Content uploaded by Peter Dewitz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Peter Dewitz on Nov 25, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
17
Reevaluating and Restructuring
Comprehension Strategy Instruction
Peter Dewitz, Michael F. Graves
Many assert that knowledge is the key to reading comprehension. We offer
new evidence that comprehension strategy instruction is vital to a successful
instructional program.
Introduction and Rationale for Strategy
Instruction
We believe that comprehension strategy instruction is one—
but not the only—important component of reading compre-
hension instruction. Reading comprehension is influenced
by knowledge, processes or strategies, and general factors
such as memory and motivation (Castles etal.2018; Perfetti
& Stafura2014). We believe that the value of comprehen-
sion strategy instruction needs to be reaffirmed in the face
of forces that seek to minimize the teaching of strategies
and position knowledge as the singularly most important
factor influencing reading comprehension (Wexler 2019;
Willingham2006a). In this article, we argue for the impor-
tance of comprehension strategy instruction and describe
our plan to help students develop reading comprehension
strategies.
Reading comprehension is a complex cognitive pro-
cess in which the reader seeks to build a rich mental
model of the text (Kintsch,1998; Perfetti & Stafura,2014).
The construction of the mental model requires several
types of knowledge and the use of cognitive processes
to build understanding, monitor its development, and
repair misunderstandings (Castles etal.,2018; Elleman &
Oslund,2019). A reader needs knowledge of letter–sound
correspondences, word meanings, syntax, genre, and text
structure, and knowledge of concepts, facts and expe-
riences (Castles et al., 2018). Having knowledge is not
enough; the reader must know how and when to employ it
(Renkl etal.,1996). That is where strategies come in.
Cognitive and metacognitive strategies are goal- directed
mental action initiated by the reader to decode words, infer
word meanings, and construct meaning (Afflerbach & Cho,
2009). Cognitive strategies improve comprehension by facil-
itating the reader’s ability to make inferences, self- question,
determine importance, and summarize. Metacognitive
strategies enable readers to set purposes, monitor compre-
hension, and evaluate the developing meaning.
Reading comprehension has been studied intensively
since the 1970s, and during that time the relative atten-
tion given to knowledge and strategies has shifted. In
the 1980s, when schema theory dominated research on
reading comprehension (Anderson & Pearson, 1984), back -
ground knowledge and text structure knowledge were
in the forefront of comprehension instruction. In the
1990s, theory and instruction shifted, and comprehen-
sion and metacognitive strategies came to the fore, with
knowledge taking a backseat. Strategies such as deter-
mining importance, summarizing, drawing inferences,
generating questions, and monitoring comprehension
became central to reading instruction (Dole etal., 1991;
Pearson & Cervetti,2015). Researchers found support for
teaching multiple strategies such as reciprocal teaching
(Rosenshine & Meister, 1994), and for developing meta-
cognitive awareness (Haller et al., 1988). The National
Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) identified 84 studies that
endorsed the teaching of comprehension monitoring, story
mapping, graphic organizers, question generation, and
summarizing, and 37 studies that endorsed multiple strat-
egy instruction.
Challenges to Strategy Instruction
By the mid- 2000s, two influential articles and the Common
Core State Standards (NGA & NCSSO, 2010) swung the
pendulum back toward an emphasis on knowledge, with
strategy instruction diminished in importance. Willingham
TEACHING AND LEARNING IN ACTION
The Reading Teacher Vol. 78 No. 1 pp. 17–26 © 2024 International Literacy Association.
doi:10.1002/trtr.2308
Peter Dewitz, Educational Consultant, conducts research
and writes on reading comprehension, assessment
practices and curriculum materials; email peterdewitz@
gmail.com.
Michael F. Graves, conducts research on vocabulary and
comprehension instruction, University of Minnesota,
Emeritus; email mgraves@umn.edu.
