Rethinking Reading Comprehension - Frank Serafinifrankserafini.com/publications/serafini-rethink-comp.pdfRethinking Reading Comprehension | 191 • monitor their understandings •

Rethinking Reading Comprehension | 189

Rethinking Reading Comprehension Defi nitions, Instructional Practices, and Assessment

By Frank Sera! ni

Introduction

A signi! cant amount of research conducted on e" ective reading comprehen-sion strategies has focused on the cognitive operations readers employ

when constructing meaning in transactions with texts (Dole, Du" y, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991; Keene & Zimmerman, 1997; Pearson & Fielding, 1991; Pressley, 2000; Pressley, Block, & Gambrell, 2002). # is focus on the cognitive opera-tions readers draw upon can certainly be considered an expanded perspective compared to the behavioral research on comprehension instruction conducted previously (Fitzgerald, Robinson, Farone, Hittleman, & Unruh, 1990). However, a primary focus on the cognitive aspects of reading comprehension does not adequately address the social and cultural aspects of reading (Gee, 1996; Smagorinsky, 2001).

Research on reading comprehension and comprehension instruction has pro-duced a menu of cognitive strategies, including, but not limited to: a) visualizing, b) predicting, c) summarizing, d) asking questions, e) monitoring comprehen-sion, and f) determining important information. # ese strategies have been re-ferred to as “goal-directed cognitive operations” taught through teacher-directed instruction that typically includes two components; direct explanation and scaf-folding (Sinatra, Brown, & Reynolds, 2002). # ese reading strategies have been conceptualized as cognitive operations that can be employed across a variety of texts and contexts. In other words, the cognitive operation of visualizing is touted as an e" ective reading strategy regardless of whether you are reading a poem, a newspaper article or a job application.

Expanding current perspectives on reading comprehension is essential if educators are going to move beyond cognitively-based strategy instruction to consider socio-cultural aspects of reading comprehension. In order to do so, educators need to expand their de! nitions of reading comprehension to include

190 | Critical Issues in Literacy Pedagogy

socio-cultural, historical, political, and pragmatic aspects of reading. Cognitive-based reading comprehension strategies need to be reconceptualized as contex-tually grounded reading comprehension strategies that take into account the immediate, socio-cultural, and historical contexts of reading text.

In this chapter, I will begin by discussing various ways of de! ning reading comprehension with the intention of expanding the perspectives considered. Next, I will discuss how an expanded de! nition of reading comprehension might e" ect the instructional approaches one employs in classrooms. Finally, I will consider how these changes in de! nition and instructional practices e" ect how we assess readers’ abilities to understand what they have read. It is my contention, as one’s de! nition of reading comprehension is expanded to include perspectives beyond decoding and cognitive strategies, instructional approaches, and the as-sessments used to determine whether a reader has comprehended what was read, will expand as well.

Rethinking Defi nitions of Reading Comprehension

It was once assumed that reading comprehension was simply a combination of decoding and oral comprehension skills (Hoover & Gough, 1990). # at is, if readers could decode the words on a page, they would be able to monitor what was being read to themselves orally and understand what they were reading. However, contemporary research in reading comprehension has suggested that understanding what one reads involves more than decoding plus oral language comprehension (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Pressley, 2000). Just because readers can decode words does not mean that they have understood what they have read. In fact, as readers progress into more complex texts, their ability to decode becomes less and less an indicator of their ability to comprehend. Hammerberg (2004) iterates, “… the construction of meaning is an interactive process, more so than merely decoding the words, saying them aloud in your head, and assuming com-prehension ‘happens’ when the words are heard” (p. 650).

