Rethinking Reading Comprehension Instruction: A Comparison of Instruction for Strategies and Content Approaches

Abstract

Reports from research and the larger educational community demonstrate that too many students have limited ability to comprehend texts. The research reported here involved a two-year study in which standardized comprehension instruction for representations of two major approaches was designed and implemented. The effectiveness of the two experimental comprehension instructional approaches (content and strategies) and a control approach were compared. Content instruction focused student attention on the content of the text through open, meaning-based questions about the text. In strategies instruction, students were taught specific procedures to guide their access to text during reading of the text. Lessons for the control approach were developed using questions available in the teacher's edition of the basal reading program used in the participating classrooms. Student participants were all fifth graders in a low-performing urban district. In addition to assessments of comprehension of lesson texts and an analysis of lesson discourse, three assessments were developed to compare student ability to transfer knowledge gained. The results were consistent from Year 1 to Year 2. No differences were seen on one measure of lesson-text comprehension, the sentence verification technique. However, for narrative recall and expository learning probes, content students outperformed strategies students, and occasionally, the basal control students outperformed strategies students. For one of the transfer assessments, there was a modest effect in favor of the content students. Transcripts of the lessons were examined, and differences in amount of talk about the text and length of student response also favored the content approach.

Reading for meaning: the effects of Developmental Education on motivation and achievement in reading informative texts in primary school

“…Our teacher questionnaire was directed towards the implementation of the approaches and did not provide information about teacher quality or actual classroom practices. According to McKeown, Beck, and Blake (2009), it is possible that either some reading activities are more effective than others or that instructional activities matter less than simply the amount of time spent reading and the attention given to the text. Different aspects of DE and PI may contribute to the same outcomes.…”

“…Content approaches to reading are based on theoretical models of text processing, emphasising the construction and integration of meaning in a coherent whole to gain knowledge, and on socio-cognitive perspectives involving shared meaning making (McKeown, Beck, and Blake 2009). In CORI, this theoretical model is included in an 'engagement perspective' , in which engagement processes are assumed to mediate the effect of instructional classroom practices on reading comprehension to a large extent.…”

“…Motivation is thought to stem from satisfaction and belief in personal efficacy. Direct instruction of strategy knowledge is central to strategy approaches (McKeown, Beck, and Blake 2009;Zimmerman 2002). Solid evidence is found that the use of a combination of strategies improves reading comprehension compared to traditional approaches (NICHHD 2000).…”

Increasing Higher Level Language Skills to Improve Reading Comprehension

“…After asking a question, the teacher promotes discussion of the text to answer the question. The use of QtA encourages children to actively engage in text comprehension that, in turn, improves their ability to detect their breakdowns in comprehension (McKeown, Beck, & Blake, 2009). …”

“…• Question the author to improve comprehension monitoring activities often involve questioning, such as asking readers to identify the main point (see McKeown et al, 2009, for a discussion). During-reading activities may involve explicit instruction in text structure knowledge (e.g., Bakken et al, 1997).…”