hello the paper that you did came back… could you please re do it for me like the attached file.
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
ATTACHMENT PREVIEW
Download attachment
456-3171-1-PB.pdf
Networks: Vol. 16, Issue 2 Fall 2014 How Does Talk Around Reading Influence Comprehension
in Third Grade?
Karen Gruhn Tomczak Abstract
This study attempts to document the efficacy of peer-support and self-monitoring during partnered reading
by third grade students as evidenced by their discourse. Pairs of third grade students engaged in partnered
reading in a general education third grade classroom. Their oral reading, coaching and conversations were
recorded using i-Pod2s over the course of twenty days. The digital audio recordings were then analyzed to
determine if the students employed reading strategies, what types of reading strategies they used, and how
other discourse between the students influenced reading behaviors.
Reading comprehension lies at the heart of all
reading; it is in fact the ?essence of reading?
(Durkin, 1978-79).
For the greater part of 19 months I had been
immersed in a graduate program studying reading
and hoping to attain my Master of Arts as well as a
reading specialist certification. For better or worse,
my foray back into the formal world of academia
coincided with my transfer into a third grade
classroom, having spent the past 11 years in
kindergarten and pre-k. I provide this background
so that the reader may understand my trepidation
when presented with undertaking an action research
project on a new ?playing field? and my
dubiousness that other classroom teachers might
find the information from my study useful in their
practice. After all, I had so much to learn about
how third graders learn, particularly how best to
support their evolution into proficient readers!
With notebook in hand, sticky notes at the ready,
and words of encouragement from both my research
supervisor and my principal, I set out to document
what was happening while my students were
engaged in literacy activities in our third grade
classroom. Presented here are findings applicable
for consideration by both classroom teachers and
administrators. Perhaps even more exciting is that
the method used for data collection is both teacher
and student friendly.
Tomczak As a teacher in a general education third grade
classroom, my intent is to provide both instruction
as well as scaffolded and independent practice with
the skills and strategies used by proficient readers.
The Report of the National Reading Panel (NIH,
2000) indicated that proficient readers, in addition
to having developed phonemic awareness, utilize
their knowledge of phonics and vocabulary, read
fluently, and understand how and when to use
comprehension strategies.
An implication for
educational practice, then, is that students need to
know how to develop understanding as they read
and teachers need to find effective methods of
instruction to build student awareness of the
metacognitive processes that skilled readers use.
This would include opportunities for students to
practice integrating reading comprehension
strategies and skills outside of a task-specific
reading exercise. In addition to providing excellent
reading instruction, teachers need methods beside
standardized tests to determine if and how students
are transferring these developing strategies and
skills to independent practice on a daily basis in the
classroom setting. As Allington explained (2002),
students who received effective instruction in
reading achieved greater success on standardized
tests, and perhaps more importantly, students
developed ?academic proficiencies well beyond the
ability to score higher on reading and writing
achievement tests? (p.742).
1 Networks: Vol. 16, Issue 2 Having considered such writings as those of Reutzel
and Wolfersberger (1996) and Roskos and Neuman
(2011), I understood the impact creating a literacyrich climate in the classroom has on literacy
learning. Looking for practical guidance, I had
devoured the advice and expertise of Ellin Keene
and Susan Zimmerman (1997), Debbie Miller
(2002), Donalyn Miller (2009), and ?The Sisters,?
Boushey and Moser (2006).
I had built an
impressive classroom library with books sorted by
series, genre, author and reading level. I had put
into place a flexible and student-centered, studentdriven literacy block. Following the "Daily 5"
model (Boushey and Moser, 2006) to create a
structure of independence, students had been
coached in and had practiced acceptable behaviors
and routines to self-select from predictable sets of
activities while I was engaged in small group or
individual instruction. Student options included
listening to fluent reading at a listening center or on
the computer, writing about books they had read or
writing books of their own, word study, reading to
themselves, and reading to a partner.
A cursory glance around the classroom would
reveal that students appeared to be actively engaged
in literacy learning. I could easily assess the
process and product of their writing, visually track
involvement at listening centers and interactive
computer programs, and through discussions with
my students gauge whether or not they were making
?good fit? book choices and understanding the texts
they were choosing for independent reading.