Research on reading comprehension and the cognitively-based comprehen-sion strategies used by pro! cient readers conducted by Pressley (Pressley, 1999; Pressley et al., 2002) and P. David Pearson (Pearson & Anderson, 1984; Pearson & Fielding, 1991), among others, has shown that readers who comprehend:

• are active processors of text• connect texts to their experiences and prior knowledge• set expectations or goals for their reading• attend to the elements and structures of literature


• monitor their understandings• ask questions of the text as they read• preview or skim texts before reading• attend to vocabulary• are able to articulate and negotiate meaning• construct meaning as they read through texts• read selectively, choosing texts that serve their goals and purposes

From a cognitive or psycholinguistic perspective, comprehension is viewed as a process of constructing meaning in transaction with texts (Goodman, 1996; Smith, 2004). However, a focus on individual readers and the cognitive strategies they employ may conceal the impact and role that immediate and socio-cultural contexts play in the act of reading. To understand the e! ects these contexts play in the act of reading requires a shi" from a psycholinguistic perspective to a socio-psycholinguistic perspective (Gee, 1992; John-Steiner, Petoskey, & Smith, 1994).

All four components, the text, the author, the reader, and the immediate and socio-cultural context play an important role in every reading event in addition to the cognitive strategies readers employ. # e text presents written language, design and visual components to be considered and interpreted, the reader constructs meanings based on their knowledge of language, text and the world, the author constructs the written text, acting as rhetor bringing intentions and purpose to the act of writing (Kress, 2010), the publisher designs the layout and typographic elements of the text itself, and the immediate and socio-cultural context provides the cultural and pragmatic aspects of why one is reading and how the text is to be comprehended.

Readers should no longer be viewed as solitary explorers trying to uncover the single main idea hidden in the bowels of a classic novel or as “passive consumers of authoritative interpretations” (Faust, 1994, p. 25). Readers are active construc-tors of meanings, transacting with texts in particular times, places and contexts (Rosenblatt, 1978). Readers come to the act of reading with their prior cultural, linguistic, literary, and life experiences. # ey draw upon these experiences as each reading is, “situated in dialogue with and in extension of other readings” (Smagorinsky, 2001, p. 141).

In addition to reconsidering the role of the reader, a reconsideration of the concept of text would help expand our understandings of reading comprehen-sion. Drawing on modernist literary theory (Sera$ ni, 2003), the text has been conceived as a conduit, a neutral container for the transmission of messages and knowledge from author to reader (Bogdan & Straw, 1990; Mosenthal, 1987). From this perspective, a text is encoded by an author to be decoded by a reader. In describing comprehension strategies, both Keene and Zimmerman (1997)


and Snow (2002) suggest the text is capable of containing meaning. ! is text as conduit metaphor is made apparent by the ways in which texts are described in writings on reading strategy instruction. For example, Keene and Zimmerman (1997) state one of the reading strategies readers need to acquire is the ability to determine the most important ideas and themes in a text. Further, Snow (2002) suggests that comprehension is the simultaneous construction and extraction of meaning from a text. If meaning is to be extracted, then it must reside within the text a priori so readers may be able to e" ciently extract it.

Considering the prepositions used in describing reading comprehension, and how these prepositions construct the concept of text, is vital to understanding the various theoretical perspectives being drawn upon in reading comprehension. When theorists and educators write meanings: a) come from the text, b) are found in the text, or c) are constructed with the text, they are referring to very di# erent processes and epistemological stances. ! e $ rst two phrases suggest that meaning is interred a priori within the text to be found or discovered by the e# ective reader, or what has been referred to as the “meaning incarnate” (Bruner, 1986). ! e text is conceived as a neutral conduit for the encoding of the author’s message, and implicates a more passive role for the reader. ! e third phrase suggests a more active role for the reader, constructing meaning in transactions with texts. What the reader brings to the reading event is just as important as what the text brings. ! ese ways of describing the reading process construct various epistemological assertions about where meaning is located and how or whether it is constructed, and must be considered as one expands the de$ nitions that support instructional and assessment practices.

From a post-structuralist or socio-cultural perspective, there is no meaning that simply resides in a text until a reader with the requisite knowledge and skills constructs the meaning with the signs on a page (McCormick, 1995; O’Neill, 1993). ! e dual focus of the construction and extraction metaphor o# ered by Snow (2002) may serve as a balancing mechanism in a $ eld of varying political allegiances, but it could also be construed as a form of theoretical schizophrenia trying to accommodate incommensurate views on meaning and comprehension.

