1

HYPOTHESIS

Explicitly teaching Year 2 students to visualise a text, using a R.I.D.E.R. procedure

(Read, Image, Describe, Evaluate and Repeat the steps) during and after reading will

lead to an improved ability to comprehend a fiction text.

ABSTRACT

Many students in Year 2 are capable of decoding the alphanumeric symbols required

to be a decoder but experience difficulty at the semantic level of reading and

consequently are poor at comprehension.

The hypothesis of the study postulates that the explicit teaching of year 2 students to

visualise (create images from what is read), will help then to unlock the meaning.

Through the images, the reader is able to draw conclusions, make predictions,

interpret information and remember details, which in turn will assist in the overall

comprehension.

Research on the development of comprehension strategies suggests that the explicit

teaching of the visualisation strategy is an effective tool for increasing

comprehension.

In this study, a teaching group of eight students were trained in the visualisation

strategy through modeling and explicit instruction. The sessions immersed the

students in the reading process.

Visualisation helps each reader try to make sense of what the text presents in words

by the reader creating mental images of those words. When children draw their

images, we can also help them label their pictures to strengthen both concepts and the

vocabulary connected to those concepts. Borgia, L. & Owles, C, (2009).

Students in these sessions were given extra encouragement to create images with lots

of detail and go beyond the literal information in the text. The role of the researcher

(teacher) was to provide support and help students to revise their images when new

information was gained and to help students to check for accuracy.

The sessions gave opportunity to share their images and talk about how creating

images helps them gain a better understanding of the text.

The student were taught the acronym RIDER in order to assist them to remember the

strategy

R read first sentence, paragraph episode, and complete text

I imagine make a picture in your mind, think about what you already know

and

add this to your picture

D describe your image or picture

E evaluate your image for its completeness by checking against the text

R repeat steps 1,2,3,4 ; read on, continue the process while you are

reading

2

This was further encouraged by teaching a poem with actions to reinforce the

procedures and to strive to move the students to the metacognitive level of operation

so that he/she is able to transfer the strategy to other settings.

It will assist the students to gain more meaning from the text and have a prescribed

pathway and key words in order to self manage.

The study compared the results of two groups of year 2 students: a teaching group

(intervention) who were taught to use visualisation and a control group of eight

students who remained in the normal classroom literacy session.

Results indicated that there was an improvement in the visualisation scores of the

teaching group. In addition, the teaching group’s comprehension ability improved but

not dramatically. The direct instruction in the use of the RIDER acronym could

indicate a benefit for the students by providing them with a pathway to unlock the text

and help them with reading comprehension.

These findings support the concept that visualisation improves comprehension.

The implications for teaching is that the visualization strategy is beneficial in

improving comprehension and should be included as part of the classroom literacy

learning in Year 2. The teaching group consisted of eight students which is sizeable

but this reflects the reality of a normal classroom where the numbers in the class are

large.

The teaching sessions should be conducted as a modeling approach with explicit

demonstration, on-going scaffolding and opportunities to practise and apply reading

strategies so that the student learns to prepare for, monitor and adjust their reading. It

is essential that in explaining the visualisation process the ‘when’ and ‘how’ to use it

is shown. Plus opportunities to practise are given. The teacher’s role is ensuring that

all students build a back- up knowledge that they can access whilst participating in the

reading process.

“Visualisation is a strategy that may strengthen reading comprehension” Manning

(2002)

3

INTRODUCTION

“Mastery of reading has become a passport to participation in the 21st century.”

Neale (1999)

The teaching of reading has assumed enormous importance in society and throughout

the world. Reading involves a complex processing of creating, interpreting and

analysing meaning from the text and then integrating three courses of information

using semantic(meaning) syntactic cues ( grammar) and grapho phonic cues – (sound

symbols)

A good reader must actively integrate these three courses of information and integrate

a range of strategies of both word identification and comprehension strategies and

draw upon all of these whilst reading. They also must be able to access their prior

knowledge during reading and have automated many of the reading strategies: in

many cases these behaviours occur automatically and subconsciously. A good reader

is an effective reader!

On the other hand the understanding of the text is a difficulty that many students

encounter. Many students are capable at decoding the alphanumeric symbols but have

difficulty at the semantic level in understanding the meaning of the words, the

sentence level, conceptual level and the knowledge of what the piece of writing is

about.

As Munro(2006) has indicated “ reading begins with what the reader already knows.”

This can be contextualized and consists of typical prototypes that the reader already

has. However, as the reader reads he/she needs to retrieve the more abstract

knowledge that is contained within the print. The reader takes on all the networks of

meaning shown in the text. By using what the reader already knows in various ways

and acting on the text the reader can comprehend the text.

Poor comprehension inhibits students in becoming efficient readers. Efficient readers

have often automated many reading strategies that enhance their reading. They have a

resource bank of reading behaviours that may occur simultaneously for this process to

take place.

This study’s purpose is to examine what a student does when he/she is unable to

reveal fully the message of the print and therefore has poor comprehension. It is a

study of average to below average ability students who are able to decode. Its purpose

is to scrutinize one strategy – visualising –creating images from what is read to help

them unlock the meaning. However, it does acknowledge that this is only one of

many comprehension strategies that a good reader utilizes whilst reading.

The motive for undertaking this study was to investigate whether the precise teaching

of visualisation at the lower primary level – year 2, would enhance reading

comprehension. To date most research has been in the middle and upper end of the

primary school. In addition, to observe whether past Reading Recovery students who

usually struggle with comprehension would benefit from explicit instruction in the

visualisation strategy.

Finally, examining the size of the group to witness whether it was possible to

incorporate this teaching of the strategy to a larger group.

4

Many researchers have concluded that greater gains comprehension could occur if all

readers were taught to use the comprehension strategies that good readers use. Being a

good reader requires active involvement and using a variety of strategies as they read.

(Block, Gambrell & Pressley 2002: Keene and Zimmermann 1997: Pearson Roehler,

Dole, & Duffy, 1992) cited in Scharlach (2008) all support this notion.

It also concludes that comprehension strategies should be taught to students when

they are immersed in the reading process. Students need to be taught effectively so

that they may become strategic metacognitive readers.

Johnson-Glenberg (2000) defines a strategy as a conscious, intentional and yet

flexible tool that readers use to update their understanding of a text. Strategies are

different from a skill in that they are reflective rather than routinised and involve

multiple cognitive subroutines.

Visualisation is such a strategy. It is a comprehension strategy for helping young

children think and make meaning from a text. We can encourage children to make a

picture in their heads of what they hear and think as a selection is read. It helps to put

the vocabulary and concepts presented into pictures (Stead, 2006 . 68) as cited in

Borgia (2009)

Visualising helps each reader try to make sense of what the text presents in words by

creating mental images of these ideas. When children draw their images, we can also

help them label their pictures to strengthen both concepts and the vocabulary

connected to those concepts.

In the article by Johnson- Glenberg (2000) it cites Bell’s (1986) protocol for the

procedure where the students initially started with one word, moved next to sentences

and then to short paragraphs. Using guided words to help them create the images and

display them so they could use the words as prompts when reading.

Pearson (2000) sees that the sessions need to balance with both specific explicit

instruction and a good deal of time for reading.

Johnson-Glensberg (2000) study shows that students taught the strategy of

visualisation answered significantly more implicit, inferential open-ended questions.

This study postulates that small group training in reading strategies enhances the

performance of adequate decoders who are poor comprehenders.

Many researchers such as Almasi and Gambrell(1997) cited in Fisk and Hurst (2003)

, Munro (2002) and Borgia ( 2006) believe that the listening and speaking or social

interaction aids comprehension as the students interaction challenged others’ ideas

causing a higher level of thinking. In addition, it enabled all students to learn from

each other, strengthen their ideas, and increase their understandings. Learning from

each other helped them to remember the material. The students listened to the ideas of

each other and were able to check whether the picture they had was the same. This

interchange of ideas enabled the teacher to ascertain that the students had actually the

correct ideas, the ‘big ’picture or ‘important ’ideas in the text.

In Scharlack (2008) the research talks about the best course of delivery and teaching

an instruction. The optimum process is through modeling and explaining when and

how to use the strategy. In the course of the instruction, many repeated opportunities

for guided visualization practice and extended independent reading should occur.

Munro (2006) in his visualisation lessons and the E.R.I.K. Progam claims this

philosophy and is the foundation of these successful programs. They have been key

elements in the design of the intervention study presently being undertaken.

5

Furthermore, Munro (2002) encourages the use of reading out aloud. He sees having

students read aloud as a key literacy teaching procedure. When the students articulate

whet they have visualized they are provided with auditory feedback for the text read.

It also helps students to retain sentences in short term memory and to use their oral

language to reason about what they read.

The duration of the intervention is seen as important and Johnson Glensberg study

(2000)

recommends that future interventions for poor comprehenders last longer than 16

weeks duration. This is also endorsed by the research in E.R.I.K (2009) where 50

sessions is considered to have the most significant result. There seems to be a

requirement that a frequent length of practice is allowed in order to make a difference.

Related research with the problem you are researching A number of studies have examined poor comprehension and a salient feature they

have found was the failure of the reader to remember the text. Manning (2002) states

that many students require assistance to build mental pictures of settings and

characters whilst reading and they have difficulty understanding the connected text.

Many factors may reduce a student’s ability to visualise. The student may have a

lack of background knowledge and this would impede the student’s ability to build a

picture of an event or situation. If the topic is not within the students’ range of

experience, it may be difficult to understand, as it would not be familiar to them.

Conversely, if the student does not have a little personal involvement with the text it

is likely that the student will be a passive reader who needs help in becoming

involved in the text. The explicit teaching process in the teaching of the strategy will

require discussions before, during and after whilst reading to help these students to

make personal connections to the text.

Munro (2006) concurs with this. In his study the students who have difficulty learning

by reading do so because their existing knowledge is not in a form that can be easily

aligned or linked with a text. Their knowledge is mainly in imagery form or in action

form. The students are assisted to recode their nonverbal knowledge into a verbal

form; they do this by putting their non-verbal knowledge of the topic into sentences.

The procedure includes opportunities for them to visualise the topic and learn to ask

themselves. “What does it remind me of?”

Studies by Borgia (2006) and Johnson- Glensberg (2000) further endorse the

importance of having material that is relevant to the students. Their studies also spoke

of using self-selected text during independent reading time. Johnson-

Glensberg(2000) additionally spoke in his study of using informational texts that

present facts about the world around us to motivate and interest readers, stimulate

wonder and encourage children to think about and have conversations and

discussions. This in turn will broaden children’s knowledge and interest.

Another problem that impedes visualisation is the inattention to punctuation and

phrasing during the reading process. The student may race through the ‘read’ like a

race to be won or a chore to be finished. Reading must be at such a pace so that they

6

can activate the pictures in their heads. Each end punctuation mark should be seen as

a time for the reader to stop and develop a picture of what is happening. The

children’s rate of reading impinges on their ability to comprehend the text and make

connections. If too slow, they lose the continuity – their energies are going into the

cognitive process of decoding the words, and not the links and connections.

The metacognitive level can be a problem in the student’s poor ability in

comprehension.

The strategy of comprehension in which visualisation is one facet, teaches the

students to perform a particular strategy in a particular context. However, we must

strive to move the student to the metacognitive level of operations so that he/she is

able to transfer this strategy to other settings once we are no longer providing support.

It is important that the student practises so that the strategies will gradually become

self regulated and students will reach a level of metacognition where they will not

only be able to use the strategies but will also know when and where to apply them.

If the students do not know when, where and how to apply them in different situations

this can cause a problem in comprehension.

Initially there is scaffolding instruction- a teacher provides scaffolds or supports to

facilitate student’s ability to build on prior knowledge and internalise new

information.

It is important that the scaffolds are temporary and are progressively withdrawn until

the learner is able to complete the task independently.

The goal is to help the students to become independent and self- regulated learners.

The teaching sessions explicitly modeled the strategy of visualisation as per Munro

(2006) procedures.

Like this research and the study, the purpose of scaffolding was to increase student’s

metacognitive ability to transfer the strategy to their own independent reading. If this

does not occur, a problem arises.

Another cause of the problem as Munro (2006) says is at the ‘sentence level’ process.

Many psycholinguistic aspects may inhibit the comprehension of a sentence. These

may be syntax, verbal semantic networking and a range of information processing and

organisational strategies such as visualising.

Syntactic knowledge facilitates both word recognition and text comprehension. This

can assist the readers to anticipate particular words or to recognise that some words

are more likely to occur than others are.

Readers who do not use information efficiently are less able to use a knowledge of

text structure as a template for generating expectations prior to reading. Students who

do not have processing and organizational strategies are less able to remember the

text, and less able to elaborate and to infer.

Consequently, students will have difficulty with extended sentences of a more

complex nature and are less likely to comprehend the written text.

A final problem that causes a difficulty in comprehension is the students inability to

automatise the orthographic process therefore freeing up the mind to act on the

cognitive processes. They are so involved deciphering the words they are not

attending to the meaning.

7

HYPOTHESIS

Explicitly teaching Year 2 students to visualise a text, using a R.I.D.E.R. procedure

(Read, Image, Describe, Evaluate and Repeat the steps) during and after reading

will lead to an improved ability to comprehend a fiction text.

The present investigation aims to examine the effect of teaching the visualising

strategy to a group of students who can decode at an age appropriate level but did

have trouble in completing comprehension tasks at times

It will assist the students to gain more meaning from the text and to set out a detail

pathway and key words to follow.

By teaching the procedure of RIDER strategy as outlined in Whitehead (1986) as

cited in Lewis & Lewis (2006) as articulated in E.R.I.K ( 2003) it will hopefully give

the students visual cues to reflect back to so the students can self- manage future

events.

Additionally the study will observe the management, progress of past reading

recovery students, and monitor how reading recovery students are progressing.

8

METHOD

Design : The study uses a case study Test, Teach Test design, 0.X.0

An Outline of the Study

All students in Year 2 were assessed for their reading text level by the classroom

teacher in February using the CEOM prescribed ‘Alpha Assess’ materials and

screened for comprehension ability using the ‘Progressive Reading Test’ in March.

Additionally the ‘Burt Word Test’ data was reviewed to determine whether word

recognition and decoding skills were automatic enough for students to focus beyond

the word level to higher order comprehension skills

Selections of likely candidates were made in consultation with the classroom teacher

and after parental consent was received further screening measures were

administered.

The selected students in both the teaching group (intervention group) and control

group were administered individually Pre tests over a period of two weeks.

The teaching group were taught for 12 sessions over a three week period at the

commencement of Term 2.

All participants were retested using ‘reading text level’ and comprehension

assessment using ‘Progressive Reading Test’.

Finally, all were individually post tested in the series of prior tests .i.e. Neale

Analysis, visualisation and synonym test.

A total of 17 students were involved in the study but one student was removed

because he was clearly above average for comprehension when screened with the

Neale Analysis,

scoring in the 96-percentile rank.

Participants : The students involved are in Year 2 of a single stream primary school in metropolitan

Melbourne and all are in their third year of school. The teaching group (intervention)

and control group consists of sixteen children with eight students placed in each

group. The Teaching group consists of 3 girls and 5 boys; and the control group

consists of 4 girls and 4 boys. They were “regular” learners in the sense that none of

the students had identifiable disabilities or impairments such as sensory, intellectual,

physical or emotional problems that would exclude them from membership of a

regular class.

Selection :

The first step in participant recruitment involved requesting the classroom teacher to

identify students who were most likely to be age appropriate decoders with some

comprehension difficulties.

Further to this a screening of all students in their Reading Text level was undertaken

at the commencement of each year so this gave further data for selection.

Additionally, the Progressive Reading test was administered to the whole class to

determine comprehension ability. Children who scored either too low or above the

average of the class were not selected.

9

The matching of students in the teaching group (intervention) and control group

was undertaken to reflect as closely as possible students with similar abilities and

needs. Five students who fitted the criteria of being past reading recovery students

in the study were split and allocated into both groups. Two students participating in

reading recovery this year were not chosen as they did not pass the comprehension

criteria ability and their text level was 0 at the time of commencing.

More credence was given to the results of the Progressive Reading Test for

comprehension ability than reading text level. A number of students had achieved

the 28 reading recovery level in the February assessment. The year 2 class has 27

members so the researcher wanted to have a substantial number in the teaching and

control groups. Believing my research would be more reflective of the ‘real life’

situation faced in a natural school environment.

Both groups consisted of matched students of high, average and lower reading

ability.

CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED STUDENTS

The information regarding the sixteen students involved in the study follows in Table

1. (more detail Appendix 1, Table 7 part A,B,C& D)

It is important to note that except for two students in the teaching group who were

easily distracted and distracted others if they could, the other students were fully

engaged and keen to participate in the teaching sessions. An added bonus is that the

researcher is a co classroom teacher and has a strong rapport with the students.

It was important to ascertain the reading ability of the students in the study. Assessing

the students ability the researcher used the reading text level provided by the Alpha

Assess, Burt Reading Test to indicate words reading and the Progressive Reading T

est for comprehension. These measures were used to benchmark candidates.

TABLE 1 Demographics of Students in Study

LNSLN

FUND-

ING

PRO –

GRESSIVE

READING

TEST

PRE

Name

Of

Students

Teaching

group =

0

Control

group

=1

Age

Months

Gen

der

0=

Fem

ale

1=

Mal

e

Year

s

Of

schoo

l

ESL

No =0

Yes

=1

0=N/A

1=SLD

2=ID

3=ASP

Earlier

Inter-

vention

No=0

RR=1

Bridges

=2

ERIK

=3

Text

Read

Level

Feb

2009

T

E

X

T

R

E

A

D

L

E

V

E

L

M

A

y

B

U

R

T

W

O

R

D

T

E

S

T

E

M

A

N

o

=

0

Y

es

=

1

A

T

T

E

N

D

A

N

C

E

N

O.

O

F

S

E

S

S

I

O

N

S

R

A

W

S

C

O

R

E

S

T

A

N

D

A

R

D

S

C

O

R

E

%

I

L

E

S

A 0 88 1 3 0 0 1 18 21 33 0 12 8 75 5

B 0 90 1 3 0 0 0 28 28 56 0 12 21 91 27

C 0 94 0 3 0 0 0 21 25 36 0 12 19 88 20

D 0 87 0 3 0 0 1 21 23 36 0 12 18 86 18

E 0 91 1 3 0 0 0 18 24 34 0 12 20 89 23

F 0 90 0 3 0 0 0 25 27 36 1 12 22 92 30

10

G 0 96 1 3 0 0 1 20 22 31 0 12 12 80 9

H 0 95 1 3 0 0 0 28 28 60 0 12 24 96 38

I 1 92 1 3 0 0 0 28 28 43 0 12 25 98 43

J 1 88 0 3 0 0 1 25 27 40 0 12 18 86 18

K 1 95 0 3 0 0 0 28 28 51 0 12 19 88 20

L 1 91 0 3 0 0 0 28 28 51 0 12 21 91 27

M 1 90 0 3 0 0 0 28 28 51 0 12 26 100 49

N 1 85 1 3 0 0 1 15 18 25 0 12 15 83 12

O 1 92 1 3 0 0 0 28 28 48 0 12 25 98 43

P 1 91 1 3 0 0 0 28 28 49 0 21 25 82 43

TEACHING GROUP CONTROL GROUP

Materials Testing Material

Tests for Reading text levels - Classroom text levels Alpha Assess Feb and

May

Tests of Reading Comprehension - Progressive Reading Test 1 Pre and

Post Task for Visualisation Visualisation test John Munro Pre and

Post Task for Synonym Synonym Test 1-14 John Munro Pre and

Post Tests for Comprehension,

Accuracy and Rate Neale Analysis Pre From 1

and Post Form 2 Tests for Self Efficacy Self Efficacy Pre

The materials used

1) Written selected texts material taken from ERIK with pictures removed

Names A Picnic at the Dam No 9

A Day at the Beach No. 19

A Walk in the Park No. 23

The Shopping Trip No. 27

On the Lake No. 36

Grandma and Grandpa No. 40

The Farm No. 46

The Missing Pets Part 1,2,3,&4 No. 51-54

2) The last four sessions involved reading a chapter style book. Year 2 students were

introduced to this format and the researcher chose to implement this arrangement

giving students the experience and procedure for visualizing in this setting.

3)Researcher made materials -Appendix 4

Key Word Sheet

Created Poem with Actions

11

Procedure All students in year 2 were assessed using Burt Reading Test, CEOM, and

Reading Text Level at the commencement of 2009. Discussion was held with the

class teacher and the students were short-listed to seventeen students eligible to be

involved.

These students were pre-tested using the following

- Progressive Reading test

- Visualisation Task

- Synonym Task

- Self Efficacy

- Neale Analysis

This enabled information to be gathered about the comprehension levels of the

students and it provided the basis for selecting and matching students in the control

and teaching (intervention) group.

The initial Burt Reading Test was administered so that it could be determined whether

the students in both groups had word recognition and decoding skills that were

automatic, enough for the students to focus beyond the word level to higher order

comprehension scores.

All students were assessed in a class situation as in the case of the Progressive

Reading Test. Selection of students was made with eight students to be allocated to

the teaching (intervention) group and eight students to the control group. All other

assessments were conducted on an individual basis and completed over a number of

days.

At the conclusion of assessing, the teaching sessions were organized to coincide

with Literacy sessions in the morning in the Year 2 room, and the students were

withdrawn to the Literacy room next door to the classroom. This is a familiar place to

all students.

There were 12 sessions in total occurring four times per week over a three-week

period. The session operated for approximately 40 minutes.

The source for the teaching sessions principally came from three sources,

Visualisation Teaching Procedure, Munro ( 2006 ) principally, ERIK(2002)

visualisation procedure and Bell’s instruction book. Bell (1986) cited in Johnson-

Glensberg (2000)

The research identifies the procedure to follow using the protocol of Bell’s (1986

instruction book where the students initially started with one word then moved on

next to sentences and then to short paragraphs . Initially, in the teaching sessions the

key words were used to guide the student’s ability to create the images from the text.

The key words were then displayed to support and cue the students. The purpose was

to prompt students with the visualization process while reading.

A key component was that the teacher modeled the strategy and then reinforced the

skills using guided practice where the students worked together. By session 3 & 4

practice was provided in the form of guided and collaborative practice. This allowed

12

the students the opportunity to have practice supported by the teacher, then to have

the opportunity to work in pairs and try out their skills.

In the later sessions, the students were given the prospect to work independently but

always an opportunity was given to come together and express their ideas in an oral

language function.

Over the series of sessions students worked through the stages of visualisation

procedure as suggested by Munro( 2006) The components of the session were

followed in reasonable detail and additional material was incorporated in sessions to

augment.eg

“The little man ”where the guided words were an extra addition, Appendix 3

Teaching Session & Appendix 4 plus the R.I.D.E.R. poem where we used actions to

recall the procedures we would do when visualising Appendix 3 Teaching Session

3? were all incorporated in the sessions to provide cues and additional prompts to aid

visualisation but more importantly, comprehension. Cues were also given

individually in the form of a bookmark which the child could take home and use

with their take- home reader and the visualisation glasses.

Additionally within the class setting displays and signs advertising benefits and the

prompt for the strategy were displayed around the learning environment.

During the introduction, the teacher modeled the reading and the students observed

the teacher making a ‘picture in her mind.’

The text materials were chosen from the ERIK program because they were age

appropriate, grade appropriate and relevant to the age group being researched.

