Develop and Implement a Strategy to Assist Struggling Readers
to Comprehend the Main Idea in a Reading Selection
Literature Review by Patricia Marcino
Introduction
One of the problems facing struggling readers is that the students do not have the background knowledge that is required to have an understanding of many story plots. In essence, when students read stories about things in respect for which they lack knowledge, they will not be able to grasp the main idea, unless they have some background information on the main theme of the story. Although there are abundant resources available on the problems relating to struggling readers, there has not been enough past research conducted focusing on the reading ability of students of Title 1 schools and their grasp of the main idea. There are studies concentrating on the problems of students with disabilities and learning disabilities, and those specifically targeting low socioeconomic students and reading comprehension.
According to research utilizing a five-year study of the Florida Comprehension Assessment Test (FCAT) students in grades 3-5 typically score less on the Main Idea section of the test. The average attainment is 57% which is well below the acceptable passing percentage of 65% which when correlated to a grade, would be a “D.” Over the five-year period, third graders’ average attainment was 53%, fourth grade 56%, and fifth grade was 61%. In order to change this trend, students must be exposed to a strategy that will aid them in understanding the main idea.
Reading Ability of Students
Ming-Yueh & Kuey (2007), in their research on poor reading efficiency of English
Foreign Learners propose certain strategies that can be used in collaboration with posing the question, planning, taking action, observing and reflecting-as well as diagnostic testing. The authors’ opinion is that all these actions are relative in nature. This study poses a few similarities as well as some differences with the strategies proposed by the current research. It is possible to adopt a similar approach in respect to struggling readers, as being adopted in the case in the case of EFL students; where it is the case, both classes are struggling to become proficient in reading comprehension. The teaching methods need to be modified or differentiated, when the situation is that of a large class of varying proficiency levels. Data was collected through a number of instruments: pre- and post-assessments of reading comprehension strategies. The study with the EFL students was conducted with 46 students of varying degrees of reading comprehension.
Researchers of second/foreign language reading have long recognized the importance of reading strategies (Brantmeier, 2002); Carrell (1985, 1989); Slataci & Akyel (2002). They contend that strategy use is different in more or less proficient readers, who use the strategies in different ways. Although a vast number of the studies in reading strategy training have suggested a wide variety of reading strategies to be taught, few of them have been conducted with classes of large sizes and diverse abilities.
The strategy suggested by this study holds when some of the Title 1 students, are also EFL students. However, it is to be recognized that in either case, the struggling reader has low self-esteem due to not reading proficiently. The methods suggested by the cited study are similar to those proposed by the current study except that both differ in the core subject of research. In the cited study conducted by Ming-Yeuh & Kuey (2007), the 46 students were divided into groups of reading skill levels after reviewing the results of the pre-tests. While the students in Group A realized that the teacher repeated several strategies in class for some less skilled students, they did not de-value the repeated practice, instead found it helpful for purpose of review. The students in Group B, the less capable students apparently had a comparatively lower self-esteem and contributed their failure to their poor attitudes to learning.
According to Rothman (2003), the nature of the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and student achievement has been debated for decades. Rothman (2003) cites the works of Coleman (1966) and Jencks, et al. (1973) for many influential arguments in this connection pertaining to the context of United States of America. There are other studies conducted in the Australian setting, which focus on the influence of socioeconomic status on student achievement (Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, 1976; Karmel, 1973). Rothman (2003) argues that there are no clear evidences to prove the influence of SES on student achievement, as there are a number of theoretical frameworks developed to explain the relationship. The views of Rothman (2003) are more in alignment with the proposed theories of the current research, which postulates the low socioeconomic students are lacking in an academic home environment. Additionally, their neighborhood environment has a profound effect on these students’ academic achievements.
The research by Rothman (2003) covered the period from 1980 to 2003 to assess the influence of SES on student performance in Australia. Studies were conducted on the reading abilities of students by removing them from low socioeconomic influences and placing in middle to high middle class environments. Determination of the influence of SES on the academic development and achievement of the students shifted to a new economic environment was the central focus of the study. Lower test scores were recorded and reported for low socioeconomic class students than for middle and upper middle class students. The study also found that parental occupation and environment had a definite impact on students’ academic achievements.
Learning Processes of the Brain
Even though the dictionary definition of learning is quite simple in stating that learning is to gain knowledge, understanding, or skill by study by experience, the real complexity of the definition can be experienced when an attempt is made to measure learning. The phenomenon of learning has posed difficulties in comprehending the real measure even for neuroscientists, who have a better grasp on the subject. Jensen (2008) has elaborated on the topic of brain-based learning.
Although the students have the physical ability to learn, most of the external factors influence the adaptation of the student to the learning environment. Developing strategies to enable the students to cultivate good reading ability must take into account these external factors affecting the brain of the students. Jensen (2008) argues there are several factors that influence the learning capacity of the students and even the location of the student can affect his/her learning.
For the most part, scientists have been observing the outside behaviors guessing about what stimulus causes certain responses. Now, however, they are beginning to look inside the brain in order to determine what causes certain behaviors, and learning perception. By looking inside the brains with PET scans, scientists can actually see parts of the brain that display different colors with certain stimuli. The National Institutes of Health (1996) offers a free slide teaching packet for scientists entitled "The Brain: Understanding Neurobiology" which is actually a lesson plan on how to interpret PET scans.
Sousa (2001) states that it is important to observe what is happening outside the brain in order to know the internal reaction of the brain. Thus in a case where a student should be capable of discerning certain facts, it would be difficult to comprehend the thinking of the student until one understands the external factors affecting the student.
