Here is the abstract.
_Publications_ (http://www.reading.org/publications/index.html) :
_Journals_ (http://www.reading.org/publications/journals/index.html) :
_Reading
Research Quarterly_
(http://www.reading.org/publications/journals/rrq/index.html) : _Current
Issue_
(http://www.reading.org/publications/journals/rrq/current/index.html) :
Article Abstract
Abstract of
Rethinking Reading Comprehension Instruction: A Comparison of Instruction
for Strategies and Content Approaches
Margaret G. McKeown
Isabel L. Beck
Ronette G.K. Blake, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
(http://www.reading.org/Library/Retrieve.cfm?D=10.1598/RRQ.44.3.1&F=RRQ-44-3-McKeown.html)
(http://www.reading.org/Library/Retrieve.cfm?D=10.1598/RRQ.44.3.1&F=RRQ-44-3-McKeown.pdf)
Reports from research and the larger educational community demonstrate
that too many students have limited ability to comprehend texts. The research
reported here involved a two-year study in which standardized comprehension
instruction for representations of two major approaches was designed and
implemented. The effectiveness of the two experimental comprehension
instructional conditions (Content and Strategies) and a control condition were
compared. Content instruction focused student attention on the content of the
text through open, meaning-based questions about the text. In strategies
instruction, students were taught specific procedures to guide their access
to text during reading of the text. Lessons for the control approach were
developed using questions available in the Teacher 's Edition of the basal
reading program used in the participating classrooms. Student participants
were all fifth graders in a low-performing urban district. In addition to
assessments of comprehension of lesson texts and an analysis of lesson
discourse, three assessments were developed to compare student ability to
transfer knowledge gained. The results were consistent from Year 1 to Year 2.
No
differences were seen on one measure of lesson text comprehension, the
sentence verification technique (SVT). However, for narrative recall and
expository learning probes, Content students outperformed Strategies students,
and
occasionally, the Basal control students outperformed Strategies students.
For one of the transfer assessments, there was a modest effect in favor of
the Content students. Transcripts of the lessons were examined and
differences in amount of talk about the text and length of student response
also
favored the Content condition.
Abstract from McKeown, M.G., Beck, I.L., & Blake, R.K. (2009,
July/August/September). Rethinking Reading Comprehension Instruction: A
Comparison of
Instruction for Strategies and Content Approaches. Reading Research
Quarterly, 44(3), 218–253. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.44.3.1
_______________________________________________
Mosaic mailing list
Mosaic@literacyworkshop.org
To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to
http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org.
Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
