Lesson plan for reading class gread4

Toowm92

YouCanReadThisText.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Lesson plan for reading class gread4

J O U R N A L O F A D O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 5 1 : 5 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8372

Diane Lapp, Douglas Fisher, Maria Grant

“You can read this text—I’ll show you how”: Interactive comprehension instruction

Interactive comprehension instruction

through think-alouds based on shared

readings can contribute to the

success of students, providing

them with tangible and authentic

experiences for reading.

“You can read this text—I’ll show you how” is what we heard teacher Maria Grant say to her students as we entered her high school science classroom. She stood in front of a linguistically, aca- demically, and culturally diverse group of students. They were seated at their desks in clusters of five, staring at her and the document camera as she engaged them in an interactive think-aloud in an attempt to model how to use one’s existing knowledge as the basis for construct- ing new knowledge (Bruner, 1986; McCarthy, 2005).

This constructivist approach to learning that she was modeling was designed to illustrate for her students how to flexibly use a wide variety of thinking, language, and reading strategies to acquire a more extensive understanding of the in- formation they were attempting to process (Harste, 1994; Wilhelm & Friedemann, 1998; Wu & Tsai, 2005). Maria and her students often shared an interactive think-aloud. She realized that in order for students to gain independence at

monitoring their own comprehension she needed to share this guided modeling through a gradual release of responsibility plan (Duke & Pearson,

2002), which enabled her students to take control of their learning over time. Her ultimate goal was that her students be able to independently monitor their own comprehension as they read challenging text. Guided modeling provides the scaffolding that allows them to see and practice the monitoring skills.

This interactive thinking out- loud, which situated the instruction within the student’s zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1934/1978),

provides students with adequate time to support- ively and interactively observe, recognize, emu- late, adopt, practice, and self-regulate these metacognitive strategies (Mathan & Koedinger, 2005; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994).

To better illustrate this instruction, we’ve presented the interactive, shared reading and thinking out-loud Maria modeled with a science text about chemical reactions in Tables 1 and 2. The original text is in the first column, followed by the commentary Maria provided in the second column, and the strategies she used in the final column.

Her instruction was designed to accomplish the very general U.S. standard that “As a result of their activities in grades 9–12, all students should develop an understanding of chemical reactions”

Lapp is a distinguished professor of Language and Literacy Education at San Diego State University, California, USA; e-mail

lapp@mail.sdsu.edu. Fisher is also a professor at San

Diego State University. Grant is an assistant

professor at California State University, Fullerton. All three are on the faculty

of Health Sciences High School and Middle College in

San Diego.

“You can read this text—I’ll show you how”: Interactive comprehension instruction

J O U R N A L O F A D O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 5 1 : 5 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 373

T a b l e 1 M a r i a ’ s i n t r o d u c t i o n

Teacher commentary

Text during the think-aloud Strategies modeled/practiced

Going Through Changes

(Photo of pancakes)

At a dinner table, a cook is making

pancakes. He mixes together an egg,

milk, and flour into a batter. When

the batter is placed on the griddle, it

becomes solid and golden brown.

The batter has had a chemical

change. All the atoms of the original

ingredients are still in the batter.

But the griddle’s heat has arranged

those atoms in a different pattern.

Like the pancake batter, many

substances go through chemical

changes. These changes can break

down complex substances into

simpler parts. Or they can join

simple parts into complex

substances.

It usually takes energy to combine

substances in a chemical reaction.

This kind of reaction is called an

endothermic reaction.

“As I look over this piece of text, I see

a photo of pancakes cooking on a

griddle. Some are golden brown and

others are still a beige batter color. The

title of this reading is Going Through

Changes. I wonder if the pancakes,

some uncooked and others fully done,

represent changes at a chemical level.

I’ll read the first paragraph.”

“So the cooking batter does represent

chemical changes. I see from reading

these paragraphs that chemical

changes involve substances breaking

down and substances joining together.

I think the next section will tell me

about how this process of breaking

down and building up occurs. Do you

have any ideas?” (Maria listens as the

students share a few possibilities.)

Janette, a student in Maria’s class,

responds, “Maybe the next section will

talk about molecules being broken

down or atoms being joined together.”

Dave adds, “Yes, I remember when I

was in 8th grade we talked about how

salt molecules are broken down when

salt is added to water.”

Maria then continues. “OK, let’s read

on to see if we’re correct.”

