

—Adapted by B. P. Laster

After dancing their “wake up” at summer reading camp, Ariana and her camp
friends then proceed to small-group instruction based on their literacy needs. In Ariana’s
case, her teacher modeled, practiced, and supported her to use the strategy of visualizing
while reading. Together they chose many different texts with which to practice. During
week 2, the teacher modeled, practiced, and supported Ariana to summarize during and
after reading nonfiction and fiction texts. Both visualizing and summarizing were rein-
forced in the other afternoon art activities at camp.
Ariana and all of the campers gathered in the art room each afternoon for a session
of Textual Arts, in which the students were actively constructing meaning from texts
using art materials and their own descriptive words. The Textual Arts process is another
illustration of differentiation; in this case, differentiation that allows for alternatives in
content, in process, and in the products that students create. This is an adaptation of the
process-­oriented approach called the Studio Process, developed by art therapists (Allen,
1995; Bloch, Harris, & Laing, 2005).
At first, the teachers chose the appropriate texts for close reading; later, the chil-
dren brought in their own texts to use. At reading camp, poetry and proverbs were very
popular. All were closely read and interpreted. For example, John Donne’s “No Man Is
an Island” (from Meditation 17) was an appropriate text for the older students; other
students explored the proverb, “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” A story
could also be a good text, especially if the teacher gives prompts that probe for deeper
themes: “Illustrate the most important part of the story”; “Illustrate the most vivid scene
for the main character.”
After an introduction by the teacher, Ariana converses with her group to deepen
her understanding of the meaning of the text. She thinks about a pivotal image that she
wants to create to represent the central meaning of the text from her point of view. Then,
she selects materials that she can use to illustrate the meaning, choosing from among the
following:

• 2-D (two dimensional): pencils, charcoal, pastels, chalk, watercolors, crayons,

markers, calligraphy pens, and so forth
• 3-D (three dimensional): pipe cleaners, thin wire, Styrofoam, plastic of all shapes,
corrugated cardboard, foam, hangers for mobiles, interesting odds and ends
• Adhesives: glue, glue stick, stapler, various kinds of tape
• Paper: scrap paper of different colors and textures, tissue paper, old greeting cards,
cardboard, wallpaper, and so forth
• Textiles: fabric, felt, ribbon, sewing needles

Ariana then shares in words with her group the meaning she derived from the text
as represented in her art. The teacher indicates that all of the groups have a “no comment
rule,” which means that, as one artist described, the listeners make no comment or judg-
ment (even a positive one). The practice of not commenting allows each person speaking
318 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

to make his or her own assessment of what he or she has created, rather than be defined
by someone else. The teacher can acknowledge that others in the group will think what-
ever they want, but in order to create a safe environment for sharing, group members
simply do not speak these thoughts out loud.
Besides understanding the content of what is read, the Textual Arts activity supports
students in actively constructing meaning, expressing their thinking creatively, and dem-
onstrating that they have agency in the process of comprehension. This activity is a way
for students to experience that comprehension is internalized and deep. Furthermore, they
see that different people—­even acknowledging the basic meaning of the text—­interpret
the same text from different points of view.
From Textual Arts to graphic novels is not a big leap. Whether print-based or digi-
tal, graphic novels link art and language (and in the case of digital graphic novels—­
technology). They have been accepted by many educators as highly motivating and edu-
cative texts for some students. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that supporting
students in creating their own graphic novels, digital stories, and other generative literacy
is a way to engage them and advance their literacy (Laster et al., 2013).

New Literacies, Including Game‑Based Learning

Multimedia learning environments, at a minimum, are the combination of print and
images; often, though, they involve streaming video, music, instant messaging, or inter-
active online features (McLaughlin, 2013). In this section, I review briefly three research
projects that use technology and provide a more general introduction to the possibilities
of digital, game-based learning for developing the comprehension of all students.
The Engaging Text Project (Rose & Dalton, 2009) uses hypertext weblinks to pro-
vide supportive reading comprehension that is flexible and includes interactive sites and
multimedia sources. (Hypertext is digitally linked with other information beyond the
surface level text.) Grounded in UDL, the Engaging Text Project allows a student to get
digital assistance while reading; the scaffolding can be adjusted by the teacher as the
student gains in proficiency. Similar to all novel learning environments, it is important
for the teacher to teach the student explicitly how to access help on the screen—­whether
for vocabulary meaning, a read-aloud, or writing. The program also prompts the reader
to stop and think about the narrative and to use comprehension strategies: predicting,
questioning, clarifying, and summarizing.
Another multiyear project, Improving Comprehension Online (ICON), examined the
use of a technology-­based instructional approach to support struggling readers, includ-
ing English language learners, in reading comprehension (Proctor, Dalton, Uccelli, &
Snow, 2008). The digital reading environments follow UDL principles and have embed-
ded vocabulary, strategy instruction, and bilingual supports. Researchers found that the
fifth-grade students who used ICON enhanced their strategy use and vocabulary knowl-
edge; this was particularly true for students who were bilingual and for monolingual
students who were not proficient.
On the other hand, Sankey, Birch, and Gardiner (2012) studied the use of multi-
modal learning with a group of college students (n = 60). The students participated in
a computer-­based learning activity, pre-and posttests of their learning, and a survey of
their perceptions. The researchers presented expository content in six different versions,
ranging from just text-based to interactive diagrams. In this experimental study, mul-
tiple representations of content did lead to students’ reporting very favorably on mul-
timodal learning elements. They perceived that multimodal elements had assisted their
Beyond Differentiation 319

comprehension and retention of the learning material. Students reported that it was also
more interesting and enjoyable to use; the researchers point out that engendering a joy
of learning that leads to lifelong learning is a key purpose of education. Improvements
in learning performance occurred for all students, but results within treatment groups
were not statistically discernable, probably because of small sample size. The researchers
suggest that educators consider the incorporation in their curriculum and instruction of
multiple representations—­particularly those that use a combination of audio and visual
content, such as audio-­enhanced PowerPoint.
I now turn to the use of games for learning, especially digital games. Squire (2011)
emphasizes that playing video games is thoroughly a literacy practice. Squire clarifies
that early video games were incredibly simple, because they lacked key features charac-
teristic of current games—such as the ability to “save” partly played games, 3-D graph-
ics, simulated worlds, and Internet connectivity.
Even so, we may be instructed by early work in literacy learning using computers.
Bellows (1986) studied second-­grade students (n = 60) who were given the opportunity
to learn a social studies skill using a computer game. Compared to students who did not
have access to the computer game, these students made significantly greater gains—as
measured by a pretest and a posttest—­than those who experienced traditional teacher-­
led classroom learning. It was the first time that these youngsters had ever touched a
computer; the novelty factor did not hinder their learning; rather, it motivated them. The
qualitative data indicated that there were many instances in which the students did not
cognitively process the social studies skill (directionality) until they were confronted with
the challenge of winning the game in which they applied the skills.
Since that first generation of computer games, the interactivity, sophistication, and
social practice of video games has significantly advanced (Steinkuehler, 2008). Most
promising are interactive simulations and games (Steinkuehler, Squire, & Barab, 2012)
used by many children and teens outside school that could be powerful advantages in
educational settings. Although the research on the relationship between digital gaming
and reading comprehension is still in its infancy, we have some evidence that games help
students come to new understandings. In most digital games, the participant has to take
on a new role, collect data, and solve a problem. This is an active and interactive process.
For example, in Reach for the Sun (Filament Games, 2013), students take on the role
of a growing plant by managing resources, learning concepts such as photosynthesis,
and expanding scientific vocabulary. In the award winning game called Citizen Science,
the player’s goal is to restore Lake Mendota in Madison, Wisconsin. By focusing on the
ecological needs of the lake, as well as the surrounding community, the game involves
students in real-world issues and scientific practices. Both the Games4Change and the
GamesLearningSociety websites continue to review and post new games that can be used
for learning and involve reading comprehension. Li (2010) found that creativity, engage-
ment, and new identity were the three salient traits displayed by elementary-­age students
when learning by digital game building. There was also evidence that students increased
their understanding of the subject matter and improved their general problem-­solving
abilities. More research on the impact of these multimodal experiences is needed.

Summary

Whereas simple manipulatives may not have the inherent dynamism of online learning
environments or student-­generated texts, all of the examples in this chapter illustrate the
320 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

theory of enactivism; that is, an engaged learner’s mind changes its “architecture” as it
comprehends texts. An enactivist lens applies to all learning environments and explores
how the actions, the materials, the contexts, and the mind of the learner all affect each
other in dynamic ways that change the learning from moment to moment (Li et al., 2010).
One very powerful enactivist circumstance is the enhancement of metacognition
while reading. Garner (1987) describes metacognitive knowledge, experiences, and strat-
egies. Others (Baker & Beall, 2009) have provided evidence that students who use meta-
cognitive strategies are strong readers.
Finally, I agree with Greenleaf and Hinchman (2009) that students need to con-
struct positive identities related to literacy. These positive identities are what Steinkuehler
(2013), working with teenage boys, calls interest-­driven learning. In fact, out of the field
of Learning Sciences, we note that digital games have evolved from simple to more com-
plex and are highly motivating for many young people (Gee, 2003; Squire, 2015). Oth-
ers (Li, 2010; Steinkuehler, 2013) take the work of Guthrie and others on engagement
(Guthrie et al., 2004; Lutz, Guthrie, & Davis, 2006) one step further when they use video
games as a link to many literacies. Furthermore,

a fuller understanding of the varied profiles of individuals who struggle to comprehend calls
for a more nuanced understanding of how these difficulties are best resolved. In short, by
suggesting multiple pathways to comprehension difficulties for both reading disabled and
garden-­variety struggling readers, the research implies multiple pathways to resolving those
difficulties. (Frankel, Pearson, & Nair, 2011, p. 222)

The NCTE (2008) warns that “the over-­emphasis on testing and teaching to the test
may deprive many students of the kinds of multi-modal experiences they most need.”
Thus, child-­centered rather than test-­centered literacy learning is imperative. And, multi-
modal learning is an opportunity to focus on the distinct and differentiated needs of all
students. The NCTE also cautions that “an exclusive emphasis on digital literacies is not
what most advocates of technology-­rich composition advocate. Such an emphasis would
limit students’ access to other modes of expression.”
Manipulatives, arts integration, and new literacies/digital learning engagement were
examined as distinct strands; yet in true 21st-­century form, they intersect. For example,
there are computer-­based virtual manipulatives. Many expressive arts are now available
in digital formats, such as digital storytelling. This chapter is limited, yet I hope that I have
provided a panorama of modalities, texts, and processes for facilitating the development
of reading comprehension. I invite others to enlarge their thinking on these topics and
provide many more opportunities for all students to become proficient comprehenders.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. What are some novel classroom applications for advancing elementary students’ text comprehension
using simple multimodalities, such as manipulatives?
2. How can arts integration assist readers in a context in which you are familiar?
3. What are some digital literacy pathways that give students agency and support for advancing their
reading comprehension?
4. From your observations—­or your students—­what are examples of games that enhance
comprehension?
Beyond Differentiation 321

References

Allen, P. (1995). Coyote comes in from the cold: The evolution of the open studio concept. Art
Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 12(3), 161–166.
Baker, L. & Beall, L. C. (2009). Metacognitive processes and reading comprehension. In S. E.
Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 373–
388). New York: Routledge.
Bellows, B. P. (1986). Group size, group structure and student interaction. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
Bloch, D., Harris, T., & Laing, S. (2005). Open studio process as a model of social action: A
program for at-risk youth. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association,
22(1), 32–38.
Center for Implementing Technology in Education (CITEd). (2013). Universal Design for Learn-
ing in a Digital Multimedia Environment. Retrieved from www.cited.org/index.aspx?page_
id=147.
Cunningham, P., & Cunningham, J. (1992). Making words: Enhancing the invented spelling-­
decoding connection. The Reading Teacher, 46, 106–115.
Filament Games. (2013). Reach for the Sun. Retrieved from www.filamentgames.com/products/
reach-sun-­product.
Frankel, K. K., Pearson, P. D., & Nair, M. (2011). Reading comprehension and reading disability.
In A. McGill-­Franzen & R. L. Allington (Eds.), Handbook of reading disability research
(pp. 219–231). New York: Routledge.
Gambrell, L. B., & Bales, R. J. (1986). Mental imagery and the comprehension-­monitoring perfor-
mance of fourth- and fifth-grade poor readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 454–464.
Gambrell, L. B., & Jawitz, P. B. (1993). Mental imagery, text illustrations, and children’s story
comprehension and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(3), 256–276.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
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.
Gounari, P. (2009). Rethinking critical literacy in the new information age. Critical Inquiry in
Language Studies, 6(3), 148–175.
Greenleaf, C. L., & Hinchman, K. (2009). Reimaging our inexperienced adolescent readers: From
struggling, striving, marginalized, and reluctant to thriving. Journal of Adolescent and Adult
Literacy, 53(1), 4–13.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., et al.
(2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-­oriented reading
instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403–423.
Kennedy Center ArtsEdge. (2014). Perspectives on arts integration. Retrieved from http://artsedge.
kennedy-­center.org/educators.
Laster, B., Gurvitz, D., Bowers, E., Cobb, J., Ryan, T., & Vazzano, J. (2013, December). iPads in
the reading clinic. Paper presented at the Literacy Research Association Annual Conference,
Dallas, TX.
Leu, D. J. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an infor-
mation age. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of
reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 743–770). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Leu, D. J., O’Byrne, W. I., Zawilinski, L., McVerry, J. G., & Everett-­Cacopardo, H. (2009).
Expanding the new literacies conversation. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 264–269.
Li, Q. (2010). Digital game building: learning in a participatory culture. Educational Research,
52(4), 427–443.
322 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

Li, Q., Clark, B., & Winchester, I. (2010). Instructional design and technology grounded in enac-
tivism: A paradigm shift? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 403–419.
Lutz, S., Guthrie, J., & Davis, M. (2006). Scaffolding for engagement in elementary school reading
instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 3–20.
Marley, S., Levin, J., & Glenberg. A. (2007). Improving Native American children’s listening
comprehension through concrete representations. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
32(3), 537–550.
Marley, S. C., & Szabo, Z. (2010). Improving children’s listening comprehension with a manipula-
tion strategy. Journal of Educational Research, 103(4), 227–238.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design
methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125–139.
McDermott, R., & Varenne, H. (1995). Culture as disability. Anthropology and Education, 26(3),
324–348.
McLaughlin, M. (2013). Hoping to engage students in the Common Core?: Try using multimodal
text! Reading Today, 311(2), 20–21.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational
Psychology Review, 19, 309–326.
Nation, K., Clarke, P., Wright, B., & Williams, C. (2006). Patterns of reading ability in chil-
dren with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36,
911–919.
National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). (2008). Position statement on multimodal lit-
eracies. Retrieved from www.readwritethink.org/professional- ­development/professional-­
library/position-­statement- ­multimodal-­literacies-30471.html.
Pressley, M. (1976). Mental imagery helps eight-year-olds remember what they read. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 68, 355–359.
Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., Uccelli, P., & Snow, C. (2008, June). ICON: Goal 2 Development
Award. Presented at the IES Principal Investigators’ Meeting, Washington, DC.
Rose, D. H., & Dalton, B. (2009). Engaging the text: Brain research and the universal design of
reading strategy supports. In D. H. Rose & A. Meyer (Eds.), A practical reader in Universal
Design for Learning (pp. 133–148). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2009). A practical reader in Universal Design for Learning. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Education Press.
Rose, M. C., Cundick, B. P., & Higbee, K. L. (1983). Verbal rehearsal and visual imagery: mne-
monic aids for learning-­disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 352–354.
Sankey, M., Birch, D., & Gardiner, M. (2012). The impact of multiple representations of content
using multimedia on learning outcomes across learning styles and modal preferences. Inter-
national Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 7(3), 18–35.
Short, K., & Harste, J. (1996). Creating classrooms for authors and inquirers. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Squire, K. (2011). Video games and learning: Teaching and participatory culture in the digital age.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Squire, K. (2015). Creating the future of games and learning. Independent School, 74(2), 86–90.
Steinkuehler, C. A. (2008). Cognition and literacy in massively multiplayer online games. In J.
Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies
(pp. 1–38). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Steinkuehler, C. (2013). Constance Steinkuehler on interest-­ driven learning. Retrieved from
www.edutopia.org/constance-­steinkuehler-­interest-­driven-­learning-­video.
Steinkuehler, C., Squire, K., & Barab, S. (Eds.). (2012). Games, learning, and society: Learning
and meaning in the digital age. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tomlinson, C. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms (2nd ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Valencia, S. (2011). Reading profiles and reading disabilities. In A. McGill-­Franzen & R. L. Alling-
ton (Eds.), Handbook of reading disability research (pp. 25–35). New York: Routledge.
Beyond Differentiation 323

Watts-Taffe, S., Laster, B., Broach, L., Marinak, B., Conner, C., & Walker-­ Dalhouse, D.
(2012/2013). Differentiated instruction: Making informed teacher decisions. The Reading
Teacher, 66(4), 303–314.
Weiser, B., & Mathes, P. (2011). Using encoding instruction to improve the reading and spelling
performances of elementary students at risk for literacy difficulties: A best evidence synthesis.
Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 170–200.
Worthing, B., & Laster, B. (2002). Strategy Access Rods: A hands-on approach to owning reading
strategies. The Reading Teacher, 56, 122–123.
 Chapter 23

Research on Instruction and Assessment

in the New Literacies of Online Research
and Comprehension

Jill Castek, Julie Coiro, Laurie A. Henry,

Donald J. Leu, and Douglas K. Hartman

The knowledge economy is about how the new technologies have transformed
the way we think and act . . . To thrive in the global knowledge economy, it is
going to be important to change the whole educational system to ensure a wide
base of knowledge workers who understand and use information technologies.
—Thomas B. R iley (2003, paragraphs 8–10)

T he Internet is the defining medium for information, communication, and reading com-
prehension in the 21st century (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2006; New Lit-
eracies Research Team, 2007). Additional reading comprehension skills are frequently
required to be a successful online reader (Castek et al., 2008; Coiro & Dobler, 2007;
Castek, Zawilinski, McVerry, O’Byrne, & Leu, 2011; Henry, 2006). The emergence of
new online research and comprehension skills has profound consequences for instruction
as reading has moved from page to screen. These new literacies have redefined many
aspects of traditional comprehension instruction. Also, the terms used to describe these
skills are changing. As a result of additional knowledge about the nature of online read-
ing, the more precisely descriptive term new literacies of online research and comprehen-
sion has replaced online reading comprehension (Leu et al., 2015; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro,
Castek, & Henry, 2013).
This chapter explores online research and comprehension in terms of both instruc-
tion and assessment, and does the following:

• Defines the new literacies of online research and comprehension and reviews
research in this area.
• Defines the emerging framework of Internet Reciprocal Teaching (IRT), an
instructional model used to teach online research and comprehension.
• Explores emerging assessment practices in online research and comprehension.

324
The New Literacies of Online Research and Comprehension 325

Research in the New Literacies of Online Research and Comprehension

Research in online reading comprehension is informed by theoretical work in new litera-

cies (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2008; Leu et al., 2013). Broadly conceived, a
new literacies perspective argues that the nature of literacy and learning is rapidly chang-
ing and transforming as new technologies emerge. While there are many perspectives
associated with the term new literacies (e.g., Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Gee, 2003; Kress,
2000; Hull & Schultz, 2002; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; 2006; New London Group,
1996; Street, 1998), the most recent theoretical review of this work (Leu et al., 2013)
concludes that most share a set of common assumptions: (1) The Internet is this genera-
tion’s defining technology for literacy and learning within our global community; (2) The
Internet and related technologies require additional new literacies to fully access their
potential; (3) new literacies are deictic; (4) new literacies are multiple, multimodal, and
multifaceted; (5) critical literacies are central to new literacies; (6) new forms of strategic
knowledge are required with new literacies; (7) new social practices are a central element
of New Literacies; and (8) teachers become more important, though their role changes,
within new literacy classrooms. Results from investigations framed in a new literacies
perspective have challenged existing classroom practices in literacy education.
Within this broader context of new literacies theory and research, a new literacies
perspective of online research and comprehension (Leu et al., 2013) has also emerged to
frame online reading as a problem-­based inquiry process involving new skills, strategies,
and dispositions on the Internet to generate important questions, then locate, critically
evaluate, synthesize, and communicate possible solutions to those problems online. What
differs from earlier models of traditional print comprehension is that online reading com-
prehension is defined by not only purpose, task, and context but also as a process of self-­
directed text construction (Coiro & Dobler, 2007) that occurs as readers navigate their
own paths through an infinite informational space to construct their own versions of the
online texts they read. During this process, both new and traditional reading comprehen-
sion skills are required. The overlap between online and offline reading enriches, but also
complicates, our understanding of reading comprehension in the 21st century. Any model
of online research and comprehension must begin with this basic observation.
What are the new skills and strategies for successful online research and comprehen-
sion? The answer is still emerging, though the outlines are becoming clearer. We know,
for example, that the new literacies of online research and comprehension occur within a
process that includes the skills and strategies required to identify an important question
directing the reader to locate, critically evaluate, synthesize, and communicate informa-
tion with the Internet (Leu et al., 2007).
Consider, first, the initial phase of online reading comprehension: We read on the
Internet to solve problems and answer questions. How a problem is framed or how a
question is understood is a central aspect of online reading comprehension. Work by
Taboada and Guthrie (2006) within traditional texts suggests that reading initiated by a
question differs in important ways from reading that does not. The fact that online read-
ing comprehension always begins with a question or problem may be an important source
of the differences between online and offline reading comprehension.
Locating information online is another aspect of online research and comprehen-
sion. It also requires new skills, such as using a search engine, reading search engine
results, or quickly reading a webpage to locate the best link to the information that is
sought. Many students lack these skills (Castek et al., 2011; Coiro, 2007; Henry, 2006).
Of those who do use a search engine, for example, many do not appear to know how to
326 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

read search engine results and instead click down the list of links in a “click and look”
strategy (Leu et al., 2007).
Locating information during the online research and comprehension process may
create a bottleneck for the subsequent skills of online reading comprehension (Henry,
2007). That is, those who possess the online reading comprehension skills necessary to
locate information can continue to read and solve their problem; those who do not pos-
sess these skills cannot. In fact, this bottleneck may contribute to the lack of isomorphic
performance between online and offline readers (Henry, 2006; Leu et al., 2005; Spiro,
DeSchryver, Schira Hagerman, Morsink, & Thompson, 2015).
Another area in which online research and comprehension require a unique set of
skills is during critical evaluation. Whereas critical evaluation is important when reading
offline information, it is perhaps more important online, where anyone can publish any-
thing; knowing the stance and bias of an author becomes paramount to comprehension
and learning. Determining this in online contexts requires new comprehension skills and
strategies. For example, knowing which links take you to information about who created
the information at a site (and actually choosing to follow these links) becomes important.
So, too, is knowing how to check the reliability of information with other information at
other sites. Students do not always possess these skills. In one study (Leu et al., 2007), 47
out of 53 higher performing online readers in seventh grade believed a site designed to be
a hoax was reliable (Save the Endangered Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus), despite the
fact that most students indicated in an interview that they did not believe everything they
read online. Moreover, when told the site was a hoax, a number of students insisted that
it provided accurate and reliable information.
Adults also appear to lack critical evaluation skills on the Internet, especially when
it comes to search engine results. The Pew Internet and American Life Project (Fallows,
2005) found that whereas 92% of adults were confident about their searching abilities,
62% were unaware of the distinction between commercial and noncommercial results,
and 68% said that search engines provide a fair and unbiased source of information.
Clearly, many segments of our population have yet to acquire the full complement of
online research and comprehension skills and dispositions that enable them to locate
information effectively and think critically about what they have found.

Applying Reciprocal Teaching Approaches to Teaching the New Literacies

of Online Research and Comprehension

How should we begin to think about teaching online research and comprehension skills
and strategies? A logical approach would be to review the research on comprehension
to determine which instructional models appear to be most effective in teaching offline
reading comprehension. The substantial effect sizes reported for one model of compre-
hension instruction, Reciprocal Teaching (Brown & Palincsar, 1989; Palincsar & Brown,
1984) would be especially noticeable in any review. Reciprocal Teaching has been shown
consistently to improve students’ comprehension of texts when implemented with fidel-
ity in intervention settings (Alfassi, 1998; Brand-­Gruwel, Aarnoutse, & Van Den Bos,
1997; De Corte, Vershaffel, & Van De Ven, 2001; Fung, Wilkinson, & Moore, 2003;
Hacker & Tenent, 2002). A meta-­analytic review of 16 studies (Rosenshine & Meister,
1994) indicated that Reciprocal Teaching has a consistent, large, and positive effect on
comprehension outcomes. Median effect sizes across the studies were between 0.34 and
0.60 on teacher-­designed tests.
The New Literacies of Online Research and Comprehension 327

What defines the instructional approach, Reciprocal Teaching? Key elements of this
model include the following:

• The use of traditional, printed texts, which are often narratives.

• The reading of a common text.
• The teaching of a small group of students, who are often struggling readers.
• Teacher modeling of comprehension strategies.
• A focus on predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing strategies.
• A gradual release of responsibility away from the teacher as students take on the
modeling of comprehension strategies.
• Collaboration and discussion among all participants in each reciprocal teaching
group.

While working in small groups, teachers and students take turns leading discus-
sions of the text and demonstrating each strategy. Eventually, through continued practice
and a gradual release of responsibility, students begin to develop a useful repertoire of
metacognitive strategies for better understanding what they read. Over time, these strate-
gies appear to become self-­regulated and transfer to new reading contexts (e.g., Cooper,
Boschken, McWilliams, & Pistochini, 2000; Palincsar, 1986a; Palincsar & Klenk, 1992).

Modifying Reciprocal Teaching for Online Research

and Comprehension Instruction
To better prepare students for the unique challenges of reading on the Internet, we have
begun to explore how best to frame instruction in online research and comprehension
within middle school language arts classrooms (Leu & Reinking, 2005; Henry, Castek,
Zawilinski, & O’Byrne, 2012), middle school science classrooms (Leu et al., 2005), self-­
contained elementary school classrooms (Castek, 2008), and preservice teacher education
(Hartman, Leu, Olson, & Truxaw, 2005). In each setting, our model of instruction has
been informed by the well-­established research in Reciprocal Teaching (Brown & Pal-
incsar, 1989; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). It has also been
informed by other research that has adapted this model, originally developed to serve
small groups of struggling readers, to classroom learning contexts involving a wider spec-
trum of students (e.g., Hacker & Tenent, 2002).
Over time, our work has led us to modify a number of the elements of Recipro-
cal Teaching. Some changes have resulted from the differences between offline and
online reading contexts. Others have resulted from moving a small-group instructional
model, initially developed for teaching low-­performing readers, to meet the needs of self-­
contained classroom teachers who confront both larger numbers of students and a wider
range of reading proficiency.
Additional changes have resulted from our decision to adapt Reciprocal Teaching
within classrooms where students each have their own computer or tablet in a one-to-one
environment. We have found it important for each student to have a computer or tablet
with wireless access to the Internet. The facilities in most school computer labs make
both interactive group work and discussions about strategy use quite problematic. Each
is central to Reciprocal Teaching, as well as to our evolving model, which we call Internet
Reciprocal Teaching. Other issues we have encountered with computer labs include the
encroachment on instructional time necessitated by walking students to the lab and back
to the home classroom, as well as the limited times that computer labs are free. In addition,
328 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

we are mindful that our work seeks to develop a model of instruction for the future, in
which students will likely have their own laptops and/or tablets with wireless connections
to the Internet, such as those found in Maine and an expanding number of districts around
the United States (Dunleavy, Dexter, & Heinecke, 2007; Zucker, 2004). As a result of all
of these considerations we have chosen to develop our model of Internet Reciprocal Teach-
ing around the use of wireless laptops and mobile devices in the classroom.

Comparing and Contrasting Reciprocal Teaching and Internet

Reciprocal Teaching
•• The use of traditional printed texts, often narratives versus online informational
texts. Reciprocal Teaching uses traditional, printed texts, often narratives, whereas Inter-
net Reciprocal Teaching takes place with online resources, more typically informational
or expository texts. Thus, somewhat different opportunities and challenges appear dur-
ing lessons using Internet Reciprocal Teaching. Given the focus on expository texts, for
example, it is somewhat easier to integrate Internet Reciprocal Teaching lessons across
content areas. Reading selections with this model, on the other hand, often have more
specialized vocabulary and can be more challenging at times. However, multimedia
sources on the Internet are often available to support reading comprehension in ways not
possible with traditional texts. These additional media sources, though, also require new
reading skills and strategies to exploit their potential effectively.
•• The reading of a common text versus the reading of unique texts. Small-group
Reciprocal Teaching instruction typically requires a common text that all students read
linearly (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). With Internet Reciprocal Teaching, because of the
current nature of online reading, readers typically construct individual texts through
hyperlinks and the textual paths that readers choose to follow. As a result, during Internet
Reciprocal Teaching, strategy instruction focuses on both the common and the unique
processes by which students navigate through multiple and different texts, rather than
the reading of one, common text. Teachers and students model their choices about which
links are most relevant to a group or individual question through think-­alouds. They dis-
cuss how to locate information within different kinds of websites most efficiently, how to
synthesize ideas across multiple texts and media, and how to best represent the answers
to their questions. Instruction emphasizes choices about which sites to read, where to
read on those sites, which links to follow to gather additional information, and when to
conduct new searches.
•• Teaching a small group of students, often struggling readers versus teaching in
larger, heterogeneously grouped classrooms. Reciprocal Teaching was initially developed
for working with a single, small group of struggling readers (Palincsar & Brown, 1984).
We work in diverse, urban and rural classrooms, heterogeneously grouped, with approxi-
mately 20–25 students in each class. Students come to our classrooms with a wide range
of ability levels and backgrounds. They include English language learners, as well as
students who qualify for special education services and those who struggle with reading,
although they do not qualify for support services. Because we work in self-­contained
classrooms, we have been required to adapt the basic context of Reciprocal Teaching—­a
single teacher working with a small group of struggling readers—­to fit classrooms with
one teacher for many more, and widely diverse, students. The diversity of our classrooms
provides a wider range of students with which to exchange a potentially wider range of
online reading strategies. It also requires somewhat different organization and manage-
ment in a classroom.
The New Literacies of Online Research and Comprehension 329

•• Greater teacher modeling of offline comprehension strategies versus greater stu-

dent modeling of online research and comprehension strategies. A key component of
Reciprocal Teaching is that teachers model reading comprehension strategies, often by
explaining their thinking during reading. Internet Reciprocal Teaching provides some
degree of teacher modeling, but we also seek to take advantage of the novel online
research and comprehension strategies that students bring to classrooms. There are two
benefits. First, students frequently possess novel and potentially powerful online research
and comprehension strategies, sometimes ones with which teachers may be unfamiliar.
Second, we have found that empowering students in this fashion, helping them to see
themselves as experts with important skills to share, is a powerful instructional advan-
tage (Henry et al., 2012). Often this approach includes empowering students who might
normally be thought to be weaker readers (Coiro, 2007; Henry et al., 2012; New Lit-
eracies Research Team, 2005). We have found that honoring their contributions to the
learning process encourages greater investment in classroom activities and increases their
engagement with texts and the learning process generally. Furthermore, we have observed
several occasions when previously passive students, who were also weaker offline read-
ers, took a leadership role in online strategy discussions.
•• A focus on predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing strategies versus
a focus on questioning, locating, critically evaluating, synthesizing, and communicating
strategies. Reciprocal teaching emphasizes four basic strategies: predicting, questioning,
clarifying, and summarizing. The most important meta-­analysis of Reciprocal Teach-
ing studies (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994) indicated that statistically significant gains in
reading comprehension appeared regardless of whether two, three, four, or 10 strategies
were included, suggesting that it may not be the type or the number of strategies that are
taught, so much as it is the cognitive processing that is made explicit during reading. We
have followed this course in our development of Internet Reciprocal Teaching. Whereas
Internet Reciprocal Teaching often includes the strategies used during Reciprocal Teach-
ing, it focuses more on the somewhat novel online research and comprehension strategies
required to develop or understand a question, then use that question to locate, critically
evaluate, synthesize, and communicate information on the Internet.
•• A gradual release of responsibility away from the teacher as students take on the
modeling of comprehension strategies. Both Reciprocal Teaching and Internet Recipro-
cal Teaching gradually transfer the responsibility for modeling comprehension strategies
to students. We have found it effective to provide the gradual release of responsibility
by using an instructional scheme with three phases: Phase 1 includes direct, whole class
instruction of basic skills and strategies of Internet use; Phase 2 includes group work and
the reciprocal exchange of online research and comprehension strategies by students with
their peers; Phase 3 includes online individual inquiry units, sometimes with collabora-
tive efforts involving other students in other classes, perhaps even in other parts of the
world, and periodic strategy-­sharing sessions with peers. We discuss these phases in more
detail in a subsequent section. In the process, students assimilate strategies by engaging in
explicit discussions about the online contexts in which these strategies appear to be most
useful. Engaging in explicit discussions of strategy usage enhances students’ awareness of
their own thinking processes (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) and facilitates the application
of these strategies in new reading contexts.
•• Collaboration and discussion among all participants in each reciprocal teaching
group. Both Reciprocal Teaching and Internet Reciprocal Teaching take advantage of
the potential that results from group conversations about reading strategies and the new
strategies that appear to be especially helpful in various contexts (Henry et al., 2012).
330 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

This posture is especially useful for online research and comprehension, because new
technologies continually appear online (e.g., new and revised search engine tools), requir-
ing continually new online research and comprehension strategies to take advantage of
their potential.

