Comprehension Strategies

By

Dr. Janice A. Dole

Associate Professor Department of Teaching and Learning University of Utah

Comprehension Strategies
The National Reading Panels report on effective instructional practices (NRP, 2000) demonstrated the value and usefulness of teaching comprehension strategies to students of all ages. Comprehension strategies are routines and procedures that active readers use to better understand what they read. For example, active readers may think about what they already know about a specic topic after they read the title of a magazine article. They may predict what the article will be about. They may visualize parts of the text. They may summarize the main points as they are reading. They may ask questions as they read. They are aware of when the text is making sense and when it is confusing or unclear. If they do not understand, active and strategic readers know how to repair comprehension breakdowns. All of these procedures are strategies active readers use to make sense of text. The NRPs report listed a number of comprehension strategies that have been found to be useful to readers and have been successfully taught. These strategies include procedures such as identifying existing prior knowledge, predicting, visualizing, summarizing, generating questions, monitoring comprehension, and repairing comprehension breakdowns. The value of these different strategies is that they can be useful for developing instructional procedures to teach students. With instruction and practice, students can learn to use the strategies on their

own when they read. The use of these strategies will help readers become independent of the teacher. Thus, students can learn to become strategic readers (Paris, Wasik & Turner, 1991), thereby freeing themselves of the need for teacher support and assistance. There is no evidence that all readers use all these strategies all the time. In fact, one of the hallmarks of strategic readers is that they are exible and adaptable in their use of these strategies (Dole, Duffy, Roehler & Pearson, 1991). A reader will nd that one set of strategies is useful for one particular type of text; another set is useful for a different type of text. For example, predicting the content of an upcoming text may be difcult if a reader has little or no prior knowledge about that topic. Reading a text about analog and digital bandwidth is unlikely to call up much prior knowledge for most readers. However, readers will be very likely to carefully monitor their comprehension of such a text, particularly if it contains many difcult and unknown words, such as analog and bandwidth. However, monitoring comprehension will not be a particularly useful strategy for reading easy-to-understand texts or texts on topics with which readers are very familiar. Most parents do not need to monitor their comprehension of stories they read aloud to their children; such stories are easy to understand and remember. In that case, reading proceeds automatically, with little regard for any comprehension strategies.

Macmillan/McGraw-Hill

COMPREHENSION STRATEGIES

Traditional Skills and Comprehension Strategies

Thirty years ago comprehension was taught as a sequence of separate skills identied in basal reading programs and state curricula across the nation (Dole et al., 1991). Teachers were guided to teach students to nd the main idea, to sequence a set of events, to determine fact from opinion, and to differentiate fantasy from reality. These skills were taught as automatic procedures that readers used without being aware of them (Paris et al., 1991). For example, nding the main idea was taught by having students complete a workbook page in which brief passages were Durkins work presaged a now classic body of followed by questions asking students to determine research on comprehension strategies in which the main idea by identifying one of four potential students were taught a set of exible and main ideas. With repeated practice, it was assumed adaptable routines or procedures for handling that students would improve their identication of especially difcult text (Dole, 2002). Unlike skills, main ideas, not only in these texts but also in texts strategies are thought of as that students read independently. intentional and deliberate and There was nothing conscious or under the conscious control of deliberate about nding the main readers. The NRP (2000) found idea; students just did it. Further, that readers across a number of there was nothing teachers did to Students need to be taught different grade and age levels help students nd the main idea; a set of procedures, or benet from being taught the teachers only identied responses strategies, that they can conscious and intentional use as right or wrong. use on their own of strategies when they read. when they read text, Strategies are always goal directed. In a now classic study, Durkin They are applied thoughtfully, and especially when they (197879) made the argument they emphasize reasoning, problem encounter difculties. that teacher help for learning solving, and critical thinking. comprehension skills was In addition, strategies imply nonexistent. Based on data from metacognitive awareness. Effective her observation study, Durkin strategies users are aware of what argued that teachers did not they are doing, and they reect on teach the skills but instead only tested their level of understanding of a text. They know the skills. In other words, Durkins observations what to do when reading does not make sense. suggested to her that teachers did not teach students how to nd the main idea; rather, teachers mentioned the skills and then tested whether their students could nd the main idea on their own or not. An example of this type of testing instead of teaching can be extrapolated from the workbook page on nding the main idea. Durkin argued that teacher help and support for nding the main idea included teachers asking students questions about the main idea. If students did not respond correctly, teachers called on someone else to get the right answer. There was no help and support for the student who incorrectly responded.

Teachers did not assist those students who could not identify the main idea or show them how to nd the main idea. It was this last idea that was critical. Durkin argued that teachers needed to show students how to nd the main idea, not just tell them if they did it right or not. It was this procedural knowledge (Paris, Lipson & Wixson, 1983), the knowledge of how do I do it? that was missing in teachers instruction. Further, Paris and his colleagues (Paris et al., 1983) argued it was also conditional knowledge, the knowledge of when and where do I use it? that was missing as well.

Instruction in Comprehension Strategies

Two important ndings of reading research are that more-skilled readers use comprehension strategies and that when these strategies are directly taught to readers, their comprehension improves (NRP, 2000). This is generally true for all readers but especially true for less-skilled readers (Dole et al., 1991). The NRP (2000) cites dozens of studies to document the effectiveness of teaching students comprehension strategies. A few studies can be used to illustrate these ndings in more detail.