18
TEACHING AND LEARNING IN ACTION
The Reading Teacher Vol. 78 No. 1 July-August 2024 literacyworldwide.org
(2006b) contended that strategies were merely cogni-
tive “tricks,” easy to learn, with only modest effects on
reading comprehension (Willingham, 2006b). In doing
so, Willingham considered the report of the National
Reading Panel (NICHD,2000) and two other meta- analyses
(Rosenshine etal., 1996; Rosenshine & Meister,1994) and
concluded that strategy instruction had only a modest
effect when growth was measured with
standardized norm- referenced tests.
Willingham cautioned educators about
investing too much time on strategy
instruction, stressing that any instruc-
tion should be brief.
There are problems with Willingham’s
conclusions. First, the effects of strategy
instruction reported by Willingham con-
sider average effects, lumping together
stronger, average, and struggling read-
ers. Strategy instruction has greater ben-
efits for children who do not comprehend
well (Filderman et al., 2022). Second,
Willingham dismissed com prehension
strategy instruction because he judged
the effect sizes on standardized tests
as small. In the several meta- analyses
we cited, the mean effect size for com-
prehension strategy instruction on standardized tests is 0.32
SD. That places comprehension strategy instruction between
the 80th and 90th percentiles of all educational interventions
(Kraft, 2020) and “substantially important” according to the
What Works Clearinghouse (WWC,2014, p.23).
In 2009, an influential study pitted a discussion tech-
nique, questioning the author (QtA), in which teachers
asked questions that directed students to summarize what
they had read, connect ideas within a text, and clarify what
the author wrote against strategy instruction and the ques-
tioning typically found in a basal reading lesson (McKeown
etal.,2009). Over the 5 weeks of the study, QtA produced
greater growth on researcher- developed tasks than strat-
egy instruction and basal questioning. McKeown used a
sentence verification task and retelling, tools aligned with
the focus of QtA, and not a standardized test to measure
results. We read McKeown’s transcripts of strategy instruc-
tion and it appears that the teachers were more focused on
the process of using strategies and less on the ideas in the
texts. Finally, the study may not have been implemented
long enough to make a difference in students’ comprehen-
sion (Okkinga etal., 2023). McKeown’s findings stand in
contrast to dozens of other studies that affirm the value of
strategy instruction.
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS, NGA &
NCSSO, 2010) constitute the third force minimizing the
importance of comprehension strategy instruction. The
CCSS clearly emphasized knowledge development over
strategy instruction (Ryan,2014). The CCSS stressed that
the main vehicles for developing comprehension were
building knowledge through the proper sequencing of
texts, close reading, and careful
questions by teachers (Coleman &
Pimentel, 2012). While strategies
such as summarizing and inferring
are repeatedly mentioned in the
Standards, nothing is said about
teaching students to use these
strategies.
Pitting the development of
knowledge against the teaching
of strategies is a false dichotomy.
Afflerbach (1990) reported that
students with considerable prior
knowledge were more able to
employ strategies to determine
the main idea of a passage than
students without this knowledge.
Samuelstuen and Bråten (2005)
reported that topic knowledge and
strategies such as organizing, monitoring, and elaborat-
ing go hand in hand, each contributing to reading compre-
hension. Okkinka et al. (2022) found that students with
stronger vocabulary knowledge (a stand in for general
knowledge) are better able to use comprehension strate-
gies than students with weaker vocabulary knowledge.
Newer Research, New Instructional
Implications
Since the late 2000s, researchers produced 10 additional
literature reviews and meta- analyses supporting the impor-
tance of comprehension strategy instruction and its place
in the elementary curriculum. Three of the reviews exam-
ined individual strategies such a self- questioning (Joseph
et al., 2016), making inferences (Elleman, 2017), and
knowledge of text structure (Bohaty etal.,2015).The other
seven papers focused on comprehension and metacogni-
tive strategies generally (Berkeley etal.,2010; Davis,2010;
de Boer et al., 2018; Dignath & Büttner, 2008; Filderman
etal.,2022; Okkinga etal.,2018; Sencibaugh,2007).
This research provides insights about what strategies to
teach, which students benefit from strategy instruction, and
the context in which strategy instruction is most effective.
PAUSE AND PONDER
■ Given the importance of decoding
instruction in the primary grades,
what is the place of comprehension
strategies instruction during this time?