An Evolving Model of Internet Reciprocal Teaching

As we have come to understand the differences and the similarities between the contexts
of Reciprocal Teaching and Internet Reciprocal Teaching, we have continued to inves-
tigate aspects of Internet Reciprocal Teaching during a year-long formative experiment
(see ­Reinking & Bradley, 2004, 2008) conducted in five 7th-grade English Language
Arts classrooms with a high proportion of low-­achieving students. Instruction followed
our three-phase model, seeking to develop online research and comprehension skills and
strategies currently essential to (1) generate online research questions; (2) locate informa-
tion; (3) critically evaluate information; (4) synthesize information; and (5) communicate
information among students.
Initially, the online research and comprehension skills that we sought to develop
were informed by the patterns of strategy use demonstrated by approximately 50 profi-
cient online readers, gathered during think-aloud sessions the previous year (see Carter
& Henry, 2006; Coiro, Malloy, & Rogers, 2006; Leu & Castek, 2006; Leu et al., 2007).
We refined how online reading experiences were structured for students based on insights
gained from an iterative cycle of data collection including interviews and discussions
among researchers, teachers, and sometimes students. We adjusted both what was taught
and how it was taught based on what appeared to enhance or inhibit the effectiveness
of particular interventions in different classroom contexts (Castek & Reinking, 2006).
Across the classrooms, we aimed to increase academic engagement, encourage active
reading, and promote students as experts in online research and comprehension. These
goals were based intentionally on those of Reciprocal Teaching (Palincsar & Brown,
1984). To achieve these goals, we encouraged student demonstrations of online research
and comprehension to the maximum extent possible and supported strategy application
across a wide range of online informational and problem-­based tasks.
We highlight here two important patterns that emerged from our work with students
in urban and rural low-­achieving school districts.

Internet Reciprocal Teaching Progresses through Three Phases of Online

Reading Instruction
One important pattern that emerged from our formative experiments was that different
students required different levels of support at different points during a school year in
which we implemented Internet Reciprocal Teaching (Leu et al., 2007). Thus, we found
it helpful to organize our thinking about online research and comprehension instruction
into three phases that sought to accomplish the gradual release of responsibility, which
is a central aspect of Reciprocal Teaching (Palincsar, 1986b; Palincsar & Brown, 1984).

Phase 1: Teacher‑Led Instruction

During Phase 1, students take part in teacher-­led demonstrations designed to establish
essential classroom routines and foundational Internet and computer skills. During
The New Literacies of Online Research and Comprehension 331

this phase, the teacher explicitly models online research and comprehension strategies,
and introduces procedures for conducting group discussions. Teaching procedures are
designed to nurture collaborative group work skills among students. Internet Reciprocal
Teaching lessons in this phase highlight foundational skills and strategies (e.g., handling
laptops or tablets, opening and quitting applications, managing multiple tabs or win-
dows) that serve as precursors to online research and comprehension. Instruction occurs
most often as a whole class to facilitate participation in think-aloud demonstrations.
Toward the end of this phase, minilessons provide students with practice in applying
what they had learned with a partner or two. Whereas the time spent in this phase may
differ widely across classrooms, our work suggests that a gradual transition out of the
teacher-­led phase can be made when the majority of students are able to demonstrate
application of the skills and strategies listed on the TICA [Teaching Internet Comprehen-
sion to Adolescents] Basic Skills (Phase 1) Checklist (see Appendix 23.1 and also http://
tinyurl.com/ot4reum)

Phase 2: Collaborative Modeling of Online Research and Comprehension Strategies

In Phase 2 of Internet Reciprocal Teaching, teachers and students begin to share the
responsibility for introducing new strategies and demonstrating how and when those
strategies might be most useful. Lessons in this phase present small groups of students
with common problems, often linked to key curriculum standards or goals, and designed
to elicit important online reading comprehension skills. One day, for example, the groups
in a class may be given these three problems and asked to solve them with the Internet:
(1) How high is Mt. Fuji in Japan? (2) Find another, different answer to this same ques-
tion. (3) Which answer do you think is most accurate, and how did you determine that
it was? Students in each group are guided to discuss their solutions, exchanging reading
comprehension strategies for locating and critically evaluating information. Lessons are
designed to minimize teacher talk and maximize the time students are engaged with the
task. An essential part of planning is setting aside time at the end of each lesson for stu-
dents to debrief and exchange strategies with the entire class after having already done
so in their small groups.
Initially, lessons focus on locating and critically evaluating online information, and
later, shift to synthesis and communication with a variety of online communication tools
(e.g., e-mail, blogs, wikis, Google docs). Importantly, as this phase of instruction pro-
gresses, activities are carefully sequenced from more structured to less structured experi-
ences to take maximum advantage of students’ growing online reading knowledge and
proficiency.
Because collaborative group exchanges of online reading comprehension strategies
play an increasingly important role in this phase of instruction, students may sometimes
be grouped homogeneously to collaboratively contend with an information challenge that
targets a particular area of weakness. At other times, students may be heterogeneously
grouped to share individual strengths while collaboratively solving online information
problems. Consistent with the principles of Reciprocal Teaching, an important compo-
nent of this second phase is working in groups to teach peers and their teacher(s) new strat-
egies for navigating and comprehending information on the Internet. In this way, both
teachers and students work together to document student progress on the observational
checklist of Phase 2 strategies necessary for transitioning to Phase 3 (See Appendix 23.2).
These activities reinforce students’ growing independence as proficient online readers and
prepare students for peer-­teaching one another more regularly during Phase 3.
332 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

Phase 3: Inquiry
Finally, in Phase 3, instruction begins to move toward independent online inquiry related
to the curriculum. Online work often takes place individually and in small groups, while
the teacher acts more as a facilitator of online strategy use. Students are given opportu-
nities to develop their own questions to research or problems to solve using strategies
introduced in Phase 2. Students are also encouraged to select what they believe to be the
most effective means for communicating their findings, again applying strategies intro-
duced earlier in instruction. Initially, in this phase, information is gathered and shared
with reciprocal strategy support from students within the class. Later, the instructional
focus shifts to support students as they solve problems with students in other classrooms
in their school or district, around the country, or even in other parts of the world via
telecollaborative inquiry projects (Leu, Leu, & Coiro, 2004; Henry & Lima, 2012). Ulti-
mately, students are invited to develop their own lines of inquiry related to their curricu-
lum to spontaneously demonstrate strategies during authentic online reading experiences
and to collaboratively work with others as they use the Internet to solve the important
problems they have defined. It is at this point that students develop an understanding of
how important it is to play an active role in their own learning about the curriculum and
experience firsthand the satisfaction associated with knowing how to question, locate,
evaluate, synthesize, and communicate information with the Internet (see also Coiro,
Castek, and Quinn, in press).

Internet Reciprocal Teaching Progresses from Simpler to More Complex Online

Research and Comprehension Tasks
A second conclusion from our formative observations of online research and comprehen-
sion instruction is that effective Internet Reciprocal Teaching lessons move progressively
from simpler tasks that are somewhat similar to reading offline texts to those that are
more complex and quite different than reading offline texts (see the Internet Reciprocal
Teaching overview at http://tinyurl.com/paprxvw). For example, we found it helpful to
begin with demonstrations and strategy discussions that fostered skimming and scanning
skills to locate specific information on a single webpage. Discussions centered around
text features that lead readers to specific information on the page; students collabora-
tively shared strategies that helped clarify how good online readers strategically skim
and scan a webpage, then check their facts by locating similar facts on other reliable
webpages. Discussions quickly led to considering how to investigate an author’s cred-
ibility and reliability, which provided a purpose for strategically skimming and scanning
additional pages on a website where this information was found.
In turn, these discussions prompted students to search for information on other web-
sites that could be used to confirm or to refute ideas by consulting additional sources.
Discussions about the different types of search engines, and how each worked, prompted
important new strategies for online reading comprehension. Amidst these discussions,
Internet Reciprocal Teaching lessons introduced tasks that offered students time to explore
strategies for using key words to narrow questions, using synonyms to revise searches on
the same topic, and combining key words to refine searches and locate specific informa-
tion effectively. Teachers and students modeled procedures for strategically reading search
results and determining, for example, where to read for information on a search results
page, how to determine when it was important to initiate a new search, or how to search
more efficiently by attending to clues about the potential reliability of a website by exam-
ining the website’s address as it appears in the results list. These types of lessons helped
The New Literacies of Online Research and Comprehension 333

students learn how to make informed choices about where to read and how to navigate to
reliable sites that contain information suited to their purposes for reading.
As students became more efficient in locating the information they were seeking,
they had more time to read across multiple websites, summarize important information,
and explore their options for communicating their findings to others. Reciprocal Teach-
ing lessons then began to highlight strategies for organizing information into charts or
idea webs, turning their collection of facts and multimedia resources into a cohesive sum-
mary, collaboratively editing their work, composing messages for particular audiences,
and selecting appropriate communication tools. Small-group discussions focused on the
skills and strategies required to use a variety of technologies, such as e-mail, blogs, and
wikis. With support from the teacher and their classmates, students began to realize
that each of these types of communication required unique inferential reasoning skills in
order to be used effectively. Students were given time to practice how to construct clear
messages that were appropriate for various contexts and purposes.
Over time, guided demonstrations of authentic research tasks aligned to the curricu-
lum provided students with opportunities to apply different combinations of the online
research and reading comprehension skills and strategies they had learned, and taught
others, in their Reciprocal Teaching discussions. Students were able to choose a related
topic of interest, query search engines, locate relevant and reliable information, synthe-
size information from multiple sources, and communicate it to others using procedures
appropriate to the type of communication tool they selected.

Measuring the Potential Benefits of Internet Reciprocal Teaching

In addition to exploring new ways of thinking about new literacies instruction, we have
begun to develop a number of different methodologies and instruments to measure pro-
ficiency in online research and reading comprehension. Although a space limitation does
not allow a detailed description of each assessment, we share below our think-aloud
methodology and broad categories of instruments we have designed to evaluate the
effects of Internet Reciprocal Teaching and specifically to determine whether instruction
can improve offline and online reading comprehension and content-­area learning over
time. Interested readers can see the scenarios for “Energy Drinks” and “Asthma” that
are available (http://tinyurl.com/mn3u7zf and http://tinyurl.com/ljp2eqb, respectively).

Student Think‑Aloud Methodology

Process-­based think-aloud methodologies (see Afflerbach, 2002; Pressley & Afflerbach,
1995) have provided an important window into the nature of online research and compre-
hension ability, and how students respond to various online reading activities. Rich and
complex think-aloud data have provided us information to systematically refine our evolv-
ing understanding of the online reading comprehension skills demonstrated by proficient
and less skilled adolescent online readers. In a series of studies (see Leu et al., 2007; Leu
& Castek, 2006; New Literacies Research Team, 2005; Spiro et al., 2015), participants
were asked to read online and to think aloud, using both researcher-­selected and student-­
selected reading assignments. Students’ online reading sessions were recorded using Cam-
tasia software (www.techsmith.com/camtasia.asp), which creates a real-time movie of
all online actions on the screen, as well as an online recording of verbal think-aloud data.
Data from the Camtasia recordings were then transcribed, coded, and analyzed
to reveal (1) the processes students use (or don’t use) and (2) the understandings (or
334 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

misconceptions) students may have about how best to compose task-­related online ques-
tions and use a range of online contexts (e.g., search engines, informational websites,
interactive images, e-mail, instant messaging, and/or blogs) to locate, critically evaluate,
synthesize, and communicate their answers to others. From our analyses, patterns of
effective strategy use were systematically added to our evolving taxonomy of proficient
online research and reading strategies. Likewise, patterns of ineffective online reading
processes across several populations of adolescent readers helped inform our decisions
about which skills, strategies, and dispositions we might focus on for our sequence of
Internet Reciprocal Teaching lessons.

Curriculum‑Based Information Challenges

A second category of useful measures designed to assess online reading comprehension
ability includes challenges to find information that requires a range of Internet tech-
nologies and that links directly to a particular curricular theme or learning objective.
As members of the TICA Project (Leu et al., 2007; also see http://tinyurl.com/paog8le),
we conducted a formative experiment of how Internet Reciprocal Teaching might help
to accomplish its pedagogical goals. For example, we investigated, the use of (1) leveled
Jeopardy-style blog challenges to evaluate seventh graders’ online reading proficiency
while studying biographies; (2) a mystery e-mail challenge that integrated samples of
descriptive writing and personal letters to evaluate the development of new literacy strat-
egies as part of a unit on narrative writing; (3) a Wikipedia activity that challenges stu-
dents to share with a worldwide audience information they researched about respira-
tory scientists; (4) an informational website challenge designed to prompt prediction and
inferential reasoning skills as part of an interdisciplinary unit on the Holocaust; and (5)
an interactive blog discussion that assesses seventh-­grade students’ ability to share criti-
cal evaluation strategies they used to determine which informational websites are reliable
and unreliable. In each case, observational data and feedback from students and teachers
suggest that informal measures of online reading comprehension can be effectively inte-
grated into authentic classroom literacy activities and aligned to grade-level objectives in
reading, language arts, and content-­area curricula.

Performance‑Based Assessments of Online Research and Comprehension Ability

A third type of instrument that has demonstrated validity and reliability in estimating
online research and reading performance among adolescent readers is called the Online
Research and Comprehension Assessment (ORCA). In our work, we have developed
several ORCA instruments that invite students to solve a series of online information
requests about middle school curriculum-­related topics (Coiro & Kennedy, 2011; also see
the ORCA Project at www.orca.uconn.edu/orca-­project/project-­overview). Data from
Leu et al. (2015) provide evidence that the ORCA instruments have the ability to measure
online research and reading proficiency and the potential to evaluate classroom instruc-
tion for increasing online research and comprehension over time.
In the Leu et al. (2015) study, ORCA instruments were administered in two school
districts (one economically advantaged and the other economically challenged; N = 256)
using a simulation of the Internet developed to assess online research and comprehension
skills. Seventh graders completed two tasks that evaluated four skill areas (locate, evalu-
ate, synthesize, and communicate) and two knowledge domains in science. Students also
completed an assessment of prior domain knowledge and a short Internet use question-
naire. Standardized state reading and writing test scores served as measures of offline
The New Literacies of Online Research and Comprehension 335

literacy skills. Results indicated that there is a significant achievement gap favoring the
economically advantaged students in offline reading scores, offline writing scores, and
online research and comprehension scores, and that economically advantaged students
have greater access to the Internet at home and are required to use the Internet more in
school. This suggests that a separate and independent achievement gap existed for online
reading based on income inequality (see also Henry, 2009). Current estimates of this gap,
which rely solely on measures of offline reading, may underrepresent the true nature of
the U.S. reading achievement gap in an online age.

Objective Measures of Online Reading Comprehension Ability

A final category of measures involves the use of multiple-­choice and short-­answer items to
estimate a student’s level of online research and reading comprehension ability. Although
we believe there are several limitations to estimating online reading proficiency with a set
of isolated multiple-­choice items, it would be useful to have valid instruments that require
less time to administer and to score than performance-­based ORCA assessments. Initial
efforts to measure online reading comprehension from a new literacies perspective with
isolated skills items (Carter & Henry, 2006), as opposed to a series of scenario-­based
tasks, have demonstrated the potential for future work in this area. Henry (2007) revised
this instrument to develop the Digital Divide Measurement Scale for Students (DDMS‑S),
which includes 14 forced-­response items that measure reading to locate and reading to
critically evaluate online information. The items, which proved to be both statistically
valid and reliable among scores of 1,768 middle school students, provided an objective
alternative to a rubric scoring system for estimating skills in online location and critical
evaluation.
Given the promising results of Henry’s (2007) work, we have explored developing
a series of parallel, multiple-­choice items to be used in a repeated-­measures design to
capture and track growth in online research and reading comprehension ability at five
particular points over the course of a 20-week intervention. By collecting data with par-
allel objective items across five points in time in conjunction with the pre- and posttest
estimates of online research and reading comprehension proficiency, we will then have
the ability to examine more closely the relationship between scores across the two types
of instruments; to compare possible gains and losses associated with each assessment;
and to consider the relative utility of each as a valid way of evaluating the potential of
Internet Reciprocal Teaching to improve online research and reading achievement.
As this chapter suggests, a new and ambitious agenda of online research and read-
ing comprehension research is underway. That agenda will entail vigilant attention to
the changing nature of comprehension, comprehension instruction, and comprehension
assessment, as well as a formative mindset for the redesign of approaches migrating to
online contexts.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. What aspects define the new literacies of online research and comprehension?
2. What are the similarities and differences between Reciprocal Teaching and Internet Reciprocal
Teaching?
3. What knowledge, skills, and dispositions should be kept in mind when assessing online research and
comprehension?
336 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

Acknowledgments

Portions of this material are based on work supported by the Institute for Education Sciences
and the U.S. Department of Education under Award Nos. R305G050154 and R305A090608,
the North Central Regional Educational Lab/Learning Point Associates, and the Carnegie Cor-
poration of New York. Opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the position of either the U.S. Department of Education, the North Central
Regional Educational Lab, or the Carnegie Corporation of New York. In addition to work by the
authors, important contributions were made by members of the New Literacies Research Lab:
Lisa ­Zawilinski, Ian O’Byrne, J. Greg McVerry, Erica “Ricki” Ginsberg, Mary Truxaw, and Mark
Olson; and the Internet Reading Comprehension Research Team at Clemson University: David
Reinking, Amy Hutchison, Jacqueline Malloy, Kathy Robbins, Angela Rogers, and Jamie Colwell.

References

Afflerbach, P. (2002). The use of think-aloud protocols and verbal reports as research methodol-
ogy. In M. Kamil (Ed.), Methods of literacy research (pp. 87–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Alfassi, M. (1998). Reading for meaning: The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering reading
comprehension in high school students in remedial reading classes. American Educational
Research Journal, 35, 309–332.
Brand-­Gruwel, S., Aarnoutse, C., & Van Den Bos, K. P. (1997). Improving text comprehension
strategies in reading and listening settings. Learning and Instruction, 8, 63–81.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided cooperative learning and individual knowledge
acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Cognition and instruction: Issues and agendas (pp. 393–
451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carter, A., & Henry, L. A. (2006). A survey of Internet usage and online reading: In-­school and
out-of-­school settings. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Con-
ference, Los Angeles, CA.
Castek, J. (2008). How do 4th and 5th grade students acquire the new literacies of online reading
comprehension?: Exploring the contexts that facilitate learning. Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
Castek, J., Leu, D. J., Jr., Coiro, J., Gort, M., Henry, L. A., & Lima, C. (2008). Developing new lit-
eracies among multilingual learners in the elementary grades. In L. Parker (Ed.), Technology-­
mediated learning environments for young English learners: Connections in and out of
school (pp. 111–153). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Castek, J., & Reinking, D. (2006, December). Working with teachers in a formative experiment.
In D. J. Leu, Jr. (Chair), Studying the new literacies of online reading comprehension among
adolescents at risk to become dropouts. An alternative symposium session presented at the
National Reading Conference, Los Angeles, CA.
Castek, J., Zawilinski, L., McVerry, J. G., O’Byrne, W. I., & Leu, D. J. (2011). The new literacies
of online reading comprehension: New opportunities and challenges for students with learn-
ing difficulties. In C. Wyatt-Smith, J. Elkins, & S. Gunn (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on
difficulties in learning literacy and numeracy (pp. 91–110). New York: Springer.
Coiro, J. (2007). Exploring changes to reading comprehension on the Internet: Paradoxes and
possibilities for diverse adolescent readers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Available online at http://newliteracies.uconn.edu/publications.
Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Quinn, D. (in press). Personal inquiry and online research: Connecting
learners in ways that matter. The Reading Teacher.
Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled
readers as they search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quar-
terly, 42, 214–257.
Coiro, J., & Kennedy, C. (2011). Preparing students for common core standards and 21st century
The New Literacies of Online Research and Comprehension 337

literacies: The Online Reading Comprehension Assessment (ORCA) Project: Unpublished

manuscript, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI. Retrieved from www.orca.uconn.edu/
research/research-­reports.
Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (2008). Central issues in new literacies and new
literacies research . In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), The handbook
of research on new literacies (pp. 1–22). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coiro, J., Malloy, J., & Rogers, A. (2006). Patterns of effective strategy use among adolescent
readers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Los
Angeles, CA.
Cooper, J. D., Boschken, I., McWilliams, J., & Pistochini, L. (2000). A study of the effectiveness
of an intervention program designed to accelerate reading for struggling readers in the upper
grades. In T. Shanahan & F. V. Rodriguez-­Brown (Eds.), 49th yearbook of the National
Reading Conference (pp. 477–486). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies. London: Routledge.
De Corte, E., Vershaffel, L., & Van De Ven, A. (2001). Improving text comprehension strategies in
upper primary school children: A design experiment. British Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 71, 531–559.
Dunleavy, M., Dexter, S., & Heinecke, W. F. (2007). What added value does a 1:1 student to
laptop ratio bring to technology-­supported teaching and learning? Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 23, 440–452.
Fallows, D. (2005). Search engine users (Pew/Internet & American Life Project). Retrieved Octo-
ber 4, 2014, from www.pewinternet.org/2005/01/23/search-­e ngine-­users.
Fung, I. Y., Wilkinson, I., & Moore, D. W. (2003). L1-assisted reciprocal teaching to improve ESL
students’ comprehension of English expository text. Learning and Instruction, 13, 1–31.
Gee, J. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Pal-
grave.
Hacker, D. J., & Tenent, A. (2002). Implementing reciprocal teaching in the classroom: Overcom-
ing obstacles and making modifications. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 699–718.
Hartman, D. K., Leu, D. J., Olson, M. R., & Truxaw, M. P. (2005). Reading and writing to learn
with the “new literacies”: Preparing a new generation of teachers and researchers to develop
literate American adolescents. New York: Adolescent Literacy Preservice Initiative, Carnegie
Corporation of New York.
Henry, L. A. (2006). SEARCHing for an answer: The critical role of new literacies while reading
on the Internet. The Reading Teacher, 59, 614–627.
Henry, L. A. (2007). Exploring new literacies pedagogy and online reading comprehension among
middle school students and teachers: Issues of social equity or social exclusion? Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
Henry, L. A. (2009). Unpacking social inequalities: Lack of technology integration may impede
the development of multiliteracies among middle school students in the United States. In D.
L. Pullen, M. Baguley, & C. Gitasaki (Eds.), Technoliteracy, discourse and social practice:
Frameworks and applications in the digital age. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Henry, L. A., Castek, J., Zawilinski, L., & O’Byrne, I. (2012). Using peer collaboration to support
online reading, writing, and communication: An empowerment model for struggling readers.
Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 28, 279–306.
Henry, L. A., & Lima, C. O. (2012). Promoting global citizenship by intercultural exchange
through the use of technology: The Travel Buddies Project. In K. St. Amant & S. Kelsey
(Eds.), Computer-­mediated communication across cultures: International interactions in
online environments (pp. 100–119). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Hull, G., & Schultz, K. (Eds.). (2002). School’s out!: Bridging out-of-­school literacies with class-
room practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Kress, G. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. South Yarra,
Australia: Macmillan.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
338 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). New literacies (2nd ed.). Maidenhead, UK: Open University
Press.
Leu, D. J., & Castek, J. (2006). What online reading comprehension skills and strategies are
characteristic of more accomplished adolescent users of the Internet? Poster presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Leu, D. J., Castek, J., Hartman, D., Coiro, J., Henry, L., Kulikowich, J., et al. (2005). Evalu-
ating the development of scientific knowledge and new forms of reading comprehension
during online learning (Final report presented to the North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory/Learning Point Associates). Available online at http://homepages.uconn.
edu/~jmc03014/FinalNCRELReport.pdf.
Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Rhoads, C., Maykel, C., Kennedy, C., & Timbrell, N. (2015). The new
literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap.
Reading Research Quarterly, 50(1), 1–23. Newark, DE: International Literacy Association.
Available at: http://www.edweek.org/media/leu%20online%20reading%20study.pdf.
Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2013). New Literacies: A dual level
theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In N. Unrau & D.
Alvermann (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 1150–1181).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Leu, D. J., Jr., Leu, D. D., & Coiro, J. (2004). Teaching with the Internet: New literacies for new
times (4th ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-­G ordon.
Leu, D. J., & Reinking, D. (2005). Developing Internet comprehension strategies among adoles-
cent students at risk to become dropouts. Available online at http://webdev.education.uconn.
edu/static/sites/newliteracies/iesproject.
Leu, D. J., Reinking, D., Carter, A., Castek, J., Coiro, J., Henry, L. A., et al. (2007, April 9). Defin-
ing online reading comprehension: Using think aloud verbal protocols to refine a prelimi-
nary model of Internet reading comprehension processes. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
New Literacies Research Team. (2005). A methodology for studying the new literacies of online
reading comprehension. National Reading Conference. Miami, FL.
New Literacies Research Team. (2007). New literacies, new challenges, and new opportunities. In
M. B. Sampson, S. Szabo, F. Falk-Ross, M. M. Foote, & P. E. Linder (Eds.), Multiple litera-
cies in the 21st century: The twenty-­eighth yearbook of the College Reading Association
(pp. 31–50). Logan, UT: College Reading Association.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard
Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.
Palincsar, A. S. (1986a). Metacognitive strategy instruction. Exceptional Children, 53, 118–124.
Palincsar, A. S. (1986b). Reciprocal teaching. In Teaching reading as thinking. Oak Brook, IL:
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-­fostering and
comprehension-­monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering literacy learning in supportive contexts. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 25, 211–225, 229.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2006). Are they really ready for work?: Employers’ perspec-
tives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century U.S.
workforce (Report written in collaboration with The Conference Board, Corporate Voices
for Working Families, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, and the Society for Human
Resource Management). Available online at www.p21.org/storage/documents/FINAL_
REPORT_PDF09-29-06.pdf.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols for reading: The nature of constructively
responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. A. (2004). Connecting research and practice using formative and
design experiments. In N. Duke & M. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies
(pp. 149–169). New York: Guilford Press.
The New Literacies of Online Research and Comprehension 339

Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. A. (2008). On formative and design experiments. New York: Teach-
ers College Press.
Riley, T. B. (2003, August 4). An overview of the knowledge economy. The Information Daily
(formerly eGov Monitor). Available online at www.egovmonitor.com/features/riley07.html.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of
Educational Research, 64, 479–530.
Spiro, R. J., DeSchryver, M., Schira Hagerman, M., Morsink, P. M., & Thompson, P. (2015).
Reading at a crossroads?: Disjunctures and continuities in current conceptions and prac-
tices. New York: Routledge Press.
Street, B. (1998). New literacies in theory and practice: What are the implications for language in
education? Linguistics and Education, 10(1), 1–24.
Taboada, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2006). Contributions of student questioning and prior knowledge
to construction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research,
38, 1–35.
Zucker, A. (2004). Developing a research agenda for ubiquitous computing in schools. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 30, 371–386.
340 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

APPENDIX 23.1. TICA Basic Skills (Phase 1) Checklist

Most of the students and all of the groups in my class know how to:

Computer Basics Comment

††Turn a computer on/off
††Use the mouse/track pad
††Follow classroom and school rules for computer use
††Open programs and files using icons and/or the Start Menu (PC)
††Log on and log off from individual file space
††Create/open a new folder/file
††Launch a word processor
††Open a word processing file
††Type a short entry in a word processing file
††Copy text
††Cut text
††Paste text
††Delete text
††Name a word processing file and save it
††Open a new window
††Open a new tab
Web Searching Basics Comment
††Locate and open a search engine
††Type key words in the correct location of a search engine
††Type addresses in the address window
††Use the refresh button
††Use the “BACK” and “FORWARD” buttons
††Use a search engine for simple key word searches
General Navigation Basics Comment
††Maximize/minimize windows
††Open and quit applications
††Toggle between windows
E-Mail Basics Comment
††Locate and open an e-mail program
††Attach documents to e-mail messages
††Compose, edit and send e-mail messages
††Receive and reply to messages

Note. These skills and strategies inform and guide instruction during Phase 1, but they are not intended to limit
instruction. New skill and strategy needs will emerge within each classroom. Each teacher must respond to
(and document) those addition skill and strategy needs during the year. When most students and all groups can
accomplish items on this list, the move to Phase 2 will take place.
The New Literacies of Online Research and Comprehension 341

APPENDIX 23.2. TICA Phase 2 Checklist

Most of the students and all of the groups in my class know how to:

Lesson Evidence
Understand and Develop Questions and Comments
Teacher-Generated Questions
 Use strategies to ensure initial understanding of the question such
as:
• Rereading the question to make sure they understand it.
• Paraphrasing the question.
• Taking notes on the question.
• Thinking about the needs of the person who asked the
question.
 Use strategies to monitor an understanding of the question such as:
• Knowing when to review the question.
• Checking an answer in relation to the question to ensure it is
complete.
Student-Generated Questions
 Determine what a useful initial question is, based on a variety of
factors that include interest, audience, purpose, and the nature of
the inquiry activity.
 Determine a clear topic and focus for questions to guide the search
for information.
 Modify questions, when appropriate, using strategies such as the
following:
• Narrowing the focus of the question.
• Expanding the focus of the question.
• Developing a new or revised question that is more appropriate
after gathering information.
Lesson Evidence
Locate Information and Comments
Locating Information by Using a Search Engine and Its Results Page
 Locate at least one search engine.
 Use key words in a search window on a browser that has this or on
a separate search engine.
 Use several of the following general search engine strategies during
key word entry:
• Topic and focus
• Single and multiple key word entries
• Phrases for key word entry
 Use several of the following more specialized search engine
strategies during key word entry:
• Quotation marks
• Paraphrases and synonyms
• Boolean operators used to combine or exclude keywords in a
search (AND, OR, NOT, or AND NOT)
• Advanced search tool use
342 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

 Copy and paste keywords and phases into the search engine
window while searching for information.
 Read search engine results effectively to determine the most useful
resource for a task using strategies such as:
• Knowing which portions of a search results page are
sponsored, containing commercially placed links, and which
are not.
• Skimming the main results before reading more narrowly.
• Reading summaries carefully and inferring meaning in the
search engine results page to determine the best possible site
to visit.
• Understanding the meaning of boldface terms in the results.
• Understanding the meaning of URLs in search results (.com,
.org, .edu, .net)
• Knowing when the first item is not the best item for a
question.
• Monitoring the extent to which a search results page matches
the information needs.
• Knowing how to use the history pull-down menu.
 Monitor the multiple aspects of search engine use and make
appropriate revisions and changes throughout the process.
 Select from a variety of search engine strategies to locate useful
resources when an initial search is unsuccessful:
• Knows the use and meaning of the “Did you mean . . . ?”
feature in Google.
• Adjusts search engine key words according to the results of a
search.
• Narrows the search.
• Expands the search.
• Reads search results to discover the correct vocabulary, then
use this more appropriate vocabulary in a new search.
• Shifts to another search engine.
 Bookmark a site and access it later.
 Use specialized search engines for images, videos, and other media
sources.
Locating Information within a Website
 Quickly determine if a site is potentially useful and worth more
careful reading.
 Read more carefully at a site to determine if the required
information is located there.
 Predict information behind a link accurately to make efficient
choices about where information is located.
 Use structural knowledge of a webpage to help locate information,
including the use of directories.
 Recognize when you have left a site and know how to return to the
original site.
 Know how to open a second browser window to locate information,
without losing the initial webpage.
The New Literacies of Online Research and Comprehension 343

 Know how to use an internal search engine to locate information at

a site.
 Monitor the reading of a webpage and know when it contains useful
information and when it does not.
Lesson Evidence
Critically Evaluate Information and Comments
Bias and Stance
 Identify, evaluate, and recognize that all websites have an agenda,
perspective, or bias.
 Identify and evaluate bias, given a website with a clear bias.
 Identify and evaluate the author of a website whenever visiting an
important new site.
 Use information about the author of a site to evaluate how
information will be biased at that site.
Reliability
 Investigate multiple sources to compare and contrast the reliability
of information.
 Identify several markers that may affect reliability, such as:
• Is this a commercial site?
• Is the author an authoritative source (professor, scientist,
librarian, etc.)?
• Does the website have links that are broken?
• Does the information make sense?
• Does the author include links to other reliable websites?
• Does the website contain numerous typos?
• Does the URL provide any clues to reliability?
• Do the images or videos appear to be altered?
 Understand that Wikipedia is a reasonable, but imperfect, portal of
information.
 Identify the general purpose of a website (entertainment,
educational, commercial, persuasive, exchange of information,
social, etc.).
 Identify the form of a website (e.g., blog, forum, advertisement,
informational website, commercial website, government website)
and use this information when considering reliability.
Accuracy
 Evaluate information based on the degree to which it is likely to be
accurate by verifying and consulting alternative and/or especially
reliable sources.
Lesson Evidence
Synthesize Information and Comments
 Understand both the specific information related to the task and
the broader context within which that information is located.
 Synthesize information from multiple media sources, including
written prose, audio, visual, video, and/or tables and graphs.
344 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

 Separate relevant information from irrelevant information.

 Organize information effectively.
 Manage multiple sources both on and offline, including:
• Choose tools to meet the needs of managing information (file
folders, electronic file folders, notebooks, e-mail, etc.).
• Cite sources.
• Take notes with paper and pencil, when appropriate.
• Take notes with a word processor, when appropriate.
• Type notes using shortcut strokes such as highlight/cut/copy/
paste.
Lesson Evidence
Communicate Information and Comments
 Understand that messages have consequences and will influence
how others react.
 Use a variety of offline writing/editing tools (word processor, spell
checker, dictionary, thesaurus, pdf, etc.).
 Copy/paste text or URL to use in the message.
 Know how to use e-mail, including attaching and downloading
attachments, logging in, sending messages, opening messages.
 Know how to use text messaging and instant messaging.
 Know how to use blogs, including reading and posting information.
 Monitor communication of information for audience or voice (i.e.,
formal vs. informal writing styles).
 Uses a wide array of Internet-based forms of communication, such
as:
• E-mail and attachments
• Blogs
• Wikis
• Google Docs
• Instant messaging
• Websites
• Presentation software
 Is aware of the audience and the relationship between audience,
purpose, medium, message.
 Knows how to include multiple-media sources within messages.
 Uses formatting such as headings and subheadings to communicate
the organization of information within informational text.
 Chapter 24

Reading Digital
Teaching and Learning
with eBooks and Digital Text

Bridget Dalton and David Rose

An eBook is like a garden, carried on your mobile device.

