building levels of comprehension - curriculum associates · reading questions find it ... building...

Reorder No. CA10455—SingleCURRICULUM ASSOCIATES®, Inc.

North Billerica, MA 01862Phone: 800 225-0248 (U.S. & Canada)

Fax: 800 366-1158 (U.S. & Canada)E-mail: [email protected] • Web: www.CAinc.com

FREE product training: www.CAtraining.com

10455.0

BU

ILDIN

G LE

VE

LS O

F CO

MP

RE

HE

NS

ION

B

oo

k E

CU

RR

ICU

LUM

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S, In

c.

BUILDING

LEVELS OF

COMPREHENSIONE

Multiple-Choice and Short-Response Reading Questions

� FIND IT

� CONNECT IT

� ADD TO IT

� GO BEYOND IT

Multiple-Choice

and Short-Response

Reading Questions

SUPPORTING RESEARCH

curriculum associates®, iNc. www.curriculumassociates.com 800-225-0248

Introduction to Building Levels of Comprehension ..................................... 3

What Are Levels of Comprehension? ........................................................ 4

Why Are Levels of Comprehension Important to Today’s Reading Classrooms? ................................................................. 7

Why Does Building Levels of Comprehension Present Questions in Two Formats—Multiple-Choice and Short-Response? ........................... 9

What Are the Research-Based Strategies and Features in Building Levels of Comprehension? ...................................................... 11

Summary ................................................................................................. 26

Appendix: Quick Reference Chart for Research-Based Strategies and Features in Building Levels of Comprehension .......................................... 27

References ............................................................................................... 29

Table of Contents

� research Paper: Building Levels of Comprehension

The Supporting Research document for Building Levels of Comprehension provides information related to research-based instructional strategies and features that promote higher-order thinking.

The Supporting Research document is based on a literature review of academic monographs, journals, and reports that are written by content-area researchers and experts.

The Supporting Research document covers topics related to the cognitive-thinking taxonomies of Bloom and Marzano, as well as the application of the following teaching strategies: cooperative learning, differentiated instruction, higher-order thinking, literary genres, question-answering process using think-aloud strategy, scaffolded instruction, summarizing, test-taking practice, and Think It/Speak It/Write It/Learn It.

“Because reading is a thoughtful process,it embraces the idea of levels of comprehension.”

–Vacca & Vacca, 2005


research Paper: Building Levels of Comprehension �

Building Levels of Comprehension is the instructional portion of a reading-comprehension series that features both diagnosis and instruction.

Building Levels of Comprehension provides teachers with an instructional tool to help build and strengthen each student’s ability to answer questions at four levels of comprehension, which range from the literal to the abstract.

Building Levels of Comprehension features comprehension questions in two formats, multiple-choice and short-response. Both formats are typically found on state and standardized tests. A 2006 study by the Education Sector organization estimated that public schools, which now give about 33.6 million tests under NCLB, must add another 11.4 million by the end of the current school year.

The multiple-choice format is widely used. And the short-response format is a clear test of a student’s level of comprehension. A short-response question elicits a thinking process that stimulates the student to construct the correct response to a comprehension question.

Building Levels of Comprehension is grounded in thinking-skills research. Through this instructional and practice series, students will enhance their proficiency with answering questions at each level of comprehension. “The ability to think, to learn, and to make decisions will no longer be the prerogative and the privilege of the few. They will become the responsibility and the opportunity of the many people whose earlier counterparts worked in so called low-skilled occupations. In this sense, literacy will evolve to include proficiency in comprehension. . . . Literacy will mean far more than the basic skills of beginning reading, writing, and arithmetic. It will include the skills of comprehension and thinking” (Wittrock, 1991).

Introduction to Building Levels of Comprehension

Reorder No. CA10455—SingleCURRICULUM ASSOCIATES®, Inc.

North Billerica, MA 01862Phone: 800 225-0248 (U.S. & Canada)

Fax: 800 366-1158 (U.S. & Canada)E-mail: [email protected] • Web: www.CAinc.com

FREE product training: www.CAtraining.com

10455.0

BU

ILDIN

G LE

VE

LS O

F CO

MP

RE

HE

NS

ION

B

oo

k E

CU

RR

ICU

LUM

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S, In

c.

BUILDING

LEVELS OF

COMPREHENSIONE

Multiple-Choice and Short-Response Reading Questions

� FIND IT

� CONNECT IT

� ADD TO IT

� GO BEYOND IT

Multiple-Choice

and Short-Response

Reading Questions



In this series, the term “levels of comprehension” refers to the thinking processes that are stimulated in order to arrive at answers to reading

comprehension questions. Many researchers have studied how levels of comprehension affect reading comprehension, but the most well-known research may be found in Benjamin Bloom’s 1956 publication, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives and Robert Marzano’s 2001 publication, Designing a New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. These two taxonomies demonstrate a hierarchical order of thinking skills that students should master in order to guarantee that learning is deep and solid. The levels of comprehension in Building Levels of Comprehension relate in a general and simplified way to the levels of cognition in both taxonomies.

A Brief Discussion of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Krathwohl (2002) provides a concise overview of Bloom’s taxonomy. “Bloom’s taxonomy is a framework for classifying statements of what we expect or intend students to learn as a result of instruction. The framework was conceived as a means of facilitating the exchange of test items among faculty at various universities in order to create banks of items, each measuring the same educational objective. Benjamin S. Bloom, then Associate Director of the Board of Examinations of the University of Chicago, initiated the idea, hoping that it would reduce the labor of preparing annual comprehensive examinations. To aid in his effort, he enlisted a group of measurement specialists from across the United States. . . . Bloom saw the original Taxonomy as more than a measurement tool. He believed it could serve as a

⌘ common language about learning goals to facilitate communication across persons, subject matter, and grade levels;

⌘ basis for determining for a particular course or curriculum the specific meaning of broad educational goals, such as those found in the currently prevalent national, state, and local standards;

⌘ means for determining the congruence of educational objectives, activities, and assessments in a unit, course, or curriculum; and

⌘ panorama of the range of educational possibilities against which the limited breadth and depth of any particular educational course or curriculum could be contrasted. Bloom’s categories were ordered from simple to complex and from concrete to abstract” (p. 212).

What Are Levels of Comprehension?



Bloom’s taxonomy continues to be well-received and included in classroom preparation today. Building Levels of Comprehension recognizes and integrates the cognitive categories established by Bloom et al. Robert Marzano updated Bloom’s taxonomy in his book Designing a New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (2001). The theories of Marzano and Bloom share similar categories of cognitive processes, but differences between the two theories do exist.