Making a shi% towards a socio-cultural model of reading comprehension, Freebody and Luke (1990) pro# ered an expanded conceptualization of the resources readers utilize when reading and the roles readers adopt in a post-modern, text-based culture. ! e four resources model and its associated “four roles of the reader” expanded the de$ nition of reading from a simple model of decoding texts to constructing meaning and analyzing texts in socio-cultural contexts. ! eir goal was to shi% the focus from trying to $ nd the right method for teaching children to read to determining whether the range of resources available and the strategies emphasized in a reading program were indeed covering and


integrating the broad repertoire of practices required in today’s economies and cultures (Luke & Freebody, 1999).

! e model, which includes the following roles: reader as code breaker, reader as text participant, reader as text user, and readers as text analyst, provided edu-cators, researchers, and literacy theorists with an expanded perspective focusing on what it means to be a successful reader in new times. Readers were expected to draw upon the various resources available to develop and sustain the four roles necessary to be a successful reader.

An expanded de" nition of reading comprehension should address the process of generating viable interpretations in transaction with texts, and one’s ability to construct understandings from multiple perspectives; including the author’s intentions, textual references, personal experiences, and socio-cultural contexts in which one reads. In addition, reading comprehension should be viewed as an orchestration of the following four processes: (1) navigating textual ele-ments, including written language, design features, and visual images and other multimodal elements, (2) generating meanings in transaction with texts, (3) articulating one’s ideas and meanings within a community of readers, and (4) interrogating the meanings constructed in a recursive, socially grounded process.

! e following are some assertions based on a socio-cultural perspective on reading:

1. ! ere is no unmediated access to texts, there are only particular readings that are privileged over others, no god’s eye view or transcendent authority is available as an objective reading to compare other readings with.

2. Texts are social artifacts, created by authors and read by readers that are embedded in particular social contexts and practices.

3. Meaning is always socially constructed.4. Meaning is always historically embedded in local and particular contexts.5. Meaning is always political, working towards particular interests.6. Each reading has particular cultural capital, some readings are more privi-

leged than others in the context of the classroom.

Based on these assertions, meanings constructed during the act of reading are socially embedded, temporary, partial, and plural (Corcoran, Hayhoe, & Pradl, 1994). ! ere is not an objective truth about a text, but many truths, each with its own authority and its own warrants for viability aligned with particular literary theories and perspectives. ! e meanings constructed by readers at any one point in time are plural and open for reconsideration at another time when transacting with the text.


Research from a socio-cultural perspective focuses on the types of meanings that readers construct, how these meanings are a! ected by the social context and reading practices that readers are located within and the purposes of construct-ing particular responses (Gee, 1992; John-Steiner et al., 1994; Weaver, 1994). Readers construct readings (plural), not as originators of meaning, but as human subjects positioned through social, political, and historical practices that remain the location of a constant struggle over power. Every classroom is a site for the production of meaning, and every interpretive community has some alignment with a particular literary tradition or perspective (Fish, 1980). " e shi# from a cognitive to a socio-cultural perspective assumes that cognition is constructed by the social context, not just embedded within the social context (Lewis, 2000).

In addition, it may be useful to reconsider the term comprehension (as noun), referring to comprehension as a commodity that is individually acquired, or some amount of knowledge that is literally taken away from every successful reading event. Instead, it may be more appropriate to use the term comprehending (as verb), to suggest reading is a process, a recursive cycle of generating meanings that changes each time readers transact with a text across particular contexts. " is shi# from comprehension as a noun to comprehending as a verb would also require comprehension assessment to take place during the act of reading and discussing a text, rather than simply measuring how much of a pre-determined amount of meanings a reader accumulated and could represent a# er reading a text.