■ How do you typically accommodate
your strategy instruction to readers
who comprehend well and to readers
who struggle with comprehension?
■ Many schools have a proscribed
curriculum or scope and
sequence. How can you integrate
comprehension strategy instruction
into this proscribed curriculum?
19362714, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/trtr.2308 by Peter Dewitz , Wiley Online Library on [25/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
19
TEACHING AND LEARNING IN ACTION
The Reading Teacher Vol. 78 No. 1 July-August 2024 literacyworldwide.org
What Strategies to Teach
We recommend teaching seven strategies. Three meta-
analysis provided explicit evidence for teaching three
strategies: recognizing text structure (Bohaty etal.,2015),
making inferences (Elleman, 2017), and self- questioning
(Joseph etal.,2016). Several other meta- analysis examined
multiple strategy instruction and they provide converging
evidence that children should also be taught to summa-
rize, predict, and clarify what they are reading (Davis,2010).
Finally, establishing a purpose for reading is a strategy
that provides benefits to any suite of strategies (de Boer
etal.,2018; Dignath & Büttner,2008; Filderman etal.,2022).
Strategies can be taught singly or introduced and
practiced as a suite as in reciprocal reaching (Palinscar
& Brown, 1984), collaborative strategic reading (Vaughn
etal., 2011), or transactional strategy instruction (Brown
et al., 1996). A curriculum that focuses on a few strate-
gies each year is likely to be more effective and easier to
manage than a curriculum that presents many strategies
but provides little time for students to develop expertise in
each strategy (Dewitz etal., 2009).
There is evidence that the nature of strategy instruction
should change with the age and experience of the students
(de Boer etal.,2018; Dignath & Büttner,2008). Students in
the mid- elementary grades should slowly build up a reper-
toire of comprehension strategies. Later, teachers should
focus on helping students initiate strategy use, coordinate
multiple strategies, and reflect on their efficacy.
Which Students Benefit from Strategy
Instruction?
Most of the meta- analyses indicate that strategy instruc-
tion is more successful with students who are older, third
grade and above, largely because of the bottleneck that
weak decoding imposes on cognition (Davis,2010; Dignath
& Büttner,2008). Limited cognitive capacity makes it dif-
ficult for young readers to focus on decoding and compre-
hension strategies at the same time. Yet research does
indicate that some strategy instruction in narrative text
structure can be successful in primary grades (Dimino
etal.,1995).
Strategy instruction is likely to be more effective for
students who have difficulty with reading comprehension.
These include some students with learning disabilities
(Berkeley et al.,2010), some students from lower socio-
economic backgrounds (Davis,2010; de Boer etal., 2018;
Okkinga etal., 2018), and some students who score below
the 50th percentile on norm- referred standardized test
(Connor et al., 2011). Students who comprehend well do
not appear to need a robust program of comprehension
strategy instruction (Connor etal.,2014).
Students with weak reading comprehension ben-
efit from more teacher- directed explicit comprehension
instruction. This is one reason why small- group instruction
appears to yield greater effects than whole- class instruc-
tion (Berkeley et al., 2010; Okkinga et al., 2018; Taylor
et al., 2000). In small groups, teachers can continue to
model and explain strategies, development knowledge,
and provide the support that students need (Okkinga etal.,
2023).
The Context in which Strategy Instruction Is
Most Effective
Comprehension strategies instruction should be situated
within the reading of meaningful fiction and nonfiction text.
Guthrie’s concept- oriented reading instruction (CORI) dem-
onstrated that strategy instruction is more effective when
it is embedded into the learning of content material like
science (Guthrie et al., 1998). In CORI, students are given
interesting texts to read, are allowed to choose texts, and
work cooperatively with peers. In this context, students are
guided to self- questions, summarize, and use other strate-
gies. Palincsar and Schutz(2011) point out that strategies
become necessary when the reader has less prior knowl-
edge and must think her or his way through a difficult text,
suggesting that strategies are valuable in content learning.
Our Proposed Curriculum and
Instruction
In this section, we present our suggestions for developing
a comprehension strategy strand within a reading curricu-
lum. We consider when strategies should be taught and
how to teach them.