A Brief Discussion of Marzano’s Designing a New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives As noted on page 3 of the Building Levels of Comprehension teacher guide, Marzano’s taxonomy maintains nearly the same cognitive categories as those found in Bloom’s taxonomy. However, Marzano’s theory is more multidimensional and has several components that are intertwined to spark cognitive processing.

The first component of Marzano’s theory encompasses three mental systems, which describe how people decide whether to engage in a new task, based on their interest in the task and the relevance of the task to their lives. The systems also explain how information is processed once a person decides to engage in the new task. The three systems are:

⌘ Self System—This system deals with the motivation a person has for starting a new task or continuing with the present task.

⌘ Metacognitive System—This system deals with the activation of strategies to succeed in the new task and the goals needed to complete the new task.

⌘ Cognitive System—This system deals with the effective processing of information that is necessary to complete the new task.

The second component of Marzano’s taxonomy is the Domain of Knowledge. The Domain of Knowledge is acted upon by the three mental systems. The Domain of Knowledge has three elements: Domain of Information, Mental Procedures, and Psychomotor Procedures. These three elements contain a hierarchical order in which knowledge is achieved. A final linkage of cognitive processes is the role of Memory. The types of memory range from temporary storage of information to permanent storage of information. The role of Memory is connected to the three mental systems and the three elements of the Domain of Knowledge.



This is a very brief and simplified presentation of Marzano’s Designing a New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. For a more thorough explanation, teachers may read the book by Marzano previously cited.

While Bloom’s taxonomy and Marzano’s new taxonomy have similarities and differences, they share a common thread that connects them to the levels of comprehension featured in Building Levels of Comprehension. The common thread among the taxonomies and the levels of comprehension is the cognitive demand that comprehension questions can require of readers.

“Reading is thinking cued by written language.”–Scharer, Pinnell, Lyons, & Fountas, 2005



Effect on Students’ Achievement Scores

Students’ mastery of the levels of comprehension is related to the types of questions they are able to answer. The way the answer information

is attained from the passage text determines whether literal, analytical, inferential, or critical thinking is involved. Research has shown that limited mastery of levels of comprehension is equal to poor reading scores.

⌘ The NAEP 2005 Reading Assessment describes a proficient reader in the following manner: “Eighth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to show an overall understanding of the text, including inferential as well as literal information. When reading text appropriate to eighth grade, they should be able to extend the ideas in the text by making clear inferences from it, by drawing conclusions, and by making connections to their own experiences—including other reading experiences” (Lutkus, Rampey, & Donahue, 2005).

⌘ “A broad, general finding from the research base is that nearly all of the thinking skills programs and practices investigated were found to make a positive difference in the achievement levels of participating students” (Cotton, 1991).

⌘ Providing students with practice of various levels of comprehension will help them become proficient readers and will result in higher reading scores.

Effect on Reading Experience High mastery of the levels of comprehension indicates that students are able to experience a much greater appreciation of the books they are reading. “Many children who can understand what they read at a literal level, find it difficult to understand a writer’s underlying meaning and intentions. There is a tendency for them to interpret only what the words say, not what they mean” (Fisher, 2005). Moving a student beyond the literal or concrete level will provide a richer, meaningful reading experience.

Why Are Levels of Comprehension Important to Today’s Reading Classrooms?



Effect on Teacher Instruction

There is continuing documentation about the positive effect of higher-order thinking on students’ achievement scores. State standards also call for higher-order thinking experiences to take place in the classroom.

⌘ “The NCLB Act of 2001 has spurred a calling for tests. These tests have been studied by national education experts and are said to be assessments of basic skills. And yet, even basic skill questions may require higher levels of comprehension or thinking skills” (Guthrie, Schafer, & Huang, 2001).

⌘ “Virtually every standards document makes explicit or implicit reference to the fact that thinking and reasoning should be reinforced in the context of authentic tasks within their content areas” (Marzano, 1998).

While there is a recognized demand to have higher-order thinking practiced in the classroom, there is also a recognized instructional struggle with bringing higher-order thinking to life in the classroom. “Teachers see higher-order thinking tasks as difficult and highly demanding. Therefore, they refrain from assigning higher-order thinking tasks to students whom, the teachers believe, will find such tasks hard and frustrating.

Despite good intentions, this creates a vicious cycle: Precisely those students whose thinking skills need the most care and teacher attention get less attention from teachers than their high-achieving peers. Exposing teachers to empirical findings regarding this particular issue may contribute to changing their beliefs and habits” (Zohar & Dori, 2003). Marzano (1993) found that questioning is the most popular technique teachers use to stimulate students’ thinking. This technique is followed by writing techniques and general information-processing strategies.

Building Levels of Comprehension provides a practical, accessible, and non-threatening tool for bringing higher-order thinking into the reading classroom. Building Levels of Comprehension provides teachers with a format for building and strengthening students’ level of mastery at various levels of comprehension.

“Although basic skills have their place in pedagogy, critical thinking skills are essential.”

–Wenglinsky (2004)

Marzano (1993) found that questioning is the most popular technique teachers use to stimulate students’ thinking. This technique is followed by writing techniques and general information process strategies.



Questions are the vehicles that ignite conversations and discussions. Marzano (1993) determined that questioning is the most popular

technique to stimulate students’ thinking. Questioning in today’s classroom appears primarily in two written formats—multiple-choice and short-response.

Multiple-Choice Format While multiple-choice questions generally are not seen as the typical springboard for higher-level thinking, this format cannot be ignored. According to Winerip (2006), forty-two percent of students are now taking state reading and math tests that are entirely multiple-choice. As teachers already know, students need to be aware that multiple-choice items often require higher-level thinking. The multiple-choice format does not always require simple factual recall. Students need to be aware that multiple-choice answers may not always be obvious. They need to reflect upon the question, the text, and the offered answer choices before selecting a response. Building Levels of Comprehension will positively emphasize questions that require higher-order thinking to attain the answers. The question-unpacking process is a tool for students to use to understand all questions and to uncover the deeper thinking that some multiple-choice questions elicit.

Why Does Building Levels of Comprehension Present Questions in Two Formats—Multiple-Choice and

Short-Response?

45

1. What is the main idea of the fi rst paragraph?

𝖠 People like to invent new things, but women usually do not.

𝖡 Inventions are things that are new and improved.

