becoming a self-regulated reader: a study of primary-grade

MLerary Rentrwh 5rnd nrtrueclon, .50 89-104,2011Copyright 0 Asiation of 11t IracyEduatorssadRC W h RoutledgeISSN: 1938-W71 ptit/ 1938-8063 anliftm ThylorikMaKsGroup

DOI: 10.108W/19388071003594697

Becoming a Self-Regulated Reader: A Study ofPrimary-Grade Students' Reading Strategies

LINDA E. MARTIN

Ball State University, Muncie. Indiana

SHERRY KRAGLER

University of South Florida Polytechnic, Lakeland, Florida

The purpose of this article is to report the results of a study that examined young readers' metacog-nitive processes and strategies while reading. An interview procedure was conducted while 109children (high, average, and low readers) in kindergarten (three classrooms) and first grade (fourclassrooms) read familiar and unfamiliar text. Qualitative analyses were conducted on the interviewdata. A three-way hierarchical Log-Linear analysis was also conducted to examine the associationsbetween three variables, that is. grade, level of students within the grades, and mark (number ofobservations). TWo-way Chi Square analysis revealed that the children across grades and differentreading levels within grades used strategies to understand text. Most of the children could report theuse of one or mote strategies (i.e., pictures, words. or sounding it out).

Keywords comprehension, elementary, early childhood

For several decades, researchers have examined the different strategies that readers useto think about text (e.g., Brown, 1975. 1985; Baker & Brown, 1984; Flavell, 1979, 1987;Garner, 1987; Markman, 1979) as well as how readers use strategies to understand text(e.g., Brown, 1985; Baker & Brown, 1984; Flavell, 1979; Garner, 1987; Kintsch & van

Dijk, 1978; Paris & Jacobs, 1984; Pressley, 2002a). Even though much has been accom-plished, studies that examine primary-grade readers' use of strategies to understand textsare limited (Pintrich, Wolters, & Baxter, 2000). Paris and Flukes (2005) assert that the

development of the different aspects of readers' self-regulating behavior that leads to thecomprehension of text may be especially important for beginning and struggling readers.The purpose of this article is to describe how primary-grade children in one school settingthought about and used strategies while reading.

Conceptual Frame

Scholars have observed the importance of learners' use of signs, such as language. andtools, such as strategies, to mediate learning (Baker, 1979; Flavell, 1979; Kintsch, 1988;Peirce, 1981; Skagestad. 2004; Vygotsky, 1978). The use of strategies to problem solveis deliberate and is self-controlled by the learner and in this case young children. Flavell(1979) asserts that the readers' understanding of the processes is enhanced by what readers

Address correspondence to Linda E. Martin, 216 Teachers College, Ball State University. Muncie, IN

47306. E-mail: [email protected]

89

L. E. Marian and S. Kragler

know about their own cognition and how to construct meaning. From research, two gen-eral categories of metacogrution emerged: metacognitive knowledge (Havefl, 1979) andmetacognitive judgments such as monitoring and self-regulating (Baker & Brown, 1984;Baker, 2005).

Flavell (1971) refers to metacognitive knowledge as the ability to reflect on one'sacquired world knowledge about any given learning task (p. 21). Scholars believe that thereaders' metacognitive knowledge is a way that connections aremade between cognition topossible metacognitive strategies (Brown,1985; Flavell, 1981; Kurtz & Borkowski, 1984;Pressley, 1994; Pressley, Borkowski, & Schneider, 1987). During this process, the readersare aware when something does not make sense and think about the different strategiesthat could be used (e.g., Baker, 1994; Baker & Brown, 1984; Brown, 1975; Clay, 1991;Dewey, 1910; Flavell, 1981; Nelson, 1996; Thomndike, 1972; Vygotsky, 1978). Decisionsmay then be made to employ specific strategies to clarify any details in the reading that arenot understood (Baker & Brown, 1984; Flavell, 1979; Garner, 1987; Kluwe, 1987; Myers& Paris, 1978; Nelson, 1996; Schunk, 2001). For example, some readers may determine touse phonics and no other strategy to decipher an unknown word where other readers maynot only use phonics but use the illustrations and surrounding printed text to make sense.Schunk (2001) asserts that the ability to self-regulate is context dependent and may varyfor learners. Thus, readers not only know what can be used to make sense of the text, butalso initiate strategies to pursue meaning (Zimmerman, 2001).

Young Children's Metacognitive Strategies

Very early, Clay (1973) indicated the importance of exploring the reflective processes ofyoung children as they attempt to understand text. Even so, the research base on primary-grade students' use of metacognitive strategies while they read is limited (Brown, Pressley,Van Meter, & Schuder, 1996). Instead, some researchers have investigated children'smetacognitive strategiea, as they listened to texts. Markman (1977) and Flavell (1981)both found that young children could identify inconsistencies in text that was read to them.However, because monitoring is a multi-task cognitive process, they believed that theremight be limits to how much younger children can focus on at a specific time.

