1. MSDE Office of Reading First1 Comprehension – Thinking Guided by Print (Perfetti, 1985)

2. MSDE Office of Reading First2 Outcomes for this Session learn the components of text comprehension. differentiate between metacognitive strategies and comprehension skills. learn about research-based strategies for comprehension instruction in the classroom. Participants will…

3. MSDE Office of Reading First3 Why is Comprehension Important? The educational careers of 25 to 40 percent of American children are imperiled because they do not read well enough, quickly enough, or easily enough to ensure comprehension in their content courses in middle and secondary school. (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998)

4. MSDE Office of Reading First4 What Does the Research Say? Reading Comprehension as a synthesis of complex skills cannot be understood without examining the critical role and importance of vocabulary instruction. (National Reading Panel, 2000)

5. MSDE Office of Reading First5 What Does the Research Say? Recent data clearly indicate that comprehension is dependent on active and thoughtful interaction between the text and the reader. (National Reading Panel, 2000) Once thought of as …decoding plus oral language, comprehension is now viewed as a much more complex process involving knowledge, experience, thinking, and teaching. (Fielding & Pearson, 1994)

6. MSDE Office of Reading First6 Text Comprehension What is it? Definition - intentional thinking during which meaning is constructed through interactions between text and reader. (Durkin, D., 1993)

7. MSDE Office of Reading First7 Text Comprehension Text comprehension can be improved by instruction that helps readers use specific comprehension strategies. Effective comprehension strategy instruction is explicit, or direct. (Put Reading First, pp. 49, 53)

8. MSDE Office of Reading First8 Text Comprehension Text comprehension is a thinking process using both metacognitive strategies and comprehension skills.

9. MSDE Office of Reading First9 Metacognitive Strategies Strategies students use while they are reading that help them engage deeply in the meanings of a text. (Moats, L. 2004)

10. MSDE Office of Reading First10 Instruction of metacognitive strategies is a way for teachers to break through students’ passivity and involve them in their own learning. (National Reading Panel, 2000)

11. MSDE Office of Reading First11 Metacognitive strategies that need to be taught directly are: Questioning (Answering and Generating) Summarization Multiple Strategy Instruction Comprehension Monitoring Making Connections Inferring Questioning Determining Importance Visualizing Synthesizing

12. MSDE Office of Reading First12 1.An awareness and understanding of the reader’s own cognitive processes. 2. A teacher guiding the reader or modeling for the reader these strategies. 3.The reader practicing these strategies with the teacher assisting until the reader achieves internalization and independent mastery. (National Reading Panel, 2000) Instruction of metacognitive strategies includes:

13. MSDE Office of Reading First13 What Comprehension Instruction Looks Like Instruction is explicit setting a purpose for learning telling students what to do showing them how to do it guiding their hands-on application of the new learning

14. MSDE Office of Reading First14 Three-Step Process Often the explicit instruction is referred to as the three-step process of: 1.I do 2. We do 3. You do

15. MSDE Office of Reading First15 What Comprehension Instruction Looks Like Scientifically-based research supports the use of: cooperative learning graphic and semantic organizers understanding story structure (National Reading Panel, 2000)

16. MSDE Office of Reading First16 Critical Elements in Comprehension Instruction of Both Skills and Strategies Teach multiple strategies and skills. Teach rather than mention. Teach students to become strategic readers. Actively involve students in the instruction. (National Reading Panel, 2000)

17. MSDE Office of Reading First17 Some comprehension skills that need to be taught directly are: Cause and effect Inferences Summarization Author’s viewpoint Identifying characters, setting, plot

18. MSDE Office of Reading First18 Comprehension occurs: Before reading During reading After reading

19. MSDE Office of Reading First19 “Before Reading” Discuss key vocabulary K-W-L Preview, browse with a purpose Supply background Give personal connection to theme Use story structure chart to supply setting and characters Read once through without stopping (Moats, 2004)