“An endothermic reaction. Wow, I’m

not sure what that means, but I do

know that thermic sounds like a word

part from thermometer or thermal and

both of those terms relate to heat.

Maybe endothermic also relates to heat

in some way. I’ll continue to read.

Maybe I’ll gain an understanding of

the meaning of this word if I read on.”

Predicting and using titles

and graphics provides focus

and motivation to read

further.

The prediction is confirmed

by reading the text. Note

that sometimes the

prediction is refuted after

reading the text. Afterward,

the main ideas are identified

by summarizing a few lines

of the text, which is followed

by another prediction based

on the text just read.

Segmenting words into

word parts brings attention

to root words or affixes that

might offer clues to

meaning. In addition,

understanding that

clarification might come

from context or from

continued reading.

(continued)

and the California standard that “Students know

chemical processes can either release (exother-

mic) or absorb (endothermic) thermal energy.”

In an attempt to situate the instruction

within the students’ existing knowledge base

(Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Rosenblatt, 1978)

and also to gain an initial assessment of their un-

derstanding about what they might remember

from a very general introduction of the topic in

their eighth-grade physical science class, Maria

began by bending a light stick (glow stick) in

front of the class and explaining that this causes a

small vial of a substance to be released. As stu-

dents observed the stick emit a brightly colored

light due to a chemical reaction, she asked them

to think-pair-share in response to the following

question: What is causing light to be given off?

After a lively discussion among the students and

their teacher, Ms. Grant began thinking aloud to

model how she gained additional meaning from

the science text Chemical Reactions—Going

Through Changes (TIME & Teacher Created

Materials, 1993). Table 1 illustrates how Maria in- troduced the text.

After this initial introduction, Maria real- ized that it was time for the students to “try on” what they had observed her do. In order to coach them as they recognized, adopted, imitated, prac- ticed, and self-regulated their metacognitive strategies, she continued with the interactive con- versation illustrated in Table 2.

After the students shared what they learned, Maria invited them to read the next section of the text together and to model for a selected partner how they were making sense of their reading. As they read, she circulated among them to listen in and offer support as needed. If the text surpassed the independent reading level of a team of stu- dents, she offered them an alternate, less difficult text on the same topic (Garner, Alexander, Gillingham, Kulikowich, & Brown, 1991; Goldman & Varma, 1995). She did this because she believes that as the students’ topical or subject- matter knowledge base and language grow so will

“You can read this text—I’ll show you how”: Interactive comprehension instruction

J O U R N A L O F A D O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 5 1 : 5 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8374

T a b l e 1 M a r i a ’ s i n t r o d u c t i o n ( c o n t i n u e d )

Teacher commentary

Text during the think-aloud Strategies modeled/practiced

For example, heat was needed to

turn the batter into a pancake.

If iron and powdered sulfur were

mixed together, nothing would

happen. But apply heat to those

combined substances and you

would form iron sulfide. This is an

entirely new substance.

Note. Quotes from TIME and Teacher Created Materials (1993).

“I guess I was right—endothermic does

relate to heat.”

“So heat added to a mixture can cause

a new substance to form. Interesting.

Maybe endothermic means that heat is

added.”

Again, confirmation of a

prediction, in this case of a

word’s meaning, may be

confirmed or refuted by

reading upcoming text.

Synthesizes and restates—

examples offered in the text

can help the reader to infer

word meaning.

“You can read this text—I’ll show you how”: Interactive comprehension instruction

J O U R N A L O F A D O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 5 1 : 5 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 375

T a b l e 2 M o n i t o r i n g s t u d e n t p r a c t i c e

Teacher commentary

Text during the think-aloud Strategies modeled/practiced

When a substance breaks

down into smaller parts, it

usually releases energy. This

is called an exothermic

reaction.

This happens in the flame

of your gas stove. Oxygen

from the air reacts with

methane gas, giving off light

and heat.

At the same time, the

methane breaks down into

carbon and hydrogen

atoms, which form carbon

dioxide and water.

There are signs that a

substance had gone through

a chemical change. These

reactions might produce

light, sound, bubbles or

smoke.

(Photo of fireworks)

“Exothermic sounds a bit like endothermic but

with a different prefix. (Turning to the

students) What do you think exothermic

means? Make a prediction. Write your

prediction and then share it with your

partner. (James, a student, tells his partner

that if endothermic meant heat was added

exothermic must mean that heat is taken away

or given off.) Now read the next section with

your partner to see if your predictions were

correct. If not, look back in your own

experiences or in the text to see if there were

clues you missed.”