Researchers have also observed young children monitoring their learning during avariety of literacy tasks. In two separate studies, Siegler (1988) compared the strategyuse of first graders according to their reading ability: "perfectionists, good students, andnot-so-good students" (p. 839). Thirty-six students participated in the first study and34 in the second study. In each study, children's use of word identification (2-8-letterwords) strategies were observed and recorded. The words were from familiar and non-familiar stories. Siegler's findings indicated that good students more often stated what theythought while reading, used back-up strategies, and were faster at executing these strate-gies. While the perfectionists were fast and accurate when compared to good students,they chose less often to reflect openly about their reading, even when compared to thenot-so-good students. In comparing the performance between girls and boys, no differ-ences were found in how they performed. Siegler (1996) believed that all children acrossages and abilities choose adaptively from among different strategies to solve tasks such asreading.

There have also been a variety of studies in which researchers considered the differ-ent aspects of young children's early metacognitive skill during reading events or whilehandling books. For example, Cox (1994) examined 40 young children's (4-5-year-olds)

0

Becoming a Self-Regulated Reader

ability to self-regulate as they read a dictated story or pretend read a favorite storybook(audiotaped) in two separate sessions. Two preschool settings were used for the study: a

county preschool in which 70% of the families were considered low income, and a uni-versity preschool in which children had experiences with storybooks and reading. Oncestorybook reading levels (Sulzby, 1985) were established, the first reading session in bothpreschool settings consisted of a dictated story. For the second session, the children fromthe university setting read a favorite story brought from home, while children from the

rural setting selected from familiar stories that were at the preschool. To make compar-isons across preschool settings, a subset of children in the university setting was evaluatedusing the materials and procedures established in the rural setting. Cox found that 26 outof the 40 children (65%) across both settings made implicit and explicit regulatory utter-ances that demonstrated control over the context of the development of their personal story

(p. 747). The children made metalinguistic statements that reflected their ability to: think

about, plan, and monitor how their stories developed. Cox concluded that strategic controlover comprehension might develop quite early in children who have had more advancedliteracy activities.

However, the results of Cox's study did not reveal a significant difference across thepreschool settings in children's responses. Further, because the children had not been askedto read, information about the children's self-regulating strategies was limited. Cox's studyrevealed the need for more inquiry about the impact of children's developmental level

(those who lack early reading skills and those who do not) on young children's strategyuse and decision making while reading.

Brenna (1995) examined five children's (4-6-year-olds) use of strategies. These chil-

dren were reading fluently prior to first grade. Semi-structured interviews, observations,anecdotal notes, and miscue analysis of the readings were collected while the children readunfamiliar picture books over three different visits to the children's homes. The resultsshowed that the children used a variety of strategies: monitoring (e.g., aware of errors, pre-view text, ask questions) and self-regulating (e.g., reread, sound out, ask someone). Brennaconcluded that these five children viewed reading as a problem-solving task.

Juliebo, Malicky, and Norman (1998) examined the ability of five first-grade children(four boys and one girl) from rural and urban regions to monitor their reading while theyparticipated in an early intervention program. During the first two videotaped sessions, the

children read text. This was followed by two sessions where the children viewed the videoand reflected on their reading. It was found that the children most frequently mentioned theuse of picture cues and the use of letter sounds to identify words. However, the childrenstruggled to verbalize how they used strategies while reading. While these studies revealmuch about how young children reflect on their understanding and use of strategies whilereading, larger samples of children across ages may result in more specific patterns in howchildren respond to text.

In conclusion, research suggests that some early primary-grade children are awarewhen a story does not make sense and are beginning to use text features (letters, words,and illustrations) in order to develop strategies to understand while reading. It appears thatyoung children's (3-7 years old) ability to understand the task of reading is an emerging

skill (Baker, 2005; Cox, 1994; Glaubman, Glaubman, & Ofir; 1997; Lomax & McGee,1987; Siegler, 1996; Sulzby, 1985; Wellman, 1990, 2002). Even so, most of the studiesthat have been described were conducted with small samples of young children. Moreresearch is needed with larger samples of children to understand how beginning readersthink about text and use strategies to understand while reading. This study was guided bythe following research questions: (a) what strategies do children in kindergarten and first

91

L E. Martin and S. Kragler

grade report using while reading? And (b) what strategies do children in kindergarten andfirst grade use while reading?

Method

Participants

The purpose of this study was to examine young readers' metacognitive processes andstrategy use while reading. The study began in February and ended in April of the sameschool year. In the beginning, all children (126) from three half-day kindergarten class-rooms (30 boys and 23 girls) and four first-grade classrooms (31 boys and 42 girls) in arural Mid-western school (K-fifth grades) participated in the study. Sixty-two percent ofthe children in first grade qualified for free and reduced lunch as well as special programssuch as Special Education (12%), Title 1, and Reading Recovery (27%). From attrition,109 children remained in the study by April. Kindergarten included 25 boys and 19 girls(ages 5-6). The first grade included 30 boys and 35 girls. Ninety-eight percent of the chil-dren in these two primary grades were Caucasian and the rest were bi-racial. All of thechildren spoke English.

