Microsoft Word - MCronin.docABSTRACT
Explicitly teaching the strategy of paraphrasing to students in Year 3 increases
their recall and comprehension of fictional and factual texts.
Many students in the Year 3 level are able to decode and read texts, and respond to
literal questions by recalling what they can remember, or copying directly from the text
rather than explain or retell in their own words. When required to show comprehension
of the text they experience difficulty making links to what has been read and explaining
the meaning or main ideas. By explicitly teaching paraphrasing it was hoped the
students would be able to recall what they had read, retell main ideas or events, and
answer related literal and inferential questions in their own words. Research suggests
that in order for readers to be skilled in understanding and comprehending what they
read, they need to be explicitly taught skills about how to comprehend texts on many
levels. At the sentence and paragraph level, paraphrasing is a suggested strategy that
can be used after reading to assist with comprehension and the recalling of facts.
To test the hypothesis that “explicitly teaching the strategy of paraphrasing to
students in Year 3 increases their recall and comprehension of fictional and
factual texts” a sequence of ten lessons and two testing sessions were conducted. A
class group of eighteen Year 3 students were explicitly taught how to paraphrase and
were able to practise the strategy when responding to comprehension questions both
orally and written.
This project found that, overall, most students showed improvement in their listening
comprehension and recall of main ideas and events, their reading comprehension of
fiction and factual texts, and their response to questions both literal and inferential.
Students who scored below expectation on pre-tests showed a significant increase in
post-test scores in most cases.
The implications for teaching comprehension strategies are that for readers to gain
meaning from texts, they need to be able to predict and answer questions before,
during and after reading. Students need to be explicitly taught reading and
comprehension strategies including paraphrasing to improve their recall and
understanding of what has been read.
2
Introduction
From data previously collected at the Year 3 level, it was found that many students
were able to decode and read texts at an age appropriate level, but had poor recall and
comprehension of the material read. The students were able to respond to literal
questions if the answers were directly located within the text and most were copying
from the text or repeating what they could remember rather than attempting to explain
or retell in their own words. When required to demonstrate their comprehension of
texts, both orally and written, they experienced difficulty making links to what had been
read and explaining the meaning or main ideas in the text. This concern with reading
comprehension was also raised in the school review report that particularly examined
previous AIM results for reading comprehension in Years 3.
Research suggests that in order for readers to be skilled in understanding and
comprehending what they read, they need to be explicitly taught skills about how to
comprehend texts on many levels. At the sentence and paragraph level, paraphrasing
is a suggested strategy that can be used after reading to assist students with
comprehension and the recalling of facts. Paraphrasing has been defined as “a
rewording of something spoken or written, usually for the purpose of making its
meaning clearer … the use of this as a literary or teaching device”. (Webster’s
Dictionary, 2005) By explicitly teaching the selected group paraphrasing skills, as a
whole class, and practising the skills in small group situations, it was expected that the
students would be able to recall what they had read, retell main ideas or events, and
answer related literal and inferential questions related to the text in their own words.
Paraphrasing can prove to be a challenge for students who experience difficulty at the
sentence level and tend to rewrite or retell in single words, or remembered phrases
from a text previously read.
In research undertaken by Katims and Harris (1997) it was shown that “The
paraphrasing strategy has been demonstrated to significantly increase the reading
comprehension of students with and without learning difficulties.” (p.118) In their study,
it was found that “… students with learning disabilities who learned and used the
paraphrasing strategy increased their ability to answer comprehension about materials
3
written at their grade level … the more paraphrasing a student did, the higher was his
or her comprehension score.” (p.118)
In their research, Parker, Hasbrouck and Denton (2002) defined comprehension in
reading as the reader understanding what is read. The research identifies students who
experience difficulties in reading as those who do not understand key words or
sentences, cannot link sentences within a text to each other, and cannot successfully fit
the information contained in a text together in a meaningful way. Some students
experience greater difficulty getting meaning from texts than with oral reading accuracy
or fluency. The use of comprehension strategies helps students to maintain interest
and concentration when reading, and to understand key words, key sentences, how
sentences relate to one another, and how information fits together in a meaningful way.
Students who fail to understand key words and key sentences often demonstrate poor
comprehension skills. (Parker, Hasbrouck, and Denton, 2002) The teaching strategy
introduced by Parker, Hasbrouck and Denton (2002) moves from paraphrasing single
sentences, to several connected sentences, to paragraphs, and is known as the “What
did it say?” approach, which is similar to the Paraphrasing Strategy described by
Schumaker, Denton and Deshler (1984) in their research. In the Paraphrasing Strategy
(Schumaker, Denton and Deshler, 1984) students are taught to use a reading
comprehension strategy by applying the acronym RAP:
• Read a paragraph
• Ask yourself, “What were the main ideas and details in this paragraph?”
• Put the main idea and details into your own words.
When defining “effective learning strategies that really work”, Boudah and O’Neill (1999)
include the paraphrasing strategy in addition to several others. They state that “each
strategy has multiple parts that students remember with the aid of a mnemonic” and
give the example of the paraphrasing strategy by which “students learn a reading
comprehension strategy that is remembered by the acronym RAP …” (Boudah and
O’Neill 1999). They include the observation that “students typically learn to use a
learning strategy in small groups … through short, intensive lessons over several
weeks.” (Boudah and O’Neill 1999)
In the article “Paraphrasing for Comprehension”, Fisk and Hurst (2003) state that “…
when students are taught a technique for how to paraphrase text, paraphrasing can
strengthen comprehension of both fiction and non-fiction.” (p.182) They report that their
4
research has “… found paraphrasing for comprehension to be an excellent tool for
reinforcing reading skills such as identifying the main ideas, finding supporting details,
and identifying the author’s voice.” (p.182) They believe the reason for the success of
paraphrasing “… is because it integrates all modes of communication – reading, writing,
listening, and speaking – which lead to a deeper understanding of the text.” (p.182)
They conclude their article with the statement that “Paraphrasing for comprehension is
an effective reading strategy that helps students process and comprehend what they
are reading and learning.” (p.182)
“One of the most crucial elements of supporting reading development is the explicit
teaching of reading strategies so readers are able to access their prior knowledge
during reading … A reader must actively integrate a range of strategies, including both
word identification and comprehension strategies … The teaching of comprehension
and word identification strategies is essential.” (First Steps, 2007 p.112) Research into
reading has identified processes commonly used by efficient or skilled readers.