“Turn to your partner and decide if your

predicted meaning of exothermic was correct

or if you’d like to revise your ideas.” (James

turns to his partner and says, “I think I was

right. Heat is given off or removed in an

exothermic reaction.”)

“We talked about atoms and compounds a

few weeks ago in class. Methane must be a

compound. It’s broken down into atoms—

smaller parts. Then the atoms form new

compounds. I think I’m beginning to

understand chemical changes. Compounds are

broken down sometimes and other times they

are formed from smaller parts like atoms.”

“I see a photo of fireworks. I sat on the lawn

watching fireworks last Fourth of July with my

family. I remember the loud exploding sound

and the colored light that filled the sky. I bet

those fireworks were produced by a chemical

reaction. Turn to a partner and share an

experience you’ve had with a chemical

reaction.” (Jose talks to his partner, Sofia,

about the changes he saw on a camping trip

when wood logs were burned for a campfire.

“Eventually,” Jose relays, “all the wood turned

Noting prefixes may help

clarify vocabulary. After the

teacher models a strategy,

she or he may ask students

to practice it later in the

reading.

Allow students to practice

verbalizing their thoughts so

that they can consolidate

their understanding of

comprehension strategies.

Make explicit connections to

previously learned content.

Summarize what you know

thus far and what you know

based on prior or

background knowledge.

Use photos or other

graphics to clarify novel

ideas from the text. Graphics

also provide information

that may be used to make

predictions.

Ask students to make

connections between the

text and their own

experiences. Have them

articulate these connections. (continued)

“You can read this text—I’ll show you how”: Interactive comprehension instruction

J O U R N A L O F A D O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 5 1 : 5 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8376

T a b l e 2 M o n i t o r i n g s t u d e n t p r a c t i c e ( c o n t i n u e d )

Teacher commentary

Text during the think-aloud Strategies modeled/practiced

Often a new substance has a

new color.

Remember that pancake

batter? It went from white

batter to golden flapjack.

(Heading: Slow vs. Fast)

Metals combine with

oxygen. This can happen

very slowly, as when iron

rusts.

Some metals tarnish. For

example, when copper

oxidizes it turns green,

forming copper sulfate or

copper chloride.

Fireworks are an example of

very fast oxidation.

to a black, powdery substance—charcoal I

think.” Sofia describes how her mother placed

a dime-sized tablet into a tall glass of water a

few weeks ago. Sofia’s sister was in need of a

cure for her aching stomach and the antacid

was supposed to do the trick. According to

Sofia, “The tablet fizzled and bubbled away.

The text we’re reading says that bubbles are

often produced during a chemical reaction.”

“The fireworks I saw had many colors.

The colors were brilliant in the sky.”

“The next heading says ‘Slow vs. Fast.’ This

must be referring to the speed at which

reactions occur.

What does this make you think about?

Turn to your partner and share your

connection.”

“Last summer when I was repairing my old

fence, I left a few iron nails outside. After a

few weeks, they were coated with reddish

brown material—rust I think. They must have

combined with oxygen from the air outside.”

“Read the next section of the text with your

partner and think out loud about a

connection you can make between what

you’ve read and what you’ve experienced in

your life.” After observing the students as they

interact, Maria asks Angul to share her

connection. (Angul: “That sounds just like

that copper bowl I have on the corner table in

my home. It has a greenish tinge to it.”). The

students confirm Angul’s connection.

“Oxidation—this is a new word. Read on with

your partner to see how I’m going to figure

this term out.”

Make connections to the

text and your experiences.

Connect headings to

previous content to predict

upcoming content.

Use newly learned content

to clarify real-world

experiences.

Again, connect content to

personal experiences and

background knowledge.

Sometimes new or

challenging vocabulary can

be clarified by reading

further in the text.

(continued)

their reading proficiency (Alexander, 1996; Anderson, 1977; Stanovich, 1986).

It was obvious from Maria’s think-alouds about the unfamiliar language, concepts, and structures of this chemistry passage that the chal- lenges students face as they attempt content area reading, even with the support of a diligent teacher, cannot be underestimated (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). Thinking out loud during a shared reading of a content area passage models for students how a proficient reader grapples with the problems of unfamiliar vocabulary, new con- cepts, text features, and text structures that can seem quite foreign—even after years of success with narrative reading. The instructional com- ments this teacher shared while thinking aloud

were neither unplanned nor inconsequential.