—Bridget Dalton (update of a Chinese proverb)

W e live, work, and play in a digital world using our computers, cell phones, tablets,
and eReader devices. We read books in print and digital formats, on- and offline.
We read texts that rely on written language (verbal) and we read, view, and interact
with etexts that are predominantly visual in nature, communicating through multiple
modes—image, sound, movement, and words—and in nonlinear, interactive hypertext
formats. Although reading print-based materials will remain an important aspect of
being literate for decades to come, there is no doubt that the landscape of reading is
undergoing a seismic change.
In the United States, the Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010; www.
corestandards.org) offers a vision of the successful 21st-­century learner as one who is
able to read and evaluate text critically in print and digital multimodal formats. There is
the expectation that we will prepare K–12 students to be successful readers, composers,
and designers of meaning, even while technology, media, and literacy practices are in a
state of constant innovation and change. Clearly, teaching students how to “read digital,”
and especially for academic learning purposes, is an instructional priority. This means it
is also a priority to support teachers in successfully integrating digital literacies as part
of classroom learning. In this revision of our 2008 chapter in the previous edition of this
volume, we focus on reading for understanding with etext and highlight the following:

• Universal Design for Learning and the design of enhanced etexts.

• Teaching and learning practices with ebooks and etexts.

345
346 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

We offer recommendations for the selection and evaluation of ebooks/etext for stu-
dents with diverse learning needs and close with what we believe are top priorities for
teaching with etext.

Research from the 1990s to 2007

During this period, socio-­cognitive models of reading comprehension were influential

in providing a framework for thinking about how etext might be designed to support
readers, including students with reading difficulties and bilingual learners. For example,
the RAND Reading Study Group (RRSG; Snow, 2002) reading comprehension heuristic
describes understanding as an interactive, reciprocal relationship among reader, text,
and activity factors. It also acknowledges that comprehension of a specific text is situ-
ated within a particular sociocultural context, a premise that is taken up much more
strongly in sociocultural models that emphasize literacy as practices that are historically
and socially constructed (Gee, 2012).
A reader who has a purpose for reading, relevant background knowledge, strategies
for monitoring and addressing potential confusions, and an adequate level of fluency for
the text being read is likely to read with understanding. Conversely, a reader who strug-
gles to decode, has undeveloped background knowledge and vocabulary, and/or limited
knowledge and use of monitoring strategies is likely to have difficulty comprehending.
For both of these readers, affect plays a key role in their reading process. Arguing with a
parent, feeling anxious about an upcoming test, or a general feeling that reading is irrel-
evant for you and your peers might also impede comprehension.
From 1990 to 2007, researchers studied the effects of etexts enhanced with differ-
ent kinds of reading supports, such as hyperlinked glossary items, text-to-­speech (TTS)
read-aloud options, embedded questions and strategy prompts, and pedagogical agents
to model strategic reading processes (for reviews, see Dalton & Proctor, 2008; MacAr-
thur, Ferretti, Okolo, & Cavalier, 2001). Much of this work involved transforming the
text to reduce potential barriers to understanding. Considering again the RRSG reading
comprehension heuristic (Snow, 2002), the flexibility of digital text makes it possible to
design text with enhancements that potentially offer a more productive match among
reader, task, and activity factors, thereby expanding the reader’s capacity for understand-
ing (Dalton & Proctor, 2008).

Universal Design for Learning

It was also during this time that Universal Design for Learning (UDL) developed as an
influential framework to guide the design of learning environments (Rose & Meyer,
2002). UDL draws on research about how the brain learns to offer three design principles:

1. To support diverse recognition networks, provide multiple means of representation.

2. To support diverse strategic networks, provide multiple means of action and
expression.
3. To support diverse affective networks, provide multiple means of engagement (to
learn more about UDL, visit www.cast.org).

At its heart, UDL champions diversity, arguing that society, as well as individual
learners, benefit from curriculum, instruction, and assessments that are built to be
responsive to the full range of differences present in any group of students.
Reading Digital 347

In applying UDL principles to the design of etext, multiple means of representation

might include multimedia vocabulary links or language translation; multiple means of
expression might include reading strategy prompts and options to audio-­record, write, or
draw responses to text; and multiple means of engagement might include choice of text
and response options, varied levels of text difficulty, and so forth (Dalton & Rose, 2008).
In each case, the digital text has been designed to provide multiple pathways for learning
and engagement so that students with diverse needs and interests are able to access and
learn from text, including grade-level text. The latter is especially important given the
emphasis on learning from grade-level text in the Common Core State Standards Initia-
tive (2010).

Enhancing Etext with Decoding and Fluency Support

Comprehension depends on fluent reading; students who struggle to decode or who have
basic decoding skills but read slowly have a diminished capacity to read for meaning. A
series of studies has examined the effect of read-aloud functionality (either TTS tools or
digitized human voice) on students’ comprehension. In their review, Dalton and Strang-
man (2006) found the results to be variable, with some studies indicating no effect and
others showing a positive effect, including two studies in which students demonstrated
not only improved understanding of etexts but also improved comprehension without
audio-­narration (Aist & Mostow, 1997; Elbro, Rasmussen, & Spelling, 1996).
The strongest evidence was obtained with older students with reading difficulties
who were able to read with TTS over an extended period of time. For these adolescents
with reading difficulties, using TTS may have reduced a substantial gap between reading
and listening comprehension levels and given them access to grade-level text over a long
enough period that they were able to make reading improvements.

Enhancing Etext with Comprehension Supports

Several key studies during this period demonstrated the value of embedding multiple sup-
ports for comprehension within a digital text, such as vocabulary definitions, additional
background information, highlighting of main ideas and critical information, and read-
ing strategy prompts and models (Anderson-­Inman & Horney, 1998; Higgins, Boone,
& Lovitt, 1996; MacArthur & Haynes, 1995; Salomon, Globerson, & Guterman, 1989;
Reinking, 1988; Reinking & Schreiner, 1985). Typically, these etexts were based on
print-based stories and textbooks that were transformed into digital texts with embed-
ded supports.
The Thinking Reader project (Dalton, Pisha, Eagleton, Coyne, & Deysher, 2002) is
of particular interest because of its application of UDL principles and the well-­validated
Reciprocal Teaching strategy instruction approach (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) to the
design of ebook versions of award-­winning novels. Furthermore, this research prototype
provided the foundation for the Thinking Reader novels published by Tom Snyder Pro-
ductions, Scholastic, Inc. (2004). The enhanced ebooks offered a TTS tool that allowed
students to click on a word, phrase, or passage and have it read aloud, multimedia glos-
sary hyperlinks, and embedded strategy instruction. In addition to the four reciprocal
teaching strategies of predict, question, clarify, and summarize, we added visualization
(Pressley, 2006) and a feeling response option to encourage students to make a personal
connection to the text (Rosenblatt, 1978). As students read the etext, they were peri-
odically prompted to stop and apply a strategy. They could click on a pedagogical agent
to hear a hint or see a model response, and then entered their responses in writing or
348 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

audio-­recording and saved it to an electronic work log that could be viewed at any time
by the student and teacher.
In a quasi-­experimental study with 102 middle school struggling readers, students
reading the enhanced ebook novels demonstrated significantly greater gains in compre-
hension on the Gates–MacGinitie Reading Achievement Test, after controlling for gen-
der, than did their peers in the traditional reciprocal teaching group (Dalton et al., 2002).
The effect size was moderate, equating to approximately half a grade level of reading
achievement gain. The Thinking Reader project was followed by three studies demon-
strating the positive impact of universally designed enhanced ebooks on comprehension
for middle school students who are deaf or hard of hearing (Dalton, Schleper, Kennedy,
Lutz, & Strangman, 2005) and for urban middle school students who are typically
achieving readers (Dalton, Pisha, Poniatowski, Concha, & Robinson, 2007). However,
in the latter study, the struggling readers group gained more from print-based strategy
instruction. This finding is somewhat puzzling and may have been due in part to the
design, where teachers served as their own controls (they reported feeling in competition
with the computer), or it may be that the struggling readers in the control group received
more individualized feedback from their teacher.
In a third development study, we expanded the ebook supports to include interactive
vocabulary and Spanish-­language supports for fourth-­grade bilingual students (Proctor,
Dalton & Grisham, 2007). Correlation analyses of pre- and posttest standardized read-
ing vocabulary gain scores revealed that vocabulary gain was associated, though not
significantly, with the frequency of access of hyperlinked glossary items throughout the
intervention, and that lower pretest vocabulary knowledge was associated with positive
vocabulary gains. A similar pattern was detected for comprehension gains, which were
significantly associated with the frequency of access of coaching avatars that provided
support around the productive use of reading comprehension strategies.
Two other lines of research during this period took a similar tack in applying a
comprehension strategy that had proven very successful with print texts to the reading
of digital texts in an interactive learning environment. McNamara (2007; McNamara,
O’Reilly, Best, & Ozuru, 2006) created and tested an intelligent tutoring system, iStart,
with positive results. Students learned key reading strategies and inferencing as they inter-
acted with pedagogical agents who modeled their thinking process and provided ongoing
feedback. Meyer and Wijekumar (2007) applied Meyer’s extensive research on the struc-
ture comprehension strategy to the design of an intelligent tutoring program that taught
students to apply the structure strategy to short texts through a series of leveled lessons
with pedagogical agents and feedback. The results of these two intelligent tutoring read-
ing programs for secondary students yielded strong positive gains in comprehension.

Research from 2008 to 2014

An Update on UDL
UDL theory, practices, and technologies have developed over the last decade. The National
Education Technology Plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) offered UDL as a
promising framework for integrating technology to benefit all students, and especially
those who have been underserved and are at risk for school failure. In 2014, Meyer, Rose,
and Gordon released a new version of their 2002 book on UDL that highlights key devel-
opments in the field (a free version of this text is available online at cast.org). Three UDL
developments are particularly relevant to our thinking about how to design ebooks to
Reading Digital 349

enhance comprehension. First, variability is the “new normal.” UDL initially emphasized
individual differences. As Meyer et al. explain, recent neuroscience research suggests that
differences are predictable and variability is distributed across individuals. Thus, etext
could be designed to offer a range of supports that will address the variability present in
a range of readers, with options to customize at the individual level. Second, the situated
nature of learning is emphasized. Reading a text is not solely a reader–­text interaction.
Instead, understanding is mediated by the larger learning environment and developed as
part of a social community. This suggests the potential of designing etext features that
support socially constructed practices of understanding and interpreting text and media.
Finally, affect is positioned even more strongly in relation to learning, with a focus on
the interdependence of affect and cognition that is based on recent neuroscience research
showing how social-­emotional experiences change brain structure and function. It is tell-
ing that Rose and Meyer (2002) now position the UDL principle “provide multiple means
of engagement” as first in their list of principles. With regard to etext design, building
in supports and practices that promote learner self-­efficacy and allow students to follow
interests in selecting and using texts may potentially improve comprehension.

Ebook/Etext Reading
The last several years have seen an explosion in reading ebooks on mobile devices such
as iPads and other tablets, Kindles, Nooks, and even cell phones, as well as continued
digital reading on desktop and laptop computers. Digital reading is happening in and
out of school, with many districts moving from a reliance on print textbooks to digital
textbooks and curriculum. The Digital Textbook Collaborative (2012) offers a vision for
designing and integrating etexts that take advantage of Internet connectivity, provide
interactive and personalized content, include video and games, encourage collaboration
and reflection, provide feedback, and are intellectually rich, supported, and engaging to
the full range of learners in today’s classrooms. Furthermore, well-­designed etext should
also support students’ self-­assessment and teachers’ formative evaluation, so that data are
used in an ongoing manner to improve learning and teaching processes.
Since 2007, there have been important advances in research on etext/ebook read-
ing, including studies of researcher-­designed ebooks that draw on literacy theory and
evidence-­based practice, studies of reading with commercially available ebooks, and
studies of reading on the Internet, typically in service of inquiry-­based learning. Across
these studies, it is clear that we are making progress in understanding how to design
etext, as well as the various ways that readers interact with and use these etexts for a
variety of purposes. We highlight key findings in the following section.

Ebooks and Young Children

There is a growing body of work investigating young children’s interactive reading with
ebooks in school and at home. Studies with researcher-­designed ebooks that embed audio­
narration support for word reading and passage listening, multimedia vocabulary sup-
port, and question–­response options have been shown to have positive effects on young
children’s language and literacy development (Shamir & Korat, 2008; Verhallen & Bus,
2010). Repeated readings of etext can further heighten the positive effects on vocabulary,
phonological awareness, and word reading (Korat & Blau, 2010), while embedding ques-
tions with feedback that require the reader to exert more effort in processing the text also
increases the impact on vocabulary knowledge (Smeets & Bus, 2012).
350 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

Studies of commercially available ebooks have highlighted the need for “consider-
ate” ebooks, an issue first raised by Labbo and Kuhn (2000), who found that ebook
enhancements that either contradicted or were irrelevant to the story line impaired chil-
dren’s comprehension. For example, clicking an illustration hotspot to see flowers dance
is not particularly useful if the flowers don’t dance in the story. In contrast, clicking on a
bumble bee and watching how it gathers pollen might be a very useful comprehension aid
in a text about flowers. The detrimental comprehension effect of irrelevant enhancements
has been found across PreK to grade 5 (for a review, see Zucker, Moody, & McKenna,
2009). A recent study examining parent–­child reading of basic ebooks with audionarra-
tion, word highlighting, and sounding out word features found that parents and children
engaged in conversations similar to those with print books (Chiong, Ree, Takeuchi, &
Erickson, 2012). However, when reading enhanced ebooks that also included anima-
tions, games, and videos, the conversation shifted to focus less on story content and
resulted in less recall of story details. The authors offered the caveat to which we should
pay attention given the importance of affect in learning. Although the enhanced ebooks
served to distract readers from story content, they also heightened readers’ engagement
with the text, suggesting that animations, games, and videos in and of themselves are not
detrimental, but they need to be designed to support both engagement and understand-
ing.
An important aspect of becoming a digital reader is learning how to use strategically
the tools provided in an ereading device such as a Kindle or Nook. Larson’s (2010) study
of two second-­grade girls reading a chapter book on their Kindles demonstrated how
these young readers were able to use the read-aloud tool and dictionary independently to
help them with unfamiliar vocabulary, and responded to the story with the notes tool,
making connections, retelling, asking questions, and so forth. Again, to highlight the
affective effect of digital reading on some children, the child who reported disliking read-
ing at the beginning of the study moved to being highly engaged and more confident in
reading.

Universally Designed Ebooks

Research on universally designed ebooks has continued to advance, with several studies
showing positive effects on comprehension and vocabulary. Enhanced ebook supports
range from digital picture books embedded with decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and com-
prehension supports for young children with significant cognitive disabilities (Coyne,
Pisha, Dalton, Zeph, & Cook Smith, 2012) to science texts enhanced with interactive
diagrams and pedagogical agent support (Dalton & Palincsar, 2013). The potential to
support bilingual learners’ comprehension and vocabulary development with universally
designed folktales that offered Spanish-­language translations, interactive vocabulary,
reading strategy supports, and TTS was further demonstrated in fifth-grade classrooms
(Dalton, Proctor, Uccelli, Mo, & Snow, 2011; Proctor et al., 2011). Adding progress
monitoring as an ebook enhancement has resulted in improved comprehension for ado-
lescents (Hall, Cohen, Vue, & Ganley, 2014).
In contrast to these studies reporting positive results, a randomized controlled trial
of the effect of Thinking Reader on middle school students’ comprehension showed no
differences between control and comparison groups (Drummond et al., 2011), suggesting
the need for more research on the design and use of enhanced ebooks in classrooms. In one
of the few studies to focus on UDL and affect, Rose, Hasselbring, Rappolt-­Schlichtmann,
and Daley (2014) and colleagues are currently investigating the role of reader interest,
Reading Digital 351

providing students, many of whom are reading below grade level, with wide access to
ebooks and digital text of their own choosing.

Summary and Recommendations
That Was Then . . . This Is Now
It used to be that once a particular reading comprehension strategy was developed and
validated across multiple research studies, we could apply it across texts, with some cus-
tomization for genre and age of the reader. Visualizing a scene from The Giver novel
was not that different from visualizing a scene from The Magic School Bus book: Both
required the reader to integrate the information in the text (written text, graphics) with
his or her prior knowledge, beliefs, and values to construct a new understanding or
insight. That was then.
Today, students read ebooks and etexts enhanced with tools and features to develop
decoding, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and engagement. The research thus far
generally shows the positive effects of ebooks/etexts on students’ literacy (there are excep-
tions, of course). The specific ebook features and the ways they operate range widely.
Some supports are hidden; others are explicit. Some enhancements are well-­designed and
“considerate” of the reader, contributing to understanding; others are “inconsiderate,”
distracting from comprehension (for reviews, see Moran, Ferdig, Pearson, Wardrup, &
Blomeyer, 2008; Zucker et al., 2009). The one constant we know is that ebooks/etexts
will continue to evolve in concert with developments in technology, media, and online
social literacy practices. This is now.
So what’s a teacher to do in this time of Common Core State Standards and the
importance of reading complex text in print and multimodal formats? In our response
to this question, it will become obvious that we hold a positive disposition toward the
integration of ebooks and digital content, and believe that it will support the important
goal of making education more equitable for all students.

Select Well‑Designed Ebooks/Etexts

Integrating ebooks/etexts into the curriculum is a necessity. As outlined here, UDL prin-
ciples offer a general framework for evaluating the potential of specific ebooks/etexts for
your students. Additional UDL guidelines are freely available online (see www.cast.org).
In addition, Dobler (2013) offers a digital book evaluation rubric to guide your selec-
tion of quality ebooks (available online at http://literacybeat.com/2013/01/30/let-the-­
reader-­beware-­e valuating-­digital-­books), and the Digital Textbook Collaborative (2012)
offers suggestions for selection and integration of etexts in schools. For students who are
reading below grade level, it is an absolute priority to make grade-level texts available in
digital format with TTS support and hyperlinked vocabulary. This will ensure that they
have access to the general education curriculum (Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act Amendments, 1997) and can meet Common Core State Standards expectations that
all students engage with grade-level text.

Teach with and about Ebooks/Etexts

Some schools rely heavily on etext, whereas others rely on printed texts. Often, the read-
aloud and guided reading lessons are based on print books, with students assigned time
352 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

to read digital texts on a computer or tablet. Whatever the context, it is essential to teach
the new literacies of digital reading, in addition to helping students transfer and adapt
print-based conventions and strategies to ebooks. This involves introducing etext features
and enhancements, explaining the strengths and limitations of the features, modeling
how to use the features, and guiding students in how to vary their use strategically in
relation to their reading purpose, needs, and interests. In this age of “do it yourself,”
there are also multiple tools for teachers to develop and publish their own ebooks with
supports customized for their students (Dalton, 2014; try out CAST’s (2006) free UDL
Book Builder tool at http://bookbuilder.cast.org). Finally, students become better digital
readers when reading digital, multimodal text is connected with composing multimodal
text, just as they connect reading texts with writing.

Develop a Community of Digital Readers in Which Students Are Experts

Today, students are digital natives. Students who avoid picking up a book will often
immerse themselves in an interactive ebook on an iPad. Take advantage of students’
knowledge and engagement with technology and media, while also developing new digi-
tal literacies in school. Position students as experts on different devices, ebook genres,
and ways of interacting and learning in digital environments. Be explicit about the rapid
changes that are happening in the digital world and the importance of continually devel-
oping as digital readers. Share your own ebook experiences and inspire students to be
successful digital readers, too.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. How are you currently integrating ebooks and etext in your classroom? From a UDL perspective, how
might you use ebooks to support students with diverse reading needs and interests (e.g., struggling
readers, good readers who don’t enjoy reading, and avid readers who are reading advanced books)?
2. Research shows that “unfriendly” ebooks enhanced with distracting media can interfere with
comprehension, and “friendly” ebooks enhanced with relevant media and interactivity can improve
comprehension. Try reviewing some of the ebooks in your class collection (or perhaps ebooks you are
planning to purchase) and evaluate whether they are friendly or unfriendly texts. How will you teach
your students to take advantage of the embedded tools and supports?

Acknowledgments

Some of the universal design for learning ebook research was funded by the U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences and the Office of Special Education Programs through
grants to CAST, Inc. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views
of the Institute, Office of Special Education Programs, or the U.S. Department of Education. We
thank the school principals, teachers, and students for participating in this research.

References

Aist, G. S., & Mostow, J. (1997). Adapting human tutorial interventions for a reading tutor that
listens: Using continuous speech recognition in interactive educational multimedia. Paper
presented at the CALL Conference on Multimedia, Exeter, UK.
Reading Digital 353

Anderson-­I nman, L., & Horney, M. A. (1998). Transforming text for at-risk readers. In D. Reink-
ing & M. C. McKenna (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a
post-­t ypographic world (pp. 15–43). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
CAST, Inc. (2006). UDL BookBuilder [Free interactive book publishing program and online
library]. Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://bookbuilder.cast.org.
Chiong, C., Ree, J., Takeuchi, L., & Erickson, L. (2012,). Comparing parent–­child co-­reading on
print, basic, and enhanced e-book platforms. Retrieved from www.joanganzcooneycenter.
org/wp-­content/uploads/2012/07/jgcc_ebooks_quickreport.pdf.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Preparing America’s students for college and
careers. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org.
Coyne, P., Pisha B., Dalton, B., Zeph, L., & Cook Smith, N. (2012). Literacy by design: A univer-
sal design for learning approach for students with significant intellectual disabilities. Reme-
dial and Special Education, 33, 162–172.
Dalton, B. (2014). DIY e-Books: Designing enhanced Etexts. The Reading Teacher, 67(7), 543–
546.
Dalton, B., & Palincsar, A. (2013). Investigating text–­reader interactions in the context of sup-
ported etext. In R. Azevedo, & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition
and learning technologies (pp. 533–544). New York: Springer.
Dalton, B., Pisha, B., Eagleton, M., Coyne, P., & Deysher, S. (2002). Engaging the text: Recipro-
cal teaching and questioning strategies in a scaffolded learning environment (Final report to
the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs). Wakefield, MA:
CAST, Inc.
Dalton, B., Pisha, B., Poniatowski, L., Concha, S., & Robinson, K. (2007). Strategic learning
editions: Embedding flexible supports for learning comprehension strategies in digital text
(Final report to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs).
Wakefield, MA: CAST, Inc.
Dalton, B., & Proctor, C. P. (2008). The changing landscape of text and comprehension in the
age of new literacies. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of
research on new literacies (pp. 297–324). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dalton, B., Proctor, C. P., Uccelli, P., Mo, E., & Snow, C. E. (2011). Designing for diversity: The
role of reading strategies and interactive vocabulary in a digital reading environment for
5th grade monolingual English and bilingual students. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(1),
68–100.
Dalton, B., & Rose, D. (2008). Scaffolding digital reading comprehension. In C. C. Block & S. R.
Parris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-­based best practices (2nd ed., pp. 347–
361). New York: Guilford Press.
Dalton, B., Schleper, D., Kennedy, M., Lutz, L., & Strangman, N. (2005). A universally designed
digital strategic reading environment for adolescents who are deaf and hard of hearing (Final
Report to Gallaudet University Laurent Clerc Center). Wakefield, MA: CAST, Inc.
Dalton, B., & Strangman, N. (2006). Improving struggling readers’ comprehension through scaf-
folded hypertexts and other computer-­based literacy programs. In D. Reinking, M. C. McK-
enna, L. D. Labbo, & R. D. Keiffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology (2nd ed.,
pp. 75–92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Digital Textbook Collaborative. (2012). Digital textbook playbook [Guidebook]. Washington,
DC: Federal Trade Commission. Available online at www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/digital-­
textbook- ­playbook.
Dobler, E. (2013, January 30). Reader beware: Evaluating digital books [Web blog post]. Retrieved
from literacybeat.org.
Drummond, K., Chinen, M., Duncan, T. G., Miller, H. R., Fryer, L., Zmach, C., et al. (2011).
Impact of the Thinking Reader software program on grade 6 reading vocabulary, com-
prehension, strategies and motivation (NCEE 2010-4035 report). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
Elbro, C., Rasmussen, I., & Spelling, B. (1996). Teaching reading to disabled readers with language
354 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

disorders: A controlled evaluation of synthetic speech feedback. Scandivian Journal of Psy-

chology, 37, 140–155.
Gee, J. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (4th ed.). New York: Rout-
ledge.
Hall, T., Cohen, N., Vue, G., & Ganley, P. (2014). Addressing learning disabilities with UDLand
technology: Strategic Reader. Learning Disabilities Quarterly. Advance online publication.
Higgins, K., Boone, R., & Lovitt, T. (1996). Hypertext support for remedial students and students
with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 402–412.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments. (1997). Public Law 105-17, 20
U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. Available online at www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/idea/idea.pdf.
Korat, O., & Blau, H. (2010). Repeated reading of CD-ROM storybook as a support for emergent
literacy: A developmental perspective in two SES groups. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 43(4), 445–466.
Labbo, L. D., & Kuhn, M. R. (2000). Weaving chains of affect and cognition: A young child’s
understanding of CD-ROM talking books. Journal of Literacy Research, 32, 187–210.
Larson, L. (2010). Digital readers: The next chapter in e-book reading and response. The Reading
Teacher, 64(1), 15–22.
MacArthur, C. A., Ferretti, R. P., Okolo, C. M., & Cavalier, A. R. (2001). Technology appli-
cations for students with literacy problems: A critical review. Elementary School Journal,
101(3), 273–301.
MacArthur, C. A., & Haynes, J. B. (1995). Student Assistant for Learning from Text (SALT): A
hypermedia reading aid. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(3), 50–59.
McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and tech-
nologies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McNamara, D. S., O’Reilly, T., Best, R., & Ozuru, Y. (2006). Improving adolescent students’ read-
ing comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34, 147–171.
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal Design for Learning theory and practice.
Wakefield, MA: CAST, Inc. Available online at www.cast.org.
Meyer, B., & Wijekumar, K. (2007). A web-based tutoring system for the structure strategy: Theo-
retical background, design, and findings. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension
strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 347–374). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Moran, J., Ferdig, R. E., Pearson, P. D., Wardrup, J., & Blomeyer, R. L. (2008). Technology and
reading performance in the middle school grades: A meta-­analysis with recommendations for
policy and practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(1), 6–58.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-­fostering and
comprehension-­monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.).
New York: Guilford Press.
Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. L. (2007). Scaffolding English language learners and
struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction
and vocabulary support. Journal of Literacy Research, 39, 71–93.
Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., Uccelli, P., Biancarosa, G., Mo, E., Snow, C. E., et al. (2011). Improving
comprehension online: Effects of deep vocabulary instruction with bilingual and monolin-
gual fifth graders. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24(5), 517–544.
Reinking, D. (1988). Computer-­mediated text and comprehension differences: The role of read-
ing time, reader preference, and estimation of learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(4),
484–498.
Reinking, D., & Schreiner, R. (1985). The effects of computer-­mediated text on measures of read-
ing comprehension and reading behavior. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(5), 536–552.
Rose, D., Hasselbring, T., Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., & Daley, S. G. (2014). National Center on
Emerging Technologies to Improve Literacy Achievement for Students with Disabilities in
Middle School: Annual report to the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. Wakefield,
MA: CAST.
Reading Digital 355

Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for
learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Available online at www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary
work. New York: Appleton-­Century-­Crofts.
Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal develop-
ment: Internalizing reading-­related metacognitions from a reading partner. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 81(4), 620–627.
Shamir, O., & Korat, O. (2008). The educational electronic book as a tool for supporting chil-
dren’s emergent literacy. In A. G. Bus & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Multimedia and literacy devel-
opment: Improving achievement for young learners (pp. 168–181). New York: Taylor &
Francis Group.
Smeets, D. J. H., & Bus, A. G. (2012). Interactive electronic storybooks for kindergartners to pro-
mote vocabulary growth. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 112, 36–55.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in
reading comprehension. Pittsburgh, PA: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Available online at www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/mr1465.html.
Tom Snyder Productions, Scholastic, Inc. (2004). Thinking Reader [software program]. Cam-
bridge, MA: Scholastic.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by
technology. National Education Technology Plan. Office of Education Technology. Avail-
able online at www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010.
Verhallen, M. J. A., & Bus, A. G. (2010). Low-­income immigrant pupils learning vocabulary
through digital picture storybooks. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 54–61.
Zucker, T. A., Moody, A. J., & McKenna, M. C. (2009). The effects of electronic books on pre-­
kindergarten-­to-grade 5 students’ literacy and language outcomes: A research synthesis.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(1), 47–87.
 Chapter 25

Games and Comprehension

The Importance of Specialist Language

James Paul Gee

Words are of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind.

—Rudyard K ipling

T he argument in this chapter is as follows: Success in school requires children to com-

prehend the complex academic language found in the content areas in school (e.g.,
science, math, social studies). This, in turn, requires a good school-­based vocabulary
and familiarity with the syntactic and discourse features of such language. It is best to
get ready for these language demands early in life, at home, before coming to school and
to sustain home-based support for such academic language development thereafter. It
is difficult to develop a good school-­based vocabulary starting late, without such early
and ongoing home-based support (Gee, 2004). To remedy such a vocabulary problem
requires lots of reading—­which people with a poor vocabulary are often not motivated
to do—but, unfortunately, lots of reading, while important, is neither highly efficient
nor totally effective, by itself, as a way to learn vocabulary (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, &
Baker, 2001).
So what can we do? Decades of research show that we need to teach comprehension
strategies overtly in school from the early grades (Pressley, 2006). We need, as well, to
teach as much vocabulary as we can with the most effective methods (Pearson, Hiebert,
& Kamil, 2007). Both of these matters are covered elsewhere in this book. Here I suggest
an unorthodox third possible source of help: to learn from and even use popular culture
practices for literacy development. I concentrate here on video games and games that have
both face-to-face and video forms (Gee, 2007, 2013; Hawisher & Selfe, 2007). Similar
arguments could and have been made using other popular culture practices (e.g., fan fic-
tion writing; see Black, 2005, 2007).

356
Games and Comprehension 357

Types of Words

We can divide vocabulary into three types of words (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002).
First, there are “everyday,” “vernacular,” or “informal words” such as hot, nice, happy,
and so forth. Everyone knows such words as part of the process of becoming a native
speaker. Second, there are “technical words” such as generative in mathematics or lin-
guistics, mitochondria in biology, quark in physics, or power up in video gaming. Such
words are best learned as part of the process of learning the domains in which they are
technical terms. Third, there are what I call “formal words” such as perceive, assertion,
insinuate, advocate, simultaneous, and so forth. Such words are found in a variety of
different specialist areas or public sphere activities (e.g., philosophy or social activism),
in literature, in the content areas of school, and in the more formal vernacular of some
speakers (i.e., those heavily influenced by school-­based sorts of books).
Formal words have a wider application than technical terms, though they sometimes
have more technical uses within a given specialist area (e.g., sensitivity in physiological
psychology or assertion in linguistics—­in fact, even informal words can have a technical
meaning in some domain, for example, work in physics). “Formal words” are the ones
most important to teach in school as part of “language arts” and the content areas to
increase student comprehension.
Formal words—like all words—take on somewhat different meanings in different
contexts (Gee, 2004, 2014). In particular, they may mean somewhat different things in
different sorts of situations, activities, texts, or academic or specialist areas of concern
(e.g., consider the different meanings words like process, system, and formal might take
on in different contexts of use). Thus, it is not effective to teach these words out of context
and leave things at that. Children need in-­school and out-of-­school experiences to see and
hear these words in a variety of different contexts.
Many children see and hear formal words in various texts and content areas in school
far more than they hear them in everyday forms of talk at home or in their communities
(though children from highly educated homes hear a good number of them in talk). I sug-
gest below, however, that many children, rich and poor, see and hear a good number of
both technical terms and formal words in some of their popular culture practices.
Specifically, in the chapter I do the following:

• Define specialist language and its impact on students’ comprehension.

• Report early oral vocabulary correlates with school success.
• Identify informal specialist language lessons that could occur at school and at
home.
• Describe the implications of specialist language comprehension research and
instruction today in the future home.

What We Know Now: Specialist Language

I refer in this chapter to forms or styles of language that use lots of technical terms or for-
mal words, or both (and recruit characteristic forms of complex syntactic and discourse
structures) as specialist language. Academic content areas (e.g., biology or literary criti-
cism) use specialist forms of language. School content areas (e.g., social studies, math,
language arts, or science) use specialist forms of language. Some types of literature—­the
types we tend to use in school—­use a good many formal words, as well as complex
358 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

syntactic and discourse patterns, so I call this specialist language as well. Some popular
culture practices also use lots of technical words and formal words, as well as complex
syntactic and discourse patterns, so these, too, are specialist forms of language. Remem-
ber, though, that there are people who, in some contexts, use lots of formal words in their
everyday vernacular when they are not talking as specialists of any sort, but these people
have picked up this vocabulary because of their exposure to the sorts of specialist texts
and talk often found in school and books.

New Research: Early Oral Vocabulary Correlates with School Success

Phonemic awareness and early practice with literacy are the most important factors
before school that predict a child’s success in first grade (Dickinson & Neuman, 2006).
However, the most important factors that predict a child’s success past the first grade,
essentially for the rest of schooling, are the child’s early home-based oral vocabulary and
early skills with complex oral language (Dickinson & Neuman, 2006; Senechal, Ouel-
lette, & Rodney, 2006).
There is an important qualification that needs to be made here. Decades of research
in linguistics have shown that every normal child develops a perfectly adequate oral lan-
guage, the child’s “native language” (Chomksy, 1986; Pinker, 1994)—and, of course,
sometimes children develop more than one native language. When I say that children’s
early vocabulary and skills with complex language are crucial correlates of success in
school, I am not talking about children’s everyday (“vernacular”) language. I am talk-
ing about their early preparation for language that is “school-­based,” “specialist,” or
“academic” (Gee, 2004; Schleppegrell, 2004). I am talking about the difference between
saying something like “Hornworms sure vary a lot in how well they grow” (vernacular)
versus “Hornworm growth displays a significant amount of variation” (specialist).