When Should Strategies Be Taught?
We propose a multiyear strategy curriculum. Our ratio-
nale derives partly from the developmental model of Chall
(1983) and the work of Alexander and her colleagues
(Alexander & The Disciplined Reading and Learning
Research Laboratory, 2012). Both argue that the nature of
comprehension changes with age of the reader. Alexander
and her colleagues view reading as a process of growing
expertise with growth resulting from the development of
knowledge, an increase in motivation, and the refinement in
strategic thinking. Alexander further suggests that elemen-
tary students slowly build up a repertoire of strategies mov-
ing from surface strategies like predicting and summarizing
to deeper strategies like clarifying and verifying sources
(Alexander,2003). Although this article focuses on grades
K–5, like Duke etal.(2021), we believe that comprehension
19362714, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/trtr.2308 by Peter Dewitz , Wiley Online Library on [25/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
20
TEACHING AND LEARNING IN ACTION
The Reading Teacher Vol. 78 No. 1 July-August 2024 literacyworldwide.org
strategy instruction should begin in the primary grades and
extend into grades 3–12 as needed.
Our rationale for extending strategy instruction over
a number of years also rests on several general consid-
erations. First, complex cognitive skills, like thoughtful
deep reading, take time to develop, they are not tricks.
In recognition of this fact, schools typically teach litera-
ture and writing throughout the elementary and second-
ary grades (McCutchen, 2006). Second, students need
to learn to use strategies with a wide variety of texts
that represent a range of genres, complexity, and length.
Third, providing strategy instruction over several years
gives all students the opportunity to review and refine
their expertise as strategic readers. Importantly, it gives
student who struggle in school multiple opportunities to
learn strategies.
Our proposed comprehension strategy curriculum
begins in kindergarten and continues through grade 5. In
this curriculum, students are systematically taught eight
strategies; those strategies are periodically reviewed;
and students are taught to select among them as they
face different texts and tasks. We believe that for most
students, decoding instruction should take up a consider-
able amount of time in the primary grades (Connor,2019).
Thus, in grades K–2 comprehension strategy instruction
should be relatively informal and embedded in interactive
read- alouds (Baker etal., 2020). Following this informal
instruction, which we term “lite instruction,” we recom-
mend “robust instruction” in grades 3–5. Table1 shows
the list of strategies, the grade level at which we introduce
each of them, and the grades at which each is reviewed
and further developed.
As Table1 indicates, in kindergarten the curriculum
includes establishing a purpose for reading, recogniz-
ing text structure, and monitoring comprehension. In first
and second grades, each of these is reviewed and further
developed. In kindergarten, you might introduce the notion
of text structure by telling students that they will be dealing
with several types of writing (stories, informational writing,
and poems) and pointing out example as you read to them.
In first grade, you might directly teach the elements of
story structure, characters, setting, problems, events, and
solutions (Fitzgerald, 1989). In second grade, you might
review the three strategies that have been introduced thus
far. In higher grades, you might deal with the increasing
complex structural elements of fiction such as foreshad-
owing and flashbacks.
How to Teach Strategies
We recommend lite strategy instruction for students in
grades K–2 and robust instruction for students in grades
3–5. We want to emphasize that both comprehension strat-
egies and knowledge development are critical to students
becoming fully competent readers. Thus, in all comprehen-
sion strategy instruction, the texts used need to be selected
to build students’ knowledge in the various subjects stud-
ied in school—literature, science, history, and other areas.
Strategies are taught with the explicit understanding that
the central goal is to gain knowledge and the strategies are
used in service of gaining that knowledge.
