Where Questioning Fits in Comprehension Instruction: Skills and Strategies Part II

  • Reading comprehension
  • 28 May, 2018
  • 10 Comments

Blast from the Past: This blog was first posted on May 28, 2018, and reposted on March 19, 2022. It didn't arouse a lot of comment originally, but recently I've been getting queries that suggest these issues are still out there. I want to emphasize the problem that I'm addressing isn't that teachers are asking comprehension questions (that is a good practice). But, the idea that certain kinds of questions will lead students to be better comprehenders is a fool's errand. Teachers need to get kids doing things that will allow them to think deeply about the content of rich texts: such as, reading and rereading, discussing the content and what makes it important or compelling, writing about the content, using the content in some way, and so on. Answering supporting details questions is not the same thing as getting students to evaluate the support an author provides for his/here claims. This blog, i hope, will help teachers to focus on that kind of work rather than trying to fit questions to standards or trying to mimic the question types from the state tests (actions which don't help students to advance). 

Teacher question:

It seems to me that asking a series of good questions about what an author appears to be telling us allows students (all of us) to build our knowledge, learn how to question conclusions, and overall just better understand the text at hand. Do you agree or am I still missing something? 

Last week, I posted an explanation of the difference between comprehension strategies and comprehension skills. Before answering your thoughtful question about comprehension teaching, let’s quickly review what I said previously.

Shanahan response:

Basically, comprehension skills have been conceptualized as the ability to answer certain kinds of questions.  Accordingly, there is a main idea skill and a comparison skill and a supporting details skill and so on. In their zeal to teach standards-appropriate skills, teachers and publishers transform the standards into questions. Skills teaching devolves into having kids practicing answering those questions.

Skills, by their very nature, are meant to be automatic; someone should learn to implement them without conscious attention.

The problem is that, for the most part, these question types are not really comprehension skills and they do not translate into effective teaching or learning.

Comprehension strategies, on the other hand, have a different history and a different purpose. Comprehension strategies refer to intentional (not automatic) actions a reader takes to keep his/her head in the game. Comprehension strategies include summarization. Not the ability to write a summary, but the use of summarization as a technique for increasing understanding and recall. When reading a challenging text, an effective reader may stop occasionally to sum up the text. Summarizing occasionally during reading, develops a clearer understanding of a text.

Strategies like monitoring, self-questioning, visualizing, comparing the text with prior knowledge, identifying text organization, and so on are all intentional, purposeful actions that are effective in improving comprehension or recall.

Comprehension strategies don’t improve the ability to answer specific kinds of questions, but they have substantial research support showing their ability to improve reading comprehension generally and definitely should be taught.

Instructional implications?

Let’s consider skills first.

The right amount of time to spend on comprehension skills in curriculum, instruction, or assessment? Zero.

Skills practice is a time waster. It’s like pushing the elevator button twice. It makes you feel better, perhaps, but the elevator doesn’t come any more quickly.

Teaching comprehension skills might make you feel like you are doing something, but it won’t improve students’ reading comprehension.

But, this week’s question rightfully queries the practice of guiding reading with questions. Does it make sense to have kids reading texts and then asking them questions about them. Isn’t that just the skills practice that I derided?

E.L. Thorndike first took up this issue in 1917. He assigned readers to two groups; one that just read, and one that read and responded to questions. The question-answerers ended with better comprehension, and researchers started recommending that readers do more than just read in the classroom. Teacher questions and discussion time became a standard of reading instruction practice. (Later research showed that answering questions improves recall for the information questioned, but not for the rest of the information—and the questioned information was more likely to be remembered later (Andre, 1990; Wixson, 1983)).

In the mid-1930s, when publishers started including teacher’s guides along with their basals, following Thorndike, they provided lists of questions to be asked for each story. It was not long before the idea emerged that there were certain kinds of questions that should be asked, and over the years this idea morphed into what we now think of as “comprehension skills.”

It isn’t much of a distance from the idea that questions focus one’s attention, to the possibility that experiences with certain types of questions could more generally focus one’s attention on particular kinds of text information. It’s not that easy, however.

This kind of attention focusing works, but only when the information emphasized is easy to identify and parallel across texts. Students, given multiple text reading tasks, who early on are asked questions about numbers or dates, get better at paying attention to that kind of info in subsequent readings (Anderson, 1977).

However, most question types don’t focus readers’ attention quite this powerfully.

It’s one thing to be on the lookout for the numbers in a text and quite another to draw correct conclusions. Texts are just too varied to allow information-types to be identified easily. Main ideas, inferences, application, interpretation, right there, think and search, relationships, supporting details, comparisons, drawing conclusions, higher-order questions, and so on are all question types that instructional programs or tests claim to emphasize, but none of these are generally identifiable in any useful way by readers. Therefore, they are not likely to have much impact on anybody’s reading ability.