The participants were students in six classrooms that were taught by six female teach-ers with 2-30 years of experiences. There was a range of teaching experiences among thekindergarten (2) and first grade teachers (4). One kindergarten teacher had one year ofexperience and the other had 5 years of experience. The 4 first grade teachers had the fol-lowing years of experience: I with 2, 1 with 10, and 2 with 30. Except for one first gradeteacher (who used literature as the focus of her reading program), all of the teachers useda well-known basal series as the core reading curriculum. The teachers did have a varietyof literature (fiction and nonfiction) available for the children to read when finished withtheir reading program and related morning work. The teachers used whole and small groupinstruction to guide the students' reading. Additional phonics worksheets and workbookswere also used to supplement their reading curriculum.

Instructional aides assisted the teachers with individual children who struggled withreading. This was done within the context of the children's classrooms. In addition, theschool staff (i.e., principal, teachers, and instructional aides), participated in monthlyprofessional development activities that were facilitated by consultants from a nearbyuniversity and teacher leaders.

Instrumentation: Structured Interview Protocol

Using the literature (e.g., Brown et al., 1996; Brown, Cote, & Goldman, 2001; Meyers,Lytle, Palladino. Devenpeck, & Green, 1990; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Wade, 1990),a structured interview protocol was developed to examine the children's ability to reporttheir use of strategies while reading story books. Questions included: (1) What are youthinking about while you read the story? (2) What were you doing to understand the story?(3) Did you have any problems? (4) What did you do (Brown et al., 1996)? The questionsfocused on metacognitive constructs (i.e., knowledge base and monitoring to self-regulate),that readers use to understand text (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). Basically, the purpose ofthe structured interview protocol was to examine how the children monitored their strategyuse to resolve any reading difficulties (Paris & Flukes, 2005).

Using an interview protocol can give an in-depth analysis of a reader's understandingof text (Ericsson & Simon, 1993; Gottschalk, 1995; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). Even

92


so, care was taken to consider various conceptual and methodological issues that may arisewhen developing an instrument to examine a reader's metacognitive processes (Jacobs &Paris, 1987; Paris, 2002; Pintrich et al., 2000).

Interviewing the Children

To proceed in the study, each child's reading placement level was determined. At thisschool, the teachers in the kindergarten and first grade were mandated to give a readingdiagnostic assessment at the beginning of the school year. This test covered aspects ofreading achievement (Le., phonemic awareness, word recognition, vocabulary, and com-

prehension). Based on the results of this test and teachers' observations, students wereplaced in instructional reading groups (high, average, and low). The students' readinglevels were confirmed by administering an informal reading inventory (Burns & Roe,2002).

After the initial assessments were completed, two interviews were scheduled. The firstinterview took place in February. This initial interview was used to establish a routine and

to build btust and rapport with each child. The data from the second interview that took

place in April was used for analysis. Each interview session was conducted in the samemanner.

Structured Interview Procedure

The interviews were held in isolated areas of either the classroom or in a nearby conferenceroom that was familiar to the students. The children selected from two different bookseach time they were interviewed. These books were selected from the children's classroomlibraries and the researchers' personal collections. They were considered to be of high

interest to primary-grade children and within their experiences. For each interview, thechildren were offered nonfiction as well as fiction. The books in each session had the sametopic and reading levels. The variety of books used was to counter any treatment effectsfrom text materials.

The interview was conducted in the following manner: The child began to read thebook orally. After the first three to four pages were read, we asked the questions, "What

are you thinkingT' and "What are you doing to understand the story?" The remainingquestions were asked after the story was completed as to not interrupt the flow of the story.While the children read, the researchers also collected observational notes of the children'sreading behavior (e.g., pointing, using the illustrations, rereading, sub-vocalizations).

Analysis

All data from the structured interview were scripted and organized according to the ques-

tions in the interview protocol, the grade level and the developmental level (high. average.and low) of the children as it was collected. Once this was completed, qualitative andquantitative analyses were conducted.

A global examination of the students' responses within each grade was conducted inthe following steps to answer the first question of the study: What comprehension strate-gies do kindergarten and first grade children report using while reading? Each researcherread through the transcriptions separately to code the children's statements in both grades(e.g., the children appeared to focus on words). The researchers then jointly examined thecoding of the data and developed categories for the statements. These categories included:

93

L E Martin and S. Kragler

focusing on words, using pictures, reading, skipping, rereading, thinking, and asking forhelp. Over time, one category, focusing on words, was divided further. Children were eitheridentifying specific words that were easy or hard to read, or they were saying they soundedout words. Therefore, sounding out became a separate category. Each statement was codedin the most appropriate category.

Each researcher then returned to the transcripts to read and recode the statements usingthe aforementioned categories. In this process, the responses were read and reread to iden-tify the categories and patterns in the children's responses (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984) asthe data were collected. The researchers held several meetings throughout the next yearto clarify the analyses (twice during the summer, fall, and spring semesters). As a result,common categories emerged that described the nature of strategy use by the children inthis study.