Macmillan/McGraw-Hill

COMPREHENSION STRATEGIES

A classic study conducted by Palincsar and Brown (1984) led the forefront in comprehension strategy instruction. From the research Palincsar and Brown identied four particularly important strategies to teach: predicting, summarizing, clarifying hard parts, and asking questions. The researchers conducted a series of studies in which they taught special education middle-school students to use these strategies over an extended period of time. During this time teachers gradually taught students to become teachers and users of the strategies as they read their content area textbooks. Teachers began by modeling how they themselves used the strategies as they read the content area textbooks. Then students worked in peer learning groups to repeatedly practice using the strategies as they read their textbooks. Over time, teachers released responsibility for use of the strategies completely to their students, who eventually learned how to use the strategies on their own, without the help of the teacher or their peers. The teaching of these four particular strategies is well known as reciprocal teaching and can be found in many textbooks on reading instruction and in many reading programs today. In a review of research, Rosenshine and Meister (1994) found a moderate to strong effect size for reciprocal teaching procedures. Further, the NRP (2000) found that students who learned reciprocal teaching were able to transfer their use of these strategies to texts they read on their own. Another approach to strategy instruction was developed by Duffy, Roehler, and their colleagues (1987). These researchers taught teachers to explicitly discuss the mental processes and cognitive strategies involved in comprehension. Even though the teachers taught the skills in their basal reading programs, the researchers taught the teachers to teach the skills in a different way. Instead of focusing on using the skill, teachers explicitly identied what they were doing, how they were doing it, and why it was important. Specically, teachers taught students what the skill/strategy was, why it was important, and how and when they could use it as they read. They found that teaching the skills in this way assisted students in being aware of their strategy use as they comprehended what they were reading. Teaching in this way

allowed the skills/strategies to became deliberate and intentional for students rather than automatic processes. A different set of strategies was taught by Dole, Brown, and Trathen (1996). These researchers provided instruction on how to use a story frame structure to improve narrative text comprehension. Using fth- and sixth-graders in a high poverty school, the researchers adapted a peer-teaching model similar to that of Palincsar and Brown (1984) to teach students to look for the main characters, their problem, and the resolution to the problem. They taught students that using this kind of story frame structure would help students comprehend better. In addition, they taught students the exible and adaptable use of this strategy so that they did not jump too quickly into identifying the problem, but rather read with a problem-solving attitude about what the problem in the story actually might be. Dole et al. (1996) compared this instruction to instruction that provided students with appropriate prior knowledge before they read a text. On comprehension posttests students who were taught this problem-solving story frame structure performed better than students who were provided with appropriate prior knowledge. More importantly, the story frame students performed even better when they were asked to read completely on their own, without any help or support from the teacher. It appeared as though the story frame provided students with a scaffolding or organizational structure within which to understand stories better.

Implications for Comprehension Instruction

Clearly, comprehension strategies are useful to teach and useful to learn. The body of research supporting their use is abundant. Further, studies within this body of research have been conducted in real classrooms in cities and states across the country and with students of differing age levels (NRP, 2000). However, several issues remain unresolved related to comprehension strategy instruction. One issue relates to which strategies to teach to which students. Not all students need all strategies; some students pick them up on their own. Readers

Macmillan/McGraw-Hill

COMPREHENSION STRATEGIES

also appear to have personal preferences about which strategies are most helpful to them in their own reading. A second issue relates to how many strategies and which ones to teach. There is no clear answer to this question. Some evidence indicates that teaching a set of strategies is more effective than teaching one on its own (NRP, 2000). However, we also know that consciously and deliberately using strategies helps readers become active and engaged in the reading process. It is this active and engaged process that teachers want to promote, rather than the simple and/or linear use of many different strategies. A third issue relates to the role of strategy instruction within a comprehension curriculum. Not all comprehension instruction should be the teaching of strategies. There is a need for teaching students other important aspects related to comprehension, such as text structure and vocabulary, in addition to supporting and assisting students as they read ever more difcult text. Comprehension strategies are one part of a complete comprehension curriculum; they are not the only part. We have yet to determine how strategy instruction ts into that complete comprehension curriculum.

References
Dole, J. A. (2002). Comprehension strategies. In B. Guzzetti (Ed.), Literacy in America: An encyclopedia of history, theory and practice, Volume I, pp. 8588. New York: ABC-CLIO. Dole, J. A., Brown, K. J., & Trathen, W. (1996). The effects of strategy instruction on the comprehension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 6288. Dole, J. A., Duffy, G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. P. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 239264. Durkin, D. (197879). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 214, 518544. National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientic research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Reports of the subgroups. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117175. Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293316. Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, P. D. Pearson, M. Kamil & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Volume II, pp. 609640. New York: Longman. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479530.

Biography
Janice Dole is Associate Professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning at the University of Utah. She has held positions at the Center for the Study of Reading at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Michigan State University, and the University of Denver. Her research interests include comprehension instruction, professional development, and school reform in reading. She has published widely in research and educational journals and has worked in educational reform in the Baltic states of Estonia and Lithuania. For the past ten years, Dr. Dole has served as a member of the reading development panel for the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP). She was also a panel member of the recent RAND Reading Study Group. For the last few years, she has been co-evaluator of Utahs Reading First project. Additionally, she is working on a national study examining the effects of four comprehension interventions on fth-grade students reading comprehension.