“Efficient readers are active as they read, simultaneously using a range of processes to
identify unknown words and comprehend text.” (First Steps, 2007 p.113) They … “ask
themselves what is most important in this phrase, sentence, paragraph, chapter …”
(First Steps, 2007 p.120) As part of the process of determining the importance of
information, the skills of summarising and paraphrasing are used to identify, record, and
write the key ideas and main points or most important information from a text. Students
use the Paraphrasing Strategy to improve reading comprehension of main ideas and
details through paraphrasing. Paraphrasing refers to the restating or re-writing of text
into other words and involves the identifying, recording and writing of the key ideas,
main points or most important information from a text into your own words. (First Steps,
2007) When reading an unfamiliar text, readers align what they are reading with
previous knowledge and accumulate and store new knowledge, about vocabulary,
sentence structures, topics, content knowledge, values, attitudes, etc., into their long-
term memory. By teaching students comprehension strategies, such as paraphrasing,
using synonyms, rereading and retelling, they will be able to make the links.
This study aims to explicitly teach the paraphrasing strategy to all students in a Year 3
class group, as a means of providing the students with a strategy to help them improve
their recall and comprehension of fictional and factual texts, and to effectively respond
to literal and inferential comprehension questions.
5
Method
Design:
The design of the present investigation uses the combination of a time series (one
group pre-test – post-test) design and an OXO (observe, treatment, observe) design,
during which the progress made in reading comprehension, following the explicit
teaching of the paraphrasing strategy, is monitored and compared. This design was
used as a single group of students in the same year level were selected, “pretested,
given some treatment or independent variable manipulation (intervention), then post
tested.” (Dictionary of Psychology, 2001) There was no control group; therefore, all
students received the same input when being taught how to use paraphrasing. A class
group of eighteen Year 3 student were explicitly taught how to paraphrase and were
able to practise the strategy when responding to comprehension questions both orally
and written. The students were divided into three teaching groups and given the same
texts, instruction and questions. There was no additional support given to the less
capable readers who were experiencing difficulty with comprehension. The texts used,
both fiction and factual, were related to the Enquiry Unit of work currently being studied.
The students were assessed at the beginning of the investigation to ascertain their
comprehension levels when reading fiction and factual texts. The students were
explicitly taught the strategy of paraphrasing; then the group was post tested using the
same or similar standardised tests. The structure of the sessions was based on an
adaptation of “Teaching a Paraphrasing Strategy” (Munro 2007), using whole group and
small group teaching situations. There were two testing sessions (pre-test and post
test), and ten teaching sessions. Teaching sessions were for approximately 50 - 60
minutes, over a period of three weeks. During the teaching sessions, the students were
to be taught the paraphrasing strategy, the acronym R.A.P. (Appendix 4) and given the
opportunity to articulate what they were doing before, during and after reading and how
R.A.P. would help them understand what they were reading about.
6
Participants:
The participants were all Year 3 students in the same class group; these students were
also in the same Year 2 group and had the same teachers. The group consisted of 18
students, six of which had received Reading Recovery support in Year 1. One student
was a New Arrival, arriving in Australia nine month previous. Being a small class size, it
was decided to expose all students to the strategy so all could benefit from the explicit
teaching and practising of paraphrasing skills.
Previous data collection and records indicated that the students were all capable
readers, scoring a reading level of 28+ (at the end of Year 2), but current testing scores
showed most to be below average reading age and comprehension level for Year 3,
both for literal and inferential comprehension. This was evident by the AIM data
analysed during the pre-test session. Most students could decode texts at the word
level but had difficulty in processing the text for meaning at the sentence and paragraph
levels, both fiction and factual texts.
At the time of pre-testing, the students ranged in age from 7 years 7 months to 9 years
9 months, and showed a wide variety of reading ages and abilities. (Table 1) It was
found that two of the more fluent readers (Student C and Student O) had difficulty
processing text for meaning rather than at the word level where they could decode and
locate words in a text, but were unable to successfully identify the main facts and ideas
when answering questions. Their scores were below the expected for Year 3. Six
students in the class scored below their chronological age in reading by at least 9
months (Students C, F, H, M, O, R) and this was of concern particularly for Student R
who is 8 months older than the next nearest student in age.
By comparing results from the pre-tests with the post tests, it was hoped to ascertain if
exposing the whole class to the teaching strategy of paraphrasing has the same impact
for all students in the Year 3 level, which students made the most significant gains, and
which students would require further support with reading and comprehending texts.
7
y m Aural comp
BURT Word
AIM 2006
A* 8 3 6 3 98 8 4 100 6 29 29 11 B’ 7 7 5 4 107 9 5 113 10 52 46 12 C 8 5 9 5 94 7 8 92 9 46 64 13 D 8 3 9 12 120 12 8 152 17 91 70 23 E 8 1 8 4 103 9 1 108 10 52 56 13 F 8 10 7 4 90 6 10 82 11 58 50 9
G* 9 1 5 2 105 10 7 127 14 76 54 14 H* 7 10 3 0 89 6 1 73 3 13 30 14 I 8 5 5 2 105 9 9 117 18 96 58 13
J* 8 0 13 10 100 8 4 100 16 87 59 20 K 8 4 6 1 100 8 7 103 11 58 47 12 L 8 8 11 15 105 10 2 122 20 99 61 17
M* 8 2 5 3 89 6 6 78 8 40 49 6 N* 8 0 4 3 112 9 0 108 18 96 45 12 O 8 4 8 7 93 7 3 87 10 52 45 20 P 8 6 12 10 110 11 0 132 18 96 45 21 Q 8 5 3 2 104 9 9 117 18 96 56 13 R 9 9 4 5 98 9 0 108 15 82 46 18 18 20 24 20 99 110 28
* Reading Recovery (Year 1); B’ New Arrival (9 months) Materials:
The materials selected for this investigation included the following:
• Assessment / Testing tools:
• TORCH – At the Zoo (pre-test); Lizards Love Eggs (post-test)
• BURT Word (pre / post test)
• AIM 2007 – Reading (pre-test); AIM 2006 – Reading (post-test)
• Teacher designed comprehension questions (literal and inferential) related to
texts.