If you ask kids questions that challenge an author’s claims, they’ll probably come away with doubts about the author’s conclusions (and will be more likely to remember those doubts later). Yay, critical reading questions.

However, if the idea is that by asking such questions, readers in the future will be more likely to recognize the short-comings evident in subsequent texts, well that outcome is much less likely.

Indeed, keep having kids read text, and definitely engage them in discussions of those texts, but form your questions--not on the basis of standards or skills lists—but on the basis of the texts themselves. Your questions should lead kids to think deeply about a text and to come away with a coherent and lasting memory of its content and aesthetic qualities.

Reading should be about that; not about answering particular kinds of questions, even if the questions vaguely resemble the ones on your state assessment test.

If there is such a thing as comprehension skills, they are made up of those repeatable things we do while reading that allow us to understand a text. Things like making sense of the meaning of unknown words based on context or morphology. Or, recognizing that a term is an idiom and can’t be looked up in a conventional dictionary. Or, making sense of the complicated grammar of a sentence. Or, making cohesive links among the words and ideas across a text. Or, identifying and using the structure or organization of the text. Or, drawing logical inferences during reading.

These actually are comprehension skills because they enable comprehension and because being able to do them can improve one’s performance with multiple texts.

Readers usually don’t read text looking for information that they could use to answer particular kinds of questions. But they do use the meanings of words again and again, and they do learn to recognize verbs in sentences, and to recognize that authors sometimes use synonyms instead of repeating the same words.  

Guiding students in the reading of texts that are difficult to read… and using questions to get them to confront the sources of that complexity and to hold them accountable for learning the content through questioning, discussions, projects, and writing assignments are central to the teaching of reading comprehension.

And, what about strategy instruction? Where does that fit into this picture?

Comprehension strategies should be taught—and, according to research, should be taught using a gradual release of responsibility approach. That just means that the teacher models and explains when, how, and why to implement the strategies. Then the teacher guides students to use the strategies themselves, turning more and more of the responsibility for that over to them gradually.

However, in our pendulum-oriented field, we have a tendency to either ignore the teaching of strategies altogether (which disadvantages kids since strategies can help them to be active as readers and focused on making sense of texts), or to teach strategies ad nauseum.

Studies of strategy teaching usually have examined brief regimens of instruction, so it’s fair to say that we may be overdoing it a bit. (Strategy teaching is a research-based idea but teaching strategies 180-days a year for 12-13 years has nothing to do with research). There are no studies evaluating the diminishing returns of strategy instruction, but for most kids 6-10 weeks of such teaching each year is likely plenty. But even during strategy teaching, there needs to be a major focus on mastering the content of the texts; that’s the only purpose for the strategies in the first place, and kids should see, from the beginning, that they work in helping accomplish that goal.

What does it mean to teach reading comprehension?

Guide kids to read—and reread—challenging texts with thoughtful questions.

Get kids to think deeply about the parts of the text that might trip up their understanding.

Teach kids to keep their heads in the game—reading mindfully—through strategy use.

Make sure kids come away knowing more about their world each time they read.

What should you avoid?

Having kids practice answering certain kinds of questions.

Placing greater emphasis on comprehension skills and strategies than on the content of the texts being read.

Comments

See what others have to say about this topic.

Sam Bommarito
May 29, 2018 09:01 PM

You said :What does it mean to teach reading comprehension?

Guide kids to read—and reread—challenging texts with thoughtful questions.

Get kids to think deeply about the parts of the text that might trip up their understanding.

Teach kids to keep their heads in the game—reading mindfully—through strategy use.

Make sure kids come away knowing more about their world each time they read.

What should you avoid?

Having kids practice answering certain kinds of questions.

Placing greater emphasis on comprehension skills and strategies than on the content of the texts being read."

This particular quote is going to get a lot of use, both as a reminder for me when I resume working with elementary students in the fall, and as the first slide in any future power point I might create for teachers on the topic of comprehension (attributing the quote to you of course!). I've heard it said when you can create a really concise and accurate summary of something it demonstrates you really understand that topic. You just did. Nuf said? Thanks. Sam

Timothy Shanahan
May 31, 2018 03:32 AM

Thanks Sam.

Maria
Jun 13, 2018 05:01 PM

The idea of comprehension not being a skill really was an "aha" moment for me as I continue to work with the students and teachers in my district.

Miss Emma
Mar 20, 2022 08:05 AM

At the heart of everything effective is really ‘what does each child need, and when?’ And also ‘make the instruction about the particular text’. Let the questions come from the focus book or passage, rather than apply blanket strategies to any text.

