We were very intrigued to read the research done by Poindexter & Prescott that dated back to 1986. Their research was done using a metacognitive approach that required students to use a step by step process to answer the three different types of questions; textually explicit, textually implicit and scriptally implicit. Step one requires the students to see if the answer is given directly. Step two requires the students to see if the answer is given indirectly. Finally, step 3 requires the students to see if the answer must come from your own thoughts. The research was done over a three month period with four hundred students between the grades 4, 5, and 6. The students in both the control and experimental groups were pre and post tested. They provided sample passages and questions that were used during the experiment. The students were modeled too and trained using the 3 step process. Students had to know the concept of textually and scriptally implicit inferences prior to acting out the strategy independently. The qualitative and quantitative date showed that the strategy was effective in helping students answer the three different types of questions. Overall, the students who used the strategy in the post test answered more comprehension questions correctly. We believe this to be a very good approach that would work well for our students. Our students needing a lot of modeling and scaffolding we feel this strategy to be one that we implement in our study.
We read the article by Guszak, 1967, with great belief in how we constantly feel as teachers today. The study done was to determine the development of reading-thinking skills in a reading group in the elementary grades. The study was guided by three main questions. “What kinds of questions are teachers asking and in what frequencies do the various question types occur? How often are the questions answered correctly by students? Do teachers occupy certain strategies as they question students?” The study was done in a public school in Texas, choosing four teachers at random among the grades two, four and six. Three reading groups were being implemented in all of the second and fourth with only one sixth grade classroom that operated 3 reading groups. Each reading group in the twelve classrooms was observed and recorded over a three day period. The data showed for question one; teachers spent the majority of their time asking “recall” questions. The measure of higher thinking skills in the inferential questioning categories “conjecture” and “explanation” were less. The combined percentage for these two categories was 13.7 percent. In the second part of the study they measure the student’s congruence to the questions asked by the teacher. The study found that there were numerous responses in the inferential questioning category. Also, second grade had the highest percentage of correct responses. In looking at the last question that guided their study, they found two strategies that teachers use to with questioning children. “First, they control the nature of the exchange relative to each question. Second, they may pattern such individual question-response exchanges into larger wholes.” (Guszak p.231) To really describe the strategies they created a Question-Response Unit and the Question-Response Episode. They identified all the patterns that were noted. Guszak felt these results were probably similar to many more groups of teachers. It is our understanding that students are missing the literal meaning because they prepare their selves for the recall questioning that comes from the teacher. We both felt that students focus on those areas to satisfy and please the teacher in turn causing them to distance themselves from the literal and respond the other variety of questions.
Bridging the gap between reading motivation and comprehension has proven to be a challenge in education for decades. Many studies have been conducted,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document