1 Author: Neo, Chiu Bin The Effect of Strategy Instruction on Reading Comprehension ... · 2013-07-03 · 2 Neo, Chiu Bin. The Effect of Strategy Instruction on Reading Comprehension

1

Author: Neo, Chiu Bin Title: The Effect of Strategy Instruction on Reading Comprehension

Performance The accompanying research report is submitted to the University of Wisconsin-Stout, Graduate School in

partial completion of the requirements for the

Graduate Degree/ Major: MS Education

Research Adviser: Carolyn Heitz, PhD

Submission Term/Year: Spring, 2013

Number of Pages: 50

Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th edition

I understand that this research report must be officially approved by the Graduate School and that an electronic copy of the approved version will be made available through the University Library website

I attest that the research report is my original work (that any copyrightable materials have been used with the permission of the original authors), and as such, it is automatically protected by the laws, rules, and regulations of the U.S. Copyright Office.

My research adviser has approved the content and quality of this paper. STUDENT:

NAME: Chiu Bin Neo DATE: 12 March 2013

ADVISER: (Committee Chair if MS Plan A or EdS Thesis or Field Project/Problem):

NAME: Carolyn Heitz DATE: March 12, 2013

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----

This section for MS Plan A Thesis or EdS Thesis/Field Project papers only Committee members (other than your adviser who is listed in the section above) 1. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: DATE:

2. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: DATE:

3. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: DATE:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- This section to be completed by the Graduate School This final research report has been approved by the Graduate School.

Director, Office of Graduate Studies: DATE:

2

Neo, Chiu Bin. The Effect of Strategy Instruction on Reading Comprehension

Performance

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to discover the effect of strategy instruction on the

reading comprehension performance and strategy knowledge of a sixth grade student in

Singapore. The sample was a 13-year-old male student with a reading disability. The student

had good decoding skills but was weak in comprehension. The study assessed strengths and

weaknesses in the student’s reading comprehension and his knowledge and use of reading

strategies. Comprehension performance was assessed using a standardized comprehension

pretest and a posttest and through tasks on passages from the Qualitative Reading Inventory-

4. Observations made during the Qualitative Reading Inventory-4 assessments provided

information about the student’s use of strategies. The student’s knowledge of strategies was

measured through interviews and through a questionnaire, the Metacomprehension Strategy

Index. One-on-one instruction of selected strategies was provided through fifteen 90-minute

sessions of after-school tutoring. The study found that instruction of strategies improved the

student’s comprehension performance and increased his knowledge about strategy use.

3

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Assumptions of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Chapter II: Review of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Before-During-After Reading Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 13

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Chapter III: Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Setting and Subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 20

Instrumentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Data Collection and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Chapter IV: Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Item Analysis – Comprehension Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Knowledge and Use of Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 1: Pretest and Posttest Mean Percentage Scores for Standardized

Comprehension Tests, QRI-4 Comprehension, QRI-4 Retelling, QRI-4 Reading

Accuracy, and QRI-4 Self-Correction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4

Figure 2: Pretest and Posttest Results of the Metacognitive Strategy Index (MSI). 27

Chapter IV: Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Appendix A: Foundation English Pretest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Appendix B: Foundation English Posttest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Appendix C: Interview Questions on Strategy Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Appendix D: Metacomprehension Strategy Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

5

Chapter I: Introduction

Background

Singapore is a city state in Southeast Asia. The country has displayed progress in

international education assessments in recent years. It was ranked fifth in reading in a 2009

Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) study (Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development, 2011). Education in Singapore is known to be very academic

and result-oriented. Educational policies and programs are directed by the government. The

Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE) is the central body that regulates educational

institutions. The Ministry defines and disseminates curricula and syllabi; and it administers

the national exams.

Elementary education, called primary education, is mandatory for children aged seven

to twelve years old. Middle school starts from the seventh grade. Students sit for national

exams in English (as a first language), math, science, and a second language at the end of

grade six. A student has to pass the subjects in order to advance to middle school. A student

who fails a subject has to repeat sixth grade in school and retake the exams. An over-aged

student will not be permitted to repeat sixth grade in school. The student can study at home

and sit for the exams again as a private candidate. Another alternative is to discontinue

formal education. In an article titled, “The Land where Dreams of University can end at 12,”

William Stewart (2012) observed the gloomy impact of poor performance in these exams.

He wrote that “the outcomes (of the sixth grade national exams) effectively determine the rest

of a pupil's educational career” (p. 20).

Most schools begin to periodically administer standardized tests in the four

examinable subjects from the third grade. Students are formally banded into ability groups

for each subject at the end of grade four. Parents can decide whether to let their children take

the examinable subjects at the normal level or at a foundation level for fifth grade and sixth

6

grade. The foundation level curriculum caters to students with learning difficulties. Content

difficulty is lowered in the syllabi for the various subjects. The Ministry of Education (MOE)

refers to a student taking a foundation level subject as a “low progress learner” in that subject

(Ministry of Education, 2010). The 2010 syllabus for foundation English lists a range of

learning outcomes for reading. The document noted that the national examinations assessed

selected skills; and if teachers were to teach to the tests, students would not learn the range of

skills stated in the syllabus (Ministry of Education, 2010). This indicates that the Education

Ministry is aware of how examinations influence classroom practice.

Many educators know that reading strategy knowledge and strategy use can positively

impact students’ reading performance. However, teachers are not always able to ensure that

all low progress learners have sufficient time to learn and to apply strategies. There is

meager data on what strategies are taught to these students and how much practice time

students are given. Zhang, Gu, and Hu (2008) conducted a study on the use of reading

strategies by 18 primary school students in Singapore. The researchers found that less

successful students were focused on “bottom-up processing (e.g. sounding out words,

repeated reading of isolated unknown lexis)” (p. 266). The students were not aware of the

need to understand text and they viewed reading as decoding. The researchers also found that

high performing students used more strategies than low performing students.

A low progress learner will find comprehension tasks challenging irrespective of

whether he is taking normal track English or foundation English. The student has to be able

to read and interpret a variety of text forms, read for understanding, transfer information,

answer open-ended questions, answer multiple choice questions, and complete cloze

comprehension. Understanding text meaning is vital for successful completion of those tasks.

These students may require one-on-one instruction in strategy use in order to support

comprehension growth.

7

This study looks at a low progress learner’s difficulty with reading comprehension.

The student, Lee, has a reading disability resulting from a visual processing deficit. Since

February of 2012, Lee started to receive after-school tutoring three times a week. He

demonstrated strong decoding skills but was weak in comprehension. Poor comprehension

lowered his final scores on English language tasks and assessments. According to past

records, that had been a trend from the early years. This study will provide Lee with after-

school instructional support for comprehension.

Statement of the Problem

A sixth grade student has good decoding skills but is weak in comprehension.

Passing the foundation English exam at sixth grade is requisite for advancement to middle

school; therefore, ensuring that the student develops the necessary strategies to cope with

reading comprehension tasks is crucial. One-on-one reading strategy instruction will be

conducted to equip the student with means to solve comprehension problems and support his

comprehension development.

This study aims to answer the following questions:

1. What effect does strategy instruction have on the comprehension performance of a

student with a reading disability?

2. What effect does strategy instruction have on a student’s knowledge of strategy use?

Assumptions of the Study

The assumption behind providing instruction in strategies is that the use of strategies

has a positive effect on reading comprehension performance (Mason, Meadan, Hedin, &

Corson, 2006; Paris & Jacobs, 1984). Strategies can be used to support understanding of text

and to solve comprehension problems. Increasing strategy knowledge can aid reading

development and contribute to general knowledge development (Palinscar & Schutz, 2011).

Paris and Jacobs (1984) found that increasing knowledge about processes that support

8

comprehension can improve performance. Students with reading and learning disabilities are

known to lack knowledge of strategies (Jitendra & Gajria, 2011), therefore, it is necessary to

provide them with instruction.

Definition of Terms

The terms used in this study are defined as follows:

Comprehension strategies. Comprehension strategies are actions taken to support

and increase understanding of text. Examples of strategies that can support comprehension

include looking back and rereading.

