by Diane L. Cormany and Anitra Budd

READING MAY BE the single most important skill for children to learn—a portal to the world of knowledge. Yet a 2007 report by the National Center for Education Statistics showed that 33 percent of fourth-grade students and 26 percent of eighth-grade students read below grade level.

Different reading challenges demand customized interventions, CEHD
researchers discovered.

The percentage of struggling readers has scarcely decreased over the last decade despite extensive research and interventions developed to address the trend. Educational psychology assistant professor Kristen McMaster, professor Paul van den Broek (now at the University of Leiden, Netherlands), and associate professor David Rapp (now at Northwestern University) set out to reverse this trend by developing interventions to address the specific cognitive challenges that can trip up struggling readers.

Although a number of interventions are commonly used to improve reading skills, it is difficult to match these approaches to the specific challenges faced by the reader. Further, relatively little is known about the cognitive processes that cause reading-comprehension problems.

“There’s an implicit connection between cognitive theory and reading research,” says McMaster. “However, there have been relatively few attempts to connect the science with the classroom—to develop interventions that are directly tied to cognitive theories.”

Unique reading struggles

During the first year of the study, researchers created individual cognitive profiles of 270 students in grades four, seven, and nine who had a range of reading abilities. They administered two assessments of cognitive reading processes with the goal of comparing the profiles of struggling readers with those of students who measure average or above average in reading.

In one, researchers used an eye tracker—a head-mounted device that uses video and specialized software—to monitor eye movement as the subject read on a computer screen. In the other assessment—a “think-aloud” approach in which readers would offer a verbal commentary about the text as they read—two distinct camps of struggling readers emerged:

“Elaborators” made inferences based on what they read, just as average or good readers do. Those with reading challenges, however, often drew on information that was irrelevant or unrelated.

The second group, “paraphrasers,” would repeat back text, sometimes word for word, indicating that they may not be making connections with the larger meaning.

Such a focus on comprehension at the intermediate level is vital for students to advance in math, science, social studies and other concepts as they progress through upper grades, says Jim Angermeyr (’88, Ph.D.), director of research and evaluation for Bloomington Public Schools, where McMaster has conducted much of her research. Formal reading education typically ends in sixth or seventh grade, he explains, but a new set of comprehension  strategies are needed to tackle nonfiction at the secondary level.

Tailored interventions

The researchers used the cognitive profiles to develop and test specific reading interventions. Custom-tailored questioning, delivered via peer-assisted learning, was designed to prompt the kind of text processing that had proven problematic for the individual. By pairing a stronger reader with one who was struggling, the team was able to engage both students and to provide more dedicated time than a teacher could give students on an individual basis.

Elementary, middle, and high school educators served as consultants and collaborators to evaluate how the various interventions worked and to assist in developing an intervention tool-kit. In the process the team confirmed that different interventions helped different students. The “elaborators” seemed to respond better to specific, causal questions about the text (i.e., “How did what happened in school earlier in the day affect how the girl feels right now?”), rather than more generic inquiries. On the other hand, the “paraphrasers” were able to recall more of the text in response to broader queries (i.e., “How does what you just read relate to what you’ve learned in the text so far?”)

“The fact that the subgroups appear to respond differently is compelling,” McMaster says.

Classroom payoff

Among the participating teachers was Jan Burda (’88, M.Ed.), whose fourth-grade class at Westwood Intermediate in Spring Lake Park Independent School District 16 included gifted students, some who had been identified as having ADHD or other challenges, and some right in the middle.

She says the ones who struggled with reading benefited in particular from the questioning approach. “The children on the low spectrum, I saw they were able to break down the stories and find the little details,” she says, adding that the approach helped some of the students who have attention challenges to focus on the reading.

There is one student who stands out most in Burda’s mind, though—a girl who entered the fourth grade reading more slowly and with slower comprehension than her grade level. Through a combination of the peer-assisted questioning and other reading-skills development methods, she showed marked improvement over the year.

“Her parents had nothing but rave reviews,” Burda comments. “I, too, thought she definitely showed growth, and it was just a delight to see.”

During the following year, Burda switched to fifth grade, where she used techniques she had learned through the research with McMaster, including breaking text into more manageable chunks and asking review questions along the way. She also retained many of the students who had been part of the research and noticed that some continued to improve in reading, including the same little girl.

“Just seeing the smiles of this little girl, seeing her be able to understand and to comprehend,” Burda recalls. “I get goose bumps just thinking of it.”

McMaster, van den Broek, and Rapp are disseminating their findings and applying for additional funding to research the specific conditions that affect the efficacy of each intervention, for example duration and frequency. They also hope to develop a simple way for teachers to identify each student’s reading profile without dedicating the time for extensive individual cognitive testing.

For more information

Kristen McMaster, 612-624-1859,
mcmas004@umn.edu

PHOTO: Leo Kin