Using the Kappa coefficient, an inter-rater reliability analysis was conducted. Theresearchers independently classified the interview protocols of randomly selected stu-dents (14 kindergarteners, and 16 first graders) according to the different categories thatwere revealed in the initial analysis. The Kappa revealed statistical significant (p < .05)agreement for all items except one for kindergarten with the question: Did you have anyproblems? The medial Kappa coefficient was equal to .695 for kindergarten and .610 forfirst grade. Both of these medial coefficients are considered to be very good, especiallyconsidering the small sample of students (30) and the complexity of the categories thatwere identified for each item in the instrument (Miller, Linn, & Gronlund, 2009).

Once the interrater reliability coefficient was established, all data were analyzed toanswer the research questions. Because of the multidimensional nature of the data, athree-way Hierarchical Log-Linear analysis was conducted to examine the associationsbetween three variables: (1) grade; (2) level of students within the grades (high, average,and low); and (3) mark (number of observations). When statistically significant partialassociations were found by this k-way approach, two-way Chi Square analyses werethen used for post hoc analysis. These analyses were conducted across grades and withinthe grade levels considering the children's developmental reading levels (high, average,and low).

Data collected in the form of observational notes while the children read was usedto address the second research question: What,strategies do children in kindergarten andfirst grade use while reading? Once the second interview was completed, each researcherreceived a copy of the observational notes collected by both researchers. Each researcherthen organized the observed reading behaviors into categories, e.g., pointing, pictures,using phonics. The researchers met twice (once in the spring and once in the summer)to clarify the categories that developed from the observations.

Results

The purpose of this study was to describe kindergarten and first grade children's strategyuse while reading nonfiction and fiction. Following are the results of a global analysis of thedata across grades, as well as the results of a log linear statistical analysis for the variablesgrade and level (high, average, and low) of reader. This analysis addresses the question:What comprehension strategies do kindergarten and first grade children report using whilereading? The analyses were aligned with the two established categories of metacognitivebehavior: (a) metacognitive knowledge and (b) metacognitive judgments to monitor andself-regulate while reading.

94


Metacognitve Knowledge

Table 1 indicates the children's responses to the question: What are you thinking while

you read the story? When examining the data for the question, several partial Chi Square

associations were found for grade/mark: the students' use of (a) inferences (LR = 4.488,

dF = 1, p = .034), b) text-related comments (LR = 20.177, df = 1, p = .000). and (c)

general comments (LR = 17.399, df = 1, p = .000). A Chi Square partial association was

also found for the students' referral to inferences for level/mark (LR = 6.159, df = 2, p =

.048). Refer to Table 2.

Table 1Children's responses to the question: what are you thinking?

K 1

Low Average High Total Low Average High Total

Inference 0 1 0 1 0 4 4 8

Text event/Character 0 0 1 1 4 8 10 22

General comment 8 16 10 34 9 5 8 22

Past experience 0 2 I 3 0 0 1 1

Sound out 0 1 3 4 2 1 0 3

Evaluative 0 2 0 2 1 3 5 9

Nonsense comment 2 1 0 3 1 0 0 1

1 don't know 3 1 3 7 1 3 1 5

No response 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1

Table 2

Significant partial Chi-Square associations of observed and expected responses to the

metacognitive interview questions across grade, level, and mark (observation)

LR Chi Square partial associations

Question/reponses Grade/mark df Level/mark df

What are you thinking?Inference 4.488* I 6.159* 2

Text Event/Characters 20.177* 1

General Comment 17.399* 1What are you doing to Understand?

Listen 6.581 *

Did you have a problem while reading?General Statement 11.338* 2

What did you do?Think 6.048* 1

Sound Out 7.223* 1

Made nonsense comment 6.612" 1

Note. LR-Likelihood ratio: Grade-Across grades; Level-Across levels and grades; Mark-Observations; *Indicates results significant beyond the .05 level.

95

6L EA Martin and S. Krugler

Table 3Results of a two-way Chi Square analyses of observed and expected responses to

the question "what are you thinking?' across gradeand level of student

Across level/grades LR df Percent observed

Strategy useInferences

Across levels 6.810* 2Low 00.0Average 12.8Hligh 10.0

Across grades 4.408* 1Kindergarten 02.2First 12.7

Text event/CharactersAcross grades 20.750* 1

Kindergarten 02.2First 34.9

General commentAcross grades 18.002"

Kindergarten 75.6First 34.9

Note. LR-Likelibood ratio; *Indicates results significant beyond the .05 level.

The post hoc analyses revealed three significant associations across the grades, whichincluded inferences, text events, and general comment (refer to Table 3). Thirty-fourkindergarteners (75.6%) and 22 first graders (34.9%) responded with general commentsabout the texts while reading. Examples included: "I am thinking about the story" and"I am thinking I can read:' First graders (34%) also made 22 references to text eventsand characters such as "Somebody lost their mittens" and '"he people are working in thetrees." Eight first graders (approximatelyl3%) made inferences, and one kindergartener(2.2%) responded with an inference from the text. The inferences made were by average(2.8%) and high (10%) readers (refer to Table 3). Examples include: "They seem to know alot about cats." and "I am thinking that they are having a good time.' While not significant,patterns in the data (Table 1) also showed that nine first graders and two kindergartnersmade evaluative statements while reading such as, '"hat Arthur doesn't think DW knowshow to read:'

Metacognitive Judgments and Monitoring

Table 4 indicates the children's responses to the question: What are you doing to understandthe story? When examining the frequency of responses to this question, one partial ChiSquare association was found for grade/mark: the students' stated use of (a) listening (LR= 6.581, df = 1, p = .010) (refer to Table 2). The post hoc analysis revealed that fourkindergartners (8.8%) reported listening while reading (refer to Table 5).

