Is Knowledge the Problem? Supporting Diverse Readers Accessing Challenging Texts

• In Event: 18.021 - Critical Issues in Adolescent Literacy Research: Practices, Pedagogies, and Possibilities

Abstract

Purpose and Framework
Although students labeled as “poor comprehenders” have demonstrated adequate vocabulary and background knowledge (Cain & Oakhill, 1999, 2006) to read and comprehend a variety of texts (Dressman, Wilder, & Connor, 2005), teachers report that students labeled “at risk” of reading failure are incapable of engaging in reading tasks because of a low knowledge base (Lee & Anderson, 2009). These beliefs may influence how teachers instruct students. Given that comprehension is an interaction between the text, the reader, and the activity (RAND, 2002), teachers’ instructional methods can help or hinder a reader’s understanding of a text. Alvermann and Eakle (2003) suggest that reading comprehension scaffolding falls along a continuum, ranging from a participatory approach, which actively engages students in their own learning, to a transmission approach, which views texts and teachers as “dispensers of knowledge” (p. 24). Teachers may be more inclined to engage in a transmission approach to instruct students who are labeled as below grade level.

Methods and Data
In the present study, ninth graders (n = 293) in honors, non-honors, and literacy intervention classes participated in either a participatory or transmission approaches to comprehension instruction twice a week, over a 12-week period (24 lessons total). Two ninth grade intervention classes (one participatory and one transmission approach), populated by students labeled as “at risk” for reading failure, were observed and classroom talk recorded. Students took a comprehension quiz after each lesson and the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Comprehension (GMRT-RC, MacGinitie, MacGinitie, Maria, & Dreyer, 2008) subtest was administered before and after the intervention. A one-way Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used with the GMRT-RC pretest as a covariate and average quiz scores as a dependent variable to compare students’ comprehension between the approaches. Post-hoc tests were administered to analyze differences in students’ growth in comprehension based on prior reading ability. Field notes and classroom talk were analyzed and codes developed to explore differences between the approaches.

Results and Significance
Analysis revealed that students in the participatory approach (M = 61.87) performed significantly better on quizzes than students in the transmission approach (M = 54.80, p < .001), with participatory approach participants performing half a standard deviation higher. Students labeled as “below grade level” made significantly more growth in comprehension than on/above grade level readers over 12 weeks, regardless of instructional condition. Analysis of classroom talk in the intervention classes revealed that students were provided more opportunities to talk in the participatory approach, including to share knowledge, elaborate, or evaluate their interpretations of texts, confirming previous research (see Mercer & Littleton, 2007).

The findings of the present study are significant to the AERA community because they defy the myth that readers labeled as “below grade level” have low knowledge. Further, these findings demonstrate how more equitable literacy practices, such as comprehension instruction that approaches students from a strengths perspective and values knowledge students bring to each text, benefited adolescents’ comprehension, particularly for those labeled as “below grade level.”

Authors

• Sarah M. Lupo, James Madison University

• Amanda Kibler, Oregon State University