Instead, they were deliberately planned to provide

commentary and conversational support for

comprehension, word study, and engagement by

noting where students might need explanation,

elaboration, or connection. While being imple-

mented, the teacher drew students in during the

think-aloud and then capitalized on points in the

text where they naturally experienced anticipa-

tion. When engagement of this type occurs, we

found that the teacher feels more fulfilled as a

teacher and that the students will learn more

subject-specific information (Lapp & Fisher,

2007). In addition, students are learning strategies

for comprehending challenging text, which can

be directly translated into a motivation to read.

“You can read this text—I’ll show you how”: Interactive comprehension instruction

J O U R N A L O F A D O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 5 1 : 5 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 377

T a b l e 2 M o n i t o r i n g s t u d e n t p r a c t i c e ( c o n t i n u e d )

Teacher commentary

Text during the think-aloud Strategies modeled/practiced

Inside a firework is

gunpowder, a combination

of potassium nitrate, sulfur,

and charcoal. When

gunpowder is heated, the

nitrate releases oxygen,

making the sulfur and

carbon burn fast. The gases

they produce send the

fireworks high into the sky.

Note. Quotes from TIME and Teacher Created Materials (1993).

“Yes, oxidation must mean that oxygen is

added to another substance. So it seems that

fireworks are the result of chemical reactions

that cause new substances to be produced.

You’ve seen how I think through a reading

that has new vocabulary and challenging text.

After I finish reading I always try to

summarize what I’ve learned. If I can’t do this

I know I need to read the text again and

chunk it into smaller segments. After each

chunk I ask myself, ‘What did I learn?’

Let’s see how this worked for you. Ask

yourself, ‘What did I learn from this text?’

Now, write about three concepts you learned

from this shared reading with a think-aloud.”

(Alexandra writes about the difference

between exothermic and endothermic

reactions, characteristics of chemical

reactions, and oxidation.)

Clarify vocabulary by

deciphering meaning from

examples in the text.

Ask students to summarize

the main ideas. This will

promote rereading and will

guide students to clarify

content.

As Deci (1975) explained, intrinsic motiva-

tion is founded in the human need to be compe-

tent and self-determining in relation to a person’s

surroundings. This explanation is illustrated in

the work of Palmer, Codling, and Gambrell

(1994); Gambrell (1996); and Guthrie (1996,

2004). Guthrie noted that students are motivated

to read by rich literacy environments that offer

choice and by supportive successful experiences

in which they feel they can tackle an interesting

albeit difficult text. Thus, specifically modeled

and practiced comprehension strategies are a

foundation to garner student interest through the

development of reading competency. An interac-

tive think-aloud provides a means for modeling,

scaffolding, and practicing. It offers struggling

readers the opportunity to see and hear how pro-

ficient readers approach a text, and it allows ad-

vanced students to engage in conversations that

draw on their prior knowledge.

What’s new? While thinking aloud during shared reading may

seem like old news to teachers in grades K–5, we

found as we visited the classrooms of middle and

secondary teachers in three large urban schools

(one middle and two high schools) that we were

unlikely to see this type of instruction (Lapp &

Fisher, 2007). Perplexed as to why interactive

comprehension modeling and instruction did not

exist in this arena, we realized through our con-

versations with these dedicated teachers that they

echoed the insights of Moje (1996) and Shearer

and Ruddell (2007). These researchers noted that

content area teachers, trained to be content spe-

cific specialists, define themselves by their special-

izations as scientists, historians, athletes, and

musicians first and teachers second. This doesn’t

mean that they are not committed to their stu-

dents; it just means that they are intrigued by a

content specialty that through study grew into an

area of expertise they want to share with others.

To do so, they decided to become teachers.

Students in the classrooms of these content experts often do not exhibit the same love for the topic or natural interest in studying it that their teachers do. These are students who need to be motivated through effective instruction to learn and enjoy the pursuit of the complexities of a particular subject. This entry-level mismatch be- tween student and content is often exacerbated as students are asked to read textbooks that are rich with topic specific concepts, language, and struc- tures. These textbooks are simply too difficult for a significant number of students. When examin- ing this disparity, it quickly becomes obvious that these content experts, like all teachers, must be- come the liaisons between their students and the texts. Realizing this need, a common dilemma among secondary teachers, school administrators, and policymakers is how best to connect the ex- pertise of the teacher or specialist to the interests’ of the students in a way that accommodates stu- dents’ diversity and promotes students’ learning about content topics.