96


Table 4

Children's responses to the question: what are you doing to understand?

K I


Looking at pictures 3 4 2 9 3 9 7 19

Sounding out 1 2 5 8 4 4 3 I1

Reading 2 5 3 10 3 5 8 16

Re-reading 2 2

Listening 1 3 0 4 0 0 0 0

General comments 2 4 5 11 4 3 2 9

Looking at words 3 3 0 6 1 6 4 1I

Thinking in my head 0 2 0 2 2 0 1 3

IDK/No response 2 2 1 5 4 1 5 10

Table 5

Results of a two-way Chi Square analyses of observed and expected responses to

the question "what are you doing to understand?" across grade andlevel of student

Across level/grade LR df Percent observed

Strategy useListen

Across grades 7.220* 1Kindergarten 08.8

First 00.0

Note. LR-Likelihood ratio.'Indicates results significant beyond the .05 level.

Table 4 also reveals insignificant patterns in how the children responded to this ques-

tion. While most of the children (74% kindergartners; 68% first graders) were observed

using pictures, only nine kindergarteners and 19 first graders reported the use of pic-

tures to understand. One male kindergartener who did mention using pictures thought

he was cheating: "I cheated and looked at the pictures.' Children across the grades also

reported that they were reading (10 kindergarteners; 11 first graders). Other children

reported the use of words, sounding out and general statements, such as "I look at the

story" and "I thought about me when he was hungry." Some children were not sure how to

respond.Table 6 indicates the students' responses to the question: Did you have any problems

while reading? When examining the frequency of responses to the question, one partial Chi

Square association was found for level/mark for children who responded with a general

statement (LR = 1.338, df = 2,p = .003) about the text (refer to Table 2). A post hoc anal-

ysis showed that 20.7% of the low readers across grades made general comments (Table 6)

when asked this question. Table 6 also reveals that even though kindergartners (13) and

first graders (17) acknowledged that there were problems while reading, the majority of

97

L. E. Martin and S. Kragler


the question "did you have any problems?" across grade and level of student

Across level/grade LR df Percent observed

Strategy useGeneral comment/Explanation

Across grades 11.689* 2Low 20.7Average 05.1High 00.0

Note. LR-Likelihood ratio.*Indicates results significant beyond the .05 level.

Table 7

Children's responses to the question: what did you do?

K I


Thinking 1 3 2 6 1 0 0 1Skipping 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 1Sounding out 1 0 3 4 6 5 8 19Looking at it 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2Reading the pictures 0 0 2 2 2 2 1 5Asking for help 1 4 3 8 2 2 1 5Nonsense comment 2 2 0 5 0 0 0 01 don't know 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0No response 2 10 8 20 8 8 13 29

the students across grades (28 kindergarteners; 39 first graders) stated that they did nothave a problem.

Self-Regulating and Control

Table 7 indicates how the children responded to the question: What did you do? As can beseen, 45% of the children (20 kindergarteners and 20 first graders) did not respond to thequestion. When examining the frequency of responses, three partial Chi Square associa-tions were found for grade/mark for the categories of thinking (LR = 6.048, df = 1, p =.014), sounding out (LR = 7.223, df = 1, p = .007), and nonsense comments (LR = 6.612,df = 1, p = .010) (refer to Table 2). The post hoc analysis showed that kindergartnersreported that they were thinking (13.3%) about their reading, and they also made nonsensecomments (8.9%), for example, while looking at a picture, a child stated, "Try to catch it,butterflies." The post hoc analysis also showed that 30.2% of the first graders (19) statedthat they sounded out (refer to Table 8).

98



the question "what did you doT' across grade and level of student

Across level/grades LR df Percent observed

Strategy useThink 6.232* 1

Across gradesKindergarten 13.3

First 01.6

Sound out 7.723* 1Across gradesKindergarten 08.9

First 30.2

Nonsense comment 7.220*Across gradesKindergarten 08.9

First 00.0

Note. LR-Likellhood ratio; 'Indicates results significant beyond the .05 level,

Observational Data

Based on the observational data, the children consistently used strategies they did not

report. Children across the grades not only used the illustrations while reading, but also

pointed to words and at times sounded them out while using visual and auditory cues

(43% kindergarten; 51% first graders). Only 37% of the first graders were observed

monitoring and self-correcting as they read. Other strategies used were substitutions,

sub-vocalizations, and asking for help.