• The Magic School Bus On The Ocean Floor, J. Cole
• Longneck’s Billabong, A. Coleridge
8
• Factual Texts:
• Frog Habitat, Where Have the Frogs Gone? p.5-9, Barrie Books 4A
• What is a Habitat? Habitats, p.1, Barrie Books 3A
• Wetlands, Habitats p.16-19, Barrie Books 3A
• Australian Crocodiles, Class Ideas K-3 No.40 p.38
• Habitats, Class Ideas K-3 No.33 p.41
• Other Materials:
• Reading cards – made for selected texts, both fiction and factual
• Comprehension / Paraphrase lesson format (Munro 2007)
Procedure:
• Test Tasks:
The tasks were administered to all students in the Year 3 class group. All tasks, except
BURT Word test, were given to the whole class at the same time, with the students
separated and working on the tasks individually.
Aural / listening comprehension and retell was scored after the students had listened to
a passage read aloud (Listening Comprehension Task - Munro, 2007). The students
were required to listen to the whole passage then write as much of the story as they
could remember. Prompts were used when the students had stopped writing; e.g. Who
was in the story? What happened? Students needed to retell events in sequence and
results were scored out of a possible 20 points. A similar teacher designed passage
was used for the post-test. (Appendix 2)
Paraphrasing ability was assessed using the Group Administration Paraphrasing Task
(Munro 2005), prior to beginning the teaching sessions. Many students were not able to
paraphrase, as they did not demonstrate knowledge of “paraphrasing” as a strategy. As
a group they had not been taught the skills needed to paraphrase. They were able to
suggest other words for a given word (synonyms), when they recognised individual
words and were prompted for suggestions. For both the pre-test and the post-test, only
sentences 1-12 were used with a total possible score of 24.
9
The Reading Progress Test 3 was used as the pre-test to determine the reading age of
students prior to teaching the strategy, and Reading Progress Test 3 was re-
administered for the post-test (as this test was appropriate for Assessing Year 3
students in June/July). The RPT tests are designed to monitor the reading
comprehension and reading age of students and “assess a wide range of literal and
inferential skills and reading vocabulary, using test items and text passages of varying
content and length.” (RPT Manual) The format of the RPT 3 is similar to the AIM
Reading Tests, in that it has a variety of reading passages, both fiction and factual, and
multiple choice style questions. Questions relating to texts assess both literal and
inferential comprehension. As with AIM there are 4-5 questions per text type, including
literal and inferential. The “tests are made up of three main types of comprehension
questions: identifying the meaning of individual words; selecting the right answer from a
number of choices after reading a short story, non-fiction passage or poem; and
choosing, or supplying, missing words in a short story or non-fiction passage.” (RPT
Manual 2 p.7) The theme for RPT 3 is “Parrots”. (Appendix 3) Following the initial
testing, students were assigned to three small groups based on the results of RPT 3.
(Table 2) Scores for AIM and TORCH were also considered when forming the groups.
The students worked in the same three groups for all ten teaching sessions.
Word reading accuracy was assessed using BURT Word List, using Dec. 2007 scores
as the pre-test data, and May 2008 as the post-test data. The BURT word test was
used to rank the students’ knowledge of words in isolation and determine the strategies
used to decode unknown words.
All students were assessed for comprehension accuracy using Tests of Reading
Comprehension (TORCH). The TORCH reading passage “At The Zoo” was used as a
pre-test and the raw and percentile rank scores were recorded. As a post-test passage
“Lizards Love Eggs” (TORCH) was used and the same score data was recorded. Both
TORCH passages were fictional texts and required the students to read the text and
complete cloze passages, by filling in gaps using one or more of their own words.
10
Table 2: Small Groups
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Student RA1 AIM Torch Student RA1 AIM Torch Student RA1 AIM Torch
H 73 14 13 J 100 20 87 I 117 13 96 M 78 6 40 K 103 12 58 Q 117 13 96 F 82 9 58 E 108 13 52 L 122 17 99 O 87 20 52 R 108 18 82 G 127 14 76 C 92 13 46 N 108 12 96 P 132 21 46 A 100 11 29 B 113 12 52 D 152 23 91
• Teaching Sessions
Sessions were planned as a unit of ten lessons, following the pre-testing sessions. The
structure of the lessons followed the format of whole class, small groups with a
focussed teaching group, and whole class. The initial share session of each lesson was
for approximately 20 minutes, during which the whole class was introduced to the text,
and given the opportunity to practise paraphrasing skills. The next 20 - 30 minutes, the
students worked on Task centre activities, with one group being the “Teaching Group”.
As there were three teaching groups, and fifteen possible teaching sessions, each
group had five focussed teaching sessions on the paraphrasing strategy. During the
final 10 minutes of the reading session, the class came back together to share,
articulate and reflect on their learning.
The sessions were conducted during the Literacy Sessions over a period of three
weeks, using reading materials related to the Integrated Enquiry Unit “Wetland
Environment”. Students were supported in the practice of the strategy and skills during
teaching groups. To help them articulate what they meant when they paraphrased a
sentence of paragraph, they used the self-script of RAP:
Read the text (sentence or paragraph)
Ask yourself “what are the main ideas and details?”
Put the ideas into your own words and change as many words as you can.
During the whole class lesson focus, students reflected on the text read at the previous
session, before a new text was introduced and “read to”, “read with”, or “read by” the
students, a sentence or paragraph at a time. As a group, students identified key words
and phrases or main ideas, and brainstormed synonyms for new words in the text.
11
Individual students retold and paraphrased what they had heard or read, sentence by
sentence, and discussed links to the previous sentence. Texts for shared reading were
used for 3-5 sessions.
In the small group sessions (groups of 6 students, selected on their reading ages in
months based on their pre-test RA1 scores – Table 2), students read texts (shared
reading, guided reading, or independent reading), suggested synonyms for new words,
paraphrased, and answered literal and inferential comprehension questions, either
verbally or written in their own words. Groups were based on students being at similar
stages of reading development. Students were introduced a new text and encouraged
to predict the content and possible words that might be found in the text. They then
read the text silently, identified new words, and gave a synonym for selected words.
