Because some basal reader teachers\u27 guides recommend written pre-reading purposes while others suggest only oral ones, the major purpose of this study was to compare the comprehension of stories in the basal reader using three pre-reading purpose treatments: (1) written, (2) oral, and (3) no purpose (control)

Hawes, Kathryn S.

Schell, Leo M.

English

Zwracanie uwagi uczniów na popełniane błędy jest istotnym elementem nauczania we współczesnych podejściach do dydaktyki języków obcych. Również ćwiczenia polegające na poprawianiu błędów są stosowane w publikacjach edukacyjnych. Te przedstawione poniżej powinny pozwolić na skoncentrowanie się na rzeczywistych problemach, z którymi borykają polscy uczniowie. Wszystkie kwestie (błędy) poruszone w ćwiczeniach wywodzą się z uczniowskich wypracowań. Same zdania, natomiast, nie są autentyczne: użycie w całości autentycznych zdań nie było możliwe między innymi ze względu na mnogość występujących w nich niedoskonałości

Scheffler, Paweł

Adam Mickiewicz University Repository

Ucz się na błędach. Część II.

ScholarWorks at WMU

Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy andLanguage ArtsVolume 27Issue 3 April 1987 Article 24-1-1987Teacher-Set Pre-Reading Purposes andComprehensionKathryn S. HawesMemphis State UniversityLeo M. SchellKansas State UniversityFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizonsPart of the Education CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the SpecialEducation and Literacy Studies at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy andLanguage Arts by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks at WMU. For moreinformation, please contact maira.bundza@wmich.edu.Recommended CitationHawes, K. S., & Schell, L. M. (1987). Teacher-Set Pre-Reading Purposes and Comprehension. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacyand Language Arts, 27 (3). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol27/iss3/2TEACHER-SET PRE-READING PURPOSES AND COMPREHENSION ~<ATHR YN S. HAWES MEMPHIS STATE UNIVERSITY MEMPHIS, TENN. LEO M. SCHELL KANSAS STATE UNIV. MANHATTAN, KANSAS The move away from oral reading and toward silent reading early in this century emphasized that reading should not be a passive absorption of print but rather that "It must select, repress, soften, emphasize, correlate and organ-ize, all under the influence of the ri ht mental set or purpose or demand." Thorndike, 1917. Emphasis added. In directed (basal reader) inst ruction, however, students seldom have self-set reasons for reading the selections as Thorndike envisioned. Instead, an integral part of the Direc-ted Reading Activity (ORA) in nearly all basal readers has been a teacher-set pre-reading purpose for which students are to read; e.g., "Read to find why Marie changed her mind about babysitting her younger brother." The implicit assumption behind this practice is that it will somehow facilitate comprehension. Does it? A search of the literature (Hawes, 1984) discovered 28 studies from 1920 to the present on pre- reading purposes and related topics and adjunct questions. Some researchers (Wiesendanger and Wollenberg, 1978) found that the no-pre-reading question group scored higher on post-reading compre-hension questions than did a pre-reading question group. Others (Distad, 1927) found just the opposite. Some studies with adults (Anderson and Biddle, 1975; Acker man, 1977) suggested that pre-reading questions fo-cused attention selectively on the targeted information so that the reader somewhat ignored the rest of the passage and did not retain much of it. If true, in a ORA, this would seem counterproductive. However, no set of overall conclusions could be reached because of the quality of the research, the disparity of the 164 READING HORIZONS, Spring, 1987 subjects, the varying type of material used, and the varyIng kinds of purposes given. Andre (1979), in a similar review, reached similar conclusions. Particularly dismaying was the fact that few of the studies dealt with or seemed general-izable to elementary school students reading a basal reader selection in a ORA format. Durkin (1978-79) questioned whether these pre- reading purposes should be in writing. By being only oral, she said, "the children could not refer to them before, during, or after they read. It also meant that they may have been forgotten not only by the children but also by the teacher." (p. 499) Research by Frase (1968, 1975) also raised the possibility that the oral purpose is likely to be forgotten and consequently have little or no influence on comprehen-sion. " Purposes of the Study Because some basal reader teachers' guides recom mend written pre-reading purposes while others suggest only oral ones, the major purpose of this study was to compare the comprehension of stories in the basal reader using three pre-reading purpose treat ments: (1) written, (2) oral, and (3) no purpose (control). A second purpose of the study was to compare inten-tional learning (information directly related to the pre-reading purpose) with incidental learning (information not directly related to the pre-reading purpose). Procedures The pre-reading purpose was a literal, non-detail ques-tion written as an imperative statement focusing on the problem in the story; e.g., "Read to find out how Maria delivered the paper so that the dog could not get it." These purposes were stated to conform to Wilhite's study (1982) of the relationship of superordinate and subordinate pre-reading questions to text comprehension. The stories were read by all pupils in three intact third-grade classrooms. To simulate grouping practices and to approximate pupils' instructional reading level, only the 36 pupils who had scored between the thirtieth and seven-tieth percentiles on the Nelson Reading Skills Test (1977) given a week before the study began were used in the study. 