Skip to main content
Log in

Embedding comprehension within reading acquisition processes

  • Published:
The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Contemporary understandings of reading development acknowledge the compilation and coordination of a range of skills and strategies (Paris, 2005). The development of both decoding and comprehension, integrated into reading acquisition processes, reflects this building of complementary reading skills. Hence, the research reported here aimed to examine early reading instruction to gain insight into how skilled teachers incorporate this duality of purposes into instructional practices. In order to closely examine students at the beginning stages of reading instruction 16 Reading Recovery teacher/student dyads were observed, with book reading interactions coded and analysed to detail teacher attention. The results reveal how teachers guide students towards the co-construction of text meanings and highlights teachers’ and students’ active engagement in talk interactions, as central to the instructional process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, R.C., & Pearson, P.D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr & M.L. Kamil (Eds.), Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biemiller, A. (2003). Vocabulary: more needed if children are to read well. Reading Psychology, 24, 323–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blachowicz, C.L.Z., & Ogle, D. (2001). Reading comprehension: strategies for independent learners. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J.D., & Johnson, M.K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11(6). 717–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnine, D., Kameenui, E., & Woolfson, N. (1982). Training of textual dimensions related to text-based inferences. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14(3). 335–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cazden, C.B. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chall, J.S., Jacobs, V.A., & Baldwin, L.E. (1990). The reading crisis: why poor children fall behind, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clay, M.M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clay, M.M. (2001). Change over time in children’s literacy development. Auckland: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clay, M.M. (2005a). Literacy lessons designed for individuals: part one why? when? and how? Auckland: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clay, M.M. (2005b). Literacy lessons designed for individuals: part two teaching procedures, Auckland: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comber, B. (2001). Critical literacy: power and pleasure with language in the early years. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 24(3). 168–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., & Petrella, J.N. (2004). Effective reading comprehension instruction: examining child x instruction interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4). 682–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Education, Science and Training (2005). Teaching Reading: Report and Recommendations, National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy. Canberra: Australian Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewitz, P., & Dewitz, P. (2003). They can read the words, but they can’t understand: refining comprehension assessment. The Reading Teacher, 56(5). 422–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downing, J., & Leong, C.K. (1982). Psychology of Reading. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N.K., & Pearson, P.D. (2002). Effective reading practices for developing comprehension. In A.E. Farstrup & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction, 3rd edition., Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkins, J. (2002). Learning difficulties/disabilities in literacy. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 25(3). 11–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. (2005). Teacher-child interaction in the teaching of reading: a review of research perspectives over twenty-five years. Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative research in education: interaction and practice. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskins, I.W. (2003). Taking charge of reader, text, activity and content variables. In A.P. Sweet & C.E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J.P. (2004). Situated language and learning: a critique of traditional schooling. New York NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, D.J. (2004). Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. In R.B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading, 5th edition. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, C. (2000). Reading research in the United Kingdom. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume 3. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, C. (2004a). Understanding reading development. London: Paul Chapman.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, C. (2004b). Postmodern principles for responsive reading assessment, Journal of Research in Reading, 27(2). 163–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes M., & Westgate, D. (1998). Possible enabling strategies in teacher-led talk with young pupils. Language and Education, 12(3). 174–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, E. (2006). Second graders’ reading behaviors: a study of variety, complexity, and change. Literacy Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Reading and Writing, 10(2). 51–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2004). A handbook for teacher research: from design to implementation. London: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipson, M.Y. (1982). Learning new information from text: the role of prior knowledge and reading ability. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14(3). 243–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1997). Shaping the social practice of reading. In S. Muspratt, A. Luke & P. Freebody (Eds.), Constructing critical literacies. St Leonards, N.S.W.: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, C.A. (1999). Emotions, cognition and becoming a reader: a message to teachers of struggling readers. Literacy Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Reading and Writing, 4(1). 67–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1998). Memory-based language processing: psycholinguistic research in the 1990’s. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNaughton, S. (1988). A history of errors in the analysis of oral reading behaviour. Educational Psychology, 8(1/2). 21–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: how we use language to think together. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A.S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A.S. (2003). Collaborative approaches to comprehension instruction. In A.P. Sweet & C.E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paris, S.G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills, Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2). 184–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, S.G., Carpenter, R.D., Paris A.H., & Hamilton, E.E. (2005). Spurious and genuine correlates of children’s reading comprehension. In S.G. Paris & S.A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, S.G., Wasik, B.A., & Turner, J.C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume 2. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkin, C., Parkin, C., & Pool, B. (2002). PROBE reading assessment. New Zealand: Triune Initiatives.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P.D., & Duke, N.K. (2002). Comprehension instruction in primary grades. In C.C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: research-based best practices. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P.D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume 2. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P.D., & Hamm, D.N. (2005). The assessment of reading comprehension: a review of practices–past, present and future. In S.G. Paris & S.A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pianta, R. (1990) Widening the debate of educational reform: Prevention as viable alternative, Exceptional Children, 56(4). 306–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M.L. Kamill, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume 3. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M. (2006). What the future of reading research could be. Paper presented at the International Reading Association’s Reading Research 2006 Conference, Chicago, Illinois, April 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raban, B. (1999). Language and literacy as epistemology. In J.S. Gaffney & B.J. Askew (Eds.), Stirring the waters: the infuence of Marie Clay. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raban, B. (2001). Talking to think, learn, and teach. In P.G. Smith (Ed.), Talking classrooms: shaping children’s learning through oral language instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • RAND, Reading Study Group (2002). Reading for understanding: toward an R & D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblatt, L.M. (2004). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R.B. Ruddell & N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading, 5th edition. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubman, C.N., & Waters, H.S. (2000). A, B seeing: the role of constructive processes in children’s comprehension monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3). 503–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D.E. (2004). Toward an interactive model of reading. In R.B. Ruddell & N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading, 5th edition. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarborough, H.S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis) abilities: evidence, theory and practice. In S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. (1997). Self-monitoring in beginning reading. The Reading Teacher, 51(1). 40–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scull, J.A., & Lo Bianco, J. (2008). Successful engagement in an early literacy intervention. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8(1). 123–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel M., & Fernandez, S.L. (2000). Critical approaches. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume 2. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, H. (1981). Instruction in reading acquisition. In O.J.L. Tzeng & H. Singer (Eds.), Perception of print: reading research in experimental psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, H., and Donlan, D. (1989). Reading and learning from text. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffn, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C.E., & Sweet, A.P. (2003). Reading for comprehension. In A.P. Sweet and C.E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spooner, A.L.R., Gathercole, S.E., & Baddeley, A.D. (2006). Does weak reading comprehension refect an integration defcit? Journal of Research in Reading, 29(2). 173–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sportstec (2004). Studiocode. Accessed on March 2 2005 from http://www.sportstecinternational.com