𝖢 In the past, women invented things but didn’t get the credit.

𝖣 Inventions from the early days were the fi rst of their kind.

2. In the article, what is the meaning of the word invention?

𝖠 “an offi cial record”𝖡 “something that didn’t exist before”𝖢 “someone who makes something new”𝖣 “a woman who was granted a patent”

3. How did Hannah Slater’s invention probably affect sewing and weaving?

𝖠 More thread could be produced by machines, so more sewing and weaving could be done.

𝖡 Machines could now make thread, so people no longer needed to do any sewing and weaving.

𝖢 Sewing and weaving would now be done with thread.

𝖣 Sewing and weaving would now be done by machine.

4. If you went to a hospital, which invention from the article would you most likely fi nd there?

𝖠 a machine that cleans and cures Indian corn

𝖡 a machine that makes cotton thread𝖢 a folding cabinet bed𝖣 a machine that uses x-rays

5. In the article, the phrase sold like hotcakes means that

𝖠 the bacon maker also made hotcakes.𝖡 many people bought the bacon maker

product.𝖢 young people could also be inventors.𝖣 a microwave oven could be used to cook

hotcakes and bacon.

6. Which of these statements from the article is an opinion?

𝖠 “People like to invent new things.”𝖡 “Every invention needs a patent.”𝖢 “This was the best invention of its time.”𝖣 “In 1885, Sarah Goode invented

a folding cabinet bed.”

Example from Building Levels of Comprehension, Multiple-Choice Format, Student Book, Level E


10 research Paper: Building Levels of Comprehension

Short-Response Format

The short-response question format is a true vehicle for stimulating higher-order thinking. Although multiple-choice question formats are gaining prominence in the testing arena, short-response question formats continue to stake a claim in assessment situations. “Well-publicized changes in the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), Stanford Achievement Tests (SAT-9), and numerous statewide assessments suggest a shift, albeit a gradual one, from objective to more open-ended responses to text (Sarroub & Pearson, 1998). Open-ended items better measure students’ ability to think about a story and to use the information in a story to explain their thinking. Thus a combination of objective and open-ended questions in any given assessment may make it possible to gather more specific information about a reader’s thought processes” (Applegate, Applegate, & Quinn, 2002).

Building Levels of Comprehension incorporates the short-response question format to enhance students’ mastery of higher-order thinking.

1. Why were the scientists in Siberia? Use details from the story to support your answer.

2. What is the second paragraph mostly about? Use details from the story in your answer.

3. Why was the glacier shrinking? Use details from the story to support your answer.

49

Example from Building Levels of Comprehension, Short-Response Format, Student Book, Level E

Short-response questions require students to write their own responses rather than choosing from answer choices provided in multiple-choice questions.


research Paper: Building Levels of Comprehension 11

The research-based strategies and features in Building Levels of Comprehension include: comprehension skills, cooperative learning,

differentiated instruction, higher-order thinking, literary genres, question-answering process using think-aloud strategy, scaffolded instruction, summarizing, test-taking practice, and Think It/Speak It/Write It/Learn It. In concert, these features and strategies make the challenge of learning about thinking skills engaging and accessible to students with varying abilities.

Comprehension Skills

Every day, students utilize comprehension skills, or thinking skills, that range from the literal to the abstract. This allows students to process information effectively, which is vitally important because as students progress through each grade, the demand to read at a deeper level and understand complex text increases. Being able to read and think beyond the literal/concrete level is not only a concern for classroom teachers, as the federal government is also focusing its attention on students’ abilities to comprehend complex material requiring higher-order thinking skills.

In 2006, the federal government initiated an American Competitiveness Initiative. This initiative strives to bring students to a more competitive standard of learning of complex material, such as that typically found in upper grades as well as in science and mathematics texts. Students in grades 3–8 are currently required to take standardized tests in reading, math, and science in order to demonstrate content mastery. High-school reform is now underway, with accountability assessments possibly breaking into high school and into post-secondary education. Students who are able to utilize higher-order thinking skills will be in a better position to meet the unfolding academic requirements of this new initiative.

Building Levels of Comprehension gives teachers an instructional tool to progress students’ mastery of the analytical, inferential, and critical reading skills that today’s competitive world requires.

What Are the Research-Based Strategies and Features in Building Levels of Comprehension?

“Many children who can understand what they read at a literal level, find it difficult to understand a writer’s underlying meaning and intentions. There is

a tendency for them to interpret only what the words say, not what they mean.” –Fisher, 2005

From Research to Application:⌘ In each student book, comprehension skills are taught and practiced

in each level-of-comprehension lesson.


1� research Paper: Building Levels of Comprehension

Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning takes place when students work together in pairs or small groups to attain learning goals. Cooperative learning is a hallmark of effective instruction of students of all abilities. Cooperative learning experiences benefit students in two main ways.

Cooperative learning increases a connection to school. Blum (2005) discusses the importance of students’ feeling connected to school. “Students who experience school connectedness like school, feel that they belong, believe teachers care about them and their learning, believe that education matters, have friends at school, believe that discipline is fair, and have opportunities to participate in extracurricular activities . . . Teachers build connectedness in the classroom when they encourage team learning exercises. Cooperative learning tends to break down social isolation by integrating student teams across gender, academic ability, and ethnicity.”

Cooperative learning also provides another access point to learning through the activities of listening and speaking. Strickland and Feeley (2003) explain that through cooperative learning, students must make their own ideas clear to others, and they must extend themselves to appreciate other students’ perspectives or opinions. Active application of both receptive language processes and expressive language skills make learning active and memorable.

Building Levels of Comprehension provides opportunities for cooperative learning during the small-group or whole-class discussion of student responses. Through careful guidance, the teacher may encourage students to discuss the reasoning of their responses so that other students may learn a new process or strategy.

“Research and common sense . . . confirm that interacting with other people about what we are learning deepens the understanding of everyone involved.”

–Marzano, 1998

From Research to Application:⌘ In each student book, the Talk About It, the Explain It, and the Summing Up

activities in each lesson promote classroom conversations.


research Paper: Building Levels of Comprehension 1�

Differentiated Instruction

Differentiated instruction enables teachers to provide options that meet the various needs of students in the classroom. The basic goal of instruction is to advance students and give students the content knowledge they need in order to handle undifferentiated situations. Making sure that students are given the tools to face trying situations—whether testing situations or real-world situations—is a crucial step in developing independent and successful students. Differentiated instruction is a key teaching strategy that ensures that students of various abilities will have an equal opportunity to access new information and knowledge.

The Building Levels of Comprehension books allow for differentiated instruction. “Because children differ, no single text nor any single task can be appropriate for all children in a classroom” (Allington, 2005). To allow for differentiated instruction, the lessons in the Building Levels of Comprehension books offer both multiple-choice question formats and short-response question formats for each level of comprehension. Teachers may choose to assign either or both question formats to grouped students, depending on their reading abilities. Teachers will be able to give all students an equal opportunity to experience the varying levels of higher-order thinking. Additionally, English-language learners may benefit from using the multiple-choice format because the language burden is lessened.

“Differentiating instruction is doing what is fair and developmentally appropriate for students. It’s whatever works to advance the student.

It’s highly effective teaching.” –Wormeli, 2005

From Research to Application:⌘ In each student book, both multiple-choice and short-response question

formats are offered so that all students may experience and learn about each level of comprehension.



Higher-Order Thinking

Achieving success using various levels of thinking, especially higher-order thinking for reading comprehension, is the instructional goal of Building Levels of Comprehension and is discussed in the section What Are the Levels of Comprehension. Higher-order thinking occurs when students must look beyond the surface of the text they are reading to figure out an answer or to attain comprehension. Making predictions, drawing conclusions, and making inferences are examples of reading strategies that typically elicit higher-order thinking. This type of thinking occurs mainly on an abstract level, while sometimes using concrete hints or clues.

Educational researchers (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001; Vacca and Vacca, 2005; Marzano and Pickering, 2005), have cited higher-order thinking as a necessary ingredient for a successful school career. “Critical and creative thought can be considered the very core of literacy” (Marzano, 2003). Building Levels of Comprehension promotes the strengthening of thinking skills through both declarative knowledge, (the what) and procedural knowledge, (the how). Marzano (2003) stresses that a careful balance of both declarative and procedural knowledge is key to effective instruction.

In Building Levels of Comprehension, declarative knowledge is predominant when students are presented with key information about each level of comprehension in the introduction to each lesson. Procedural knowledge is engaged in the modeled and guided sections of each lesson by way of the think-aloud presentation of the question-unpacking process. The procedural knowledge puts to active use what was gained through declarative knowledge. Students use what was gained from both declarative and procedural knowledge in the Talk About It and Explain It features, when they think about and explain what they have learned about the levels of comprehension and how they have attained specific answers. Students also use both kinds of knowledge in the Summing Up feature, a writing activity in which they think about what they have learned and write it in their own words.

“Learning inherently involves components of inference, judgment, and active mental construction. Thus, the traditional view that the basics can be taught

as routine skills, with thinking and reasoning to follow later as an optional activity that may or may not take place, can no longer guide the educational practice.

Instead, thinking must be applied to all learning and to all learners.” –Zohar & Dori, 2003



Students then go on to use what they have gained from both kinds of knowledge when they answer comprehension questions in the independent practices and reviews.

Building Levels of Comprehension utilizes both declarative and procedural knowledge and provides a research-based vehicle for teachers to bring higher-order thinking into their reading classrooms.

From Research to Application:⌘ In each student book, Level One engages literal thinking; Levels Two,

Three, and Four engage increasing levels of higher-order thinking.⌘ In each teacher guide, a discussion of literal to higher-order thinking

can be found on pages 2–5.



Literary Genres

Multiple literary genres provide wide reading experiences with both fiction and nonfiction. Exposure to a wide selection of multiple genres, such as plays, fables, and articles, is an integral part of any effective reading program. Researchers have noted that good, strategic, and thoughtful readers know how to apply appropriate reading strategies to multiple genres (Pearson, Roehler, Dole, & Duffy, 1992; Pressley, 2002; Scharer, Pinnell, Lyons, & Fountas, 2005). Exposing students to multiple genres is the first step in the process of building good readers. This further translates into higher reading achievement. In a literature review of current research, Biancarosa (2005) states, “Students who read more kinds of texts have demonstrated higher reading achievement.” Building Levels of Comprehension aids in this process by offering a multitude of literary genres for students to experience.

Exposure to Diverse Texts Through Multiple Literary Genres

Giving students access to diverse texts is another element of effective reading instruction. The term “diverse texts” is defined in the report, Reading Next (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004) as texts that are at a variety of difficulty levels and on a variety of topics. Providing reading material at varying reading levels ensures that students will not be frustrated by a text that is too difficult, which then leads to disengagement with the reading activity. Diverse reading levels allow students to choose or be assigned reading selections at their own comfort level, thus promoting reading fluency and comprehension. The reading levels of the passages in each Building Levels of Comprehension book span one reading level (one grade) per book.

Coupled with the range of reading levels, Building Levels of Comprehension also provides a diversity of topics across its reading passages. The Reading Next report recommends a diversity of topics as an excellent teaching strategy to maintain student motivation, engagement, and interest. “High-interest, low-difficulty texts play a significant role in an adolescent literacy program and are critical for fostering the reading skills of struggling readers and the engagement of all students” (p. 27).

According to Shelton (2006), students need exposure to multiple genres because they comprehend genres in different ways. The more practice they have,

the better fluency and comprehension they will develop.



While the reading passages in Building Levels of Comprehension are short in length, the exposure to a variety of nonfiction and fiction genres may serve as a steppingstone in building a student’s long-term motivation for and engagement in reading. Researchers have determined that wide exposure to reading genres, topics, and writing styles may ignite a student’s lifelong desire to read. Repeated reading experiences with fables, stories, journals, nonfiction articles, biographies, and so on usually leads students to recognize and eventually seek out texts that are relevant and fulfilling to their own personal lives and needs. In addition to exposure to multiple literary genres and diverse texts, other factors that contribute to establishing lifelong reading habits are student motivation for reading and teacher contribution to the reading process. Both extrinsic motivation (external motivation, such as receiving rewards for reading) and intrinsic motivation (internal motivation, such as gaining pleasure from reading) play a significant role in building a lifelong reader. Teachers who are able to guide students to meaningful and slightly challenging texts are elemental to stimulating reading interest (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Guthrie, Hoa, Wigfield, Tonks, & Perencevich, 2006; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000).

Building Levels of Comprehension strives to improve students’ reading comprehension through the combined approach of building and strengthening students’ use of various thinking processes while reading, and providing a variety of texts for students to experience.

From Research to Application:⌘ In each student book, a variety of genres, such as biographies, fables,

nonfiction articles, and science-fiction stories are presented.