Metacognitive strategies. Metacognitive strategies are actions taken to support and

control the use of cognitive strategies. Examples of metacognitive strategies include

regulating, checking, and repairing actions.

Metacomprehension. Metacomprehension refers to the monitoring of

comprehension undertaken by a reader. Comprehension monitoring involves the use of

regulating, checking, and repairing strategies.

Metacomprehension Strategy Index. The Metacomprehension Strategy Index

(MSI; Schmitt, 1990, 2005) is a questionnaire that measures knowledge of strategies to use

before, during, and after reading. It comprises twenty-five multiple-choice questions.

Twenty questions relevant to elementary school students will be used in this study.

Qualitative Reading Inventory-4. The Qualitative Reading Inventory-4 (QRI-4;

Leslie & Caldwell, 2006) is an informal reading assessment instrument that can be used to

gather data on word identification, fluency, and comprehension.

Question-answer relationships. The question-answer relationships (QAR) strategy

categorizes questions based on where answers can be found. Questions with answers that can

be found in the text are called “in the book” questions. Questions with answers that are

9

derived from the author’s prior knowledge or a combination of prior knowledge and hints

from text content are called “in my head” questions.

Reading comprehension performance. Reading comprehension performance refers

to a reader’s responses to reading comprehension tasks. In this study, it includes answering

explicit and implicit open-ended questions, answering multiple choice questions, completing

cloze tasks, and completing sentences. Task responses are scored as points and converted

into percentages.

Reading skills. Reading skills are unconscious and automatized actions taken to

achieve reading goals.

Reading strategies. Reading strategies are conscious and deliberate actions taken to

support reading. They include strategies undertaken to support decoding, fluency, and

comprehension. When used with automaticity, strategies become skills.

Retrospective miscue analysis. Retrospective miscue analysis (RMA) is a strategy

that is used to increase awareness in students about text meaning and the importance of

monitoring for comprehension. A student reads text and tapes his reading for replay. He

then listens to his own reading, cross-checks it with the text, and marks the errors he spots in

his reading. The miscues are then surfaced for discussion.

Working memory. Working memory is “the place where meaning is made in the

information processing system” (Bruning, Schraw, & Norby, 2011, p. 26).

Methodology

The student’s comprehension performance will be assessed using a standardized

pretest and a posttest (Samuel, 2011) formatted after school tests. The standardized tests

include open-ended and multiple choice questions, sentence completion, an information

transfer task, and a cloze task. Pre- and posttest comprehension scores on six passages from

the Qualitative Reading Inventory-4 (QRI-4; Leslie & Caldwell, 2006) will yield additional

10

data on performance. Observations made during the QRI-4 assessments will provide

information about the student’s use of strategies. The student’s knowledge about reading

strategies will be assessed through ten open-ended interview questions developed by Brown,

Pressley, Van Meter, and Schuder (1996); and Miholic (1994). Knowledge of before, during,

and after reading strategies will be measured by a questionnaire, the Metacomprehension

Strategy Index (MSI), developed by Schmitt (1990).

Strategy instruction will be conducted through fifteen 90-minute sessions of after-

school tutoring. A standardized comprehension posttest (Samuel, 2011) and comprehension

posttests using passages from the QRI-4 will be administered after the intervention. The

QRI-4 passages will comprise six previously tested passages and two new passages not

previously used. The interview on reading strategy knowledge will be conducted again. The

self-report questionnaire, the MSI, will be re-administered.

11

Chapter II: Review of Literature

Reading comprehension impacts learning and school advancement. In Singapore,

where this study will be conducted, sixth grade students are required to sit for national exams

at the end of the academic year. In the English language exam, these students have to display

their comprehension of texts through answering open-ended questions, multiple-choice

questions, and completing sentences and cloze tasks. A poor performance score can stop a

student from advancing to middle school. For over-aged students, failure could mean the end

of formal schooling because these students would not be allowed to repeat sixth grade and

retake the exams. Students with reading and learning disabilities who struggle with

comprehension are especially at risk. They require focused intervention to support

comprehension and improve performance scores. This research study will investigate if

strategy instruction will improve the reading comprehension performance of a sixth grade

student with a reading disability. The study will also examine if strategy instruction will

increase the student’s knowledge of strategy use. The literature review will look at the pre-

requisites of reading comprehension, discuss comprehension difficulties faced by students

with reading and learning disabilities, and explore comprehension strategies for explicit

instruction.

Comprehension is defined by the Rand Reading Study Group (Snow, 2002) as “the

process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and

involvement with written language” (p. 11). Comprehension has also been referred to as a

process of making meaning of text (Adams, 1990). The pre-requisites of comprehension

include adequate cognitive processing abilities, accurate decoding, fluency, the ability to

relate prior knowledge with text, knowledge and use of strategies, and metacognitive abilities

that monitor comprehension (Adams, 1990; Bruning, Schraw, & Norby, 2011). The Rand

Reading Study Group (Snow, 2002) lists the following factors as influencing comprehension:

12

vocabulary and linguistic knowledge (including oral language skills and an

awareness of language structures); non-linguistic abilities and processes

(attention, visualization, inferencing, reasoning, critical analysis, working

memory, etc.); engagement and motivation; an understanding of the goals and

purposes of reading; discourse knowledge; domain knowledge; and cognitive

and metacognitive strategy development. (p. 83)

Researchers have noted the ability of good readers to integrate the necessary abilities,

skills, and knowledge for successful comprehension (Palinscar & Schutz, 2011). In contrast,

poor readers are known to experience difficulties coordinating the varied and complex

requirements. Many students with reading and learning disabilities have a short attention

span, poor working memory, and are lacking in prior knowledge (Jitendra & Gajria, 2011).

These students do not monitor comprehension (Cross & Paris, 1988), have limited knowledge

about the use of strategies (Meloth, 1990), and do not use strategies effectively (Rottman &

Cross, 2001).

Weaknesses in cognitive processes of attention and working memory require

extensive and focused intervention. A lack of prior knowledge entails long-term support

since reading itself is a challenge for these students. Poor comprehension monitoring and

strategy knowledge can be aided by strategy instruction. In an ideal learning environment,

comprehensive and multipronged intervention should be provided to support all areas of

weaknesses. Where there are constraints of time and resources, instruction has to be targeted

to address important needs. Roberts, Torgesen, Broadman, and Scammacca (2008) stated

that “for older students with LD (learning disabilities) who continue to struggle in reading,

the challenge is providing instruction that is powerful enough to narrow or close gap with

grade-level standards in reading” (p. 68).

13

Comprehension strategies are purposeful and conscious actions taken to achieve

comprehension goals (Gunning, 2000), which may vary from answering questions to

completing summaries or reports (Dymock & Nicholson, 2010). Strategies have potential to

be automatized and become skills when used over time. Skills are actions which have been

so well-rehearsed that they are used unconsciously and with mastery. Many skilled readers

unconsciously preview text, check for understanding, reread, and recall information to

enhance comprehension.

Walcyzk (2000) held that strategies can be used as compensatory mechanisms by

readers who have inefficient decoding and a small working memory. He categorized slowing

reading rate, pausing, and looking back in text as compensatory behaviors (p. 561). He

referred to rereading as a compensatory strategy (p. 561). Other researchers have categorized

strategies into before, during, and after reading processes (Houvteen & Van de Grift, 2007;

Castilleja, 2011). Pre-reading strategies include previewing, making predictions, and asking

questions about text. Comprehension can be supported through checking predictions,

monitoring comprehension, answering questions, and summarizing main points during

reading. Strategies that consolidate the reading act include retelling, summarizing, and

answering questions (McCormick, 2007; Houtveen & Van de Grift, 2007; Gunning, 2000).

Before-During-After Reading Strategies

Previewing is a pre-reading activity that prepares a reader to approach content. A

reader previews text by taking note of the title, text type, text structure, and text features.

These components provide clues about what the text would be like. Predicting is another

action to take before reading. The title and what a reader already knows about the topic can

provide hints about text content. However, predicting does require a certain amount of prior

knowledge and may not be useful for students who are weak in that area (Gunning, 2000).