Informal Specialist Language Lessons at Home

Let me give an example of what I am talking about in terms of getting ready early in
life for the demands school will eventually make for specialist language. Kevin Crowley
has talked insightfully about quite young children developing what he calls “islands of
expertise” (Crowley & Jacobs, 2002). Crowley and Jacobs (p. 333) define an island of
expertise as “any topic in which children happen to become interested and in which they
develop relatively deep and rich knowledge.” In this respect, then, consider a mother talk-
ing to her 4-year-old son, who has an island of expertise around dinosaurs (the transcript
below is adapted from pages 343–344). The mother and child are looking at a replica
fossil dinosaur and a replica fossil dinosaur egg. The mother has a little card in front of
the boy that says:

• Replica of a Dinosaur Egg

• From the Oviraptor
• Cretaceous Period
• Approximately 65 to 135 million years ago
• The actual fossil, of which this is a replica, was found in the Gobi desert of Mongolia

The child says, “This looks like this is a egg,” and the mother responds, “That’s
exactly what it is! How did you know?” The child says, “Because it looks like it,” and
the mother responds, “That’s what it says [on the card], see look egg egg . . . replica
Games and Comprehension 359

of a dinosaur egg. From the oviraptor.” Here the mother asks the child the basis of his
knowledge (“How did you know?”). Then she publicly displays reading of the technical
text, even though the child cannot yet read. This reading uses print to confirm the child’s
claim to know, showing one way this type of print (descriptive information) can be used
in an epistemic game of confirmation, and demonstrates the primacy of print as evidence.
Specialist domains are almost always “expert” domains that involve claims to know and
evidence for such claims, evidence that is very often tied to print.
Here and elsewhere in the interaction, the mother also uses elements of nonvernacu-
lar, specialist language. For example, here, “replica of a dinosaur egg”; “from the ovirap-
tor”; and later, “from the Cretaceous period”; “the hind claw”; “their prey.”
In the interaction as it proceeds, the mother makes a number of other moves that
facilitate the early development of specialist language. For instance, the mother relates
the current talk and text to other texts with which the child is familiar when she says at
one point, “You have an oviraptor on your game! You know the egg game on your com-
puter?” and, at another point, “And remember they have those, remember in your book,
it said something about the claws.” This sort of intertextuality helps the child to connect
words, the world, images, technologies, and written texts.
The mother explicates hard concepts by saying things like “And that’s from the
Cretaceous period. And that was a really, really, long time ago.” This signals to the child
that Cretaceous period is a technical term, and displays how to explicate such terms in
the vernacular. She also offers technical-­like definitions when she says things like “And
this is . . . the hind claw. What’s a hind claw? [pause]. A claw from the back leg from a
velociraptor.” This demonstrates a common language move in specialist domains, that is,
giving relatively formal and explicit definitions (not just examples of use).
This interaction is a language lesson, but not primarily a lesson on vernacular lan-
guage, though, of course, it thoroughly mixes vernacular and specialist language. It is
a lesson on specialist language. It is early preparation for the sorts of school-­based lan-
guage children see ever more increasingly in talk and in texts as they move on in school.
All this, however, raises the issue of what happens to children who come to school
without such informal specialist language teaching, and, often, too, without other impor-
tant aspects of emergent literacy. My view is that this issue cannot be ignored. We can-
not just move on to reading instruction of the “decode and literally comprehend” sort as
if it just doesn’t matter that these children have missed out on early specialist language
learning. For these children, language teaching for “academic language” (one form of
specialist language) needs to start with and sustain itself throughout the course of reading
instruction (Zwiers, 2007).

How This New Knowledge Can Improve Comprehension Instruction:

If Your Vocabulary Is Poor, It Is Not Easy to Get a Better One

When children end up with poor vocabularies late in their schooling, it is a very hard
problem to remedy. In fact, vocabulary learning involves a paradox: If you have a poor
vocabulary, the only way to remedy the matter is to engage in lots of independent reading
(something people with poor vocabularies often don’t want to do). However, reading is
really not an effective way to learn vocabulary:

The variety of contexts in which words can appropriately be used is so extensive, and the
crucial nuances in meaning so constrained by context, that teaching word meanings in an
abstract and decontextualized manner is essentially futile and potentially misleading. . . .
360 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

The only realistic chance students with poor vocabularies have to catch up to their peers with
rich vocabularies requires that they engage in extraordinary amounts of independent reading.
(Baker, Simmons, & Kame’enui, n.d.; see also Anderson & Nagy, 1991).

It may be somewhat surprising to learn that most researchers agree that although students
do learn word meanings in the course of reading connected text, the process seems to be
fairly inefficient and not especially effective (Beck & McKeown, 1991). Beck and McKeown
state that “research spanning several decades has failed to uncover strong evidence that word
meanings are routinely acquired from context. (Gersten et al., 2001, p. 284)

So we face an interesting problem: How to get children to learn academic or spe-

cialist vocabulary when they may not want to engage in lots of reading and when that
reading will not necessarily be highly effective in solving the problem. As I pointed out in
the introduction, research has shown that we need to teach and practice comprehension
strategies overtly in school from the early grades on (Pressley, 2006). We need, as well,
to teach and practice as much vocabulary as we can with the most effective methods
(Pearson et al., 2007). In addition, I want to suggest an unorthodox supplement to these
approaches: to learn from and even use popular culture practices for literacy develop-
ment.

Specialist Language in Popular Culture

Something very interesting has happened in children’s popular culture. It has gotten very
complex and it contains a great many activities that involve highly specialist styles of
language (Gee, 2007, 2004, 2013). For example, consider the text below, which appears
on a Yu-Gi-Oh card. Yu-Gi-Oh is a card game involving quite complex rules. It is often
played face-to-face with two players, sometimes in formal competitions, more often
informally, though it can be played as a video game as well.

Armed Ninja
Card-Type: Effect Monster
Attribute: Earth | Level: 1
Type: Warrior
ATK: 300 | DEF: 300
Description: FLIP: Destroys 1 Magic Card on the field. If this card’s target is face-down,
flip it face-up. If the card is a Magic Card, it is destroyed. If not, it is returned to its
face-down position. The flipped card is not activated.
Rarity: Rare

The “description” is really a rule. It states what moves in the game the card allows.
While this text has little specialist vocabulary (though it has some; e.g., activated), it
contains complex specialist syntax. It contains, for instance, three straight conditional
clauses (the “if” clauses). Note how complex this meaning is: First, if the target is face-
down, flip it over. Now check to see whether it is a magic card. If it is, destroy it. If it isn’t,
return it to its face-down position. Finally, you are told that even though you flipped over
your opponent’s card, which in some circumstances would activate its powers, in this
case, the card’s powers are not activated. This is “logic talk,” a matter, really, of multiple
related “either–­or”, “if–then” propositions. It is the type of explicit specialist language
children will see often in school in the later grades.
Consider another Yu-Gi-Oh card:
Games and Comprehension 361

Cyber Raider
Card-Type: Effect Monster
Attribute: Dark | Level: 4
Type: Machine
ATK: 1400 | DEF: 1000
Description: When this card is Normal Summoned, Flip Summoned, or Special Summoned
successfully, select and activate 1 of the following effects: Select 1 equipped Equip Spell
Card and destroy it. Select 1 equipped Equip Spell Card and equip it to this card.
Rarity: Common

This card has the following technical words (some are compound words) on it: effect
monster, dark, machine type, normal summoned, flip summoned, special summoned,
successfully, select, activate, effects, equipped, Equip Spell Card, destroy, rarity, and
common. These all have special meanings within the game rules. You don’t really know
exactly what they mean unless you know the game. These words, for the most part, what
I called “formal words” earlier, are here being used as technical terms in the game. While
they have specialized uses within the game, their uses there are related to their more com-
mon meanings in other activities and areas.
I have watched 7-year-old children play Yu-Gi-Oh with great expertise. They must
read each of the cards. They endlessly debate the powers of each card by constant contrast
and comparison with other cards when they are trading them. They discuss and argue
over the rules and, in doing so, use lots of specialist vocabulary, syntactic structures, and
discourse features. They can go to websites to learn more or to settle their disputes. If and
when they do so, here is the sort of thing they will see: “The effect of ‘8-Claws Scorpion’
is a Trigger Effect that is applied if the condition is correct on activation”—note effect,
applied, condition, activation, and the conditional “if” clause.

Lucidly Functional Language

Let’s consider for a moment what Yu-Gi-Oh involves. First and foremost, it involves
what I call “lucidly functional language.” The language on Yu-Gi-Oh cards, websites,
and in children’s discussions and debates is quite complex, but it relates piece by piece
to the rules of the game, to the specific moves or actions one takes in the game. Here
language—­complex specialist language—­is married closely to specific and connected
actions. The relationship between language and meaning (where meaning here is the
rules and the actions connected to them) is clear and lucid.

Situated Meaning and Verbal Meanings

There are two ways to understand words. I call one way “verbal” and the other way
“situated” (Gee, 2004, 2014). People have situated understandings of words when they
can associate them with images, experiences, actions, or dialogue with which the words
are associated. They have merely verbal understandings when they can only associate the
words with other words (e.g., a paraphrase or a definition). While verbal understandings
may facilitate passing certain sorts of information-­focused tests, they do not necessarily
facilitate actual problem solving in which learners have to apply words to the world to
accomplish goals and actions.
Situated understandings are, of course, the norm in everyday life and in vernacular
language. Even the most mundane words take on different meanings in different contexts
362 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

of use, and we can associate the words with different images and actions in the different
contexts. For instance, people construct different meanings for a word like coffee when
they hear something like “The coffee spilled; get the mop” versus “The coffee spilled; get
a broom” versus “The coffee spilled, stack it again.”

Situated Meanings and Video Games

We can see the nature and importance of situated meanings if we consider video games
for a moment (Gee, 2007, 2013). Written texts associated with a video game are not very
meaningful, certainly not very lucid, unless and until one has played the game. Let me
take the small booklet that comes with the innovative game Deus Ex as an example. In
the 20 pages of this booklet, there are 199 boldface references that represent headings
and subheadings; one small, randomly chosen stretch of headings and subheadings that
appears at the end of page 5 and the beginning of page 6 includes the following headings:
Passive Readouts, Damage Monitor, Active Augmentation & Device Icons, Items-at-
Hand, Information Screens, Note, Inventory, Inventory Management, Stacks, Nanokey
ring, Ammunition. Each of these 199 headings and subheadings is followed by text that
gives information relevant to the topic and relates it to other information throughout the
booklet. So, though the booklet is small, it is just packed with concise technical informa-
tion. Here is a typical piece of language from this booklet (Ion Storm, 2000):

Your internal nano-­processors keep a very detailed record of your condition, equipment,
and recent history. You can access this data at any time during play by hitting F1 to get to
the Inventory screen or F2 to get to the Goals/Notes screen. Once you have accessed your
information screens, you can move between the screens by clicking on the tabs at the top
of the screen. You can map other information screens to hotkeys using Settings, Keyboard/
Mouse. (p. 5)

This makes perfect sense at a literal level, but this just goes to show how worthless
the literal level is. When you comprehend this sort of passage at only a literal level, you
have only an illusion of understanding, one that quickly disappears as you try to relate
the information in this passage to the hundreds of other important details in the booklet.
This passage means nothing real to you if you have no situated idea about what nano-­
processors, condition, equipment, history, F1, Inventory screen, F2, Goals/Notes screen
(and, of course, Goals and Notes), information screens, clicking, tabs, map, hotkeys, and
Settings, Keyboard/Mouse mean in and for playing games like Deus Ex.
Second, though you know literally what each sentence means, the sentences raise a
plethora of questions if you have no situated understandings. For instance: Are the same
data (condition, equipment, and history) on both the Inventory screen and the Goals/
Notes screen? If so, why are the data on two different screens? If not, which type of
information is on which screen and why? The fact that I can move between the screens
by clicking on the tabs (but what do these tabs look like, will I recognize them? ) suggests
that some of this information is on one screen and some is on the other. But, then, is my
“condition” part of my Inventory or my Goals/Notes—doesn’t seem to be either, but,
then, what is my “condition” anyway? If I can map other information screens (and what
are these?) to hotkeys using “Setting, Keyboard/Mouse,” does this mean there is no other
way to access them? How will I access them in the first place to assign them to my own
chosen hotkeys? Can I click between them and the Inventory screen and the Goals/Notes
screens by pressing on “tabs”?
Games and Comprehension 363

Of course, all these terms and questions can be defined and answered if you closely
check and cross-check information over and over again through the little booklet. You
can constantly turn the pages backward and forward. But once you have one set of links
relating various items and actions in mind, another drops out just as you need it and
you’re back to turning pages. Is the booklet poorly written? Not at all. It is written just
like, in fact, any of myriad school-­based texts in the content areas.
When I first read this booklet before playing Deus Ex, I was sorely tempted to put
the game on a shelf and forget about it. I was simply overwhelmed with details, questions,
and confusion. So I decided just to play the game—­however badly—for several hours.
After playing, when I went back to the booklet, something marvelous had happened.
Now all the language in the booklet was lucidly clear and easy to understand. Why?
Because now I had an image, action, experience, or piece of dialogue from the game to
associate with words—had situated meanings for the words. Then, at last, the booklet
made good sense.

Content at School: Situated Meanings through Playing the “Game”

So now I would make the same claim about any school content domain I just made about
the video game Deus Ex: Specialist language in any school domain (e.g., math, science,
or social studies) has no situated meaning (thus, it has no lucid or applicable meaning)
unless and until one has “played the game”, that is, engaged in and with the images,
actions, goals, experiences, practices, and dialogue that give situated meaning to words
in these domains.
Good video games support not only situated meanings for the written materials
associated with them in manuals and on fan websites—­and these are copious—­but also
for all language within the game itself (Gee, 2007, 2013). The meaning of such language
is always associated with actions, goals, experiences, images, and dialogue. Furthermore,
always and only, players get verbal information (words) “just in time,” when they can
apply it or see it apply, or “on demand,” when they feel the need for it and are ready for it
(and then, in some cases, games give the player walls of print; e.g., as in the whole series
of Civilization games).
So my claim is this: What I call “game-like learning” leads to situated meanings,
not just verbal ones. In turn, situated meanings make specialist language lucid, easy, and
useful.

Implications
Make Meaning Lucidly Functional
My point is not just to use popular culture for literacy learning, but to learn from popu-
lar culture how to teach traditional content better. Whenever we can, we should seek to
make the meanings of specialist language in school lucidly functional, much in the way
the language is in Yu-Gi-Oh.
For example, the science educator Andrea diSessa (2000) has successfully taught
children in sixth grade and beyond the algebra behind Galileo’s principles of motion by
teaching them a specific computer programming language called Boxer. Using Boxer,
students write into the computer a set of discrete steps in the programming language.
For example, the first command in a little program meant to represent uniform motion
might tell the computer to set the speed of a moving object at 1 meter per second. The
364 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

second step might tell the computer to move the object. And a third step might tell the
computer to repeat the second step over and over again. Once the program starts run-
ning, the student will see a graphical object repeatedly move 1 meter each second, a form
of uniform motion. Now the student can elaborate, play with, and change the model in
various ways, for example, by adding a fourth step that tells the computer to add a value
a to the speed of the moving object after each movement the object has taken (let us just
say, for convenience, that a adds 1 meter more per second at each step), a step that models
the concept of acceleration.
Here students are creating and observing quite direct links between actions they take
in the programming language, the meanings of technical words (e.g., uniform motion,
acceleration), and images they see on the screen. This is one powerful form of situated
meaning.

Implications Continued
Situate Meanings
Beyond creating lucid functionality, there are, of course, other ways to situate mean-
ings in order to enhance comprehension. Specialist language should be associated with
images, actions, experiences, goals, and dialogue, not just verbal explications, summa-
ries, definitions, and texts. Verbal information should be given “just in time”—near the
time when learners will use it—or “on demand”—when learners are ready for it and
know they need it and why they need it.
For example, the learning scientist David Shaffer (2007) runs workshops for middle
school children where they are given an urban planning challenge: Working as teams,
the children are asked to create, then report on a detailed redesign plan for a major
pedestrian thoroughfare in their own town. Like real professional urban planners, the
students’ plans must meet the social, economic, and physical needs of their communities.
Students talk to real urban planners; they study their communities and read about urban
planning, but they also have simulation software (using a GPS [global positioning system]
device) that lets them see a virtual representation of the street they are going to replan.
The simulation has two components: a decision space and a constraint table. The
decision space displays address and zoning information using official two- or three-­letter
zoning codes to designate changes in land use for property parcels on the street. As stu-
dents made decisions about changes they wished to make, they received immediate feed-
back about the consequences of changes in the constraint table, which shows the effects
of changes on six planning issues raised in the original information packet and the video:
crime, revenue, jobs, waste, car trips, and housing.
Here, lots and lots of language that is common in the social sciences is placed in a
context of image, action, experiences, goals, and dialogue, not just texts. Meaning is fully
situated. Shaffer’s work has demonstrated that such an approach leads to large language
and thinking gains.

Using Popular Culture in Classrooms

While I want to advocate using popular culture for language, comprehension, and lit-
eracy development, I do not advocate turning it into a school subject used for grading
and sorting. This is just a way to co-opt what the children own and take a feeling of
ownership away from them. Rather, I advocate finding children’s areas of expertise in
Games and Comprehension 365

popular culture and helping them to use these areas to build, practice, and identify with
specialist vocabulary and language skills (Shaffer, 2007). This can be done in a number
of the following ways:

1. Have children teach and explicate their areas of expertise to parents, teachers,
and other children.
2. Engage children with research projects that involve their areas of expertise and
encourage extended talk, discussion, argumentation, and writing in various
genres.
3. Have children explicate vocabulary in their areas of expertise and encourage
them to relate these words to other uses these words have in other areas and
activities.
4. Have children read and write challenging texts from their areas of expertise for
real purposes that do not just recruit these areas for “doing school” (engage with
reading and writing on chats, boards, forums, reviews, and websites—­have chil-
dren talk and write about such engagement to parents, and at school to teachers
and to other children as well).
5. Encourage children to develop a new area of expertise (perhaps one related to an
old area of expertise), all the while helping them to pay overt attention to words
and language in this area.
6. Encourage children to engage in discussions and to make arguments about their
areas of expertise with other children who share their expertise. Encourage
extended and explicit talk and writing that is responsive to other people’s ques-
tions and concerns.
7. Encourage children to read what others—­including adults—­have said about their
areas of expertise and how these areas relate to larger social and cultural issues.

Summary

The most important thing we can do for children in the area of popular culture is to
encourage them to develop areas of expertise that recruit specialist language and think-
ing, then get them to think, talk, and write at a “meta” level about this area to their peers,
parents, and teachers. We need to encourage them, as well, to think about the relation-
ships that exist between their area of expertise and other related and unrelated areas
and activities in the world. Our ultimate goal for literacy comprehension instruction and
research is to understand better how we can get students to think about how language
works in their local worlds and in the larger global world.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. Give yourself a grade as to how knowledgeable you were prior to reading this chapter about the
importance of specialist language in teaching comprehension for this new generation of students.
Grade yourself as to how knowledgeable you feel you are now that you have read this chapter.
2. Create an informal, specialized language lesson at your school or school district that could increase
children’s comprehension.
3. Project what effect technology and games will have upon future students’ comprehension and give
your reasons why.
366 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

References

Anderson, R. C., & Nagy, W. E. (1991). Word meanings. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. M­ osenthal, &
P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 690–724). New York: Longman.
Baker, S. K., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (n.d.). Vocabulary acquisition: Synthesis of the
research. Retrieved from http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ncite/documents/techrep/tech13.html.
Beck I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1991). Conditions of vocabulary acquisition. In R. Barr, M.
Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 789–
814). New York: Longman.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary
instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
Black, R. W. (2005). Access and affiliation: The literacy and composition practices of English lan-
guage learners in an online fanfiction community. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,
49, 118–128.
Black, R. W. (2007). Digital design: English language learners and reader feedback in online fan-
fiction. In M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (Eds.), A New Literacies sampler (pp. 115–136). New
York: Peter Lang.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.
Crowley, K., & Jacobs, M. (2002). Islands of expertise and the development of family scientific
literacy. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in muse-
ums (pp. 333–356). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dickinson, D. K., & Neuman, S. B. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2).
New York: Guilford Press.
diSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. London:
Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (2nd ed.). New
York: Palgrave/Macmillan.
Gee, J. P. (2013). Good video games and good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning
and literacy (2nd ed.). New York: Peter Lang.
Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (4th ed.). London:
Routledge.
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, 279–320.
Hawisher, G. E., & Selfe, C. L. (2007). Gaming lives in the twenty-­first century: Literate connec-
tions. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.
Ion Storm. (2000). Deus Ex manual. London: Eidos Interactive. Retrieved from http://gamecon-
tentgreen.yummy.net/deusexdemo/doc/deusexmanual.pdf.
Pearson, P. D., Hiebert, E. H., & Kamil, M. L. (2007). Vocabulary assessment: What we know
and what we need to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 282–296.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York: Morrow.
Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.).
New York: Guilford Press.
Schleppegrell, M. (2004). Language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Senechal, M., Ouellette, G., & Rodney, D. (2006). The misunderstood giant: Predictive role of
early vocabulary to future reading. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of
early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp.173–182). New York: Guilford Press.
Shaffer, D. W. (2007). How computer games help children learn. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.
Zwiers, J. (2007). Building academic language: Essential practices for content classrooms. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
 Chapter 26

New Literacies and Comprehension

Resources for Educators

Jan Lacina

If we teach today as we taught yesterday,

then we rob our children of tomorrow.
—John Dewey (1916)

D ewey’s words are just as relevant today as they were back in 1916. Educators today
must reconsider how to best connect the print-based literacies of the past to the tech-
nologically based literacies of the present to engage, motivate, and inspire today’s children
(Dalton & Grisham, 2011; Lacina & Mathews, 2012). The literacies of today include
more than print and nonprint materials; literacy for today includes talk and interaction,
and tools and spaces that may be embedded (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011); the multiple
literacies of today are flexible, with varying time and space (Gee & Hayes, 2011) within
digital texts. My purpose in this chapter is to provide a wealth of resources available to
teachers, in both print and electronic forms, so that they can encourage children’s curios-
ity and engagement in both reading and writing. When coupled with teachers’ genuine
love for reading, writing, and learning, the resources in this chapter are tools for teaching
well-­crafted comprehension lessons to inspire this generation’s children.
Children today, “Generation Y” (Block, 2004), are distinctly different than children
of the past. Over the past 10 years, technology has come to play a significant role in their
everyday lives. The way that we teach these tech-savvy children must mirror the times in
which they live. Integrating technology into comprehension instruction is an important
contemporary goal for educators, and new literacies is a term used to describe the skills
needed to locate, evaluate, and synthesize information on the Internet (Karchmer, Mal-
lette, Kara-­Soteriou, & Leu, 2005; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004; Street, 2003),
and the integration of these new literacies of information and communication technolo-
gies (ICTs) is specifically a core foundation in a literacy community (International Read-
ing Association, 2001; International Reading Association & National Council of Teach-
ers of English, 2000; International Society for Technology in Education, 1998; Kinzer,

367
368 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

2003; Turbill, 2002). As teachers plan comprehension lessons, they must keep in mind
today’s children and their background knowledge, and even more importantly, teachers
must prepare students for more than just print-based literacies (Labbo, 2002; Valmont,
2003; Van Leeuwen & Gabriel, 2007; Warschauer, 2006). Students today must be tele-
communications literate, which means that a child can not only operate a computer, but
that he or she can also locate and analyze multiple forms of information, as Valmont
(2003, p. 2) explains:

Students who use the new technologies effectively will be the new literacy “haves,” while
those who do not will be literacy “have-nots.” As educators, we must be prepared to help all
students become proficient in using advanced technologies in their development of literacy
and thinking capabilities. In other words, we must do all we can to help our students become
telecommunications literate.

With new technologies, new reading comprehension skills are necessary to engage
students in learning opportunities on the Internet (Coiro, 2003; Lacina & Mathews,
2012; Leu, 2001; Lewin, 1998; Snyder, 2002; Van Leeuwen & Gabriel, 2007).
Beyond a high level of exposure to good books, how can teachers provide vital com-
prehension lessons to reach a new generation of students who grow up using iPods, e-mail,
and instant messaging on a daily basis? Resources to integrate technology into compre-
hension lessons are discussed throughout this chapter, which highlights the following:

• Research and resources for finding exemplary children’s literature.

• Lesson planning websites teachers can use to develop comprehension lessons.
• Strategies for using technology to build background knowledge.
• Methods for discussing books online to build comprehension.

Established Research and Practice

Where should teachers begin when planning comprehension lessons? First, teachers must
begin with good literature. Research supports teachers’ provision of interesting and
appropriate texts to motivate and engage students (Block, Gambrell, & Pressley, 2004;
Gambrell, Wilson, & Gantt, 1981; Lacina & Mathews, 2012). Hearing a peer or teacher
talk about a book helps to motivate young children to read a book (Palmer, Codling, &
Gambrell, 1994; Worthy, Chamberlain, Peterson, Sharp, & Shih, 2012). There are a vari-
ety of excellent Internet-­based lists of high-­quality literature that are constantly updated
so that teachers can find the latest, best literature for teaching comprehension to today’s
students. The websites I recommend and use most often are outlined below.

High-­Quality Literature Websites

• Children’s Choices Booklist
www.reading.org/resources/booklists/childrenschoices.aspx
Sponsored by the International Reading Association (IRA) (now the Interna-
tional Literacy Association), this list has been a well-­regarded resource for finding
excellent literature for children since 1974. The IRA offers an innovative approach
for selecting books on this list, since children themselves evaluate the books and
provide reviews of their favorites. This list of favorites becomes the Choices Book-
list for young children.
New Literacies and Comprehension 369

• Young Adults’ Choices

www.reading.org/resources/booklists/youngadultschoices.aspx
This is the IRA Choices Booklist for middle and high school youth. Since
1987, this Choices Booklist has developed an extensive list of books—based on
adolescents’ favorite and recently published book choices.
• Teachers’ Choices Booklist
www.reading.org/resources/booklists/teacherschoices.aspx
This is the IRA annual, annotated reading list of recently published books
that educators have used successfully to encourage students to read.
• Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA)
www.ala.org/yalsa
This organization offers online booklists and book awards, such as books
in the following categories: best book for young adults, great graphic novels for
teens, popular paperback books for young adults, and quick picks for reluctant
young readers. They also offer an online search—­to find books by title or subject.
• Newbery Medal
www.ala.org/alsc/awardsgrants/bookmedia/newberymedal/newberymedal
This prestigious award, named for an 18th-­century bookseller, is awarded
annually by the Association for Library Service to Children, a division of the
American Library Association, to the author of the most distinguished contribu-
tion to American literature for children.
• American Library Association’s Booklist
www.ala.org/offices/publishing/booklist
Booklist magazine reviews both adult and children’s books. Two highlights of
this site are the “editors’ choice” section—­which lists top books and videos—­and
a section dedicated to interviews and essays about featured authors.

Although there are numerous other excellent lists and websites that feature good
books, the ones I have noted are among the most widely used. When choosing a book-
list, teachers must first consider their students and the community in which their stu-
dents live. What books would be most interesting and relevant to these specific readers?
Students’ background knowledge and experiences should be considered when selecting
books to introduce during a comprehension lesson, so that students will be more engaged
and motivated to read the book. Second, teachers need to consider the book’s vocabulary
level and density. Is the vocabulary appropriate for these children? Is the vocabulary too
difficult? Language and syntax may also be taken into consideration as teachers analyze
the difficulty of a book, and its grade-level appropriateness.

New Research Since the National Reading Panel Report: Comprehension

Instruction Must Include Multiple Literacies
In additional to its value in locating print resources, there are numerous benefits of using
the Internet to teach comprehension and linking this instruction to writing development.
Many online resources offer story animation, oral narration, or word pronunciation on
demand. Giving children such choices allows them to take ownership of their own reading
(McKenna, Labbo, & Reinking, 2003) and, as a result, reading becomes more enjoyable
and relevant to their own lives. Teachers can reference and bookmark the following sites to
build online reading skills—­and to locate resources for designing comprehension lessons.
370 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

High-­Quality Online Literature Websites

• Bedtime Story
www.bedtime.com/html/short_stories.html
This site provides online noninteractive, beautifully illustrated classic stories,
such as Alice in Wonderland, The Owl and the Pussycat, and Peter Pan.
• International Children’s Digital Library
http://en.childrenslibrary.org
This site provides online a wealth of colorfully illustrated books that include
interesting plots. The website does not charge a fee, and books from around the
world are featured in multiple languages.

Online Read-Aloud Websites

• StoryLine Online
www.storylineonline.net
This is the best read-aloud booklist available online. It offers books that are
read aloud by popular actors from the Screen Actors Guild, such as Camryn Man-
heim, Haylie Duff, Amber Tamblyn, and Jason Alexander. Additional activities
that are included with each book ask children to draw inferences and to retell the
story. The website also has a phone line service in which children can call in and
listen to an actor read a book.

Interactive Read-Along Stories Websites

• TumbleBooks
www.tumblebooks.com
This is one of the best websites for interactive read-along stories. Although
the website charges a fee, it does offer a trial issue. The books are engaging, inter-
esting, and beautifully illustrated. Children can follow along with the reading,
as words appear on the screen as authors read them, then complete a paper-and
pencil quiz that assesses their comprehension of the story. The online interactivity
of the read-along stories is the greatest benefit of this website.
• RIF Reading Planet
www.rif.org/readingplanet/content/read_aloud_stories.mspx
This website offers free access to interactive, online stories with music and
accompaniment. The stories are not written by well-known authors or illustrators,
but they are engaging. For example, the story, Julia and the Big Wave, includes
ocean sounds—­and one can envision being on the beach as a big wave approaches.
• The Amazing Adventure Series www.tosiproductions.com/%5famazingadventure/
index_fl.asp
This site offers children choices to enjoy interactive and online poems, cin-
ema, and stories in many formats. For example, for the poem Lazy Circles, an
interactive, talking happy face reads the poem.

In conclusion, with online books, similar to print books, teachers must take into
consideration vocabulary, syntax, and students’ background knowledge and experiences
when selecting online books for students to view and read. Teachers may also evaluate
the level of interactivity the site encourages between the child and the online book. When
selecting online books for young children, it is best to choose books that include story
New Literacies and Comprehension 371

animation, oral narration, or word pronunciation on demand. These types of books hold
greatest potential to capture our Generation Y readers interest and engage their high-level
thinking.

Teach Students to Let Background Build

Block (2004) describes the importance of teaching students to build background rather
than having teachers building background for them. As Block explains, comprehension
is like building a bridge, since students learn how to comprehend material as they read
one paragraph at a time. Students must learn that each paragraph serves as a bridge of
information to the next paragraph. Many readers are unable to make prior knowledge
connections to what they are reading, because their background experiences are too dif-
ferent from those in the school texts, the vocabulary is too difficult, or because meta-
cognition is not engaged and word errors are not corrected (Palincsar & Brown, 1984).
To help students build their own background knowledge, teachers can use the following
technologically based resources as a guide.

Virtual Field Trips

Virtual field trips (VFTs) provide many resources to help students build background
knowledge (Kirchen, 2011; Lacina, 2004; Tutwiler, Lin, & Chang, 2013). First, they
offer a student-­centered approach to instruction, and they integrate technology into
content-­area comprehension instruction. Second, through VFTs, children can interact
with what they are reading, viewing people and places that they cannot view through
print reading. In order for students to build their own background using a VFT during a
comprehension lesson, teachers need to consider the following steps while planning and
preparing for a lesson.

• Choose a topic or concept that cannot be studied well through print-based read-
ing. VFT topics should extend print-based classroom comprehension instruction.
• Provide a clear guide throughout the VFT. It is best if the VFT is highly struc-
tured, so that students are not aimlessly wandering from website to website.
• Familiarize students with vocabulary they will need to know in order to read the
VFT.
• Decide how students will participate in the VFT: small group, whole class, or
individually (Lacina, 2004).

Teachers find that VFTs allow students to better understand the setting of a book
prior to and during reading. For example, seventh-­grade English teacher Daniel Spikes
explains that he uses VFTs each year as his students read Lupita Mañana by Patricia
Beatty (1992). He finds that students are better able to understand the book when they
have a more in-depth understanding of the setting. Likewise, Mr. Spikes integrates geog-
raphy into the VFT, and students can visit the same places that the main characters from
the book visited (Lacina, 2004). Most importantly, VFTs can take students inside a cell,
to environments around the world, or to meet historical characters from the past. VFTs
provide numerous productive sessions in which students to learn how to acquire back-
ground knowledge on their own, which in turn helps them to comprehend other forms of
reading material better.
372 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

There are many excellent resources already developed that teachers can use to create
their own VFT.

How to Create a Virtual Tour

• www.uen.org/lessonplan/preview.cgi?lpid=22080, which is designed and sup-

ported by the Utah Education Network, offers a step-by-step comprehensive tuto-
rial on how to create a VFT.
• The University of Minnesota at Duluth also has a helpful page (www.d.umn.
edu/~hrallis/guides/virtualfieldtrips.html) that describes how to create a VFT.
• Colonial Williamsburg (www.history.org/history/teaching/eft/index.cfm) includes
some of the best VFTs for teaching social studies; they are engaging and interest-
ing for both teachers and children.

In summary, whether your students are preparing to read a book about mummies,
colonial Williamsburg, or about the Maya civilization, there are VFTs available on the
Internet that help students acquire a greater background on the topic they are reading.

WebQuests
WebQuests also help students learn how to build their own background knowledge
bridges. A WebQuest is an inquiry-­based technology activity designed by Bernie Dodge
and Tom March at San Diego State University in 1995 (http://webquest.org). WebQuests
are activities in which the majority, if not all, of the information to be comprehended
and used by learners is drawn from the Web. WebQuests are based on a constructivist
philosophy in which cooperative learning and scaffolding of instruction are the essential
instructional tools (Johnson, 2005). The design of the WebQuest provides the necessary
scaffolds, since resource links are included within the WebQuest (Lacina, 2007). Teachers
who design WebQuests emphasize higher level skills, such as Bloom’s Taxonomy tasks.
Typically, the teacher serves as the facilitator, or guide, as students complete these (as well
as other types of) computer-­based activities (Labbo, 2004; Snyder, 2002). WebQuests
provide background information for future assignments as students work cooperatively
to build their own background knowledge, comprehend new knowledge, and exchange
new information to understand a new topic.

Designing a WebQuest

A simple template for designing WebQuests is located at http://webquest.org/index.php.

The WebQuest format consists of an organized structure of five essential components.
Each component is listed and briefly described below (Johnson, 2005; Lacina, 2007;
Valmont, 2003).

• The Introduction. The introduction should grab students’ attention. WebQuest

introductions typically list the goals for the project and include an introduction
that builds on the reader’s prior background knowledge.
• The Task. This section requires students to synthesize information, take a posi-
tion, or generalize. Students use higher level thinking skills, and they complete a
project to culuinate the task.
New Literacies and Comprehension 373

• The Resources. The various websites linked in the Resource section provide stu-
dents with essential background knowledge to complete their task.
• The Process. This section includes the process that students need to go through to
complete the WebQuest and completing a product.
• The Evaluation. There are numerous templates online that teachers can use to
evaluate students’ WebQuest products and participation, or teachers can create
their own.

Suggestions for Implementation

When beginning to design a WebQuest, teachers need to consider the time it will take to
learn effectively about aWebQuest, and the time needed to design and organize an effec-
tive WebQuest activity. The suggestions below offer advice on how to begin the planning
process for a first-time WebQuest developer.

• Time. You need to spend a large amount of time exploring various WebQuests
prior to designing your own. It is easy to be deceived by appearances. When
you explore and evaluate the site, you can determine which WebQuests are well
designed.
• Organization. Follow Dodge and March’s (1995) organization components for
designing a WebQuest. They are simple and easy for students to follow—­and navi-
gation of the site is clear to students.
• Resources/Links. Check links frequently, since addresses change often. Also, too
many resources can overwhelm students, and they may not try them all—or they
may lose their enthusiasm for the activity.
• Show . . . do not tell. Show students how to use a WebQuest by guiding them
through the process and using a computer to show them the process as they see
each step on the computer screen. Just like any assignment, modeling and showing
students the process are more effective than telling them about it.
• Backup plan. I think most of us can tell numerous stories about technology
glitches. Provide printed copies of the WebQuest, or be prepared with another
activity in case there is a technology problem.
• Enthusiasm. Your enthusiasm about inquiry learning, technology, and WebQuests
will help excite the students about the project (Lacina, 2007, p. 252).

In summary, WebQuests are a powerful instructional tool for helping students

practice building their own background for a comprehension lesson. Students learn new
information that can better help them understand a text, and they learn to work collab-
oratively with their peers while acquiring new information. Most importantly, students
become responsible for their own learning.

Discuss Books Online to Build Comprehension

By using technology to discuss books, teachers encourage new literacy opportunities
while familiarizing children with ICTs, as described earlier in the chapter (Casey, 2010;
Castek, Bevans-­Mangelson, & Goldstone, 2006). Using technology to discuss books
enables children to learn skills needed in the future workplace, which includes being able
to read, write, and communicate with others while using technology.
374 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

Teachers can use a number of discussion boards to enable students to participate in

online discussion forums about books. Scholastic offers an excellent website, Flashlight
Reader, which allows children to choose a book, then post a message to others about the
book.
Similarly, the Spaghetti Book Club (www.spaghettibookclub.org) provides a dis-
cussion forum in which children can post book reviews or comment on what they are
currently reading. The site is easy to navigate, and children can select the author’s name
or book title to find the book about which they want to post a comment or review. In
summary, there are a number of online sites, located in safe online environments, where
students can converse about books.
Children improve their comprehension when they are provided the opportunity to
blog about literature they are reading with peers, and they are more motivated to write
when they are writing about their interests (Jacobs, 2008; Lacina & Griffith, 2012;
Sweeny, 2011). When reading culturally relevant picture books or chapter books, chil-
dren can hold authentic conversations with peers from culturally different backgrounds
and learn more about other cultures, traditions, and perspectives. For example, Lee
and Gilles (2012) completed a 2-year cross-­cultural blogging project between American
fifth graders (15 students) and Taiwanese 10th graders (23 students). The students used
a blog to communicate with each other and share their reading responses to culturally
relevant picture books. The findings from this project suggest that students gained
deeper understandings of another culture and a better understanding of the text they
read, since they were provided opportunities to communicate with children of another
culture. The authors explained that the children who participated also demonstrated
more confidence and greater critical thinking skills when discussing culturally relevant
picture books.

Lesson Planning Websites to Create Comprehension Lessons

There are a great number of excellent websites available to help teachers plan highly
effective comprehension lessons. One of the best is Read Write Think (www.readwrite-
think.org), a joint effort between the National Council for Teachers of English (NCTE)
and the IRA. Lessons on this website are all peer-­reviewed, aligned to national reading
standards, and include Web resources and student material. It contains many interactive
online graphic organizers that can be used anytime or anyplace—­since all teachers who
have Internet access can use these graphic organizers. A few of the best graphic organiz-
ers to include in comprehension lessons are noted below.

• The Interactive Character Trading Cards Tool

www.readwritethink.org/classroom-­resources/mobile-­apps/trading-­c ards-30922.
html
This is a fun and useful way for students to explore a character in a book that
they are reading, or it can be used as a prewriting exercise when creating charac-
ters for original stories.
• The Plot Diagram
www.readwritethink.org/files/resources/interactives/plot-­diagram
This organizational tool focuses on a pyramid- or triangular-­shaped map to
plot events in a story. This marking of plot structure or text features allows read-
ers and writers to visualize the key features of narrative and expository text.
New Literacies and Comprehension 375

There are several other good lesson planning sites, although Read Write Think is
probably the best one. Literacy Matters (www.literacymatters.com), a helpful site for
teachers at the middle/secondary level, provides parents with ideas about how they can
support literacy learning at home and offers students the opportunity to participate in
interactive, online tutorials. The site also provides resources for teachers, including pro-
fessional development activities and downloadable comprehension lesson plans. Addi-
tionally, the Vaughn Gross Center for Reading at the University of Texas at Austin offers
a wide variety of online materials (www.meadowscenter.org/vgc), such as professional
development guides, and video clips of exemplary teachers.
In conclusion, the Internet offers a wide variety of lesson plan websites; however,
teachers need to analyze the credibility of each site. Sites such as Read Write Think,
which offer peer-­reviewed lesson plans connected to research and content standards, are
the highest quality websites available for planning comprehension lessons. Other sites
on the Internet need to be analyzed for their quality and appropriateness before one uses
them to plan comprehension lessons.

How This New Knowledge Can Improve Comprehension Instruction:

Teaching Reading Comprehension Must Include the Internet

As new technologies are integrated into comprehension lessons, teachers must be aware
that such new literacies require students to possess a new set of skills. Searching for infor-
mation on the Internet is a different task than searching for information in a printed book
(Nachmias & Gilad, 2002), and this search process is a complicated one.
For example, in a recent study published in Reading Research Quarterly, research-
ers found that successful Internet reading experiences required both similar and more
complex applications of prior knowledge sources, inferential reasoning strategies, and
self-­regulated reading processes (Coiro & Dobler, 2007). For instance, Coiro and Dobler
suggested that reading Internet text triggers a process of self-­directed text construction,
which may explain why online reading comprehension is more multifaceted than under-
standing print. Moreover, information is often given at a rapid rate on the Internet, and
recent research suggests that students need to be taught effective information-­seeking
strategies, in order to select search engines and search engine results adequately (Dreher,
1993; Eliopoulos & Gotlieb, 2003; Guinee, Eagleton, & Hall, 2003; Henry, 2006).
Additionally, Henry (2006) suggests that teachers teach students the different types
of search engines and how they sort information. For example, Google searches for fre-
quency and location of the key words that you type, and the computer “crawls” the
Web for results. Results are prioritized on the basis of how often others type similar
key words, and commercial sites often show up first on the list of results. Yahoo is simi-
lar, since the main results are also “crawlers,” in which the main results are compiled
after the computer crawls the Web. Not all search engines (e.g., AOL) work this way.
AOL uses third-party search providers for its results. AOL’s search results come from
Google’s crawler-­based listings. To determine which Internet search engines would be
best for a particular type of search, Noodle Tools (www.noodletools.com/debbie/litera-
cies/information/5locate/adviceengine.html) is an excellent site that categorizes various
types of search topics and the most appropriate search engine to use.
Internet scavenger hunts also provide a way for students to learn the best way to
search on the Internet. Such Internet scavenger hunts allow students to practice using
376 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

key words and different search terms (Henry, 2006). A few examples of Internet scaven-
ger hunts include Internet Treasure Hunts for ESL Students (http://iteslj.org/th), Internet
Hunt Activities (www.mrsoshouse.com/ext/internethunts.html), and Education World’s
site, which organizes its scavenger hunts by month and theme (www.education-­world.
com/a_lesson/archives/hunt.shtml).
Beyond Internet activities to increase students’ reading and navigation skills, Castek
et al. (2006) describe the importance of introducing children’s books that mirror techno
texts. The authors use a Dr. Seuss book as an example. Dr. Seuss’s words in which the
author tells readers to think left, think right, and then think low and high (Dr. Seuss,
1975). Children must also use the same skills of thinking right left, and low and high to
comprehend digital texts; children must take in information from all over the computer
screen to make meaning of text. Literacy involves understanding nonlinear text struc-
tures, and the best way to prepare children for comprehending material presented in a
nonlinear text is to teach students explicitly how authors uses such texts. Figure 26.1

Multiple Story Lines Multiple Voices Multiple Spatial Plans

•• Bunting, E. (1994). Smoky •• Atkin, S. B. (2001). Voices •• Cole, J. (1995). The magic
nights. Ill. by D. Diaz. New from the fields: Children of school bus inside a hurricane.
York: Voyager Books. migrant farm workers tell their Ill. by B. Degen. New York:
•• Cherry, L. (1996). The stories. Ill. with photos. New Scholastic.
armadillo from Amarillo. Ill. York: Scholastic. •• Frasier, D. (2000). Miss
by the author. San Diego: •• Browne, A. (1998). Voices in Alaineus: A vocabulary
Harcourt Brace. the park. Ill. by the author. disaster. Ill. by the author. New
•• Martin, J. B. (1999). New York: Dorling Kindersley. York: Scholastic.
Snowflake Bentley. Ill. by M. •• Fleischman, P. (1997). •• Sneed, B. (2002). Picture a
Azarian. New York: Scholastic. Seedfolks. Ill. by J. Pedersen. letter. Ill. by the author. New
•• Oppenheim, J. (1994). New York: Joanna Cotler York: Fogelman.
Floratorium. Ill. by S. Books. •• Teague, M. (2002). Dear Mrs.
Schindler. New York: Bantam. •• Goldschmidt, J. (2005). LaRue: Letters from obedience
•• Macauley, D. (1999). Shortcut. The secret blog of Raisin school. Ill. by the author. New
Ill. by the author. New York: Rodriguez. New York: Penguin. York: Scholastic.
Houghton Mifflin. •• Greenfield, L. (2006). When •• Wiesner, D. (2001). The three
•• Beckwith, K. (2005). the horses ride by: Children pigs. Ill. by the author. New
Playing war. Ill. by L. Lyons. in the times of war. Ill. by J. York: Scholastic.
Thomaston, ME: Tilbury Spivey Gilchrist. New York: Lee
House. & Low Books.
•• Naidoo, B. (2005). Making it
home: Real-life stories from
children forced to flee. New
York: Penguin Young Readers.
•• Schotter, R. (1999). Nothing
ever happens on 90th Street.
Ill. by K. Brooker. New York:
Orchard Paperbacks.

FIGURE 26.1. List of children’s books appropriate for teaching about multiple story lines, multi-
ple authors, and multiple spatial plans. Original list by Betty Goldstone. From Castek, Bevans-­
Mangelson, and Goldstone (2006). Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Copy-
right of The Reading Teacher is the property of Wiley-­Blackwell and its content may not be copied
or e-­mailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or e-mail articles for individual use.
New Literacies and Comprehension 377

highlights excellent books that are appropriate for teaching students about multiple story
lines, multiple authors, and multiple spatial plans. This lesson shows students a variety
of story and text structures to better prepare them for applying new comprehension skills
needed to understand multiple literacies.

Summary

In summary, comprehension lessons in the future will seamlessly connect literacy and
technology. Teachers will pull from a backpack of teaching tools that they have ready
to teach comprehension lessons such as turning to online read-aloud books, VFTs, and
WebQuests to enable children to acquire background knowledge prior to reading a text.
Teachers will explicitly show students a variety of texts that present multiple voices, sto-
ries, and structures, while enabling students to comprehend the nonlinear structure of
Internet reading. As educators prepare for the future, they must take into consideration
the skills their students need to become productive and employable citizens of a techno-
logically driven world. Educators today, and in the future, must continually find ways to
engage and interest students, so that children develop a love of reading and writing early
in their formal schooling experiences.

Integrate, Investigate, and Initiate: Questions for Discussion

1. Examine your school library or a library within your district. How would you change it to ensure that
the information you learned in this chapter could be better incorporated into that setting to ensure that
all students’ needs can be met?
2. Visit one of the websites cited in this article and prepare a summary of the information you would use
from this website to improve your instruction of comprehension.
3. Interview a school principal or a vice-­principal about the most important features of technology- or
print-based comprehension that exists in their school. Prepare a one-page, bulleted summary of the
information you have learned from reading this book to give to him or her before you leave, so that he
or she has methods to consider in the future to improve the comprehension of all students. With each
bulleted suggestion, include from your perspective the reasons why that innovation would advance
students’ comprehension. Once these interviews have been completed, share the experiences with
colleagues who conducted similar interviews.

References

Block, C. C. (2004). Teaching comprehension: The comprehension process approach. Boston:

Allyn & Bacon.
Block, C. C., Gambrell, L. B., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2004). Improving comprehension instruc-
tion: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Casey, H. K. (2010). Engaging the disengaged: Using learning clubs to motivate struggling adoles-
cent readers and writers. In R. M. Bean, N. Heisey, & C. M. Roller (Eds.), Preparing reading
professionals (2nd ed., pp. 265–275). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Castek, J., Bevans-­Mangelson, J. B., & Goldstone, B. (2006). Reading adventures online: Five
ways to introduce the new literacies of the Internet through children’s literature. The Reading
Teacher, 59(7), 714–728.
Coiro, J. (2003). Rethinking comprehension strategies to better prepare students for critically
evaluating content on the Internet. NERA Journal, 39(2), 29–34.
378 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by
sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the internet. Reading
Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214–257.
Dalton, B. & Grisham, D. L. (2011). E-Voc Strategies: Ten ways to improve vocabulary teaching
using technology. The Reading Teacher. 64(5), 306–317.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press. Retrieved May 20, 2014, from
www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/dewey.html.
Dodge, B., & March, T. (1995). Webquest.Org. Retrieved from http://webquest.org.
Dreher, M. J. (1993). Reading to locate information: Societal and educational perspectives. Con-
temporary Educational Psychology, 18, 129–138.
Eliopoulos, D., & Gotlieb, C. (2003). Evaluating web search results rankings. Online, 27, 42–48.
Gambrell, L. B., Wilson, R. M., & Gantt, W. N. (1981). Classroom observations of task-­attending
behaviors of good and poor readers. Journal of Educational Research, 76(4), 400–404.
Gee, J., & Hayes, E. (2011). Language and literacy in the digital age. New York: Routledge.
Guinee, K., Eagleton, M. B., & Hall, T. E. (2003). Adolescents’ Internet search strategies: Drawing
upon familiar cognitive paradigms when accessing electronic information sources. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 29, 363–374.
Henry, L. A. (2006). SEARCHing for an answer: The critical role of the new literacies while read-
ing on the Internet. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 614–627.
International Reading Association (IRA). (2001). Integrating literacy and technology in the cur-
riculum (Position statement). Retrieved June 1, 2014, from www.reading.org/downloads/
positions/ps1048_technology.pdf.
International Reading Association & National Council of Teachers of English. (2000). Standards
for the English Language Arts. Newark, DE/Urbana, IL: Author.
International Society for Technology in Education. (1998). National educational technology stan-
dards for students. Eugene, OR: Author. Retrieved June, 1 2014, from http://cnets.iste.org/
students/s_stands.html.
Jacobs, G. E. (2008). People, purposes, and practices: Insights from cross-­disciplinary research
into instant messaging. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), The hand-
book of research on new literacies (pp. 467–490). New York: Routledge.
Johnson, D. (2005). Miss Rumphius as a role model for preservice teachers. In R. A. Karchermer, M.
H. Mallette, J. Kara-­Soteriou, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Innovative approaches to literacy education:
Using the Internet to support new literacies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Karchmer, R. A., Mallette, M. H., Kara-­Soteriou, J., & Leu, D. J. (2005). Innovative approaches
to literacy education: Using the Internet to support new literacies. Newark, DE: Interna-
tional Reading Association.
Kinzer, C. K. (2003). The importance of recognizing the expanding boundaries of literacy. Retrieved
June 1, 2007, from www.readingonline.org/electornic/elec_index.asp?HREF=kinzer.
Kirchen, D. J. (2011). Making and taking virtual field trips in pre-K and the primary grades.
Young Children, 66(6), 22–26.
Labbo, L. (2002). Computers, kids, and comprehension: Instructional practices that make a differ-
ence. In C. C. Block, L. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruc-
tion: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom (pp. 275–289). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Labbo, L. (2004). Author’s computer chair. The Reading Teacher, 57, 688–691.
Lacina, J. (2004). Designing a virtual fieldtrip. Childhood Education, 80(4), 221–222.
Lacina, J. (2007). Inquiry based learning and technology: Designing and exploring WebQuests.
Childhood Education, 83(4). 251–252.
Lacina, J., & Griffith, R. (2012). Blogging as a means to craft writing. The Reading Teacher,
66(4), 316–320.
Lacina, J., & Mathews, S. (2012). Using online storybooks to build comprehension. Childhood
Education, 88(3), 155–161.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and classroom learning
(3rd ed.). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
New Literacies and Comprehension 379

Lee, H.-C., & Gilles, C. (2012). Discussing culturally relevant books online: A cross-­cultural blog-
ging project. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 11(4), 161–177.
Leu, D. J. (2001). Internet project: Preparing students for new literacies in a global village. The
Reading Teacher, 54, 568–585.
Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new lit-
eracies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies.
In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.,
pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Lewin, L. (1998). Taming the Web: Reading for comprehension. Multimedia Schools, 5, 50–52.
McKenna, M. C., Labbo, L. D., & Reinking, D. (2003). Effective use of technology in literacy
instruction. In L. M. Morrow, L. B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy
instruction (2nd ed., pp. 307–331). New York: Guilford Press.
Nachmias, R., & Gilad, A. (2002). Needle in a hyperstack: Searching for information on the
World Wide Web. Journal of Research in Technology in Education, 34, 475–486.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-­fostering and
comprehension-­monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M., & Gambrell, L. B. (1994). In their own words: What elementary
children have to say about motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 48, 176–179.
Seuss, Dr. (1975). Oh, the thinks you can think! New York: Random House.
Snyder, I. (2002). Literacy education in the digital age: Reframing curriculum and pedagogy. Peda-
gogisch Tijdschrift, 27, 145–157.
Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in new literacy studies?: Critical approaches to literacy in theory
and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2). Retrieved June 1, 2014, from
www.tc.columbia.edu/cice/articles/bs152.htm.
Sweeny, S. (2011). Writing for the instant messaging and text messaging generation: Using new
literacies to support writing instruction. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 54(2),
121–130.
Turbill, J. (2002). The four ages of reading philosophy and pedagogy: A framework for examin-
ing theory and practice. Retrieved June 1, 2014, from www.readingonline.org/international/
inter_index.asp?href=turbill4/index.html.
Tutwiler, M., Lin, M., & Chang, C. (2013). Determining virtual environment “fit”: The relation-
ship between navigation style in a virtual field trip, student self-­reported desire to visit the
field trip site in the real world, and the purposes of science education. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 22(3), 351–361.
Valmont, W. J. (2003). Technology for literacy teaching and learning. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Van Leeuwen, C. A., & Gabriel, M. A. (2007). Beginning to write with word processing: Integrat-
ing writing process and technology in the primary classroom. The Reading Teacher, 60(5),
420–428.
Warschauer, M. (2006). Laptops and literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Worthy, J., Chamberlain, K., Peterson, K., Sharp, C., & Shih, P.-Y. (2012). The importance of
read-aloud and dialogue in an era of narrowed curriculum: An examination of literature
discussions in a second-­g rade classroom. Literacy Research and Instruction. 51(4), 308–322.

Children’s Books Cited

Atkin, S. B. (2001). Voices from the fields: Children of migrant farm workers tell their stories.
Illustrated with photos. New York: Scholastic.
Beatty, P. (1992). Lupita mañana. New York. Junior Books.
Beckwith, K. (2005). Playing war. Illustrated by L. Lyons. Thamaston, ME: Tilbury House.
Browne, A. (1998). Voices in the park. Illustrated by the author. New York: Dorling Kindersley.
Bunting, E. (1994). Smoky nights. Illustrated by D. Diaz. New York: Voyager Books.
380 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

Cherry, L. (1996). The armadillo from Amarillo. Illustrated by the author. San Diego: Harcourt
Brace.
Cole, J. (1995). The magic school bus inside a hurricane. Illustrated by B. Degen. New York:
Scholastic.
Fleischman, P. (1997). Seedfolks. Illustrated by J. Pedersen. New York: Joanna Cotler Books.
Frasier, D. (2000). Miss Alaineus a vocabulary disaster. Illustrated by the author. New York:
Scholastic.
Goldschmidt, J. (2005). The secret blog of Raisin Rodriguez. New York: Penguin.
Greenfield, L. (2006). When the horses ride by: Children in the times of war. Illustrated by J.
Spivey Gilchrist. New York: Lee & Low Books.
Macauley, D. (1999). Shortcut. Illustrated by the author. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Martin, J. B. (1999). Snowflake Bentley. Illustrated by M. Azarian. New York: Scholastic.
Mayer, M. (2005). There are monsters everywhere. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.
Naidoo, B. (2005). Making it home: Real-life stories from children forced to flee. New York:
Penguin Young Readers.
Oppenheim, J. (1994). Floratorium. Illustrated by S. Schindler. New York: Bantam.
Schotter, R. (1999). Nothing ever happens on 90th Street. Illustrated by K. Brooker. New York:
Orchard Paperbacks.
Sneed, B. (2002). Picture a letter. Illustrated by the author. New York: Fogelman.
Teague, M. (2002). Dear Mrs. LaRue: Letters from obedience school. Illustrated by the author.
New York: Scholastic.
Wiesner, D. (2001). The three pigs. Illustrated by the author. New York: Scholastic.
 Chapter 27

Summing Up
Putting Comprehension Instruction
in Context

Kathy Headley and Sheri R. Parris

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—

I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
—Robert F rost, “The Road Not Taken”
(1920)

Global Interactivity

Parris, Gambrell, and Schleicher (Chapter 1) lead the way in establishing this overarch-
ing theme, a pathway, if you will, for the third edition of Comprehension Instruction:
Research-­Based Best Practices. As we interact through a variety of multiple literacies,
technology has advanced our engagement across time and place. In doing so, conver-
sations among readers and writers are relatively instantaneous. Students in classrooms
around the world communicate within seconds and minutes instead of days and weeks.
Such expertise in rapid communication boosts survival and success in our global econ-
omy. While Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are a national step for progress in
literacy achievement, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the
Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) globally extend our view to a
world perspective among countries.
Grounded in a global perspective, the themes and new directions for our book’s
edition connect with and develop further the research and best practices from the previ-
ous edition. As a way to visualize the content within this edition, Figure 27.1 graphically
describes the progression among themes. The themes include the following:

• The theoretical bases, upon which research and best practices are situated.
• Meeting the needs of all students, particularly focusing on at-risk students,

381
382 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

Theoretical
Technology
Bases

Global Meeting Needs

Instruction
of All Students
Interactivity
of Literacy

Adolescent Multimodal
Learners Literacy

Motivation
and
Cognition

FIGURE 27.1. Themes and new directions.

including English language learners (ELLs), and ways in which supplemental

instruction may and may not meet the comprehension demands for learners with
special needs. This theme also draws on the versatility of multimodal literacy in
improving comprehension among all learners.
• The learner’s motivation to read and the awareness of reading for understanding.
While all readers are considered within this theme, engaging adolescent readers
is another key thematic focus. Our knowledge of cognition, including neuroscien-
tific knowledge, provides an understanding of underlying processes that take place
during reading.
• Instructional supports for improved student learning, especially during the cur-
rent movement and debate revolving around the CCSS.
• Importantly for the forecast of our future, impactful efforts of moving forward
with and through technology.

Common Themes
Theoretical Bases
As with the previous editions of Comprehension Instruction, the third edition embodies
comprehension best practices that extend from foundational and advancing theoretical
bases, including critical theory, embodied cognition and dual coding theory (DCT), cog-
nitive flexibility, and constructivist theory. Sadoski’s descriptive explanation of embodied
cognition and dual coding (Chapter 4) puts forth the idea that comprehension is mul-
tisensory, that we engage in literacy through multiple senses in multiple ways. Inher-
ent in this perspective is DCT, a theoretical basis for reading instruction that Sadoski
reinforces, which is effective with low socioeconomic status (SES), high-­minority, and
low-­achieving schools. Cartwright (Chapter 5) diligently explains the important role of
Summing Up 383

cognitive flexibility to the reader’s comprehension of text. Maneuvering their way into
text, skilled readers use different skills or cognitive tools, if you will, to grasp the full
depth of meaning.
In Chapter 7, Caccamise, Friend, Littrell-­Baez, and Kintsch outline the integration
of assessment into the learning process to better inform the progress and needs of the
learner. Much of this advancement is due to changes in technology, and the efficient and
effective feedback that emerges from the reader’s engagement in construction of meaning.
Thus, the underlying constructivist theory utilizes the reader, the text, and technology
to access deeper ways of knowing. In addition, critical literacies, empowered by cultural,
social, and political practices, involve both reading and writing. Engagement of readers
in critical literacies empowers meaningful, relevant connections to their lives and to the
world around them, just as the quote used by Yoon at the beginning of Chapter 2, “read-
ing the world by reading the word” (Freire, 1998, p. xiii).

Meeting the Needs of All Learners

Today, more than any time in the past, educators are held accountable for student
achievement. Regardless of the political initiatives and underlying agendas, all children
can learn and should learn. To support the varying needs of students, several chapters
in this third edition closely address the challenges of meeting those needs. Brasseur-­
Hock, Hock, and Deshler (Chapter 13) focus on students with learning differences
who are at risk of failure, acknowledging the importance of success for beginning read-
ers but honing in on the struggles of middle and high school readers. ELLs represent
another segment of our student population with specific learning needs. This is espe-
cially true within the CCSS movement that challenges educators to examine instruc-
tion and assessment for all students, but particularly for students who require different
learning supports. Rueda, Unrau, and Son (Chapter 14) advise how CCSS may impact
comprehension instruction and assessment for ELL students. Regarding additional sup-
ports through response to intervention (RTI), MacPhee, Bemiss, and Stephens (Chapter
12) delve into the outcomes of research investigations. Only one study out of 19 clearly
reported results of how RTI supplemental intervention improved students’ comprehen-
sion of texts.

Multimodal Literacy
Two chapters address the versatility of multimodal literacy: print, sound, visual, and
touch. Each of these may be delivered in traditional ways or through technology-­enhanced
modes. Lamping (Chapter 21) expands the definitions of multimodal to include con-
texts that are impacted by culture and linguistics. She builds the case for using multiple
pathways to learning. Likewise, Laster (Chapter 22) supports the same premise. Both
authors apply their examples to struggling learners or, to put it best, learners who gain
knowledge through approaches that use myriad engagement techniques. While multi-
modal approaches may be atypical in the overall school environment, the larger point
remains that learning is increased when multimodal approaches are used to connect each
student through individual strengths. The teacher as the sage on the stage is an outdated,
ineffective instructional methodology. Instead, students lead the way in their own learn-
ing when they are culturally, linguistically, and experientially engaged, and are able to
interact within the contexts and in the ways that address how they learn best.
384 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

In Chapter 10, McIntyre adds to the culturally relevant conversation with her stance
that comprehension aligns well with culturally responsive instruction. She shares her
view that high-­quality discussions, purposefully selected texts, and engaging and moti-
vating contexts are critical elements in culturally responsive practices.

Motivation and Cognition

Motivation is essential to improving reading comprehension according to Malloy
(­Chapter 11). To support motivation to read, student interest and choice, along with
engagement in relevant learning tasks, are key elements that empower students. An
intriguing component of Malloy’s recommendations includes the establishment of
student-­centered, teacher-­facilitated communities in the classroom. Such communities
would employ “interest, choice, collaboration, authenticity, and support,” as Malloy
states in the chapter summary (Chapter 11, p. 158). The role of metacognition in read-
ing comprehension has strong supporting links to motivation and interest, as outlined by
Baker, DeWyngaert, and Zeliger-­Kandasamy (Chapter 6). Reflectively, the authors build
the case from research on metacognition that cognition, metacognition, and motivation,
when interconnected, impact reading comprehension. Additionally, Parris and Block
(Chapter 9) discuss how our knowledge of the neuroscientific processes that occur dur-
ing reading, including all related cognitive processes, are increasingly informing research
in our field.

Adolescent Learners
Extending the conversation between the themes of meeting the needs of all learners and
motivation and cognition, Fisher and Frey (Chapter 18) reinforce the message that ado-
lescent readers use cognition, motivation, knowledge, and experiences to comprehend
text. A successful survival guide for secondary students needs to incorporate learning
experiences that engage these young adult readers. The repeated verse to improving com-
prehension at any age, but particularly during adolescence, continues to be the necessity
to have an engaged reader who is motivated to approach reading as a self-­initiated activity
or within a purposeful social context.
The current importance of informational text is emphasized by Jacobs and Ippolito
(Chapter 20). While little research has investigated the comprehension of informational
text, even at the middle and secondary levels, adoption of the CCSS requires that we bet-
ter prepare our students to read and comprehend more complex informational text. This
is not the old adage that all teachers are teachers of reading, but rather that the reader’s
ability to understand informational text and to think critically about that text is vital
to disciplinary learning. Ohlson, Monroe-Ossi, and Parris (Chapter 19) offer a slightly
differing message that application of comprehension strategies is important in reading
fiction across all disciplines, in addition to reading informational text.

Instruction
Instructional changes are caught in a whirlwind of controversy, particularly in the politi-
cal debates around the CCSS. Ford-­Connors et al. (Chapter 8) substantiate that CCSS
use literacy to provide guidance for student learning but do not dictate implementation.
As they describe in their chapter, changes in instruction should involve more attention to
motivation, knowledge goals, text selection, and ways in which we purposefully group
Summing Up 385

students for effective, interactive learning. Relatedly, dialogue and argumentation are
two activities that can engage students in critical thinking, shared learning, and relevant
problem solving, according to Reznitskaya, Anderson, and Hsu (Chapter 3). The authors
duly note that such dialogue-­intensive pedagogies place high but impactful demands on
teachers. Continuing the dialogue around effective comprehension instruction and build-
ing from neuroimaging research, Smolkin and McTigue (Chapter 16) provide new ideas
for using story maps, particularly emphasizing readers’ empathic connections with the
text and therefore improved comprehension.
Duke and Martin (Chapter 15) outline best practices for comprehension instruction,
from established research and practices to current trends in comprehension research and
development. The latter includes comprehending different types of text, including digital
and multimodal text in and out of school and in disciplinary contexts, the use of specific
strategies for genre knowledge and comprehension, and developing reading comprehen-
sion with dual language learners, particularly vocabulary knowledge. Likewise, Pao and
Williams (Chapter 17) guide our thinking about how to improve reading instruction,
particularly instruction using informational text. Insights from their research with sec-
ond graders support the use of text structure intervention as an aid to students’ compre-
hension.

Technology
Technology, its use with instruction and students’ comprehension of text in its many
forms, is sprinkled throughout the third edition. In Chapter 25, Gee reminds us that lan-
guage is complex, especially the language of school-­based disciplines. He encourages the
use of popular culture practices for literacy development. In his words, we should “learn
from popular culture how to teach traditional content better” (Chapter 25, p. 363). Stu-
dents, for example, use technology for simulated learning contexts that immerse them
in the specialized language of the disciplinary learning and situate their learning within
authentic learning tasks. Such environments prompt students to read, write, think, and
talk about their learning with others.
Linked to Gee’s urge for more technology-­rich practices, Lacina (Chapter 26) shares
resources, sites, strategies, and methods that can be used to integrate technology into
comprehension instruction, while Dalton and Rose (Chapter 24) highlight teaching and
learning practices with etexts. In Chapter 23, Castek, Coiro, Henry, Leu, and Hart-
man discuss ways that comprehension differs with online reading, and measures that aid
in assessing students’ online reading ability. Comprehending nonlinear text structures
places new demands on teachers and students. With the imminent increase of alternative
texts in our future, such demands will only escalate. Therefore, professional development
will need to incorporate research-­based support for effective integration of technology
into reading comprehension instruction.

Pathways to the Future

The authors contributing to this third edition of Comprehension Instruction: Research-­
Based Best Practices each add to our expanded definitions of reading comprehension.
We are reminded that the contexts through which reading takes place are ever-­changing.
Technology certainly has encouraged our global interactivity, but our research on com-
prehension instruction gives us direction to consider the needs of each and every learner
in the most effective and purposeful ways possible.
386 M U LT I M O D A L L I T E R A C I E S A N D C O M P R E H E N S I O N

In this summary chapter, we would have you consider the thematic guidance, in the
form of key concepts and questions to consider, as pondered by our authors:

• Global Interactivity: Today’s world is economically and socially interconnected;

thus, we must view U.S. issues within a broader global perspective.
• Theoretical Bases: To better inform reading research and instruction, neurosci-
entific research can integrate findings to establish new theoretical models or to
modify current ones.
• Meeting Needs of All Learners and Multimodal Literacy: As we increase the num-
ber of classrooms that are more child-­centered, multimodal learning environments
and focus on the individualized needs of all students, we need differentiated sup-
ports for reading comprehension that can be implemented within these highly
diverse settings.
• Motivation and Cognition; Adolescents: For greater relevance and value, authen-
tic tasks engage learners. This especially holds true for young adults.
• Instruction: Leaving behind traditional teacher and student roles, new perspec-
tives position students as active meaning makers and teachers as observers and
facilitators.
• Technology: Global connections through technology encourage our students’
engagement in high-­quality, challenging learning activities.

Concluding Thoughts

This summary chapter to the third edition began with a Robert Frost quote about dif-
ferent roads and the choices we make. Our authors have provided an array of thought-­
provoking choices that promote our thinking about effective comprehension instruction.
Today and tomorrow bring us ever-­changing choices and resources that can and will
enable us to support all learners across landscapes that stretch worldwide. Our students
can no longer “do” school but must engage in reading and writing challenging texts for
real purposes and with real audiences.
Our global interactivity demands that we examine research for pathways to best
practices that support comprehension.

References

Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare teach. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Frost, R. (1920). Mountain interval. New York: Holt.
 Author Index

Aarnoutse, C., 326 Amrein-Beardsley, A., 194

Abbott, R. D., 65 Amso, D., 58
Adams, A., 117 Anderman, E. M., 151
Adger, C. T., 138 Anders, P., 40
Adler, M., 41 Anderson, E., 111
Adlof, S., 180 Anderson, K. L., 168
Afflerbach, P., 24, 109, 112, 333 Anderson, L. C., 58
Ainsworth, L., 257 Anderson, R. C., 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 41,
Aist, G. S., 347 47, 90, 110, 116, 138, 213, 360, 385
Akhondi, M., 281 Anderson, T. H., 281
Alao, S., 111 Anderson, V., 239
Alba, J. W., 46 Anderson-Inman, L., 347
Alexander, J., 370 Andreou, G., 77
Alexander, J. F., 37, 213 Angwin, A. J., 130
Alexander, P. A., 112 Anthoni, H., 129
Alexander, R. J., 29, 30, 41 Applebee, A. N., 41, 214
Alfassi, M., 326 Applegate, A. J., 56
Allen, P., 317 Applegate, M. D., 56, 62
Allensworth, E., 108 Armbruster, B. B., 281
Alley, G. R., 187 Asgari, M., 127
Allington, R. L., 115, 151 Asher, J., 203
Allison, T., 127 Asterhan, C. S. C., 37
Almasi, J. F., 78, 114, 155 Astington, J. W., 227, 229, 230, 232, 234, 235
Almond, R. G., 94 Atkin, S. B., 376
Alt, M., 95 Atkins, J. G., 74, 75, 84, 241
Altemeier, L. E., 65 Atwell, N., 114
Alvarez, H. H., 142 Au, K., 20
Alvermann, D. E., 21, 41, 149, 198, 254, 296, Aud, S., 195
297 August, D., 196, 197, 198, 199, 201, 203, 216

387
388 Author Index

B Blaye, A., 65
Bloch, D., 317
Badalis, J., 61 Block, C. C., 3, 52, 123, 213, 367, 368, 371, 384
Baddeley, A. D., 150 Blomeyer, R. L., 351
Baird, J. A., 227, 234, 235 Blommers, P., 57
Baker, L., 72, 73, 76, 83, 90, 149, 284, 320, 384 Bloom, H. S., 99
Baker, S. K., 177, 239, 314, 356, 360 Blumenfeld, P. C., 149
Bakhtin, M. M., 19, 31 Boardman, A. G., 78, 266, 267, 269, 270, 273
Baldwin, L., 282 Bock, A. M., 58, 59, 60
Bales, R. J., 314 Boker, J. R., 271
Balthazar, C. H., 279 Bomer, R., 278, 279
Bandura, A., 148, 149, 256 Boone, R., 347
Banks, J. A., 137 Borella, E., 57
Banks, K., 232, 233 Borsheim-Black, C., 41
Baquedano-Lopez, P., 142 Bos, C. S., 241
Barab, S., 319 Boschken, I., 327
Barber, J., 215 Bottge, B. A., 178
Baron-Cohen, S., 227 Boulton-Lewis, G., 40
Bates, T. C., 129 Bowerman, V., 198
Bazerman, C., 215 Boynton, M. J., 198
Beall, L. C., 83, 320 Bradley, B. A., 330
Bean, T. W., 284 Brand-Gruwel, S., 326
Beatty, P., 371 Brandon, R. R., 163
Beavis, C., 15 Brasseur-Hock, I. F., 175, 182, 183, 383
Beck, I. L., 37, 40, 81, 115, 213, 214, 224, 228, 239, Breitenstein, C., 130
268, 272, 282, 283, 284, 357 Breunig, M., 21
Beckwith, K., 376 Briggs, T. H., 285
Beinicke, A., 77 Brophy, J., 150
Bell, N., 50 Brown, A. L., 46, 73, 76, 115, 178, 326, 327, 328,
Bellows, B. P., 319 329, 330, 347, 371
Bemiss, E., 162, 383 Brown, K. J., 212
Benjamin, R. G., 94 Brown, R., 74, 115, 212
Bennett, L., 151 Browne, A., 376
Bennett-Armistead, V. S., 281 Brownlee, J., 40
Berg, E. A., 58 Brozo, W. G., 254, 259
Berkeley, S., 78, 80, 81, 84, 240 Bruner, J. S., 256
Bernhardt, E. B., 200 Brunstein, J. C., 78
Berninger, V. W., 65 Bryant, P., 73
Berry, D., 65 Bryk, A. S., 108
Bertus, E. L., 239 Brynelson, N., 203
Best, R., 348 Buehl, D., 283
Bevans-Mangelson, J. B., 373, 376 Bulgren, J. A., 187
Bezemer, J., 297 Buly, M. R., 57, 182
Bialystok, E., 56, 62 Bunting, E., 376
Biancarosa, G., 176, 177, 182, 266, 267, 268, 271 Burbules, N. C., 29
Bianco, S., 198 Burke, A., 297
Bigler, R. S., 58, 60 Burns, M. S., 267, 280
Billman, A. K., 106, 177, 213, 224 Burstein, J., 96
Binici, S., 37 Bus, A. G., 130, 349
Binkley, M., 13 Buttner, G., 74, 75, 79, 80, 84
Birch, D., 318
Blachowicz, C., 112
Black, A. R., 99 C
Black, P., 90
Black, R. W., 356 Caccamise, D., 88, 90, 91, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99,
Blair, T. R., 240 383
Blake, R. G. K., 81, 115, 213, 272, 283 Cahnmann-Taylor, M., 194
Blau, H., 349 Cain, K., 57, 65, 73, 80
Author Index 389

Cairns, H. S., 82 Christian, D., 138

Calabrese, K., 257 Chudowsky, N., 90, 94
Caldarola, N., 78 Chukovsky, K., 224, 227
Caldwell, J., 168 Chun, C. W., 22, 23
Calfee, R. C., 107, 239 Cimeli, P., 77
Calkins, L., 108 Cirino, P. T., 164, 167, 169, 171
Calvert, L., 212 Clark, B., 313
Calvert, W., 154 Clark, F. L., 183, 187
Cambourne, B., 151 Clark, K. F., 212
Cammack, D. W., 215, 367 Clark, L. A., 65
Camp, G., 77 Clarke, P., 57, 314
Cannon, J., 230, 233 Clause, J., 60
Cantrell, S. C., 78, 80 Clay, M. M., 1, 58
Caplan, D., 127 Codling, R. M., 155, 368
Cardebat, D., 130 Cohen, N., 350
Carey, J., 129 Coiro, J., 194, 214, 215, 324, 325, 329, 330, 332,
Carlisle, J. F., 88, 177, 213 334, 367, 368, 375, 385
Carlo, M. S., 198, 199, 216 Cole, J., 376
Carney, M., 105 Colé, P., 65
Carnine, D., 241 Coleman, D., 270
Carpenter, P. A., 57, 127 Collins, K. M., 213
Carretti, B., 57, 65, 78, 80, 84 Collins, M., 139
Carter, A., 330, 335 Colton, A. B., 257
Carter, J. C., 78 Comber, B., 20, 22
Cartwright, K. B., 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, Compton, D. L., 212
65, 66, 90, 129, 212, 382 Concha, S., 348
Case, L. P., 163, 164, 170, 171 Condie, C., 281
Case, R., 58 Conley, M. W., 283
Casey, H. K., 373 Connor, C. M., 217
Castek, J., 215, 324, 325, 327, 330, 332, 333, 373, Constable, R. T., 128
376, 385 Cook Smith, N., 350
Catts, H., 180, 181 Cooper, J. D., 327
Caughlan, S., 41, 214 Cope, B., 325
Cavalier, A. R., 346 Copland, D. A., 127, 130
Caverly, D. C., 187 Coppage, E. A., 60, 63
Celano, D., 151 Cornoldi, C., 57, 78
Certo, J., 109 Corrigan, O., 260
Cervetti, G. N., 215 Cote, N., 273
Chall, J. S., 281, 282, 283 Coutelet, B., 73
Chamberlain, K., 368 Cox, B., 282
Chambers, B., 163, 165, 170, 171, 193 Coxhead, A., 282
Chambliss, M. J., 39, 239 Coyne, P., 350
Chang, C., 371 Crassas, M. E., 109
Chapman, S., 47 Creech, S., 234
Chappell, S. V., 194 Creswell, J. W., 20
Chen, R., 180 Crévola, C., 263
Chenery, H. J., 127, 130 Crosson, A. C., 198
Cheney, R., 31 Crowell, A., 37, 39, 40
Cheng, R., 241 Crowley, K., 358
Cherry, L., 376 Csikszentmihalyi, M., 298
Cheung, A., 168, 193 Cundick, B. P., 314
Cheung, A. C. K., 193 Cunningham, J. W., 224, 228, 316
Child, D. A., 74 Cunningham, P. M., 151, 316
Chilton, S., 197 Curtis, M. B., 177, 182
Chinn, C. A., 29, 32, 110, 114, 119 Cusenbary, S., 187
Chiong, C., 350 Cutter, J., 213
Cho, B. Y., 109 Cutting, L. E., 57, 127, 177, 180, 181
Chomsky, N., 46, 48, 224, 358 Cziko, C., 178
390 Author Index

D Dorph, R., 215

Dove, G., 48
Dack, L. A., 227, 229, 232, 234 Doyle, B., 109
Dadds, M., 234 Dreher, M. J., 224, 228, 375
Daley, S. G., 350 Dresher, B. E., 46
Dalton, B., 216, 318, 345, 346, 347, 348, 350, 352, Dressler, C., 216
367, 385 Dreyer, L., 166
Dalton, L., 13 Drummond, K., 350
Dalton, S. S., 138, 139, 143 Duesbery, L., 163
Dandy, K. L., 58, 60 Duff, H., 370
Daneman, M., 57 Duffy, G. G., 109, 112, 183, 213, 256
Darling-Hammond, L., 194 DuFour, R., 117
Davidson, M. C., 58 Duguay, A., 194
Davis, M. H., 131, 152, 320 Duke, N. K., 62, 106, 108, 113, 114, 151, 177, 211,
Davis, S., 193 212, 213, 214, 224, 228, 270, 279, 281, 284, 385
Dawes, L., 29, 37 Duncan, L. G., 65
Dawson, P., 57 Dunleavy, M., 328
Day, J., 40 Dunlosky, J., 72
De Beni, R., 57 Dunning, D. B., 228, 229, 230
de Bruin, A. B. H., 77, 79 Dyer, J. R., 234
De Corte, E., 326
de la Paz, J., 227
De La Paz, S., 215 E
de Silva, C. S., 22
Debruin-Parecki, A., 61 Eagleton, M. B., 215, 375
Deci, E. L., 149 Eason, S. H., 57, 127
del Río, F., 61 Eccles, J., 155
Delgado-Gaitan, C., 137 Eckert, S. A., 94
Demonet, J., 130 Edelman, G. M., 123, 124
Denis, M., 50 Edlund, J. R., 203
Denton, C. A., 163, 164, 165, 166, 169, 170, 171 Edmonds, M. S., 270, 272
Denton, D. R., 267 Edwards, M., 117
Denton, P. H., 187 Efklides, A., 72
Dermitzaki, I., 77 Ehri, L. C., 82
DeSchryver, M., 326 Einstein, A., 1
Deshler, D. D., 115, 167, 175, 176, 182, 183, 187, Elbert, A., 129
188, 259, 383 Elbro, C., 347
DeVoogd, G., 20 Eliopoulos, D., 375
Dewey, J., 285, 299, 306, 308, 367 Elkovitch, N., 65
Dewitz, P., 56, 57 Elleman, A. M., 212
Dewitz, P. K., 56, 57 Ellis, E. S., 183
DeWyngaert, L. U., 65, 72, 90, 384 Ellis-Weismer, S., 180
Dexter, S., 328 Ellsworth, R., 155
Diamond, A., 58 Elmore, R., 189
Dickinson, D. K., 358 Ely, R., 95
Dickson, S. V., 281 Eme, E., 73
Dignath, C., 74, 75, 79, 80, 84 Emery, D. W., 228, 229, 230, 233, 234
Dijkstra, K., 226 Englert, C. S., 281
Dillow, S. A., 194 Erickson, L., 284, 350
diSessa, A. A., 363 Estrada, P., 138
Dixon, K., 24 Everett-Cacopardo, H., 313
Dobbs, C. L., 282 Everson, M. G., 91, 239
Dobler, E., 214, 215, 324, 325, 351, 375 Ezell, H. K., 240
Dodge, B., 372, 373
Dolch, E. W., 56, 57
Dole, J. A., 183, 212, 268 F
Dong, T., 39
Donne, J., 317 Faggella-Luby, M. N., 163, 164, 167, 171, 172, 188, 259
Doorey, N. A., 96 Fairbanks, M. M., 268
Author Index 391

Fallows, D., 326 Gallimore, R., 137, 139

Fang, Z., 279, 282, 284 Gambrell, L. B., 7, 50, 114, 147, 151, 154, 155, 156,
Farnia, F., 198 212, 224, 314, 368, 381
Fawson, P. C., 213 Gamoran, A., 29, 41
Ferdig, R. E., 351 Gamson, D. A., 94
Ferreira, A., 24 Ganley, P., 350
Ferretti, R. P., 346 Gantt, W. N., 368
Ferstl, E. C., 126, 128 Garcia-Madruga, J. A., 82
Fidanque, A., 163 Gardhill, M. C., 271
Fiebach, C. J., 126, 127 Gardiner, M., 318
Fielding, L., 141 Garner, R., 313, 320
Fiez, J. A., 127 Gaskins, I. W., 56, 57
Fisher, D., 107, 115, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 263, Gates, P. S., 23
266, 279, 284, 384 Gay, G., 137, 138
Fisher, J. B., 187 Gebauer, D., 131
Fitzgerald, J., 107 Gee, J. P., 18, 19, 20, 112, 320, 325, 346, 356, 357,
Fitzgerald, R., 164 358, 360, 361, 362, 363, 367, 385
Fleischman, P., 376 Gelzheiser, L. M., 163, 164, 167, 168, 171, 172
Fletcher, J., 155, 156 Gersten, R., 177, 183, 239, 314, 356, 360
Fletcher, J. M., 164, 167, 169, 170, 171 Geva, E., 198
Flint, A., 21 Ghiso, M., 297
Flood, J., 1, 266 Gil, L., 76
Foertsch, M. A., 214 Gilad, A., 375
Ford, D. Y., 140 Gilles, C., 374
Ford-Connors, E., 105, 384 Giroux, H., 20
Foster, E. O., 224, 228 Givvin, K. B., 40
Foster, M. L., 139 Glaser, R., 94
Fountas, I. C., 114 Glass, R. D., 20
Fox, E., 279 Glenberg, A. M., 48, 52, 312
Francis, D. J., 197 Glenn, C. G., 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 234
Frankel, K. K., 320 Globerson, T., 347
Frankenberg, E., 193 Goetz, E. T., 46, 129
Frasier, D., 376 Goff, L. S., 257
Freebody, P., 18, 19, 20, 21 Goldenberg, C. N., 195, 197, 216
Freedle, R. O., 240 Goldman, S. R., 241, 273
Freire, P., 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 25, 285, 302, 383 Goldschmidt, J., 376
Frey, N., 107, 115, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 263, Goldschmidt, P. G., 215
279, 284, 384 Goldstone, B., 373, 376
Friederici, A. D., 126, 127 González, N., 138
Friend, A., 88, 93, 94, 98, 99, 383 Goodlad, J., 254
Frijters, J. C., 154, 156 Goodman, K. S., 15, 58
Frith, C. D., 227 Goodman, Y., 15
Frith, U., 227 Gordon, D., 348
Frost, R., 381, 386 Gordon, E. W., 193
Frost, S. J., 127, 128, 129, 130, 131 Gore, J., 127
Frye, D., 57, 58 Goswami, U., 13
Fuchs, D., 64, 74 Gotlieb, C., 375
Fuchs, L. S., 64, 74, 177, 239, 314, 356 Gottardo, A., 198
Fulbright, R. K., 126 Gough, P. B., 46, 177, 180, 198
Fullan, M., 263 Gounari, P., 313
Fulmer, S. M., 154, 156 Gracely, E. J., 130
Fung, I. Y., 326 Graesser, A. C., 72, 91, 94, 96, 226, 239
Graham, S., 116, 187, 216, 266, 267, 269, 271
Grant, M., 257
G Granville, S., 24
Graves, A. W., 163
Gabriel, M. A., 368 Graves, M. F., 201, 268
Gallagher, G., 256, 268 Gray, L., 194
Gallaway, K. C., 59 Greenberg, J., 138
392 Author Index

Greenfield, L., 376 Hayes, E., 367

Greenleaf, C. L., 178, 215, 267, 312, 314, 320 Hayes, K., 197
Greenwood, J., 155 Haynes, J. B., 347
Gregory, M., 31, 40 Headley, K., 1, 381
Griffin, P., 267, 280 Healey, K. M., 224
Griffin, T. D., 73, 78, 239 Heath, S. B., 137
Griffith, R., 374 Hebert, M. A., 266, 267, 269, 271
Grimley, M., 155 Heibert, E. H., 138
Grisham, D. L., 202, 216, 348, 367 Heinecke, W. F., 328
Groff, C., 168 Heintz, A., 41
Groneman, C., 98 Heller, R., 259, 267
Guajardo, N. R., 61 Henderson, L., 57
Guare, R., 57 Henderson, V. W., 127
Guiffré, H., 58, 60, 63, 66 Heng, M. A., 217
Guinee, K., 375 Henkes, K., 230, 231
Guterman, E., 347 Hennessey, M. N., 37, 213
Guthke, T., 128 Henry, L. A., 324, 325, 326, 327, 329, 330, 332,
Guthrie, J. T., 74, 75, 81, 84, 109, 111, 112, 113, 335, 375, 376, 385
114, 115, 119, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 154, 177, Herber, H. L., 254
212, 213, 215, 217, 227, 228, 272, 320, 325 Herlihy, C. M., 179
Gutiérrez, K. D., 142 Herman, J., 95, 96, 97
Gwinn, C. B., 215 Heward, W. L., 216
Hickman-Davis, P., 217
Hidi, S. E., 214, 239
H Hiebert, E. H., 93, 107, 113, 202, 281, 356
Higbee, K. L., 314
Haag, C., 23 Higgins, D., 96
Hacker, D. J., 72, 326, 327 Higgins, K., 347
Haertel, E., 194 Hilden, K., 62, 187, 212
Haertel, G. D., 94, 95 Hildyard, A., 214
Hagood, M. S., 21 Hill, C. J., 99
Haibi, L., 82 Hill, L., 40
Hale, J. E., 139 Hill, M. A., 22
Hall, K. M., 240, 271, 281 Hill, P., 263
Hall, L. A., 108 Himmel, J., 194
Hall, T. E., 350, 375 Hinchman, K., 312, 314, 320
Haller, E. P., 74 Hines, S., 216
Hallgren-Flynn, L., 164 Hirsch, E. D., Jr., 97
Halliday, M. A. K., 298 Hirsh, J., 227
Halvorsen, A., 212 Hitch, G. J., 150
Hamilton, R., 37 Ho, A. N., 154
Hammer, D., 40 Hobbie, H., 230, 231
Hampston, J. M., 212 Hock, M. F., 175, 176, 181, 182, 183, 187, 383
Hansen, J., 284 Hocker, J. L., 164, 166
Hardman, F., 29 Hodge, B., 298
Harris, A., 61 Hoover, W. A., 177, 180, 198
Harris, K. R., 116, 187, 216 Horiba, Y., 273
Harris, T., 317 Horner, R. H., 230
Harste, J., 21, 312 Horney, M. A., 347
Hart, S. J., 114 Hornstein, N., 46
Hartman, D. K., 324, 327, 385 Horsey, M., 281
Hartry, A., 164 Horwitz, B., 130
Hasher, L., 46 Hoskyn, M., 183, 187
Hasselbring, T. S., 178, 350 Houtveen, A. A. M., 74, 75
Hawisher, G. E., 356 Howard, J., 280
Haworth, C. M. A., 129 Howard, L. M., 163
Haxby, B., 165 Hsu, J. Y.-L., 29, 33, 34, 35, 39, 90, 385
Hayes, D. A., 41 Huber, K., 22
Author Index 393

Huey, E. B., 56 K
Huff, J. D., 78, 79
Hughes, C. A., 187 Kaan, E., 126
Hughes, E. M., 154, 212 Kaiser, E., 41
Hughes, J. N., 38 Kalantzis, M., 325
Hughes, K., 166 Kame’enui, E. J., 281, 360
Hughes, M. T., 270, 271 Kamii, C., 124
Hulan, N., 137, 138, 142 Kamil, M. L., 24, 177, 266, 267, 269, 270, 272, 356
Hull, G. A., 297, 325 Kandel, E. R., 123
Humenick, N. M., 112, 113, 114, 147, 272 Kara-Soteriou, J., 367
Hund, A. M., 59 Karchmer, R. A., 367
Hunt, P., 19 Kardash, C. M., 40
Katz, L., 127, 131
Katz, M., 203
I Kealy, W. A., 50
Kear, D., 155
Igo, B., 154, 212 Keene, E. O., 211, 267
Inhelder, B., 58 Kegel, C. A. T., 130
Inman, W. E., 241 Kellough, N. G., 274
Invernizzi, M., 165 Kellough, R. D., 274
Ippolito, J., 278, 384 Kelly, D. A., 13
Irvine, J. J., 137, 138, 139 Kemple, J. J., 179
Isaac, M. C., 58, 60, 66 Kennedy, C., 334
Israel, S. E., 213 Kennedy, M., 348
Ivanov, V., 19 Kerawalla, L., 61
Ivey, G., 155, 254, 256, 272 Keys, C. W., 107
Kieffer, M. J., 65, 182, 197, 198
Kieschke, U., 78
J Kim, A., 241
Kim, I., 33, 34, 36, 39, 40
Jacob, B. A., 253 Kim, J. S., 164, 167, 168, 171, 172, 203, 204
Jacobs, G. E., 374 Kim, J. Y., 109
Jacobs, M., 358 Kinder, B. D., 241
Jacobs, V. A., 278, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 384 King, J., 15
Jacques, S., 58 Kintsch, E., 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 181,
James, J. J., 180 383
Janks, H., 15, 20, 24 Kintsch, W., 46, 48, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 97, 99, 109,
Jarvis, D., 130 111, 177, 181, 226, 273
Jawitz, P. B., 315 Kinzer, C. K., 215, 324, 367
Jenner, A. R., 127, 131 Kipling, R., 356
Jeong, J., 33, 34 Kirchen, D. J., 371
Jerman, O., 62 Kirkham, N., 58
Jewitt, C., 296, 297 Klauda, S. L., 213
Jiménez, R. T., 137, 139, 140, 141 Klenk, L., 327
Jitendra, A. K., 271 Kline, F. M., 183
Jocius, R., 297 Kline, R. B., 198
Johnson, D., 372 Kline, T., 182
Johnson, K., 257 Klingner, J. K., 74, 78, 216
Johnson, M., 47, 48 Knapp, M. S., 212
Johnson, N. S., 225, 229, 234 Kneepkens, E. W. E. M., 226, 227
Johnson, T., 317 Knobel, M., 21, 325, 367
Johnston, P. H., 40, 273 Knutson, J., 317
Jordan, C., 20 Kober, N., 194
Joyce, B., 187 Korat, O., 349
Juel, C., 165 Koskinen, P. S., 50
Just, M. A., 127 Kosslyn, S. M., 124
Justice, L. M., 240 Kouzekanani, K., 217
Juzwik, M. M., 41, 214 Kratochwill, T. R., 230
394 Author Index

Kress, G., 293, 294, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 303, Li, Q., 313, 319, 320
304, 305, 308, 325 Li, Y., 39
Kubota, R., 15 Liben, D., 93
Kucan, L., 37, 213, 214, 239, 268, 282, 357 Liben, L., 58, 60
Kuhn, D., 29, 31, 37, 39, 40, 58 Liben, M., 93
Kuhn, M. R., 350 Lieghton, C., 105
Kuiper, E., 215 Lim, H. J., 196
Kulikowich, J. M., 94 Lima, C. O., 332
Kuo, L., 39 Lin, M., 371
Kyle, D. W., 138 Lin, T.-J., 33, 35, 38, 39
Lin, Y., 202
Linan-Thompson, S., 217
L Lind, P. A., 129
Linder, R., 257
Labadie, M., 22 Lindo, E. J., 212
Labbo, L. D., 350, 368, 369, 372 Lindquist, E. F., 57
Lacina, J., 367, 368, 371, 372, 373, 374, 385 Lindsey, K. A., 198
Ladson-Billings, G., 20, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142 Linn, R., 95, 96, 97
Laing, S., 317 Lipka, O., 163
Lake, C., 168, 193 Lipman, M., 29, 37
Lakoff, G., 47, 48 Lipsey, M. W., 99
Lamping, S., 293, 383 Lipson, M. Y., 114
Land, R. E., 203, 204 Littleton, K., 30, 40
Landauer, T. K., 93 Littrell-Baez, M. K., 88, 98, 383
Landi, N., 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 171 Lloyd, C., 40
Lane, A. B., 64 Locascio, G., 57
Langer, G. M., 257 Locke, J., 238, 250
Langer, J. A., 41, 214 Long, D. A., 29
Lankshear, C., 20, 21, 325, 367 Lorch, E. P., 241
Lapp, D., 107, 115, 255, 256, 257, 266 Lorch, R. F., 241
Larson, L., 350 Lovitt, T., 347
Laster, B. P., 308, 315, 317, 318, 383 Low, D. E., 297
Latzman, R. D., 65 Lu, X., 94
Lau, S. M., 22, 23 Luckin, R., 61
Lauer, K. D., 240 Luke, A., 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
Laverick, C., 256 Luna, C., 21
Lawrence, J. F., 282, 284 Lundeberg, M., 57
Layne, V., 137 Lutkus, A. D., 267
Leach, J. M., 180, 181 Lutz, L., 348
Leander, K., 215 Lutz, S. L., 152, 320
Lee, B. K., 130 Lynch, J., 240
Lee, C. D., 139, 270 Lyon, G. R., 58
Lee, C. J., 21, 24
Lee, H.-C., 374
Lee, J. R., 127, 131 M
Lei, P., 202
Leland, C., 22 Ma, S., 33, 34, 35, 36, 39
Lentz, J., 176 Macagno, F., 31, 39
Lenz, B. K., 183, 187 MacArthur, C. A., 346, 347
Lesaux, N. K., 197, 198, 199, 204 Macauley, D., 376
Leslie, L., 168, 213 MacDonald, M. C., 127
Leu, D. D., 332 Macedo, D. P., 25
Leu, D. J., 194, 215, 313, 324, 325, 326, 327, 330, MacGinitie, R., 166
332, 333, 334, 367, 368, 385 MacGinitie, W., 166
Levin, J., 312 MacGyvers, V. L., 40
Levine, T., 57, 127 MacPhee, D., 162, 383
Lewin, L., 368 Madden, A., 78
Lewis, L., 194 Madden, N. A., 165
Lewison, M., 21, 24 Madsen, K., 130
Author Index 395

Magliano, J. P., 96, 226 McNamara, D. S., 94, 226, 348

Magnusson, S. J., 213 McRae, A., 213
Maher, B., 282 McTigue, E. M., 48, 224, 385
Mahiri, J., 21 McVerry, J. G., 313, 324
Mahone, E. M., 57, 127 McWilliams, J., 327
Malayeri, F. A., 281 Mecklinger, A., 127
Malda, M., 65 Meece, J. L., 149
Mallette, M. H., 367 Meier, J., 165
Malloy, J. A., 114, 147, 148, 152, 153, 154, 155, Meister, C., 47, 74, 326, 327, 329
156, 212, 224, 330, 384 Mencl, W. E., 127, 128, 129, 130, 131
Maloch, B., 278, 279, 281 Mercer, N., 29, 30, 37, 40
Mañá, A., 76 Mesman, J., 65
Mancilla-Martinez, J., 198, 199, 201 Mesmer, H. A. E., 93, 144
Mandler, J. M., 225, 229, 234 Mevarech, Z. R., 82
Manheim, C., 370 Meyer, A., 312, 346, 348, 349
Manis, F. R., 198 Meyer, B. J. F., 202, 239, 240, 241, 249, 348
Mann, H., 238 Meyer, C., 259
Mar, R. A., 227, 228 Meyer, M., 127
Marcelletti, D. J., 194 Michaels, S., 138
March, T., 372, 373 Michalsky, T., 82, 83
Marcovitch, S., 58 Midgley, C., 151
Maria, K., 166 Mienko, J. A., 273, 274
Marinak, B. A., 155, 156 Milhalevich, C., 228, 230, 234
Mark, D. L. H., 23 Mill, J. S., 45
Marley, S. C., 312, 316 Miller, B., 33, 34, 116
Marshall, J., 232 Miller, J. A., 109
Marshall, T. R., 60 Miller, S. A., 227
Martin, J. B., 376 Milner, H. R., 140, 141, 142
Martin, N. M., 211, 214, 385 Misailidi, P., 72
Martineau, J. A., 151, 212 Misischia, C., 215, 259
Martinez, M. G., 107, 274 Mislevy, R. J., 94, 95
Marx, S., 140 Mitchell, D. C., 127
Massoud, L., 194 Mo, E., 350
Mastropieri, M. A., 78 Modla, V., 56
Mather, N., 165 Moffett, S., 125
Mathes, P. G., 74, 316 Moje, E. B., 18, 24, 216, 259, 267, 284, 285
Mathews, S., 367, 368 Mokhlesgerami, J., 74, 75, 84
May, L. A., 142 Molfese, D. L., 128
Mayer, R. E., 50, 314 Moll, L. C., 138
Mazzoni, S. A., 114, 155, 156 Monroe-Ossi, H., 266, 384
McCann, A., 217 Montanaro, E. A., 164
McCarthy, G., 127 Montaño, M., 58
McClellan, M., 271 Moody, A. J., 350
McCombs, J. S., 92 Moon, J. S., 21
McDermott, R., 312 Moore, D. W., 216, 326
McElvain, C. M., 198 Moorman, G., 259
McGee, L., 224, 228 Moran, J., 351
McGough, K., 151 Moran, R., 267
McGrew, K. S., 165 Morehouse, R., 37
McIntosh, A. S., 163 Moreno, R., 314
McIntyre, E., 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, Morphy, P., 212
143, 384 Morrell, E., 18, 20, 21, 22
McKenna, M. C., 155, 350, 369 Morrison, E. H., 271
McKeown, M. G., 37, 40, 81, 82, 83, 84, 115, 213, Morrow, L. M., 18, 151, 224
224, 228, 268, 272, 282, 283, 284, 357 Morsink, P. M., 326
McLaren, P., 20 Mosenthal, P., 1, 24
McLaughlin, M., 20, 194, 308, 318 Mosher, F. A., 90
McMahon, S. I., 110, 119 Mostow, J., 347
McMillan, B. D., 154, 156 Moxley, K., 109
396 Author Index

Mroz, M., 29 Olson, R. K., 130

Mueller, F. L., 178 O’Neal, S., 187
Mueller, J., 198 Oppenheim, J., 376
Müller, U., 58 Ordynans, J. G., 241
Mullis, I. V. S., 214 O’Reilly, T., 348
Murdoch, B. E., 127 Orelski, J., 61
Murphy, P. K., 37, 39, 40, 117, 213 Ortony, A., 46
Murray, C. S., 163, 164, 166, 167, 170, 171 Osborne, J., 259
Muspratt, S., 18 Oscanyon, F. S., 37
Myers, J. L., 239 Ostertag, J., 281
Ouellette, G., 358
Ozgungor, S., 109, 111
N Ozuru, Y., 348