Question-Unpacking Process Using Think-Aloud Strategy

The question-unpacking process introduced and used throughout each book in the Building Levels of Comprehension series is a step-by-step learning tool that teachers and students may use to help them work through the questions at each level of comprehension. Explicit and clear instructions make this highly abstract thinking process concrete and manageable for students.

The question-unpacking process in Building Levels of Comprehension has two parts: Understand the Question and Figure Out the Answer. In the Understand the Question steps, the student is shown how to dissect or break down a comprehension question by looking for two features: What the question is asking about (where to look in the text for answer information or for clues) and what the question is asking the reader to do (what reading strategy is needed to answer the question). The next stage in the question-unpacking process is Figure Out the Answer. Here, in relation to the level of comprehension elicited by the question, students are instructed to find or figure out the answer information and to answer the questions. This two-stage process is repeated in both the Modeled Practice and the Guided Practice of each level-of-comprehension lesson.

The question-unpacking process is not only a well-defined learning tool that promotes student engagement with a passage, it is also a well-supported research-based instructional strategy. The National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) and reading experts such as Duke & Pearson (2002), Raphael (1986), and Vacca & Vacca (2005) recommend question-answering instruction as a means to building comprehension. Many students have a noted difficulty in answering comprehension questions. A question-answering strategy teaches students to discover what the comprehension question is asking about and how to find or figure out the answer, using their own background knowledge as needed. The question-answering strategy gives students a tool to handle questions that elicit literal to inferential to creative thinking. Vacca and Vacca (2005) state “learners must ‘work’ with print in an effort to explore and construct meaning. Reading is first and foremost a conversation, a give-and-take exchange, between the reader and the text. However, the burden is always on the reader.”

Building Levels of Comprehension provides a straightforward, concrete learning experience for constructing meaning through its question-unpacking process. Integrated throughout the question-unpacking process is the additional instructional support of the think-aloud strategy.

“Use a think-aloud process to demonstrate a new skill or process. This is a simple yet powerful technique for building an initial model. It involves verbalizing your

thoughts as you demonstrate the skill or process.” –Marzano & Pickering, 1997



Think-Aloud Strategy

The think-aloud strategy may be used by teachers to model the thinking skills and processes used when figuring out and answering questions. A highly-recommended teaching strategy (Marzano & Pickering, 1997; Robb, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978), the think-aloud strategy exhibits hidden cognitive processes for students. An article by Walker (2005) discusses the influence that the think-aloud strategy has on struggling readers. In summary, struggling or passive students are especially benefited because they typically need concrete, visible steps to follow as they learn new concepts or learning processes. The think-aloud strategy offers more than modeled instruction because it clearly demonstrates hidden cognitive processes.

The think-aloud strategy paves the way to independent learning because the strategy eases one common source of frustration that many students, especially struggling students, battle with while reading—low self-efficacy. Bandura’s (1986) concept of self-efficacy, simply stated, relates to how people view their capabilities to complete a task. Poor readers typically do not recognize their own achievements, they struggle to gain meaning from texts, and they tend to get frustrated and defeated. Providing a think-aloud strategy can relieve some of the frustrations struggling students may experience by providing modeled overt steps. As a result of the manageable and overt steps, students’ confidence builds, and they begin to internalize the steps that the think-aloud is modeling.

In Building Levels of Comprehension, the think-aloud strategy is employed during the question-unpacking process. These simple and easy-to-follow steps carry students through a complex internal cognitive process for finding or figuring out answers to questions at various levels of comprehension.

From Research to Application:⌘ In each student book, the Understand the Question and Figure Out

the Answer feature in each level-of-comprehension lesson employs the think-aloud strategy.


�0 research Paper: Building Levels of Comprehension

Scaffolded Instruction

Scaffolded instruction is a well-researched instructional strategy and is an intregral part of an effective reading program (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Pressley & et al, 2001; NICHD, 2000; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983;Vygotsky, 1978). “Scaffolding is one of the principles of effective instruction that enables teachers to accommodate individual student needs” (Kame’enui, Carnine, Dixon, Simmons, & Coyne, 2002).

Instructional scaffolding involves a gradual release of teacher instruction and support while students take on more of the learning process until they become independent learners (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). Scaffolded instruction also involves knowing each student’s zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). In short, the concept “zone of proximal development” is centered around a student’s ability to learn or complete tasks that he or she would usually not be able to without a teacher’s guidance. Teachers may find each student’s zone of proximal development through the diagnostic assessments of the Assessing Levels of Comprehension series.

Scaffolded instruction occurs in Building Levels of Comprehension through modeled and guided question-unpacking features, culminating with independent practice for each level of comprehension.Through modeled and guided instruction, students learn about and then master engaging the appropriate levels of comprehension that are necessary for deeper reading engagement. The activities Talk About It, Explain It, and Summing Up add social interactions that move students to a more comprehensive understanding of the question-unpacking process and the various levels of comprehension.

Scaffolding is also the framework of the three Review lessons in each student book. The three cumulative reviews are designed to challenge each student’s cognitive load as he or she progresses through the program. This gradual and cumulative increase of assessing levels of comprehension provides students with additional practice with the questions called for by the different levels of comprehension. Teachers may also benefit from this scaffolded framework because of the multiple opportunities that students have to master a level of comprehension.

“There is virtually universal agreement that scaffolding plays an essential and vital role in fostering comprehension.”

–Clark & Graves, 2005

Scaffolding is the framework of the three REVIEW Lessons.⌘ Levels One and Two REVIEW⌘ Levels One–Three REVIEW ⌘ Levels One–Four REVIEW


research Paper: Building Levels of Comprehension �1

The five FINAL REVIEWS further challenge students by intermingling the four levels of comprehension questions through six multiple-choice questions and six short-response questions. Added to this challenge are the longer-length reading passages. FINAL REVIEWS 1 and 2 offer one-page reading passages. FINAL REVIEWS 3, 4, and 5 present two-page reading passages.

Through careful scaffolded instruction and scaffolded review lessons, Building Levels of Comprehension provides students with multiple opportunities to acquire mastery of the levels of comprehension, or thinking.

From Research to Application:⌘ In each student book, modeled and guided instruction and practice

is provided for each level of comprehension and each question format (multiple-choice and short-response). Independent practice is found in each level-of-comprehension lesson, in the cumulative reviews, and in the final reviews.