Discussion

The results of this study support the research that indicates there is a developmental trend to

children's metacognitive behaviors during book-reading activities (Brenna, 1995; Siegler,

1996; Wellman, 2002) as well as builds on this research base. In examining the data across

grades, the students' responses fell within similar categories. The kindergarten children's

responses were, in many cases, general. At times, we found that many of the kinder-

garteners did not appear to know how to respond to questions. Even though first grade

children also made general comments, their knowledge and thinking about reading was

more detailed, as evidenced by their focus on text events and characters. Average and

above-average first grade readers also made inferences and evaluative comments about

their reading. Observations from the data showed that the variance of reported strategy

use between the readers within each developmental level and within each grade began to

emerge.As the children read fiction and nonfiction texts, most of the children reported the

use of some strategy, that is, the use of pictures, words, and sounding out to regulate their

understanding while reading. Commonly, the kindergarten and first grade children men-

tioned the same self-regulating behaviors, for example, the use of illustrations, sounding

99

L. EK Martin and S. Kragler

out, and the strategies the children reported using were the same across the fiction andnonfiction texts. The children's earliest development and use of various self-regulatingbehaviors while reading were revealed.

The importance of words and vocabulary in the development of children's thinkingand reading is well documented (Carver, 2000; Stahl & Hiebert, 2005; Thorrdike, 1972;Vygotsky, 1962). The children in this study seemed to realize that the meaning of thetext was dependent on knowing what the words were and what they meant (Cochrane,Cochrane, Sealena, & Buchanan, 1988), and this serious focus on words helped them togain control over the reading process (McGee & Richgels, 2004). Vygotsky (1962) sug-gested that complex strategies that one uses to understand are 'insufficient without the useof the sign, or word, as the means to direct our mental operations" (p. 58). When the chil-dren did not know a word, they did use strategies, such as pictures as a tool to mediate theirunderstanding of the words in the text (Vygotsky, 1978).

Even when the children struggled reading a text, many of them did not perceive thisas a problem. While this was not a focus of the study, there are some reasons why thismight have happened. Tle children might have been too embarrassed to admit to havinga problem with the text. Also, they may have been so involved with the task of readingthe words in the book (Coehrane et al., 1988) that they did not notice they were hav-ing difficulties. Finally, in the early primary grades, learning to read is one of the "manynew situations that children encounter" (Siegier, 1998, p. 24), such as learning to write,to ride a bike, and other activities. Learning to read as with learning other tasks is not asmooth path (Kantrowitz & Wingert, 1989) and pitfalls do occur, which is a normal part oflearning.

The children in this study also perceived sounding out as an important reading strategyand the awareness of this strategy was significant with the first graders. Through modelingfrom parents, preschool teachers, and elementary teachers, children learn quite early thatthe first response to unknown words is "sound it out" or "what does it begin with.' Eventhough this is an important strategy, children need to have a variety of strategies to guidethem to comprehend what is read (Clay, 1991; McGee & Richgels, 2004).

However, as seen by the observational data, only 37% of the first graders wereobserved monitoring and self-correcting while reading. Consequently, these children'smetacognitive strategies related to text comprehension were not as well developed.Schreiber (2005) asserts, "the emergence of literacy, although based on the alphabetic andphonological processing skills that result in decoding accuracy is necessary, but not suffi-cient" (p. 218). Further, Paris and Paris (2001) state "children must be aware of the typesof available strategies that lead to understanding and success before they are able to imple-ment them" (p. 93). Because most of these children were not observed self-correcting whilereading, it appeared that their focus was on sounding out, and that they were not aware ofstrategies to comprehend text.

While all the children reported the use of some strategies, occasionally, children usedadditional strategies that they did not report. For example, many children reported andused sounding out while reading but also used pictures and asked for help, which theyused spontaneously but did not report. Vygotsky (1962) states children develop sponta-neous concepts through experiences, and these form the foundation for scientific conceptsthat arc used deliberately and usually developed through schoolwork. Through shared-book experiences with preschool teachers, parents, and others, these children have beenprovided opportunities to build a core of spontaneous behaviors that are used during read-ing (Baker, 1994). Once acquired, children need to learn to apply these concepts (i.e.,strategies), toward "conscious and deliberate use" (Vygotsky, 1962, p. 109).

100


Limitations

Even though a structured interview in comprehension research is a frequently used method(Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995), there are some concerns, especially when interviewing

young children. One concern is that the interviewee might mention more strategies than

they actually use (Paris & Flukes, 2005). Or they may "parrot teacher talk" (Clay, 1998.

p. 68) where they share what they have heard from their teachers rather than share their

own thinking. Pressley and Ghatala (1990) suggest that items in an instrument should only

assess the ability to monitor and not other constructs (e.g., verbal ability, maturity, and

development). However, without listening and talking with young children, we will never

have an idea what they are thinking when they are reading. Children's language provides

a means for them to reflect on their current and future learning (Ericsson & Simon, 1993;

Vygotsky 1978; Wells, 1986). As Wells (1986) says, "there is no better way of knowing

where they are than by listening to what they have to say and by attending to tasks they

engage in or to the meaning they make" (p. 101).Generally when investigating the reading development of young children, research

commonly focuses on instruction, materials, programs, and other components of reading

in relation to student achievement (Clay, 2001). However, when looking at how children

proceed through text and what they think as they read regardless of how they are taught, we

gain an insight into their processing. Clay refers to this as "the literacy processing view"(p. 42).

