Reading comprehension

Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative | Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Individual differences | Personality | Philosophy | Social |
Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology |

Educational Psychology: Assessment · Issues · Theory & research · Techniques · Techniques X subject · Special Ed. · Pastoral

---

Part of a series on

Reading File:P literature.svg

General Information

Braille Family literacy Functional illiteracy Illiteracy Literacy Readability Reading ability Reading achievement Reading materials Reading measures Reading skills Reading speed

Types

Oral reading Proofreading Skimming Slow reading Speed reading Silent reading Subvocalized

Reading processes

Dyslexia National Reading Panel Reading readiness Reading acquisition Comprehension Reading development Reading disability Sight vocabulary Spelling Word recognition

Reading education

Alphabetic principle Basal reader Decodable text Methodology debate Phonics Remedial education Evidence-based instruction Whole language

Reading comprehension can be defined as the level of understanding of a passage or text. For normal reading rates (around 200-220 words per minute) an acceptable level of comprehension is above 75%.^{[How to reference and link to summary or text]}

Proficient reading comprehension depends on the ability to recognize words quickly and effortlessly. If word recognition is difficult, students use too much of their processing capacity to read individual words, which interferes with their ability to comprehend what is read.

Teaching reading comprehension

The U.S. National Reading Panel conducted a comprehensive literature search on teaching reading comprehension. They concluded that (1) vocabulary knowledge, (2) reading comprehension instruction based on reading strategies, and (3) teacher professional development on effective comprehension practices were critical to effective reading comprehension teaching.

Vocabulary

Several theories of vocabulary instruction exist, namely, one focused on intensive instruction of a few high value words, one focused on broad instruction of many useful words, and a third focused on strategies for learning new words.

The idea of focusing intensely on a few words was popularized by Isabel Beck, Margaret McKeown, and Linda Kucan in their book for teachers called Bringing Words to Life: Robust Vocabulary Instruction (2002). They argued that words occur in three "tiers," the lowest (tier 1) being common words such as eat and fish, the top (tier 3) being very content-specific words such as photosynthesis and geopolitical. The tier 2 words were what they considered general academic vocabulary, words with many uses in academic contexts, such as analyze and frequent. Beck et al. suggested that teachers focus on tier 2 words and that they should teach fewer of these words with greater intensity. They suggested that teachers offer multiple examples and develop activities to help students practice these words in increasingly independent ways.

The method of focusing of broad instruction on many words was developed by Andrew Biemiller. He argued, contra Beck et al., that more words would benefit students more, even if the instruction was short and teacher-directed. He suggested that teachers teach a large number of words before reading a book to students, by merely giving short definitions, such as synonyms, and then pointing out the words and their meaning while reading the book to students (Biemiller & Boote, 2006). The method contrasts with the Beck et al. approach by emphasizing quantity versus quality. There is no evidence to suggest the primacy of either approach.

The final vocabulary technique, strategies for learning new words, can be further subdivided into instruction on using context and instruction on using morphemes, or meaningful units within words to learn their meaning. Morphemic instruction has been shown to produce positive outcomes for students reading and vocabulary knowledge, but context has proved unreliable as a strategy and it is no longer considered a useful strategy to teach students.

Reading strategies

Before the 1980s, little comprehension instruction occurred in the United States (National Reading Panel, 2000). Palinscar and Brown (1984) developed a technique called reciprocal teaching that taught students to predict, summarize, clarify, and ask questions for sections of a text. The technique had positive outcomes. Since then, the use of strategies like summarizing after each paragraph have come to be seen as effective strategies for building students' comprehension. The idea is that students will develop stronger reading comprehension skills on their own if the teacher gives them explicit mental tools for unpacking text (Pressley, 2006).

There are a wide range of reading strategies suggested by reading programs and educators. The National Reading Panel identified positive effects only for a subset, particularly summarizing, asking questions, answering questions, comprehension monitoring, graphic organizers, and cooperative learning. The Panel also emphasized that a combination of strategies, as used in Reciprocal Teaching, can be effective.

Today, most reading comprehension programs teach students explicit reading strategies using teacher direct instruction with additional student practice.

Professional development for teachers

The National Reading Panel noted that comprehension strategy instruction is difficult for many teachers, particularly because they were not taught this way and because it is a very cognitively demanding task. They suggested that professional development can increase teachers' willingness to use reading strategies but admitted that much remains to be done in this area.

See also

• Comprehension tests
• Readability
• Reading comprehension for special needs

External links

• Vocabulary Instruction and Reading Comprehension - From the ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading English and Communication.