They then took turns to read aloud the text sentence by sentence, and retell in their own
words.
To conclude the reading sessions, students were given the opportunity to share or
articulate what they had learnt about the strategy of paraphrasing and how RAP had
helped them with their reading and answering of comprehension questions. They were
also asked what words they were able to change in the text and give an example of a
sentence they had paraphrased, or the answer to a question they had written in their
own words.
• Lesson Sequence
The first two sessions (1 and 2) were aimed at introducing the strategy of paraphrasing,
using synonyms, and the meaning and use of the acronym R.A.P. (Appendix 1)
• Introduction / revision of the term “synonym”
• Introduction to the shared text
• Shared reading of the text
• Identifying new words and main ideas in the text
• Demonstration of paraphrasing
• Practise paraphrasing sentences
• GROUP SESSION: See Lesson Format for Reading Groups (Appendix 1)
12
• Reflection / Articulation of learning
The following eight sessions (3 – 10) were designed on the plan:
• Retelling text from the previous session
• Introduction of new, shared text
• Shared reading of the text – read to, read with, read by the students
• Discussion of main parts / ideas in the text
• Identifying new words / phrases and listing synonyms
• Practise paraphrasing sentences
• GROUP SESSION:
• Reflection / Articulation of learning
In the Task Centres / Teaching Groups, the lesson followed the plan:
• Introduction to the new text
• Silent Reading of new text
• Reading new text aloud
• Identify new words and phrases and give synonyms
• Paraphrasing sentences from the text
• Discussion of responses
• Comprehension questions based on the text – literal and inferential
When the sequence of sessions was completed, the group was re-assessed using the
same assessment tools and results recorded (Table 3) and compared.
13
Results
The results show that after the explicit teaching of paraphrasing there was an
improvement in the students’ comprehension levels within the Year 3 class group.
Often the students who attained low scores on the pre-tests showed more significant
improvement in the post-test results. (Table 3) Depending on the testing task, some
students performed better on tasks where reading / decoding demands were less and
the task / text was presented in manageable sections. A range of assessment tasks
was presented, enabling all students to show improvement in at least two different
tasks: Aural / Listening Comprehension, Paraphrasing, Reading Progress Test,
TORCH, Burt Reading Word Test, and AIM. The pre-test and post-test scores for each
of the assessment tasks were converted to graph format so comparisons could be
analysed.
y m Aural comp
BURT Word
AIM 2007
A* 8 5 9 12 97 8 1 -3 18 90 39 10 B’ 7 9 13 10 117 9 9 4 17 84 49 10 C 8 7 14 17 117 9 9 25 11 49 67 14 D 8 5 18 21 181 15 1 29 20 99 72 26 E 8 3 12 11 113 9 5 5 19 96 65 18 F 9 0 12 11 117 9 9 35 12 55 51 11
G* 9 3 11 11 132 11 0 5 16 78 57 18 H* 8 0 10 10 100 8 4 27 18 90 50 22 I 8 7 15 14 161 13 5 44 14 67 64 17
J* 8 2 18 14 181 15 1 81 17 84 69 26 K 8 6 10 11 122 10 2 19 14 67 52 15 L 8 10 16 20 161 13 5 39 19 96 74 23
M* 8 4 8 14 117 9 9 39 16 78 50 12 N* 8 2 12 10 117 9 9 9 16 78 55 16 O 8 6 14 17 132 11 0 45 17 84 55 24 P 8 8 19 16 152 12 8 20 18 90 63 21 Q 8 7 12 10 122 10 2 5 17 84 61 16 R 9 11 11 12 142 11 10 34 20 99 58 17 18 20 24 20 99 110 28
* Reading Recovery (Year 1); B’ New Arrival (9 months) All students showed improvement in Aural / Listening comprehension. Scores in the
pre-test ranged from 3 to 13 out of a possible 20 facts that could be recalled. Post-test
scores ranged from 8 to 19. (Graph 1)
14
Graph 1: Aural / Listening Comprehension Task (Pre-Test and Post-Test Results)
Student: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R (Pre-test scores – blue; Post-test scores – red) Students H and Q received the lowest scores on the pre-test, but made significant
gains, at least 7 more facts were included in their retelling of the passage (See
Appendix 2). Students J and P who had higher pre-test scores, made gains of 5-7
remembered facts. Overall, all students were able to improve their scores by at least 3
points, after listening to a text, asking themselves what were the main ideas and details,
and writing what they could remember in their own words / using some remembered
words from the text.
The Paraphrasing Task post-test clearly showed that all students had demonstrated
understanding of how to paraphrase and use synonyms when writing sentences in their
own words. When completing literal and inferential comprehension questions based on
the texts read during the teaching sessions, all students were able to write answers in
their own words rather than copying directly from the text. They used the self-talk
mnemonic R.A.P. after reading to verbalise paraphrasing skills. By changing words
(using synonyms) and retain the meaning of sentences, the students showed they were
able to paraphrase. By recording the results of the Paraphrasing Tasks in graph format,
it can be seen that all students made significant gains, the most significant being
Student H who scored 0 on the pre-test and 10 on the post-test, out of a possible 24
(Graph 2).
Graph 2: Paraphrasing Task (Pre-Test and Post-Test Results)
Student: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R (Pre-test scores – blue; Post-test scores – red) Student L, a capable reader and imaginative writer, increased her score by 5 points. All
other students showed an improvement of at least 6 points. When initially allocating the
students to reading groups, Students H, M, F, O, C and A scored the lowest reading
levels and also had low scores in the paraphrasing pre-test. Each student in this group
showed significant improvement by scoring at least 10 points higher in their post-test
results.
Before reading the texts presented in the Reading Progress Test, the students were
reminded to use R.A.P. (paraphrasing) before attempting to answer the questions.