Prior knowledge takes time to build and it is also developed through extensive reading.

14

Instead, students with weak prior knowledge could learn to ask generic questions about text.

A reader can pre-empt content by asking questions related to the question words what, who,

when, how, and why. Questioning prepares the reader to take note of text information in an

organized manner. Previewing, predicting, and asking questions can be used in a reading

routine to prepare for text comprehension (Gunning, 2000; Houtveen & Van de Grift, 2007;

Roberts, et al., 2008). Organizers or graphic maps can be used for writing down predictions

and questions for subsequent checking (Leslie & Caldwell, 2005; Jitendra & Gajria, 2011).

The use of these visual aids will reinforce learning.

Strategies that are used during reading to aid comprehension include checking

predictions, monitoring comprehension, and taking note of narrative elements or main ideas.

A reader confirms prior knowledge about text or adjusts his understanding of the topic

according to new information received when he checks predictions. Monitoring

comprehension involves thinking about what is being read and taking steps to increase

understanding of text. Monitoring comprehension has been termed metacomprehension

(Schmitt, 2005) or thinking about comprehension. Comprehension monitoring is managed by

metacognition. Cross and Paris (1988) defined metacognition as “the knowledge and control

children have over their own thinking and learning activities, including reading” (p. 131).

Students with reading and learning disabilities are known to be weak in metacognition;

therefore, it is necessary to raise their awareness about monitoring comprehension (Jitendra

& Gajria, 2011; Gunning, 2000).

Monitoring comprehension involves the use of regulating, checking, and repairing

strategies (Gunning, 2000). These strategies are also referred to as metacognitive strategies.

A reader regulates reading by selecting and implementing different strategies to meet

different reading goals. Poor readers need to be made aware that learning and applying

strategies can help them interpret text and solve comprehension problems. Increasing

15

knowledge about strategies contribute to regulation of reading as it arms readers with tools

for problem-solving.

Checking comprehension involves the evaluation of comprehension. Poor readers

need to be taught to reflect on their own comprehension levels through self-questioning. A

reader asks questions such as “Do I know what is going on?” or “What does this mean?” A

reader who does not think about meaning will decode without paying attention to the ideas

that the words are conveying. Reading Recovery, a program which incorporates

metacognition instruction, has been shown to benefit young readers (Griffith & Ruan, 2005).

Readers were taught to self-question whether what they were reading made sense or whether

the text sounded and looked right. Such questioning emphasizes meaning-making in reading

and encourages readers to reflect on their comprehension. A reader who checks

comprehension can use a repair strategy to solve a comprehension problem. Repair strategies

can be as simple as asking assistance from another person. Repair actions include slowing

reading rate, pausing, using context clues to think about word meaning, looking back,

rereading, reading before and after the problem sections, and seeking help from others.

Some students may decode fairly well but make miscues which affect meaning.

These students do not self-correct sufficiently. The lack of self-correction indicates that they

are not attentive to text meaning. Instruction in a strategy called retrospective miscue

analysis (RMA; Goodman, 1996) can help raise awareness that errors in decoding can change

the meaning of a sentence or make a sentence incomprehensible. The strategy emphasizes

the need to monitor for meaning and to self-correct independently (Goodman, 1996). The

student reads a piece of text which is taped for replay. He listens to the taped reading, cross-

checks his reading with the text, and marks the miscues he spots in his taped reading. The

tutor and the student then surface the miscues for discussion.

16

Purposeful discussions of miscues and other decoding difficulties encourage students

to think about why miscues were made. Discussions also increase knowledge of strategies

for self-correction (Black, 2004). Goodman (1996) and Moore (2003) suggested that the

RMA strategy provides a non-threatening environment to discuss errors. It also encourages

the reader to think about himself as a reader and to think about the entire reading process.

Martens (1998) used retrospective miscue analysis with a third-grade student with a learning

disability. The student viewed reading as decoding and remembering information initially.

After intervention, he saw reading as a process of making meaning of text.

Knowledge about text structures can be used before, during, and after reading to help

a reader organize information. Text structure refers to how text is organized. Knowledge of

text structures provides a reader with a “framework” to anticipate content (Jitendra & Gajria,

2011; Gunning, 2000), and is especially helpful when prior knowledge is lacking. A reader

can use a known structure to work out how different ideas in a new text are related. Good

readers are known to have more knowledge about text structures than students with reading

and learning disabilities (Cataldo & Oakhill, 2000; Jitendra & Gajria, 2011; Stetter &

Hughes, 2010). Therefore, there is a need to ensure that the latter group of students receives

needed instruction.

The text structures encountered in elementary school include narrative and expository

types. A narrative text is made up of a simple story grammar comprising elements such as

characters, setting, plot, problem, and solution. A sequence of events may also be included.

Understanding the elements in a story grammar can aid retelling (Boulineau, Fore III, Hagan-

Burke, & Burke, 2004; Leslie & Caldwell, 2005). Story grammar can be taught through the

use of a story map which allows the reader to visually categorize information (Jitendra &

Gajria, 2011; Gunning, 2000). The map can be used before reading to direct the reader’s

attention to the various elements in a narrative. It can help a reader to identify, organize, and

17

record information during reading (Roberts, Torgesen, Broadman, & Scammacca, 2008). It

is also useful as a reference for retelling, summarizing, or for answering questions after

reading (Swanson & De la Paz, 1998). A student who learns to apply story grammar can use

the structure to recall information for retelling and summarizing even without the use of the

visual story map.

Expository text structures vary from lists, compare-contrast structures, sequences of

events, to those that analyze causes. A simple structure that students with reading and

learning disabilities should be taught is main ideas and details (Bakken & Whedon, 2002).

Main ideas comprise important text information (McCormick, 2007) and being able to extract

those ideas is central to reading comprehension (Jitendra & Gajria, 2011; Gunning, 2000). A

main ideas and details map can be used to help the reader find and generate main ideas or

topics (Leslie & Caldwell, 2005).

Previously read short texts which are well-organized (Gunning, 2000) can be used for

instruction in main ideas and details. The tutor models how to derive the main idea through

looking at the topic of each paragraph. If a paragraph has a topic sentence, the sentence can

serve as the main idea sentence. The tutor should explain how the rest of the paragraph

relates to the topic. The function of text features such as titles, sub-headings, font type, and

font size should also be brought up for discussion (Dymock & Nicholson, 2010) as text

feature knowledge helps readers to identify and differentiate different types of information.

Retelling, summarizing, and answering questions help a reader to consolidate reading,

enhancing comprehension. Retelling can be taught in conjunction with instruction of text

structures. Students can use text structure information to help them reconstruct important

information. Expository text structure information, in the form of main ideas and details, can

also be used to develop a summary. Retelling, summarizing, and answering questions are

frequently used as comprehension assessments. Answering questions is a feature of

18

standardized comprehension tests in elementary school. Searching for answers to questions

can be a challenging task for students with reading and learning disabilities (Cataldo &

Oakhill, 2000). An after reading strategy that supports answering questions is the question-

answer relationships (QAR) strategy (Raphael, 1986; Raphael & Au, 2005; Dymock and

Nicholson, 2010). The strategy teaches a reader to differentiate questions and understand

where answers can be found. This can contribute to comprehension performance (Roberts, et

al., 2008; Castilleja, 2011).

The strategy categorizes questions into “in the book” questions and “in my head"

questions. Within the “in the book” category are “right there” and “search and think”

questions. Answers to “right there” questions are found in one statement in the text. The

question usually shares similar words with the answer in the text. Answers to “think and

search” questions are gathered from different places within a text. The words used in the

question may differ from that in the text. The “in my head” category consists of “author and

me” and “on my own questions”. The answers to “author and me” questions combine

information hinted in the text with the reader’s prior knowledge. The answers to “on my

own” questions are not stated in the text and require the reader to provide his own answers.

“In the book” questions feature prominently in standardized tests. To match a

question with an answer from text requires the use of look backs and rereading. Many

students with reading and learning disabilities do not use look backs and rereading

(McCormick, 2007; Antoniou & Souvignier, 2007). Walcyk (2000) referred to looking back

as a compensatory behavior and rereading as a compensatory strategy. Instruction of the

QAR strategy will emphasize the importance of using look backs and rereading.

A study by Ezell, Hunsicker, and Quinque (1997) compared the effectiveness of peer-

assisted learning and teacher-assisted learning using the QAR strategy by fourth graders in a

public school in the United States. The researchers found that there was no significant

19

difference between the two forms of learning but they noted that all students increased their

comprehension skills through using the QAR strategy. In addition, the students maintained

high levels of comprehension performance eight months after instruction had ended.

Another study by Prew and Kinniburgh (2010) in the United Kingdom found that knowledge

and use of the QAR strategy improved the reading comprehension test scores of first and

second grade students. Teachers involved in the research considered the strategy to be

effective in preparing students for tests. They were convinced that younger students should

be taught the strategy.

Summary

Some students with reading and learning disabilities experience comprehension

difficulties into higher elementary school years. These students have difficulty integrating

the myriad abilities, skills, and knowledge required for successful comprehension. Previous

research has demonstrated the efficacy of strategy instruction in improving comprehension.

Therefore, it is important that students with comprehension difficulties are given instruction

on strategy use.

20

Chapter III: Methodology

Students with reading and learning disabilities are known to experience complex

comprehension difficulties. Intervention through instruction of strategies has potential to

address some of the problems. This study assessed the comprehension difficulties faced by

such a student and investigated the effects of strategy instruction on comprehension

performance. It also examined if strategy instruction increased knowledge about strategy use.

Setting and Subject

The subject, Lee, was a 13-year-old sixth grade male student attending an after-school

tutoring facility in Singapore. He had entered kindergarten a year later than his peers and is a

year older than other sixth graders. Lee has a reading disability resulting from a visual

processing deficit and reads at about three levels below grade. He was enrolled in the normal

curriculum for subjects such as English, math and science in lower elementary school. In

fifth grade, he transferred to the foundation level for those subjects. The foundation level

caters to students with learning difficulties. Passages used for reading in English are shorter

and text difficulty level is lowered. The foundation reading level is equivalent to level two

and three on the Qualitative Reading Inventory-4 (QRI-4; Leslie & Caldwell, 2006).

Lee has to sit for national exams at the end of grade six. Failure in any one subject will

hinder entry to middle school, which begins from grade seven. Lee will not be able to repeat

sixth grade because he is over-aged. School-administered English comprehension

assessments indicated that Lee was experiencing comprehension difficulties. Lee started to

receive after-school tutoring three times a week two months into the sixth grade academic

year. This study was conducted during those sessions. One-on-one strategy instruction was

provided to him.

21

Instrumentation

A standardized foundation level comprehension test (Samuel, 2011) was administered

to provide a pretest raw score that was then converted to a percentage score. The test (see

Appendix A) followed the format used in school tests and exams. It included narrative and

expository texts. The texts also varied in formats such as advertisements, brochures,

announcements, and application forms. Test items included five open-ended and five

multiple choice questions, an information transfer item, a sentence completion task, and a

cloze task. A second test (see Appendix B) from the publisher was administered to provide

the posttest score.

Six passages from the QRI-4 (Leslie & Caldwell, 2006) were administered before and

after intervention. They comprised narrative and expository texts. Comprehension was

measured by scores for answering comprehension questions. A comprehension percentage

score was computed for each passage based on the number of correct answers on eight

questions asked. The mean percentage score for the six passages was computed. A retelling

score was computed to assess if instruction in text structure could improve text recount. A

retelling score for each passage was derived based on the number of ideas generated. The

retelling mean percentage score for the six passages was computed. Two new passages, not

previously administered, were added on as posttests to provide data to affirm performance.

Observations made during assessments provided information about the student’s use

of strategies such as look backs, rereading, pausing, slowing reading rate, and self-correction.

The reading accuracy and self-correction rates were worked out and their mean percentage

scores were computed. The reading accuracy scores, self-correction scores, and running

records provided information about comprehension monitoring and the nature of miscues that

the student made.

22

Knowledge about comprehension strategies was assessed through two instruments. The

first comprised ten open-ended interview questions developed by Brown, et al. (1996); and

Miholic (1994). The questions asked about strategies that good readers used, strategies for

monitoring comprehension, and strategies for repairing problems (see Appendix C). The

second instrument was a multiple-choice questionnaire called the Metacomprehension

Strategy Index (MSI; Schmitt, 1990). It measured knowledge of before, during, and after

reading strategies. This originally comprised twenty-five multiple-choice questions. Twenty

questions (see Appendix D) that were relevant to elementary school students were used in

this study. Seven questions were on before reading strategies, nine questions were on during

reading strategies, and four questions asked about after reading strategies. Each correct

response was given a point. The points for each category of before, during, and after reading

strategy were totaled and converted to a percentage score. The interview about strategy

knowledge and the MSI were re-administered as posttests.

Data Collection and Procedures

A participation and consent letter was emailed to Lee’s parents for permission to take

part in the study. The assessments and intervention were conducted after-school hours during

tutoring sessions from April to June of 2012.

Fifteen lessons each lasting ninety minutes were conducted. At different phases during

the period of intervention, Lee was taught these strategies: previewing text, making and

check predictions, retrospective miscue analysis, monitoring comprehension, text structures

and features, and question-answer relationships strategy. Each lesson followed a structure of

lesson preview, review of the previous lesson, strategy instruction, teacher modeling, student

practice, and application (Leslie & Caldwell, 2005). Strategies were taught two at a time and

combined strategy use was encouraged throughout the sessions. Level three narrative and

expository texts were used for instruction.

23

Data Analysis

Comprehension performance was compared using comprehension test scores. The first

set of data looked at the mean percentage scores for a standardized English comprehension

pretest and a posttest (Samuel, 2011). The second set compared the pretest and posttest mean

percentage scores for comprehension on six passages from the QRI-4. The pre- and posttest

QRI-4 retelling mean percentage scores were also compared. Two new QRI-4 passages that

were not administered previously provided additional posttest scores to affirm performance.

The pre- and posttest mean percentage scores for QRI-4 reading accuracy and self-correction

provided information about comprehension monitoring. The student’s use of strategies

during the QRI-4 assessments was noted. Change in strategy knowledge was assessed

through the strategies described by the student in the pre- and posttest interviews and through

comparison of pre- and posttest scores on the MSI.

Limitations

It is not possible to say which strategies contributed most to comprehension

performance because a combination of strategies was taught to the student.

24

Chapter IV: Results

This study investigated the effects of strategy instruction on the comprehension

performance of a sixth grade student with a reading disability. The study examined whether

strategy instruction improved comprehension performance. It also explored whether strategy

instruction increased the student’s knowledge about strategy use.

Item Analysis – Comprehension Performance

The first research question inquired about the effect of strategy instruction on the

comprehension performance of the student. Pretest and posttest comprehension scores were

compared to answer this question. The first set of comprehension scores was obtained from a

standardized foundation English comprehension pretest and a posttest (Samuel, 2011).

Comprehension was measured by answers on five open-ended questions, five multiple-choice

questions, a sentence completion task, an information transfer task, and a cloze task on a

number of short narrative and expository texts. A raw score was computed into a percentage

score. The second set of comprehension scores came from assessments on six passages from

the Qualitative Reading Inventory-4 (QRI-4; Leslie & Caldwell, 2006). The six passages

were used for both pretests and posttests. Eight open-ended questions were asked for each

passage. A mean comprehension percentage score was derived. Two new passages from the

QRI-4 were added on as posttests to provide data about performance on texts not used in the

pretests. A mean percentage score for retelling on the six passages was also computed to

provide additional information about comprehension performance.

Knowledge and Use of Strategies

The second research question inquired whether instruction on strategies could

increase knowledge about strategy use. An interview comprising ten questions about strategy

knowledge was conducted before and after intervention. Responses to the

Metacomprehension Strategy Index (MSI; Schmitt, 1990) provided additional information on

25

knowledge about before, during, and after reading strategies. The mean percentage scores for

reading accuracy and self-correction on the QRI-4 passages furnished information about the

use of monitoring strategies. Observations of the student’s use of strategies during the QRI-4

assessments contributed to information about strategy application.