20. MSDE Office of Reading First20 “During Reading” Pose queries at critical junctures in text. Model the thoughts and questions of an inquiring reader by thinking aloud. Teach children to: a) ask for clarification, b) summarize, c) anticipate, and d) ask questions of the author as they read. Visualize or construct a mental image of settings, events, concepts. (Moats, 2004)

21. MSDE Office of Reading First21 “After Reading” Complete an appropriate graphic organizer. Write a summary. Retell a narrative or sequence of events, with visual prompts available. Act out or illustrate the content. Respond to key questions in writing, then discuss with others. Extend to other projects, products. (Moats, 2004)

22. MSDE Office of Reading First22 Text comprehension is important because comprehension is the reason for reading. Text comprehension is purposeful and active. Text comprehension can be developed by teaching comprehension skills and metacognitive strategies. Text comprehension strategies can be taught through explicit instruction, cooperative learning, and by helping readers use strategies flexibly and in combination. (Put Reading First, 2001)

23. MSDE Office of Reading First23 Want to Know More? Anderson, R.C., & Pearson, P.D. (1984). A Schema-Theoretic View of Basic Processes in Reading. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 255-291.) New York: Longman. Armbruster, B., Lehr, F. & Osborn, J. (2001). Put Reading first: the Research Building Blocks for Teaching children to Read: Kindergarten through Grade 3. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Baumann, J.F., Seifert-Kessell, N. & Jones, L.A. (1992). Effect of Think-Aloud Instruction on Elementary Students’ Comprehension Monitoring Abilities. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(2), 142-172. Beck, I.L., & McKeown, M.G. (`983). Learning Words Well- A Program to Enhance Vocabulary and Comprehension. The Reading Teachers, 36, 622- 625. Durkin, D. (1993). Teaching Them to Read. (6 th edition) Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Farstrup, A., & Samuels, S. (2002). Evidence-based Reading Instruction: Putting the National Reading Panel Report into Practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Fielding, Linda, & Pearson, P. David. (1994) “Reading Comprehension: What Works?” Educational Leadership 51, 5: 62-67.

24. MSDE Office of Reading First24 Gersten, R., Fuchs, L.S., Williams, J.P., & Baker, S. (200`). Teaching Reading Comprehension Strategies to Students with Learning Disabilities: A Review of Research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279-320. Good, R.H., Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R.A. (2001.) Best Practices in Using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an Outcomes-Driven Model. In A. Thomas 7 J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology IV (pp.679-700). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2002). Strategies that Work: Teaching Comprehension to Enhance Understanding. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers. Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2002). Strategies that Work: Teaching Comprehension to Enhance Understanding and Engagement – 2 nd Edition. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers. Keene, Ellin O., & Zimmermann, Susan. (2007.) Mosaic of Thought: The Power of Comprehension 2 nd Edition. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. LINKS Project (2000). Comprehension: Participant’s & Facilitator’s Manual. Olympia, WA: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.

25. MSDE Office of Reading First25 McKeown, M.G., Beck, I.L., Omanson, R.C., & Perfertti, C.A. (1983). The Effects of Long-Term Vocabulary Instruction on Reading Comprehension: A replication. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15(1), 3-18. Miller, Debbie (2002). Reading With Meaning. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers. Moats, L. (2004). LETRS: Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling, Modules 1-9. Longmont, CIO: Sopris West. National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching Children to Read: An Evidenced- based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on reading and its Implications for reading Instruction: Reports of the Subgroups. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human development. RAND Reading Study Group (2002). Reading for Understanding: Toward a Research and Development Program in Reading comprehension. http://www.rand.org/multi/achievemenforall/reading/readreport.html.com http://www.rand.org/multi/achievemenforall/reading/readreport.html.com Rose, Mary (1998). Reading comprehension and Fluency. New York, NY: Scholastic. Shore, R. (19997). Rethinking the Brain: New Insights into Early Development. New York: Families and Work Institute. Snow, C.E., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.