Particularly the texts were selected because the topics were relevant to their

experiences and ones that these children would find a connection with. In the

Synonym task I found all students (teaching group and control group) had very

limited knowledge and language experience and as the study was focusing on

visualisation I wanted the texts to stimulate their prior knowledge and experiences and

to be able to bring this knowledge to the teaching sessions. All material was at an easy

level for students to read and manage independently plus the final four sessions

incorporated a text that imitated a chapter format.

How you use the data you collected. The initial data of Year 2 enabled the students to be selected into the study. Pre-

testing enabled the formation of the two groups namely the teaching (intervention

)group and the control group.

At the conclusion of the teaching sessions which lasted approximately three weeks

all students in the study-teaching group and control group were post- tested using the

following assessments

- Progressive Reading test No. 1

- Neale Analysis of reading Ability Form 2

- Visualisation Task

- Synonym Task

In both the control and the teaching group, the Progressive Reading Test and the

Neale Analysis were used to determine if there was a change in comprehension

scores. The control teaching scores were graphed so that comparisons could be made

and to see whether the intervention had impacted on the comprehension level of the

teaching group.

13

The Visualisation Task was administered again to measure if there was any

improvement in the awareness and use of the strategic process. These results were not

only compared against the control group and the teaching ( intervention ) group but

also in evaluating the results in pre and post testing with the teaching group to gauge

if there had been any measurable difference due to the visualisation teaching.

Additionally all students were assessed using the Synonym task to determine if in the

course of the intervention there was a secondary component where the children in the

teaching group would improve their synonym understanding.

RESULTS The results indicate support generally for the hypothesis, “that teaching Year 2

students to visualize the text that they have read will improve comprehension.” The

Progressive Reading Test and the Neale Analysis show a trend for improvement in

comprehension for most of the students in the teaching group (intervention.)

TEXT LEVEL RESULTS

The students in the teaching group were matched as closely to the control group in

ability to read a text. However, generally the control group exhibited a higher reading

text and comprehension ability when we scored the Progressive Reading Test with the

exception of Student N.

(Appendix 1, Table 7a& 7b)

BURT WORD

The Burt Reading Test results were used to show student’s skills in readability.

(Appendix 1, Table 7a) All students scored above 31 in the reading Burt test in the

teaching group. Student N in the control group scored 25.

Gains made by the intervention students were greater than those of the control group

as shown through the comparison of the pre and post testing scores using Progressive

Reading Test.

In the pre testing of the Progressive Reading Test the students in the teaching group

had a lower ability of comprehension as measured by the Progressive Reading Test. A

standard score of 96 was the top score and the range was from 75 to 96- 70 being the

minimum standard score.

FIGURE 1 RESULTS OF COMPREHENSION PRE & POST TEST

PROGRESSIVE READING TEST

14

0102030405060708090

PERCENTILE

SCORES

A C E G I K M O

STUDENTS : TEACHING

GROUP A TO H:

CONTROL GROUP I TO P

PROGRESSIVE READING TEST-

COMPREHENSION PRE & POST TEST RESULTS

PROGRESSIVE

READING TEST

PERCENTILES

SCORES PRE

PROGRESSIVE

READING TEST

PERCENTILES

POST

In the pre testing of the Progressive Reading Test the students in the teaching group

had a lower ability of comprehension as measured by the Progressive Reading Test. A

standard score of 96 was the top score and the range was from 75 to 96- 70 being the

minimum standard score.

In the control group, there were four students whose standard score was over 98,

three students above 86 and the only student to score below 86 was Student N who

scored 83.

At the conclusion of the teaching sessions, the trend for the students in the teaching

group was that six of the eight students gained six and above percentiles with a top

score of 57, whilst 2 students remained at the same level. However, in the control

group three students Students I, N and P results dropped significantly by more than 5,

13 and 20 percentiles . O ne student remained constant and Students M’s percentile

score was increased by 27 and Student O’s percentile score was increased by 44.

As a measure of achievement relative to the students of the same age, the Progressive

Reading Test provides both a Standardized score and Percentile score based on the

normal curve.

The Progressive Reading Test also measures student’s progress over time in

achievement of specific skills. Using the descriptive categories corresponding to

grouped Stanine levels we can deduce that

- The students in the Teaching Group in the prior sessions were

4 students average ability

4 students below average

- At the conclusion of the intervention the Teaching Group

7 students displayed average ability

1 student remained in the below average category.

On the other hand the Control Group

- Results in the prior assessment

5 students average ability

3 students below average

At the conclusion of the study

1 student above average

5 students average

2 students below average

15

FIGURE 2. RESULTS OF PRE & POST TEST COMPREHENSIION

– NEALE ANALYSIS

NEALE ANALYSIS COMPREHENSION

PERCENTILES PRE & POST TEST

0

20

40

60

80

100

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P

STUDENTS A TO H TEACHING

GROUP:STUDENTS I TO P CONTROL

GROUP

PE

RC

EN

TIL

E S

CO

RE

S

NEALE ANALYSIS

Comprehension

PERCENTILE PRE

NEALE ANALYSIS

COMPREHENSION

PERCENTILE POST

The results from the Neale Analysis Comprehension (FIGURE 2 )assessment clearly

show that the students in the teaching group were significantly poorer at

comprehension with most of the student in the pre test scoring around the 20

percentile.

Overall the trend for the Teaching group was some advancement in comprehension

ability with the exception of Student B. An increase of 10 to 30 percentile points was

made by six of the seven remaining students and Student D increased by 1.

The trend for The Control group showed a decrease for three of the students from 8 to

12. Minor gains were shown by two students and only three students scored

sufficiently high and could be matched to the teaching group. Student K made

exceptional gains.

Reading Recovery Students A and G in the teaching group made gains but student D

remained static . In the control group reading recovery student J increased by 26

percentile points and Student N decreased by 12 percentile points.

Gains made by the teaching (intervention) students were greater than those of the

control group as shown through the comparison of the pre testing and post-testing

scores .

However, it should be noted that students in the control group demonstrated higher

comprehension scores initially

RESULTS OF VISUALISATION TASK

In comparing the pre, visual test the control group was more skilled than the teaching

group.

TABLE 2 RESULTS OF VISUALISATION TASK PRE AND POST TEST

16

STUDENTS TEACHING GROUP

VISUAL PRE

VISUAL POST

A 32 37

B 21 31

C 23 37

D 19 42

E 26 33

F 29 39

G 30 35

H 22 36

STUDENTS CONTROL

GROUP

I 28 30

J 30 30

K 27 33

L 30 36

M 24 28

N 14 19

O 30 34

P 31 29

It was noticeable after the intervention that the teaching group’s visualisation ability

had increased considerably. An increase in the mean in pre test of 25.2 to a mean of

36.2 in the post test. The range of improvement moved from 5 at the lowest to 23 at

the highest and five of the eight students improved to a two digit number. The control

group showed a decline by one student, a ‘same’ score and an increase from 2 to 6

with that being the top improvement.

FIGURE 3

TEACHING GROUP VISUALISATION TASK PRE & POST

TEST RESULTS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

A B C D E F G H

TEACHING GROUP STUDENTS

RA

W S

CO

RE

VISUAL PRE

VISUAL POST

RESULTS OF SYNONYM TASK

All students in the teaching group and the control group were very low in their

synonym testing, scoring well below half of the optimum score of 84. Overall, the

teaching group were slightly better than the control group in the initial testing. Two

17

students achieved high teens, four in low twenties, one at 26 and a high of 31 – this

being the highest score of the two groups. The control group had low teens, five

students in low twenties and the highest recorded 29.

TABLE 3 : RESULTS FROM THE PRE & POST SYNONYM TEST

The teaching group students increased their synonym scores across the group –at the

lowest end 2 to 18, with five students increasing their score by 10 or more. In the

control group one student showed no increase and all the rest increased by less than

ten. However, it should be noted that all, even at the end of the intervention, scored

significantly lower than half of the possible score.

TABLE 4 READING

ACCURACY – NEALE

ANAYSIS

Students TEACHING GROUP

Synonyms PRE Test

TOTAL= 84

Synonyms POST

A 18 24

B 17 32

C 31 33

D 26 38

E 20 38

F 22 37

G 20 36

H 22 26 Students CONTROL GOUP

I 23 30

J 24 28

K 13 24

L 20 20

M 22 24

N 14 21

O 24 33

P 29 34

STUDENTS TEACHING GROUP

NEALE READING RAW SCORE ACCURACY PRE

NEALE READING ACCURACY PERCENTILE PRE

NEALE READING RAW SCORE ACCURACY POST

NEALE READING ACCURACY PERCENTILE POST

A 30 23 31 29

B 51 71 60 79

C 26 18 36 36

D 24 17 28 27 E 24 17 40 46

F 31 24 42 51

G 23 16 23 20

H 50 69 57 75 CONTROL GROUP STUDENTS

CONTROL GROUP STUDENTS

I 40 44 39 44

J 28 21 31 29

K 41 48 42 51

L 61 79 72 90

M 41 48 46 59 N 20 14 15 10

O 32 25 58 77

P 44 58 45 57

18

The students in the

control group were

generally more accurate

decoders with the

exception of Student N.

In the course of the

intervention, the

teaching group

maintained their levels

and student E increased

29 percentiles.

READING RATE

TABLE 5 Results of Reading Rate – Neale Analysis

STUDENTS TEACHING GROUP

NEALE READING RATE RAW SCORE PRE

NEALE READING RATE PERCENTILE PRE

NEALE READING RAW SCORE RATE POST

NEALE READING RATE PERCENTILE POST

A 26 13 42 34

B 66 64 104 99

C 36 24 41 33

D 31 17 31 20 E 72 72 43 35

F 32 19 45 38

G 41 34 49 43

H 54 48 63 63 CONTROL GROUP STUDENTS

I 76 80 67 70

J 32 19 30 19 K 58 55 40 33

L 59 56 81 89

M 77 83 77 83

N 29 16 31 20

O 37 26 52 48

P 60 58 69 72

19

SELF EFFICACY

All students in both teaching and control groups saw themselves as confident readers

and knowledgeable of which actions they would apply in reading. Most articulated the

correct behaviors of what to do when given a choice of two scenarios when reading.

All students in both the teaching group and the control group felt quite comfortable

when reading. Most scored in the positive spectrum, with a few items in the mid

range.

All students had a positive self- efficacy and were able to articulate the correct

responses.

TABLE 6 SELF EFFICACY

Reading Action Teaching

Group

Control

Group

When you didn’t know a word that you try and work it out 6/8 7/8

If you make a mistake in reading you fix it up 8/8 8/8

A hard word you work it out 8/8 8/8

Reread a sentence to try and understand it better 7/8 8/8

Try harder to understand a story even if it is hard 8/8 7/7

Find a way to work out how to say words 8/8 8/8

The table 6 above illustrates that for both groups there did not seem to be any

difference.

The learning trend for each student

Student A

The learning for Student A in the teaching group did support the prediction that the

teaching of the strategy of visualisation will improve comprehension. Student A is a

former Reading Recovery student.

During the sessions, the student was very distracted and needed prompting to check

the work and evaluate the image against the text when completing the tasks. The

student had difficulty locating information.

Student A improved in visualization – increasing by 5, and synonym work, increasing

by 6. Comprehension improved in written tasks as in the Progressive Reading Test

scoring an additional 6 percentiles and the Neale Analysis in comprehension scoring

up seven percentile points-not a dramatic increase but still an improvement.

The results from the Neale Analysis on Reading Accuracy showed that the student’s

score is very low performing at Pre 23 percentiles and Post 29 percentiles. The

Reading rate is very low as well, performing at a Stanine 3 level at the Pre test and

20

increasing to stanine 4 in the post test. Consequently, the student loses the meaning of

what he has read. (Appendix 2, Table 8, A)

The Self Efficacy test showed that Student A considered that “ to go on reading the

sentence was the best course of action even if what you read did not make sense.”