However, measuring the efficacy of partnered
reading was more elusive. I had continually and
explicitly introduced, explained and then modeled
through think alouds various reading strategies and
had posted references to these strategies
prominently in the classroom. Student practice
within small, teacher-guided groups indicated that,
for the most part, the children were able to use such
techniques as "back-up and reread," "chunking
words," "flip the sounds," "skip it," and "check for
understanding" purposefully. However, whether
students were transferring strategy use to partnered
reading to assist one another in monitoring their
reading for comprehension was unclear. Student
talk during partner-reading could be observed from
afar, and students self-reported that they were using
reading strategies and discussion to check for
Tomczak Fall 2014 understanding; many students even delineated the
specific strategies they chose to check their
understanding as they read. In spite of this, the
skeptic, and perhaps pragmatist, in me gave pause.
With what seems to be so little time in a school day
and with an urgency to use that time wisely, it
became imperative that I know if the goals of
partnered reading were being achieved. Were
participation in partnered reading and the
conversations between partners evidence of strategy
use to enhance comprehension? This is significant
because, as stated by Keene and Zimmerman
(2007), ?Monitoring is quite simply vital to
comprehension? (p. 33). A review of the literature
devoted to elementary student self-monitoring and
peer-supported discourse as related to reading
comprehension (Van Keer and Verhaeghe, 2005;
Brown et al, 1996; Marion and Alexander, 1996;
Brown, 2006; Sarasti, 2007) provided focus for my
research question. How was student talk around
reading influencing reading comprehension in my
third grade classroom? Theoretical Framework
One of the theoretical frameworks that informs my
study is metacognitive theory. In Lenses on
Reading, Tracey and Morrow (2006) defined
metacognition as ?the process of thinking about
one?s own thinking? (p. 61). Van Keer and
Verhaeghe (2005) examined peer tutoring of fifth
and second graders to determine if collaboration
with both same age and cross aged tutors increased
student self-monitoring for comprehension.
As
applied to reading, Van Keer and Verhaeghe (2005)
described metacognitive strategies as ?selfmonitoring and regulating activities that focus on
the product and the process of reading, support
readers? awareness of comprehension, and assist in
the selection of cognitive strategies as a function of
text difficulty, situational constraints, and the
reader?s own cognitive abilities?
(p. 292).
Comprehension, then, is reliant upon a reader?s
ability to think not only about the message in the
text while reading, but also about what to do when
comprehension breaks down.
Pressley?s (2000) finding indicated that proficient
readers independently employ a number of
metacognitive strategies during reading, including
?fix up? strategies to clarify understanding. This is
2 Networks: Vol. 16, Issue 2 consistent with the conclusions of Brown et al.
(1996) from their study of struggling second grade
readers’ use of comprehension strategies. They
stressed the importance of the ?orchestration of
cognitive processes? rather than individualized use
of strategies. Learning to use a strategy, or over
reliance upon a single strategy is not sufficient.
Competent readers need to know how to flexibly
use multiple strategies when reading.
In my third grade classroom, as occurs in many
elementary classrooms, students engage in
partnered reading with peers. Student pairs sit side
by side and negotiate the shared reading of a book,
sometimes each with their own copy of the text,
sometimes with a book shared between them.
These paired readings ideally involve the use of
student discussion and coaching as peers collaborate
to decode and comprehend text. According to
Vygotsky, this collaboration and cooperation
between peers is essential to the learning process.
Vygotsky?s (1978) social learning theory, and the
scaffolding considered key to learning from a social
constructivist perspective, is also relevant to my
study. During the social exchange of partnered
reading children have an opportunity to scaffold one
another?s learning and support each other as they try
out reading strategies. Palincsar (1998), in her
analysis of empirical research on social
constructivist teaching and learning, concluded that
collaborative
discourse,
specifically
which
generates explanations, is associated with learning
gains. Manion and Alexander (1996) conducted a
study to examine the effects of peer collaboration
on recall, cognitive strategy use and effectiveness,
and metacognitive understanding of strategy use.