Lite Instruction. Lite instruction is designed to introduce
students to comprehension strategies and ensure that they
understand that comprehension is the goal of reading. Lite
Grade level New strategies taught Strategies reviewed
KEstablishing a Purpose for Reading
Recognizing Text Structure
Predicting
1Establishing a Purpose for Reading
Recognizing and Using Text Structure
Predicting
2Establishing a Purpose for Reading
Recognizing and Using Text Structure
Predicting
3 Self- questioning Coordinating the Use of the Three Strategies Introduced K–2
4Making Inferences
Summarizing
Coordinating the Use of the Four Strategies Introduced K–3
5Comprehension Monitoring Coordinating the Use of the Five Strategies Introduced K–4
Table 1
A 6- Year Curriculum of Comprehension Strategies
19362714, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/trtr.2308 by Peter Dewitz , Wiley Online Library on [25/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
21
TEACHING AND LEARNING IN ACTION
The Reading Teacher Vol. 78 No. 1 July-August 2024 literacyworldwide.org
Figure 1
Characteristics of Self- Questioning and an Example of its Use
19362714, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/trtr.2308 by Peter Dewitz , Wiley Online Library on [25/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
22
TEACHING AND LEARNING IN ACTION
The Reading Teacher Vol. 78 No. 1 July-August 2024 literacyworldwide.org
instruction demonstrates the use of strategies during in-
teractive read- alouds and includes student participation
(Baker etal.,2020). Lite instruction does not include a full
explanation of procedures or information on when and
how to use a particular strategy, but teachers model the
use of strategies and explain why they are useful. As an
example of lite instruction, consider how we might teach
recognizing narrative text structure in first grade.
A typical interactive read- aloud in first grade begins
with the teacher introducing a book like Don Freeman’s
Corduroy as the students are gathered before her. After
this, she would review what was learned in kindergarten
about several types of books—fictional stories, infor-
mational writing, and poetry. Next, she would share that
Corduroy is a story, fiction, and begin reading the book.
While reading, the teacher would comment on the charac-
ters, Corduroy’s problem, and how it is resolved. During the
reading, she would ask questions and encourage students
to ask their own questions. And following the reading she
would summarize the story.
After this, the teacher might find another simple story,
perhaps David McPhail’s The Bears Toothache with eas-
ily identified central characters, a setting, a problem, and
a solution, and have students identify and discuss each
of these elements. Next, she might give students a blank
story map, pair them up, and ask them to write in the char-
acters, setting, problem, and solution.
Robust Instruction. We recommend robust instruction
in grades 3–5 for teaching comprehension strategies.
Figure 2
Tornadoes by Catherine Chambers
19362714, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/trtr.2308 by Peter Dewitz , Wiley Online Library on [25/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
23
TEACHING AND LEARNING IN ACTION
The Reading Teacher Vol. 78 No. 1 July-August 2024 literacyworldwide.org
Robust instruction is an elaborated version of Pearson
and Gallagher’s (1983) gradual release of responsibility
model informed by the work of Graves et al. (2018), and
Graves et al.(2012), and consistent with the findings of
Carlisle et al. (2011). Using robust instruction, teachers
explain and model strategies and then guide students in
their application while providing various types of scaffold-
ing. Carlisle and her colleagues found that telling, model-
ing, asking questions for evaluation, and providing practice
were important components of teacher directed instruc-
tion. The amount of robust instruction would vary from
several days to many weeks depending on the needs of the
students. It would begin as a whole- class lesson and then
move to small- group lessons focusing on the students
who needed the support. In Figure1, we present an intro-
ductory third- grade lesson on self- questioning. On the left,
we list the characteristics of the lesson, and on the right
the examples of their application. The students are reading
the passage Tornadoes, which is shown in Figure2.
When Carlisle and her colleagues observed teachers
conducting comprehension instruction, they noted that the
guided phase of instruction, specifically discussions, was
far less common (Carlisle et al.,2011). And they learned
that the longer the lesson, the more likely teachers were to
engage in modeling, explaining, and scaffolded practice.
Figure3 shows the characteristics of scaffolding that
Carlisle’s team found particularly valuable: fostering dis-
cussion, assessing students work, providing feedback, and
giving students the opportunity to ask questions.
Concluding Remarks
We have provided a rationale for renewed attention to com-
prehension strategy instruction as well as suggesting a
Figure 3
Valuable Scaffolding Practices
19362714, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/trtr.2308 by Peter Dewitz , Wiley Online Library on [25/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
24
TEACHING AND LEARNING IN ACTION
The Reading Teacher Vol. 78 No. 1 July-August 2024 literacyworldwide.org
curriculum and instructional procedures. Here we highlight
the characteristics of the curriculum and instruction we
believe are vital to a strong program
■ Make motivation a central concern.