Further Implications

This study reveals a need for inquiry in various areas. First, it appears that children in the

earliest grades can and do use strategies and are beginning to reflect about their reading.

Research is needed to examine which types of instruction and scaffolding is needed to

support young readers in their strategy development. Pressley (2002b) found that "very

few elementary teachers teach children to use a repertoire of comprehension strategies.. .

(p. 181). Consequently, research is needed to determine how to support teachers in their

development of comprehension strategy instruction.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the primary goal of education is to guide children to develop the ability

to monitor and regulate their own learning. Because of the complex nature of metacog-

nition, some scholars question whether early primary-grade children can use reflection to

monitor and self-regulate their learning (e.g., Baker, 2005; Brown, 1985; Flavell, 1979;

Markman, 1979; Myers & Paris, 1978). Based on the results of this study, young chil-

dren were developing strategic, self-regulating behaviors to use while they read. What

is also evident from this research is that these children needed additional support in

developing their ability to use a variety of strategies to monitor their comprehension.

Consequently, educators not only need to be aware that very young children are devel-

oping their ability to reflect, monitor and regulate while reading, but the teachers also need

to be aware of how to support their young learners so they can fully become self-regulatedreaders.

101

L. E. Martin and S. Kragler

References

Baker, L (1979). Comprehension monitoring: Identifying and coping with text confusions, Journalof Reading Behavior, 11, 365-374.

Baker, L. (1994). Fostering metacognitive development. In H. Reese (Ed.), Advances in childdevelopment and behavior (vof. 25, pp. 201-239). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Baker, L. (2005). Developmental differences in metacognition: Implications for metacognitively ori-ented reading instruction. In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch(Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professionaldevelopment (pp. 61-79). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Baker, L., & Brown, A. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbookof reading reseamrh (pp. 353-394). White Plains, NY: Loagnimn.

Brenna, B. (1995). The metacognitive reading srategies of 5 early readers. Journal of Research inReading, 18(1), 53-62.

Brown, A. (1975). The development of memory: Knowing, knowing about knowing, and knowinghow to know. In H. W. Reese (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (vol. 10, pp.103-152). New York: Academic Press.

Brown, A. L. (1985). Metacognition: The development of selective attention strategies for learningfrom texts. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4thed., pp. 733-756). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Brown, A., Cote, N., & Goldman, S. (2001). Building representations of informational text: Evidencefrom children's think-aloud protocols. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), Theconstruction of mental representations during reading (pp. 169-193). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental valida-tion of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade readers. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 88(1), 18-37.

Bums, P., & Roe, B. (2002). Informal reading inventory (5th ed.). New Yoric Houghton Mifflin.Carver, R. (2000). The canses of high and low reading achievement. Mahwah, MI: Lawrence

Erlbanm Associates.Clay, M. (1973). The patterning of complex behavior. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemanan.Clay, M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner connrol. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Clay, M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. York, ME: Stenhouse.Clay, M. (2001). Change over time in children's literacy development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Cochrane, 0., Cochrane, D., Scalena, D., & Buchanan, E. (1988). Reading, writing and caring. New

York: Richard C. Owens.Cox, B. E. (1994). Young children's regulatory taUkL Evidence of emerging metacognitive con-

trol over literary products and processes. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.),Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 733-756). Newark, DE: IRA.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath.Ericsson, K. A.. & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Revised.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Flavell, J, H. (1971). First discssant's comments: What is memory development the development

of? Human Development, 14, 242-278.Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmen-

tal inquiry. American Psychologist, 34,906-911.Flavell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children's oral communication

skill (pp. 35-60). New York: Academic Press.Flavell. J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E.

Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21-29).Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

Garner. R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Glaubman, R., Glaubman, H., & Ofir, L. (1997). Effects of self-directed learning, story comprehen-

sion, and self-questioning in kindergarten. Journal of Educational Research, 90, 361-374.

102


Goetz, J, & LeCompte, M. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research,New York: Academic Press.

Gottschalk. L. A. (1995). Content analysis of verbal behavior. New findings and clinical applica-

tions, Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Jacobs, J., & Paris. S. (1987). Children's metacognition in reading: Issues in definition, measurement.

and instruction. Educational Psychology. 22, 255-278.Juliebo, M., Malicky, G., & Norman. C. (1998). Metacognition of young readers In an early

intervention pmgrarnme. Journal of Research in Reading, 21(1), 24-35.Kantrowitz, B., & Wingert, P. (1989, April 17). Newsweek Magazine, pp. 7-8.Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A constmction-integrationmodel.

Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.

Kintsch, W. M., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production.Psychological Review, 95(2), 163-182.

Kiuwe, R. H. (1987). Executive decisions and regulation of problem solving behavior. In F. E.

Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Meracognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 31-64).Hillsdale. NJ: LEA.