What’s next? For many decades books and articles (Herber, 1978; Strang, 1938; Vacca & Vacca, 2007) have swept the field of secondary education in an at- tempt to provide middle and high school teachers with instructional supports that can strengthen their teaching and, thus, student learning. In spite of efforts to expand teachers’ knowledge about modeling for students how to apply comprehen- sion strategies to support the learning of content specific information, O’Brien, Stewart, and Moje (1995) and Bintz (1997) found that many of these efforts were not completely successful. The sec- ondary teachers they studied noted difficulties when attempting to do any more than assign strategies for student use during instruction. Now, over a decade later, we are having the same experience as we spend time in classrooms and are asked by secondary teachers how they can “fill up” the allotted minutes of class time. Our recent experiences with these teachers, as well as a re- view of this research, have inspired our belief that

“You can read this text—I’ll show you how”: Interactive comprehension instruction

J O U R N A L O F A D O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 5 1 : 5 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8378

the instructional role of the content teacher needs continued study in order to better understand

1. How to provide content related interac- tive instructional experiences that engage students while at the same time teaches the language and concepts needed to un- derstand a particular subject

2. How teachers can best model for a diverse population of students how to read, write, and think about issues and language re- lated to a topic of study

The suggestions of Wood and Muth (1991) and Alvermann (2003) that drastic changes are needed in the types of teaching that currently ex- ist in high school classrooms are supported by the percentage of students who are not succeeding in high school; the dropout rate now exceeds 30% for children of color. Increasing percentages of the students who do graduate and attend two- and four-year colleges are required to attend re- medial classes (Sacchetti, 2005). Remedial writing courses also are becoming requirements for entry-level salaried and hourly employees (The National Commission on Writing, 2004).

What is causing this? Consider classrooms you’ve recently visited. Was lecture the primary mode of presenting new content? Were the les- sons you viewed interactive with lots of student engagement and participation? If you can answer no and then yes to these two questions, it is high- ly probable that the students won’t drop out of school and also won’t be those in the remedial classes. If you answered yes and then no, you probably viewed the familiar arrangement of rows of desks with students facing front so as not to miss the lessons in which information is told, mentioned, and assigned. For example, a teacher might tell her or his class to read a chapter about momentum and then to write a paper about a particular topic by stating the required number of pages without emphasizing a purpose for writing, establishing an audience for the piece, or explain- ing how to go about the process of writing. The

resulting paper would typically include the scien- tific definition of momentum, copied directly from teacher provided notes, and the regurgita- tion of information from the textbook in a dry, aimless manner. It would most likely lack person- al input from the student and would probably be devoid of applications or extensions of concepts related to momentum.

In contrast, in a classroom to which you would give a positive nod you would expect to observe students learning through interactive conversations and teacher modeling—through engagement that motivated and supported their learning. In this type of classroom, you would witness interactive think-alouds during shared reading in which a teacher like Maria would ex- plicitly demonstrate the transformation of energy from potential to kinetic, offering some choices to her student scientists about energy transforma- tion projects they could construct. She would model through interactive think-alouds how to compose a series of text-explicit and text-implicit questions while guiding students to predict, clari- fy, and summarize the procedures of an upcom- ing lab experiment. This conversational engagement with students creates interactive thinking about the new language, topic, and strategies being explored.

Another example of the supported learning we witnessed in Maria’s classroom involved her initiating a lesson by inviting students to partici- pate in a writing-to-learn prompt. Students were asked to describe what they saw as they watched an object fall to the ground after being dropped by a classmate. The rich discussion that ensued from the writing helped Maria to understand what the students knew about acceleration due to gravity and changes in velocity. It also provided engaging information that motivated the students to better understand the work of Galileo Galilei, the scien- tist who first explored the ideas of freefall and gravity. This conversation was followed by an in- teractive shared reading of Starry Messenger that explored the life of Galileo Galilei and a think- pair-share activity in which the students discussed

“You can read this text—I’ll show you how”: Interactive comprehension instruction

J O U R N A L O F A D O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 5 1 : 5 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 379

