Hello everyone!
Welcome to our class blog...this is where you can talk to each other about the readings that you are assigned each week. Clarify your ideas; ask questions; critique and discuss!! I'll explain more in class this week.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this week’s articles, I found that there were some similarities in how reading is viewed. In particular, I found that each article seemed to define reading as a complex process involving the interaction of cognitive skills, despite using different models of reading to analyze how these interactions work (e.g. decoding and comprehension were discussed in each article as key skills necessary for good readers).
ReplyDeleteAs well, there seemed to be some emphasis on reading as a developmental process with some reading components being more prominent for beginner readers versus advanced readers. For instance, Vellutino et al. (2007) used the convergent skills model of reading to see how context free word identification (e.g. sight words) and language comprehension are necessary to reading comprehension and. Other articles, such as Betjemann et al. (2008) have a different focus (e.g. looking at how genetics influence reading ability) but still both articles looks at similar cognitive abilities (e.g. comprehension) and the developmental shifts in reading from more emphasis on word reading or decoding to comprehension as readers advance. By implying that all children develop similar abilities in their path to becoming good readers, this suggests that reading is a stable process and has important implications to educators: If certain abilities (e.g. decoding) are especially important for reading comprehension at a certain stage of development, it would benefit educators to focus on teaching that skill. If students are struggling to comprehend, then that same skill may need to be targeted for intervention.
While I agree that reading is a complex process that involves the interaction of a number of cognitive abilities, I felt that the articles have missed a key component in reading: the importance of affect in the reading process. I believe that readers often need to discover delight in books before they actively try to master the skills of reading. In my opinion, a person’s interests, motivation, attitudes and beliefs about reading (e.g. actively seeking to find meaning in texts) interacts with the cognitive skills used when reading. For example, I have worked with students who have good skills in decoding and have capable comprehension skills but choose not to put much effort into using these abilities due to a lack of interest or motivation. On the other hand, I have also worked with students who struggle with decoding, fluency, etc. but understand their texts more than expected considering their skills due to their effort and interest level.
Overall, I think it would have been interesting if the articles had also addressed the interaction between cognitive skills and affect a little more in the reading process, as I feel that readers are active participants in their own reading and that reading is much more than a cognitive experience.
Thanks, Claudia, for your comments! We will definitely talk about this in class on Thursday, because you bring up some very good points.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is important to remember that the word reading means a variety of things to different people. The readings seemed to be trying to make clear that the constructs that make up reading (spelling, phonological awareness, knowledge of the conventions of print, fluency, visual coding and comprehension etc.) are all connected, while at the same time separate skills that may or may not be acquired in conjunction with one another. To be a successful reader, it can be argued, that one must be approaching proficiency in all of these sub categories of reading.
ReplyDeleteI found the articles generally provided evidence for what I already believed. The Simple View of Reading (Kirby & Savage, 2008) was interesting to me because it is exactly what it claims to be... a simple view of reading that measures output. I found it contradictory to the article by Lynch et al. (2008), which claimes that reading comprehension and word decoding are separately developed skills. If this is the case, LC X D doesn't equal RC.
It would be interesting to look at reading comprehension skills in children who are able to decode words well and compare them to children who have difficulty decoding unfamiliar words. I currently have a student with the ability to read whatever she wants. However, when I ask her questions about what she has read she often has trouble answering them. I also have a student who is almost a grade level behind the other students, but she can pick out many details from stories we read together. Perhaps her listening comprehension is compensating for her lack of decoding skills. To me, listening comprehension and reading comprehension are not entirely differentiated.
If decoding and comprehension skills are indeed acquired separately, teachers need to make sure they are teaching both skills and addressing the appropriate defecit in students having trouble learning how to read!
What struck me about each of the articles was how they conveyed what a complex process reading really is. The Vellutino et. al (2007) article was particularly explicit about the number of subskills that are required in the reading process, and how they may or may not be linked with one another. I liked that there were differing perspectives on this, but like Michelle, I found myself more in sympathy with the Kirby and Savage (2008) article, perhaps because it clearly advocated the middle ground between the whole language and the phonics groups.
ReplyDeleteReading comprehension seems to be the end goal in the developmental process of reading, but this appears to be a very difficult concept to define, and much needs to precede it. The Lynch et. al (2008) article was interesting in the exploration of narrative comprehension as being a predecessor of reading comprehension, and what that involves.
Whether decoding and comprehension are acquired separately or are linked, I think Michelle is right in stating that they both need to be addressed by teachers and explicitly taught in the classroom, particularly for struggling readers.
I also agree with Claudia's critique that there was little in the articles about some of the other factors that may impede a child's ability or interest in reading. The Betjemann et. al (2008) article was very good at presenting the genetic factors that influence how well a child will do in this realm, but I was surprised that there was little evidence in that study for environmental factors as well. The three studies seemed to include samples that were middle or even upper class. This would avoid the issue of the many socio-economic influences that could also impact reading ability and comprehension. The Kirby and Savage (2008) article briefly alluded to second-language learners, but that would also be a complicating matter in the reading process for some students.
This week's readings consistently underlined the importance of a shift in primacy from phonological processing to language comprehension for predicting reading comprehension as readers develop.
ReplyDeleteBetjemann et al. (2008) investigated the etiology of stability of reading processes in order to determine the relative effects of genetic variance versus shared environmental influences on word reading and reading comprehension, and assess the relationship between word reading and comprehension. Using twin data to parse phenotypic variance into genetic, shared environmental, and nonshared environmental influences, Betjemann and her colleagues found evidence to support the strong influence of genetic factors on these reading processes (although their results indicated that reading comprehension and and word reading may be separable by overlapping but unique genetic factors).
The Betjemann study also found evidence of the suggested developmental shift (mentioned above) from word reading as a stronger predictive factor in reading comprehension in younger children than older children. This observable phenomenon is discussed throughout the readings, and is explained plausibly by Vellutino, et al. (2007): "language processes do not become fully operative in reading until the reader has acquired enough facility in word identification to comprehend, in written language, text that would normally be comprehended in spoken language" (p. 4). Essentially, beginning readers must first learn to decode the message before the reader's "whole" language skills become relevant to their reading comprehension. The Simple View of Reading (SVR) described by Kirby and Savage (2008) provides a formula for reading comprehension (RC) as the product of both listening comprehension (LC) and decoding ability (D). These proximal influences on reading comprehension, according to this view, represent separable skills that are necessary but not individually sufficient to result in reading comprehension.
Of course, the Simple View of Reading is just that: a simple view. Vellutino and his colleagues (2007), however, propose a convergent skills model of reading development consistent with the the "simple view" that identifies 3 major components of reading ability (context free word identification, reading comprehension, and language comprehension) that are causally related to eight subcomponents. Their experimental investigation of the relative strengths of the subcomponents they identify within their model, Vellutino et al. report their findings as being "in keeping with the assumption that language comprehension processes do not become fully operative in reading until the child is able to identify the printed versions of the vast majority of words he or she is able to comprehend in spoken language" (p. 20).
Although the studies in question generally contained small, homogeneous samples, and many of the measures employed posed potential threats to the validity of the outcomes due to the experimental measures used or their definition of "reading difficulty," for example, it was interesting to contrast the "bottom line" (simple) perspectives with the models that show reading comprehension as a complicated process (constrained strongly by genetic factors) consisting of a network of subskills converging to form the ability to decode words and comprehend the message conveyed by those words.
To start, I think Michelle’s comment about whether the Simple View of Reading is contradictory to Lynch et al. (2008) interesting. I agree that if you believe decoding and reading comprehension are separately developed skills then it seems that the equation LC+D=RC would not work. This however seems strange to me as when I think of reading my belief would be that decoding leads to reading comprehension. However, I also do not see how any of the reading stages could ever be completely separated from one another.