Kurtz, B.. & Borkowski. J. (1984). Children's metacognition: Exploring relations among knowledge.process, and motivational variables. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37, 335-354.

Lomax, R. G., & McGee, L. M. (1987). Young children's concept about print and reading: Toward amodel of word reading acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, XXI, 237-255.

Markman, E. M. (1977). Realizing you don't understand: A preliminary investigation. ChildDevelopment, 48, 986-992.

Markman, E. M. (1979). Realizing you don't understand: Elementary school children's awareness ofinconsistencies. Child Development, 50, 643-655.

Meyers, J., Lytle, S., Palladino, D., Devenpeck, G., & Green, M. (1990). Think-aloud protocol anal-

ysis: An investigation of reading comprehension strategies in fourth- and fifth-grade students.Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 8, 112-127.

McGee-, L. M.. & Richgels. D. J. (2004). Literacy's beginnings: Supporting young readers andwriters (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Miller, M. D., Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (2009). Measurement and assessment in teaching (10thed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson Education. Inc.

Myers, M., & Paris, S. (1978). Children's metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 70, 680-590.Nelson, T. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51, L02-116.Paris, S. (2002). When is metacognition helpful, debilitating, or benign? In P. Chambres, M. Izaute,

& P. Marescutx (Eds.), Metacognition: Process, function. and use (pp. 105-121). Norwell, MA:Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Paris, S., & Flukes, 1. (2005). Assessing children's metacognition about strategic reading. In S. E.Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Hauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds., Metacognition in literacylearning: 77eory, assessment. instruction, and professional development (pp. 121-139). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbanm Associates.

Paris. S., & Jacobs, J. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children's reading awarenessand comprehension skills. Child Development, 55, 2083-2093.

Paris, A. H., & Paris, S. G. (2001). Children's comprehension of narrative picture books (CIERAReport). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 452515.)

Peirce, C. (1981). Review of Nichols "A treatise on cosmology:" In H. S. Thayer, Meaning andaction: A critical history of pragmatism (pp. 493-495). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.Original work published in The Monist, XV (1905).

Pintrich. P., Wolters, C., & Baxter, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In0. Schraw & J.C. Impara (TFds.). Issues in the measurement ofmetacognition (pp. 4 3-9 7 ). Lincoln,NE: Burns Institute of Mental Measurements.

103

L E. Martin and S. Kragler

Pressley, M. (1994). Embracing thecomplexity of individual differences in cognition: Studyinggood information processing and how it might develop. Learning and IndividuaIDifferences, 6(3),259-284.

Pressley, M. (2002a). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. In A. Farstrup & S. J.Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about rending instruction (3rd ed., pp. 291-309).Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Pressley, M. (2002b). Effective beginning reading instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 34(2).165-188.

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructivelyresponsive reading. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E. (1990). Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text.Educational Psychologist, 25, 19-33.

Pressley, M., Borkowski, J., & Schneider, W. (1987). Cognitive strategies: Good strategy userscoordinate metacognition and knowledge. Annals of ChUdDevelopment, 4, 89-129.

Schreiber, F. J. (2005). Metacogntion and self-regulating in literacy. In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K.L. Bauserman, & KL Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.),Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assess-ment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Schunk, D. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D.H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (2nd ed., pp. 125-151).Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Skagestad, P. (2004). Peirce's semeiotic model of the mind. In C. Misak (Ed.), The Cambridgecompanion to Peirce (pp. 241-256). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children's thinking. New York:Oxford University Press.

Siegler, R. S. (1988). Individual differences in strategy choices: Good students, not-so-good students,and perfectionists. Child Development, 59, 833-851.

Siegler, R. S. (1998). Children's thinking (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Stahl, S., & Hiebert, E. (2005). The "word factors": A problem for reading comprehension assess-

ment. In S. Paris & S. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp.161-186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErIbaum Associates.

Sulzby, E. (1985). Children's emergent reading of favorite storybooks: A developmental study,Reading Research Quarterly, 20,458-481.

Thormdike, R. (1972). Reading as reasoning. Reading Research Quarterly, 9, 135-147.Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: M.tT. Press.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society; The development of higher psychological process.

Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.Wade, S. (1990). Using think alouds to assess comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 43,442-451.Wellman, H. M. (1990). The child's theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: Bradford.Wellman, H. M. (2002). Understanding the psychological world: Developing a theory of mind. In U.

Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 167-187). Malden,MA: Blackwell.

Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn.London: Hodder & Stoughon.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Anoverview and analysis. InB. 1. Zimmerman & D. H. Schurk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning andacademic achievement (2nd ed., pp. 1-37). Mahwah. NJ: LEA.

104

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

Title:

Source:

ISSN: DOI:

Publisher:

Becoming a Self-Regulated Reader: A Study of Primary-Grade Students'Reading Strategies

Literacy Res Instr 50 no2 2011 p. 89-104

1938-8071

10.108W/19388071003594697

Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

325 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproducedwith permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright isprohibited.

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub- licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

becoming a self-regulated reader: a study of primary-grade

Documents