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K.E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: scientifc foundations and new frontiers. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, R.J., & Cunningham, J.W. (1984). Research on teaching reading comprehension. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr & M.L. Kamil (Eds.), Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, D.H., & Morrow, L.M. (2002). Preparing young readers for successful reading comprehension. In C.C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: research- based best practices. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. (1991). Talk about texts: where literacy is learned and taught. In D. Booth & C. Thornley-Hall (Eds.), The talk curriculum. Carlton: Australian Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, M.K., Crosson A.C., & Resnick, L.B. (2005). Classroom talk for rigorous reading comprehension instruction. Reading Psychology, 26, 27–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. (2003). The why? what? when? and how? of tutoring: the development of helping and tutoring skills in children. Literacy, Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Reading and Writing, 7(1&2). 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zammit, K., & Downes, T. (2002). New learning environments and the multiliterate individual: a framework for educators. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 25(2). 24–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, B. (1988). The trouble with grandad. London: Treasure Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giles, J. (1994). Late for football. New Zealand: Nelson Price Milburn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1997). Jonathan buys a present. New Zealand: Nelson Price Milburn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1997) Mitch to the rescue. New Zealand: Nelson Price Milburn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, S. (1996). Going to the hairdresser. South Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scull, J. Embedding comprehension within reading acquisition processes. AJLL 33, 87–107 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03651826

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03651826

Navigation