Assessment and Comprehension

Chapter

Abstract

Reading comprehension is a multifaceted and complex activity and cannot be easily assessed using simple instruments. For teachers to be able to make adequate assessment of their students they may need to employ a multifaceted approach with a thorough diagnosis of individual reading difficulties. Assessment should be dynamic; teachers should be using multiple sampling techniques to develop a broader understanding of a student’s engagement with reading. For example, the inclusion of a metacognitive focus will enable a more child-centered approach that incorporates techniques such as think-aloud strategies and the asking of appropriate questions related to the use of particular strategies during their reading. This will enable the design of appropriate interventions to suit the needs of individual children. Educators should use a responsive approach that will include a focus on a child’s ability to respond to instruction. Where possible, the student should be involved in assessment process so that they can develop appropriate self-monitoring and self-regulation skills.

Keywords

Reading Comprehension Vocabulary Knowledge Receptive Vocabulary Poor Comprehenders Comprehension Difficulty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Afflerbach, P., P.D. Pearson, and S.G. Paris. 2008. Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher 61(5): 364–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. August, D., and T. Shanahan (eds.). 2006. Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language minority students and youth. Malwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Bishop, D.V.M., and M.J. Snowling. 2004. Developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment: Same or different? Psychological Bulletin 130: 858–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caccamise, D., and L. Snyder. 2005. Theory and pedagogical practices of text comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders 25: 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cain, K. 2007. Deriving word meanings from context: Does explanation facilitate contextual analysis? Journal of Research in Reading 30(4): 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cain, K., and J. Oakhill. 2007. Reading comprehension difficulties: Correlates, causes, and consequences. In Students’s comprehension problems in oral and written language: A cognitive perspective, ed. K. Cain and J. Oakhill, 41–75. London: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cairney, T. 2000. Beyond the classroom walls: The rediscovery of the family and community as partners in education. Educational Review 52: 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clay, M.M. 1992. Reading Recovery: The wider implications of an education innovation. In Prevention of reading failure, ed. A. Watson and A. Bedenhop, 22–47. Auckland: Ashton Scholastic.Google Scholar
  9. Culican, S.J., and M. Emmitt. 2002. Putting literacy in the middle: Key learnings from the middle years literacy research project. Literacy Learning in the Middle Years 10: 9–18.Google Scholar
  10. Cunningham, A.E., and K.E. Stanovich. 1997. Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology 33: 934–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daneman, M., and I. Green. 1986. Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context. Journal of Memory and Language 25: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Droop, M., and L. Verhoeven. 2003. Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and second-language learners. Reading Research Quarterly 38(1): 78–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunn, L.M., and L.M. Dunn. 1981. Peabody picture vocabulary test – Revised. Minnesota: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  14. Durgunoglu, A.Y. 2002. Cross-linguistic transfer in literacy development and implications for language learners. Annals of Dyslexia 52: 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Durrant, C., and B. Green. 2000. Literacy and the new technologies in school education: Meeting the l(IT)eracy challenge? The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 23: 89–108.Google Scholar
  16. Elkins, J. 2000a. Learning difficulties/disabilities in literacy. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 25: 11–18.Google Scholar
  17. Elkins, J. 2000b. All empires fall, you just have to know where to push: Antecedent issues for a study of learning difficulties in Australia. The Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties 5: 4–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elkins, J. 2007. Learning disabilities: Bringing fields and nations together. Journal of Learning Disabilities 40(5): 392–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Everatt, J., I. Smythe, E. Adams, and D. Ocampo. 2000. Dyslexia screening measures and bilingualism. Dyslexia 6: 42–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fehring, H. 2005. Critical, analytical and reflective literacy assessment: reconstructing practice. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 28: 95–114.Google Scholar
  21. Freebody, P. 2006. Expanding the repertoires of practice in literacy education: Special needs students and the Four Roles Model. In A resource book: Strategies for students with learning difficulties and disabilities, eds. T. Spinks, and C. Kilham, 122–118. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved 16 Sept 2007, from http:www.dest.gov.au/RN/rdonlyres/34675037-83EC-413E-860C-F4DE14E863445/15460/FinalProductResourceBookFINALDec06.pdf
  22. Freebody, P., and J. Frieberg. 2001. Re-discovering practical reading activities in homes and schools. Journal of Research in Reading 24: 222–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gambrell, L.B., B.A. Kapinus, and R.M. Wilson. 1987. Using mental imagery and summarization to achieve independence in comprehension. Journal of Reading 30(7): 638–642.Google Scholar