Findings

Figure 1 shows the pretest and posttest mean percentage scores for the standardized

comprehension tests (Samuel, 2011) and for answering questions on six passages from the

QRI-4. The figure also contains pre- and posttest mean percentage scores for retelling,

reading accuracy, and self-correction on the passages from the QRI-4.

Figure 1. Pretest and posttest mean percentage scores for standardized comprehension tests,

QRI-4 comprehension, QRI-4 retelling, QRI-4 reading accuracy, and QRI-4 self-correction.

There was an improvement of 14% on the standardized comprehension posttest. The

QRI-4 posttest comprehension mean percentage score for six passages improved by 33%.

Lee consistently answered correctly seven out of eight questions for five previously

administered passages. He answered all questions correctly for one passage. His retelling

mean percentage score for the six passages increased from 11% to 39%. His reading

accuracy increased from 98% to 99%; and his self-correction increased by 46%. The posttest

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

StandardizedComprehension

Tests

QRI-4Comprehension

QRI-4 Retelling QRI-4 ReadingAccuracy

QRI-4 Self-correction

Pretest

Posttest

Per

cen

t

26

mean percentage scores for two new passages not administered in the pretest are not shown in

Figure 1. The comprehension mean percentage score for those passages was 87.5%. The

mean score for accuracy was 99% and the score for self-correction was 60%.

Observations made during pretests on the QRI-4 passages indicated that Lee looked

back and reread infrequently when answering questions, even when he had been permitted

(but not prompted) to do so. The occasional look back that was observed was random. Lee

had a tendency to provide an answer from prior knowledge that was unrelated to text content.

Posttest observations indicated increased and more targeted looking back and rereading when

answering questions. Lee’s reading accuracy was good in both pre- and posttests. However,

he did make miscues which interfered with sentence meaning in the pretests. The number of

miscues decreased in the posttests. Self-correction also improved in the posttests. Miscues

made in the pretests resulted from inaccurate predictions for decoding. Some visual cues

were ignored and a few multiple syllable words were reduced. For example, refrigerator was

read as refriator and environment was read as enviment. The miscues affected meaning but

Lee seemed unaware of that. Few cues that retained grammar and meaning of sentences were

used. That indicated a lack of checking for understanding. There was also a disconcerting

number of additions and deletions of function words. Some of the additions and deletions

interfered with sentence meaning.

Findings from the pretest interview on strategy knowledge suggested that Lee was

familiar with using a dictionary, previewing the content page, rereading, seeking help from

someone else, and asking questions such as what the text was about. He also viewed not

knowing a word in terms of decoding difficulty rather than not understanding its meaning. In

the posttest interview, Lee explained that it was important to think about whether sentences

made sense. He said that if a word didn’t make sense he could read the sentence before and

the sentence after for clues to help him figure out the meaning. He named looking back,

27

rereading, and seeking help as actions to take for working out sentence meaning. Lee also

suggested looking for special text features and identifying main ideas to help comprehension.

He was able to give detailed examples of how to use predictions and asking questions about

text.

A shortened version of the MSI (Schmitt, 1990) assessed what Lee knew about

before, during, and after reading strategies. Lee had seven responses correct out of a total of

twenty questions in the pretest. He had thirteen correct responses in the posttest. That was a

30% increase. Figure 2 shows the pretest and posttest increment in percentage scores for

each category of before, during, and after reading strategies.

Figure 2. Pretest and posttest results of the Metacognitive Strategy Index (MSI)

Lee did not choose responses related to making predictions in the pretest for before

reading strategies. His responses for this category were all correct in the posttest. He chose

the use of previewing and predicting as strategies to take before reading. Lee had three

correct responses for nine questions in the pretest on strategies to use during reading. He

chose retelling, making guesses, and checking guesses as actions to take. He made one more

correct response in the posttest. He was familiar with rereading, taking time to read, and

using the dictionary. There was still a preoccupation with having to read everything in a text

and on word accuracy. He did not select retelling, predicting, checking predictions, and

0102030405060708090

100

MSI Pretest MSI Postest

Before strategies

During strategies

After strategies

Per

cen

t

28

checking pre-reading questions as actions to take during reading. Lee had two correct

responses for four questions in the posttest for after reading strategies. In the pretest, he had

incorrect responses for all four questions. He chose retelling and making a list of what he

understood as important post-reading activities in the posttest. Monitoring reading goal and

relating text to prior knowledge were not selected. In summary, as reported in figures 1 and

2, there was improvement in comprehension performance and increase in knowledge about

strategy use.

29

Chapter V: Discussion

This study examined if instruction of comprehension strategies could improve the

comprehension performance of a sixth grade student. It also investigated whether the

student became more knowledgeable about strategy use.

The subject, Lee, was a 13-year-old male student with a reading disability attending an

elementary school in Singapore. Sixth grade is the last year of elementary school in the city

state. Lee reads at about three levels below grade. He had been experiencing difficulty with

English reading comprehension and that often lowered his overall English test scores. This

study investigated his comprehension weaknesses and strengths, and provided instruction of

strategies to support comprehension performance.

A standardized comprehension pretest and a posttest (Samuel, 2011) and

comprehension assessments on passages from the Qualitative Reading Inventory-4 (QRI-4;

Leslie & Caldwell, 2006) provided comprehension performance scores. Lee’s use of

strategies was observed during assessments of QRI-4 passages. Knowledge about

comprehension strategies was assessed through pre-and posttest open-ended interview

questions and a questionnaire, the Metacomprehension Strategy Index (MSI; Schmitt, 1990).

Posttest data indicated improvement in comprehension performance. Lee’s

comprehension percentage score on the standardized test (Samuel, 2011) improved by 14%.

He was able to answer seven questions out of eight questions correctly for five passages from

the QRI-4. For one passage, he was able to answer all eight questions correctly. This

improvement in performance was maintained for tasks on two new passages that had not been

previously administered. Lee looked back and reread more frequently when answering

questions during the QRI-4 posttest assessments. He was also more strategic when looking

for answers. That could have contributed to the improved comprehension mean percentage

30

score. The instruction in question-answer relationships strategy, with its focus on relating

questions to text answers, could have supported efforts in look backs and rereading.

The mean retelling percentage score for the six passages that were previously

administered also increased. Lee recounted more ideas and he also organized and sequenced

those ideas better than in the pretests. The retelling mean percentage score for the two

passages not previously used for assessment provided further evidence of development in

retelling. Jitendra and Gajria (2011) had suggested that instruction in text structure and

thinking about main ideas could improve retelling.

Lee improved in comprehension monitoring. That was evident from posttest findings

on miscues made. He was relatively strong in reading accuracy in the pretests but he did

make some miscues that interfered with sentence meaning. The number of miscues made

decreased in the posttests, with previously administered and new passages. Posttest self-

correction rates for the six previously administered passages improved. This positive

development was affirmed by an increase in self-correction scores for the two passages that

were not used in pretests. The findings suggest increased attention to text meaning. Such

findings are consistent with previous studies on use of retrospective miscue analysis with

students (Martens, 1998).

The posttest data from interviews about knowledge of reading strategies indicate that

Lee became more aware about what to do for effective reading. He was able to explain how

to use various strategies and how the strategies could help him with comprehension. He

listed and explained with examples the elements of story grammar. He was also able to

explain how the question-answer relationships strategy worked and why it was useful. The

increase in knowledge about strategy use was also reflected in a higher posttest score on the

MSI. There was increased awareness about the use of previewing text, making predictions,

checking previously asked questions, checking predictions, and retelling.

31

Limitations

A combination of different strategies was taught to the student as they were deemed to

be important for his reading comprehension development. It is not possible to ascertain

which strategies contributed most to comprehension performance.

Conclusions

Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions are made:

The instruction of strategies improved the comprehension performance of the

student.

