Case Based ResponseI. Background knowledge is important for S because it can help a reader comprehend a passage. If the reader knows enough about the subject they can use what they know to predict what is happening in the text.
II. Attached assessment sheets.
III. Rationale
a. S is a fourth grader, however, his third grade teacher said that he reads at a first grade level. Based on this evaluation the assessor chose to start two levels below at the pre-primer. Starting at a lower level is a way to assure that the student starts out successfully and to find their base independent level.
b. The assessor stopped administering the word lists mid way through the fifth grade word list because the student did not know most of the words. I would have stopped at the fourth grade list which was scored as at S’s frustration level. It would not be appropriate to move on in the lists because it would frustrate the student and possibly skew the rest of the assessment. Furthermore, we are looking for the student’s highest independent reading level making it unnecessary to move on in the word lists.
c. The assessor chose to start S reading the first grade passage. S’s highest independent level on the word lists was the second grade reading lists. I would have started him reading at his highest independent level which would mean starting him at the second grade passage.
d. S read the level one passage at an independent level, level two he read at an instructional level. The assessor continued to find S’s highest instructional level. Although he scored at an instructional level all the through level four, because his word list was frustrational at level four his highest instructional level would be third grade. His success with reading the fourth grade passage tells that he is comprehending above his word identification level.
IV. Explanation to parents
After being assessed with the QRI4 we have identified some of S’s strengths and weaknesses as a reader. Although evaluation of S’s word identification suggests that S working at a second grade level independently, his ability to use his background knowledge, other word identification skills is allowing him to comprehend at a higher reading level. I recommend that most of S’s time spent reading alone be at a first grade reading level. However, in class where he can receive vocabulary support, S’s instructional level should be at a third grade level. S’s ability to create meaning from texts will be a great asset to him as we help him improve his word identification skills.
One way to encourage such reformulation of ideas is to teach the use of metacognitive questioning strategies. Questioning strategies cause readers to think more deeply about new information, stimulating thought process for problem solving and imaginative thinking (Williamson, 1996). Teacher-led questioning activities have been present in curriculum since the beginning of American education; new exploration using questioning shows that explicit instruction of self-questioning techniques can provide metacognitive focus for improved reading comprehension that authentically engages students in way that teacher-led questioning does not (Gauthier, 2000). A reformed approach to reading instruction should include explicit instruction of metacognitive reading strategies, like questioning, in authentic student-driven contexts.
Traditional Use of Questioning in Reading Instruction Questions can provide academic focus and coherence for an entire curriculum (Gauthier, 2000); the imperative role of questions in the classroom has been proven by research, and of course, by time. Questioning in reading instruction has largely been approached as a series of questions meant to measure comprehension which are answered following reading (Durkin, 1978-1979). Commonly these questions are created by the teacher or taken from the basal reader (Lloyd, 2004). In the case of both the basal and teacher created questions, instructors often spend time creating and posing thoughtful higher order thinking questions only to find that the students are uninterested and unengaged in answering the queries (Lloyd, 2004). Many students read as passive recipients allowing the text to “wash over them” instead of making connections to the text or delving beyond surface level in support of their understanding; in short, passive readers answer questions the teacher created in the way the teacher thought they should (Zimmermann & Keene, 2007 . Lloyd, 2004). Furthermore, there is little instruction in the traditional format of a series of questions following reading selection. Educators using this traditional model are assessing their students' understanding, but students are not being taught how to improve their reading comprehension by asking questions of their own (Durkin, 1978-1979).
Authentic Student Questions
In contrast to teacher driven questioning, incorporating student generated questions into literacy instruction addresses assessment needs of the teacher while increasing the motivation of students. Furthermore, authentic student-developed questions can enhance comprehension by “fostering a synthesis of concepts through practical application” and focus on main ideas (Gauthier, 2000). Student responsibility for questioning still provides the focus of guiding questions (Gauthier, 2000), but by generating and using self-questioning techniques the curriculum is enriched with beneficial comprehension instruction and increased student motivation (Durkin, 1978-1979. Lloyd, 2004). Through the process of asking authentic questions “literature discussions become more than an activity in which the reader is responsible for finding a specific predetermined meaning of the text. The questions invite students to interpret the text by illustrating the meaning and acknowledging the valuable insights each reader brings to the text." (Lloyd, 2004)
Teachers and researchers investigating the use of authentic questioning used for comprehension instruction reported more attentive classes who thought more deeply about the text, using their questions and discussion to interpret, evaluate, and synthesize (Gauthier, 2000. Lloyd, 2004). Students reported that having control of the discussion was more challenging and interesting; many reflected that questioning promotes active reading. (Lloyd, 2004) Sharing questions in small groups and as a class also contributed improving student comprehension. Participating in questioning activities students generated questions, but also listened to other student questions and responses further expanding “the network of cognitive connections needed for understanding text" (Gauthier, 2000). Using authentic questions in the curriculum is a powerful tool for teaching reading comprehension, engaging students in literature discussions, along with assessing student creation of meaning from text.