In summary, students are constructed as readers of particular types by the reading practices available to them and by the discourses which locate and situate reading practices and readers. As we expand our de$ nition of comprehension to include the socio-cultural, political, and historical aspects of reading, we are better positioned to reconsider the instructional approaches and assessment frameworks that would best support readers in their development. Teaching readers to simply employ particular cognitive strategies without consideration of the social and cultural contexts in which they read is myopic, if not theoretically antiquated.

Rethinking Reading Comprehension Instruction

In a classic study on comprehension instruction, Durkin (1978) demonstrated that classroom teachers rarely, if ever, directly taught reading comprehension strategies. Unfortunately, her research also demonstrated that classroom teachers spent a great deal of time assessing comprehension by asking questions at the end of each reading selection. " is focus on assessment pushed the teaching and demonstration of comprehension strategies used by pro$ cient readers during


the act of reading to the periphery of the reading curriculum. What was once considered instruction in reading comprehension, was exposed as assessment of literal details and events contained within a text.

Since Durkin’s study, research on explicit instruction in reading compre-hension has increased dramatically. Pressley and colleagues (2002) conducted research that con! rmed Durkin’s ! ndings, namely that teachers were not o" ering explicit instruction in comprehension strategies. # is realization was surprising given the overwhelming evidence gathered by numerous researchers investigat-ing reading comprehension instruction. Research on reading comprehension, primarily focusing on cognitive aspects of the reading process, has demonstrated that teaching the reading comprehension strategies used by pro! cient readers to novice or less successful readers improves their reading comprehension abilities (Braunger & Lewis, 1997; Dole et al., 1991; Kucan & Beck, 1997; Pressley, 2000).

Fielding and Pearson (1994) described four primary components of e" ective comprehension instruction: a) time to read and engage with texts, b) explicit instruction in comprehension strategies, c) opportunities for peers to collaborate while reading, and d) time to respond to and discuss what readers are reading. Unfortunately, many literacy educators have focused their attention on the role of explicit instruction on cognitive strategies to the detriment of the other three components described above. # e role of explicit instruction is to provide dem-onstrations of the strategies pro! cient readers use, call readers’ attention to vari-ous aspects of text, and make reading processes “visible” so that novice readers can acquire these requisite strategies (Sera! ni, 2004). Explicit instruction, when combined with a supportive classroom environment, access to quality reading materials, attention to students’ motivations to read, and assessment that sup-ports teaching and learning, are the basis of e" ective literacy instruction (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Sera! ni, 2004; Sera! ni & Youngs, 2008).

# e cognitive strategies found to be most e" ective are not applied by read-ers outside of the socio-cultural contexts in which their reading takes place (Hammerberg, 2004; Lewis, 2000). In other words, the cognitive strategies be-ing taught are not universal strategies that readers carry around with them and simply apply to the various texts they encounter. # ese strategies are grounded in the purposes the reader brings to the text, the textual and design elements of the text, and the socio-cultural context of the reading event. For example, predicting in the context of a mystery novel being read for enjoyment is very di" erent than predicting during a read aloud discussion of an expository text. Based on this, the focus of comprehension strategy instruction should be constructing meaning during the act of reading in a given socio-cultural context, not becoming more pro! cient with simply applying these various cognitive strategies.


Drawing on the expanded de! nition of reading comprehension described earlier, instruction in reading comprehension strategies should always consider the reading context, both its immediate, pragmatic aspects, and its socio-cultural embeddedness. In order to support this alternative instructional approach, or-ganizing the reading curriculum around the various cognitively-based reading comprehension strategies may be problematic. " is type of instructional organi-zation focuses attention on the strategy itself and not the purpose of, or context for, using the strategy. " is focus on a context-free set of strategies tends to push the construction of meanings and the role of textual elements and genres to the periphery of the instructional framework. Organizing the curriculum into units of study (Calkins, 2001) based on the texts being read—by genre, author, format, illustrator, topic—rather than by strategy, provides an intellectual space for in-struction to progress. In other words, strategies should be taught in the context of reading a particular text, given a particular task, in a particular context, not as an isolated mental strategy to be used across any context. In this way, the strate-gies become subservient to the texts, purposes, and contexts in which readers read, not the other way around. " e strategies are now used in service of meaning, rather than as an end in themselves (Sera! ni, 2004).