�� research Paper: Building Levels of Comprehension

Summarizing

Summarizing in of itself is a higher-order thinking activity. As defined by Vacca & Vacca (2005) summarizing is not retelling. It is the process of reducing text to its main points through paraphrasing. Researchers (Graham & Perin, 2006; Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Armbruster, 2000; and NICHD, 2000) acknowledge the educational benefits of summarizing as a studying strategy, often referred to as writing-to-learn or writing across the curriculum. Research has determined that writing paraphrase summaries can improve learning. Moreover, the writing-to-learn instructional strategy promotes active learning and student engagement, and extends thinking (Knipper & Duggan, 2006; Milan & Camps, 2005).

The Summing Up activity in Building Levels of Comprehension is a tool that promotes deeper understanding of a topic, discloses misunderstood information, and increases students’ abilities to explain content. Students are asked to write, in their own words, what they have learned about the level of comprehension at the conclusion of each level-of-comprehension lesson. Students then further refine their summarizing skills and their learning by discussing their written summaries with a peer. This social interaction helps students receive feedback and connect to another peer’s views (Vacca & Vacca, 2005; Vygotsky, 1978).

Additionally, the multiple opportunities to summarize are beneficial to students because of the increased demand for expository writing from middle- and high-school students. According to the Writing Next report (Graham & Perin, 2006), “[I]n the middle and high school years, writing assignments typically involve expository tasks, such as reporting, summarizing and analyzing factual information, and expressing an opinion with the support of evidence. Sixty percent of writing assignments in 4th grade, 65% in 8th grade, and 75% in 12th grade are expository in nature (Persky et al., 2003). Moreover, expository writing is the most frequently assigned writing task at the college level (Bridgeman & Carlson, 1984). Students engage in four summarizing activities in each Building Levels of Comprehension book.

Building Levels of Comprehension, through its Summing Up activity, provides students with practice in the type of writing they are often called upon to do in middle and high school. More importantly, the summarizing activity is a learning tool that deepens students’ recall and understanding of each level of comprehension.

“When core ideas—ideas of substance—are cognitively cultivated by developing them on paper, they become ideas the writer can use productively in life.”

–Paul & Elder, 2005

From Research to Application:⌘ In each student book, the Summing Up activity in each lesson is a writing

activity that deepens students’ learning.


research Paper: Building Levels of Comprehension ��

Test-Taking Practice

All students (from the challenged to the advanced) have to take tests. All tests have questions with answers ranging from the literal to the abstract. Multiple-choice and short-response test questions are often used on state and national standardized tests. Whether tests are given as classroom benchmarking tools to guide instruction or as mandated accountability tools, students inevitably encounter stressful testing situations.

Test taking, as either an instructional aid or as an accountability tool, is not going to fade. The results from a recent poll called Reality Check 2006: Is Support for Standards and Testing Fading? (Johnson, Arumi, & Ott, 2006) shows the public’s general opinion of testing:

⌘ 73% of school superintendents say that having timely student test data can improve educational leadership.

⌘ 48% of parents view standardized tests as necessary and valuable.

⌘ 71% of students think the number of tests they have to take is “about right.”

⌘ 71% of teachers think that students take too many standardized tests.

These poll results indicate that both state and national tests may now be recognized as a regular part of school life. Test-taking practice may make this part of a student’s life less stressful.

On the most basic level, test-taking practice familiarizes students with test-question formats, sentence structures, academic vocabulary, and answer-sheet formats. This kind of practice can help alleviate test anxiety.

Research has shown that repeated practice of answering multiple-choice and short-response questions like the questions in Building Levels of Comprehension may reduce test anxiety in students. “Students of all levels of academic achievement and intellectual abilities can be affected by test anxiety” (Supon, 2004). Supon and other researchers suggest that one method of alleviating test anxiety is to provide practice with test-question formats. With practice, students become comfortable with the question formats that are connected with high-stakes testing. This is significant because “cognitive test anxiety exerts a significant stable and negative impact on academic performance measures” (Cassady & Johnson, 2002).

From Research to Application:⌘ In each student book, five Final Reviews include unlabeled multiple-choice

and short-response questions that are similar to those encountered in testing situations.

“Teachers can take steps to alleviate anxiety surrounding high-stakes test taking. Simply allowing students to see a few items and practice the item formats

on a test will reduce anxiety and enable students to focus their thinking on a test.”–Guthrie, 2002



Think It/Speak It/Write It/Learn It

Language and thought are two concepts that are inextricably connected in their significance to learning. (Marzano, 2003; Strickland & Feeley, 2003; Vygotsky, 1986, 1978). Researchers Piaget and Vygotsky are credited with initiating the discussion about how language and thought are intertwined and shaped by various external and internal conditions and situations.

Building Levels of Comprehension integrates Vygotsky’s theory (1986, 1978) regarding the impact of thought and language on learning. Tied to these concepts is the important role of expert partners and the “zone of proximal development” in successful learning (See page 20, Scaffolded Instruction).

In brief, Vygotsky (1978) held that a person’s inner thoughts are first verbalized as inner speech—thoughts and images in a person’s mind—before he or she speaks them aloud. Vygotsky (1986) defines inner speech as “speech for oneself; external speech is speech for others” (p. 225). These first thoughts are not semantically correct. They are incomplete and disconnected—although they are connected to words. A transition occurs when a person speaks his or her thoughts aloud to others by using external speech. Through verbal discourse and social interactions, a person’s thoughts are formed and shaped to being culturally acceptable. A speaker then internalizes the thoughts and language of others to reconstruct and expand the meaning of his or her thoughts. A meaningful conversation takes place when both a speaker and a listener are using the same vocabulary and share the same views. Oral conversations use flexible and abbreviated language structures. Written expression requires more structured thought and formal language structures so that a reader will be able to comprehend the author’s message. “Communication in writing relies on the formal meaning of words and requires a much greater number of words than oral speech to convey the same idea. It is addressed to an absent person who rarely has in mind the same subject as the writer” (p. 239).

“The construction of meaning, whether it be through listening, speaking, reading, or writing, is rooted in thought.”

–Strickland & Feeley, 2003



These multiple receptive and expressive experiences help students develop deeper understanding and longer recall of the newly learned information. In Building Levels of Comprehension, students participate in several listening, speaking, and writing activities. The activities Talk About It in the Modeled Practice section, Explain It in the Guided Practice section, and the Summing Up activity in each lesson maximize students’ learning opportunities. “No matter what the subject, the people who read it, write it, and talk it are the ones who learn it best” (NCTE, 1993).