They found that fourth grade students, especially
when paired with a more knowledgeable peer,
benefited from the modeling and scaffolding
provided through collaboration.
Collaborative
partnered reading experiences are consistent with
the socio-cultural perspective, which also grounds
my study. Au (1997) stated that the socio-cultural
lens ?begins with the assumption that reading, like
other higher mental functions, is essentially social
in nature? (p. 184). She also asserted "both success
and failure in learning to read depend on students’
interactions with their teachers and one another" (p.
199).
Social constructivist learning theory is
evidenced in the scaffolding that occurs during
Tomczak Fall 2014 partnered reading, the assistance provided by a
more knowledgeable peer through guidance,
prompting and coaching. Student partnered reading
provides a context that is both social and
collaborative.
Partnered reading, a socially mediated learning
opportunity, also encourages "transactional"
comprehension (Rosenblatt, 1978) as students talk
and share personal connections and thinking about
text. Brown (2006), in her study examining the
functions that student talk served during partner
reading in a second grade classroom, found that the
students "used their socially constructed language to
make sense of texts" (p. 36). In his study of the
effects on third grade students’ comprehension
using reciprocal teaching, Sarasti (2007) cited
Block, Schaller, Joy, and Gaine (2002) stating
"dialogue and discourse during the reading process
are an important part of processing information and
making sense of what has been read" (p. 18). These
studies seemed relevant to what I hoped to discover
about the dialogue that took place between my third
grade students while engaged in partnered reading.
This study employs multiple lenses. According to
social constructivists children learn from their social
interactions. Metacognitive theory, the thinking
about reading that occurs during these social
interactions, brings to the front the importance of
strategy use during reading.
The interaction
between reader and text and between readers to
build meaning from the text is clearly aligned with
transactional theory. In addition, proponents of
collaborative learning argue that discourse among
students and scaffolded collaboration enhances their
learning. The ?student talk? that occurs during peer
supported partnered reading in my third grade
classroom is the means by which data would be
collected for this study. What this study aims to
clarify is how discourse with their peers during
partner reading influences understanding of text by
third grade students. Method
Participants
The participants in the researcher?s general
education classroom were third grade students
whose parents consented to their inclusion in this
3 Networks: Vol. 16, Issue 2 study. The children attended a Title 1 school in a
suburban area that serves over 450 students in
grades pre-kindergarten through third grade; many
transient students come to this school from urban
areas. The study included the audio recording of six
student pairings: three partnerships of girls, one of
boys, and two boy/girl partnerships. Students?
reading levels ranged from 28 to 40 as determined
using the Developmental Reading Assessment, 2nd
edition (DRA2); three partnerships included
students of like reading level and three included
students of divergent reading level. The data
included in this study includes transcriptions from iPod2 recordings made by the fifteen children for
whom I received parental consent; of the fifteen
students who recorded their readings, some were
excluded due to the poor quality of the audio. I also
excluded recordings and transcriptions of readings
between a first-year English Language Learner
(ELL) and her non-ELL partner since transcripts of
this ?partnership? revealed virtually complete
dominance by the non-ELL partner. Therefore, this
study examined the content of discourse between
student-pairs representing 86% of the students of
my general education classroom whose paired
reading transcriptions were considered for inclusion
in the study, or twelve of the fourteen students.
At the time of the study, students in my classroom
were free to select partners for the ?read to
someone? segment of our literacy block. Initially,
as partnered reading was first introduced, texts were
teacher-selected based upon DRA2 scores of
specific students. Aligned with our established
guided reading groups, students with the same text
could seek one another out to partner read during
our literacy block. During the first weeks of the
school year choosing a space in which to read, how
to sit closely enough to use a quiet voice, and use of
a ?coaching sheet? (Appendix A) were all modeled
and practiced.
After several weeks of daily
participation in homogeneous partnered reading,
students began to ask to permission to expand
outside of their teacher-established reading groups
to include self-selected texts from our classroom
library with partners of heterogeneous ability.