Student B

This student was included in the Teaching Group because the score in the Progressive

Reading Test was not in the highest sector of the class. When conducting the Pre

Assessments the student’s visualisation score was quite low in comparison to others in

the grade. Likewise, so was the score for student B’s synonym test result.

Student B improved in these two areas but the scores for the comprehension remained

the same for the pre and post test in both the Progressive Reading test and Neale

Analysis.

(Appendix 2, Table 8, B)

Student C

The learning for Student C was supported by the intervention - not only the

visualisation strategy but also, the student increased in confidence as the teaching

session progressed.

Considerable improvement was displayed in visualisation results from the pre- test to

the post-test as well as the synonym test.

Reading Accuracy improved, doubling the student’s percentile. Reading rate

increased by 9 percentiles . The student’s comprehension improved with the Neale

Analysis indicating that the student moved from a stanine 5 to a stanine 6. (Appendix

2, Table 8, C)

Student D

This student was very confident in all sessions and was very enthusiastic but at times

needed to be curbed.

Although the student demonstrated great advancements between the Pre and Post tests

in visualisation and synomyns achievement could not be superimposed into the

comprehension tasks (written as a class and individual assessment with a teacher)

The results remained the same between the Pre- test and the post-test. The student’s

stanine was 3 on comprehension at the Pre-test and was ranked as a performance

indicator of below average.

Between the assessments, there was a slight improvement in student’s reading

accuracy as assessed in the Neale Analysis.

There was no change in the reading rate.

In visualisation assessment the student confidently created the images from simple

sentences in the visualisation task but there was a marked decline when the sentence

21

length increased and the sentences were compound and complex. The student did not

appear to hold the meaning.

The student appears to use meaning to gain access to print and is very weak in

phonological and orthographic processing and as a result of this intervention I will

be recommending that this student is assessed using ERIK.

In the Self Efficacy Test Student D chose the option that if you came to a word in

reading that you did not know you would wait for someone to tell you.

Student D was a former student of the Reading Recovery intervention.

(Appendix 2 Table 8, D )

Student E

The learning trend for Student E supports the prediction that teaching visualisation

will improve comprehension. In visualization test, synonym test, comprehension

written Progressive Reading Test and individual Neale Analysis there were gains in

all assessments from pre to post testing.

Student E’s Reading Rate decreased in the post-test so, we would expect a positive in

that the student would be able to hold the meaning of the text.

Also, Student E’s reading accuracy improved from the pre test to the post test moving

from a stanine 3 – below average to stanine 5 – average . (Appendix 2, Table 8, E)

Student F

Student F wanted to engage in sessions but tended to miss the important features of

the passage, lock into a minor aspect of the passage and then go off on other irrelevant

tangents.

However, student F’s results from pre test to post test does support the teaching of

visualisation. As can be seen in (Appendix 2 Table 8, F) gains were made in

visualisation task, synonym and in turn in the comprehension measure by Progressive

Reading Test and Neale Analysis. Student F moved from a stanine 4 to stanine 5 in

comprehension . In addition reading accuracy improved moving from a stanine 4 to

stanine 5.

Student G

Student G, another past Reading Recovery participant was very distracted during all

sessions.

Yet Student G’s learning trend does support the prediction that visualisation will

improve comprehension.

Improvement in visualisation between pre test and post- test was moderate but quite

dramatic in the synonym test.

Advancement occurred in comprehension with an increase occurring in the

Progressive Reading Test which is a pencil paper assessment and the individual

assessment as measured by the Neale Analysis.

22

The results show that the visualisation lessons certainly supported the student’s

learning. Student G’s results increased substantially. However, reading accuracy and

reading rate did not alter.

It is also important to note that although there was significant improvement the

comprehension level is still low. At pre-test on Neale Analysis the student was stanine

3 with a performance descriptor of below average and the advancement to the post-

test where the score was stanine 4 which is classified as a ‘low average ‘ description.

(Appendix 2, Table 8,G)

Student H

Student H’s learning reflects overall support for the prediction that teaching a

visualisation strategy supports comprehension. Although always engaged it could be

noted in the teaching session that this students gained a more confident approach to

tackle the work – a greater self-efficacy, speaking out in the group, raising hand ( this

student has always been on the cautious side in class.)

In all measures an improvement could be noted particularly in visualisation and

synonyms.

In (Appendix 2 Table8, H) results of the Neale Analysis in comprehension Student H

moved from a stanine 6t o stanine 7.

DISCUSSION

In contemplation of the results of this study, there is support for the hypothesis and

the research, which suggests that, teaching students strategies to use when reading

improves r their comprehension ability. In order for a long term and significant

change to eventuate my belief is that the teaching procedures would need to occur

over an extended period.

To train for students to use the visualization strategy competently requires more time.

A longer duration of intervention would enable the students to self- manage and

employ the visualization strategy unprompted. This increase of time would effect a

considerable change in results.

Generally, the Control group were more fluent readers who approached texts with

confidence; they demonstrated many strategies of re-reading, locating text and re-

reading to answer the questions

23

In the teaching sessions and the subsequent post testing many of the comprehension

strategies are intertwined. Paraphrasing and synonyms integrate so closely

when working on visualising .

SUMMARY OF TRENDS

• Results from the Post test in comprehension using Neale Analysis showed 6/8

students in teaching group and 5/8 students in Control Group improved.

• The weakest students ( Student D, G and A all past Reading Recovery)

Students A and G teaching group showed improvement plus Student D

remained the same. Whilst in control group Student N decreased..

• In teaching group a greater improvement noticed in the visualisation task.

• In teaching group a greater improvement was noted in the synonym test.

• In control group a number of students showed great gains, this trend may be

attributed to the focus of the classroom teaching program and in part to the

students themselves.

In reflecting on the results of this study there is support for the hypothesis and the

research, which suggests the explicit instruction in visualisation helped to improve

comprehension ability. Students improved in the use of synonyms and visualisation

as well as demonstrated some gains in reading comprehension.

The innovation that the researcher taught to this group of students in order to produce

a change was the independent variable – visualisation.

In the course of the sessions, the researcher was hoping to see a change in the

student’s behaviours thereby allowing the students, after creating images in their

heads to be able to understand and remember what they have read.

The study then chose to measure the comprehension ability by two independent

means. Firstly, using the Progressive Reading Test where the control is firmly in the

students hands . Assessment is carried out in a classroom and the student answers

independently and without support from the teacher.

Secondly, in this research the Neale Analysis was chosen because it is an independent

test, which enables the administrator to measure a change in skill or knowledge, by

two means. Measurement can be described by an interval measurement when it tells

‘how much’ and where the student is positioned in relation to other students- the

order. At times, I have used also the category form as shown by stanines so as to

describe more clearly the student’s abilities. The Neale Analysis enabled all three

styles of measurement to be included in this research.

The results lend support for the work of Scharlach (2008),Johnson- Glensberg( 2000),

Borgia & Owles (2009) and Munro (2002) and (2003) who suggest that explicit

teaching of a strategy in reading will support students to remember the text and

improve comprehension.

The teaching sessions were arranged in accordance with and followed rather closely

Munro’s ( 2006) teaching framework where he explicitly modelled the strategy of

visualisation . In addition other supplements were added to reinforce the strategy and

help scaffold the students.

In scaffolding instruction, a teacher provides scaffolds or supports to facilitate

students’ ability to build on prior knowledge and internalise new information.

24

It is important that the scaffolds are temporary and are progressively withdrawn until

the learner is able to complete the task independently.

The goal is to help the students to become independent and self- regulated learners.

This was the aim of the sessions and in parts this was achieved in a limited success. I

agree with Johnson – Glensberg ( 2002) whose study recommends that there would

be more success for poor comprehenders if the intervention was to last 16 weeks. The

ERIK Intervention summary (2009) supports the need for a longer duration (50

sessions) and consistency of three sessions per week.

Like this research and the study the purpose of scaffolding was to increase students

metacognitive ability to transfer the strategy to their own independent reading.

In Scharlach (2008), the study teaches the students to perform a particular strategy in

a particular context. However, we must strive to move the students to the

metacognitive level of operations so that he/she is able to transfer this strategy to

other settings once we are no longer providing support. This was attempted by the

guiding sessions of Munro (2006) where the student was gradually weaned from the

teacher group, to act individually.

It is important that the student practices these strategies so that they will gradually

become self- regulated and will reach a level of metacgonition where they will not

only be able to use the strategies but will also know when and where to apply them.

A long-term aim of the teaching was for students to learn to use the sequence of

literacy strategies spontaneously and selectively as part of their self-talk to

comprehend written texts. The teacher taught the students to talk about what they did

when they use the strategies and to evaluate their usefulness. Students wrote on small

cards and used these to self cue. This was part of Munro( 2003) research. In the

present study the students were given reflective books , RIDER bookmarks to be

interleaved in their readers and the RIDER poem and actions so the students would

have self cues to call upon at another time.

Even though the trends in the results are positive, the visualisation strategy would

need to be embedded in an instruction program and taught over a longer period of

time to bring about significant change for all students.

In the course of the teaching sessions, it became apparent that there was a need to

include work on enriching vocabulary. The students were able to use the strategy of

visualisation to help work out the meaning of the unfamiliar word but it was the group

dynamics, the oral language, the context of the text and the sharing of ideas that

helped to unlock and understand the unknown word. Borgia L and Owles,C. ( 2009)

were of this opinion and also suggested that by listening to their responses you could

check whether they had picked up the important ideas in the text. This was

particularly useful for Student E and F who at times missed the important aspects.

Another important result that this study found was that the students in both Teaching

Group and Control group scored quite poorly in the synonym test. This endorsed the

work of Munro(2002) where the relationship between reading comprehension and

vocabulary knowledge is strong and unequivocal (Baumann&Kameenui 1991 )

Vocabulary knowledge contributes to reading comprehension and grows through

reading experiences (Cunningham & Stanovich , 1998.

The research agrees that if a students is without a large vocabulary of sight words,

recognized both accurately and fluently, that these children with phonologically based

25

difficulties will expend too much cognitive effort at the word level to be able to

effectively extract meaning from a written passage.

This was very much the case with Student D and G in the teaching group and also

noted by Student N in the control group. All these students are past Reading Recovery

students.

This is further proved by the research of Munro (2002) who asserted that a major

reason why many students have reading difficulties is that they cannot read words

accurately and automatically. They have not learnt and stored in their memories sets

of letter clusters that they can use to work out unfamiliar words.

Another point noted in my research was the reading material. The text was taken from

ERIK materials as they were more likely to reflect Australian cultural views, more

appropriate age level and were an appropriate readability for year 2 students. These

texts were chosen because as Manning (2002) says it is very important for students to

have the background ‘prior’ knowledge. It is difficult to build a picture of an event or

situation that you don’t understand or which is unfamiliar. The topic needs to be

within a range of the student’s experiences

Another point noticed in the research was that many students did not pay attention to

punctuation when reading .Manning( 2002) sees the inattention to punctuation and

phrasing – a race to be won or a chore to be finished. Reading must be at a pace so

that the reader can activate the pictures in their heads. Each end punctuation mark

should be seen as a time for the reader to stop and develop a picture of what is

happening. In the teaching sessions, this was encouraged but, many students are

concentrating so much on decoding the text that little energy is expended on

punctuation – more to get the task finished. This may be particularly in the case of

Student B whose reading rate is very high and may be too high to hold the meaning of

the text.

An additional finding in Munro (2003) research showed that while all readers gained

in reading comprehension the less able readers made greater gains in their reading.

This study suggests that the literacy teaching procedures are most effective in

targeting the comprehending needs of the students who are less able. Those students

did not use their existing knowledge in systematic ways when reading in order to

learn. The present study certainly agrees with this finding. In the teaching group many

of the students increased their ability while the better students remained the same as

in the case of Student B.