The instruction of strategies increased the student’s knowledge about strategy use in

reading.

Recommendations

Based on the findings and the conclusion of the study, the following

recommendations are proposed:

Lee should be encouraged to apply strategies when reading texts in other subject

areas. This will enhance his understanding that strategies can be used in all reading

situations.

Lee should be encouraged to continue to apply the QAR strategy to comprehension

tasks.

Lee should be encouraged to read extensively materials that are at his independent

reading level to develop general knowledge.

32

References

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Antoniou, F., & Souvignier, E. (2007). Strategy instruction in reading comprehension: An

intervention study for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A

Contemporary Journal, 5(1), 41-57.

Bakken, J. P., & Whedon, C. K. (2002). Teaching text structure to improve reading

comprehension. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(4), 229-233.

Black, W. L. ( 2004). Assessing the metacognitive dimensions of retrospective

miscue analysis through discourse analysis. Reading Horizons, 45(2), 73-101.

Boulineau, T., Fore III, C., Hagan-Burke, S., & Burke, M. (2004). Use of story-mapping to

increase the story-grammar text comprehension of elementary students with learning

disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 105-121.

Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental

validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second grade

readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18-37.

Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Norby, M. M. (2011). Cognitive psychology and instruction.

(5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Castilleja, G. (2011). “Is that your final answer?” Before, during, and after reading strategies

to improve comprehension and master standardized tests. Illinois Reading Council

Journal, 40(1), 23-26.

Cataldo, M. G., & Oakhill, J. (2000). Why are poor comprehenders inefficient searchers? An

investigation into the effects of text representation and spatial memory on the ability

to locate information in text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 791-799.

doi:10.1037//0022-0663.92.4.791

33

Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s

metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2),

131-142.

Dymock, S., & Nicholson, T. (2010). “High 5!” Strategies to enhance comprehension of

expository text. The Reading Teacher, 64(3), 166-178. doi:10.1598/RT.64.3.2

Ezell, H. K., Hunsicker, S. A., & Quinque, M. M. (1997). Comparison of two strategies for

teaching reading. Education & Treatment of Children, 20(4).

Goodman, K. S. (1996). Analysis of reading miscues: Applied psycholinguistics. Reading

Research Quarterly, 5, 9-30.

Griffith, P. L., & Ruan, J. (2005). What is metacognition and what should be its role in

literacy instruction? In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bausermann, & K. Kinnucan-

Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and

professional development (pp. 3-18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Gunning, T. G. (2000). Creating literacy instruction for all children. Needham Heights, MA:

Allyn and Bacon.

Houtveen, A. A. M., & Van de Grift, W. J. C. M. (2007). Effects of metacognitive strategy

instruction and instruction time on reading comprehension. School Effectiveness and

School Improvement, 18(2), 173-190. doi:10.1080/09243450601058717

Jitendra, A. K., & Gajria, M. (2011). Reading comprehension instruction for students with

learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43(8), 1-16.

Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2005). Intervention strategies to follow informal reading inventory

assessment. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2006). Qualitative reading inventory. Boston, MA: Pearson

Education, Inc.

34

Martens, P. (1998). Using retrospective miscue analysis to inquire: Learning from Michael.

The Reading Teacher, 52(2), 176-180.

Mason, H., Meadan, H., Hedin, L., & Corson, L. (2006). Self-regulated strategy

development instruction for expository text comprehension. Teaching Exceptional

Children, 38(4), 47-52.

McCormick, S. (2007). Instructing students who have literacy problems. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Meloth, M. S. (1990). Changes in poor readers’ knowledge of cognition and the association

of knowledge of cognition with regulation of cognition and reading comprehension.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 792-798.

Miholic, V. (1994). An inventory to pique students’ metacognitive awareness of reading

strategies. Journal of Reading, 38, 84-86.

Ministry of Education (2010). English Language Syllabus 2010 Primary (Foundation) &

Secondary (Normal [Technical]). Retrieved from

http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/syllabuses/english-language-and-

literature/files/english-primary-foundation-secondary-normal-technical.pdf

Moore, R. A., & Brantingham, K. L. (2003). Nathan: A case study in reader response and

retrospective miscue analysis. The Reading Teacher, 56(5), 466-474.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2010). Singapore: Rapid

improvement followed by strong performance. Strong Performers and Successful

Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for the United States (pp. 159-176).

Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/countries/singapore/46581101.pdf

Palinscar, A. S., & Schutz, K. M. (2011). Reconnecting strategy instruction with its

theoretical roots. Theory into Practice, 50, 85–92. doi:0.1080/00405841.2011.558432

35

Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children’s

reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55, 2083-2093.

Prew, S., & Kinniburgh, L. H. (2010). Question-answer relationships (QAR) in the primary

grades: Laying the foundation for reading comprehension. International Journal of

Early Childhood Special Education (INT-JECSE), 2(1), 31-44.

Raphael, T. E., (1986). Teaching question-answer relationships revisited. The Reading

Teacher, 40, 516-522.

Raphael, T. E., & Au, K. H. (2005). QAR: Enhancing comprehension and test taking across

grades and content areas. The Reading Teacher, 59(3), 206-221.

doi:10.1598/RT.59.31

Roberts, G., Torgesen, J. K., Boardman, A., & Scammacca, N. (2008). Evidence-based

strategies for reading instruction for older students with learning disabilities. Learning

Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 63-69.

Rottman, T. R., & Cross, D. (2001). Using informed strategies for learning to enhance the

reading and thinking skills of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 23(5), 270-278.

Samuel, D. (2011). Foundation English PSLE (Primary School Leaving Examination) model

exam papers. Singapore: Educational Publishing House Pte. Ltd.

Schmitt, M. C. (1990). A questionnaire to measure children’s awareness of strategic reading

processes. The Reading Teacher, 43, 454-461.

Schmitt, M. C. (2005). Measuring students’ awareness and control of strategic processes. In

S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bausermann, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch, (Eds.),

Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional

development (pp. 101-119). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

36

Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R & D program in reading

comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved from

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1465.html

Stetter, M. E., & Hughes, M. T. (2010). Using story grammar to assist students with learning

disabilities and reading difficulties improve their comprehension. Education and

Treatment of Children, 33(1), 115-151.

Stewart, W. (2012, July 06). The land where dreams of university can end at 12. The Times

Educational Supplement, 5000, 20. Retrieved from

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6260009

Swanson, P. N., & De la Paz, S. (1998). Teaching effective comprehension strategies to

students with learning and reading disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic,

33(4), 209-218.

Walczyk, J. (2000). The interplay between automatic and control processes in reading.

Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), 554-566.

Zhang, L. J., Gu, P. Y., & Hu, G. (2008). A cognitive perspective on Singaporean primary

school pupils’ use of reading strategies in learning to read in English. British Journal

of Educational Psychology, 78, 245-271.

37

Appendix A

Foundation English Pretest

Section A: Information Transfer (5 marks) Read the following information to complete the form by filling in the blanks numbered 1 to 5. Imagine that you are a student named Noel Sim, aged 12. You live at 20, Highland Avenue, Singapore 547218. You would like to order a copy of the book “Teen Quest.” You want to send the order form now to get the book at a discounted price of $5.90. You have to send the order for the book to Teen Asia Pte. Ltd.

TEEN ASIA PTE. LTD.

Order Form

Order now and enjoy great discounts!

(1) Full Name (in BLOCK LETTERS): ___________________________________

(2) Age: ____________________________________________________________

(3) Occupation: ______________________________________________________

(4) Address: _________________________________________________________

Singapore ( )

(5) I hereby enclose a check of _____________________________ for a copy of

“Teen Quest.”

Section B: Comprehension – Completion of Sentences (5 marks) Read the following telephone conversation and use the information to complete the sentences in questions 6 to 10.

Eddy: Hello, Jack. This is Eddy.

Jack: Hi, Eddy.

Eddy: Do you want to play basketball at the community center today?

Jack: I can’t. I have to complete my project for Social Studies.

Eddy: I can help you. Why don’t we meet at the Central Library at 5 p.m.?