Palincsar and Brown (1987), as cited by Palincsar
(1998), had concluded that "heterogeneous groups
of children with diverse comprehension skills
attained competence by using the learning dialogues
Tomczak Fall 2014 more quickly than groups of more homogeneous
ability" when using reciprocal teaching to
comprehend text (p. 349). While peer coaching
employed in my classroom did not correspond
directly to the reciprocal teaching model, I agreed
that opportunities for partnered reading could and
perhaps should include sharing of texts between
friends of divergent reading abilities to support and
encourage coaching and comprehension monitoring.
I took a leap of faith and trusted my students to
make the important decisions of book selection and
reading partner and hoped they would apply
metacognitive strategies while reading to monitor
their comprehension. It became immediately clear
that I needed evidence of the efficacy of the
partnered reading occurring in my classroom on a
daily basis and I needed a reliable method of data
collection. Implementation and Data Collection
My school reading specialist, for whom I am ever
indebted, armed me with i-Pod2s, and with her help
we introduced the students to the recording and
playback features. Pairs of students were given iPod2s to try out. The enthusiasm ran high! Once
everyone had had practice with the devise, i-Pod2s
were made available daily for students? use during
partnered reading.
In addition to the audio recordings, I gathered data
with the use of an after-reading questionnaire
(Appendix B). The purpose of the questionnaire
was to interview students to determine how they
were thinking about reading and making decisions
as readers. The questionnaire asked the students
how they selected a reading partner, determined
which book to read together, and which strategies
they used during the partnered reading. The results
of the questionnaire are exhibited in Table 1.
Throughout the study I also recorded anecdotally in
my field journal instances when students
spontaneously referred to or overtly used a reading
strategy during large group discussions or during
what came to be known as our occasional ?Show
and Share-A-Strategy? time at the end of the day informal discussions about their reading and how
they used strategies that had been previously
introduced to the class. 4 Networks: Vol. 16, Issue 2 As a daily occurrence, students self-select partners
and engage in ?Read to Someone? as a choice
activity while I work with individuals or small
groups. It was hoped that the data collected via
audio recordings during these partnered readings
would provide evidence of reading strategy use
through peer conversations and coaching.
Information gained from the recordings could then
be used to plan continued assistance in the form of
intensive, differentiated instruction on using
specific strategies as well as in using a multiplicity
of strategies more flexibly. In addition, the teacher
could make modifications with the knowledge of
which reading pairs appeared to engage in
productive dialogue to enhance strategy use, as
opposed to those that did not offer support and
coaching.
The i-Pod2s were introduced to all students in early
November, after they had been involved in the daily
?Read to Someone? activity for approximately two
months. Recordings were played back and student
talk was transcribed and categorized to determine
types of peer support and strategies used during
partnered reading. As stated by Pressley (2001):
"Comprehension will only be maximized when
readers are fluent in all the processes of skilled
reading, from letter recognition and sounding
out of words to articulation of the diverse
comprehension strategies used by good readers
(e.g.,
prediction,
questioning,
seeking
clarification, relating to background knowledge,
constructing mental images, and summarizing)."
With this in mind, and considering the "big ideas"
of the report of the National Reading Panel (2000),
student-employed strategy use was categorized to
correspond with four components of effective
reading. Phonemic awareness, a fifth component of
the NRP report was not considered in this study. A
simple tally table was used to count incidences of
decoding assistance (use of phonics skills), use of a
dictionary (to understand unknown words or to
assist with pronunciation), rereading (for fluency, to
correct decoding errors, to use context to increase
understanding), questioning and conversations
about the text and personal connections (to develop
comprehension). The results of this analysis are Tomczak Fall 2014 displayed in Table 2 (Documented reading behavior
during partnered reading).
Decoding errors left uncorrected were also included
in the analysis. Looking at these miscues and
determining if they interfered with meaning would
provide information on which comprehension
strategies students were not attempting to use or
those they were unable to use proficiently. Their
miscues would also indicate instances when
metacognition, monitoring for comprehension, was
breaking down. Results
Analysis of Student Book Selection
Questionnaires
A student interview questionnaire (Book Selection
Questionnaire, Appendix B) was developed to
provide a mechanism for students to self-report
strategy use as well as to determine if and how
students were thoughtful in their choice of reading
partner.