While administrating the visualisation test Student D expressed that she could not

remember what the finale parts of the test said, she indicated she could not remember

the complex sentences. Student D had difficulty in the visualisation test with the more

complex sentences even when the passage was decoded by the researches. The

student was unable to hold the complex oral message. This suggests the student’s

listening comprehension is limited as well.

26

The readers had difficulty comprehending syntactic knowledge in the complex

sentences such as embedded clauses and relative clauses. Student N exhibited this

problem and this further reiterates Munro (2003).

In this study there was a range of mixed abilities in the teaching group. This enabled

the students stronger at decoding, (the more able students with text decoding) to

support the weaker students and allow the students with more experiential knowledge

to support the group. This dynamic allowed a positive outcome to be achieved where

students gained from each other. This policy reflects the good teaching practices of

having larger groups rather than individuals. Using a group of eight students is a valid

and appropriate mechanism allowing opportunities for students to learn off each other.

This method of having higher achievers supporting lower achievers in a mixed ability

group is seen as good teaching practice and has much research to support it. The

E.R.I.K. intervention Summary (2009) bears testimony to the benefits and gains of

having small group intervention following this.

In summing up it is easy to implement an instructional framework that provides

appropriate strategy instruction for all readers regardless of reading achievement. This

study delivers a framework that meets the student’s diverse needs through modeling,

scaffolding and interaction appropriate to their age level and interest.

The conclusion from this study is that visualisation is an advisable strategy for

supporting comprehension and its benefits to children’s learning is very worthwhile.

Implications for teaching practice suggested by your study.

The implication for teaching practice is that as a strategy for comprehension

visualisation is a very important one . A number of factors would need to be

addressed if implementing this strategy or continuing teaching sessions.

The duration of time where 12 sessions is not enough time to embed the self-talk and

metacognitive aspects. The frequency of four sessions per week is more than enough

but may be more beneficial three times a week for four weeks.

The researcher believes for the students to perform this visualisation strategy

independently, a longer duration would need to be allowed.

The reflection time and reflection books were important but were not sufficient to

enable the strategy to become embedded.

27

The researcher believes it requires more prompting to take to the next step

Although many visuals were used, they were not incorporated in the ordinary

classroom belonging to the students. The teaching group only had an opportunity to

view them when they were in the actual sessions. They had the bookmark RIDER in

their own personal space but that was more for home use. Therefore, a strong

recommendation would be to have visuals in prominent positions to be viewed

frequently.

In the course of the assessment and further exhibited in the Teaching session it

became clear that additional work on developing the student’s word knowledge and

vocabulary became apparent. All students in the study had a very restricted word

knowledge and synonym awareness.

The selection of texts for the study were very appropriate as the researcher felt that

the topics chosen were appropriate to the students. In future sessions the researcher

thought that a few sessions where the students were able to select an independent text

would be beneficial. It is important to allow the children to use self-selected reading

material during independent reading time. Another point to consider if there was no

restriction to time would be to include informational texts. Borgia & Owles (2009)

mentions this in their study.

It is important to allow students thinking time – a waiting time. I noted particularly in

the post visualization test and synonym test that the children need time to think

through their responses. Frequently these students required thinking time and their

responses were not automatic. The sessions need to allow for this and some degree of

rate- automaticity needs to be built in.

The size of the group of eight students worked well which is important when

considering realistically the size of a normal classroom and the importance of catering

for all students in our normal classroom. It is pleasing to note that this approach works

and could be incorporated into a normal classroom as in a learning centre.

As a result of this study the visualisation strategy will be incorporated into the year

two classroom and the rest of the class of nineteen students will be exposed to this

learning. Perhaps we could speculate that with the whole class talking the language

that it may become the self- talk of most of the students in that grade.

Possible directions for future research that are suggested by the results of the

study.

In the course of the study and research a number of possible directions have been

revealed by this investigation.

As this study was to investigate the strategy of visualisation and its impact on reading

comprehension some possible avenues of research that have flowed as an outcome of

this study’s conclusions could be :

1) How visualization strategy impacts on the world of ‘visual literacies.’

28

As we are part of the 21st century a comprehension study into the visual literacies that

children are exposed to everyday would be va.uable and should include an

investigation into the common threads and the differences associated with these

different mediums. Questions like;

Are there new strategies required to decipher the new reading and how do we take in

the texts? Do we visualise visualisations? Provide further thought, particularly if we

look at the premise of Neale quoted in the opening line of this study.

In our world, students are presented with countless input of visualised material all the

time. Is it hindering their ability to visualise? Are they waiting for people to give it to

them all the time as they have grown to expect this- just sit in front of a screen and

wait?

2) This study incorporated the visualization strategy with non- fiction texts.

A suggested possible supplementary path would be to research how visualization

strategy could be linked to informational texts.

It would be exciting to provide a teaching procedure that may motivate and excite

students who are not naturally draw to literature, especially boys.

3) The sample size of six past reading recovery students in this research is insufficient

to draw satisfactorily statistical conclusions. It would be very interesting to conduct a

longitudinal study on their progression and monitor their ongoing progress over their

primary years.

Alternatively, an investigation at a school of all past reading recovery students would

be useful. It could focus on trends and possible implications on their management and

treatment in the future.

4) The impact of retaining what the student has experienced and how the student

stores this into a working memory.

Along with Johnson-Glensberg (2000), this study reveals the links of visualizing

strategy in supporting students to remember what he/she has read.

Further research would provide insight into whether it is a short-term memory or

long-term memory. Moreover, will explicit teaching of the encoding support long-

term memory?

5) The implication of the effect of reading accuracy and reading rate has on

comprehension could be further investigated

The influence of reading fluency would possibly effect the time restrictions and the

cognitive ability in comprehension. To read too slowly would violate the syntactic of

the piece and therefore stop the processing. To look at fluency not only reading rate

but phrasing, intonation and word reading automaticity.

The effect of decoding words and how the automatising of the orthographic process

influences comprehension would be worthy of note.

6) In the course of the study, it was suggested that visualisation is only just one of the

many strategies that ‘good’ readers use.

Future directions would be the possible incorporation of Scharlach (2008) START

program that could be implemented into a whole school scenario. An examination of

explicitly teaching all eight-comprehension strategies simultaneously in the course of

a normal classroom literacy program would be beneficial.

29

7) A further consideration would be to investigate how explicitly teaching the students

to locate words in the text that gives the answers to the comprehension questions.

8) Finally to research, analyse and make a study into what is an active learner as a

reader. To further identify and articulate these qualities and teach these strategies. The

explicit teaching of active learner strategies could have long-term benefits rather than

students remaining a passive learner. As a result, the student will be able to self-

manage and direct his/her learning. So that the student can, articulate back in his or

her own words –say what they are doing-talk about it and know how to apply it in

their future learning.

In summing up, this study has shown that the explicit teaching of the visualisation

strategy to year 2 students and directly linked to the reading process will improve

comprehension. Particularly when carried out as an integrative procedure

incorporating reading, writing and oral language.

BIBLIOGRAPHY & REFERENCES Manning, M. (2002).Teaching Reading and Writing. Visualizing When Reading

Teaching K-8, May, 89-90.

Fisk, C. & Hurst, B. (2003).Paraphrasing for Comprehension. Teaching Tips. Reading

Teacher. October, Vol 57, Issue 2, 182 – 195.

Scharlach,T.(2008). START Comprehending: Students and Teachers Actively

Reading text. The Reading Teacher, Vol: 62, Issue 1, 20-31.

30

Johnson-Glensberg ,M.(2000).Training Reading Comprehension in Adequate

Decoders/Poor comprehenders: Verbal versus Visual Strategies Journal of

Educational Psychology 2000, Vol 92, No 4 p772-786

Borgia, L. & Owles, C. (2009). Terrific teaching Tips. Illinois Reading Council

Journal,

Spring , Vol 37, Issue 2, pp38-42.

Munro, J. (1999), Plumbing the Levels of reading ; An information processing model

of literacy learning Summary of Keynote presentation Biennial Conference of the

Australian Resource Educators Association June 1999 pp74-78

Munro, J. (2002). High Reliability Literacy teaching procedures: A means of

Fostering Literacy learning across the Curriculum. Idiom, 38, 1, June 2002, pp 23-31

Munro John, (2003).Fostering Literacy learning Across the Curriculum International

Journal Of Learning, Volume 10 July 2003

Munro,J., (2006) p 6 Course Notes Literacy Intervention Strategies

Munro ( 2006 ) Visualisation Teaching Procedures

Center, Y., Freeman, L., Robertson, G.& Outhred, L., (1999).The Effect of Visual

training on the reading and Listening Comprehension of Low listening

Comprehenders in Year 2 . Journal of research in Reading, Vol 22, Issue 3,241-256

Duke, N. & Pearson, D., (2002) Effective Practices for Developing Reading

Comprehension; Michigan Reading Association. U.S.A

Mc Cusker, H., Connell J., & Dalheim, B., (2009) Early Reading Intervention

Knowledge (ERIK) Summary of Intervention Data. C.E.O.M. & Lewis and Lewis,

Australia

Mc Cusker, M. and Oliver, Lee. (2006) RIDER strategy Language Support Program

Teaching Procedure, (Lewis & Lewis)

TESTS

Vincent, D., Crumpler, M.,& De La Mare, M.,(2004) Reading Progress Tests, Manual

for Dtage 1 . Hodder Murray.UK

De Lemos, M.M. (2002) Stage 1 Reading Progress Tests Australian Norms

Supplement . ACCER

31

Neale, M.D.(1999). Neale Analysis of Reading Ability: Revised. Melbourne.

A.C.E.R.

Munro,J. (2006) Visualisation Test

Munro,J. ( 2006) Synonym Test

Burt Word Reading Test ,(NZCER),1981

MATERIALS

ERIK. (2003). Enhancing Reading Intervention Knowledge. Catholic Education

Office and the University of Melbourne.

APPENDICES Appendix 1 a) Demographic Table of Students involved in Research b) Pre & Post testing of all Assessments Part a, b, c,& d Appendix 2 Tables of Teaching Group Individual Students Profiles Appendix 3 Teaching Sessions for Visualisation Sessions 1 to 12

32

Appendix 4 Teaching Materials Key words RIDER format RIDER Poem and actions LORIS STONE Student No 341036 INTAKE 15