From Research to Application:⌘ In each student book, the activities Talk About It in the Modeled Practice

section, Explain It in the Guided Practice section, and the Summing Up activity in each lesson maximize students’ learning opportunities.



Building Levels of Comprehension is designed to help students use various levels of thinking to arrive at answers to reading-comprehension

questions, both in multiple-choice format and short-response format. The differentiated instruction is facilitated by the presentation of multiple-choice and short-response question types in each level-of-comprehension lesson. The question-unpacking process with the think-aloud strategy provides a concrete learning tool for the abstract process of gaining comprehension. Scaffolded instruction is another instructional strategy that is effective in helping students to learn about and master challenging concepts. Cooperative learning and multiple genre exposure can strengthen the participation rate of students with diverse needs. The Think It/Speak It/ Write It/Learn It activities, which include the skill of summarizing, are activities that will aid in extending students’ recall and depth of understanding of the levels of comprehension.

Summary

“Reading is thinking cued by written language.⌘ Effective readers think within the text.⌘ Effective readers think beyond the text.⌘ Effective readers think about the text.”

–Scharer, Pinnell, Lyons, & Fountas, 2005



Building Levels of Comprehension

This Series Uses . . . Example Research Says . . .

Comprehension SkillsStudents utilize comprehension skills that transfer to any type of reading. Using thinking skills from the literal to the abstract allows students to process information effectively.

SB: Instruction and practice in four levels of comprehension, or thinking

“Many children who can understand what they read at a literal level, find it difficult to understand a writer’s underlying meaning and intentions. There is a tendency for them to interpret only what the words say, not what they mean” (Fisher, 2005).

Cooperative LearningStudents work together in pairs or small groups to attain individual goals.

SB: The Talk About It, Explain It, & Summing Up activities

“Successful teachers offer all three formats (whole class, small groups or pairing, and individual) over the course of a week or a unit of study” (Wormeli, 2005).

“Research and common sense . . . confirm that interacting with other people about what we are learning deepens the understanding of everyone involved” (Marzano, 1998).

Differentiated InstructionAn instructional approach that allows students of varying abilities to learn the same content.

SB: Teachers have the option of presenting questions in multiple-choice and/or short-response format for each level of comprehension

“Because children differ, no single text nor any single task can be appropriate for all children in a classroom” (Allington, 2005).

“Differentiating instruction is doing what’s fair and developmentally appropriate for students. It’s whatever works to advance the student. It’s highly effective teaching” (Wormeli, 2005).

Higher-Order ThinkingThinking ranges from literal to abstract and critical; higher-order thinking is that which goes beyond the literal.

SB: In each book, Level One engages literal thinking; Levels Two, Three, and Four engage increasing levels of higher-order thinking

TG: Pgs. 2–5, a discussion of literal to higher-order thinking

“Learning inherently involves components of inference, judgment, and active mental construction. Thus, the traditional view that the basics can be taught as routine skills, with thinking and reasoning to follow later as an optional activity that may or may not take place, can no longer guide the educational practice. Instead, thinking must be applied to all learning and to all learners” (Zohar & Dori, 2003).

“Poor reading ability often involves a lack of proficiency in the higher-order literacy processes of comprehension, planning, monitoring, and evaluation” (Wittrock, 1991).

Literary GenresMultiple literary genres (fables, plays, articles, etc.) provide wide reading experiences with both fiction and nonfiction.

SB: In Book C, P. 16, a biography; P. 18, a folktale; P. 27, a tall tale; and P. 70, a science experiment

Passage lengths in all books vary from ½-page to 2 pages.

According to Shelton (2006), students need exposure to multiple genres because they comprehend genres in different ways. The more practice they have, the better fluency and comprehension they will develop.

In a literature review, Biancarosa (2005) states“Giving students access to and experience with a wide variety of texts is another essential element of effective reading instruction for older students. Students who read more kinds of texts have demonstrated higher reading achievement.”

Appendix: Quick-Reference Chart for Research-Based Strategies and Features in Building Levels of Comprehension



Building Levels of Comprehension

This Series Uses . . . Example Research Says . . .

Question-Unpacking Process Using Think-Aloud Strategy

The question-unpacking process is a transferable tool that can be used to understand and answer reading comprehension questions in a variety of situations.

The think-aloud strategy may be used by the teacher to model the thinking skills and processes used when figuring out and answering questions.

SB: The Understand the Question and Figure Out the Answer feature

TG: A discussion of the question-unpacking process in the section “What is the organization of the various features in the student books, and how should the features be presented?”

“Use a think-aloud process to demonstrate a new skill or process. This is a simple yet powerful technique for building an initial model. It involves verbalizing your thoughts as you demonstrate the skill or process” (Marzano & Pickering, 1997).

Robb (2000) listed the following IRA recommendation for supporting struggling readers, “All students, from struggling to proficient, will benefit from observing how in-the-head reading strategies enable you and their peers to cope with challenging texts and vocabulary.”

Scaffolded InstructionScaffolded instruction involves a gradual release of teacher instruction and support until students become independent learners.

SB: Modeled and guided instruction and practice followed by independent practice for each level of comprehension; cumulative reviews and final reviews

Scaffolded instruction provides “support to enable a student to begin to make progress on a task but not so much as to be doing the task for the student” (Pressley, Allington, Wharton-McDonald, Block, & Morrow, 2001).

“[T]here is virtually universal agreement that scaffolding plays an essential and vital role in fostering comprehension” (Clark & Graves, 2005).

SummarizingStudents review and share, in their own words, what they have learned.

SB: At the end of each section, the Summing Up activity

“Good readers silently synthesize and summarize sections of a text as they read. This strategy involves selecting key points and organizing them under general topics. It’s a complex process that moves beyond retelling” (Robb, 2000).

Test-Taking PracticeMultiple-choice and short-response test questions are often used on state and national standardized tests.

SB: Five final reviews include unlabeled multiple-choice and short-response questions that are similar to those encountered in testing situations

Supon (2004) cites that researchers have determined that “Students of all levels of academic achievement and intellectual abilities can be affected by test anxiety.”

“With practice, students become comfortable with the question formats that are connected with high-stakes testing. This is significant because ‘cognitive test anxiety exerts a significant stable and negative impact on academic performance measures’ ” (Cassady & Johnson, 2002).

Think It/Speak It/Write It/Learn ItExpressing thoughts through speaking and writing is an effective method of reinforcing what has been learned.