Viadero (1996) implies that feeling threatened will shut down the learning process and “hijack” the rest of the brain . She states that it is very important for learners to feel relaxed and safe in the learning environment. Learning cannot take place unless the learner feels safe. (Slywester 1996).
Teaching Reading
Burns, Roe & Smith (2001) state the product of the reading act is the communication of thoughts and emotions by the writer to the reader, resulting in the reader’s own understanding of ideas that the writer has put into print. Communication results from the reader’s construction of meaning through integrating his or her prior knowledge with the information presented in text.
Research on enriching background knowledge has demonstrated that activating such knowledge increases comprehension. Graves and his associates (1980,1983) developed previews for short stories that had as one component the building of prior knowledge important to understanding the selection. Data indicated that reading the previews before reading the stories increased the students’ learning from stories by a significant and impressive amount. Stevens (1982) increased learning from text compared with a control group for 10th grade students reading a history passage by teaching them relevant background information related to the topic to be learned, helped readers learn from text regardless of how that background information was presented or how specific or general it was. Alvarez (1990) used case-based instruction to develop students’ abilities to assemble and incorporate different knowledge sources in memory. He taught them how to employ thematic organizers and hierarchical concept mapping in their reading.
Text Organization and Its Relation to Reading Comprehension
Although there is a correlation of how text is presented and the way text is perceived, the motivation to learn based upon home environment is also pertinent to the ability of one to absorb material. Although well-organized text structure appears important to reading comprehension, it may not be sufficient to facilitate comprehension. Often “awareness” of text structure adds an important dimension (Graesser et al, 1991; Gurney et al, 1990; Weaver & Kintsch, 1991). Kinder and Bursuck (1999) report that many textbooks are so poorly written that they fail to use precise language or make clear the relations between concepts, ideas, and sentences.
Teaching students from low socioeconomic background with poorly written textbooks will only lead to the creation of more struggling readers. Richard Vacca, states, “Being a good reader is crucial to today’s adolescents, who will need to read and write more than adults have at any other time in human history” (page 51). One of the objectives of NCLB (No Child Left Behind) Act is to help those students, who are struggling readers. However, there are many avenues to be pursued in this direction. Nell K Duke is of the view that a picture is worth a thousand words when it comes to comprehension. Gardner (1999) states many people about 35% are visual learners.
Conclusion
Although there has not been specific research relating to reading comprehension and understanding main idea by Title 1 students, there has been research into the reading strategies needed to assist EFL learners, special education learners and children with other learning disabilities. Research tells us that struggling readers need specific strategies to assist them in understanding what they read. Research further proves a correlation between struggling readers’ lack of prior knowledge, environmental influences, IQ, brain development or lack thereof as well as lack of proper nutrition in utero and during the first five years of development.
References
Alvarez, M. (1990). Knowledge activation and schema construction. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association: Boston, MA
April 16-20, 1990.
Brantmeir, C. (2003). Does gender make a difference? Passage and comprehension in
second language readers. Reading in a Foreign Language. Vol 15, No.1, 2003.
Burns, P., Row, B., & Smith, S. (2002). Teaching reading in today’s elementary schools.
New York, NY: Houghton-Mifflin Company.
Carrell, P., (1983). Three components of background knowledge in reading
comprehension. Language Learning, 33, 2, 183-207.
Coleman, J., (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York, NY: Basic.
Grasser, A., Golding, J., & Long, D. (1991). Narrative representation and comprehension.
In R.Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading
Research. Vol. 2, pp 171-204. White Plains, NY: Longman
Graves, M., & Cook, C. (1980). Effects of previewing difficult short stories for high
school students. Research on Reading in Secondary Schools, 6, 38-54.
Graves, M., et al. (1983). Effects of previewing difficult short stores on low ability
junior high school students’ comprehension recall and attitudes. Reading Research
Quarterly 18 (3) Spring 183, 262-76. EJ 279 344
Gurney, D., Gersten, R., Dimino, J., & Carnine, D. (1990). Story of grammar. Effective
literature instruction for high school students with disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities. 23, 335-342, 348.
Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., Heyns, B., &
Michelson, S. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and
schooling in America. New York: Basic.
Jenson, E. (2008). Brain-based learning: The new paradigm of teaching.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Karmel, P. (chair) (1985) Quality of education in Australia. Report of the Review
Committee. Canberra: AGPS.
Kinder, D., & Bursuck, W. (1991). The search for a unified social studies curriculum:
Does history repeat itself? Journal of Learning Disabilities. 24, 270-275.
Ming-Yueh, S., & Kuey, H. (2007). Collaborative action research for reading strategy
instructions. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language and Teaching. 4 (1), 108-121.
Centre for Language Studies: National University of Singapore.
National Institutes of Health. (2010). A lesson on PET scans developed for scientists
studying color indicators in the frontal lobe of language development. Retrieved
April 15, 2010 from: http://science.education.nih.gov.
Rothman, S. (2003). The changing influence of socioeconomic status on student
achievement: recent evidence from Australia: Australian Council for
Educational Research, Melbourne, Australia.
Salataci, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2
reading. Reading in a Foreign Language. Vol 14, No. 1
Sousa, D. (2001). How the brain learns 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
Sylwester, R. (1996). Celebrating Neurons, ASCD. Retrieved February 29, 2010 from
http://members.aol.com/Rss51540/brain2.htm
Viadero, D. (1996). Brain trust. Education week. September 18, 1996.
Weaver, C., Kintsch, W. (1991). Expository text. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil,
P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 2,
pp171-204. White Plains, NY: Longman.
No comments:
Post a Comment