33

Appendix 1 TABLE 7`PART A Demographic Data and Results of Pre & Post Assessment

Name

0 or 1 Teaching/Control Group

Age in MONTHS

Gender 0= Female 1=Male

Years of Schooling

ESL No=0 Yes=1

LNSLN funding 0=N/A 1=SLD 2=ID 3=Asp

Earlier Intevention No=0 RR=1 Bridges=2 ERIK=3…

TEXT Reading Level Feb 2009

BURT WORD READING SCORES

TEXT READING LEVEL MAY 2009

Attendance No. of sessions

EMA Educational MaintenaceAllowance NO= 0 YES= 1

A 0 88 1 3 0 0 1 18 33 21 12 0

B 0 90 1 3 0 0 0 28 56 28 12 0

C 0 94 0 3 0 0 0 21 36 25 12 0

D 0 87 0 3 0 0 1 21 36 23 12 0

E 0 91 1 3 0 0 0 18 34 24 12 0

F 0 90 0 3 0 0 0 25 36 27 12 1

G 0 96 1 3 0 0 1 20 31 22 12 0

H 0 95 1 3 0 0 0 28 60 28 12 0

I 1 92 1 3 0 0 0 28 43 28 0 0

J 1 88 0 3 0 0 1 25 40 27 0 0

K 1 95 0 3 0 0 0 28 51 28 0 0

L 1 91 0 3 0 0 0 28 54 28 0 0

M 1 90 0 3 0 0 0 28 51 28 0 0

N 1 85 1 3 0 0 1 15 25 18 0 0

O 1 92 1 3 0 0 0 28 48 28 0 0

P 1 91 1 3 0 0 0 28 49 28 0 0

34

TABLE 7 PART B

Students

Teaching Group= 0 Control Group =1

PROGRESSIVE READING TEST RAW SCORE PRE

PROGRESSISVE READING STANDARD SCORE PRE

PROGRESSIVE READING TEST %ILES SCORES PRE

PRT STANINE PRE

PROGRESSIVE READING Test RAW SCORE POST

PROGRESSIVE READING TEST STANDARD SCORES POST

PROGRESSIVE READING TEST %ILES POST

PROGRESSIVE READING TEST STANINES POST

A 0 8 75 5 2 14 82 11 3

B 0 21 91 27 4 21 91 27 4

C 0 19 88 20 3 22 92 30 4

D 0 18 86 18 3 18 86 18 3

E 0 20 89 23 4 23 94 34 4

F 0 22 92 30 4 26 100 49 5

G 0 12 80 9 2 23 94 34 4

H 0 24 96 38 4 27 103 57 5

I 1 25 98 43 5 28 92 30 4

J 1 18 86 18 3 18 86 18 3

K 1 19 88 20 3 21 91 27 4

L 1 21 91 27 4 26 100 49 5

M 1 26 100 49 5 29 110 76 6

N 1 15 83 12 3 10 78 7 2

O 1 25 98 43 5 30 117 87 7

P 1 25 98 43 5 22 89 23 4

35

TABLE 7 PART C

STUDENTS

TEACHING GROUP = 0 CONTROL GROUP = 1

NEALE ANAYSIS Comprehension RAW SCORE PRE

NEALE ANALYSIS Comprehension PERCENTILE PRE

NEALE ANALYSIS COMPREHENSION STANINE PRE

NEALE ANALYSIS COMPREHENSION RAW SCORE POST

NEALE ANALYSIS COMPREHENSION %ILES POST

NEALE ANALYSIS COMPREHENSION STANINE POST

VISUAL PRE

VISUAL POST

Synonyms PRE Test TOTAL= 84

Synonyms POST

A 0 11 26 4 13 39 4 32 37 18 24

B 0 22 79 7 21 73 6 21 31 17 32

C 0 14 47 5 18 63 6 23 37 31 33

D 0 9 19 3 9 20 3 19 42 26 38

E 0 11 26 4 16 55 5 26 33 20 38

F 0 10 22 3 15 52 5 29 39 22 37

G 0 7 12 3 10 24 4 30 35 20 36

H 0 18 68 6 23 78 7 22 36 22 26

I 1 17 63 6 16 55 5 28 30 23 30

J 1 11 26 4 15 52 5 30 30 24 28

K 1 8 15 3 19 65 6 27 33 13 24

L 1 27 86 7 20 69 6 30 36 20 20

M 1 15 53 5 19 65 6 24 28 22 24

N 1 8 15 3 3 3 1 14 19 14 21

O 1 24 83 7 26 86 7 30 34 24 33

P 1 13 42 5 14 46 5 31 29 29 34

36

TABLE 7 PART D

NEALE READING ACCURACY RAW SCORE PRE

NEALE ANALYSIS ACCURACY %ILE PRE

NEALE READING ACCURACY STANINE PRE

NEALE READING ACCURACY POST

NEALE READING ACCURACY PERCENTILE POST

NEALE ANALYSIS READING ACCURACY STANINE POST

NEALE ANALYSIS RAW SCORE Reading Rate PRE

NEALE READING RATE PERCENTILE PRE

NEALA ANALYSIS READING RATE STANINE PRE

NEALE ANALYSIS READING RATE RAW SCORE POST

NEALE READING RATE PERCENTILE POST

NEALE ANALYSIS READING RATE STANINE POST

30 23 4 31 29 4 26 13 3 42 34 4

51 71 6 60 79 7 66 64 6 104 99 9

26 18 3 36 36 4 36 24 4 41 33 4

24 17 3 28 27 4 31 17 3 31 20 3

24 17 3 40 46 5 72 72 6 43 35 4

31 24 4 42 51 5 32 19 3 45 38 4

23 16 3 23 20 3 41 34 4 49 43 5

50 69 6 57 75 6 54 48 5 63 63 6

40 44 5 39 44 5 76 80 7 67 70 6

28 21 3 31 29 4 32 19 3 30 19 3

41 48 5 42 51 5 58 55 5 40 33 4

61 79 7 72 90 8 59 56 5 81 89 7

41 48 5 46 59 6 77 83 7 77 83 7

20 14 3 15 10 2 29 16 3 31 20 3

32 25 4 58 77 6 37 26 4 52 48 5

44 58 5 45 57 5 60 58 5 69 72 6

Highlighted indicates Teaching Group ( Intervention )

37

38

APPENDIX 2 TEACHING GROUP INDIVIDUAL STUDENT PROFILES TABLE OF PRE & POST RESULTS FOR STUDENTS IN TEACHING

(INTERVENTION ) GROUP

Table 8 Results for Student A

Student A TEXT

LEVEL

BURT

VISUALISATION SYNONYM PROGRESSIVE READING TEST

STANDARD

SCORE

%ILE STANINE STANDARD

SCORE

%ILE STANINE

PRE POST PRE PRE POST PRE POST PRE PRE PRE POST POST POST

18 21 33 32 37 18 24

75 5 2 82 11 3

NEALE ANALYSIS READING ACCURACY COMPREHENSION READING RATE RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

.

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

STAN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

STAN

INE

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S T

P

O

S T

P

O

S T

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S T

P

O

S T

P

O

S T

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S T

P

O

S T

P

O

S T

30 23 4 31 29 4 11 26 4

13 39 4 26 13 3 42 34 4

TABLE 8 of results for Student B

Student B TEXT LEVEL

BURT

VISUALISATION SYNONYM PROGRESSIVE READING TEST

STANDARD

SCORE

%ILE STANINE STANDARD

SCORE

%ILE STANINE

PRE POST PRE PRE POST PRE POST PRE PRE PRE POST POST POST

28 28 56 21 31 17 32

91 27 4 91 27 4

NEALE ANALYSIS

READING ACCURACY COMPREHENSION

READING RATE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

.

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

STAN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

STAN

INE

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

51

71 6 60 79 7 22 79 7 21 73 6 66 64 6 104 99 9

39

TABLE 8 of results for Student C

Student C TEXT

LEVEL

BURT

VISUALISATION SYNONYM PROGRESSIVE READING TEST

STANDARD

SCORE

%ILE STANINE STANDARD

SCORE

%ILE STANINE

PRE POST PRE PRE POST PRE POST PRE PRE PRE POST POST POST

21 25 36 23 37 31 33 88 20 3 92 30 4

NEALE ANALYSIS READING ACCURACY COMPREHENSION READING RATE RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

.

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

STAN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

STAN

INE

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

26 18 3

36 36 4 14 47 5 18 63 6 36 24 4 41 33 4

TABLE 8 of results for Student D

Student B TEXT LEVEL

BURT

VISUALISATION SYNONYM PROGRESSIVE READING TEST

STANDARD

SCORE

%ILE STANINE STANDARD

SCORE

%ILE STANINE

PRE POST PRE PRE POST PRE POST PRE PRE PRE POST POST POST

21 23 36 19 42 26 38 86 18 3 86 18 3

NEALE ANALYSIS

READING ACCURACY COMPREHENSION

READING RATE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

.

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

STAN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

STAN

INE

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

24 17

3 28 27 4 9 19 3 9 20 3 31 17 3 31 20 3

40

TABLE 8 of results for Student E

Student B TEXT LEVEL

BURT

VISUALISATION SYNONYM PROGRESSIVE READING TEST

STANDARD

SCORE

%ILE STANINE STANDARD

SCORE

%ILE STANINE

PRE POST PRE PRE POST PRE POST PRE PRE PRE POST POST POST

18 24 34 26 33 20 38

89 23 4 94 34 4

NEALE ANALYSIS

READING ACCURACY

COMPREHENSION READING RATE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

.

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

STAN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

STAN

INE

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

24 17 3 40 46 5 11 26 4 16

55 5 72 72 6 43 35 4

TABLE 8 of results for Student F

Student B TEXT LEVEL

BURT

VISUALISATION SYNONYM PROGRESSIVE READING TEST

STANDARD

SCORE

%ILE STANINE STANDARD

SCORE

%ILE STANINE

PRE POST PRE PRE POST PRE POST PRE PRE PRE POST POST POST

25 27 36 29 39 22 37 92 30 4 100 49 5

NEALE ANALYSIS

READING ACCURACY COMPREHENSION

READING RATE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

.

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

STAN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

STAN

INE

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

31 24 4 42 51 5 10 22 3 15 52

5

32 19 3 45 38 4

41

TABLE 8 of results for Student G

Student B TEXT LEVEL

BURT

VISUALISATION SYNONYM PROGRESSIVE READING TEST

STANDARD

SCORE

%ILE STANINE STANDARD

SCORE

%ILE STANINE

PRE POST PRE PRE POST PRE POST PRE PRE PRE POST POST POST

20 22 31 30 35 20 36 80 9

2 94 34 4

NEALE ANALYSIS

READING ACCURACY

COMPREHENSION READING RATE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

.

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

STAN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

STAN

INE

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

23 16 3 23 20 3 7 12 3

10 24 4 41 34 4 49 43 5

TABLE 8 of results for Student H

Student B TEXT LEVEL

BURT

VISUALISATION SYNONYM PROGRESSIVE READING TEST

STANDARD

SCORE

%ILE STANINE STANDARD

SCORE

%ILE STANINE

PRE POST PRE PRE POST PRE POST PRE PRE PRE POST POST POST

28 28 60 22 36 22 26

96 38 4 103 57 5

NEALE ANALYSIS

READING ACCURACY

COMPREHENSION READING RATE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

.

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

STAN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

ST

AN

INE

RAW

SCOR

E

%

ILE

STAN

INE

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

R

E

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

P

O

S

T

50 69 6 57 75 6

18 68 6 23 78 7 76 80 7 67 70 6

42

APPENDIX THREE

TEACHING SESSIONS (INTERVENTION) ONE TO TWELVE FOR

VISUALISATION

VISUALISATION READING COMPREHENSION

YEAR 2 TEACHING GROUP SESSION NUMBER 1

PARTICIPANTS 8 students TIME 40 minutes Morning session

SESSION OUTLINE

FOCUS: Based on John Munro 2006 Session 1

• Teacher/.students read aloud each paragraph (Modeling)

• Teacher /students visualize and describe sentence by sentence in

whole group

• In small groups visualize each sentence by sentence and describe their

images

TEXT:

PRESENTATION

Copied onto large paper for all to view (no pictures)

Rest of story presented so that it can be grouped into group work

MATERIALS

Story enlarged

Activity Task Description Time

Visualisation

Teacher explains

The strategy we are learning is to visualize what we have

read. This helps us to remember what we have read.

How I do it :

I make a picture in my mind and say what the picture is

Special

decorative

glasses

To highlight that they are making pictures in their mind

the glasses we make do not have lenses are covered in.

LOOKING IN THEIR HEAD

Decorate and write the word visualisation

Give children

diagram of key

words

Using pictorial

representation

How we put the pictures in your mind

Use key words taken form Bell ( 1986)

WHAT include number, size , colour, shape and look

WHEN time

WHERE place

HOW movement

MOOD

SENSORY smell, sound, touch

43

Look at the key

words

Visualise

Boat

What pictures do you have in your mind when you think

of a boat

Teacher models and draws

Children as a group offer ideas to the group

Use Key words diagram to make sure you have taken

into account all possibilities

Visualise

Beach

Teacher models but tries to encourage students to offer

their pictures more

REFLECTION

BOOKS

Children are then asked to verbalize what they learnt

today.