Jack: Okay. Shall we have dinner at Yummy Burger Deli after completing the project?

Eddy: That’s a great idea. They are offering a free apple pie for every cheeseburger

meal. I know that you love cheeseburgers.

Jack: I feel hungry already. I’ll see you at the library then. Bye.

Eddy: Sure. Bye.

38

Based on the information given above, complete each sentence with a suitable word or

suitable words.

6. Eddy called Jack to ask him if he wanted to ________________________________ .

7. Jack was busy because he had to _________________________________________ .

8. The two boys agreed to do the project at the ________________________________ .

9. Jack suggested having dinner at __________________________________________ .

10. Jack’s favorite fast food is _____________________________________________ .

Section C: Comprehension – Open-ended (10 marks)

Read the following passages and answer questions 11 to 15.

My dog, Spot, was given to me by Uncle Alex. Spot was different from other dogs. It

hated dog food but instead, loved eating fish. Spot was not afraid of loud noises made by

firecrackers but was a coward when it came to thunderstorms. I would always find it

under the table or in bed during a storm.

11. What was unusual about Spot?

________________________________________________________________________

12. Why did Spot hide under the table during a storm?

________________________________________________________________________

Janice was studying past midnight for her Science examination. It was two o’clock

and she had not completed her revision. When she went to school in the morning for her

examination, she felt sick and had a bad headache.

During the examination, she was biting her nails nervously as she could not answer

most of the questions. She wanted to copy her friend’s answers but the invigilator kept a

close watch on all pupils. Janice knew she would fail her examination.

13. Why do you think Janice had a bad headache?

_______________________________________________________________________________

14. How did she feel when she found the Science examination difficult? ______________________________________________________________________________

15. Did Janice copy her friend’s answers? Why?

______________________________________________________________________________

39

Section D: Comprehension Cloze (5 marks)

Read the passage and fill in each blank with a suitable word.

My favorite month of the year is December. One activity I _________ (16) doing is

sending Christmas cards __________ (17) all my friends in Singapore. I always send

those two weeks before Christmas because the cards take __________ (18) to be

delivered, especially during the festive season. A few years ago, I used to ___________

(19) my Christmas cards from my favorite bookshop. However, last year, I decided to

make my _________ (20) cards using the computer. Not only did I save time, I saved

money as well.

Section E: Graphic Stimulus MCQ (5 marks)

Read the advertisement carefully and then answer questions 21 to 25.

WHAT’S ON

Children’s Play

Take your child to watch ‘Little Red

Feather ’ performed by Art Theatre.

Date: 12 March Time: 1 p.m. – 4 p.m.

Venue: Wayang Academy of Fine Arts

Price: $3, $5 Ticketing: Call MYSTIC at 64444849

Art Exhibition

This annual exhibition will display 70 art pieces

by 59 local artists.

Date: 17 March – 27 March Time: 12 noon – 6 p.m.

Venue: Singapore Art Centre

Free Admission!

Singapore Arts Festival

This month-long festival has films, plays and many other activities for your entertainment.

Date: 22 March – 21 April Time: Various times Ticketing: Call Grand Box Office at 68497651

40

For each question from 21 to 25, four options are given. One of them is the correct answer.

Make your choice and write (1, 2, 3, or 4) in the brackets provided.

21. Little Red Feather is a ____________________________ . (1) film (2) play (3) book (4) drawing ( )

22. To book your ticket for Little Red Feather, you should call __________________.

(1) MYSTIC (2) Art Theatre (3) Wayang Academy (4) Grand Box Office ( )

23. The Art Exhibition is held once a ________________________ .

(1) week (2) day (3) month (4) year ( )

24. Admission to the Art Exhibition costs ____________________ .

(1) $6 (2) $5 (3) $3 (4) nothing ( )

25. The activity which will last for one month is the ________________________.

(1) Arts Festival (2) Art Theatre (3) Children’s Play (4) Art Exhibition ( )

Source:

Samuel, D. (2011). Foundation English PSLE (Primary School Leaving Examination) Model

Exam Papers. Singapore: Educational Publishing House Pte. Ltd.

41

Appendix B

Foundation English Posttest

Section A: Information Transfer (5 marks) Read the following information to complete the form by filling in the blanks numbered 1 to 5. You have a friend, Alice Davis, who lives at 35, Hill View Close, Singapore 517362. She wants to work as a volunteer at the Care for Animals Association to care for homeless dogs. She is free on Saturdays. You have decided to help her by getting the voluntary service form and completing it for her.

CARE FOR ANIMALS ASSOCIATION Voluntary Service Form (1) Full Name (in BLOCK LETTERS): ___________________________________

(2) Male / Female *

(3) Address: _________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Singapore ( )

(4) I would like to care for dogs / cats / rabbits. *

(5) I am free to volunteer on Mondays / Fridays / Saturdays. *

* Please delete accordingly.

Section B: Comprehension – Completion of Sentences (5 marks)

Read the recipe and use the information to complete the sentences in questions 6 to 10.

Fried Rice

Ingredients: Rice ……………………………. 2 cups Peeled prawns …………… 250 g Beaten eggs …………………2 Oil ………………………………. 2 tablespoons Soy sauce ……………………. 1 tablespoon Chopped onions Diced carrots Green peas Lettuce Spring onions

Steps 1. Wash the rice in a bowl. Put the rice into the rice cooker. Add one cup of water for

every cup of rice. Set it to cook. 2. Season prawns with a pinch of salt and put them aside.

42

3. Put some oil in a wok for frying pan. Heat the oil. Fry the eggs and cut them into strips. Leave them aside.

4. Fry the prawns, diced carrots and green peas lightly. Add soy sauce. 5. Add cooked rice and eggs. Mix thoroughly and remove from heat. 6. Garnish with lettuce and spring onions. Serve hot.

Based on the information given above, complete each sentence with a suitable word or

suitable words.

6. To boil two cups of rice, you need to add ____________________________________.

7. Before frying the prawns lightly, you should _________________________________ .

8. The fried rice is cooked in a ______________________________________________ .

9. After heating the oil, the first step is to ______________________________________ .

10. Spring onions and lettuce are used to ________________________________________.

Section C: Comprehension – Open-ended (10 marks)

Read the following passages and answer questions 11 to 15.

The weather had been hot and dry for a long time. Farmer Wang’s vegetables were

all dried up and the grass had turned brown. The wells were dry and some of his cows

had died. Farmer Wang looked up at the sky and wished for rain. If the harsh weather

continued, he would not be able to feed his family.

11. In what two ways did the hot, dry weather cause problems for Farmer Wang? _______________________________________________________________________________

12. What would happen to the wells if there was rain? ________________________________________________________________________

One night, Mrs. Ling was alone at home. She was sleeping soundly when she heard

a noise downstairs. With a torch in her hand, she quietly walked down the stairs to

investigate. She was perspiring and her heart was beating very fast. She had her son’s

hockey stick in her other hand.

She opened the kitchen door, switched on the light and raised her hockey stick. She

saw her neighbour’s cat jumping through an open window.

13. Why did Mrs. Ling wake up?

_______________________________________________________________________________

43

14. Write the sentence from the passage that shows that Mrs. Ling was very frightened. ______________________________________________________________________________

15. What was Mrs. Ling intending to use the hockey stick for?

______________________________________________________________________________

Section D: Comprehension Cloze (5 marks)

Read the passage and fill in each blank with a suitable word.

Mother Teresa was well-known for her work among the poor and sick people in

India. When she first began ____________ (16) work there, she helped the sick whom

she found on the _____________ (17). Many of them died on the streets as they had no

___________ (18) to pay for a bed in a hospital. One day, Mother Teresa found an old

and weak ____________ (19) dying outside a hospital. Mother Teresa ____________

(20) sorry for the old lady. She got a place for her in the hospital so she could be taken

care of.

Section E: Graphic Stimulus MCQ (5 marks)

Read the advertisement carefully and then answer questions 21 to 25.

Hillside Community Centre Join us for an exciting trip to Dino Theme Park

at Historical Centre

WILD SAFARI! Register now at Hillside CC.