Nachmias, R., 375

Nagy, W. E., 360 P
Naidoo, B., 376
Nair, M., 320 Pace, B. G., 279, 282
Nakamoto, J., 198, 199 Pacino, M. A., 297
Nation, K., 314 Paivio, A., 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 129
Nelson, J., 93 Palincsar, A. S., 73, 115, 178, 213, 326, 327, 328,
Nelson, M., 297 329, 330, 347, 350, 371
Nelson, N., 107 Palmer, B. M., 155, 368
Neuenschwander, R., 77 Pao, L. S., 238, 241, 385
Neuman, S. B., 151, 358 Paraskeva, V., 77
Newfield, D., 24 Paratore, J. R., 105, 113
Newmann, F. M., 108 Paris, S. G., 114, 150, 151, 260
Nguyen, C. T., 130 Parkhill, F., 155
Nguyen, K., 29, 41 Parris, S. R., 1, 7, 52, 123, 266, 381, 384
Nguyen-Jahiel, K., 34, 116 Parsons, A. W., 148, 152, 153
Ni, W., 128 Parsons, S. A., 148, 152, 153
Niccols, A., 56, 62 Pearce, D., 61
Nichols, W. D., 240 Pearson, P. D., 24, 93, 106, 114, 124, 141, 177, 183,
Nicholson, S. A., 187 212, 213, 215, 224, 240, 256, 268, 284, 320,
Nietfeld, J. L., 78, 79 351, 356, 360
Nieto, S., 138 Pease, M., 58
Nobre, A. C., 127 Peele, T., 139
Noftle, J. T., 297 Pellegrino, J. W., 89, 90, 94
Nolen, S. B., 148 Pelletier, J., 230
Noppeney, U., 127 Pennington, B. F., 130
Nussbaum, E. M., 39 Pennycook, A., 21
Nystrand, M., 29, 41 Pentimonti, J. M., 240
Peran, P., 130
Perencevich, K. C., 151, 177, 215
O Perfetti, C., 93, 171
Perie, M., 267
Oakhill, J., 56, 57, 73, 171 Perin, D., 116
Oatley, K., 227, 228, 230, 234, 235 Perkins, D. N., 268
O’Brien, J., 22 Perner, J., 227
O’Byrne, W. I., 313, 324, 327 Person, N. K., 91
Ogle, D., 112 Peterson, C. L., 187
Ohlhausen, M. M., 281 Peterson, D., 240
Ohlson, T., 266, 384 Peterson, J. B., 227
Okamoto, Y., 58 Peterson, K., 22, 368
O’Kearney, R., 234 Peterson, S. E., 127
Okolo, C. M., 346 Phillips, L. M., 234
Olafson, L., 40 Phillips Galloway, E., 284, 285
Olson, C. B., 203, 204 Piaget, J., 58, 124
Olson, M. R., 327 Pieper, S., 65
Author Index 397

Pierce, M., 198 Reinking, D., 327, 330, 347, 369

Pimental, S., 270 Reisman, A., 259
Pinker, S., 358 Reninger, K., 117
Pinkwater, D. M., 230, 232 Rentner, D. S., 194
Pinnell, G. S., 114 Rescorla, L., 180
Pintrich, P. R., 147 Reutzel, D. R., 163, 213
Pisha B., 348, 350 Reynolds, C., 62
Pistochini, L., 327 Reznitskaya, A., 29, 31, 32, 36, 39, 90, 109, 110,
Pitcher, S. M., 156 114, 385
Poniatowski, L., 348 Rice, M. E., 151
Poon, L. W., 202, 239 Rice, M. S., 88
Post, G., 257 Richards, J., 15
Poteet, J., 38 Richardson, V., 40
Powell, R., 141 Riddle Buly, M., 217
Premack, D., 227 Rightmyer, E. C., 138, 141
Pressley, M., 1, 3, 50, 56, 57, 74, 112, 115, 156, Riley, T. B., 324
177, 187, 212, 213, 267, 284, 314, 333, 347, 356, Rinck, M., 126
360, 368 Rinehart, J., 111
Preston, J. L., 129, 131 Rintamaa, M., 78
Price, C. J., 127 Ritchey, K. D., 164, 167, 168, 171, 172
Pringle, L., 117 Rivera, H., 197
Proctor, C. P., 105, 198, 199, 216, 318, 346, 348, Rivera, M., 197
350 Roberts, G., 164
Puce, A., 127 Roberts, K. M., 106, 214
Pugh, K. R., 127, 128, 130, 131 Robertson, D. A., 105
Purcell-Gates, V., 108, 109, 151, 154, 155, 212, 281 Robinson, K., 348
Purdie, N., 40 Rodney, D., 358
Purnell, K. N., 50 Rodriguez, M. C., 240
Puustinen, M., 73 Roebers, C. M., 77
Pyle, N., 163, 164, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172 Roehler, L. R., 183
Pynson, R., 302 Roeschl-Heils, A., 73
Rogers, A., 330
Rogers, R., 22
Q Rogoff, B., 137
Roller, C. M., 281
Quinn, D., 332 Romance, N. R., 213, 215
Rose, D. H., 312, 318, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349,
350, 385
R Rose, M. C., 314
Rosenberg, J., 130
Radencich, M. C., 115 Rosenblatt, L. M., 19, 25, 107, 227, 347
Radvansky, G. A., 91 Rosenshine, B., 47, 74, 326, 327, 329
Rakestraw, J. A., 241 Roser, N. L., 107, 274
Raphael, T. E., 110, 119 Ross, D., 117
Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., 350 Ross, G., 256
Rasinski, T. V., 50 Röthlisberger, M., 77
Rasmussen, I., 347 Rothstein, J., 194
Rastle, K., 131 Rougle, E., 41
Rathunde, K., 298, 299 Rousseau, J.-J., 88
Rawson, K. A., 109 Rowel, B., 41
Readence, J. E., 216 Rowling, J. K., 1
Recht, D. R., 213 Rowsell, J., 297
Recorvits, H., 24 Ruddell, R. B., 198
Redford, J. S., 73, 77, 78 Rudge, L., 117
Ree, J., 350 Rueda, R., 193, 196, 197, 383
Reed, C., 39 Rumelhart, D. E., 46, 225
Reese, L., 195 Rupley, W. H., 240
Reffitt, K., 109 Rutherford, V., 198
Regan, K., 240 Ryan, R. M., 149
398 Author Index

S Sesma, H. W., 57, 65, 127

Seuss, Dr., 376
Sabey, B. L., 271, 281 Shaffer, D. W., 364
Sadoski, M., 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 90, 129, 382 Shamir, O., 349
Sahni, U., 22 Shanahan, C., 215, 258, 259, 281, 284, 285
Salmon, J. M., 40 Shanahan, S., 229, 233, 234
Salomon, G., 347 Shanahan, T., 7, 107, 136, 143, 196, 197, 203, 212,
Samad, A. A., 281 213, 215, 216, 228, 229, 233, 234, 258, 259,
Sampson Graner, P., 259 260, 281, 284, 285
Samson, J. F., 164 Shannon, P., 18, 20
Samuels, S. J., 281 Shapiro, J., 271
Sandak, R., 127, 128, 130 Sharif, R., 25
Sandora, C., 213 Sharp, A. M., 37
Sanetti, L. M. H., 230 Sharp, C., 368
Sanford, K., 155 Shatz, M., 234
Sankey, M., 318 Shaywitz, B. A., 127, 131
Sarason, S. B., 254 Shepard, L. A., 89, 90, 91, 92, 94
Satlow, E., 56 Shermis, M. D., 96
Satrapi, M., 302 Sherry, M. B., 41
Saul, E. U., 273 Shih, P.-Y., 368
Saunders, W. M., 194, 216 Shin, L. M., 124
Scales, P. C., 274 Shor, I., 20
Scanlon, D. M., 163, 164, 165, 168, 170, 171, 172 Short, K., 312
Scanlon, M., 187 Showers, B., 187
Scarborough, H. S., 177, 180, 181, 212 Siegel, L., 163
Schatschneider, C., 163, 164 Siegel, M., 296, 297
Scheier, C., 47 Siegel-Hawley, G., 193
Schiefele, U., 151 Siegler, R. S., 58.,
Schifter, D., 40 Silverman, R. D., 164, 216
Schira Hagerman, M., 326 Simmons, D. C., 74, 281, 360
Schlagmuller, M., 77 Simonyan, K., 130
Schleicher, A., 7, 381 Simpson, A., 23
Schleper, D., 348 Sinatra, G. M., 40
Schleppegrell, M. J., 282, 358 Singer, D., 303, 304
Schmidt, J., 60 Singer, H., 224, 228
Schnaubelt, C., 187 Singer, J., 303, 304
Schneider, W., 13, 73, 77 Singer, M., 91, 226
Schoenbach, R., 178 Singleton, T. S., 64
Schoenfelder, E., 148, 153 Slavin, R. E., 165, 168, 179, 193
Schöner, G., 47 Smeets, D. J. H., 349
Schotter, R., 376 Smith, B., 108
Schraw, G., 40 Smith, F., 29, 46
Schreiner, R., 347 Smith, J. A., 163, 213
Schuder, T., 74, 115, 212 Smith, L. B., 47
Schultz, K., 325 Smith, M., 155
Schumaker, J. B., 115, 183, 187 Smolkin, L. B., 224, 385
Schumaker, J. S., 167 Sneed, B., 376
Schumm, J., 74 Snow, C. E., 176, 177, 198, 199, 216, 266, 267, 268,
Schunk, D. H., 151 271, 280, 281, 282, 283, 318, 346, 350
Schwarz, B. B., 37 Snowling, M., 57
Sciezka, J., 230 Snyder, I., 368, 372
Scott, C. M., 279 Snyder, L., 90, 91, 96, 97
Scott, J. A., 138 Snyder, T. D., 194
Scruggs, T. E., 78 Solman, R. T., 50
Selander, S., 299, 300, 303, 304, 305, 308 Son, E., 193, 383
Selfe, C. L., 356 Soter, A. O., 37, 117, 213, 272
Selman, R. L., 226, 228, 229 Souvignier, E., 74, 75, 84
Senechal, M., 358 Spaulding, C. L., 151
Senn, N., 155 Speece, D. L., 164
Author Index 399

Spelling, B., 347 Taylor, B. M., 212, 240

Spikes, D., 371 Taylor, J. S. H., 131
Spiro, R. J., 58, 326, 333 Teague, M., 376
Spörer, N., 78, 79 Tencati, C., 78
Spratley, A., 270 Tenent, A., 326, 327
Sprick, M. M., 163 Terwel, J., 215
Squire, K., 319, 320 Tharp, R. G., 137, 138, 139
Stahl, K. A. D., 115, 212, 224 Thayre, M., 260
Stahl, S. A., 1, 268 Thelen, E., 47
Stanovich, K. E., 200, 268 Thiede, K. W., 73, 76, 77, 78, 84, 239
Stead, R., 234 Thomas, N., 194
Steenwyk, F. L., 284 Thompson, P., 326
Steig, W., 117 Thompson, S. L., 195
Stein, N. L., 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 234 Thorndike, E. L., 253
Steinbach, E., 22 Thorndyke, P., 225, 228
Steinberg, L. S., 94 Tidwell, D., 40
Steinhauer, K., 127 Tobias, S. P., 176
Steinkuehler, C. A., 319, 320 Tomlinson, C., 313
Stenner, A. J., 107 Tompkins, G., 224, 228
Stephens, D., 162, 383 Tonks, S. M., 114, 147
Sternberg, R. J., 58 Torgesen, J. K., 183, 266
Stetter, M. E., 270, 271 Toulmin, S. E., 30
Stevens, J., 203 Tower, C., 108
Stevens, R. J., 179, 180 Townsend, D., 198
Stewart, T., 259 Trabasso, T., 91, 226
Stipek, D. J., 40 Tracey, D. H., 18, 224
Strachan, S. L., 106, 177, 213, 224 Trathen, W., 212
Strang, R., 254 Trueba, H., 137
Strangman, N., 347, 348 Truxaw, M. P., 327
Strasser, K., 61 Tunmer, W. E., 180, 198
Street, B., 15, 325, 367 Turbill, J., 7, 368
Strickland, D., 162 Turner, J., 139, 150, 151
Strube, L., 63 Tutwiler, M., 371
Sugarman, J., 194 Tzeng, Y., 91, 239
Sung, Y., 91, 239
Sutton, R. E., 38
Suzuki, N. S., 50 U
Swaab, T. Y., 126
Swan, E. A., 256 Uccelli, P., 318, 350
Swank, L., 165 Udell, W., 31
Swanson, E. A., 78 Ujifusa, A., 176
Swanson, H. L., 62, 183, 187 Unrau, N. J., 193, 198, 202, 383
Swartz, R. J., 268 Unsworth, N., 154, 156
Sweeney, J. M., 163, 168 Urden, T., 148, 153
Sweeny, S., 374
Swim, T., 33, 34
Szabo, Z., 316 V

Valdés, G., 137

T Valencia, R. R., 136, 139, 140
Valencia, S. W., 57, 182, 217, 315
Tabaku, L., 194 Valentino Drew, S., 259
Taboada, A., 114, 147, 197, 198, 199, 325 Valmont, W. J., 368, 372
Taffe, S. W., 215 van de Grift, W. J. C. M., 74, 75
Takeuchi, L., 350 Van De Ven, A., 326
Tam, K. Y., 216 Van Den Bos, K. P., 326
Tamblyn, A., 370 van den Broek, P., 91, 239, 240
Tanzman, M. S., 172 van Dijk, T. A., 46, 226
Taylor, A., 203 van IJzendoorn, M. H., 65
400 Author Index

Van Keer, H., 74, 76, 79 Weinstock, M., 31

van Kraayenoord, C. E., 73, 77 Weiser, B., 316
Van Leeuwen, C. A., 368 Wellman, H. M., 234
Van Meter, P., 74, 115, 212 Wells, G., 30, 40, 137
Van Sluys, K., 21 Wertsch, J. V., 137
Varenne, H., 312 Wetzel, M. M., 22
Vasquez, V., 19, 22 Wexler, J., 169
Vaughn, S., 61, 64, 74, 78, 79, 163, 164, 167, 169, Wharton-McDonald, R., 212
170, 171, 172, 198, 216, 217, 241 White, C., 282
Velasco, A., 196 Whiteley, C. S., 52
Vélez-Ibañez, C., 138 Wiesner, D., 376
Vellutino, F. R., 163, 164, 165, 172, 180, 181 Wigfield, A., 111, 114, 147, 149, 151, 177, 215
Venezky, R. L., 270 Wijekumar, K. K., 202, 240, 348
Verhaeghe, J. P., 74, 76, 79 Wilber, D., 194
Verhallen, M. J. A., 349 Wiley, J., 73, 78, 239
Verhoeven, L., 200 Wilhelm, J., 155, 267
Vershaffel, L., 326 Wiliam, D., 90
Vescio, V., 117 Wilkinson, I. A. G., 31, 37, 38, 39, 40, 117, 138,
Vesperman, B., 95 213, 326
Vidal-Abarca, E., 76, 84 Willcutt, E. G., 130
Viegut, D., 257 Williams, B., 138, 139
Virtue, S., 91, 239 Williams, C., 314
Vitale, M. R., 213, 215 Williams, D., 255
Volman, M., 215 Williams, J. P., 74, 75, 84, 177, 238, 239, 240, 241,
von Cramon, D. Y., 126, 128 271, 314, 356, 385
Von Secker, C., 111 Williams, K. T., 166, 187, 188
Vos, S. H., 126 Williams, M., 37
Vue, G., 350 Williamson, G. L., 107
Vukovic, R. K., 65 Willingham, D., 283
Vygotsky, L. S., 18, 25, 30, 40, 137, 157, 256, 285, Willson, V. L., 50, 51
304 Wilson, B., 169
Wilson, M., 48, 51
Wilson, R. M., 368
W Wimmer, H., 227
Winchester, I., 313
Wade, S., 285 Windschitl, M., 40
Waggoner, M. A., 29, 32, 41, 110 Wixson, K. K., 114
Wagner, R. K., 58 Wolfe, M. B. W., 273, 274
Walberg, H. J., 74 Wolfram, W., 138
Wall, K., 29 Wonder-McDowell, C., 163, 164, 166, 167, 170, 171
Walpole, S., 212 Wood, D., 256
Walther, K., 128 Woodcock, R. W., 60, 62, 165, 167
Walton, D., 30, 31, 39 Woodruff, A. L., 163, 164
Wang, J., 193 Woodruff, G., 227
Wanzek, J., 164, 167, 169, 170, 171, 241 Woodside-Jiron, H., 40
Wardell, M., 163, 164, 167, 171, 172 Worthing, B., 315, 316
Wardrup, J., 351 Worthy, J., 213, 368
Warner, M. M., 187 Wright, B., 314
Warschauer, M., 368 Wu, L., 29
Wasserman, T., 131 Wu, X., 39, 116
Waters, G., 127
Watts-Taffe, S., 313
Webb, J. M., 50 Y
Webb, N. L., 95, 97
Webb, N. M., 40 Yaghoub Zadeh, G., 198, 199
Weber, N. U., 22 Yamada-Rice, D., 297
Wegerif, R., 29, 37 Yamauchi, L., 138
Wei, S., 241 Yan, R., 60
Author Index 401

Yeniad, N., 65 Zeiser, S., 29

Yi, H., 32 Zelazo, P. D., 57, 58
Yoon, B., 17, 22, 23, 25, 90, 383 Zeliger-Kandasamy, A., 72, 90, 384
Yopp, H. K., 270 Zentella, A. C., 195
Yopp, R. H., 270 Zeph, L., 350
You, W., 147 Zhang, J., 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40
Young, J., 65 Zhang, S., 214
Young, J. P., 216 Zhang, X., 33, 34, 35, 36, 39
Yu, G., 60 Ziegler, J. C., 13
Yuill, N., 56, 57, 61 Zimmerman, B. J., 151
Zimmermann, S., 211, 267
Zipke, M., 82, 84
Z Zucker, A., 328
Zucker, T. A., 350, 351
Zawilinski, L., 194, 313, 324, 327 Zwaan, R. A., 46, 91, 226, 227
Zechner, K., 96 Zwiers, J., 359
 Subject Index

Note. An f following a page number indicates a figure;

a t following a page number indicates a table.

Abstractions, 45–47, 48 Alliance for Excellent Education, 10

Academic language, 108 The Amazing Adventure Series website, 370
Academic vocabulary, 282, 305, 356–357. See also American Library Association’s Booklist, 369
Specialist language American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 94
Accountability methods, 194, 255, 255f Analysis, 284–285
Achievement, student. See Student achievement Annotation, 260
Achievement gap, 195 Anticipatory activities, 255, 255f
Acquisition of Vocabulary in English (AVE) Apprenticeship in Reading framework, 178
program, 201 Argument schema theory (AST), 30–32
Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Argumentation
Schooling in the Twenty-First Century collaborative reasoning (CR) and, 32–36,
(Australia), 8 34t–35t
Adjusting reading speed strategy, 79 global interactivity and, 385
Adolescent readers. See also Secondary level informational texts and, 202, 203, 239, 284
comprehension instruction overview, 29–30, 40–41
at-risk students and, 176–177, 181–188, 189 transfer effects and, 37–40, 38
Fusion Reading Program and, 183–188 Arts integration, 316–318
global interactivity and, 382f, 384 Assessment. See also Measurement
improving comprehension instruction and, 274 Close Analysis of Texts with Structure (CATS)
metacognition and, 80 and, 247–248
overview, 254, 386 collaborative analysis of student work and,
Affective Engagement Rating Scale, 152–153, 152f, 257–258
153f comprehension instruction and, 97–99
Affective factors, 73, 80–81, 148. See also goal of, 90
Engagement new developments, 92–97
Agency, 303–305, 305f online research and comprehension and,
AIMSweb Reading Maze and Passage Fluency 334–335, 340–344
(AIMSweb Maze–Curriculum-Based overview, 88–89, 99
Measurement), 169, 172 research and practice and, 89–92

402
Subject Index 403

secondary level comprehension instruction and, Character states

257–258 fiction comprehension instruction and, 225–226
social semiotic multimodal instruction and fictional texts and, 270–271
assessment and, 305–307 improving comprehension instruction and,
Assessment of Strategy Knowledge and Use for 233–235
Information Texts (ASKIT), 169 story maps and, 228–233, 230t, 231f
At-risk students. See also Struggling readers Children’s Choices Booklist website, 368
Close Analysis of Texts with Structure (CATS) Choice
and, 241–249, 243f, 244f, 246f fiction comprehension instruction and, 272–273
Fusion Reading Program and, 183–188 Internet Reciprocal Teaching (IRT), 333
improving comprehension instruction and, 188 motivation and, 151–152, 153–154, 156, 157
new developments, 180–183 New Literacies and, 369–370
overview, 175–176, 189 Citizen Science game, 319
research and practice and, 176–180 Clarification, 73–74, 329
standards and, 176 Classroom contexts
Authenticity of tasks, 154–155, 157 culturally responsive instruction and, 143
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), 314 motivation and, 150–152, 155–156, 157
Automated essay scoring (AES) systems, 96 multimodal literacy and, 296–297
that supports comprehension, 112–116
using popular culture and, 364–365
B Classroom-based interventions, 74, 85
Close Analysis of Texts with Structure (CATS)
Background knowledge. See also Prior knowledge improving comprehension instruction and,
digital texts and, 346, 347 249–250
elementary level comprehension instruction and, informational texts comprehension instruction
213 and, 241–249, 243f, 244f, 246f
English language learners and, 200 Close reading, 259–262, 259f, 261f, 262f. See also
fiction comprehension instruction and, 273–274 Guided instruction
informational texts comprehension instruction Closed tasks, 151–152
and, 239, 280, 284 CLUE strategy, 185
metacognition and, 73 Coaching
multimodal literacy and, 298–299 enhancing instruction through, 116–117
New Literacies and, 371–373 Fusion Reading Program and, 186
Balanced instruction, 181–183. See also secondary level comprehension instruction and,
Instructional practices 255, 255f
Banking education model, 23 Cognitive Engagement Rating Scale, 152–153,
Basic Plan for the Promotion of Education (Japan), 153f
8 Cognitive factors. See also Cognitive flexibility;
Bedtime Story website, 370 Embodied cognition; Executive functions
Behavioral engagement, 148. See also Engagement developmental processes and, 256–257
Blogging, 374–375 engagement and, 148, 149–151. See also
Book club model, 110–111 Engagement
Book Study, 185, 373–374 global interactivity and, 382f, 384
Boulder Reading Intervention (BRAVO), 98–99 metacognition and, 73
Brain structure, 124–129, 125f, 126f. See also overview, 46–47, 47–53, 51f, 53, 56–57, 386
Neuroscience Cognitive flexibility. See also Cognitive factors;
BRAVO (Boulder Reading Intervention), 98–99 Executive functions; Flexibility
improving comprehension instruction and, 66
metacognition and, 77
C new developments and research, 61–66, 63t, 64f
overview, 57, 67, 382–383
Cause–effect research and practice and, 57–61, 59f
Close Analysis of Texts with Structure (CATS) Cognitive neuroscience, 124–125. See also
and, 241–249, 243f, 244f, 246f Neuroscience
informational texts comprehension instruction Coherence, 91, 98, 282
and, 239 Collaboration. See also Instructional practices
CCSS/Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for collaborative discussion, 283
College and Careers (CCSS/PARCC), 286 comparing Reciprocal Teaching (RT) and Internet
Character Perspective Maps (CPM), 230, 231f, 233 Reciprocal Teaching (IRT), 329–330
404 Subject Index

Collaboration (cont.) Comprehension monitoring. See also

grouping students and, 114 Metacognition; Monitoring
Internet Reciprocal Teaching (IRT), 331 accuracy of, 77–78
motivation and, 157 English language learners and, 196
multimodal literacy and, 299, 308 fiction comprehension instruction and, 268
secondary level comprehension instruction and, metacognition and, 77–78, 79, 81–82
256 overview, 72–73
Collaborative analysis of student work, 257–258 Comprehension Process Motions (CPM) method, 52
Collaborative Group Work (CG), 36 Computer games, 318–319, 320. See also
Collaborative modeling, 331 Technology
Collaborative reasoning (CR), 32–36, 34t–35t, Computer-assisted tutoring, 165–166. See also
37–40, 110–111 Technology
Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR), 78–79 Computer-mediated testing, 90. See also
Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP), Assessment; Technology
50–51 Concept mapping, 98
Common Core Anchor Standards for College and Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI)
Career Readiness, 296–297 elementary level comprehension instruction and,
Common Core Measures of Academic Progress, 215–216
96–97 metacognition and, 75–76, 81–82
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) motivation and, 151
argument skills and, 29, 40–41 overview, 111
assessment and, 88, 93, 94–96 Concepts, 95
classroom contexts and, 112–116 Conceptual Assessment Framework, 95
close reading and, 262 Conclusions, 315–316
coaching and interactive technology and, Confirmation, 283–284
116–117 Connections, making. See Making connections
collaborative analysis of student work and, 257 Consistency, 254–256, 255f
comprehension instruction and, 97–99 Consolidation stage, 284
digital texts and, 345–346, 347, 351 Construction–integration (CI) model, 91, 109, 181
English language learners and, 194–195, Constructivist theory, 90–91, 382–383
201–204 Content areas. See also Academic vocabulary;
fiction comprehension instruction and, 234, 270 Specialist language
global interactivity and, 381, 383, 384–385 elementary level comprehension instruction and,
history of comprehension research and, 8 215–216
informational texts comprehension instruction informational texts comprehension instruction
and, 239, 278–280, 286 and, 281, 283–284
instructional models and, 109–111 metacognition and, 83
metacognition and, 84 secondary level comprehension instruction and,
motivation and, 147 258–259
multimodal literacy and, 296–297, 299, 306–307 social semiotic multimodal instruction and
overview, 12, 105–106, 117–119 assessment and, 300–307, 305f
requirements of, 106–108 Content knowledge, 273–274. See also Background
secondary level comprehension instruction and, knowledge
259, 259f Content-analysis methods, 23
Communication Content-based instructional approach, 81–82
comparing Reciprocal Teaching (RT) and Internet Contextualizing, 259
Reciprocal Teaching (IRT), 329 Conversations, 143. See also Dialogue
English language learners and, 194 Cooperative Integrated Reading and Comprehension
multimodal literacy and, 294, 299 (CIRC), 179
Communicative teaching, 300–307, 305f Cooperative learning, 196, 283
Compare–contrast Cornell note taking, 255–256, 255f. See also Note taking
Close Analysis of Texts with Structure (CATS) Corrective Reading, 188
and, 241–249, 243f, 244f, 246f Corroborating, 259
informational texts comprehension instruction Council of Chief of State School Officers, 12
and, 239 Critical evaluation, 326, 329, 331
Comparison, 202 Critical literacies
Compensatory model, 200 contemporary research trend on, 21–23
Complexity of text. See Text complexity global interactivity and, 383
Subject Index 405

improving comprehension instruction and, Differentiating instruction

23–25 elementary level comprehension instruction and,
overview, 17–18, 24–25 217
theoretical foundation of, 18–21 informational texts comprehension instruction
Critical theory, 17–18, 382–383 and, 249
Critical thinking, 22–23, 114, 385 manipulatives and, 315–316
Critiquing, 23–24 overview, 311–312, 313
Cultural competence, 141 Digital Divide Measurement Scale for Students
Culturally relevant pedagogy, 20 (DDMS-S), 335
Culturally responsive instruction. See also English Digital modes of communication, 297
language learners; Instructional practices; Digital Textbook Collaborative, 349
Multicultural literature Digital texts. See also Technology
connecting research-based practices to, 142 elementary level comprehension instruction and,
implementing, 141–142 214–215
improving comprehension instruction and, overview, 345–346, 349, 351–352
142–144 research and practice and, 346–351
new developments, 139–142 Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS) task,
overview, 136–137 58–59, 59f
research and practice and, 137–139 Direct Instruction (DI), 36, 183. See also
Culture Instructional practices
improving comprehension instruction and, 24 Direct vocabulary instruction, 268. See also
multimodal literacy and, 295–296 Instructional practices; Vocabulary
overview, 137–138 Disciplinary apprenticeship, 283
schema theory and, 47 Disciplinary knowledge, 215–216
specialist language and, 360–361, 364–365 Disciplinary literacy, 258–259, 281
Curriculum Discourse
English language learners and, 197 close reading and, 262
Internet Reciprocal Teaching (IRT) and, 334 critical literacies theory and, 19
motivation and, 150 culturally responsive instruction and, 138–139
multimodal literacy and, 299 history of comprehension research and, 7–8
multimodal literacy and, 294
Discourse analysis, 20–21
D Discussion
close reading and, 262
Decoding comparing Reciprocal Teaching (RT) and Internet
at-risk students and, 177 Reciprocal Teaching (IRT), 329–330
digital texts and, 346, 351 elementary level comprehension instruction and, 213
Fusion Reading Program and, 184 fiction comprehension instruction and, 272
history of comprehension research and, 7 informational texts comprehension instruction
neuroscience and, 127 and, 283
reading comprehension deficits and, 56–57 Internet Reciprocal Teaching (IRT), 333
Deep questions, 74 New Literacies and, 373–374
Deep understanding, 91, 109–111 Diversity, 295–296
Depth of knowledge (DOK) scheme, 95–96 Domain Analysis, 95
Description, 202, 239 Domain Modeling, 95
Design theoretic perspective, 299 Dual coding theory (DCT)
Design-based approach, 142 haptic imagery and, 51–53
Details, 315–316 neuroscience and, 129
Dialogic form of education, 23 overview, 46, 48–53, 382–383
Dialogue Dual language learners (DLLs), 216–217. See also
argument skills and, 30, 31–32, 40–41 English language learners
collaborative reasoning (CR) and, 32–36, Dyslexia, 129–130
34t–35t
culturally responsive instruction and, 143
global interactivity and, 385 E
grouping students and, 114
improving comprehension instruction and, 23 eBooks, 345–352. See also Technology
transfer effects and, 37–40 Education World’s website, 376
406 Subject Index

Electroencephalography (EEG), 125, 125f Error correction, 216–217

Elementary level comprehension instruction. See Essay questions, 92
also Fiction comprehension instruction; Event-related potentials (ERPs), 125
Informational texts comprehension instruction; Evidence-centered design, 94–95
Instructional practices Executive functions. See also Cognitive factors
Close Analysis of Texts with Structure (CATS) graphophonological–semantic cognitive
and, 241–249, 243f, 244f, 246f flexibility (GSF) and, 64–65
fiction comprehension instruction and, 224–235, improving comprehension instruction and, 66
225–226 metacognition and, 77, 82
improving comprehension instruction and, 218 neuroscience and, 127–128
informational texts comprehension instruction new developments and research, 61–66, 63t, 64f
and, 238–250 overview, 57, 67
new developments, 213–218 research and practice and, 57–61, 59f
overview, 211–212, 218–219 Expectancy–value theory, 148, 155
research and practice and, 212–213 Experiential learning, 299
Embedded Story Structure (ESS) routine, 167–170 Explanation, 239
Embodied cognition. See also Cognitive factors Explicit instruction. See also Instructional
haptic imagery and, 51–53 practices
overview, 46, 53, 382–383 elementary level comprehension instruction and,
research in, 47–53, 51f 213
Embodied dual coding theory, 46, 53. See also Dual fiction comprehension instruction and, 268
coding theory (DCT) Fusion Reading Program and, 183, 186
Empathic development, 234–235, 270–271, 385 informational texts comprehension instruction
Enactivism theory, 313, 320. See also Multimodal and, 239–240, 282
learning overview, 113–114
Engagement. See also Motivation response to intervention (RTI) and, 163–165
culturally responsive instruction and, 143 text structure and, 271–272
digital texts and, 351, 352 Expository Reading and Writing Course (ERWC),
elementary level comprehension instruction and, 203
212 Expository text. See Informational texts
fiction comprehension instruction and, 268–269,
272–273
Fusion Reading Program and, 183 F
improving comprehension instruction and,
156–157 Far transfer, 36
informational texts comprehension instruction Fast ForWord, 180
and, 280, 281, 283 Feedback
multimodal learning and, 313 Fusion Reading Program and, 183, 186, 187
overview, 148, 158 response to intervention (RTI) and, 166
reading comprehension and, 149–151 Feminist theory, 20
Engaging Text Project, 318 Fiction comprehension instruction. See also
English language arts (ELA), 106–107, 147, Instructional practices; Narrative text
306–307 in the elementary classroom, 224–235
English language learners. See also Culturally fictional texts, 270–274
responsive instruction; Dual language learners historical review of, 224–225
(DLLs); Multicultural literature improving comprehension instruction and,
collaborative reasoning (CR) and, 35–36 233–235, 271–274
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and, new developments, 269–270
201–204 overview, 224, 235, 263, 266–267, 274–275
critical thinking and, 22–23 research and practice and, 267–269
global interactivity and, 383 in the secondary classroom, 266–275
multimodal literacy and, 295 story maps and, 227–233, 230t, 231f
new developments, 198–201 understanding of others’ mental states and,
overview, 193–195, 204 226–227
research and practice and, 195–198 Fictional texts, 270–274. See also Narrative text
Enhancing Literacy Instruction through Flexibility, 57–61, 59f. See also Cognitive flexibility
Collaboration and Interactive Technology Fluency
(ELICIT), 116–117 at-risk students and, 182
Epistemology, 31–32, 40 digital texts and, 347, 351
Subject Index 407