There was no time limit and all students completed the task. The RPT appeared to be
easier as students scored higher results, except Student A (Graph 3). In comparison to
the administration of the AIM Reading test, the students did not have a time limit, they
were reminded to use R.A.P before reading, the texts appeared to be presented in
manageable sized paragraphs, and the same texts had been used as the pre-test. This
is possibly the reason why the scores for the RPT post-test were better than those of
the AIM post-test (Table 3). When marking the RPT, the standard score and reading
age were calculated and pre-test and post-test scores were compared. The
standardised score indicates how a student is performing relative to other readers of the
same age. The standard score have a mean of 100; so the closer the score is to 100,
the closer the student is to the average or norm for their age group. All students, except
Student A scored a standard at or above 100, which indicated, at this present time, all
students are reading at their expected age level and the texts used for this test were
age appropriate.
16
Graph 3: Reading Progress Test - Standard Scores (Pre-Test and Post-Test Results)
Student: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R (Pre-test scores – blue; Post-test scores – red)
The TORCH test was used to estimate the students’ reading comprehension
achievement. Each student received a scaled score that can be used to compare
individual results with the whole class. As the data for the pre-test had previously been
collected the scores for the text “At the Zoo” were used. The closest passage with
similar item difficulty (“Lizards Love Eggs”) was used for the post-test, even though this
was considered to be a less demanding task. The raw score and percentile rank for
each student were recorded. Percentile ranks show the percentage of the “reference
group” with scores below the student’s score. Graph 4 shows the percentile rank both
pre-test and post-test for all students. The “descriptive interpretation” statements
outline the typical reading achievements of students within regions along the TORCH
scale. (Detailed statements are contained in the TORCH Teacher Manuel p. 27) The
scale scores were used to match the results to the statements that describe the skills
the students have already developed and are expected to develop. (Table 4)
17
Graph 4: TORCH Percentile Rank (Pre-test and Post-test Scores)
Student: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R (Pre-test scores – blue; Post-test scores – red)
From Graph 4, it can be seen that the majority of students performed better on the post-
test when percentile ranks were compared. Students who scored higher in the pre-test
did not as greater gain in the post-test as those who scored lower. Student D, who
scored 17 on the pre-test, scored a total of 20 on the post-test, but Student L scored 20
on the pre-test and only a score of 17 on the post-test; Students I, N, P, and Q scored
18 0n the pre-test, but scored at or below 18 on the post-test. This is probably due to
students achieving high scores in the pre-test do not have much scope to improve and
increase their scores. Although Students F and J scored attained a raw score of 1 point
higher, when the score was converted to a percentile rank, their results show a score of
slightly less on Graph 4.
18
Table 4: TORCH Description of Reading Achievement for Post-Test Results Students Raw
Score Scale Score
Description of Reading Achievement
D R 20 63.9 Reconstruct the writer’s general message from specific statements E L 19 56.5 Draw an inference using knowledge of cultural values A H P 18 51.1 Draw together several pieces of implied information to infer a
relationship that is not directly stated B J O Q 17 47.5 Locate a single piece of explicitly stated information when there is
closely competing information G M N 16 44.7 Locate explicitly stated information when the information is not
prominent 15 42.3 Draw together pieces of explicitly stated information to infer a
relationship I K 14 40.2 13 38.2 Provide a detail in the presence of competing answers F 12 36.4 C 11 34.6 Draw together pieces of explicitly stated information across
sentences 10 32.8 9 31.0 Draw together information across sentences to infer a relationship 8 29.2 7 27.4 Provide a main detail of a story given multiple explicit references 6 25.5 5 23.4 Complete rephrased sentences 4 21.0 3 18.2 Complete very simple rewordings 2 14.6 Complete sentences copied verbatim The Burt Word Reading Test was used to assess word accuracy. For this group of
students, the December 2007 scores were used as the pre-test data, and May 2008 as
the post-test scores (Table 3). The Burt Word Test was used to rank the students’
knowledge of words in isolation and determine the strategies used to decode unknown
words. On the record sheet, strategies that students used to decode unknown words
were noted – “sounding out”, breaking words into syllables, awareness of blends (onset
and rime), similarity to known words, etc. Raw scores for pre-test and post-test (Graph
5) show all students to have improved their scores for word recognition over the past
five months. When interpreting the Burt Word Test, the raw scores were placed on
Equivalent Age Bands (EAB) for “Boys and Girls” (Table 5) which compares reading
age (in bands) at the word level to chronological age. The Burt Word Reading Test EAB
for individual students “may provide a guide to suitable graded reading material.”
(Gilmore, Croft and Reid 1981 pg. 7) Further analysis of test errors can be used to
identify specific difficulties with word recognition and strategies used for decoding e.g.
19
breaking words into syllables / onset and rime, pronunciation of consonant and vowel
sounds and blends.
Graph 5: Burt Reading Word Test (Pre-test and Post-test Scores)
Student: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R (Pre-test scores – blue; Post-test scores – red)
Table 5: Burt Word Reading Test Scores Compared to Equivalent Age Bands Student Raw Score
Dec EAB
May EAB
Boys and Girls Chronological
Age A 29 6.7 – 7.1 39 7.5 – 7.11 8.5 B 46 8.0 – 8.6 49 8.3 – 8.9 7.9 C 64 10.0 – 10.6 67 10.4 – 10.10 8.7 D 70 10.9 – 11.3 72 11.0 – 11.6 8.5 E 56 8.11 – 9.5 65 10.2 – 10.8 8.3 F 50 8.4 – 8.10 51 8.5 – 8.11 9.0 G 54 8.9 – 9.3 57 9.1 – 9.7 9.3 H 30 6.8 – 7.2 50 8.4 – 8.10 8.0 I 58 9.2 – 9.8 64 10.0 – 10.6 8.7 J 59 9.4 – 9.10 69 10.7 – 11.1 8.2 K 47 8.1 – 8.7 52 8.6 – 9.0 8.6 L 61 9.8 – 10.2 74 11.3 – 11.9 8.10 M 49 8.3 – 8.9 50 8.4 – 8.10 8.4 N 45 7.11 – 8.5 55 8.10 – 9.4 8.2 O 45 7.11 – 8.5 55 8.10 – 9.4 8.6 P 45 7.11 – 8.5 63 9.11 – 10.5 8.8 Q 56 8.11 – 9.5 61 9.8 – 10.2 8.7 R 46 8.0 – 8.6 58 9.2 – 9.8 9.11 18 110 110
20
When analysing students’ reading age using equivalent age bands, it must be noted
that bands are approximately a six-month interval. Using the data (Table 5), it can be
seen that Student A, aged 8 years and 5 months, in comparison with other students of
the same chronological age has an EAB of 6.7 to 8.4, which indicates that he / she
recognises and pronounces words approximately 2 years below the level of students his
/ her own age. Also of concern with reading at the word level are Student F and
Student R. Student F is reading words at least 1 month below he word level, other
students Student F is 1 month below; and Student R at least 3 months below. For
these three students, this difficulty with words recognition is also reflected in their
spelling and writing of words. Through introducing paraphrasing, all students were able
to locate key words in texts. Students A, F and R could give synonyms for words, as
spelling was not taken into consideration when scoring the suggested words.