Individually each child records into their own special

What I have learnt today book ?

Teacher checks what they have written

To clear up their understandings and maybe take an

individual opportunity to help a student to clarify their

ideas.

COMMENTS

Student D very enthusiastic and excited and tended to want to do all the talking

Student B and Student H Needed to be drawn into the conversation – tended to sit back

and just listen to the others

Student F not really sure – tending to be talking about other things that did not

necessarily fit with the word

Student C could be AAAAA

Student A and Student G were disruptive during the session

44

VISUALISATION READING COMPREHENSION

YEAR 2 SESSION NUMBER 2

PARTICIPANTS 8 students TIME 40 minutes Morning session

SESSION OUTLINE

FOCUS: Based on John Munro 2006 Session 2

• Teacher/.students read aloud each paragraph (modeling)

• Teacher /students visualise and describes sentence by sentence in

whole group

• In small groups visualize each sentence and describe their images

TEXT: Text from Enhancing Reading Intervention Knowledge “ERIK”

A Picnic at the Dam Session 9

PRESENTATION

Copied onto large paper for all to view (no pictures)

Rest of story presented so that it can be grouped

MATERIALS

Story enlarged Internet to show pictures of a Dam

Activity Task Description

TEXT: Text from Enhancing Reading Intervention Knowledge

“ERIK”

A Picnic at a Dam Session 9

Review of

previous

section

Look at the key

words on our

little man to

help us

visualize

Visualisation

Repeat

The strategy we are learning is to visualise what we have read and it

helps us to remember what I have read. I make a picture in my mind

and say what the picture is

Look at Display of little man with Key words in Session 1

Paragraph 1

Teacher with

students

Teacher and students read aloud paragraph 1 of the story

Key Words

Dam

Rim

Discuss words

Students with

Teacher

Students / Teacher visualize and describe sentence by sentence in a

whole group

45

In small

groups

Students read sentence by sentences visualise and describe their image

See groups in comments

Whole Group

Targeted

content words

Dam

Rim

Internet

pictures

Each group reads sentence by sentence and tell their visual image

Discussed words to ensure meaning and other words that could mean

the same

Group read final sentence

and visualized and described

This formed

part of the

Reflection

Children talked about how they visualized the picture in their mind

from the text.

Record what they learnt into special book

COMMENTS

Students had difficulty understanding a rim- used a glass to demonstrate.

Students had no real concept of a dam so found pictures of a dam on the internet.

Mostly trying to picture the situation but found I needed to question further their images

to get to the real core of the text.

Particularly Student F

Student D very responsive particularly as the text was read aloud with the teacher

Organised Partners

Students E & B: Students F & G : Students C& H and Students D & A

Find that I need to go over at the end of the session to remind them what they have

learnt. They are concentrating on the passage that they have read rather than how they

have gone about the session.

46

VISUALISATION READING COMPREHENSION

YEAR 2 SESSION NUMBER 3

PARTICIPANTS 8 students TIME 40 minutes Morning session

SESSION OUTLINE

FOCUS: Based on John Munro 2006 Session 2

• Teacher/.students read aloud each paragraph (modeling)

• Teacher /students visualise and describes sentence by sentence in

whole group

• In small groups visualize each sentence and describe their images

TEXT: Text from Enhancing Reading Intervention Knowledge “ERIK”

A Day at the Beach Session 19

PRESENTATION

Copied onto large paper for all to view

Rest of story presented so that it can be grouped into pairs for group work

MATERIALS

Story enlarged Cardboard with word R.I.D.E.R placed on it as a Bookmark

DISPLAYED KEY WOD CHART

Activity Task Description

TEXT: Text from Enhancing Reading Intervention Knowledge

“ERIK”

A Day at the Beach Session 19

Review of

previous

section

Look at the key

words on our

little man to

help us

visualize

Visualisation

Repeat

The strategy we are learning is to visualize what we have read and it

helps us to remember what I have read. I make a picture in my mind

and say what the picture is

Look at Display of little man with Key words in Session 1

Paragraph 1

Teacher with

students

Teacher and students read aloud paragraph 1 of the story

Key Words

Mesh

Chill

Flesh

Discuss words

Students with

Teacher

Students / Teacher visualize and describe sentence by sentence in a

whole group

47

In partners

Students read sentence by sentences visualize and describe their

image

See groups in comments

Whole Group

Targeted

content words

Stroll

sunny

snack

Each group reads sentence by sentence and tell their visual image

Discussed words to ensure meaning and other words that could mean

the same

Group read final sentence

and visualized and described

RIDER

Bookmark

This formed

part of the

Reflection

Students make a bookmark to take home to remind themselves when

they read to visualize.

R read

I imagine

D describe

E evaluate

R read on and repeat

COMMENTS

Spoke to Student A and G before session about my expectations and they seemed more

co-operative

Student D & C very enthusiastic

Student H offering more ideas

Student F is not forthcoming – need to ensure that the students understands

Organised groups

Students A , C & F : Students E & B: Students D, H & G

Find that I need to go over at the end of the session to remind them what they have

learnt. They are concentrating on the passage that they have read rather than how they

have gone about the session.

R read I imagine D describe E evaluate R read on and

48

VISUALISATION READING COMPREHENSION

YEAR 2 SESSION NUMBER 4

PARTICIPANTS 8 students TIME 40 minutes Morning session

SESSION OUTLINE

FOCUS: Based on John Munro 2006 Session 3

• Teacher/.students read aloud each paragraph (modeling)

• Teacher /students visualise and describes pairs of sentence in whole

group

• In small groups visualise sentence and describe their images

TEXT: Text from Enhancing Reading Intervention Knowledge “ERIK”

A Walk in the Park Session 23

PRESENTATION

Copied onto large paper for all to view ( no pictures)

Rest of story presented so that it can be grouped into pairs for group work

MATERIALS

Story enlarged Displayed KEY WORD CHART

Activity Task Description

Review of

previous section

Look at the key

words on our

little man to

help us

visualize

Visualisation

Repeat

The strategy we are learning is to visualize what we have read and it

helps us to remember what I have read. I make a picture in my mind

and say what the picture is

RIDER

REVIEW aconym R.I.D.E.R

Paragraph 1

Teacher with

students

Teacher and students read aloud paragraph 1 of the story

Students with

Teacher

Students / Teacher visualize and describe pairs of sentences in a

whole group

Small groups

Students reads pairs of sentences visualise and describe their image

Whole Group

Targeted

content words

In small group read their sentences and describe their visual image

Discussed words to ensure meaning and other words that could mean

the same

Group read final sentence

and visualized and described

49

Backpack

Snack

Stroll

dam

Students visualised what these words mean.

Teacher was required to help as many of the students could not work

out the meaning of these words

REFLECTION Students write into special booklet what they learnt.

COMMENTS

Incorporated small groups Students A,C & F; Students B&E ; Students C,G &H

Students had difficulty of concept of what a dam is

Text was very appropriate

50

VISUALISATION READING COMPREHENSION

YEAR 2 SESSION NUMBER 5

PARTICIPANTS 8 students TIME 40 minutes Morning session

SESSION OUTLINE

FOCUS: Based on John Munro 2006 Session 4

• Students read aloud each paragraph (modeling)

• Students visualise and describes pairs of sentences in whole group

• In small groups visualise pairs of sentences and describe their images

TEXT: Text from Enhancing Reading Intervention Knowledge “ERIK”

The Shopping Trip Session 27

PRESENTATION

Copied onto large paper for all to view

Rest of story presented so that it can be grouped into pairs for group work

MATERIALS

Story enlarged (no Pictures)

Activity Task Description

Review of

previous

section

Look at the key

words on our

little man to

help us

visualize

Visualisation

Repeat

The strategy we are learning is to visualize what we have read and it

helps us to remember what I have read. I make a picture in my mind

and say what the picture is

RIDER

Talk about R.I.D.E.R read, imagine, describe , evaluate& read on

Help to check what we have read .

Emphasis on E evaluate check in text

Paragraph 1

Teacher with

students

Students read aloud paragraph 1 of the story

Target Words

Mist

Check-out

Bar

Picture what these words mean

Children add the pictures they see in their minds. Other add to the

picture

Students with

Teacher

Students visualise and describe pairs of sentences in a whole group

Teacher checks that the image is correct

In partners

Students read pairs of sentences visualise and describe their image

complete paragraph 2

Whole Group

Each group read their pair of sentences and tell their visual image

Discussed words to ensure meaning and other words that could mean

51

the same

Group read final sentence

and visualized and described

REFLECTION

At the end of the session students record how they have visualize and

how it helped them to learn in their Learning Booklet

COMMENTS

Partners Students A &D ; Students C & H: Students F & G and Students E & B

This text was more familiar as they all had experiences of shopping and having to wait at

some stage when shopping.

Need to go over at the end to remind them what they have learnt in the session. It is not

the passage that they have read is important but the process that we went through

52

VISUALISATION READING COMPREHENSION

YEAR 2 SESSION NUMBER 6

PARTICIPANTS 8 students TIME 40 minutes Morning session

SESSION OUTLINE

FOCUS: Based on John Munro 2006 Session 5

• Students read aloud each paragraph

• Teacher /students visualize and describe each paragraph in whole

group activity

• In partners visualize paragraph and describe their images

TEXT: Text from Enhancing Reading Intervention Knowledge “ERIK”

Grandma and Grandpa Session 40

PRESENTATION

Copied onto large paper for all to view (no pictures )

Rest of story presented so that it can be grouped into pairs for group work

MATERIALS

Story enlarged RIDER SHEET

Activity Task Description

Review of

previous

section

Look at the key

words on our

little man to

help us

visualize

Visualisation

Repeat

The strategy we are learning is to visualise what we have read and it

helps us to remember what I have read. I make a picture in my mind

and say what the picture is

RIDER

All children to explain in own words R.I.D.E.R

Paragraph 1

Teacher with

students

Students read aloud paragraph 1 of the story

Students with

Teacher

Students / Teacher visualise and describe each paragraph in a whole

group

In partners

Paragraph 2

Students visualise paragraph and describe their image to their partner

Whole Group

Paragraph 3

Targeted

content words

Handy man

Each group visualises paragraph and describes their image

Discussed words to ensure meaning and other words that could mean

the same

Group read final sentence

53

Handrails

Playpens

Rugs

Handpick

Brand new

and visualized and described

Teacher was required to support this sessions as students had difficulty

understanding some of the experiences

Reflection

Colour in the little man with the Key words form Session 1

COMMENTS

All students found the passage hard. Some of the ideas they had difficulty

Teacher was required to support this sessions as students had difficulty understanding

some of the experiences

Some of the words they did not have a concept of e.g. handy man. The teacher had to

questions quite extensively to draw out the student’s knowledge about Dad or someone

fixing things around the house.

54

VISUALISATION READING COMPREHENSION

YEAR2 SESSION NUMBER 7

PARTICIPANTS 8 students TIME 40 minutes Morning session

SESSION OUTLINE

FOCUS: Based on John Munro 2006 Session 6

• Students read aloud each paragraph

• students visualize sentence by sentence in whole group activity

• Each student individually visualizes sentence by sentence and

describe their images

TEXT: Text from Enhancing Reading Intervention Knowledge “ERIK”

The farm Session 46

PRESENTATION

Individual texts without pictures and arranges into three paragraphs

MATERIALS

INTRODUCED RIDER POEM & ACTIONS

Individual texts of the Farm arranged in two paragraphs

Activity Task Description

Review of

previous

section

Look at the key

words on our

little man to

help us

visualize

Visualisation

R.I.D.E.R Poem- Help them to remember. Something they will

remember

Repeat

The strategy we are learning is to visualize what we have read and it

helps us to remember what I have read. I make a picture in my mind

and say what the picture is

Paragraph 1

Teacher with

students

students read aloud paragraph 1 of the story

Targeted

content words

Dozen

Flash

Discussed words to ensure meaning and other words that could mean

the same

Group read final sentence

and visualized and described

Students with

Teacher

Students / visualize and describe sentence by sentence in a whole

group

Individually

Students read next paragraph and

for each sentence visualizes and

draws their image

Whole Group Then in groups the students then

55

go and describe their image.