Explicit Instruction of Metacognitive Strategies
Explicit instruction of comprehension strategies keeps the key features of literacy instruction such as read alouds, small group literature discussions, and reflective writing but shifts the control of these elements from the teacher to center around student thinking. Instead the comprehension strategy instruction uses the gradual release of responsibility model to beginning with the techniques that provides the most support moving towards independent practice (Lloyd, 2004. Zimmermann & Keene, 2007). To begin teachers start with reading aloud from an engaging text (Zimmermann & Keene, 2007). Read alouds have many benefits for students including building concepts of print, generating interest in literature, and aiding academic vocabulary development (Myers, 2005). In addition to these benefits educators can add the opportunity to introduce comprehension strategies by modeling through think alouds (Myers, 2005). For several lessons students observe teacher think alouds before practicing the strategies themselves first as a whole group then as a small group, and finally independently. The intention behind using the gradual release model is for students to turn these strategies into metacognitive reading skills (Afflerbach, 2008. Zimmermann & Keene, 2007).
As with any instruction method, this formula for gradual release instruction of comprehension strategies is not teacher or student proof solutions. Problems arise and the curriculum should shift in order to respond and improve student discussion. Research suggests that problems arising during instruction can be addressed by discussion and with student created solutions (Lloyd, 2004). For example, at the beginning of questioning instruction many student asked simple explicit questions emulating the years of basal or teacher-driven questions they were used to in traditional curriculum (Lloyd, 2004. Myers, 2005). To encourage students to delve deeper with their questions students should discuss the many types of questions learning to distinguish “thick” and “thin” questions looking to ask questions that are open ended and require critical thinking (Myers, 2005). In addition, it is important that students discuss the transition of questioning strategy to a reading comprehension skill, practiced independently (Afflerbach, 2008). Prolonged discussion and use of a single strategy can become “intrusive and cumbersome to the accomplished reader” (Lloyd, 2004). Strategy instruction was found to be most useful when individual strategies are not over used (Gauthier, 2000). Repeated practice is necessary to ensure mastery of strategies, but open discussion with students about this need for repetition along with self-assessment of their thinking can help instructors determine the pace of instruction (Lloyd, 2004).
Conclusion
Student-driven contexts for reading instruction provide authentic contexts that motivate students, increase their understanding of text, encourage active reading, assess and teach reading comprehension where historical models only assessed comprehension and propagated passive reading (Durkin, 1978-1979. Lloyd, 2004. King, 1994). Adding questioning strategies to students' metacognitive tool box stimulates thought process for improved understanding, problem solving imaginative thinking (Williamson, 1996). Instruction of metacognitive comprehension strategies using gradual release of responsibility supports transition of a reading strategy to reading skill implemented independent for improved life long reading comprehension. This reformed method of reading instruction addresses the complexity of reading comprehension assisting the large numbers of students who are able to decode, but not understand what they have read (Myers, 2005).
BibliographyAfflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). “Clarifying Differences Between Reading Skills and Reading Strategies”. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364-373.
Durkin, Dolores (1978-19879) "What Classroom Observations Reveal About Reading Comprehension Instruction". Reading Research Quarterly,14(4), 481-533.
Gauthier, L. R. (2000). “The Role of Questioning: Beyond Comprehension's Front Door”. Reading Horizons, 40(4), 239-252.
Lloyd, S. L. (2004). “Using Comprehension Strategies as a Springboard for Student Talk”. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(2), 114-124.
Myers, P. A. (2005). “The Princess Storyteller, Clara Clarifier, Quincy Questioner, and the Wizard: Reciprocal teaching adapted for kindergarten students”. International Reading Association, 314-324.
King, A. (1994). “Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain”. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338-368.
Zimmermann, S., & Keene, E. O. (2007). Mosaic of Thought: The Power of Comprehension Strategy Instruction (2nd ed.). Heinemann.