■ Present strategies as tools for understanding, learn-
ing from, and enjoying texts.
■ Provide multiyear instruction that systematically
teaches, reviews, and guides students to use compre-
hension strategies over the elementary school years
■ Differentiate instruction so that stronger readers
spend less time on strategy instruction while provid-
ing more time to students who need it.
■ Provide lite instruction in kindergarten and the pri-
mary grades and robust instruction in the upper ele-
mentary grades.
■ Make certain that robust instruction includes rich
explanations and modeling of the strategies, guided
practice and scaffolding, and repeated assistance in
transferring what has been learned with one set of
texts to other texts.
■ Help students adapt comprehension strategies as the
demands of the texts and the reading tasks change.
It is essential to note that these characteristics are cru-
cial to a program of reading comprehension instruction that
will provide all students—particularly those students who
struggle with reading—with the tools they need to read and
learn from the texts they encounter in and out of school.
Funding Information
None.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no known conflicts of interest with the
subject matter of this article.
REFERENCES
Afflerbach, P. (1990). The influence of prior knowledge on expert read-
ers’ main idea construction strategies. Reading Research Quar-
terly, 25, 31–46.
Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. Y. (2009). Identifying and describing con-
structively responsive comprehension strategies in new and tradi-
tional forms of reading. In S. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of
research on reading comprehension (pp. 69–90). Routledge.
Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey
from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8),
10–14.
Alexander, P. A., & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Research
Laboratory. (2012). Reading into the future: Competence for the
21st century. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 259–280.
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. 255–292). Longman.
Baker, D. L., Santoro, L., Biancarosa, G., Baker, S., Fien, H., & Otterstedt,
J. (2020). Effects of a read aloud intervention on first grade stu-
dent vocabulary, listening comprehension, and language profi-
ciency. Reading and Writing, 33, 2697–2724.
Berkeley, S., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2010). Reading com-
prehension instruction for students with learning disabilities,
1995—2006: A meta- analysis. Remedial and Special Education,
31(6), 423–436.
Bohaty, J. J., Hebert, M. A., Nelson, J., & Brown, J. A. (2015). Method-
ological status and trends in expository text structure instruction
efficacy research. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Lan-
guage Arts, 54(2), 3.
Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Scheder, T. (1996). A quasi-
experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with
low- achieving second- grade readers. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 88(1), 18–37.
Carlisle, J., Kelcey, B., Berebitsky, D., & Phelps, G. (2011). Embracing
the complexity of instruction: A study of the effects of teachers’
instruction on students’ reading comprehension. Scientific Studies
of Reading, 15(5), 409–439.
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars:
Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science
in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51.
Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. McGraw- Hill.
Coleman, D., & Pimentel, S. (2012). Revised publishers’ criteria for the
Common Core State Standards in English language arts and lit-
eracy, grades 3–12. Retrieved from the Common Core Standards
Initiative at www. cores tanda rds. org/ assets/ Publi shers_ Crite ria_
for_ 3- 12. pdf
Connor, C. M. (2019). Using technology and assessment to personal-
ize instruction: Preventing reading problems. Prevention Science,
20, 89–99.
Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B., Giuliani, S., Luck, M.,
Underwood, P. S., Bayraktar, A., Crowe, E. C., & Schatschneider, C.
(2011). Testing the impact of child characteristics × instruction
interactions on third graders’ reading comprehension by differ-
entiating literacy instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3),
189–221.
TAKE ACTION
1. Develop a unit of instruction around a theme in fiction
or a topic in nonfiction including the texts student will
read. Provide for some choice if possible.
2. Decide which strategies will help your students deal
with the comprehension problems that the units and
the texts present.
3. Select texts for introducing the unit and for explaining
and modeling the strategies.
4. Plan out your first few modeling lessons. This would
include an analysis of the text and the comprehension
problems it presents. Think through the following
issues:
■ What problems does the text present?