Students dictated and I took quick,
abbreviated notations of their responses. Student
responses were analyzed for common themes and
categorized. A tally chart was then created,
responses were reviewed again, and I recorded the
number of incidences of each type of response to
each question. The results of this analysis are listed
in Table 1 (Questionnaire Results).
The questions were intended to provide me with a
"quick look" at whether students could articulate
their decision making with regard to book selection,
partner selection, and use of reading strategies. An
analysis of student responses revealed that they
were, in fact, able to articulate metacognitive
strategy use for choosing reading partners and to
deepen or clarify understanding of text.
The
information obtained in the surveys was crossreferenced with the audio recordings of the students
to determine if the reported strategy use and the
actual strategy use were the same. Excerpts from
student interviews follow. (All student names used
in this study are pseudonyms.)
Teacher: How did you choose your reading partner?
Tyler: I knew he was interested in dragons and so
am I, so I wondered if he wanted to read with me. 5 Networks: Vol. 16, Issue 2 Fall 2014 Table 1: Questionnaire Results
Question Types of Responses How did you decide
to read this book? Book looked interesting:
Prior interest in topic:
Friend recommended:
Other:
How did you choose Asked someone who is not usually a
your reading partner? reading partner:
Asked someone with like interest:
Asked someone who is on reading
level with self:
Not clear:
What strategies are
Back up and reread:
you finding most
Sound it out/chunking:
helpful as you read? Think about reading:
(Some students
Use of comprehension cubes:
provided multiple
Stop and think:
responses to this
Write about reading:
question)
Skip it ? keep reading and figure it
out:
Practice fluency:
Use a dictionary:
Use of Peer Coaching:
Is this book easy, a
Easy:
challenge, or just
I know the words:
right?
I understand the story:
How do you know?
Just right:
There are some words I don?t
know:
Words are not too hard or too
easy:
I can understand the words:
Challenge:
The words are challenging:
Tyler?s previous knowledge of his intended
partner?s similar interests is confirmed by Joey?s
response.
Teacher: How did you decide on reading this
book?
Joey: My sister and I are interested in dragons.
We watch movies about dragons and have dragon
toys.
Teacher: How did you choose your reading
partner? Tomczak Number of Students Who Chose
Response
6 out of 12
3 out of 12
2 out of 12
1 out of 12
5 out of 12
5 out of 12
1 out of 12
1 out of 12
7 out of 12
3 out of 12
1 out of 12
1 out of 12
1 out of 12
2 out of 12
1 out of 12
1 out of 12
1 out of 12
2 out of 12
1 out of 12
6 out of 12
1 out of 12
1 out of 12
1 out of 12 Tyler: He [Tyler] picked it [the book,] and I asked
him if he wanted to read and he said, ?Yes.? I also
thought he?d be a good fit because he?s smart and
helpful.
Tyler’s response indicates that his criteria for
selecting a reading partner included the ability of
his partner to be "helpful." Chelsea, on the other
hand, made her decision of reading partner based
upon the compatibility of their reading level: 6 Networks: Vol. 16, Issue 2 Fall 2014 Teacher: How did you choose your reading
partner?
Chelsea: He’s (Eddie) on my level in reading. We
can read challenging books together without
having someone who can’t read the words.
Donyea explained her choice of partner based on
another consideration:
Teacher: How did you choose your reading
partner?
Donyea: I didn’t have a reading partner, and I
asked Amy. We like the same genre. Analysis of Digital Audio Gambrell (2011) points to the motivating factors
that increase student reading achievement.
Among these factors is a students? ability to make
decisions about the material they read and the
social interactions they engage in around reading.
Her findings clearly support the practice of
allowing student choice of reading partner and text
based upon their own criterion. Table 2 documents five types of discourse
identified from the transcribed audio recordings of
partnered readings as well as the occurrence of
each type of discourse.
Listed in order of
frequency of use, student talk is categorized as:
rereading (for fluency, to correct decoding errors,
to use context to increase understanding),
questioning and conversatio…
Read more Running head: ACTION RESEARCH ARTICLE EVALUATION 1 Area of Focus
The aim of Karen?s research was to determine the best teaching and learning method to
be used to enhance the efficacy of third… Attached is a detailed explanation… View the full answer