Classroom discussion plays an important role in the articulation, negotiation, and reconsideration of meanings constructed by readers in the classroom con-text. Comprehension instruction should help readers participate in an, “on-going cultural conversation about meaning, value and signi! cance” (Faust, 1994, p. 31). Classroom discussions should balance the meanings constructed by individual readers in transaction with texts, and the socio-cultural contexts that permeate the meanings constructed.

Discussion also acknowledges the constructed nature of particular interpreta-tions and interpretive conventions. Reading practices are in# uenced by social institutions and some interpretations or readings are more dominant, in# uential and appropriate than others (Lewis, 2000). Because of this, reading comprehen-sion instruction should help readers understand texts from a variety of perspec-tives and learn how each perspective endorses and dismisses particular meanings and interpretations (Sera! ni, 2009). Reading comprehension instruction is the demonstration of various interpretive moves and the subsequent guided practice and application of these moves by students. " ese interpretive moves take into consideration the socio-culturally informed de! nition of comprehending de-scribed earlier in this chapter and the immediate contexts in which the reading is taking place. If teachers want students to talk and interpret texts in particular ways, they need to demonstrate possible discourses and allow for students to appropriate these ways of talking and thinking in their instructional approaches.


Rethinking Reading Assessment

Until we re-think our notions of assessing reading comprehension, very little will change in reading instruction. To begin, standardized tests were designed according to a consumption view of knowledge (Crebbin, 1992). According to this view, reading comprehension is viewed as a product, a set of discreet facts and skills to be consumed and carried away from the reading event. Standardized tests were subsequently developed to measure the amount of consumption taking place. From this perspective, comprehension is seen as the accumulation of a value-free body of concepts and understanding that are independent of time, place, and individuals. ! is view of reading assessment as measurement is closely aligned with a modernist philosophy and supports a factory model of education (Sera" ni, 2002, 2003).

Too o# en, comprehension assessments focus on the literal recall of textual elements to determine whether a reader has understood what they have read (Applegate, Quinn, & Applegate, 2002). ! e focus is on memory and recall, not synthesis or the construction of various meanings. In addition, these standard-ized assessments rely on a literal interpretation of the text and the assumption that texts have stable, " xed meanings. While it is certainly easier to assess com-prehension when meanings are " xed prior to the assessments being conducted, assessment must take into account the constructive nature of the meaning-making process and how meanings reside with the reader and the social context (Bogdan & Straw, 1990).

! e primary role of standardized assessments is to simply record whether readers were able identify the predetermined answers. Passages are read, readers are required to select responses that subsequently align with the predetermined main ideas and answers created by the test designers. However, if one rejects the objectivist epistemological grounds, and the conceptualization of the text as a neutral container of meaning, on which these tests are constructed, then assess-ments must change to recognize new de" nitions and assertions set forth.

All assessments require readers to represent their readings and understand-ings in particular ways. ! ese modes of representations range from narrow representations (ie., answering multiple choice questions) to more sensitive and open representations (writing in response to reading, oral discussion). However, as we move from controlled responses to more personalized, open responses, our assessments get messier. Each mode of representation limits as well as supports a reader’s ability to articulate their understandings. In addition to answering questions on a standardized test, possible modes for representing comprehen-sion include: (1) thinking aloud during reading, (2) writing in reader response


notebooks, (3) participating in an oral discussion, and (4) constructing art-based responses to what has been read (Sera! ni, 2010).

Each mode of representation is based on certain assumptions for warranting particular responses. Some possible criteria are: 1) referential adequacy—whether the response is supported by direct reference to the text itself, 2) resort to author-ity—whether the reader was able to adequately represent the intended meanings set forth by the author or testing authority, or 3) consensus—agreement by a community of readers that a response is adequate or viable.