■ Where will you stop to model?
■ What will you think aloud?
■ How will you explain how the strategy helps then
comprehend?
19362714, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/trtr.2308 by Peter Dewitz , Wiley Online Library on [25/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
25
TEACHING AND LEARNING IN ACTION
The Reading Teacher Vol. 78 No. 1 July-August 2024 literacyworldwide.org
Connor, C. M., Spencer, M., Day, S. L., Giuliani, S., Ingebrand, S. W.,
McLean, L., & Morrison, F. J. (2014). Capturing the complexity:
Content, type, and amount of instruction and quality of the class-
room learning environment synergistically predict third graders’
vocabulary and reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 106(3), 762–778.
Davis, D. S. (2010). A meta- analysis of comprehension strategy instruc-
tion for upper elementary and middle school students. Vanderbilt
University.
de Boer, H., Donker, A. S., Kostons, D. D., & van der Werf, G. P. (2018).
Long- term effects of metacognitive strategy instruction on student
academic performance: A meta- analysis. Educational Research
Review, 24, 98–115.
Dewitz, P., Jones, J., & Leahy, S. (2009). Comprehension strategy
instruction in core reading programs. Reading Research Quarterly,
44(2), 102–126.
Dignath, C., & Büttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering self-
regulated learning among students. A meta- analysis on interven-
tion studies at primary and secondary school level. Metacognition
and Learning, 3(3), 231–264.
Dimino, J. A., Taylor, R. A., & Gersten, R. M. (1995). Synthesis of the
research on story grammar as a means to increase comprehen-
sion. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 11(1), 53–72.
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Mov-
ing from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension
instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239–264.
Duke, N. K., Ward, A. E., & Pearson, P. D. (2021). The science of reading
comprehension instruction. The Reading Teacher, 74(6), 663–672.
Elleman, A. M. (2017). Examining the impact of inference instruction
on the literal and inferential comprehension of skilled and less
skilled readers: A meta- analytic review. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 109(6), 761–781.
Elleman, A. M., & Oslund, E. L. (2019). Reading comprehension
research: Implications for practice and policy. Policy Insights From
the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(1), 3–11.
Filderman, M. J., Austin, C. R., Boucher, A. N., O’Donnell, K., & Swanson,
E. A. (2022). A meta- analysis of the effects of reading compre-
hension interventions on the reading comprehension outcomes of
struggling readers in third through 12th grades. Exceptional Chil-
dren, 88(2), 163–184.
Fitzgerald, J. (1989). Research on stories: Implications for teachers.
In D. K. Muth (Ed.), Children’s comprehension of text: Research into
practice (pp. 2–36). International Reading Association.
Graves, M. F., Ruda, M. A., Sales, G. C., & Baumann, J. E. (2012).
Teaching prefixes: Making strong instruction even stronger. In
E. B. Kame’enui & J. F. Baumann (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction:
Research to practice (2nd ed., pp. 95–115). Guilford.
Graves, M. F., Schneider, S., & Ringstaff, C. (2018). Empowering stu-
dents with word- learning strategies: Teach a child to fish. The
Reading Teacher, 71, 533–543.
Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., Hancock, G. R., Alao, S., Anderson, E., &
McCann, A. (1998). Does concept- oriented reading instruction
increase strategy use and conceptual learning from text? Journal
of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 261–278.
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.
Joseph, L. M., Alber- Morgan, S., Cullen, J., & Rouse, C. (2016). The
effects of self- questioning on reading comprehension: A literature
review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 32(2), 152–173.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cam-
bridge University Press.
Kraft, M. A. (2020). Interpreting effect sizes of education interven-
tions. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 241–253.
McCutchen, D. (2006). Cognitive factors in the development of chil-
dren’s writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.),
Handbook of writing research (pp. 115–130). The Guilford Press.
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. (2009). Rethinking read-
ing comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for
strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly,
44(3), 218–253.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practice & Council of
Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards
for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, sci-
ence, and technical subjects. Authors.
National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, Human
Development (US), National Reading Excellence Initiative, National
Institute for Literacy (US), & United States Department of Health.
(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.
Okkinga, M., Gelderen, A. V., Schooten, E. V., Steensel, R. V., & Sleegers,
P. J. C. (2023). Does vocabulary knowledge matter in the effective-
ness of instructing reading strategies? Differential responses from
adolescents with low academic achievement on growth in reading
comprehension. Reading and Writing, 36(10), 2549–2575.
Okkinga, M., van Steensel, R., van Gelderen, A. J., van Schooten, E.,
Sleegers, P. J., & Arends, L. R. (2018). Effectiveness of reading-
strategy interventions in whole classrooms: A meta- analysis. Edu-
cational Psychology Review, 30(4), 1215–1239.
Palincsar, A. S., & Schutz, K. M. (2011). Reconnecting strategy instruc-
tion with its theoretical roots. Theory Into Practice, 50(2), 85–92.
Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of
comprehension- fostering and comprehension- monitoring activi-
ties. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
Pearson, P. D., & Cervetti, G. N. (2015). Fifty years of reading compre-
hension theory and practice. In P. D. Pearson & E. H. Hiebert (Eds.),
Research based practices for teaching Common Core literacy (pp.
1–24). Teachers College Press.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading
comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3),
317–344.
Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading
comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37.
Renkl, A., Mandl, H., & Gruber, H. (1996). Inert knowledge: Analyses
and remedies. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 115–121.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of
the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 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(2), 181–221.
Ryan, S. (2014). Balancing the Common Core: Reading strategies take
on supporting role. McREL. https:// www. mcrel. org/ balan cing- the-
commo n- core- readi ng- strat egies - take- on- suppo rting - role/
Samuelstuen, M. S., & Bråten, I. (2005). Decoding, knowledge, and
strategies in comprehension of expository text. Scandinavian Jour-
nal of Psychology, 46(2), 107–117.
Sencibaugh, J. (2007). Meta- analysis of reading comprehension inter-
ventions for students with learning disabilities: Strategies and
implications. Reading Improvement, 44(1), 6–21.
Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective
schools and accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary-
grade reading instruction in low- income schools. The Elementary
School Journal, 101(2), 121–165.
Vaughn, S., Klingner, J. K., Swanson, E. A., Boardman, A. G., Roberts,
G., Mohammed, S. S., & Stillman- Spisak, S. J. (2011). Efficacy of
collaborative strategic reading with middle school students. Amer-
ican Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 938–964.
Wexler, N. (2019). The knowledge gap. Avery.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2014). WWC procedures and standards
handbook (Version 3.0). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Educational Sciences. National Center for Educational Evaluation
and Regional Assistance. What Works Clearinghouse.
Willingham, D. T. (2006a). How knowledge helps: It speeds and
strengthens reading comprehension, learning- and thinking. Ameri-
can Educator, 30(1), 30.
Willingham, D. T. (2006b). The usefulness of brief instruction in read-
ing comprehension strategies. American Educator, 30(4), 39–50.
19362714, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/trtr.2308 by Peter Dewitz , Wiley Online Library on [25/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
26
TEACHING AND LEARNING IN ACTION
The Reading Teacher Vol. 78 No. 1 July-August 2024 literacyworldwide.org
MORE TO EXPLORE
■ For additional information on comprehension strategy instruction consider these ideas from Reading Rockets. https://
w w w . r e a d i n g r o c k e t s . o r g / a r t i c l e / s e v e n - s t r a t e g i e s - t e a c h - s t u d e n t s - t e x t - c o m p r e h e n s i o n
■ If you need more information about thinking aloud, this resources will help. h t t p s : / / w w w . r e a d i n g r o c k e t s . o r g / s t r a t e g i e s /
think_ alouds
■ For information on helping children transfer what they learn about comprehension strategies in school to their independent
reading see Dewitz, P., & Graves, M. F. (2014). Teaching for transfer in the Common Core era. The Reading Teacher, 68,
149–15 8 .
19362714, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/trtr.2308 by Peter Dewitz , Wiley Online Library on [25/11/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