SB: The Talk About It activity in Modeled Instruction; the Explain It activity in Guided Practice; and the Summing Up activity at the end of each leasson

“No matter what the subject, the people who read it, write it, and talk it are the ones who learn it best” (NCTE, 1993).



Allington, R. L. (2005). The other five ‘pillars’ of effective reading instruction. Reading Today, 22(6), 3.

Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.

Applegate, A. J., Applegate, M. D., & Quinn, D. B. (2002). Levels of thinking required by comprehension questions in informal reading inventories. The Reading Teacher, 56(2), 174–180.

Armbruster, B. B. (2000). Responding to Informative Prose. In R. Indrisan, & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives in writing: Research, theory, and practice. (pp. 140–160). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Biancarosa, G. (2005). After third grade. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 16–21.

Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004.) Reading next— A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, D. C.: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

Blum, R. W. (2005, April). A case for school connectedness. Educational Leadership, 62(7), 16–20.

Bridgeman, B., & Carlson, S. B. (1984). Survey of academic writing tasks. Written Communication, 1, 247–280.

Cassady, J. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(2), 270–295.

Clark, K. F., & Graves, M. F. (2005). Scaffolding students’ comprehension of text. Reading Teacher, 58(6), 570–580.

Cotton, K. (1991). Close-Up #11: Teaching thinking skills. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory’s School Improvement Research Series. Accessed March 14, 2006 at http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/6/cu11.html.

Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). Newark: DE: International Reading Association.

Fisher, R. (2005). Teaching children to think. Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes Ltd.

Graham, S., and Perin, D. (2006). Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high school. A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York. New York: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Guthrie, J. T. (2002). Preparing students for high-stakes test taking in reading. In A. E. Farstrup and S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 370–391). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Guthrie, J.T., Hoa, L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., & Perencevich, K. C. (2006). From spark to fire: Can situational reading interest lead to long-term reading motivation? Reading Research and Instruction, 45(2), 91–117.

Guthrie, J. T., Schafer, W. D., & Huang, C. (2001). Benefits of opportunity to read and balanced instruction on the NAEP. Journal of Educational Research, 94, 145–162.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (3rd ed., pp. 403–422). New York: Longman.

Johnson, J., Arumi, A. M., & Ott, A. (2006). Reality check 2006: Is support for standards and testing fading? Accessed October 2, 2005 at http://www.publicagenda.org/research /research_reports_details.cfm?list=100.

Kame’enui, E. J., Carnine, D. W., Dixon, R. C., Simmons, D. C., & Coyne, M. D. (2002). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Knipper, K. J., & Duggan, T. J. (2006, February). Writing to learn across the curriculum: Tools for comprehension in content area classes. The Reading Teacher, 59(5), 462–470.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–219.

References


�0 research Paper: Building Levels of Comprehension

Lutkus, A. D., Rampey, B. D., and Donahue, P. (2005). The Nation’s Report Card: Trial Urban District Assessment Reading 2005. (NCES 2006–455). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Marzano, R. J. (1993, Summer). How classroom teachers approach the teaching of thinking. Theory into Practice, 12(3).

——— . (1998, May/June). What are the general skills of thinking and reasoning and how do you teach them? Clearing House, 71(5), 268.

——— . (2001). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

——— . (2003). Language, the language arts, and thinking. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 687–716). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Marzano, R., & Pickering, D. J. (1997). Dimensions of learning: Teacher’s manual. 2nd ed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Milan, M., & Camps, A. (2005). Writing and the making of meaning: An introduction. Educational Studies in Language Literature, 5, 241–249.

National Council of Teachers of English. 1993. NCTE guideline: Learning through Language: A Call for Action in All Disciplines. Accessed May 30, 2006 at http://www.ncte.org/about/over/positions/category/lang/107630.htm.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (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. (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2005, Fall). Critical thinking and the art of substantive writing, Part I. Journal of Developmental Education, 29(1), 40–41.

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Education Psychology, 8, 317–344.

Pearson, P. D., Roehler, L. R., Dole, J. A., & Duffy, G. G. (1992). Developing expertise in reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels and A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (2nd ed., pp. 145–199). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Persky, H. R., Daane, M. C., & Jin,Y. (2003). The nation’s report card: Writing 2002. (NCES 2003–529). U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 291–309). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Pressley, M., Allington, R. L, Wharton-McDonald, R., Block, C. C., and Morrow, L. M. (2001). Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary first-grade classrooms. New York: Guilford.

Raphael, T. E. (1986). Teaching question-answer relationships. Reading Teacher, 39, 516–520.

Robb, L. (2000). Teaching reading in the middle school. New York, NY: Scholastic.

Sarroub, L., & Pearson, P. D. (1998). Two steps forward, three steps back: The stormy history of reading comprehension assessment. The Clearing House, 72(2), 97–105.

Scharer, P. L., Pinnell, G., Lyons, C., & Fountas, I. (2005). Becoming an engaged reader. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 24–29.

Shelton, N. R. et al. Critical questions about reading and reading instruction in the era of reading first. Proceeding from International Reading Association Conference. May 1–4, 2006. Chicago, IL.

Strickland, D. S., & Feeley, J. T. (2003). Development in the elementary school years. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jenson (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts, (pp. 339–356). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Supon, V. (2004). Implementing strategies to assist test-anxious students. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(4), 292–296.

Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. L. (2005). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum. (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

——— . (1986, 1962). Thought and language. Revised and Edited by Alex Kozulin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


research Paper: Building Levels of Comprehension �1

Walker, B. (2005). Thinking aloud: Struggling readers often require more than a model. The Reading Teacher, 58(7), 688–692.

Wenglinsky, H. (2004). Facts or critical thinking skills: What the NAEP results say. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 32–35.

Winerip, M. (2006). On Education: Standardized tests face a crisis over standards. New York Times article. Accessed March 22, 2006 at http:www. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/22/education.

Wittrock, M. C. (1991). Literacy and reading comprehension. Educational Psychologist 26(2), 110.

Wormeli, R. (2005). Busting myths about differentiated instruction. Principal Leadership, 5(7), 28–33.

Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher-order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145–181.

CURRICULUM ASSOCIATES®, Inc.

North Billerica, MA 01862

Phone: 800 225-0248 (U.S. & Canada)

Fax: 800 366-1158 (U.S. & Canada)

E-mail: [email protected]

Web: www.CAinc.com

building levels of comprehension - curriculum associates · reading questions find it ... building...

Documents