ReplyDeleteI found that the Lynch et. al (2008) article was interesting but somewhat of a seeming no-brainer in that the more causal connections within text would promote increased reading comprehension. It seems very obvious to me that the more things tie together, the more we are able to understand. Perhaps I missed a more major implication within the article. However, I do think that sometimes teachers forget the importance of this, and serves a reminder as to what sort of reading material to hand out as well as to keep readings and topics linked to other things occurring in class. I also agree with Jennifer in that the discussion of narrative comprehension and how it leads to reading comprehension was interesting. I think that oral language still seems to be downplayed in many classrooms. It serves as a reminder that it is important to also explicitly teach and work on oral language development within school (especially primary years).
I found the article by Betjemann, 2008 extremely difficult to follow and interpret so please correct me if I am on the wrong track. The authors stated that “The purpose of the current study was to investigate the stability of genetic and environmental influences on word reading and reading comprehension, as well as the stability of those influences on their relationship”. This makes it evident that they want to figure out whether genetic and environmental influences on reading comprehension are stable. My question here is what do they mean by stability? Do they mean that improvements or decreasing abilities at a certain point are virtually non-existent?
They also state that they found that genetic influences on word reading and comprehension are stable by adolescence; however I do not think that I understand what purpose that knowledge really serves. Throughout the article it seemed that implications were being made that reading ability stems largely from genetic inheritance rather than environmental influences. If this is what they mean it seems that knowledge could be taken the wrong way as it would seem to downplay intensive instruction in school for improving reading performance (i.e: your ability comes from genetics rather than experiences).
If I have at all interpreted this correctly, this seeming downplay of environmental influences for individual differences in reading seems in contradiction to the article by Vellutino, 2008 which emphasizes that if students at risk of reading failure are provided intensive instruction/direction they can be brought up to relatively successful levels. This seems more in line with my beliefs. If you work one on one with most children struggling with reading, improvements are generally shown. I feel as though I must have missed something here. If someone is able to provide some clarity on this article it would be appreciated.
All four of the articles address the complex nature of reading. The Simple View Model provides a general model of reading, whereas the Convergent Skills Model of Reading Development provides a more detailed possible model for reading. Despite the differences in the complexity of these models, they both address reading comprehension and word decoding were as key attributes of good readers.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, these articles supported the existing knowledge that I already had about reading. These articles suggest that since reading comprehension skills and word decoding skills may develop independently and involve different processes and skills, both of these sets of skills need to be addressed when teaching children how to read. Therefore, as a grade one teacher, I must make sure that I not only teach children how to decode words, but I must also teach them comprehension skills. However, these skills are only part of a balanced reading program. I agree with Claudia in that motivation and affect play a role in reading. Emulating a love for reading to children and fostering motivation in young readers is important!
I agree with Janet that the Lynch (2008) article provided some very obvious results. It is not surprising that both younger and older children would be more likely to recall events with more causal connections than those with fewer connections. Also, I thought that their other finding that older children answered more comprehension questions correctly and that they were more sensitive to causal structure of narratives also obvious. However, one tidbit of information that I found interesting was based on one article mentioned by Lynch et al (Hyde and Lynn (1988)) from which they stated, “girls are more advanced in verbal skills on average than boys in the preschool years” (335). Is this result supported in other studies as well? Lynch’s results did show that there was a gender difference, regardless of age, in recall only: girls were able to recall more than boys. Why is this? Are the narratives or books gender biased? Are the books/stories chosen by the investigators more interesting to girls than boys?
I also had some difficulty understanding the Betjemann (2008) article on the stability of genetic and environmental influences on word reading and reading comprehension. It seems to me that if genetic influences are so entrenched in reading ability and environmental factors are not as influential, teaching reading in small groups or intensive reading programs would not have a great impact on improving reading skills for students with reading difficulties. I also did not understand what was meant by “stability” and would appreciate clarification on this article as well.