The AIM tasks included fiction and non-fiction texts, and assessed a variety of reading
comprehension skills. (Appendix 3) The AIM post-test was used as a “practice” for
NAPLAN. It will be interesting to see the results that this class of students will score on
NAPLAN. As can be seen from Graph 6, some students did not achieve an improved
score for the post-test. This is possibly due to the format and content of the reading
tasks: there was a time limit, the answers were multiple-choice, the texts appeared
daunting to some of the weaker readers, and several students said they did not use
R.A.P after they had read the texts because they were not allowed to talk.
Graph 6: AIM Reading Task (Pre-test 2007 and Post-test 2006 Scores)
Student: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R (Pre-test scores – blue; Post-test scores – red)
21
DISCUSSION
The results of this project and the data collected and analysed, supported and
confirmed the initial hypothesis that “explicitly teaching the strategy of paraphrasing
to students in Year 3 increases their recall and comprehension of fictional and
factual texts”. Overall, the students in Year 3 have shown improvement in reading
scores on a variety of tasks and tests. Paraphrasing has provided the students with
another strategy and set of skills to assist them with reading and comprehension. This
strategy will need to continue to be reinforced so it becomes an automatic response that
students can rely upon when required to make meaning of texts.
As “Reading is a complex set of skills and successful reading … involves achievement
in a number of areas such as comprehension, vocabulary, and speed of reading as well
as word recognition” (Gilmore, Croft and Reid pg. 3) it is important to teach a variety of
strategies to assist reader with making meaning of texts. In their research studies,
Parker, Hasbrouck and Denton (2002), and Fisk and Hurst (2003), suggest that
explicitly teaching students learning strategies of how to comprehend and understand
will improve their comprehension of texts. Paraphrasing is only one of the strategies
that readers can use.
The paraphrasing teaching unit enabled students to improve their comprehension of
texts at the sentence and paragraph levels, identifying key words and locating main
ideas. Paraphrasing sentences makes the reader aware of the meaning of each
sentence and how it relates to the sentence before and after.
As listening comprehension precedes reading comprehension, it was important to
include “Read To” sessions in the lesson sequence, and to assess the students’ aural /
listening comprehension before and after teaching the strategy of paraphrasing.
Opportunities for students to listen to texts being read enables them to focus on
listening comprehension and on building meaning without having to decode and
process at the same time. Reading to students provides models of phrasing, fluency
and intonation, and allows students to engage in discussion before and after reading. It
was found that most students with low listening scores initially, only remembered the
beginning or final phrases. After teaching paraphrasing skills, the students were able to
recall and remember more ideas from a text. Shared reading of texts allowed for the
22
students to reinforce the paraphrasing strategy introduced, and during small group
sessions, students read with greater comprehension as evidenced through their
responses to both literal and inferential questions based on the texts.
Data was used to inform the text selections, and the grouping of students. Students
who scored below the expected level on most of the pre-tests made significant gains in
the post-tests. Scores recorded for the AIM Reading tests did not show significant
differences between the pre-test and post-test. Although Katim and Haris (1997) used
a similar multiple-choice type assessment tool for their study, including ten questions
involving recall and understanding, to support their study, the use of AIM in this study
was not the best indicator of gains made by the students in the Year 3 group. This may
need to be a consideration when assessing student reading; not all student perform to
the same level on the same task, therefore, a variety of reading tasks need to be
administered to provide a more comprehensive collection of data and record of
achievement or progress in reading.
As with the Katim and Harris (1997) study, it was found that all students benefited from
being taught and encouraged to use the paraphrasing strategy. In this study the
paraphrasing strategy was taught to all students, not just those experiencing difficulties
with reading. Fisk and Hurst (2003) state, “While paraphrasing for comprehension is
not a strategy that needs to be used in every reading situation, it is an effective tool to
add to our repertoire of classroom practices intended to increase students’
comprehension of text.” (Fisk and Hurst, 2003 p.184) Both these studies suggest that
teaching the paraphrasing strategy will improve students’ comprehension of texts – both
in whole class situations and in small groups of students with similar needs. This study
explored to introduction of the strategy through whole class and group sessions. Using
the CLaSS model (Crevola and Hill 2001), the strategy of Paraphrasing could be
introduced and practised earlier than Year 3 during shared reading and in small
teaching group situations.
The R.A.P. poster (Appendix 4) was used within the literacy sessions and also when
students were asked to read at other times during the day – they were keen to R.A.P (or
asked if they could R.A.P. after reading every text. When asked what they could do to
help them understand a text, the response was usually “R.A.P.” As the unit of work
progressed the students became more familiar with the strategy and applied it in other
23
subject areas. Unfortunately, several students did not automatically use the strategy
when attempting questions included in the AIM post-test, yet all students demonstrated
understanding of the skills during shared reading and teaching sessions. Parker,
Hasbrouck and Denton (2002) stated that when readers are able to read and
comprehend texts and use comprehension strategies, they maintain interest and
comprehension when reading. This became more evident as the students read factual
texts related to the enquiry unit.
From the data and evidence collected during the study, it is recommended that
Students A, F, H, K, M, N and R continue to receive additional support when reading
and writing. Teaching the Paraphrasing Strategy to the whole class has been
beneficial, and it is recommended that other learning strategies are explicitly taught to
the whole class. Students A,F and R, who scored below the expected level on the Burt
Word Reading Test, may be demonstrating the observation made by Parker, Hasbrouck
and Denton (2002) that students demonstrate poor comprehension due to their failure
to understand key words.
