Appendix Previous critique of reading
comprehension teaching in the NLS Framework for Teaching.
Reading comprehension in the NLS.
I shall now turn to "reading comprehension"
as set out in the NLS Framework for Teaching, and attempt to relate
this to research evidence about the processes that are involved
in reading (language) comprehension.
As I said earlier, we do not have two separate language
comprehension systems, one for spoken and one for written language,
but a single system that we have to learn to access from both
oral and written input. The early and continuing emphasis in
the NLS on identifying differences between 'book language' and
oral language appears to assume that oral language development
is pretty well complete, and that all children have developed
oral language to an age appropriate level. Learning the nuances
of difference between oral and written presentation is then all
that is needed to facilitate comprehension of written text. But
these are questionable assumptions. It is clearly not the case
that oral language development is anywhere near complete during
the early primary years. It is also certainly not the case for
many children that oral language development is at an age appropriate
level (Stuart, Dockrell & King, in press; Locke, Ginsborg
& Peers, 2002). Therefore there should be much more emphasis,
especially but not exclusively in Key Stage 1, on language development
per se. Many children cannot produce a coherent oral narrative:
do we know whether such children can comprehend oral narrative?
Yet we expect them to comprehend written narrative.
Reading comprehension or literary criticism?
At Key Stage 2, much of the NLS Fiction text level
work that is labelled "Reading Comprehension" might
better be labelled "Literary Criticism". For example:
Year 4 term 2, children should be taught "to
understand how the use of …
descriptive language can e.g. create moods, arouse
expectations, build tension…."
Year 4 term 3, children should be taught "to
describe how a poet
does or does not use rhyme…"
Year 5 Term 1, children should be taught "to
analyse and compare poetic style."
Year 6 Term 2, children should be taught "to
analyse the success of texts
and writers in evoking particular responses in the
reader…"
These are ways in which children can demonstrate
comprehension and meta-level understanding of use of language
and of its formal properties; they are not ways to teach
comprehension.
Failure to take proper account of research evidence.
More seriously, the NLS fails to make explicit use
of research evidence accumulated over the past 30 years that has
demonstrated some of the causes of failure to comprehend in children
who have age appropriate word recognition skills (i.e. whose failure
to comprehend cannot be due to word level failures which might
be prevented by good early phonics teaching). Among the causes
of comprehension failure so far identified are:
- Poor knowledge of story structure
- Poor domain (background) knowledge and/or failure
to link this to incoming information
- Problems with inference making
- Problems with establishing causal and cohesive
links
- Problems in integrating information in text
- Problems with working memory
Each of these is considered in turn below.
Poor knowledge of story structure
In the NLS work on comprehending fiction, there is
lots of work on narrative (story) structure. However, to understand
why this work is there and to teach it well, teachers need to
understand the concept of story grammar. I think this work would
also benefit from being removed from the "literary criticism"
context in which it is embedded: children do not need to work
on story openings and endings so that they can recognise or write
good ones themselves, but so that they acquire the concept of
the beginning and its scene setting function, and the end and
its resolving function. This is immediately apparent from discussion
of story grammar, in which a scene is set (the where and when),
characters introduced and developed (the who), goals identified
(the what), motives and intentions identified (the why), actions
towards the goal are described (the how), problems encountered
and how they are overcome are presented, and a resolution reached
(the outcome). This work - on the when, where, who, what, why,
and how - is scattered throughout both Key Stages but nowhere
is it presented as a whole to the teacher with its purpose and
importance clarified.
There is also explicit reference to chronology in
narrative and to ways in which the passage of time can be represented.
This is presumably to be explored across a range of the different
genres explicitly identified (Sci-Fi, adventure, myths and legends,
texts from different cultures, etc). Children are also to be
taught the formal structures likely to be encountered in play
scripts (stage directions, ways of indicating dialogue) and poetry
(rhyme patterns, language use, etc). There is again no explanation
of how knowledge of these kinds of structure affects comprehension
-if indeed it does.