English language learners and, 196, 216–217 Graphophonological–semantic cognitive flexibility (GSF)
fiction comprehension instruction and, 269 improving comprehension instruction and, 66
Fusion Reading Program and, 184 new developments and research, 61–66, 63t, 64f
Focused comprehension instruction, 167–170 overview, 59–60, 67
Focused instruction, 256. See also Instructional Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic
practices Evaluation (GRADE), 166, 168, 187–188
Formal vocabulary. See Academic vocabulary; Group work, 139. See also Instructional practices;
Specialist language Small-group instruction
Formative assessment. See also Assessment Grouping options, 113–114
collaborative analysis of student work and, Guided groups, 157
257–258 Guided instruction, 256, 260. See also Close
comprehension instruction and, 98–99 reading; Instructional practices
goal of, 90 Guided practice, 82, 186
overview, 88–89, 92 Guided reading, 283–284
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI),
125–127, 126f, 227
Funds of knowledge, 138 H
Fusion Reading Program, 183–188
Habits, 255, 255f
Haptic imagery, 51–53
G Heteroglossia concept, 19
History of comprehension research, 7, 20–21
Game-based learning, 318–319 Home environment, 358–359
Games4Change website, 319 Hypotheses formation, 283–284
GameslearningSociety website, 319
Gates–MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT)
digital texts and, 348 I
response to intervention (RTI) and, 166–167,
168, 169, 170 Identity construction, 320
Gender, 155 Importance value, 148. See also Value
General knowledge, 177 Improving Comprehension Online (ICON), 318
Generality, 91–92 Independent work, 82, 113–114, 257. See also
Generative grammar, 224–225 Instructional practices
Genes, 129–130 In-Depth Expanded Application of Science (IDEAS)
Genetic epistemology, 124. See also Neuroscience model, 215–216
Genre knowledge, 214 Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs), 187–188
Gestures, 197 Individualized interventions, 269. See also
Global Conversations in Literacy Research (GCLR), Interventions
14–15 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
Global interactivity, 8, 381–382, 382f, 386. See also 162–163
International literacy interactivity Inferential complexity, 98
Global literacy discourse, 7–8 Inferential skills
Global Nomads Group, 14 elementary level comprehension instruction and, 214
Global SchoolNet, 14 informational texts comprehension instruction
Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001 and, 239, 283
(Philippines), 8 multimodal learning and, 315–316
Gradual release of responsibility model, 256–257, neuroscience and, 128
283, 329 New Literacies and, 375
Grammatical metaphors, 282 overview, 109
Graphic organizers Information and communication technologies
Close Analysis of Texts with Structure (CATS) (ICTs), 367–368. See also New Literacies
and, 241, 242, 243f, 244, 245f, 246, 246f Information processing, 150
elementary level comprehension instruction and, Informational literacy, 281, 285–286
213 Informational Task Template 12, 262
English language learners and, 196 Informational texts. See also Informational texts
fiction comprehension instruction and, 269 comprehension instruction
secondary level comprehension instruction and, elementary level comprehension instruction and,
255, 255f 213, 214
Graphophonological cues, 58 English language learners and, 202
408 Subject Index

Informational texts (cont.) schema theory and, 47

motivation and, 154 social semiotic multimodal instruction and
overview, 238–240 assessment and, 300–305, 305f
Informational texts comprehension instruction. See specialist language and, 359–364
also Informational texts; Instructional practices Integration. See also Construction–integration (CI)
Close Analysis of Texts with Structure (CATS) model
and, 241–249, 243f, 244f, 246f comprehension instruction and, 98
in the elementary classroom, 238–250 meaning making and, 109
improving comprehension instruction and, motivation and, 157
249–250, 284–286 of reading, writing, and oral language, 115–116
overview, 238–240, 250, 263, 278–279, 286–287 Intelligent Tutoring of the Structure Strategy (ITSS)
research and practice and, 240–241, 279–284 program, 240–241
in the secondary classroom, 278–287 Intensive interventions, 269. See also Interventions
Inhibition. See also Executive functions Interaction theory, 256–257
graphophonological–semantic cognitive Interactive Character Trading Cards Tool website,
flexibility (GSF) and, 64–65 374
metacognition and, 77 Interactive Strategies Approach (ISA), 165, 168, 172
overview, 57 Interactive technology, 116–117. See also
prereaders’ comprehension and, 61 Technology
Inquiry, 332 Interdependence hypothesis, 200
Inquiry dialogue Interest levels of students, 153–154, 156, 320
collaborative reasoning (CR) and, 36 International Association for the Evaluation of
overview, 31, 40–41 Educational Achievement (IEA), 9
transfer effects and, 39–40 International Benchmarking Advisory Group, 12
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), 240, 269 International Children’s Digital Library website,
Instructional level, 115, 157 370
Instructional practices. See also Culturally International literacy interactivity, 8–12, 13, 13–15
responsive instruction; Elementary level International Literacy Year, 9
comprehension instruction; Fiction International Reading Association, 9
comprehension instruction; Informational Internet. See New Literacies; Technology
texts comprehension instruction; Response Internet Hunt Activities website, 376
to intervention (RTI) framework; Secondary Internet Reciprocal Teaching (IRT). See also New
level comprehension instruction; Strategy Literacies; Online research and comprehension;
instruction Reciprocal Teaching (RT); Technology
argument skills and, 29–30 benefits of, 333–335
at-risk students and, 177–183, 188 evolving model of, 330–333
classroom contexts and, 112–116 overview, 324, 328–330
Close Analysis of Texts with Structure (CATS) Teaching Internet Comprehension to Adolescents
and, 241–249, 243f, 244f, 246f (TICA) Basic Skills Checklist, 331, 340–344
coaching and interactive technology and, 116–117 Internet scavenger hunts, 375–376
cognitive flexibility and, 66 Internet Treasure Hunts for ESL Students website,
Common Core State Standards (CCSS), 112–116, 376
117–119 Interpretations, 269
Comprehension Process Motions (CPM) method, 52 Interventions. See also Instructional practices
design and delivery of, 256–257 fiction comprehension instruction and, 230, 269
developing strategic readers and, 114–115 informational texts comprehension instruction
dual coding theory and, 49–51, 53 and, 239–240
future research and, 13 metacognition and, 78–82, 85
global interactivity and, 381–382, 382f, 384–385 motivation and, 151–152
impact of the CCSS on, 97–99 response to intervention (RTI) and, 163–170, 164t
improving comprehension instruction and, 23–25 Intrinsic value, 148. See also Value
Internet Reciprocal Teaching (IRT), 330–333
metacognition and, 74–75, 76–84, 85
motivation and, 150–152, 156–157 K
Moved by Reading (MBR) technique, 53
multiple literacies and, 369–371 Kidlink website, 14
neuroscience and, 130–131 Kinesthetic imagery, 51–53
New Literacies, 375–377, 376f Knowing, 31–32
overview, 109–111, 386 Knowledge-based curriculum, 98–99
Subject Index 409

Knowledge-driven reading, 112 motivation and, 150

KWL (what I know, what I want to know, and what multimodal learning and, 315–316
I have learned) approach, 283 Manipulatives, 315–316
Meaning making
assessment and, 91–92
L at-risk students and, 182
fiction comprehension instruction and, 269
Language, 13, 138–139, 212, 296–297 history of comprehension research and, 7
Language comprehension informational texts comprehension instruction
at-risk students and, 180–181 and, 283–284
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and, 108 instructional models and, 114
embodied cognition and, 48 motivation and, 157
Large-scale assessments, 89–90. See also Assessment multimodal literacy and, 298
Latent class analysis, 182–183 overview, 109
Latent semantic analysis (LSA), 96 response to intervention (RTI) and, 168,
Learning differences, 175–176. See also At-risk 170–171
students; Struggling readers social semiotic multimodal instruction and
Learning disabilities(LD), 314–315. See also assessment and, 302–303
Struggling readers specialist language and, 363–364
Learning theory, 89, 256–257 Measurement. See also Assessment
Lesson planning, 368–369, 374–375 argumentation and, 38–39
Lexical density, 282 Close Analysis of Texts with Structure (CATS)
Lexile framework and, 247–248
assessment and, 93–94, 99 Fusion Reading Program and, 186–187
secondary level comprehension instruction and, online research and comprehension and, 335
259–260, 259f overview, 89
Linguistic features Measures of Academic Progress (MAP), 96–97
at-risk students and, 177, 180 Media, 24
informational texts comprehension instruction Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for
and, 280, 281–282 Young Australians in 2008, 8
multimodal literacy and, 295–296, 298–299 Memory
Listening assessment and, 91–92
Close Analysis of Texts with Structure (CATS) embodied cognition and, 48
and, 248 long-term memory, 150
close reading and, 262 overview, 91
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and, 108 Mental imagery, 51–53
multimodal literacy and, 296–297 Mental models, 91–92
neuroscience and, 127 Mental representations, 48
Literacy backgrounds, 298–299 Metacognition. See also Comprehension monitoring
Literacy Decade, 9 comprehension monitoring and, 77–78
Literacy Initiative for Empowerment (LIFE), 9 fiction comprehension instruction and, 268
Literacy Matters website, 375 Fusion Reading Program and, 183
Literacy standards, 106–107. See also Standards improving comprehension instruction and, 83–84
Literacy tasks, 151–152, 157 informational texts comprehension instruction
Literacy.org website, 14 and, 280, 284
Literary texts, 154 new developments and research, 76–83
Locating, 329 overview, 72–73, 85
Long-term memory, 150. See also Memory research and practice and, 73–76
Lucidly functional language, 361, 363–364. See also Metacomprehension accuracy, 76, 79
Specialist language; Vocabulary Metalinguistic awareness, 82–83
Modeling
comparing Reciprocal Teaching (RT) and Internet
M Reciprocal Teaching (IRT), 329
Fusion Reading Program and, 183, 186
Magnetoencephalography (MEG), 125 informational texts comprehension instruction
Main ideas, 315–316, 347 and, 283
Making connections Internet Reciprocal Teaching (IRT), 331
improving comprehension instruction and, 24 metacognition and, 82
metacognition and, 79 motivation and, 157
410 Subject Index

Monitoring. See also Comprehension monitoring; overview, 46–47, 90

Metacognition standards and, 92–93
accuracy of, 77–78 struggling readers and, 176
developing strategic readers and, 114 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 266
digital texts and, 346 National Education Technology Plan, 348–349
English language learners and, 196 National Governors Association (NGA), 12, 92–93
metacognition and, 77–78, 81–82 National Institute of Child Health and Human
Motivation. See also Engagement Development (NICHD), 281
culturally responsive instruction and, 143 National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority
fiction comprehension instruction and, 268–269, Children and Youth, 196–197
272–273 National Reading Panel, 196
Fusion Reading Program and, 184 National Reading Research Center (NRRC), 149
global interactivity and, 382, 382f, 384 National Research Council, 89
grouping students and, 114 National Standards (Great Britain), 8
improving comprehension instruction and, Needs of learners, 383, 386. See also Adolescent
156–157 readers; Elementary level comprehension
informational texts comprehension instruction instruction; English language learners;
and, 280, 281 Secondary level comprehension instruction;
new developments, 152–156, 152f, 153f Struggling readers
overview, 147–148, 158, 386 Neuroimaging technology, 124, 125, 125f, 126f
research and practice and, 149–152 Neuroscience
Motivation to Read Profile, 155, 156 fiction comprehension instruction and, 227
Motivational factors, 73, 80–81, 85 genes and, 129–130
Motivational zone of proximal development, 150 improving comprehension instruction and,
Moved by Reading (MBR) technique, 52 130–131
Multicultural literature, 23, 297–299. See also neurotransmitters and, 129, 130
Culturally responsive instruction; English overview, 123, 131–132
language learners reading comprehension and, 124–129, 125f, 126f
Multimodal learning Neurotransmitters, 129, 130
enactivism and, 313 New Criticism movement, 19–20
overview, 311–312, 319–320 New Literacies. See also Internet Reciprocal
research and practice and, 313–315 Teaching (IRT); Online research and
strands of, 315–319 comprehension; Technology
universal design for learning and, 312–313 English language learners and, 194
Multimodal literacy improving comprehension instruction and,
global interactivity and, 382f, 383–384 375–377, 376f
overview, 293–296, 307–309, 386 new developments, 369–375
research and practice and, 296–299 overview, 367–368, 377
social semiotic multimodal instruction and Reciprocal Teaching (RT) and, 326–330
assessment and, 300–307, 305f research and practice and, 325–326, 368–369
Multimodal texts, 214–215 Teaching Internet Comprehension to Adolescents
Multiple literacies, 369–375. See also New Literacies (TICA) Basic Skills Checklist, 331, 340–344
Multiple pathways, 128–129 technology, 324
Multiplists, 31–32 Newbery Medal, 369
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 8, 162–163
Nonprinted materials, 24
N Nonverbal behaviors, 77, 197
Note taking, 254, 255–256, 255f. See also Cornell
Narrative text, 213, 214, 270–274. See also Fiction note taking
comprehension instruction; Fictional texts
National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) O
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and, 106
English language learners and, 195 Online research and comprehension. See also
future research and, 13 Internet Reciprocal Teaching (IRT); New
informational texts comprehension instruction Literacies; Technology
and, 238, 279–280 collaborative modeling of, 331
neuroscience and, 124 complexity of, 332–333
Subject Index 411

performance-based assessments of, 334–335 metacognition and, 73–74

Reciprocal Teaching (RT) and, 326–330 multimodal learning and, 315–316
research and practice and, 325–326 Preparation for reading stage, 283
Teaching Internet Comprehension to Adolescents Preview strategy, 213, 284
(TICA) Basic Skills Checklist, 331, 340–344 Prior knowledge. See also Background knowledge
Online Research and Comprehension Assessment at-risk students and, 181
(ORCA), 334–335 fiction comprehension instruction and, 269,
Open tasks, 151–152 273–274
Open-ended responses, 96 informational texts comprehension instruction
Oral language, 108 and, 283
Oral vocabulary, 358–359 motivation and, 150
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and multimodal literacy and, 304
Development (OECD), 10–11. See also New Literacies and, 375
Program for International Student Assessment Problem–solution, 202, 239, 385
(PISA) Professional development
global interactivity and, 385
metacognition and, 80
P response to intervention (RTI) and, 164–166
secondary level comprehension instruction and,
Paraphrasing strategy, 80, 197 255, 255f
PART strategy, 184 Program for International Student Assessment
Partner work, 113–114, 186. See also Instructional (PISA)
practices future research and, 13
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College global interactivity and, 381
and Careers (PARCC), 94–95, 96 history of comprehension research and, 8
Performance-based assessments, 334–335 overview, 9, 10–11
Personal knowledge, 47 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study
Personalizing learning, 157 (PIRLS), 11, 13, 381
Perspective taking Progress measures, 186–187
story maps and, 228–233, 230t, 231f Project CRISS (CReating Independence through
understanding of others’ mental states and, Student-Owned Strategies), 179
226–227 Project-based learning, 157
Persuasion, 31, 203, 214 Purposes for reading
Philippine Education for All 2015 National Action digital texts and, 346
Plan, 8 history of comprehension research and, 7
Phonemic awareness, 196, 217, 358 informational texts comprehension instruction
Phonics skills, 184, 196 and, 280
Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening for purpose setting and, 81
Kindergarten (PALS-K), 165
Pilot Twelve-Country Study, 9
Planning skills, 57, 64–65, 127–128. See also Q
Executive functions
Plot Diagram website, 374 Qualitative aspects, 202, 281. See also Text
Political issues, 23–24 complexity
Positron emission tomography (PET), 129. See also Qualitative Reading Inventory–4 (QRI-4), 168, 172
Neuroscience Quantitative dimensions, 201–202, 281. See also
Postreading tasks, 262 Text complexity
Poverty, 195, 255–256. See also Socioeconomic Questioning
status (SES) close reading and, 260
Practicing new skills, 157, 183, 197 comparing Reciprocal Teaching (RT) and Internet
Prediction Reciprocal Teaching (IRT), 329
comparing Reciprocal Teaching (RT) and Internet English language learners and, 196
Reciprocal Teaching (IRT), 329 improving comprehension instruction and,
elementary level comprehension instruction and, 23–24
213 informational texts comprehension instruction
Fusion Reading Program and, 185 and, 283–284, 284–285
informational texts comprehension instruction Questioning-the-Author technique (QtA), 83–84,
and, 283, 284–285 213
412 Subject Index

R Responsive Reading Instruction (RRI) intervention,

166–167
Race to the Top program, 94 RIF Reading Planet website, 370
RAND Reading Study Group
definition of comprehension by, 108–109
digital texts and, 346 S
English language learners and, 196
informational texts comprehension instruction Scaffolding
and, 281 collaborative learning and, 256–257
Reach for the Sun game, 319 comprehension instruction and, 98
READ 180, 168, 178 culturally responsive instruction and, 139
Read Well program, 163–164, 167, 171 developing strategic readers and, 114–115
Read Write Think website, 375 Fusion Reading Program and, 183
Readability formulas, 93–94, 282 multimodal literacy and, 304
Read-alouds, 255–256, 255f response to intervention (RTI) and, 166
Reader and task considerations, 202 text complexity and, 115
READi (Reading, Evidence, and Argumentation in transfer effects and, 38
Disciplinary instruction) approach, 284 Schema, 46–47, 150
Reading comprehension Schema theory, 46–47, 48–49
flexibility and, 57–61, 59f Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI), 97
multimodal literacy and, 296–297 Schoolwide content literacy strategies, 255–256,
neuroscience and, 124–129, 125f, 126f 255f
overview, 46–47, 56–57, 108–109, 177 Secondary level comprehension instruction.
response to intervention (RTI) and, 163–170, 164t See also Adolescent readers; Fiction
Reading comprehension deficits (RCDs) comprehension instruction; Informational
cognitive flexibility and, 62–63, 63t, 66 texts comprehension instruction; Instructional
genes and, 129–130 practices
overview, 56–57 fiction comprehension instruction and, 266–275
Reading for remembering, 76 improving comprehension instruction and,
Reading literacy, 10 262–263
Reading Literacy Study, 9 informational texts comprehension instruction
Reading motivation. See also Motivation and, 278–287
improving comprehension instruction and, new developments, 258–263, 259f, 261f, 262f
156–157 overview, 253–254, 263
new developments, 152–156, 152f, 153f research and practice and, 254–258, 255f
overview, 148, 158 Second-language learners, 196–197, 348. See also
research and practice and, 149–152 English language learners
Reading Plus intervention, 178–179 Self-blame, 80–81
Reading skills, 56–57 Self-concepts, 155, 156–157
Reading standards, 106–107. See also Standards Self-directed learning opportunities, 268–269
Reading–writing connections, 7 Self-questioning strategy, 79, 80, 81
Reasoning, 32–36, 34t–35t, 375 Self-regulation, 77, 284, 375
Reciprocal Teaching (RT). See also Internet Self-system constructs, 73, 80–81
Reciprocal Teaching (IRT) Semantic cues, 58
at-risk students and, 178 Semantic errors, 128
digital texts and, 347–348 Semantic organizers, 196
metacognition and, 73–74, 79 Semantic–syntactic cognitive flexibility, 63
online research and comprehension and, 326–330 Sensorimotor processing and, 51–52
overview, 47, 326–327 Sensory experience, 48
secondary level comprehension instruction and, Sensory memory, 150
255, 255f Sequence
Rereading strategy, 79, 260 Close Analysis of Texts with Structure (CATS)
Response to intervention (RTI) framework. See also and, 241–249, 243f, 244f, 246f
Instructional practices informational texts and, 202
cognitive flexibility and, 63–64, 64f informational texts comprehension instruction
focused comprehension instruction and, 167–170 and, 239
global interactivity and, 383 Shallow understanding, 91
overview, 162–163, 170–172 Shared learning, 385
reading comprehension and, 163–170, 164t Shared reading, 115, 255–256, 255f
Subject Index 413

Shifting, 57. See also Executive functions Standards. See also Common Core State Standards
Simple View of Reading (SVR) framework, (CCSS)
180–183, 198–201 assessment and, 94–96
Single-word reading, 127 at-risk students and, 176
Situated meaning, 361–362, 362–363, 364. See also collaborative analysis of student work and, 257
Specialist language; Vocabulary culturally responsive instruction and, 139
Situation model, 91, 109 English language learners and, 194–195,
Situational interest, 150 201–204
Six Subject Survey, 9 informational texts comprehension instruction
Small-group instruction. See also Instructional and, 239
practices multimodal literacy and, 306–307
comparing Reciprocal Teaching (RT) and Internet need for, 92–93
Reciprocal Teaching (IRT), 328 Story grammars. See also Story structure; Text
Fusion Reading Program and, 183 structure
Internet Reciprocal Teaching (IRT), 333 fiction comprehension instruction and, 225–226
motivation and, 157 overview, 270–274
multimodal literacy and, 304 story maps and, 227–233, 230t, 231f
overview, 113–114 Story maps
response to intervention (RTI) and, 165–166, English language learners and, 196
169–170 fiction comprehension instruction and, 224,
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), 227–233, 230t, 231f, 271–272
94–95, 96 global interactivity and, 385
Social constructivism, 40–41 historical review of, 224–225
Social learning theory, 89, 256–257 improving comprehension instruction and,
Social narratives, 61 233–235
Social semiotic multimodal instruction and overview, 235
assessment, 300–307, 305f. See also Story schemata, 225
Multimodal literacy Story structure, 167–170, 196, 283. See also Story
Social semiotics, 296, 298, 299 grammars
Socio-cognitive models, 346 StoryLine Online website, 370
Sociocultural theory Strategic reading
critical literacies theory and, 18–19 informational texts comprehension instruction
culturally responsive instruction and, 137 and, 280, 281, 283–284
English language learners and, 194 instructional models and, 114–115
informational texts comprehension instruction Strategic thinking, 95
and, 280 Strategies
multimodal literacy and, 298–299 adolescent learners and, 266–267
transfer effects and, 38 at-risk students and, 177
Socioeconomic status (SES) digital texts and, 346
English language learners and, 194 dual coding theory and, 49–51
overview, 382–383 English language learners and, 196, 203–204
response to intervention (RTI) and, 164–166 Fusion Reading Program and, 186
secondary level comprehension instruction and, metacognition and, 73–74
255–256 monitoring, 81
Sociopolitical issues, 23–24, 141 Strategy Access Rods (SARs), 315–316
Sourcing, 259 Strategy instruction. See also Instructional
Speaking practices
close reading and, 262 elementary level comprehension instruction and,
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and, 108 213
multimodal literacy and, 296–297 English language learners and, 203–204
Special education programs, 187–188 fiction comprehension instruction and, 269
Specialist language. See also Academic vocabulary Fusion Reading Program and, 186
improving comprehension instruction and, informational texts comprehension instruction
359–364 and, 283
overview, 356–358, 365 metacognition and, 74–75, 79, 80, 81
using popular culture and, 364–365 monitoring, 81
SpellRead program, 178 online research and comprehension and, 331
SQ3R (survey, question, read, recite, review) Structural equation modeling (SEM), 198–199,
approach, 283 204
414 Subject Index

Struggling readers. See also At-risk students Technology. See also Digital texts; eBooks; Internet
comparing Reciprocal Teaching (RT) and Internet Reciprocal Teaching (IRT); New Literacies;
Reciprocal Teaching (IRT), 328 Online research and comprehension
digital texts and, 347 assessment and, 88–89
fiction comprehension instruction and, 269 elementary level comprehension instruction and,
Fusion Reading Program and, 183–188 214–215
genes and, 129–130 English language learners and, 193–194, 196
metacognition and, 80 enhancing instruction through, 116–117
multimodal learning and, 312, 313–315 global interactivity and, 382f, 385
overview, 189 multimodal learning and, 297, 318–319, 320
Student achievement overview, 386
culturally responsive instruction and, 139, research and practice and, 325–326
141–142 social semiotic multimodal instruction and
English language learners and, 194, 195–196 assessment and, 302–303
specialist language and, 358–359 Testing, 89–90, 320, 334–335. See also Assessment
Student Team Reading and Writing program, 180 Text complexity
Student-generated questions, 47 assessment and, 93–94, 99
Success for All, 165–166 Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and, 107, 115
SuccessMaker intervention, 179 comprehension instruction and, 97–99
Summarization English language learners and, 201–202
Close Analysis of Texts with Structure (CATS) instructional models and, 113
and, 242 secondary level comprehension instruction and,
comparing Reciprocal Teaching (RT) and Internet 259–262, 259f, 261f, 262f
Reciprocal Teaching (IRT), 329 Text comprehension, 196
elementary level comprehension instruction and, Text meaning, 91
213 Text selection, 143–144, 154, 183–184. See also
English language learners and, 196, 197 Dialogue
fiction comprehension instruction and, 269 Text structure. See also Story grammars
Fusion Reading Program and, 185 elementary level comprehension instruction and, 213
informational texts comprehension instruction fiction comprehension instruction and, 271–272
and, 283, 284–285 informational texts comprehension instruction
metacognition and, 74, 79 and, 280, 281–282, 283
multimodal learning and, 315–316 schema theory and, 47
overview, 92 Text-to-speech (TTS) technology, 346, 347, 350. See
Summative assessment, 88–89, 90, 98–99. See also also Digital texts; eBooks
Assessment Theoretical bases, 382–383, 386. See also
Support for Student Learning construct, 217 individual theories
Sustained Silent Reading (SSR), 167–170, 255–256 Theory of mind (ToM)
Syntactic cues, 58 fiction comprehension instruction and, 227, 230,
Syntactic errors, 128 231f
Synthesis, 284–285, 329 improving comprehension instruction and, 233
prereaders’ comprehension and, 61
Think-alouds methodology, 333–334
T Thinking Reader project, 185, 347–348, 350
Tier 2 instruction, 64f, 164–166, 167–170. See also
Talent Development Middle Grades Program, Response to intervention (RTI) framework
179–180 Tier 3 intervention, 166–167, 167–170. See also
Task authenticity, 154–155, 157 Response to intervention (RTI) framework
Teacher education, 196 Towson Reading Clinic, 315
Teacher-led instruction, 330–331 Transactional strategy instruction, 183. See also
Teachers Metacognition
classroom contexts and, 112–116 Transactional theory, 19, 24
motivation and, 150–152, 157 Transfer effects, 37–40
multimodal literacy and, 299 Transformational grammar, 224–225
Teachers’ Choices Booklist website, 369 Trends in International Mathematics and Science
Teaching Internet Comprehension to Adolescents Study (TIMSS), 11
(TICA) Basic Skills Checklist, 331, 340–344 TumbleBooks website, 370
Technical vocabulary. See Academic vocabulary; Tutoring, 165–166
Specialist language TV shows, 24
Subject Index 415

U W

UDL Book Builder tool, 352 WebQuests, 372–373

Unconscious thought, 47–48 Whole-class instruction, 113–114, 186. See also
Understanding, 92, 226–227 Instructional practices
UNESCO for the Literacy Decade, 12–13 Whole-school model, 80
Universal design for learning (UDL), 312–313, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, 65
345–347, 348–349, 351 Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery—Revised
Utility value, 148. See also Value (WLPB-R), 182
Woodcock Reading Master Test—Revised
(WRMT-R), 167
V Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achievement
(WJIII), 165, 166–167, 170, 172
Value, 148 Word callers, 56–57
Vaughn Gross Center for Reading website, 375 Word identification, 127, 184, 200
Verbal behaviors, 77 Word recognition skills, 73, 180
Verbal fluency, 77 Word study, 217, 269
Verbal meanings, 361–362. See also Specialist Word-level skills, 177
language; Vocabulary Working memory. See also Executive functions
Verbalizing and Visualizing (V/V) program, 50–51 English language learners and, 200
Video games. See also Technology graphophonological–semantic cognitive
multimodal learning and, 318–319, 320 flexibility (GSF) and, 64–65
situated meaning and, 362–363 metacognition and, 80
specialist language and, 362–363 neuroscience and, 127–128
Virtual field trips (VFTs), 371–372 overview, 57, 150
Visual cues, 197 prereaders’ comprehension and, 61
Visual imagery, 51–53, 80 Writing
Visualizing, 284–285, 315–316 elementary level comprehension instruction and,
Vocabulary 213
at-risk students and, 177 fiction comprehension instruction and, 269,
Close Analysis of Texts with Structure (CATS) 271
and, 242, 244, 245 multimodal literacy and, 296–297
digital texts and, 346, 347, 348, 351 writing to learn, 255–256, 255f
embodied cognition and, 49 Writing standards, 107–108. See also Standards
English language learners and, 196, 197, 201,
216–217
fiction comprehension instruction and, 234–235, Y
268, 269
Fusion Reading Program and, 184, 186 Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA),
improving comprehension instruction and, 369
359–364 Young Adults’ Choices website, 369
informational texts comprehension instruction
and, 280, 281, 282
overview, 356–357 Z
secondary level comprehension instruction and,
255, 255f Zone of proximal development, 157
 Contributors

Richard C. Anderson, EdD, Kelly B. Cartwright, PhD,

College of Education, University Department of Psychology,
of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Christopher Newport University,
Urbana, Illinois Newport News, Virginia
Linda Baker, PhD, Department Jill Castek, PhD, Department
of Psychology, University of Applied Linguistics, Portland
of Maryland, Baltimore County, State University, Portland, Oregon
Baltimore, Maryland
Elizabeth Bemiss, MEd, Julie Coiro, PhD, School
College of Education, of Education, University
University of South Carolina, of Rhode Island,
Columbia, South Carolina Kingston, Rhode Island
Cathy Collins Block, PhD, Bridget Dalton, EdD, School
College of Education, of Education, University
Texas Christian University, of Colorado Boulder,
Fort Worth, Texas Boulder, Colorado
Irma F. Brasseur-Hock, PhD, Center Donald D. Deshler, PhD, Center for
for Research on Learning, University Research on Learning, University
of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas

Donna Caccamise, PhD, Laura U. DeWyngaert, BS,

Institute of Cognitive Science, Department of Psychology, University
University of Colorado Boulder, of Maryland, Baltimore County,
Boulder, Colorado Baltimore, Maryland
Michelle Carney, MAT, School Nell K. Duke, EdD, School
of Education, Boston University, of Education, University of Michigan,
Boston, Massachusetts Ann Arbor, Michigan

416
Contributors 417

Douglas Fisher, PhD, Department Vicki A. Jacobs, EdD,

of Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education,
San Diego State University, Harvard University,
San Diego, California Cambridge, Massachusetts
Evelyn Ford-Connors, EdD, School Eileen Kintsch, PhD, Institute
of Education, Boston University, of Cognitive Science, University
Boston, Massachusetts of Colorado Boulder,
Boulder, Colorado
Nancy Frey, PhD, Department Jan Lacina, PhD, College
of Educational Leadership, of Education, Texas
San Diego State University, Christian University,
San Diego, California Fort Worth, Texas
Angela Friend, PhD, Institute Sally Lamping, EdD, Department
of Cognitive Science, University of English Language and Literatures,
of Colorado Boulder, Wright State University,
Boulder, Colorado Dayton, Ohio
Linda B. Gambrell, PhD, B. P. Laster, EdD, Department
Eugene T. Moore School of Educational Technology
of Education, Clemson University, and Literacy, Towson University,
Clemson, South Carolina Towson, Maryland
James Paul Gee, PhD, Mary Lou Christine M. Leighton, EdD,
Fulton College of Education, Arizona Department of Education,
State University, Tempe, Arizona Emmanuel College,
Boston, Massachusetts
Douglas K. Hartman, PhD, College Donald J. Leu, PhD, Neag
of Education, Michigan State School of Education, University
University, East Lansing, Michigan of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut

Kathy Headley, EdD, College Megan K. Littrell-Baez, PhD,

of Health, Education, Institute of Cognitive Science,
and Human Development, University of Colorado Boulder,
Eugene T. Moore School Boulder, Colorado
of Education, Clemson University,
Deborah MacPhee, PhD, College
Clemson, South Carolina
of Education, Illinois State University,
Laurie A. Henry, PhD, Department Normal, Illinois
of Curriculum and Instruction,
University of Kentucky,
Lexington, Kentucky Jacquelynn A. Malloy, PhD,
Eugene T. Moore School
Michael F. Hock, PhD, Center for of Education, Clemson University,
Research on Learning, University Clemson, South Carolina
of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas
Nicole M. Martin, PhD, Department
of Elementary Education,
Judy Yu-Li Hsu, EdM, Department Teachers College, Ball State
of Educational Psychology, University University, Muncie, Indiana
of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign,
Urbana, Illinois Ellen McIntyre, EdD, College
of Education, University
Jacy Ippolito, EdD, School of North Carolina at Charlotte,
of Education, Salem State University, Charlotte, North Carolina
Salem, Massachusetts
418 Contributors

Erin M. McTigue, PhD, Robert Rueda, PhD, Rossier School

College of Education of Education, University of Southern
and Human Development, California, Los Angeles, California
Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas
Mark Sadoski, PhD,
Heather Monroe-Ossi, MEd, College of Education
Florida Institute of Education, and Human Development,
University of North Florida, Texas A&M University,
Jacksonville, Florida College Station, Texas
Tiffany Ohlson, PhD, Florida Andreas Schleicher, MSc, Indicators
Institute of Education, and Analysis Division (Directorate
University of North Florida, for Education), Organisation
Jacksonville, Florida for Economic Co-operation
and Development, Paris, France
Lisa S. Pao, PhD, Teachers College,
Columbia University, Laura B. Smolkin, EdD,
New York, New York Curriculum, Instruction, and Special
Education, University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, Virginia
Jeanne R. Paratore, EdD, School
of Education, Boston University, Elena Son, MA, Rossier School
Boston, Massachusetts of Education, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, California

Sheri R. Parris, PhD, Institute

of Child Development, Diane Stephens, PhD,
Texas Christian University, College of Education,
Fort Worth, Texas University of South Carolina,
Columbia, South Carolina
C. Patrick Proctor, EdD, Lynch
School of Education, Boston College, Norman J. Unrau, EdD, Division
Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts of Curriculum and Instruction,
California State University,
Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
Alina Reznitskaya, PhD, Department
of Educational Foundations, Joanna P. Williams, PhD,
Montclair State University, Teachers College,
Montclair, New Jersey Columbia University,
New York, New York
Dana A. Robertson, EdD, College
of Education, University of Wyoming, Bogum Yoon, PhD, Graduate School
Laramie, Wyoming of Education, Binghamton University,
The State University of New York,
Binghamton, New York
David Rose, EdD, Center for
Applied Special Technology (CAST), Alisa Zeliger-Kandasamy, BA,
Wakefield, Massachusetts Department of Psychology, University
of Maryland, Baltimore County,
Baltimore, Maryland