When assessment becomes a process of inquiry, an interpretive activity rather than simply the measure of predetermined behaviors and responses, teachers will be able to use assessment to make informed decisions concerning curriculum and instruction in their classrooms (Sera! ni, 2000–2001, p. 392). As educators, we need to ! nd new ways of warranting the validity or usefulness of students’ constructed meanings in ways that go beyond the alignment of responses to predetermined interpretations.

To begin, comprehension assessments should be both formative and summa-tive. " e assessment windows that teachers draw upon to understand their stu-dents’ comprehension processes need to take place before, during, and a# er the act of reading (Sera! ni, 2010). Utilizing observational records, reader response notebooks, discussion transcripts, think aloud protocols, miscue analysis, retell-ings, and interviews, classroom teachers are better able to understand how read-ers make sense of texts and to know the supports readers need to improve their comprehension abilities. Only through an opening up of the assessment practices we utilize, the expanded de! nitions of comprehension we have established and the instructional approaches we provide will be able to address the social as well as the cognitive aspects of reading comprehension.

Some Concluding Remarks

Literal recall of textual elements is no longer an adequate de! nition of reading comprehension. If we continue to narrow down the de! nition of reading compre-hension we use as a foundation for reading comprehension instruction to readers’ ability to extract a single main idea, we privilege the text and the predetermined, sanctioned interpretations created by test makers over what the reader brings to the text and the socio-cultural contexts in which readers read. However, by expanding the de! nition of reading comprehension to include the socio-cultural aspects of reading and the construction of meaning by a reader in a particular place and time, educators are better positioned to expand the instructional ap-proaches and frameworks that are employed in elementary classrooms.


In addition, reading comprehension should not be viewed as a centripetal pro-cess, a striving for consensus or reduction of meanings to one agreed upon main idea (a socially sanctioned interpretation by a particular authority). Reading comprehension should be seen as a centrifugal process (Scholes, 1985), an open-ing up of possible meanings that are generated and negotiated in light of the immediate context (physical and social classroom environment) and the more extensive political, cultural, historical, and social contexts. It is more important to investigate the various responses readers construct in their transactions with texts than to determine whether they were able to identify a predetermined inter-pretation or answer to a teacher’s multiple choice question focused on the literal elements of the text (Sera! ni & Ladd, 2008).

Lewis (2000) has argued for teachers to consider not only the reader as an individual, but also as a culturally, historically, and politically situated reader that brings not only individual experiences, but socially determined experiences that a" ect their responses to literature. It is important to conceptualize the reader, not simply as an individual responding to a text, but as a historical, socio-cultural being that brings past experiences, culture, gender, and political history to every reading event.

Readers don’t read in a vacuum, nor do their interpretations arise in one. Readers read particular texts in particular contexts, bringing their historically, culturally, and politically embedded experiences with them to the act of read-ing. In order to conceptualize readers as historically, politically, and culturally embedded readers, it is necessary to interrogate how particular interpretations are naturalized and seen as commonplace. Texts are written to set forth particular versions of reality, and it is through the interrogation of these realities that read-ers come to understand the genesis of their interpretations, and how they are positioned as readers in contemporary society.

References

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

Bogdan, D., & Straw, S. B. (1990). Beyond communication: Reading comprehension and criticism. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Braunger, J., & Lewis, J. P. (1997). Building a knowledge base in reading. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


Calkins, L. M. (2001). ! e art of teaching reading. New York: Longman.Corcoran, B., Hayhoe, M., & Pradl, G. M. (Eds.). (1994). Knowledge in the making:

Challenging the text in the classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton-Cook.Crebbin, W. (1992). Evaluation: A political issue. In C. Bou! er (Ed.), Literacy evaluation:

Issues and practicalities (pp. 7–11). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Dole, J., Du" y, G., Roehler, L., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new:

Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 239–264.

Duke, N., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). E" ective practices for developing reading comprehen-sion. In A. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Durkin, D. (1978). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), 481–553.

Faust, M. (1994). Alone but not alone: Situating readers in school contexts. In B. Corcoran, M. Hayhoe & G. M. Pradl (Eds.), Knowledge in the making: Challenging the text in the classroom (pp. 25–33). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton-Cook.