165 READING HORIZONS, Spring, 1987 The three stories used were from basal readers not used in the participating classrooms. Stories were photodu-plicated but illustrations were deleted to insure that com-prehension was the result of reading and not of looking at the pictures. Each story had a blank cover page followed by a page containing simple directions. On one set of materials the pre-reading purpose was printed on the direction page and the students followed along as it was read; on another set it was not printed but was read from a master copy while the students listened; and, on the control set, no purpose was given. A set of six printed questions followed each story. One, an interrogative version of the imperatively-stated pre-reading purpose, was designed to measure intentional learning. The five others were both literal and non-literal and were designed to measure incidental learning. One treatment was administered weekly to each class-room. All students received all treat ments and all stories in a randomized repeated measure design, in order to establish equivalency of stories, difficulty of pre-reading purposes, and difficulty of post-reading questions. A one-way analysis of variance for repeated measures, with the .05 level of confidence, was used to analyze the results. Results On total comprehension scores, there were no significant differences between the three groups. However, both the written-purpose mean (4.33) and the oral-purpose mean (4.19) were higher than the non-purpose mean (3.83). (~ = 2.03388, df = 2, 70 .E = .138) There were no significant differences among the three groups on the intentional comprehension questions. (~ = 1.46829, df = 2, 70 .E = .23732) There was a significant difference at the .05 level of confidence on the incidental comprehension questions. (F 3.90294, df = 2, 70 .E = .025) 166 READING HORIZONS, Spring, 1987 Discussion As a result of examining the teacher's guides of five basal reader series, reviewing the literature on the topic, and conducting this study, we reached the following conclu-SIons: 1. Teacher-set pre-reading purposes in a basal reader ORA have a definite value and should not be treated lightly nor implemented casually by teachers as they do seem to facilitate text comprehension. Regrettably, Durkin (1984) found that teachers rarely posed questions before their students read a basal selection. 2. Basal reader teacher's guides should do a better job with regard to such purposes. One, they should provide a clear rationale for them, thereby more adequately alerting teachers to their significance. And two, they might print them in a distinctive type style, thereby calling more attention to them. 3. With third-graders, it doesn't seem to make any differ-ence whether the purposes are oral or written so long as they are definitely stated by the teacher and the students understand that they are to be taken seriously. 4. Purposes that focus on the larger elements of the story, e.g., the resolution of a problem, seem to produce bonus results. Such purposes don't seem to dist ract from the comprehension of important information that isn't directly related to that purpose. That is, the mental set established by the teacher-set purpose does not seem to focus children's attention exclusively on information related to this purpose. These kinds of purposes may establish a kind of schema prior to read-ing so that the reader's search is directed to other details as well as to the main character's attempt to solve the problem. Aspects of story grammar and story structure (Rumelhart, 1977) should be helpful in formu-lating appropriate kinds of purposes. 5. Teachers and authors of basal reader teacher's guides should carefully phrase these purposes. Durkin (1984) found that "manual questions. . . consistently revealed too much about a story's plot." Pearson (1985) has recommended a set of guidelines for developing questions 167 READING HORIZONS, Spring, 1987 that invoke prior knowledge and help predict what will happen in the story. 6. Teachers and authors of teachers' guides should follow Pearson's (1982) advice that "There is no reason to give a purpose setting CJuE'stion if you do not follow it up. In fact, if you do not follow it up, students will learn not to take seriously the purpose setting question you give." (p. 10) 7. Teacher-set purposes may not promote the independence which truly mature readers need to develop; they would seem to make the student more dependent upon the teacher than is ultimately desi rable. Pearson (1985) has alluded to this and called for a "gradual release of responsibility" from teacher to student. Teacher-set pre-reading purposes have some definite values but equally effective techniques need to be developed that promote reader independence and decrease reliance upon the teacher. REFERENCES Ackerman, A. (1977). Adjunct questions: Help or hinder? A critical review of theoretical and empirical research with specific regard for age and ability of the learner and level of the question. Tallahassee, FL: Fla. State Univ. (ERIC Document Repro. Servo # ED 164 568). Anderson, R.C., and Biddle, W.B. (1975). On asking people questions about what they are reading. In G.H.Bower (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (V. 19). New York: Academic Press. Andre, T. (1979). Does answering higher level questions while reading facilitate productive learning? Review of Educational Research, 49, 280-318. Andrews, L. (1971). Directed reading questions and cognitive organizers: Comparative effect on reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 2, 79-83. Distad, H. W. (1927). Journal of Educational Psychology, ~,247-248. Durkin, D. (1978-9). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Re-168 READING HORIZONS, Spring, 1987 search Quarterly, 14, 481-533. Durkin, D. (1984). Is there a match between what elemen-tary teachers do and what basal reader manuals recom-mend? The Reading Teacher, 37, 734-744. Frase, L.T. (1968). Questions as aids to reading: Some research and theory. American Educational Research Journal, 2, 319-322. Frase, L.T., and Schwartz, F.J.(1975) Question production and answering as an aid to prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 628-634. Hawes, K.S. (1980). Types of purposes in five basal readers. (Unpubl. Study., College of Educ., Kansas State Univ.) ----- (1984). The effect of a re-readin ur ose on read-ing comprehension. Unpubl., Col. of Ed., KS State U. Nelson Reading Skills Test. (1977). Chicago:Riverside Co. Pearson, P.O. (1982). Asking questions about stories. Ginn Occasional Papers, #15. Columbus, OH: Ginn & Co. ---- (1985) Changing the face of reading comprehension in st ruction. The Reading Teacher, 38, 724-738. Rumelhart, D.E. (1977). Understanding and summarizing brief stories. In D. LaBerge and S.J.Samuels (Eds), Basic Processes in Reading: Perception and Comprehen-sion. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Thorndike, E.L. (1917) Jrnl of Ed Psych, ~, 323-332. Wiesendanger, K.D. and Wollenberg, J.P. (1978). Prequestion-ing inhibits thi rd graders' reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, i.!., 892-895. --Wilhi te, S.C. (1982). Pre-passage questions: The influence of st ructural importance. Technical report No. 234. Center for the Study of Reading. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois. 169 

Teacher-Set Pre-Reading Purposes and Comprehension

Name not available

Repozytorium Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza (AMUR)

Jednym z komponentów pisemnej matury z języka angielskiego, zarówno na poziomie podstawowym jak i rozszerzonym, jest wypowiedź pisemna. Wśród kryteriów wpływających na ocenę tego komponentu jest poprawność językowa w zakresie struktur gramatycznych oraz słownictwa.
	Przeprowadzona analiza ponad stu arkuszy matur próbnych z dwóch roczników w wielkopolskich liceach ogólnokształcących wykazała, iż poprawność gramatyczna oraz leksykalna wypracowań uczniowskich pozostawia wiele do życzenia: uczniowie są generalnie w stanie przekazać określone treści, jednak bardzo często czynią to za pomocą wadliwych środków językowych. Wpływa to oczywiście na obniżenie oceny. Ćwiczenia, które proponuję poniżej, mają na celu pomóc osobom przygotowującym się do matury w wyeliminowaniu najczęściej popełnianych błędów.
	Materiał zebrany w ćwiczeniach odnosi się wyłącznie do tych kwestii gramatycznych i leksykalnych, które w przeanalizowanych testach sprawiały zdającym największe trudności. Zważywszy na to, iż zarówno błędy gramatyczne jak i leksykalne cechowały się dużą powtarzalnością, można stwierdzić, że są to generalnie trudności charakteryzujące większość uczniów na tym poziomie zaawansowania, a nie takie, które wynikają z akurat omawianych tematów. Z paroma wyjątkami, które są odnotowane w tekście, te same zagadnienia dotyczą zarówno poziomu podstawowego, jak i rozszerzonego. Wyeliminowanie tej stosunkowo niewielkiej grupy błędów pozwoli zdającym znacznie podnieść jakość tworzonych wypowiedzi. 
	Wszystkie kwestie (błędy) poruszone w ćwiczeniach wywodzą się z uczniowskich wypracowań. Same zdania, natomiast, nie są autentyczne: użycie w całości autentycznych zdań nie było możliwe między innymi ze względu na mnogość występujących w nich niedoskonałości

Ucz się na błędach. Część I.

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1790&context=reading_horizons

Teacher-Set Pre-Reading Purposes and Comprehension

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Adam Mickiewicz University Repository

ScholarWorks at WMU

Name not available

Repozytorium Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza (AMUR)

Name not available

Adam Mickiewicz University Repository

Repozytorium Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza (AMUR)