Poor domain (background) knowledge and/or
failure to link this to incoming information
There is implicit acknowledgement of the importance
of activating prior knowledge and linking this to incoming new
knowledge, in the requirement in Key Stage 1 that children should
relate story settings and incidents to their own experience.
But domain knowledge is likely to be or to become more important
in reading non-fiction. Successful teaching techniques for improving
domain knowledge include showing films or videos to introduce
new topics. Successful techniques for encouraging children to
activate and use their prior knowledge within a domain include
pre-reading discussion of the topic to be studied, so that children
are made aware of what they already know in that area. This can
be followed by discussion of what questions remain unanswered,
so that children select texts and read with a question or questions
in mind. These issues are explicitly mentioned with regard to
non-fiction only in Year 2 Term 3, Year 4 Term 2. They should
permeate the whole curriculum.
Problems with inference making
There is no reference at all in the NLS Framework
for Teaching to the importance of inference in comprehension.
This is alarming, given that research has shown that less skilled
comprehenders have particular problems with making necessary inferences
(Oakhill, 1984; Oakhill & Yuill, 1986; Oakhill, Yuill &
Parkin, 1986). Moreover, it has also been shown that less skilled
comprehenders' ability to make inferences can be improved by training
that helps children to activate their prior knowledge and shows
them how to draw on this to answer inferential questions (Hansen
& Pearson, 1983; Yuill & Oakhill, 1988). Some kinds of
inferences do depend on bringing prior knowledge to bear on the
text. Jane Oakhill gives the following simple example:
"Jane was invited to Billy's birthday party.
She wondered if he would like a kite.
She shook her moneybox.
It made no sound!"
In order to make sense of this simple sequence, children
must go beyond the literal text and fill in the gaps from their
own prior knowledge. If you don't know that it is usual to buy
a present for the birthday boy, you won't understand why Jane
is wondering whether Billy would like a kite, you won't infer
that she is planning to buy him a present and that this present
should be selected please him. If you don't know that kites have
to be bought and paid for, you won't understand why Jane is shaking
her moneybox. If you don't know that money in a moneybox rattles
when it is shaken, you won't understand the implications of the
lack of sound from Jane's moneybox. If you were asked questions
probing these gaps in the literal text, you would answer them
either incorrectly or not at all.
It is important that teachers understand that inference
from real world experience can be essential to understanding even
the simplest shortest narrative text. Yet, the NLS Framework for
Teaching makes no explicit mention of the development of inference
skills.
Problems with establishing causal and
cohesive links
Garnham, Oakhill & Johnson-Laird (1982) showed
that less-skilled comprehenders with adequate word recognition
abilities have difficulty in taking advantage of the cohesive
links in texts that are created by use of anaphoric devices such
as pronouns. For example, in the phrase "It was ready",
it is impossible to know what it is that was ready. The pronoun
'it' in this phrase can only be interpreted with reference to
information in another part of the text. In this case, 'it' has
to be linked back to the sentence that preceded it, "Bill
checked the cake in the oven". 'It' then clearly refers
to 'the cake in the oven'. Our knowledge of gender and syntax
allow us to know that 'it' doesn't refer back to 'Bill' - Bill
is male and therefore would be referred to by the pronoun 'he'.
Less skilled comprehenders' difficulty in interpreting cohesive
devices such as anaphora means that they cannot establish even
local links among the sentences in a text. This is not something
that can be addressed solely by sentence level work, yet it is
not mentioned at all in the NLS text level work.
Problems in integrating information in
text
Less skilled comprehenders also have problems in
integrating ideas presented in different parts of a text. This
has been shown by Oakhill and her colleagues by asking children
to detect anomalies in texts. The question asked is, "Does
this story make sense?". The stories to be read are short
passages that present inconsistent information in different parts
of the text (e.g. moles cannot see very well; moles have very
good eyesight). The less skilled comprehenders were much worse
at recognising inconsistencies, suggesting that they do not automatically
integrate incoming information (nor do they monitor their own
comprehension). Again, there is nothing in the NLS framework
that overtly addresses this issue.