Fielding, L., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Reading comprehension: What works. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 62–67.

Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? ! e authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Fitzgerald, J., Robinson, H. A., Farone, V., Hittleman, D. R., & Unruh, E. (Eds.). (1990). Reading comprehension instruction 1783–1987: A review of trends and research. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect: Australian Journal of TESOL, 5(7), 7–16.

Gee, J. P. (1992). Socio-cultural approaches to literacy (literacies). Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 12, 31–48.

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Taylor & Francis.

Goodman, K. (1996). On Reading: A common-sense look at the nature of language and the science of reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hammerberg, D. (2004). Comprehension instruction for socioculturally diverse class-rooms: A review of what we know. ! e Reading Teacher, 57, 648–658.

Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). # e simple view of reading. Reading and writing: An interdisciplinary journal, 2, 127–160.

John-Steiner, V., Petoskey, C., & Smith, L. (1994). Sociocultural approaches to language and literacy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Keene, E. O., & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.


Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communica-tion. London: Routledge.

Kucan, L., & Beck, I. (1997). ! inking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67(3), 271–299.

Lewis, C. (2000). Limits of identi" cation: ! e personal, pleasurable, and critical in reader response. Journal of Literacy Research, 32, 253–266.

Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1999). Further notes on the four resources model. Reading Online. Available: http://www.readingonline.org/research/lukefreebody.html.

McCormick, K. (1995). Reading lessons and then some: Toward developing dialogues bewteen critical theory and reading theory. In J. F. Slevin & Y. A (Eds.), Critical theory and the teaching of literature: Politics, curriculum, pedagogy (pp. 292–315). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Mosenthal, P. (1987). Meaning in the storage-and-conduit metaphor of reading. ! e Reading Teacher, 41(3), 340–342.

O'Neill, M. (1993). Teaching literature as cultural criticism. English Quarterly, 25, 19–25.

Pearson, P. D., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 1, pp. 255–291). New York: Longman.

Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. II, pp. 815–860). New York: Longman.

Pressley, M. (1999). E" ective reading instruction: ! e case for balanced teaching. New York: Guilford Press.

Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 545–561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pressley, M., Block, C. C., & Gambrell, L. (2002). Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice. Indianapolis, IN: Jossey-Bass.

Rosenblatt, L. (1978). ! e reader, the text, the poem: ! e transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Scholes, R. E. (1985). Textual power: Literary theory and the teaching of English. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sera" ni, F. (2002). Dismantling the factory model of assessment. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 18(1), 67–85.

Sera" ni, F. (2003). Informing our practice: Modernist, transactional, and critical perspec-tives on children’s literature and reading instruction. Reading Online, 6(6), Available: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=sera" ni/index.html.


Sera! ni, F. (2004). Lessons in comprehension: Explicit instruction in the reading workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Sera! ni, F. (2009). Interactive comprehension strategies: Fostering meaningful talk about text. New York: Scholastic.

Sera! ni, F. (2010). Clasroom reading assessments: More e! cient ways to view and evaluate your readers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Sera! ni, F., & Ladd, S. M. (2008). " e challenge of moving beyond the literal in literature discussions. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 4(2), 6–20.

Sera! ni, F., & Youngs, S. (2008). More (advanced) lessons in comprehension: Expanding students’ understandings of all types of text. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Sinatra, G. M., Brown, K. E., & Reynolds, R. E. (2002). Implications of cognitive resource allocation for comprehension strategies instruction. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 62–76). New York: Guilford.

Smagorinsky, P. (2001). If meaning is constructed, what is it made from? Toward a cul-tural theory of reading. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 133–169.

Smith, F. (2004). Understanding reading (6th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward and R & D program in reading com-

prehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Weaver, C. (1994). Reading process and practice: From socio-psycholinguistics to whole

language (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Documents

Rethinking Reading Comprehension - Frank Serafinifrankserafini.com/publications/serafini-rethink-comp.pdfRethinking Reading Comprehension | 191 • monitor their understandings •