The implications for teaching comprehension strategies are that for readers to gain
meaning from texts, they need to be able to predict and answer questions before,
during and after reading. Students need to be explicitly taught reading and
comprehension strategies including paraphrasing to improve their recall and
understanding of what has been read.
Implications for teaching skills and learning strategies could include the following:
• explicitly teach strategies and practise skills by having an acronym that students can
use as self-talk to assist them with reading e.g. R.A.P.; R.I.D.E.R
• provide a variety of assessment tasks, including: multiple-choice questions; questions
that require literal, inferential and analytical answers; vocabulary and word answers;
cloze passages; retelling and sequencing; locating key words and main ideas in a
sentence / paragraph; etc.
Further research / teaching suggestions would be to explicitly teach the strategy of
visualising (or another comprehension strategy) to the same group of Year 3 students
and compare results.
24
References / Bibliography AIM Teaching materials (Reading Comprehension). “Going Places” Year 3, 2006. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. AIM Teaching materials (Reading Comprehension). “Going Places” Year 3, 2007. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. Boudah, D.J. and O’Neill, K. (1999). Learning Strategies, ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education Reston VA, ERIC/OSEP Digest E577 Clay, M. (1993, Reprinted 2000). An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. Heinemann. Colman, A. (2001). A Dictionary of Psychology. Oxford University Press. Crevola, C. and Hill, P. (1988, Revised 2001). Children’s Literacy Success Strategy. CEO Melbourne. Education Department of Western Australia. (2006, Revised 2007). First Steps Reading Resource Book. Rigby Heinemann / Harcourt. Fisk, C. and Hurst, B. (2003). Paraphrasing for Comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 57, 2, 182-85 Gilmore, A., Croft, C. and Reid, N. (1981). Burt Word Reading Test. Lithoprint. Katims, D.S. and Harris, S. (1997). Improving the reading comprehension of middle school students in inclusive classrooms. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 41, 2, 116-123 Mossenson, L., Stephanou, A., Foudter, M., Masters, G., McGregor, M., Anderson, P., and Hill, P. (2003). TORCH Tests of Reading Comprehension, second edition. Australia: ACER. Parker, R., Hasbrouck, J.E. and Denton, C. (2002). How to Tutor Students with Reading Comprehension Problems. Preventing School Failure, 47,1, 45-48 Schumaker, J.B., Denton, P.H. and Deshler, D.D. (1984). Learning Strategies Curriculum: The Paraphrasing Strategy. Lawrence: University of Kansas. Vincent, D., Crumpler, M. and de la Mare, M. (2004). Reading Progress Tests, Stage Two. Hodder Murray. Webster. (2005). Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Wiley (www.yourdictionary.com). Other: Munro, J.K. (2007). Literacy Intervention Strategies Course Notes. University of Melbourne.
25
Appendix 1: Teaching Unit Paraphrasing Lesson Format Aim: The teaching sessions in this unit aim:
• to introduce to students in Year 3 the Paraphrasing Strategy • to provide opportunities for students to practise paraphrasing skills • to improve sentence / paragraph level comprehension through the use of paraphrasing • to provide students with a reading strategy that will help hem understand texts • to improve student responses to literal and inferential comprehension questions.
Sessions 1 and 2 Introduction: During our Reading sessions, we are going to be learning a new way to help us with comprehension and answering questions about what we read. This new way is called paraphrasing. We are going to use the word R.A.P. to remind us what to do. (What do you think “rap” means?)
Activity Task Description Text / Example Introduction / revision of the term “synonym”
Students are introduced to the definition of “synonym” and give examples for selected words.
Introduction to the shared text Students are introduced to the shared text at beginning of Literacy Reading session. Students predict text content and possible words / ideas.
Shared reading of the text Students listen to selected text and discuss main parts, retelling from memory.
Identifying new words and main ideas in the text
Students brainstorm / suggest synonyms for identified words / phrases / ideas.
Demonstration of paraphrasing Teacher models paraphrasing of whole sentences, both orally and written.
Introduction of the acronym R.A.P.
Students are introduced to the strategy of paraphrasing. They paste poster in their individual workbooks. (Appendix 4)
Practise paraphrasing sentences
Students take turns to read aloud a sentence and paraphrase by retelling in their own words, changing as many words as possible. Other students can also be asked for their ideas.
Questions related to the text – both literal and inferential
Students are asked questions about the text and are to give
What is a “synonym”? Can you give some examples? Make a list of synonyms for select words: little (adjective); said (verb); house (noun); quickly (adverb). Introduction of the text The Magic School Bus At the Waterworks, J. Cole (“Read to” and individual reading cards for independent reading and “Read with”)
26
GROUP SESSION: See Lesson Format for Reading Groups
Students work in task centre groups, reading selected texts, practising paraphrasing skills, and answering comprehension questions – literal and inferential.
Reflection / Articulation of learning
Students are encouraged to retell a sentence / paragraph in their own words, or read their answer to a question based on the text, and explain how they used R.A.P. to help them understand what they were reading about in the session.
27
Sessions 3 to 10
Activity Task Description Text / Example Retelling text from the previous session
Students retell the main parts of the text read during the previous session, including as much detail as possible.
Introduction of new shared text
Students are introduced to the new, shared text and predict text content and possible words / ideas.
Shared reading of the text – read to, read with, read by the students
Students listen to, read with, or independently read selected text. Students read text aloud, taking turns to read by sentences / paragraphs.
Discussion of main parts / ideas in the text
Students discuss the main parts of the text in their own words. Students are reminded of R.A.P. (Appendix 4)
Identifying new words / phrases and listing synonyms
Students / teacher locates words / phrases in the text, and students are asked to give synonyms for selected words.
Practise paraphrasing sentences
Students take turns to read aloud a sentence and paraphrase by retelling in their own words, changing as many words as possible.
Questions related to the text – both literal and inferential
Students are asked questions about the text and are to give verbal answers in their own words.
GROUP SESSION: See Lesson Format for Reading Groups
Students work in task centre groups, reading selected texts, practising paraphrasing skills, and answering comprehension questions – literal and inferential.