Problems with working memory
The identification of working memory problems in
some less skilled comprehenders is important in itself, since
this is also likely to interfere with the ability to link ideas
from different parts of the text (Yuill, Oakhill & Parkin,
1989), which is essential to obtaining an overview of the text,
and therefore to main idea identification. But it is also important
as an example of the kinds of cognitive processing difficulties
that can exist within the minds of some children, and which prevent
them from achieving an age-appropriate understanding of texts.
Children who score poorly on tasks designed to assess verbal
intelligence are also likely to have limits set on their ability
to understand texts: if your listening comprehension is poor,
then so will be your written comprehension. No account seems to
have been taken of this unpalatable fact in setting attainment
targets, or in designing a curriculum that is governed entirely
by chronological age.
How could reading comprehension be better
presented and taught?
At this point we might be wise to look westward,
to the report produced by the National Reading Panel (NRP) in
the US in 2000. This gives a brief overview of the path taken
by research into reading comprehension since the late 1970s, as
well as classifying and evaluating research studies. In the
early days, studies investigated the effects of training children
in the use of single strategies that were deemed likely to improve
comprehension. Then combinations of strategies were trained.
Finally, the implications for teacher training and teaching began
to be examined.
To these ends, pupils (mostly from grades 3 through
6) have been trained to monitor their own comprehension, to make
graphic aids to improve comprehension and memory, to make mental
images, to acquire and use background (prior) knowledge, to generate
and answer questions, to summarise, and to develop their knowledge
of story structure. These activities have sometimes been conducted
in shared learning situations in small groups, and have also sometimes
been conducted across the curriculum. Effectiveness of training
has usually been demonstrated on immediate post-tests designed
to evaluate just what has been taught. There are fewer studies
that have also been able to show improvements on standardised
tests of reading comprehension. Most of the strategies trained
are processes already shown to be lacking in less skilled comprehenders.
Implications for teacher education.
Despite the availability of this plethora of research,
a recent observational study of ten classrooms (Pressley, Wharton-McDonald,
Mistretta & Echeverria, 1996) found that teachers, whilst
consistently identifying comprehension as one of their primary
goals, were not directly teaching comprehension strategies to
their pupils. Instead, they occasionally mentioned strategies,
and presented pupils with test questions tapping understandings
that would have developed from strategy use. This is likely to
be due to the real difficulties encountered in teaching teachers
to be successful in improving their pupils' comprehension. Duffy
(1993) suggests that major changes in teacher education are required
to help teachers become good strategy teachers, and emphasises
the importance of taking account of the complexity involved in
this kind of teaching, and the need for teachers to make creative
adaptations to deal with that complexity. If we accept his views,
then simply setting out what pupils 'should be taught' is extremely
unlikely to lead to major improvements in children's reading comprehension.
Effective teaching methods.
Despite the difficulties inherent in equipping teachers
to become successful in inculcating comprehension strategies,
Pressley & Wharton-McDonald (1997) identify three methodologies
for effective comprehension teaching: reciprocal teaching, direct
explanation, and transactional strategies instruction. These are
discussed in turn below.
Reciprocal teaching
Pupils are taught to use four comprehension strategies:
predicting, questioning, seeking clarification, and summarising.
Instruction takes place in small groups, with each pupil taking
a turn to be the teacher. As teacher, they predict likely content
from titles and related knowledge, pose questions about the reading
and model summarisation. When there is confusion about ideas
expressed in the text, they either predict upcoming content or
seek clarification. The class teacher scaffolds these activities
by giving prompts.
Direct explanation.
Teachers begin by explaining strategies to students
and modelling these for them. Pupils then have practice in using
the strategies in reading that is monitored by the teacher. The
teacher provides additional explanation and modelling as needed.