As many of our teachers weren’t sure of how to improve comprehension in the early stages of learning to read Ie in reception and year 1, when still learning to decode commonly used phoneme to grapheme correspondences, and using decodable texts, I developed ‘Snap and Crack’ which is done with no planning. They snap a page with phone, put it on whiteboard and number the lines. The children answer questions (and say where they found the answer Ie which line) and they ask questions too. I had the teachers think of as many questions as possible for just 2 or 3 lines of text in ‘phonics’ books, to demonstrate they can be developing skills at any stage, and with any text.
The focus is on thinking about best use of the text to engage the children in reading for meaning.

Very old clip! Been doing this a while:-)
https://youtu.be/wpZFvmrR3mQ

RT
Mar 21, 2022 02:29 PM

You wrote:

"Indeed, keep having kids read text, and definitely engage them in discussions of those texts, but form your questions--not on the basis of standards or skills lists—but on the basis of the texts themselves. Your questions should lead kids to think deeply about a text and to come away with a coherent and lasting memory of its content and aesthetic qualities."

That is hard to capture on an IEP.

This post and the above excerpt got me wondering what you would advise to Special Educators to include on IEP goals and objectives. In my experience, teachers often stick to the "skills" based on standards in IEPs (main idea, details, sequencing, inferencing, compare/contrast, author's purpose...). Because the above excerpt suggests basing your questions/instruction on the text (not standards), then what should Special Educators be including in IEP goals and objectives? Often, the assessments used to determine eligibility/areas of weakness are skills-based (or question types), not strategy-based, leading teachers to write IEPs that include skills only.

Would you suggest including strategies such as "monitoring, self-questioning, visualizing, comparing the text with prior knowledge, identifying text organization" in IEP goals and objectives vs. the "skills" we typically find?

Timothy Shanahan
Mar 21, 2022 09:13 PM

RT
You are correct about that. Many special education teachers try to treat reading comprehension as if it were a decoding skill – breaking it into pieces as if each can be taught with a specific recognizable outcome. Those question types don’t have any psychological reality. No one has found that you can measure how well anyone can answer those question types in any reliable or valid manner – so teaching students to answer such questions and then testing their ability to do so is a meaningless exercise. I guess it is good that kids have to read some texts and think about them, at least superficially.

It would make much more sense for teachers to try to teach students to comprehend better. That means teaching things like comprehension strategies (which keeps the students focused on meaning and gets them to think about the text information), vocabulary (so they would know the meanings of more words that they would see in text), to make sense of sentences with various degrees of grammatical complexity (including guiding them to break sentences down into meaning units), how to link the ideas across a text (cohesion), how to recognize and use text structure. All of those things can be taught, and they have all been found to help students to improve comprehension.

Perhaps those special education programs should do what they states do with their accountability tests…. They adopt those standards, but when it comes to determining if the standards have been met, they test reading comprehension overall, without trying to provide an evaluation of any of the specific standards.

Christina C Head
Mar 22, 2022 12:42 PM

How can we prepare grade 3-5 students for the types of questions on the end of year state reading assessments?
Questions on this test are phrased by skill. EX. What is the main idea of paragraph 3? Which statements below are supporting details? What is the author's purpose of the passage? Which question is answered in paragraph 5?

Timothy Shanahan
Mar 22, 2022 01:45 PM

Christina--
Give the students a practice test or two a week or so before the testing. The rest of the time should be spent not trying to make it look like the students comprehend but teaching them to do so successfully across a wide range of situations, tests, demands, etc.

tim

JPG
Mar 28, 2022 03:40 PM

RT posed a great question and I’m struggling with this as well. Did you answer the question about how to write an IEP goal to address student growth in these “comprehension strategies”? How do you measure them?

You said, “They adopt those standards, but when it comes to determining if the standards have been met, they test reading comprehension overall, without trying to provide an evaluation of any of the specific standards.”
At present, it’s typically Q&A at the end of a passage yielding a % correct, broken down into specific times of “skills”.

What is the annual growth expectation and best assessment to measure if gains are being made? Is there a test you feel could be administered for baseline and then given again (what frequency) to demonstrate progress in comprehension ability?

Timothy Shanahan
Mar 28, 2022 06:39 PM

JPG-- I did respond earlier, but it is worth repeating. There is no test that is capable of providing a reliable estimation of how students perform on those supposed "comprehension" skills. The states have invested millions on their tests and none of them claim to provide this level of analysis (because they can't do it). I would suggest that you use some of the informal reading assessments as a model and test students' overall reading comprehension in terms of the level of texts that they can read. That kind of assessment can probably be given 2 or 3 times per year without any problem.

tim

What Are your thoughts?

Leave me a comment and I would like to have a discussion with you!

Comment *
Name*
Email*
Website
Comments

Where Questioning Fits in Comprehension Instruction: Skills and Strategies Part II

10 comments

One of the world’s premier literacy educators.

He studies reading and writing across all ages and abilities. Feel free to contact him.