The others in the group check

what the child saying against the

text. EVALUATE (Does it make

sense) Read sentence by

sentence and tell their visual

image

Discussed words to ensure

meaning and other words that

could mean the same

Group read final sentence

and visualized and described

Session taken

as a leaning

centre within a

whole class

As we were part of a whole class

we did not have time to do the

reflection at the end of the session

COMMENTS

All except Student G were enthusiastic and able to manage the task

Student C & D very enthusiastic

Partners Student B and E : Student F & G: Student C and H; Student A and D

RIDER POEM

POEM ACTION

R Read it Point to your eyes

I Put picture in your head Point fingers to you head - brain

D

E Check it Evaluate it Point one finger in the air

Does it make sense Point one finger to your head.

R Read On Form fingers around eyes like glasses

56

VISUALISATION READING COMPREHENSION

YEAR 2 SESSION NUMBER 8

PARTICIPANTS 8 students TIME 40 minutes Morning session

SESSION OUTLINE

FOCUS: Based on John Munro 2006 Session 7

• Students read silently each paragraph

• students visualize each paragraph and describe their images in

whole group activity

• In small groups visualizes each paragraph and describe their

images

TEXT: Text from Enhancing Reading Intervention Knowledge “ERIK”

On the Lake Session 36

PRESENTATION

Individual texts without pictures and arranges into three paragraphs simpler text because

students are reading individually

MATERIALS

Individual texts of On the Lake arranged in three paragraphs no pictures

Poem sheet

Activity Task Description

Review of

previous

section

Look at the key

words on our

little man to

help us

visualize

Visualisation

Repeat

The strategy we are learning is to visualize what we have read and it

helps us to remember what I have read. I make a picture in my mind

and say what the picture is

Recite the RIDER poem with actions

Target words in

passage

On the lake

Whirl

Moat Visualise these words talk as a

whole group

Drag

bank

Paragraph 1

Teacher with

students

Teacher and students read silently paragraph 1 of the story

Students with

Teacher

Students / Teacher visualize and describe each sentences in a whole

group

In partners In partners visualize each paragraph and describe their images.

57

Set partners

Whole Group

Targeted

content words

Each group read their pair of sentences and tell their visual image

Discussed words to ensure meaning and other words that could mean

the same

Group read final sentence

and visualized and described

REFLECTION Write down the process in special books

COMMENTS

Group Work Students B,D,E& G : Students A,C,F & H

Partner Work Student B & E: Student F & G ; Student C and H: Student A & D

Student G had difficulty focusing so in the reading section read to teacher.

All students were able to articulate the process

Student c and D contributed a lot to discussions

58

VISUALISATION READING COMPREHENSION

YEAR2 SESSION NUMBER 9

PARTICIPANTS 8 students TIME 40 minutes Morning session

SESSION OUTLINE

FOCUS: Based on John Munro 2006 Session 8

• Read silently each paragraph

• Students visualize each paragraph and describe their images in

whole group activity

• Each student individually visualizes each paragraph and describes

image to a partner TEXT: Text from Enhancing Reading Intervention Knowledge “ERIK”

The Missing Pets Part 1 Session

PRESENTATION

Individual texts without pictures and arranges into three paragraphs simpler text because

students are reading individually

MATERIALS

Individual texts of The Missing Pets arranged in three paragraphs Chapter 1

Activity Task Description

Review of

previous

section

Look at the key

words on our

little man to

help us

visualize

Visualisation

Repeat

The strategy we are learning is to

visualize what we have read and it

helps us to remember what I have

read. I make a picture in my mind

and say what the picture is

On display

Repeat RIDER poem and actions

Explain introducing a Chapter

style format .

Model the sequence you would

follow

Target words in

passage

The Missing

Pets

Vanish attack

Mayor attempt

Thefts suspect

Blame bait

Visualise these words

Paragraph 1

Read silently paragraph 1 of the

story

Talk to their partners

Students with

Teacher

Students visualise and describe

each paragraph in a whole group

Students visualize their paragraph

and describe it to their partner

Draws pictures and partners

checks

59

EVALUATION

Partner

Describe image

Paragraph 2

Targeted

content words

Paragraph 3

Individually read the nest

paragraph and tell their visual

image to their partner

Discussed words to ensure

meaning and other words that

could mean the same

Group read final sentence

and visualized and described

Individually read the nest

paragraph and tell their visual

image to their partner

REFLECTION Write down the process in special books

COMMENTS

Students found the words in this text difficult to work out – they did not have the vocab

to suggest alternatives

Students enjoyed the story

Found it necessary to bring back to the whole group to help work it out.

Students enjoyed drawing the pictures and included a great deal of detail .

60

VISUALISATION READING COMPREHENSION

YEAR2 SESSION NUMBER 10

PARTICIPANTS 8 students TIME 40 minutes Morning session

SESSION OUTLINE

FOCUS: Based on John Munro 2006 Session 8

• Students read silently each paragraph

• Students visualize each paragraph and describe their images in

whole group activity

• In small groups visualizes each paragraph and describe their

images

TEXT: Text from Enhancing Reading Intervention Knowledge “ERIK”

The Missing Pets Part 2 Session

PRESENTATION

Individual texts without pictures and arranges into three paragraphs simpler text because

students are reading individually

MATERIALS

Individual texts of The Missing Pets arranged in three paragraphs (No pictures )

Activity Task Description

Review of

previous

section

Look at the key

words on our

little man to

help us

visualize

Visualisation

Repeat

The strategy we are learning is to

visualize what we have read and it

helps us to remember what I have

read. I make a picture in my mind

and say what the picture is

RIDER poem and actions to

remind students of the process

REVIEW the story so far

Target words in

passage

The Missing

Pets

Event expense

Prevent suspect

express

Visualize what the words mean

Paragraph 1

Teacher with

students

Students read silently paragraph 1

of the story

Students visualize each paragraph

and describe their image

Draws

61

Paragraph 2 Read, describe image and draw

and partner checks against text

Paragraph 3 Read, describe image and draw

and partner checks against text

Whole Group

The whole group reviews the

chapter

REFLECTION Talk about process and record in

special booklets

COMMENTS

All students enjoying the story – can’t wait to find out who stole the pets.

All students happily draw the pictures and include great detail

Very responsive in discussion

62

VISUALISATION READING COMPREHENSION

YEAR 2 SESSION NUMBER 11

PARTICIPANTS 8 students TIME 40 minutes Morning session

SESSION OUTLINE

FOCUS: Based on John Munro 2006 Session 9

• Read silently each paragraph

• students visualize each paragraph and draws their image

• Each student individually writes down their visualization of each

paragraph.

TEXT: Text from Enhancing Reading Intervention Knowledge “ERIK”

The Missing Pets Part 3 Session

PRESENTATION

Individual texts without pictures and arranges into three paragraphs simpler text because

students are reading individually

MATERIALS

Individual texts of The Missing Pets arranged in three paragraphs

Activity Task Description

Review of

previous

section

Look at the key

words on our

little man to

help us

visualize

Visualisation

Repeat

The strategy we are learning is to

visualize what we have read and it

helps us to remember what I have

read. I make a picture in my mind

and say what the picture is

Recite the RIDER poem and

actions

Target words in

passage

The Missing

Pets

Towns people

Fake

Arrest

Control

Students visualize these words

Paragraph 1

read silently paragraph 1 of the

story

Children draw their image

Individually Children write down their image

63

Paragraph 2

Students draw their visual picture

to their partner

Children write down visualization

Partners check against the text -

evaluate

Paragraph 3

Targeted

content words

Students draw their visual picture

to their partner

Children write down visualization

Partners check against the text -

evaluate Each group read their

pair of sentences and tell their

visual image

REFLECTION Tell and record what they did in

special learning book

COMMENTS

All students happily drew the picture but as soon as they were asked to write about it the

descriptions were limited.

Student would not write and visibly withdrew from the session. He needed to be kidded

to do something. I allowed him to do the drawing as he would not do anything.

Student A also found this part very difficult

When the children read out their sentences, the teacher found that they needed to be

directed to the important parts.

While they included detail in their pictures this detail was not as clear in the written texts

64

VISUALISATION READING COMPREHENSION

YEAR 2 SESSION 12

PARTICIPANTS 8 students TIME 40 minutes Morning session

SESSION OUTLINE

FOCUS: Based on John Munro 2006 Session 9

• Students read silently each paragraph

• students visualize each paragraph and describe their images in

whole group activity

• In small groups visualizes each paragraph and describe their

images and then write their visualize of each paragraph.

TEXT: Text from Enhancing Reading Intervention Knowledge “ERIK”

The Missing Pets Part 4 Session

PRESENTATION

Individual texts without pictures and arranges into three paragraphs simpler text because

students are reading individually

MATERIALS

Individual texts of The Missing Pets arranged in three paragraphs

Activity Task Description

Review of

previous

section

Look at the key

words on our

little man to

help us

visualize

Visualisation

Repeat

The strategy we are learning is to

visualise what we have read and it

helps us to remember what I have

read. I make a picture in my mind

and say what the picture is

Say Poem of RIDER and do the

actions.

Target words in

passage

The Missing

Pets

Actions

Inspect

Protect

Intend

Paragraph 1

Teacher with

students

Teacher and students read silently

paragraph 1 of the story

Children on their own draw their

image

Share their picture with another .

Check RIDER – make sure you

have the important parts

Write their image and share

Class offer further import

Students with Students / Teacher visualize and Children move onto next

65

Teacher

describe each paragraph in a

whole group

paragraph. Read silently

Draw image

Check use RIDER

Write down in words

Share with class

Individually Continue reading a further two

paragraphs

Draw image after reading each

paragraph

Check using RIDER

Write down you image in words

Check with a partner

Read to whole class

Whole Group

REFLECTION

At the end of session

Say what the process was

involved

Complete Reflection Booklets and

show to teacher

Children now have the complete

Story of Missing Pets

COMMENTS

Student A much more engaged story more suited

Student B on task- could have included more detail in written image

Student C really focused and able to select appropriate detail and gave a good written

image

Student D finds reading the passage difficult and requires the teacher to support the read

as she has a problem decoding the text. enjoys the oral talking about the story

but not so much the picture. In written work tended to leave out a lot of

detail

Student E tended to rush through the read and did not put a great amount of detail.

Tended to want to just get it finished

Student F very engaged and really trying to check in the text written work good

Student G quite happy to read, talk about it and draw some pictures but as soon as

An expectation came that he would have to write I down balked

Student H good work , image drawn and wrote it down well.

Using the Chapter format was very worthwhile as it gave students a detail procedure of

our to go about reading when they are reading their take-home books independently

which usually have a chapter format.

66

APPENDIX 4 TEACHING MATERIALS

KEY WORDS TO HELP WITH VISUALISATION

1,2,3 Numbers size

Shapes colour

67

RIDER POEM ACTION

R Read it Point to your eyes

I Imagine it

Put the picture in your head Point fingers to you

head -

brain

D Describe it

E Evaluate it Point one finger in the

air

Check it

Does it make sense Point one finger to your

head.

R Repeat and keep on reading Form fingers around

eyes like glasses

68

R read

I image

D describe

E evaluate

R repeat &

read on

69

EYES NOSE SEE

SMELL

LOOK

TOUCH EARS

FEEL HEAR

SOUND

70

71

You read and then you make a picture of it in you mind and say what the picture is.

This is something that you can do to help you remember what you have read.