Transactional strategies instruction.
This approach stems from the work of Pressley and
colleagues in identifying successful implementations of comprehension
teaching. The following characteristics of successful programs
comprise the basis for transactional strategies instruction.
Several strategies are taught, including prediction
based on the activation of prior knowledge; question generation;
clarification seeking; mental imagery, and summarisation. Teaching
is long term over several months. Strategies are directly explained
and modelled. Teachers then coach as students practise. Students
model strategy use for each other. Appropriate application of
relevant strategies is taught. Teachers continued to model strategy
use throughout the school day and across the curriculum.
The way forward.
It can be seen from the above that comprehension
teaching in the US is more clearly based in research evidence
both about the nature of comprehension difficulties and about
effective intervention than is perhaps the case in the UK. It
would seem that, to further improve reading standards in the UK,
several things are needed. We need to collect the necessary data
that will allow us to identify the real sources of the recent
stall in progress: that is, data on standards of context-free
printed word recognition, and data on performance on standardised
tests of reading comprehension. We need to provide teachers with
a model of reading that does not confound word recognition processes
with those involved in comprehension. We need to ensure that
all teachers are properly trained to teach phonics quickly and
effectively in Key Stage 1. We need to provide teachers with research-based
training in reading comprehension, so that they understand the
likely causes of failure and know which kinds of strategies it
is appropriate to teach to improve different aspects of children's
comprehension. We need teachers who are both professional and
expert in their understanding and their teaching. Only this can
release the necessary creativity needed for teachers to be adaptable
and well-informed in their teaching of reading.
Appendix References
Duffy, G.G. (1993). Rethinking strategy instruction:
Four teachers' development and
their low achievers' understandings. Elementary
School Journal, 93, 231-247.
Garnham, A.; Oakhill, J.V. & Johnson-Laird, P.N.
(1982). Referential continuity and
the coherence of discourse. Cognition, 11,
29-46.
Hansen, J. & Pearson, P.D. (1983). The effects
of inference training and practice on
young children's reading comprehension. Reading
Research Quarterly, 16, 391-417.
Locke, A.; Ginsborg, J. & Peers, I. (2002). Development
and disadvantage:
implications for the early years and beyond. International
Journal of Disorders of Communication, 37, 3-15.
Oakhill, J. (1984). Inferential and memory skills
in children's comprehension of
stories. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
54, 31-39.
Oakhill, J. & Yuill, N.M. (1986). Pronoun resolution
in skilled and less-skilled
comprehenders: Effects of memory load and inferential
complexity. Language and Speech, 29, 25-37.
Oakhill, J.V; Yuill, N.M. & Parkin, A.J. (1986).
On the nature of the difference
between skilled and less-skilled comprehenders. In
M.M. Gruneberg, P.E.Morris and R.N. Sykes (Eds.). Practical
aspects of memory: Current research and issues, Vol 2. Chichester:
Wiley.
Pressley, M.; Wharton-McDonald, R.; Mistretta, J.
& Echeverria, M. (1996). The
nature of literacy instruction in ten grade 4/5
classrooms in upstate New York.
Pressley & Wharton-McDonald (1997). Skilled comprehension
and its development
through instruction. School Psychology Review,
26, 448-466.
Stuart, M.; Dockrell, J. & King, D. (in press).
Language intervention in preschool:
Talking time - Evidence for the development of oral
language skills in classrooms. In K. Maridaki (Ed.). Children's
Understanding of Mind: Empirical and Theoretical Approaches.
Yuill, N.M. & Oakhill, J.V. (1988). Effects of
inference awareness training on poor
reading comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
2, 33-45.
Yuill, N.M.; Oakhill, J.V. & Parkin, A.J. (1989).
Working memory, comprehension
ability and the resolution of text anomaly. British
Journal of Psychology, 80, 351 -361.
| 