Reflection / Articulation of learning
Students are encouraged to retell a sentence / paragraph in their own words, or read their answer to a question based on the text, and explain how they used R.A.P. to help them understand what they were reading about in the session.
These texts were used during the shared reading session. Texts were used for 3-5 days. The Magic School Bus Wet All Over, J. Cole (“Read to”. This text was also used in the Task Centres) Sample questions: What is another word for “condensing”? (synonym) What is another word for “faucet”? (synonym) Why did Wanda and Arnold need water? (literal) What happened when Carlos opened the mop cupboard? (literal) What do you think “Waterland” would be like? (inferential) How did the children feel when they were clouds? (inferential) The Magic School Bus On The Ocean Floor, J. Cole (“Read” to and individual reading cards of parts of the text. This text was also used in the Task Centres) Longneck’s Billabong, A. Coleridge (Big Book – enlarged text)
28
Lesson Format for Reading Groups
Activity Description Text / Example Introduction to the new text From the cover / title, students
suggest possible content and vocabulary that might be included in the text.
Silent Reading of new text Students read new text independently and list / underline new words.
Reading new text aloud Students take turns to read text aloud, a sentence / paragraph at a time.
Discussion of parts of the text Students discuss main parts of the text in their own words. They are reminded of R.A.P. (Appendix 4)
Identify new words and phrases and give synonyms
Students read words / phrases they have written / underlined and suggest synonyms.
Paraphrasing sentences from the text.
Students are given a sentence / paragraph from the text to paraphrase either verbally or written. They are reminded to change as many words as possible, but keep the meaning the same.
Discussion of responses Students in the group can offer other suggestions or make their own attempt at paraphrasing a particular sentence / paragraph.
Comprehension questions based on the text – literal and inferential
Students are to answer questions, either verbally or written, based on the text in their own words.
These texts were used in the Task Centres (groups of 6 students). All groups read the same texts and completed the same tasks. • Frog Habitat, Where Have the Frogs Gone? p.5-9, Barrie Books 4A • What is a Habitat? Habitats, p.1, Barrie Books 3A • Wetlands, Habitats p.16-19, Barrie Books 3A Text: “During the Wet season rain comes and floods the wetlands.” What might you see when the wetlands flood? • Australian Crocodiles, Class Ideas K-3 No.40 p.38 What do you know about crocodiles? What words might be in an information text about crocodiles? Task: Complete a table to compare the Saltwater and the Freshwater crocodiles. • Habitats, Class Ideas K-3 No.33 p.41 Text: “Wetlands are humid areas with still, shallow waters that may be salty or fresh.” What is another word for: humid, area, still, shallow. What is a wetland? (literal) What do you think it might be like living in a wetland? (inferential)
29
Appendix 2: Listening Comprehension Texts / Score Criteria Instructions given to students: I am going to read you a short story. I want you to think about the story, the characters, the setting and the problem. When I have finished reading the story, I want you to write down as much of the story as you can remember. Re-read to check if you have written all the main events in order. You can go back and add any parts you might have left out. Pre-test Passage (Listening Comprehension Task: from Munro 2004) Jane was at school and went out to sit on the seats and eat her lunch. As she opened her lunch box, it fell over and her lunch went on the ground. Jane wondered what she was going to do. Her sandwiches now had dirt all over them. She told her friend, Susan. Susan took one of the sandwiches from her lunch box and shared it with Jane. After lunch, Jane and Susan went into the playground and had a good time playing chasey.
√ or X √ or X √ or X Jane at school went out sit on seats eat lunch opened lunch box fell over lunch on ground wondered what to do sandwiches dirt on them told friend Susan took sandwich shared with Jane after lunch Jane and Susan went to playground had a good time playing chasey Possible score 20 Post-test Passage (Teacher Designed) Tom was at the park. He went to play with his dog, Kip. He took a ball to play with. Kip jumped up and down because he wanted Tom to throw the ball for him to fetch. Tom threw the ball into the pond. Kip could not get the ball because the water was too cold. Tom got a stick and hit the ball to the edge of the pond. Kip got the ball. Tom and Kip ran home from the park. They were very tired.
√ or X √ or X √ or X Tom at the park went to play with dog Kip took a ball dog jumped Tom to throw ball fetch threw ball into pond could not get ball water too cold Tom got a stick hit the ball edge of the pond Kip got the ball Tom and Kip ran home were tired Possible score 20
30
Appendix 3: Assessment Texts Reading Progress Test Text Types Theme: Parrots The RPT 3 included the following:
• Word identification – things that fly • The Talking Garden – fiction text • My Grandad – fiction text • Mother Parrot’s Advice to her Children • Parrots in Danger – non-fiction • A Talent For Talk – non-fiction • Questions related to all texts
AIM Assessment Skills and Text Types The 2006 AIM assessment task, assessed the following skills: The student’s ability to:
• locate directly stated information in a text • make links between directly stated ideas in a text • infer character’s feelings in a text • select key information in a text • interpret the main purpose of a text • infer character’s feelings in a text • work out the meaning of phrases in context • use contextual cues to interpret a text • make inferences about character’s qualities • identify how language is used to represent things in different ways • identify a sequence of events in a text.
“Going Places” Year 3 2006 Text titles / types (genre):
• The Snowman – fiction • Lucy’s Holiday – non-fiction / advertisement • Puffins – non-fiction • The Letter – recount • The Riding Club – fiction • Birtles and the Bean Car – non-fiction
The 2007 AIM assessment task, assessed the following skills: The student’s ability to:
• make links between directly stated ideas in a text • locate key information in a text • locate directly stated information in a text • identify the main purpose of a text • make inferences about characters’ actions • identify a sequence of events in a text • locate directly stated information in an illustration • draw on knowledge of text organisation to interpret a text
31
• make inferences about characters’ motives • make inferences about characters’ qualities • infer character’s feelings • identify how attitudes are presented in a text • use contextual cues to interpret a text • analyse characterisation in a text
“Going Places” Year 3 2007 Text titles / types (genre):
• Transport Day – non-fiction / advertisement • Jessie’s Find – fiction • How to make a Cat Mask – procedure • Shopping Day – fiction • Snow – non-fiction • A dog for Tom - fiction
32
Paraphrasing