  24. Garcia, G.E., G. McKoon, and D. August. 2008. Language and literacy assessment. In Developing reading and writing in second-language learners, ed. D. August and T. Shanahan, 251–274. New York: Roughtledge.Google Scholar
  25. Genesee, F., K. Lindholm-Leary, W. Saunders, and D. Christian. 2005. English language learners in US schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk 10(4): 363–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gersten, R., L.S. Fuchs, J.P. Williams, and S. Baker. 2001. Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research 71: 279–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Geva, E. 2000. Issues in the assessment of reading disabilities in L2 students: Beliefs and research evidence. Dyslexia 6: 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Geva, E., and L. Verthoven. 2000. Introduction: The development of second language reading in primary students-research issues and trends. Scientific Studies of Reading 4(4): 261–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gresham, F.M., and D.L. MacMillan. 1997. Teachers as ‘tests’: Differential validity of teacher judgments in identifying students at risk. School Psychology Review 26: 47–61.Google Scholar
  30. Guthrie, J.T., A.L.W. Hoa, A. Wigfield, S.M. Tonks, N.M. Humenick, and E. Littles. 2007. Reading motivation and reading comprehension growth in later elementary years. Contemporary Educational Psychology 32: 282–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hay, I. 1995a. Understanding self-perception: Some school and home implications. School Talk, August/September.Google Scholar
  32. Hay, I., Elias, G., and Booker, G. 2005. Schooling issues digest – Students with learning difficulties in relation to literacy and numeracy. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth Department of Education Science and Training. Retrieved 15 Feb 2006 from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/schooling_issues_digest/schooling_issues_digest_learning_difficulties
  33. Hecht, S.A., and D.B. Greenfield. 2001. Comparing the predictive validity of first grade teacher ratings and reading-related tests on third grade levels of reading skills in young students exposed to poverty. School Psychology Review 30: 50–70.Google Scholar
  34. Hibbing, A.N., and J.L. Rankin-Erickson. 2003. A picture is worth a thousand words: Using visual images to improve comprehension for the middle school struggling readers. The Reading Teacher 56: 758–770.Google Scholar
  35. Horner, S.L., and C.S. Shwery. 2002. Becoming an engaged, self-regulated reader. Theory into Practice 41(2): 102–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hutchinson, J., H. Whiteley, C. Smith, and L. Connors. 2004. The early identification of dyslexia: Students with English as an additional language. Dyslexia 10: 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Isreal, S.E., K.L. Bauserman, and C.C. Block. 2005. Metacognitive assessment strategies. Thinking Classroom 6(2): 21–28.Google Scholar
  38. Johnson, D. 2002. Learning disabilities in the context of communication disorders. Thalmus 20(1): 19–28.Google Scholar
  39. Joshi, M., and P.G. Aaron. 2000. The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology 21: 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kahn-Horwitz, J., J. Shiron, and R.L. Sparks. 2006. Weak and strong novice readers of English as a foreign language: Effects of first language and socioeconomic status. Annals of Dyslexia 51(1): 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kamps, D., M. Abbott, C. Greenwood, C. Arreaga-Mayer, H. Wills, J. Longstaff, et al. 2007. Use of evidence-based, small group instruction for English language learners in elementary grades: Secondary-Tier intervention. Learning Disability Quarterly 30(3): 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leach, J.M., H.S. Scarborough, and L. Rescorla. 2003. Late-emerging reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology 95: 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lesaux, N.K. 2006. Building consensus: Future directions for research on English language learners at risk for learning difficulties. Teachers College Record 108(11): 2406–2438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lesaux, N.K., E. Geva, K. Koda, L.S. Siegel, and T. Shanahan. 2008. Development of literacy in second-language learners. In Developing reading and writing in second-language learners, ed. D. August and T. Shanahan, 27–59. New York: Roughtledge.Google Scholar
  45. Limbos, M., and E. Geva. 2001. Accuracy of teacher assessments of ESL students at-risk for reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities 34: 136–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Linan-Thompson, S., P.T. Cirino, and S. Vaughn. 2007. Determining English language learners’ response to intervention: Questions and some answers. Learning Disability Quarterly 30(3): 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lindsey, K.A., F.R. Manis, and C.E. Bailey. 2003. Prediction of first-grade reading in Spanish-speaking Engish-language learners. Journal of Educational Psychology. 95(3): 482–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Louden, W., L.K.S. Chan, J. Elkins, D. Greaves, H. House, M. Milton, S. Nichols, J. Rivalland, M. Rohl, and C. Van Kraayennoord. 2000. Mapping the territory, primary students with learning difficulties: Literacy and numeracy, vol. 1, 2 & 3. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Google Scholar
  49. Ludwig, C. 2004. Literacy in the learning Areas: A proposition. Literacy learning in the Middle Years 8: 37–53.Google Scholar
  50. Luke, A., and P. Freebody. 1999. A map of possible practices: Further notes on the four resources model. Practically Primary, ALEA 4: 5–8.Google Scholar