8 June

Time: 2-6 p.m.

Admission 12 years and below: $5 (member)

Above 13 years: $18 (member)

Non-members: $1 extra per head

Transport provided from CC to Theme Park

ATTRACTIONS

60 life-like dinosaurs

5 m tall egg-laying dinosaur

Dino Theatre

Dino Education Centre

For enquiries, please call us at 67524319

http://sg.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0S0uD03xjhPb1kAxTIl4gt.;_ylu=X3oDMTBlMTQ4cGxyBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1n?back=http://sg.images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&va=dinosaur&fr=yfp-t-712&tab=organic&ri=3&w=1712&h=861&imgurl=prek-8.com/kidslearning/dinosaur/images/dinosaurArts18.png&rurl=http://prek-8.com/kidslearning/dinosaur/freedinosuarsPictures_index3.php&size=1+KB&name=Free+Dinosaur+pictures,+free+printables+dinosaurs+cliparts&p=dinosaur&oid=447ceae63b3a8562649f2b08adc11b2d&fr2=&fr=yfp-t-712&tt=Free+Dinosaur+pictures,+free+printables+dinosaurs+cliparts&b=0&ni=32&no=3&tab=organic&ts=&sigr=128qu4muv&sigb=139bdh6mr&sigi=11q6njirn&.crumb=NPqfaPx.quc

44

For each question from 21 to 25, four options are given. One of them is the correct answer.

Make your choice and write (1, 2, 3, or 4) in the brackets provided.

21. The Dinosaur Theme Park is at ____________________________ .

(1) Dino Education Centre (2) Wild Safari (3) Hillside Community Centre (4) Historical Centre ( )

22. The visit to the park will last for __________________ hours.

(1) six (2) two (3) three (4) four ( )

23. Those who have signed up for the trip will be picked up at _________________ .

(1) Dino Theme Park (2) Historical Centre (3) Dino Education Centre (4) Hillside Community Centre ( )

24. A 14-year-old non-member has to pay ____________________ for the trip.

(1) $1 (2) $5 (3) $18 (4) $19 ( )

25. Those who are interested in the trip can register _______________________.

(1) by fax (2) by email (3) at the community center (4) by calling ( )

Source:

Samuel, D. (2011). Foundation English PSLE (Primary School Leaving Examination) Model

Exam Papers. Singapore: Educational Publishing House Pte. Ltd.

45

Appendix C

Interview Questions on Strategy Knowledge

1. What do good readers do? What makes someone a good reader?

2. What do you think about before you read a story?

3. While you read, how do you know what text is important?

4. What do you do when you come to a word you don’t know?

5. What do you do if you don’t know what an entire sentence means?

6. What do you do when you read something that does not make sense?

7. As you read a textbook, what do you do to help you understand what you are reading?

8. If you are reading science or social studies material, what would you do to remember the

important information you’ve read?

9. Why would you go back and read an entire passage over again?

10. Which sentences are most important in the chapter?

Sources:

Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental

validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second grade

readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18-37.

Miholic, V. (1994). An inventory to pique students’ metacognitive awareness of reading

strategies. Journal of Reading, 38, 84-86.

46

Appendix D

Metacomprehension Strategy Index

Directions: Think about what you can do to help you understand a story better before, during, and after you read it. Read each of the lists of four statements and decide which one of them would help you the most. There are no right answers. It is just what you think would help the most. Circle the letter of the statement you choose.

Questionnaire In each set of four, choose one statement that tells a good thing to do to help you understand a story better before you read it.

1. Before I begin reading, it’s a good idea to:

a. See how many pages are in the story.

b. Look up all of the big words in the dictionary.

c. Make some guesses about what I think will happen in the story.

d. Think about what has happened so far in the story.


a. Look at the pictures to see what the story is about.

b. Decide how long it will take me to read the story.

c. Sound out the words I don’t know.

d. Check to see if the story is making sense.


a. Ask someone to read the story to me.

b. Read the title to see what the story is about.

c. Check to see if most of the words have long or short vowels in them.

d. Check to see if the pictures are in order and make sense.


a. Retell all of the main points that have happened so far.

b. Ask myself questions that I would like to have answered in the story.

c. Think about the meanings of the words which have more than one meaning.

d. Look through the story to find all of the words with three or more syllables.

47


a. Check to see if I have read this story before.

b. Use my questions and guesses as a reason for reading the story.

c. Make sure I can pronounce all of the words before I start.

d. Think of a better title for the story.


a. Practice reading the story aloud.

b. Retell all of the main points to make sure I can remember the story.

c. Think of what the people in the story might be like.

d. Decide if I have enough time to read the story.


a. Check to see if I am understanding the story so far.

b. Check to see if the words have more than one meaning.

c. Think about where the story might be taking place.

d. List all of the important details.

In each set of four, choose one statement that tells a good thing to do to help you understand a

story better while you are reading it.

8. While I’m reading, it’s a good idea to:

a. Read the story slowly so that I will not miss any important parts.

b. Read the title to see what the story is about.

c. Check to see if the pictures have anything missing.

d. Check to see if the story is making sense by seeing if I can tell what’s happened so far.


a. Stop to retell the main points to see if I understand what has happened so far.

b. Read the story quickly so that I can find out what happened.

c. Read only the beginning and the end of the story to find out what it is about.

d. Skip the parts that are too difficult for me.

48


a. Look up all of the big words in the dictionary.

b. Put the book away and find another one if things aren’t making sense.

c. Keep thinking about the title and the pictures to help me decide what is going to happen

next.

d. Keep track of how many pages I have left to read.


a. Keep track of how long it is taking me to read the story.

b. Check to see if I can answer any of the questions I asked before I started reading.

c. Read the title to see what the story is going to be about.

d. Add the missing details to the pictures.


a. Have someone read the story aloud to me.

b. Keep track of how many pages I have read.

c. List the story’s main character.

d. Check to see if my guesses are right or wrong.


a. Check to see that the characters are real.

b. Make a lot of guesses about what is going to happen next.

c. Not look at the pictures because they might confuse me.

d. Read the story aloud to someone.


a. Try to see if my guesses are going to be right or wrong.

b. Reread to be sure I haven’t missed any of the words.

c. Decide on why I am reading the story.

d. List what happened first, second, third, and so on.

49


a. See if I can recognize the new vocabulary words.

b. Be careful not to skip any parts of the story.

c. Check to see how many of the words I already know.

d. Keep thinking of what I already know about the things and ideas in the story to help me

decide what is going to happen.


a. Reread some parts or read ahead to see if I can figure out what is happening if things

aren’t making sense.

b. Take my time reading so that I can be sure I understand what is happening.

c. Change the ending so that it makes sense.

d. Check to see if there are enough pictures to help make the story ideas clear.

In each set of four, choose the one statement that tells a good thing to do to help you understand the story better after you have read it.

17. After I’ve read a story, it’s a good idea to:

a. Count how many pages I read with no mistakes.

b. Check to see if there were enough pictures to go with the story to make it interesting.

c. Check to see if I met my purpose for reading the story.

d. Underline the causes and effects.

18. After I’ve read a story it’s a good idea to:

a. Underline the main idea.

b. Retell the main points of the whole story so that I can check to see if I understood it.

c. Read the story again to be sure I said all of the words right.

d. Practice reading the story aloud.


a. Look up all of the big words in the dictionary.

b. Read the best parts aloud.

c. Have someone read the story aloud to me.

d. Think about how the story was like things I already knew about before I started reading.

50


a. Think about how I would have acted if I were the main character in the story.

b. Practice reading the story silently for practice of good reading.

c. Look over the story title and picture to see what will happen.

d. Make a list of the things I understood the most.

Source:

Schmitt, M. C. (1990). A questionnaire to measure children’s awareness of strategic reading

processes. The Reading Teacher, 43, 454-462.

Documents

1 Author: Neo, Chiu Bin The Effect of Strategy Instruction on Reading Comprehension ... · 2013-07-03 · 2 Neo, Chiu Bin. The Effect of Strategy Instruction on Reading Comprehension