Galileo’s work during a period of history when new ideas were being suppressed. At this point, students were motivated to tackle reading a text about Galileo’s ideas regarding acceleration. They were given excerpts from Galileo Galilei and the Science of Motion to further explore the science behind falling bodies. With this preparation, stu- dents were ready to independently review the chapter on acceleration due to gravity in their textbook. To support their independence as read- ers, they were then introduced, as needed, to problem-solving strategies that have been de- signed through the years to make content area reading more accessible to students. A few of these strategies we have seen science, social science, and English teachers use are Survey, Question, Reread, Question, Compute, Question (SQRQCQ) by Fay (1965); Read, Encode, Annotate, Ponder (REAP) by Manzo (1994); and Student Symbolic Response (SSR) by Wilhelm (1997).

As illustrated, these examples acknowledge the diverse educational backgrounds and needs of students while providing planned opportunities to develop high-level oral, reading, and writing skills. As evidenced by Maria’s teaching (Tables 1 & 2), the interactive think-aloud implemented during shared reading provides a venue for the classroom teacher to engage students in conversation about targeted information on which they are all visually focused. During the conversation, the teacher thinks out loud about the topic, the vocabulary, and the structure of the text while making con- nections to prior personal or subject-related expe- riences learned through other materials.

Dimensions of interactive comprehension instruction Having now observed 65 lessons in which teachers like Maria model their thinking of discipline- specific texts, we identified four dimensions of think-alouds: vocabulary, comprehension, text structures, and text features (Lapp & Fisher, 2007). Teachers use these dimensions differently based on the demands of understanding the text, their pur-

pose in reading the text, and the discipline in which they are engaged. In other words, a social studies teacher might focus on different dimen- sions of interactive comprehension modeling than an art teacher or science teacher. A summary of the four dimensions can be found in Table 3. We’ll ex- plore each of these here.

Vocabulary Given the vocabulary demands of most content areas, it’s not surprising that teachers commonly focus on understanding vocabulary as part of their think-alouds. Teachers do not simply define a word during their interactive comprehension instruction. Instead, they solve unknown words as they read by using context clues, their under- standing of word parts or related words, or the resources available to them. Consider the follow- ing quote from an art teacher reading the biogra- phy of Vincent Van Gogh:

An asylum. I wonder what that means? I understand from the paragraph that Van Gogh needed treatment for his psychiatric problems. It might be the place that they provide this treatment, but I can’t be sure. I don’t know any word parts that will help me. I guess I better look this one up.

Comprehension Most teachers we observed provided comprehen- sion strategy instruction during their think- alouds. They used common terms, such as predicting and visualizing, to help students incor- porate these processes into their own habits (e.g., Harvey & Goudvis, 2000). The teachers we ob- served used comprehension strategy instruction purposefully and strategically. They often paused to model their use of a comprehension strategy and then asked students to discuss other compre- hension strategies in pairs or small groups. They did not interrogate students about their thinking or focus on a single strategy at a time. Instead, they allowed the text and their purpose for read- ing the text to guide their selection of the com- prehension strategy to be modeled.

“You can read this text—I’ll show you how”: Interactive comprehension instruction

J O U R N A L O F A D O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 5 1 : 5 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8380

In the same art class, this time for a shared reading of the song “Vincent (Starry, Starry Night)” by Don McLean, the teacher paused a recording of it to share his thinking about a verse that the stu- dents saw on the document camera. He said,

This line, “now I understand what you tried to say to me, how you suffered for your sanity” reminds me of the asylum from the biographical sketch [of Vincent Van Gogh]. I’ve made this connection between the song and the fact in the biography we read. Van Gogh had to live in an asylum for treatment.

Text Structure

In addition to vocabulary knowledge and com-

prehension strategies, readers use their under-

standing of text structures to understand what

they read. While there are a number of text struc-

tures, five informational types and one narrative

type are very common. Developing students un-

derstanding of text structures and how they aid

understanding is another support teachers can

provide through modeling. During his reading of

“You can read this text—I’ll show you how”: Interactive comprehension instruction

J O U R N A L O F A D O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 5 1 : 5 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 381

T a b l e 3 D i m e n s i o n s o f i n t e r a c t i v e c o m p r e h e n s i o n m o d e l i n g

Dimension Definition Components

Vocabulary Focus on solving an unknown word, • Context clues

not providing the definition of the word • Word parts (prefix, suffix, root, base,

related words)

• Use of resources (peers, dictionary,

Internet)

Comprehension Strategic moves to support understanding • Summarizing/synthesize

the text • Predicting

• Inferring

• Visualizing

• Questioning

• Connecting

• Monitoring

• Activating background knowledge

Text structures Structures used in presenting information • Cause/effect

that readers can use to predict the flow • Compare/contrast

of information • Problem/solution

• Temporal/sequence

• Descriptive

• Story grammar (plot, setting, character,

conflict, etc.)

Text features Components of the text added to increase • Captions

understanding or interest • Illustrations, diagrams

• Headings, titles

• Bold, italic words

• Glossary, index

the biographical profile of Vincent Van Gogh, for example, the art teacher paused and said,

I think that this is going to compare and contrast the life of Van Gogh before and after his time in the asy- lum. I see that the author has provided us some infor- mation about Vincent and is starting to use some signal words that I know are used when comparing things. I see here in this paragraph that he used in comparison, nevertheless, and in contrast.

Text Features Finally, authors and editors use specific text fea- tures to aid readers in understanding complex in- formation and in maintaining interest in the reading. There are a number of text features that can be used, including table of contents, chapter or section headings, glossary, index, captions, and illustrations. While struggling readers often skip over these features, they can be critical to under- standing. Text features can also be used to focus readers on key ideas or important points. As such, the teachers we observed regularly commented on their use of text features during their interac- tive comprehension instruction and modeling. For example, during his shared reading of a pic- ture book about Vincent Van Gogh, the art teacher focused on the captions for each of the il- lustrations and how these captions reinforced and extended the main text. In his words,

I see this caption and know that it’s going to do a cou- ple of things. First, it’s going to tell me the name of this specific painting. That’s helpful because the text de- scribes a number of paintings. This caption also pro- vides the date of the painting, which is critical. I know when Van Gogh was hospitalized in the asylum and what was happening to him before that. The date in the caption helps me know what was going on in Van Gogh’s life around the time he completed each work.

Close the Reading Achievement Gap If we are ever going to radically change the literacy achievement of the majority of adolescent youth,

we must alter the significant amounts of time they spend doing independent work, reading from books that are too hard, and being asked ques- tions based on things they have not read. We must ensure that students are not merely physically present, coasting from class to class in an unspo- ken agreement with adults to behave as long as the challenge remains low. We need to scaffold the ex- periences students have with texts so that they de- velop repertoires and habits for reading them. To do so requires significant teacher modeling as well as extensive class discussions. Interactive compre- hension instruction, through think-alouds based on shared readings, can contribute to the success of students, providing them with tangible and au- thentic experiences for reading. Over time, across content areas, and with repeated practice, students will begin to incorporate these thinking processes into their interactions with texts. Only then will we see the achievement gap close and students en- gage in reading and writing.

REFERENCES Alexander, P.A. (1996). The past, present, and future of

knowledge research: A reexamination of the role of

knowledge in learning and instruction. Educational

Psychologist, 31, 89–92.

Alvermann, D.E. (2003). Effective literacy instruction for

adolescents. In R.D. Robinson, M.C. McKenna, & J.M.

Wedman (Eds.), Issues and trends in literacy education

(3rd ed., pp. 175–192). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Anderson, R.C. (1977). The notion of schemata and educa-

tional enterprise. In R.C. Anderson, R.J. Spiro, & W.E.

Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowl-

edge (pp. 415–431). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Anderson, R.C., & Pearson, P.D. (1984). A schema-theoretic

view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In

P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal

(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–291). New

York: Longman.

Bintz, W.P. (1997). Exploring reading nightmares of middle

and secondary school teachers. Journal of Adolescent &

Adult Literacy, 41, 12–24.

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Deci, E.L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum

Press.

Duke, N.K, & Pearson, P.D. (2002). Effective practices for

developing reading comprehension. In A. Farstrup & J.

Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading in-

“You can read this text—I’ll show you how”: Interactive comprehension instruction

J O U R N A L O F A D O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 5 1 : 5 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8382

struction (3rd ed., pp 205–242). Newark, DE:

International Reading Association.

Fay, L. (1965). Reading study skills: Math and science.

Proceedings of the International Reading Association, 10,

92–94.

Gambrell, L.B. (1996). Creating classroom cultures that fos-

ter reading motivation. The Reading Teacher, 50, 14–25.

Garner, R., Alexander, P.A., Gillingham, M.G., Kulikowich,

J.M., & Brown, R. (1991). Interest and learning from

text. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 643–659.

Goldman, S.R., & Varma, S. (1995). CAPing the construction-

integration model of discourse comprehension. In C.

Weaver, S. Mannes, & C. Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse com-

prehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp.

337–358). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Guthrie, J.T. (1996). Educational contexts for engagement in

literacy. The Reading Teacher, 49, 432–445.

Guthrie, J.T. (2004). Teaching for literacy engagement.

Journal of Literacy Research, 36, 1–30.

Harste, J.C. (1994). Literacy as curricular conversations

about knowledge, inquiry and morality. In R. Ruddell,

M. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and

processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 1220–1242). Newark,

DE: International Reading Association.

Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work:

Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding. York,

ME: Stenhouse.

Herber, H. (1978). Teaching reading in the content areas.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lapp, D., & Fisher, D. (2007). Improving high school student

achievement through teacher practices. 41st annual

California Reading Association Conference, Ontario, CA.

Manzo, A. (1994). REAP Central. Retrieved July 19, 2007,

from members.aol.com/ReadShop/REAP1.html

Mathan, S.A., & Koedinger, K.R. (2005). Fostering the intel-

ligent novice: Learning from errors with metacognitive

tutoring. Educational Psychologist, 40, 257–265.

McCarthy, C.B. (2005). Effects of thematic-based, hands-on

science teaching versus a textbook approach for students

with disabilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

42, 245–263.

Moje, E.B. (1996). “I teach subjects, not students”:

Teacher–student relationships as contexts for secondary

literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 172–195.

O’Brien, D.G., Stewart, R.A., & Moje, E.B. (1995). Why con-

tent literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary

school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and

school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 442–463.

Palmer, B.M., Codling, R.M., & Gambrell, L.B. (1994). In

their own words: What elementary students have to say

about motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 48,

176–178.

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of

reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rosenblatt, L.M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The

transactional theory of literacy work. Carbondale:

Southern Illinois University Press.

Sacchetti, M. (2005, June 26). Colleges question MCAS suc-

cess: Many in the state schools still need remedial help.

The Boston Globe. Retrieved December 17, 2006, from

www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/mcas/articles/

2005/06/26/colleges_question_mcas_success

Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B.J. (1994). Self-regulation of

learning and performance: Issues and educational applica-

tions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Shearer, B., & Ruddell, M.R. (2008). Engaging students’ in-

terest and participation in learning. In D. Lapp, J. Flood,

& N. Farnan (Eds.), Content area reading and learning:

Instructional strategies (3rd ed., pp. 115–132). Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some

consequences of individual differences in the acquisition

of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360– 407.

Strang, R.M. (1938). Problems in the improvement of reading

in high school and college (2nd ed.). Lancaster, PA:

Science Press.

The National Commission on Writing. (2004). Writing: A tick-

et to work...or a ticket out: A survey of business leaders. New

York: College Entrance Examination Board. Retrieved July

19, 2007, from www.writingcommission.org/prod

_downloads/writingcom/writing-ticket-to-work.pdf

TIME & Teacher Created Materials. (1993). Science:

Exploring nonfiction. Lesson 4: Chemical reactions—Going

through changes. New York: Authors.

Vacca, R., & Vacca, J. (2007).Content area reading: Literacy

and learning across the curriculum (9th ed.). New York:

HarperCollins.

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: Harvard University Press. (Original work published

1934)

Wilhelm, J.D. (1997). “You gotta BE the book”: Teaching en-

gaged and reflective reading with adolescents. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Wilhelm, J.D., & Friedemann, P.D. (1998). Hyperlearning:

Where projects, inquiry, and technology meet. Portland,

ME: Stenhouse.

Wood, K.D., & Muth, K.D. (1991). The case for improved

instruction in the middle grades. Journal of Reading, 35,

84–90.

Wu, Y., & Tsai, C. (2005). Development of elementary school

students’ cognitive structures and information processing

strategies under long-term constructivist-oriented science

instruction. Science Education, 89, 822–846.

“You can read this text—I’ll show you how”: Interactive comprehension instruction

J O U R N A L O F A D O L E S C E N T & A D U L T L I T E R A C Y 5 1 : 5 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 383