  51. Manset-Williamson, G., and J.M. Nelson. 2005. Balanced, strategic reading instruction for upper- elementary and middle school students with reading disabilities: A comparative study of two approaches. Learning Disability Quarterly 28: 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. National Reading Panel. 2000. Teaching children to read: Report of the comprehension instruction subgroup to the National Institute of Child Health and Development. Washington, DC: NICD.Google Scholar
  53. Neal, J.C., and P.R. Kelly. 2002. Delivering the promise of academic success through late intervention. Reading and Writing Quarterly 18: 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Oakhill, J., and K. Cain. 2007. Introduction to comprehension development. In Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written language: A cognitive perspective, ed. K. Cain and J. Oakhill, 3–40. London: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  55. Ortiz, A.A., C.Y. Wilkinson, P. Robinson-Courtney, and M. Kushner. 2006. Considerations in implementing intervention assistance teams to support English language learners. Remedial and Special Education 27(1): 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Oster, L. 2001. Using think-alouds for reading instruction. The Reading Teacher 55: 64–69.Google Scholar
  57. Paris, S.G., and E.R. Oka. 1989. Strategies for comprehending text and coping with reading difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly 12: 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pearson, P.D., and T.E. Raphael. 1990. Reading comprehension as a dimension of thinking. In Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction, ed. B.F. Jones and L. Idol. New Jersey: Hillsdale Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  59. Pressley, M. 2002a. At-risk students: Learning to break through comprehension barriers. In Improving comprehension instruction, ed. C. Collins Block, L.B. Gambrell, and M. Pressley, 354–369. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.Google Scholar
  60. Pressley, M. 2002b. Improving comprehension instruction: A path for the Future. In Improving comprehension instruction, ed. C. Collins Block, L.B. Gambrell, and M. Pressley, 385–389. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  61. Quay, L.C., and D.C. Steele. 1998. Predicting students’ achievement from teacher judgements: An alternative to standardized testing. Early Education and Development 9: 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Riccio, C., A. Amado, S. Jiménez, J. Hasbrouck, and B. Imhoff. 2001. Cross-linguistic transfer of phonological processing: Development of a measure of phonological processing. Spanish Bilingual Research Journal 25: 4.Google Scholar
  63. Salend, S.J., and A. Salinas. 2003. Language differences or learning difficulties: The work of the multidisciplinary team. Teaching Exceptional Students 35(4): 36–43.Google Scholar
  64. Schunk, D. 2003. Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modelling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly 19: 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Snow, C.E. 2002. Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica: Rand Corp. Retrieved 12 Dec, 2002, from http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1465/.
  66. Snow, C.E. 2003. Assessment of reading comprehension. In Rethinking reading comprehension, ed. A.P. Sweet and C.E. Snow, 191–206. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  67. Snow, C. 2008. Cross-cutting themes and future directions. In Developing reading and writing in second-language learners, ed. D. August and T. Shanahan, 275–300. New York: Roughtledge.Google Scholar
  68. Spinelli, C.G. 2008. Addressing the issue of cultural and linguistic diversity and assessment: Informal evaluation measures for English language learners. Reading & Writing Quarterly 24: 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stanovich, K.E. 1986. Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly 21: 360–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Truscott, S.D., C.E. Cohen, D.P. Sams, K.J. Snborn, and A.J. Frank. 2005. The current state(s) of referral intervention teams. Remedial and Special Education 26(3): 130–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vellutino, F.R., J.M. Fletcher, M.J. Snowling, and D.M. Scanlon. 2004. Specific reading disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychiatry 45(1): 2–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Verhoeven, L. 2000. Components in early second language reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading 4(4): 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Villaume, S.K., and E.G. Bradham. 2002. Comprehension instruction: Beyond strategies. The Reading Teacher 55: 672–675.Google Scholar
  74. Westwood, P. 2004. The affective components of difficulty in learning: Why prevention is better than attempted cure. In Learning difficulties: Multiple perspectives, ed. B.A. Knight and W. Scott, 187–202. Frenchs Forest Australia: Pearson.Google Scholar
  75. York-Bar, J., G. Chere, and J. Sommerness. 2007. Collaborative teaching to increase ELL Student Learning: A three-year urban elementary case study. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk 12(3): 301–335.Google Scholar
  76. Neale, M.D. 1988. Neale analysis of reading ability revised. Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  77. Durkin, D. 1978. What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly 14:481533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Block, C.C., S.R. Paris, K.L. Reed, C.S. Whiteley, and M.D. Cleveland. 2009. Instructional approaches that signify increased reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology 101(2):262–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Education and Professional StudiesGriffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations