161 Guided Reading Strategies

Project #161 July 2007

Guided Reading Strategiesto Improve Students’ CriticalThinking Skills in GradesThree, Four and Five

Jocelyn Olson, Lori Larsen,Lorrie Bolton, Sherrill Verhelst

TEACHING AND LEARNINGRESEARCH EXCHANGE

This research was partially funded through a grant from the McDowell Foundation. However, the points of viewand opinions expressed in project documents are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the viewsof the Foundation.

The purpose of the Dr. Stirling McDowell Foundation for Research into Teaching is to fund research, inquiry anddissemination of information focusing on instruction (both teaching and learning) in the context of the publicelementary and secondary education system. Specifically, it will:

1) contribute to knowledge about teaching and learning;

2) encourage educational inquiry through a wide range of methodologies;

3) support the involvement of practising teachers in active research projects;

4) encourage organizations as well as individuals to determine and act in areas of research and inquiry; and

5) encourage experimentation with innovative ideas and methodologies related to teaching and learning.

The Foundation is an independent charitable organization formed by the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federationin 1991. It is governed by a Board of Directors with the assistance of an Advisory Committee of representativesfrom the educational and business communities. The selection and evaluation of projects funded by theFoundation is carried out by a teacher-led Project Review Committee. Inquiries concerning research supportedby the McDowell Foundation may be directed to the following address:

Research CoordinatorDr. Stirling McDowell Foundation2317 Arlington AvenueSaskatoon SK S7J 2H8Telephone: 1-800-667-7762 or (306) 373-1660

© 2007 by the Dr. Stirling McDowell Foundation for Research into Teaching Inc. Permission is given to use thiswork for educational purposes, except that authorization from the original source must be obtained for the useof any material that appears in the work with credit to another source.

iRESEARCH REPORT: Guided Reading Strategies to Improve Students’ Critical Thinking Skills in Grades Three, Four and Five

First of all, the researchers would like to thank the following individuals fortheir support: Shelley Rowein, Director of Holy Family RCSSD #140 for totallyendorsing the project; Darrell Perras, Principal of St. Olivier School for creating anatmosphere in which teachers have an opportunity to try new ideas and both co-teaching and cooperative learning are encouraged; Starla Strebinsky, Principal ofSacred Heart School in Regina for providing the researchers with the opportunityto see Guided Reading in action within the setting of multi-grade groupings; LisaKuntz, Superintendent of Education for the Holy Family RCSSD for recommendingthat the researchers visit Sacred Heart School in the first place, and for teachingthe researchers how to use the computerized Vocabulary and Literacy quizzes fromRenaissance Learning to measure student outcomes; and last but not least,Lana Bourassa, Educational Assistant at St. Olivier School, for the manyadditional hours she spent keyboarding Guided Reading activities and the finalreport, as well as downloading books, and compiling and organizing them forstudents to read.

Second, thanks also goes to the staff at the Stewart Resource Centre, STFBuilding, Saskatoon for lending not only professional training videos, but also manybooks on Guided Reading so the researchers could grow professionally.

Third, thank you to the parents of students in Grades Three, Four, and Five at St.Olivier School for their permission to publish examples of their children’s work andtake photographs of students involved in Guided Reading activities.

Fourth, thank you to all the students who inspired us with their thinking,discussions, questions and learning.

Last, thank you to the Dr. Stirling McDowell Foundation for Research intoTeaching for providing the grant to make this kind of action research projectpossible.

The support for this project is very much appreciated.

Acknowledgments

ii RESEARCH REPORT: Guided Reading Strategies to Improve Students’ Critical Thinking Skills in Grades Three, Four and Five

Four teachers at St. Olivier School in Radville, Saskatchewan, collaborated in orderto identify the best Guided Reading strategies available to improve studentlearning out-comes in a variety of subject areas. The objective of this actionresearch project was to help fill in some of the gaps identified in the Spring 2005Grade Five provincial reading assessment by developing students’ critical thinkingskills in Grades Three, Four and Five through the teaching of Guided Readingstrategies. The project was both data-driven and student-centered and wasdesigned to inform teaching practices and improve students’ readingcomprehension.

As part of the researcher training for this project, Guided Reading strategies werestudied in the professional literature, a training video on using Guided Readingstrategies was viewed and discussed, and teachers who successfully use GuidedReading to enhance critical thinking skills in their classrooms were visited.

Specific strategies to teach students how to answer higher-level kinds of questions,and also to infer or “read between the lines”, were identified. After students’reading levels were measured using both informal reading inventories and the Startest, students were grouped, where appropriate, and received direct instructionaccording to their needs and interests. A variety of texts, both fictional andinformational, were used to help improve students’ literacy skills.

Throughout the project, data collection methods, including interviews, surveys,informal reading inventories, the Star test, graphic organizers, and student worksamples, were used to measure growth in students’ critical thinking skills. Theresearchers also reflected on their experiences by maintaining journals about theproject.

When the researchers compiled and evaluated the data, the results demonstratednot only a marked growth in reading comprehension skills but also a greater abilityto infer in most students.

The researchers’ reflections on the project were also very favorable. The opportunityto collaborate and learn from each other was a positive experience for theresearchers. They saw the project as a valuable learning opportunity for themselvesand their students, and they plan to apply their new knowledge by continuing toteach Guided Reading strategies in the future.

Executive Summary

iiiRESEARCH REPORT: Guided Reading Strategies to Improve Students’ Critical Thinking Skills in Grades Three, Four and Five

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Research MethodologyParental Consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Researcher Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Strategy Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13School Visit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Assessment and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Summary of DataStudent Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Informal Reading Inventory Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22Student Survey Results from Grade Five Fantasy Unit . . . . . . . . . . .25Computerized Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Literary Skills Quiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Researcher Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

AppendicesAppendix 1: Parent Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34Appendix 2: Release Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35Appendix 3: Sentence Stems for Before, During and After Reading . .36 Appendix 4: Student Work Samples: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

a) Imagery with Owls in the Family, Grade 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37b) I wonder… I think… with Mice at centre ice, Grade 4 . . . . . . .38c) Before-, During- and After-Reading Activities

using Legends, Grade 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39d) Student Survey Results from Fantasy Unit, Grade 5 . . . . . . .40

Appendix 5: Guided Reading Evaluation Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Table of Contents

iv RESEARCH REPORT: Guided Reading Strategies to Improve Students’ Critical Thinking Skills in Grades Three, Four and Five

1RESEARCH REPORT: Guided Reading Strategies to Improve Students’ Critical Thinking Skills in Grades Three, Four and Five

THE RESEARCHERS

Four teachers from St. Olivier School collaborated on this project. Lori, theGrade Three teacher, had seventeen years of teaching experience; Jocelyn, theStudent Services teacher and Resource Based Learning Consultant, had eight yearsof teaching experience along with eight years of experience as a librarian; Lorrie,the Grade Five teacher, had eight years of teaching experience; and Sherrill, theGrade Four teacher, had five years of teaching experience. The total number ofyears of teaching experience was 38 years. This was their first action researchproject.

THE LEARNING COMMUNITY

The students involved in the project attended St. Olivier School in Radville, a smallrural community of about 900 people located about 70 kilometers south ofRegina, Saskatchewan. There was a total population of 110 students at thebeginning of the 2006/2007 school year. There were 16 students in the GradeThree class, 11 students in the Grade Four class, and 14 students in the GradeFive class. For the last five years, instruction occurred in the alternate-four dayschool week format with a total of 197 instructional days.

In the past, the researchers had collaborated on implementing new curriculum,teaching library skills and computer skills, and doing Literature Circles, as well asworking on GrassRoots projects in Math, Science, and Social Studies designed tointegrate technology into the curriculum.

Full support to collaborate on this project, in order to develop students’ literacy andthinking skills, was provided by both our Director of Education and our schoolprincipal.

FIGURE 1. SCHOOL LOGO.

Introduction

2 RESEARCH REPORT: Guided Reading Strategies to Improve Students’ Critical Thinking Skills in Grades Three, Four and Five

WHAT WAS THE INSPIRATION AND CONTEXT FOR

THIS PROJECT?The idea for this research project came about as a result of other research that wasbeing conducted both provincially and division-wide. At the provincial level inSaskatchewan, results of the 2005 AFL Reading Assessment: Holy Family RCSSD140 – Grade Five Report indicated that students’ inferencing skills were lower thanother reading skills.

According to page 1 of the report,

The purpose of the 2005 Assessment for Learning Project is togather data about student reading proficiency that school divisionsmay use for improving student learning.

A closer look at the “Detailed Item Analysis” from the “Multiple-choice TestResults” on pages 14 and 15 revealed specific areas in which students experienceddifficulty at the inferential level. The table below was created for this report, in theorder the items were presented.

Type of Text Reading Skill Student Success Rate in Percent

Poetic drawing inferences 63Persuasive drawing inferences 69

drawing inferences, interpreting 31Visual/Technical recognizing the overall message 69

interpreting vocabulary from context 50interpreting figurative language 56using background information 50

Procedural using background knowledge 44Informative using background knowledge 69

synthesizing information 13interpreting figurative language 6

Narrative drawing inferences 63drawing inferences about a character 50making predictions 25

Figure 1. Results on Multiple-choice Questions at the Inferential Level, Grade 5.

Results on the multiple-choice questions ranged from 6% to 69% correct.Interpreting figurative language, synthesizing information, making predictions, usingbackground knowledge, drawing inferences about a character, and interpretingvocabulary from context had a particularly low success rate with students of 50%or less correct. The type of text students read appeared to have an impact on theamount of inferring they could do, since the results tended to be higher onsome types than others.

Background


RESEARCH AT THE DIVISION LEVEL

Within the Holy Family School Division, two other action research projects werealready underway. Sheila Dosch at St. Mary’s School in Estevan was investigatingGuided Reading to Improve Reading Instruction in a Grade One Classroom while agroup of primary teachers, from across the division, were involved in Kindergartento Grade Three: Improved Literacy Success Through Assessment and Evaluation.Both focused on improving students’ literacy outcomes. The goal of the Holy FamilySchool Division’s Kindergarten to Grade Three Reading Initiative was that 95% ofstudents would be reading at grade level or higher by the end of Grade Three,starting with the Kindergarten class of 2005/2006.

As a result, the following question was posed:

How could further research be used to help improve students’comprehension levels, particularly higher level thinking skills, giventhe results of the 2005 AFL Reading Assessment, and within theframework of the other research being conducted within the schooldivision?

GATHERING TEACHER SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT

In March of 2006 the Student Services teacher started gathering professionalreading and training materials on Guided Reading and critical thinking. The ideaof doing a project was discussed with teachers following the 2006 Term 2reporting period, when the Student Services teacher met individually with eachteacher to follow-up student needs after report cards. The interest and support fromteachers in Grades Three, Four and Five was very positive. A research question wasformulated and a proposal submitted to the Dr. Stirling McDowell Foundation bythe end of March.


How can Guided Reading strategies be used to improve students’critical thinking skills in Grades Three, Four and Five?

PURPOSE AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The researchers collaborated in order to identify the best Guided Readingstrategies available to improve student-learning outcomes in a variety of subjectareas. The objective of this action research project was to help fill in some of thegaps identified by the Grade Five provincial reading assessment (2005) bydeveloping students’ critical thinking skills in Grades Three, Four and Fivethrough explicit teaching of Guided Reading strategies. The project was intendedto be both data-driven and student-centered and was designed both to informteaching practices and to develop students’ higher-level comprehension skills.

By deepening students’ involvement and understanding of what they were readingand providing lots of opportunities to practice the strategies, it was hoped thatstudents would never respond to a question with “I don’t know”; instead they wouldthink critically, choose one of the wide varieties of strategies at their disposal andrespond positively.

Research Question


WHAT IS GUIDED READING?Guided Reading is a direct method of teaching employed with a small group ofstudents to explicitly teach a variety of reading strategies through teachermodeling and student practice using materials at the independent level.

The researchers identified the following questions about Guided Reading:

• What did the literature say about using Guided Reading strategies toteach higher level thinking skills at these specific grade levels?

• What had already been done?

• What still remained to be done?

• What ideas could be implemented with students at St. Olivier School?

A review of the literature began with an online search, during Easter break of 2006.Thanks to a National Library Week Trial, whole ranges of educational databasesfrom Thomson Gale were available to search. A huge body of literature wasavailable. Several attempts to redefine the search terms, and narrow the search ledto some valuable hits.

Specifically, a bibliography entitled, Reading Comprehension Instructional Strategies– Elementary Level, compiled by Kyong-Jee Kim, a Reference Specialist with theERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English and Communication, proved an excellentstarting point. Of particular interest from this bibliography were the results of twoMaster’s action research projects that helped us to answer the question about whathad been done already.

The first project, Improving students’ inferential and literal reading comprehension(1999), involved third, fourth, and fifth grade students from the mid-western UnitedStates. The project’s literature review emphasized:

• allowing students a choice of reading materials to increase motivation, • the use of teacher read-alouds,• the use of a K-W-L chart to help students activate prior knowledge and

connect to new knowledge, • the use of self-monitoring questions before, during, and after reading, and • the use of Literary Circles and story maps.

The researchers, Fabrikant, Siekierski and Williams (1999), also identified someprobable causes as to why students had low literal and low inferencing skills,including:

• both parents work,• students have less time to read for enjoyment,• poor motivation, • students experience failure by trying to read material above their reading

level,

Literature Review


• poor word recognition skills, • limited vocabulary, • failure to activate prior knowledge, • limited life experiences, and• difficulty communicating thoughts.

They collected data from teacher observations and results from the Starstandardized test. A 16-week intervention program that built on previouslytaught skills was created. Direct teaching of specific strategies included teachingReading five days a week in 60 to 90 minute blocks. Strategies included:

• activation of prior knowledge, • teaching inferential thinking skills, • use of Direct Reading Thinking Activity (D.R.T.A.), • use of Question Answer Relationship (Q.A.R.), • use of Self-Monitoring questions, and• use of Literary Circles.

The Accelerated Reader program was also implemented along with the incentiveof eating dessert with the teacher, after reading goals had been met.

In their literature review the researchers quoted Dole, Duffy, Pearson and Roehler(1990) from Technical Report No. 143, Developing expertise in readingcomprehension: what should be taught? How should it be taught? from the Centerfor the Study of Reading at the University of Illinois, as saying,

Despite the persistent conventional wisdom that implicitly argues fordelaying giving children inferential activities until they havemastered literal comprehension, both basic and applied research inreading clearly support a strong emphasis on inferential activitiesfrom the outset of instruction (p. 14, quoted in Fabrikant, Siekierskiand Williams 1999, p. 26).

Fabrikant, Siekierski and Williams found that both the students’ instructionalreading levels as well as their grade equivalent scores increased with directteaching. Students’ intrinsic motivation to read also improved.

The other action research project that we found of special interest was Increasingreading comprehension through the use of Guided Reading (Anderson, O’Leary,Schuler and Wright 2002). Anderson, O’Leary, Schuler and Wright implementedGuided Reading with first grade to fourth grade students in four different schoolsin the mid-western United States. When the teachers were surveyed, and thestudents were tested with the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (1989) and end ofselection (story) tests, the researchers found students’ reading comprehension wasweak, and there was inconsistent use of fall and spring reading tests, and end ofselection (story) testing.

A Guided Reading program was implemented in 30-minute blocks, 5 days a weekfor 4 months. The specific format used during lessons was:

• introduce the story, and any new vocabulary,• read the story independently, and • discuss and respond to the story.


Students were taught how to use graphic organizers to record the main character,the setting, the problem, the solution, and the resolution of a story. Afterwards,students were given end of selection (story) tests and their reading comprehensionskills were measured with the Qualitative Reading Inventory (1995) in second andthird grade. Anderson, O’Leary, Schuler, and Wright concluded that consistent useof graphic organizers, and an effective Guided Reading program increasedstudents’ comprehension skills.

Several journal articles also shed some light on other ways to improve readingcomprehension using higher level thinking skills. Ketch (2005) argued thatconversation can be a vehicle to practice and learn comprehension skills. Inresearch conducted on proficient readers, seven common strategies that goodreaders use to comprehend text were identified:

• making connections to the text, the world, and oneself,• questioning as one reads,• using mental imagery to make a movie in one’s mind,• determining importance,• inferring,• retelling and synthesizing, and• employing fix-up strategies to correct and monitor meaning.

Explicit modeling of the strategies, authentic student discussions, practice andstudent reflection time, Ketch noted, helped students “to build empathy,understanding, respect for different opinions, and ownership of the learningprocess.”

Five common formats used for classroom conversations were: 1) whole group, 2)small group, 3) Literature Circles, 4) think/pair/share, and 5) individualconferences between teachers and students.

After over 30 years observing students using the strategies, Ketch came to thefollowing conclusion: Students actively engaged in the conversation processcan, over time, become reflective critical thinkers.

Applegate, Quinn and Applegate (2002) promoted the idea of creating thoughtfulliteracy by studying different kinds of open-ended questions, and thinkinglevels used on eight of the most widely used informal reading inventories (IRIs).Four types of open-ended questions were classified: literal, low-level inference, high-level inference, and response items. Two narrative passages and comprehensionquestions from pre-primer through sixth grade were analyzed. Narrative passageswere used because the researchers felt that “higher-level items are more likely tobe found in response to narrative text.”

The researchers were particularly interested in what type of message the kind ofquestions asked on IRIs conveyed to students about reading. They found that mostof the questions on IRIs (91%) were recall or low-level inferences. On the mostdemanding IRIs, less than a fifth of the questions required more than basicrecall or low-level thinking. The researchers argued,

If the IRIs that we use to assess children are insensitive to thedifferences between recalling and thinking about text, our ability toprovide evidence of any given child’s instructional needs, let alonehave an impact upon instruction, is severely limited.


The researchers called for an assessment revolution in reading, with a need for theassessment and teaching of thoughtful responses to text in classrooms, rather thanliteral ones. Approaches such as Literature Circles and response journals withmodeling were recommended to promote thoughtful literacy. They concluded that,

Open-ended questions can take the reading teacher wheremultiple-choice items cannot: to the children’s ability to use theirexperiences to construct meaning in response to text.

Primeaux (2000) studied the use of explicit reader response instruction with ninesixth grade struggling readers in one mid-west middle school, using a socialconstructivist approach. Simply stated, in this approach, learners’ strengths wereemphasized; the approach was student-centered; students learned throughinteraction with others in the environment; and assessment was designed to informinstruction.

In the study, three components were emphasized: 1) a responsive literaryenvironment, 2) the use of explicit comprehension strategy instruction, and 3) timespent engaged with text.

Primeaux quoted from an article by Anderson, Wilson, and Fielding (1988),“Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school,” ReadingResearch Quarterly, 23: “Time spent reading books has been found to be the bestpredictor of a child’s growth as a reader from second to the fifth grade” (p. 540).

In Primeaux’s study, comprehension strategies included pre-reading, during-reading, and post-reading strategies. A core set of these strategies for any grade levelor ability included:

For narrative text,

• VCR or movie in your head strategy,• story retell where students rewind their mind tapes for retelling, after

reading,• fall into a book and walk around with the characters,• the characters fall out of a book and walk around with you, and• use of story maps, and

For expository text,

• setting a purpose,• building on what you know,• wondering silently, and• putting it all together.

Primeaux recommended that:

• teaching strategies be taught the way they are used, rather than as asequence of steps;

• all teachers in a school use the same terminology, • Reading class be extended from 38 minutes of instruction to a 76

minute Language Arts block, and • students be taught to identify their reading interests.


The researcher discovered that “[t]he sixth-grade struggling readers involved inopen-ended reader response instruction actually found it easier and moreinteresting than their previous reading instruction, which sought one predeterminedright answer” (p. 540).

Within a social constructivist approach, Primeaux discovered there were manyopportunities to help struggling readers comprehend text.

Pitts (1991) pointed out that functional illiteracy is a pervasive problem inAmerican society and with many changes to educational programs and services,the onus has been placed on classroom teachers to create a nation of readers.Using classroom examples from fourth to eleventh grade, and documentation fromleading reading specialists, Pitts called for a shift in instruction. Sevenstraightforward strategies were recommended:

1) Teach students how to use a textbook by brainstorming, and discussing thevarious parts, before reading,

2) Teach background vocabulary, use warm-up drills to teach students howto spell key content area words, and review them daily,

3) Prepare study guides with inquiry-type questions to help studentsunderstand content area subjects,

4) Teach students how to adjust their reading pace, (read to skim, analyze, orread for details) depending on the text,

5) Teach students to summarize content in their own language,

6) Teach students to outline using the main idea, and supporting details, and

7) Teach students to read about different disciplines in their recreationalreading, and to share what they learn at school.

According to Pitts, “Comprehension is the nucleus of learning.” She summarizedher findings by indicating that effective use of these strategies can aidcomprehension, enhance vocabulary, and promote critical thinking.

Block (1993) wrote about the effects of a program designed to improve thinkingstrategies, reading comprehension achievement, self-esteem, and criticalthinking abilities. Based on the work of Baron and Sternberg; Beyer; Collins; deBono; Marzano, Jones and Brandt; and Paul, eight categories were identified. Theywere:

1) basic cognitive operations,2) fundamental thinking processes,3) decision-making strategies,4) problem-solving strategies,5) metacognitive strategies,6) creative thinking strategies,7) strategies for working effectively with groups, and 8) strategies for studying and working.

Sixteen lessons, based on these strategies, were designed to explicitly teachKindergarten through eleventh grade students in several schools in the south-western United States for 1 1/2 hours a day, 2 days a week, for 32 weeks,throughout the school year.


After a teacher explanation and modeling of a thinking and reading comprehensionstrategy, students selected children’s literature from eight genres (fiction, nonfiction,poetry, autobiographies, biographies, folk literature, periodicals, and sciencefiction) in order to read and apply the strategy. Students were given one-pagethinking guides to put on their desks as they read. The guides had a chart and adiagram of a thinking strategy. Students discussed how to use the thinking guidewhile reading and in their own lives. Finally, students set their own readingobjectives and self-assessed their use of the strategy, and how they could apply itoutside school.

The 178 students involved in the study did better than the 174 controls on readingcomprehension standardized tests, on transferring thinking strategies outside ofschool, as well as on self-esteem, and on critical and creative thinking measures.

Block recommended concentrating on 4 or 5 strategies so students could becomemasters of them, teaching a strategy in a Language Arts block, and thencontinuing strategy instruction with a Science or Social Studies text later in the day.

Making predictions was the strategy, promoted in an article by Blevins (1990),to enhance students’ reading comprehension. He recommended:

• providing explicit instruction about how, when, and why the strategy canbe used,

• modeling by using a think-aloud, allowing for practice, and havingstudents articulate their use of the strategy,

• asking probing questions, before reading,• using story maps for fiction, and• using lists of main ideas so students can fill in supporting details for non-

fiction.

One source discussed the use of specific anchor lessons and teacher modelingto teach young children to infer, based on the work of Keene and Zimmerman(1997) in Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader’s workshop,published by Heinemann. The source was Reading with meaning: Teachingcomprehension in the primary grades by Miller (2002). Through direct instruction,students were taught how to:

• infer meanings of unknown words,• make predictions, confirm or contradict them by reading on,• use prior knowledge, text, and picture clues to draw conclusions,• infer the meaning of poetry,• know when to infer (when the answers they need are not stated in the

text),• ask questions as they read,• create interpretations to enrich and deepen their experience in a text, and• make connections to their own lives to enhance understanding.

Specific examples were given of multi-column charts, which were frequentlyused in the classroom:

• a word – what we infer – what helped us,• our predictions – and the thinking behind them,


• a poem, on one side – what the words mean, on the other side – I’minferring. . ., below, as well as

• questions we have – answers to these questions.

Many student writing and drawing samples were used effectively to demonstratehow primary students could be taught to infer.

COMMON THEMES IN THE LITERATURE

As researchers, we asked ourselves:

• What common themes appeared in the literature on comprehension andcritical thinking instruction?

• Which strategies were the most effective?

According to Bird (1989), who was concerned about the ability of university andcommunity college students to think critically, “In the area of critical thinking andcomprehension, there exists no single approach to student mastery” (p. 745).

However, a lot of common themes were evident in this literature review. Many ofthe approaches involved the use of before reading, during reading, and after readingactivities. Instruction was explicit. The teacher modeled the strategy. Students weretaught when and how to use the strategy, and were also given opportunities topractice and reflect on their use of the strategy. Instruction was also student-centered. Reading materials were at the students’ reading levels and based onstudents’ interests. Critical thinking skills were used to engage students inreading, writing, listening, and discussions about their ideas.

As far as the teaching of specific strategies is concerned, several strategies cameup repeatedly in the literature. The most effective ones that improved students’reading comprehension and critical thinking skills appeared to be:

• visualizing or making a movie in one’s mind,

• teaching background vocabulary,

• using graphic organizers (story maps, in particular),

• using Literature Circles,

• questioning when reading,

• making connections with the characters,

• retelling, and

• teaching inferring.

From a practical point of view, the frequency and duration of the instruction variedconsiderably. The length of instruction varied from 30 minutes at a time up to a76 minute block, from two to five days a week, and from four months to all year.


PARENTAL CONSENT

The researchers wrote a letter to inform parents of students in Grades Three, Fourand Five about their intent to conduct an action research project on GuidedReading (see Appendix 1). The letter also reassured parents that the results forindividual students would be kept confidential. The information was sharedwith parents at an Open House, early in September 2006. Parents were also askedto sign a permission form to release student work and to allow photographs of theirchild(ren) to be taken (see Appendix 2). The letter and permission form were senthome to any parents who were unable to attend the Open House. Parentalsupport was unanimous. Interestingly enough, one high school teacher commentedthat if the researchers were able to teach students to infer, she would like us toshare that information since she was trying to teach the same skills to middle yearsstudents. Her comment raised the question:

If students are taught how to infer now, will they be able to later on,when the material is more difficult?

RESEARCHER TRAINING

As researchers, how did we begin the process of learning about Guided Readingstrategies? The researcher-training portion of the project had five main components:

1) studying specific strategies used to teach Guided Reading in the professionalliterature,

2) viewing and discussing a training video on using Guided Reading strategies,

3) visiting other teachers who successfully use Guided Reading in theirclassrooms to enhance critical thinking,

4) keeping reflective journals to document insights about Guided Reading, and

5) sharing key findings with the other researchers during regular meetingsthroughout the project.

After the Student Services teacher gathered resources and previewed professionalvideos, the researchers met for training in late September of 2006. The purposesof the training were to learn more about what Guided Reading is, identify some ofthe key strategies available, and determine practical ways to use the strategies inthe classroom. An education student from the University of Regina, Jessica LaPointe, also attended the training session. The researchers met outside theschool at a local church and watched an informative video, Instructional strategiesfor Guided Reading that enhance students’ reading comprehension, Grades 3-6(2002). The accompanying resource guide served as the basis for discussion.

The video presented six instructional strategies:

• I wonder, • good reader strategies, and• the keyword strategy on Tape 1, as well as• making it real,

Research Methodology


• word sorts, and• anticipation guides on Tape 2.

Uses of the strategies were demonstrated using a variety of fiction and non-fictiontexts. Linda Hoyt effectively emphasized that reading is thinking and showed howthe strategies could be utilized to improve reading comprehension by stimulatingdeeper, more critical thinking.

During the viewing, the researchers stopped the tapes, made notes, discussed eachof the strategies, and began to consider which ones they would implement in theirclassrooms. Several questions were raised:

• How are students grouped for Guided Reading? • How does it work when siblings of different ages read at similar levels? • What are other students doing while the teacher is working with a

group? • How are quieter students involved in the discussions? • What materials are used? • How can enough copies of reading materials be made available?

BENCHMARKS

Students were given the Star test in August 2006 to help determine their readinglevels and grade equivalents. Testing occurred again before each of the reportingperiods in November, February/March, and May to follow up these initialbenchmarks.

STRATEGY INSTRUCTION

Explicit teaching of the strategies was the next focus of the research project. Afterthe researcher training, each researcher chose to focus on selected strategies thatwould best meet the needs of her students and fit with the work in the units beingtaught in the classroom. The individual approach each researcher took wasdiscussed and compared during reflection meetings. Highlights were as follows.

THE TEACHING APPROACH IN GRADE THREE

In the Grade Three classroom, the researcher used a variety of strategies tobring the written word alive. I wonder… was used across the curriculum, eitherbefore reading, during reading or after reading. Students completed this sentencestem by recording their responses. The strategy became routine throughout the daywhether it was during read-aloud by the teacher or in Science class.

The Keyword strategy was used to teach students to identify key words orphrases. It was especially useful when students were reading Science-relatedinformation sheets or doing Math story problems. Students were asked tohighlight key words or phrases after reading the information over once or twice.

Another strategy the researcher focused on was teaching students to visualize thewritten word in their minds. A poster was displayed in each classroom to remindstudents to read and then to stop and make a picture. The novel, Owls in theFamily, was read chapter by chapter to the students. After listening and reading


the chapter, students illustrated a scene from it (see Appendix 4a: Imagery withOwls in the Family). The novel was brought to life. Students enjoyed illustrating anevent from the chapter, and the book became very real to them. Every student wasable to complete this task; artistic ability did not matter. As visualizing continuedthroughout the year, students became very adept at making pictures in theirminds. It was a valuable reading comprehension strategy to make the written wordbecome real.

Figure 2. Visualizing poster used by the researchers.

After seeing the leveled books available through subscriptions from the web site,Reading a-z, used for Guided Reading, the Grade Three researcher used thestories, lesson plans, worksheets including story maps, and the Reader QuickCheck with the Grade Three class as a whole, instead of using them with smallgroups. An Educational Assistant helped prepare the materials. The students foundthe books and the variety of accompanying activities interesting and fun to do.Students completed these activities easily and independently. The Reader QuickCheck was an excellent instrument for assessing reading comprehension includinghigher level thinking skills such as inferencing and synthesizing. These printablebooks and teaching materials were a very successful addition to a folktale unit.


THE TEACHING APPROACH IN GRADE FOUR

Direct Guided Reading instruction was the focus for a novel study on Stone fox byJohn Reynolds Gardiner (1980). Students participated in a variety of activitiesdesigned to promote higher level thinking skills from Literature and criticalthinking, Book 1 by John Carratello. Students read up to Chapters 5 and 6, andthen did an activity about being a responsible person. In the novel, they learnedthat the main character had many responsibilities so then the students had toconnect the book to their own lives. Students had to think of how and in whatways they were responsible. They also had to write if they thought they could carefor their Grandpa like the character Little Willy had to and answer why or why not.Then they had to think of five ways that they could earn $500, like Little Willy. Theideas had to be real ways and not “make-believe.” The students also had to writea prediction of whom they thought would win the big race, and what theythought would happen. Then they read the book to find out. Afterwards, theywatched the video, Stone Fox. Students recorded the similarities and differencesbetween the book and the video.

Students reading the novel, Stone Fox, Grade 4.

After reading, the Grade Four students filled in a Literature Log. This pageincluded the following stems: the best part was…, the worst part was…, the mainproblem was…, problem was solved when…, my favorite character was…, my leastfavorite character was…, I laughed when…, and I cried when….

Following the novel study, the Grade Four students’ comprehension levels wereassessed on the computer in a variety of ways. Students did an Accelerated Readerquiz with ten questions on the novel to help measure their basic comprehensionskills. Then they did a Vocabulary quiz, and something new – a Literacy Skills quiz.The Vocabulary test had five multiple-choice type questions on the meaning of avariety of words from the novel. On the Literacy skills quiz, students were askedto answer 12 questions. There were four categories on the Stone Fox Literacy Skillsquiz, each with three questions:

1) initial understanding,2) literacy analysis,3) inferential comprehension, and4) constructing meaning.


Inferential comprehension included comparing and contrasting, drawingconclusions, extending meaning, making inferences, making predictions, andrecognizing cause and effect. This was the first time a class at St. Olivier Schoolhad done a Literacy Skills quiz. Questions went beyond basic recall to challengestudents to think more deeply. The Class Summary Report provided usefulinformation that will be discussed in the Data Summary section of this report.

Computer assessment of Grade 4 students with Literacy quizzes.

THE STUDENT SERVICES TEACHER’S APPROACH IN GRADE FOUR

To begin with, students were told that the researcher’s goal, at the beginning of theyear, was to teach them how to think. Throughout the year, visualizing by makingmind movies, the use of a variety of graphic organizers, the application of the Iwonder… and I think… strategies, direct instruction on inferring using text and visualclues, and many opportunities to practice the strategies paved the way for theimplementation of a researcher-made Guided Reading unit at the end of the year.

Students participated in a seven-week unit: Meet the Canadian Author andIllustrator, C. J. Taylor. Guided Reading occurred in 30-minute periods four timesa week. The Star test, and results from informal reading inventories were used todetermine students’ reading levels and to create three reading groups: theWarriors, the White Buffalos, and the Wigwams. Picture cards based on thelegends students would be reading were posted on the whiteboard to indicate whatgroups students were in, and what their daily tasks were.

INSERT PHOTO #3

Students involved in a small Guided Reading group on Nativelegends, Grade 4.


HOW WOULD STUDENTS REACT TO BEING GROUPED ACCORDING TO ABILITY?

The researcher explained what kinds of books and the specific kinds of activitiesstudents would be doing. For example, the Warriors were students who liked longerchapter books with challenging vocabulary and who created more detailed kindsof writing. The White Buffalos read shorter books including a few collections ofcreation stories with some new words; they enjoyed shorter writing tasks. TheWigwams were those students who liked reading a short story, learning a few newwords, and who were capable of writing good answers with fewer details. Thestudents readily accepted these explanations, and they were keen to get started.

HOW COULD STUDENTS BE MOTIVATED TO THINK CRITICALLY AT THE END OF THE

DAY? WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO STAY ON TASK IN THEIR GROUPS, AND AT TIMES

WORK INDEPENDENTLY?

Because the Guided Reading groups were small, the materials for this unitconsisted of picture books borrowed from the Public Library system. Students weregiven books to read at their independent level, ranging from Grade 3.3 to 5.9. Thepaintings on the covers were very appealing. Checklists were created for each legendso students could self-monitor the tasks they had completed. Tasks weredeveloped for before, during and after reading. These tasks provided opportunitiesfor lots of discussion, vocabulary building, writing answers to higher-levelquestions, and creating products such as songs, drawings, and puppet plays.

Several graphic organizers were used including:

• a K-W-L chart to gather information about C. J. Taylor,• pictures with lines for quick writes to determine students’ background

knowledge,• prediction and confirmation charts,• Venn diagrams and charts to compare characters, and• webs to categorize kinds of legends.

Questioning included a limited number of basic recall-type questions. Instead, theresearcher focused on more open-ended questions and posed several kinds ofhigher-level questions that encouraged students to:

• make predictions by giving evidence from the text and picture clues,• relate legends to their own experience, • apply what they had learned about a character to their own lives,• raise questions as they read,• identify the author’s message,• determine meaning by reading and writing words in context,• draw conclusions at the end of the legends, • evaluate favorite legends and paintings, and• answer lots of why do you think… questions.

This line of questioning kept students interested and challenged. Discussions werelively and students had to think more critically. The researcher took turnsworking with each group, and observations were recorded.


Each group read three legends, and took Accelerated Reader tests on the books,when available, at the end of the activities. The unit concluded with a lunchfeaturing First Nations food. Some students retold a few of the legends they hadread by performing puppet shows on the last day of school for students inGrades One through Three. Students in the audience were asked to infer what theauthor’s message was at the end of each legend. Each legend was well received bythe audience.

THE TEACHING APPROACH IN GRADE FIVE

Instruction started with a fantasy themed unit in English Language Arts. ALiterature Circle approach with small manageable groups with students eachreading at their levels, performing critical and creative thinking tasks, andanswering inferential questions was used. Novels included Tuck everlasting byNatalie Babbitt (1975), A stranger came ashore (1975) by Mollie Hunter, publishedby Harper Trophy, and Allison’s ghost by Canadian authors Mary Alice andJohn Downie (1984). Sentence stems from an English Language Arts workshopwere enlarged, reproduced and laminated. Color-coding was used for before,during, and after reading activities. Cards were made for each of the researchersto use with any English Language Arts unit (see Appendix 3 for a detailed list ofthe sentence stems). Students also used response journals to record I wonder…,I think…, and to draw a picture or make notes about their reading under a sectioncalled, “My Space.”

The Grade Five researcher engages a Literature Circle group withsentence stem cards.

The Grade Five researcher continued to develop students’ critical and creativethinking and inferencing skills in a variety of areas across the curriculumbeginning with a cross-curricular Heroes unit. Students did four lessons from thebook, Heroes: 21 true stories of courage and honor – with exercises for developingreading comprehension and critical thinking skills (1999) by Henry Billings andMelissa Billings from Jamestown Publishers.

According to Heroes, “When you combine your own experience and informationfrom a text to draw a conclusion that is not directly stated in that text, you aremaking an inference” (p.58).

Students practiced making inferences by:

• identifying cause and effect relationships, theme categories, predictions,as well as fact and opinion,


• identifying the main idea of each story, • recalling details, • working with new vocabulary, • summarizing and paraphrasing, • responding to critical thinking exercises, • raising questions, and • making personal responses to learn about heroes.

In English Language Arts, a Guided Reading approach was employed using shortstories, poetry, and essays on Canadian and world heroes.

In Social Studies, students learned about Canadian War Heroes/RemembranceDay by reading and responding to several information cards from Lest we forget,grades 4-6 (2000) by Ruth Solski, published by S & S Learning Materials.

In Guidance, students made personal reflections on the Stations of the Cross anddrew posters to represent each station.

In Mathematics, personal dictionaries were used to help students understandvocabulary, and problem solving duotangs were created to help students thinkmore critically. Students did the Written Assessment Task, Understanding theProblem on pages 77 through 83 of Alberta Education’s Diagnostic mathematicsprogram: elementary: division II: problem solving (1990). This assessment includeddetermining what information was not needed to solve problems and answeringa variety of multiple-choice questions about tables, charts, signs, diagrams, andword problems. Students also made their own tables, lists, pictures, and diagrams,or used guess and check to answer problems from The Problem Solver 3: Activitiesfor Learning Problem-Solving Strategies (1987) by Shirley Hoogeboom and JudyGoodnow, published by Creative Publications.

SCHOOL VISIT

In January 2007, three of the researchers, armed with questions, visited SacredHeart, an inner-city school in Regina, to observe a highly successful GuidedReading program in action. The program was intensive and involved all of thestudents in Kindergarten to Grade Eight. The program was facilitated by 18dedicated teachers and three educational assistants and occurred four days a week.Benchmarking was conducted three times a year. Students were groupedaccording to their reading levels and expected to improve one reading level per term.Reading materials consisted of benchmarking tools, books, and activity sheetsdownloaded from the Reading a-z website. The enthusiasm of all the participantswas clearly evident.


Sacred Heart Community School, Regina, Saskatchewan taken byLorraine Brecht.Reprinted with permission.

After observing Guided Reading at Sacred Heart, the researchers met with two ofthe teachers to get answers to any remaining questions. Seeing first-hand how aGuided Reading program using multi-grade groupings was conducted was aninvaluable experience. Practical ideas about how to implement it were gathered andcontinued enthusiasm for the project was generated.

ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION

Students’ comprehension and thinking skills were assessed in a variety of ways.Computerized assessment included the Star test to identify instructional levels andgrade equivalent scores, Accelerated Reader quizzes to measure basicunderstanding of the books read, and Literacy quizzes to measure higher-levelthinking skills including inferring. Both types of quiz had multiple-choicequestions.

We also assessed students’ daily work, i.e., their writing, which included story mapsand other graphic organizers, responses to written questions, response journals,and interviews, their speaking skills in discussions, oral reading, and retellings, andtheir representational skills in artwork. A Guided Reading Evaluation checklist wasalso created (see Appendix 5).

Student self-assessment included a Fantasy Unit survey in Grade Five (seeAppendix 4d), and a Looking Back at the Unit sheet to evaluate the Guided Readingunit on Native legends in Grade Four.


STUDENT INTERVIEWS

WHAT WAS THE STUDENT SAMPLE LIKE? WHAT WERE THE

STUDENTS’ INTERESTS? HOW DID THEY SEE THEMSELVES AS

READERS? HOW DID THE GRADE THEY WERE IN AFFECT THEIR

PERCEPTIONS?In September 2006, the students in Grades Three, Four and Five were given theStudent Interview, Kindergarten – Fourth Grade from The Critical reading inventory(2004) to gather some background information, including students’ perceptions ofthemselves as readers. Students wrote their responses on an interview sheet. Ananalysis of their responses followed, and the results are summarized below.

There was an even balance of boys and girls in the sample, with a total of 22 boys(one boy moved before the March 2007 reading assessment) and 21 girls.

Reading was the students’ third favorite home activity, rated below watching TVand playing on the computer. Students explained that they like reading at homebecause “the book is interesting, reading teaches you stuff, I’m good at reading, Ilike reading because it’s exciting, and I relax.”

The number of students who were read to at home dropped as the students gotolder. The majority of Grade Three students were read to at bedtime, while themajority of Grade Four and Five students were not. While it was parents who readto most of the Grade Three students, a grandparent read to several of thestudents, and a brother or sister read to a few.

Whether students liked to read or not depended on the grade they were in. Themajority of students in Grade Three and Four liked to read, while only about halfthe students in Grade Five liked to read.

There was a wide range of favorite books and authors that depended on the gradestudents were in. The most popular books in Grade Three were the Magic TreeHouse series and Junie B. Jones; in Grade Four students preferred fantasy,animal stories, and books by Lemony Snicket; and J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potterbooks were the favorites in Grade Five.

The students’ perceptions of themselves as good readers varied according tograde. The majority of Grade Three and Four students saw themselves as goodreaders, while the Grade Five students were split as to whether they sawthemselves as good readers or not.

According to the majority of the students, no matter what grade they were in, thehardest part of reading was reading words that were hard or long. Otherdifficulties listed were taking an Accelerated Reader test, finding the perfectbook, understanding a book, the fine print in a book, pages that are too long, andthe middle of a book. Several students indicated that nothing about reading washard for them.

Summary of Data


When students were asked what they do when they come to a word they do notknow, they gave a variety of responses. The majority of students indicated theysound the word out. This response was followed by those who ask someone forhelp, usually an adult and sometimes a friend, those who re-read the samesentence, those who tried their best; those who split the word into groups or brokeit up, those who looked at the word, those who thought, and those who keptreading or skipped the word. The Grade Five students tended to list morestrategies for dealing with unfamiliar words than the younger students.

When students were asked where they got the books they read at home, most ofthem recorded the school library as their source of books. Other popular responseswere classroom book orders, gifts, stores, a bookshelf at home, siblings, and laston the list, the public library, which was mentioned by only a few students.

When students were asked what they liked most about school, reading wasamong the top five things listed, regardless of the grade the students were in.

The majority of students in all three grades thought that reading would beimportant when they were older. However, several students in Grade Three and Fivethought that it would not be important. A few students responded to thisquestion with “maybe,” “sometimes” or “a little.”

INFORMAL READING INVENTORY RESULTS

How did the students perform on the informal reading inventories? What was the baseline data like?

Did results vary due to any of the following:

• When the passage was administered?• Who administered the passage?• The student’s gender?• The student’s grade level?• How the passage was read?• The difficulty of the passage?• The kind of passage, i.e., whether it was narrative or informative?

Most important, did the students improve their inferencing skills?

Students’ reading comprehension skills, particularly their inferencing skills, wereassessed through informal reading inventories three times during the course of theproject.

Initially, the researchers decided to use a new assessment, The Critical ReadingInventory (2004), with students as a benchmark in September. Substituteteachers, a Grade Twelve student doing work experience, and an EducationalAssistant administered Word lists and passages. However, after reviewing theresults, the researchers found that the passages were much more difficult than theones used before and they questioned some of the choices in the passages that thestudents were given. Deciding that this approach did not assess the students fairly,the researchers chose to use inventories that were familiar to them instead.


In November, with the support of release time, the researchers administeredinformal reading inventories of their own choosing. Narrative and/or informativepassages from the Basic Reading Inventory (2001) and the Diagnostic Readingprogram (1989) were used. Each passage had a few inferencing questions.Students were reassessed in March and May. Inferring results were graphed tocompare the students’ results in November and May. (See graphs for each gradebelow.)

Note: The sources of the passages were as follows: The Noise – Form B, Johns(2001), Cricket Song – Form D, Johns (2001), A Visit to Earth – 3B-2,Alberta Education (1989), Just One More – 4A-N, Alberta Education(1989) and Jen’s Rotten Day – 4D-N, Alberta Education (1989).

Grade Three students read three narrative passages in November and twonarrative passages in May. The percentage of students who were inferring inNovember improved significantly when the passage was read orally. A total of 88%of the students succeeded in making inferences compared to 38% and 25%when the passage was read silently. The percentage increased to a total of 94% ofstudents making inferences successfully in May on the passage read orally.However, the percentage of students inferring in May rose significantly to 81% onthe passage read silently.


Note: The sources of the passages were as follows: Just One More – 4A-N,Alberta Education (1989), Grizzly Bears – 4D-I, Alberta Education (1989)and Jen’s Rotten Day – 4D-N, Alberta Education (1989).

Grade Four students read a narrative passage in November and both aninformational and a narrative passage in May. Students appeared to experiencedifficulty with an informational passage that was read orally in May, since only 70%of students succeeded on the inferring questions. However, the total percentage ofstudents inferring successfully when narrative passages were read silentlyimproved from 80% in November to 90% in May.

Note: The sources of the passages were as follows: Through the Storm – 5A-N,Alberta Education (1989), Breakaway – 5B-N, Alberta Education (1989),Roller Skating – 5C-I, Alberta Education (1989) and Two Famous Brothers– Form LE I, Johns (2001).


Grade Five students read one informational passage orally in November; and onenarrative passage orally, and two informational passages silently in May. Resultsvaried from a total of 57% of students inferring in November to a total of 86, 50 and86% in May, depending on the passage.

STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS FROM GRADE FIVE

FANTASY UNIT

The results of the survey given to Grade Five students at the end of the Fantasyunit can be summarized as follows. The majority of Grade Five students likedworking in groups, predicting, and sharing their opinions. The response tobefore, during, and after reading cards was mixed. Some students appeared to needmore time and practice to develop their ability to fill in the answers to thesesentence stems. Response journals with writings or drawings appeared to help mostof the students remember or understand what they were reading. It should benoted that Grade Five students’ perceptions of themselves as good readersimproved compared to their perceptions during the student interviews given inSeptember.

COMPUTERIZED TESTING

Students did well on their Accelerated Reader tests after learning Guided Readingstrategies. The tests included novel study books and Native legends. Resultsfrom the Literacy Quiz for the novel, Stone Fox, provided detailed information aboutGrade Four students’ inferring skills, including where the students were successfuland where improvement was needed. These results are shown in the table below.

LITERACY SKILLS QUIZSUMMARY REPORT ON INFERRING SKILLS, GRADE FOURJune 25, 2007

Inferential Comprehension Correct Possible %Comparing and Contrasting 5 5 100Drawing Conclusions 3 4 75Extending Meaning 6 6 100Making Inferences 4 5 80Making Predictions 6 6 100Recognizing Cause and Effect 2 4 50Group Totals 26 30 87


What did the researchers learn from collaborating on this project?

The researchers maintained reflection journals throughout the project. Thefollowing insights are drawn from their unpublished journals for the 2006/2007school year.

• The project proved to me we are good Reading teachers willing to learn newstrategies to improve and build on what we are already doing everyday in ourclassrooms.

• Perhaps our greatest resource for teaching Reading already exists in ourschool… the knowledge that we all have in teaching Reading.

• I do believe that critical and creative thinking can be taught – just to themind that is developed and ready for it.

• Some children were excellent readers; but were not comfortable or confidentin creative or critical thinking. They appeared to be better at learning factualinformation rather than using personal judgment or taking guesses atthings.

• It is important that each teacher collect his/her own data with each childwhen screening the children.

• Having release time to assess students and to meet with the otherresearchers was very beneficial.

• It is time consuming to organize Guided Reading initially – creating units,gathering materials and determining student groupings.

• One highlight of this project was to visit Sacred Heart School in Regina.

• The opportunity to discuss resources, benchmarks, screens, M.I.R. (MajorIntegrated Resources) and assessments was in itself invaluable.

• To see the before, during and after posters hanging in the classroomsand being used was an affirmation of the many years I spent on theSaskatchewan Learning K-5 ELA renewal team.

• Because of the visit, all my fears of how to implement this strategy werealleviated and I have the confidence to immerse my class into it.

• I’m finding resources more readily now.

• The use of technology to measure comprehension skills, and specifically theability to inference was a valuable tool that not only kept the studentsmotivated, and provided immediate feedback; but created diagnosticprintouts that could be used to inform teaching practices as well.

• The kinds of questions I ask now are more open-ended, and encouragestudents to dig deeper, and think more critically.

• The process of learning about the theory of Guided Reading strategieswith the other researchers and implementing a Guided Reading program wasan exciting one.

Researcher Reflections


• Teaching a small class of 11 students originally and then only 10 students,after one moved, was definitely an advantage to pilot a researcher-madeGuided Reading program.

• Teaching students to infer by giving evidence from the text and/or pictureclues when they are young provides a good foundation for the kinds of higherlevel thinking they will be expected to do when they are older.

• Teaching Guided Reading strategies really helped students to develop theirvocabulary skills and to read words in context.

• The opinions students presented during their discussions were interestingand helped them to understand other students’ points of view.

• The more students predicted what would happen next, the more studentslearned to take risks.

• Guided Reading helps the teacher to get to know students on a morepersonal level, especially when students were given lots of opportunities torelate stories to their own experience, and it provided insights into students’successes, interests, fears, etc.

• Some students were better able to relate stories to movies they had seen,rather than to other stories.

• The structure provided by Guided Reading makes teacher expectations veryclear.

• The skill of reading short paragraphs silently in a group needed to betaught to some students who are used to answering a question afterreading aloud as a class.

• Grouping students by their independent reading levels meant everyone inthe class was included and could experience success in Reading.

• This experience has proven to be beneficial not only to myself as aneducator, but also to my students who have experienced growth in theircritical and creative thinking skills due to the exposure of different strategiesand CCT questions across the curriculum.

• Next year, I plan to try and implement small Guided Reading groups in otherthemed units.

• I would like to use the Literacy Quizzes next year for novel studies in myclassroom.

• We can learn from each other, pool our ideas together, discuss what worksand doesn’t work, identify what needs to be changed, and teach kids to readso that they come to love reading and will become hooked on reading.

• This research project has been an excellent learning opportunity, andvery worthwhile.


The use of Guided Reading strategies to teach students to infer and thinkcritically was just one of a multitude of approaches available. The researchers foundthat cross-curricular (Language Arts, Math, Social, Science, and Guidance)critical thinking questions, assignments, and tasks when combined with GuidedReading strategies, could indeed increase students’ critical thinking and inferringskills. In order to be successful, Guided Reading strategies needed to be taughtexplicitly and modeled by the teacher, and the students needed to be given lots ofopportunities to practice them.

The way Guided Reading strategies were taught was very individual, depending onseveral factors:

• the researcher (level of experience, comfort level, and focus of the teachingunits),

• the students (their reading levels, interests, ability to work independently,and skills in cooperative group work),

• classroom organization (what tasks the other students were doing, e.g.,keyboarding, Creative Writing or participating in another Guided Readinggroup),

• the availability of materials (access to multiple copies and books at students’independent reading levels, and availability of computer accessible materials),

• time (a period of at least 30 minutes, more than one day in a row or in ablock of several weeks, and enough time to download, print and assemblebooks), and

• scheduling (overlapping of the timetable or flexible timetabling, particularlywhere teachers wanted to team or co-teach).

It definitely took a lot of time to learn the theory behind Guided Reading and thewide variety of strategies available to implement it, as well as prepare the units andgather, create, and organize the necessary reading materials. The improvement instudent outcomes made the effort worthwhile.

The researchers concluded that this action research project was just a beginningand they were very much in an awareness/exploration phase. They inferredthat their work with Guided Reading strategies would continue in 2007/2008, asthey shared what they had learned with other teachers and continued to apply thestrategies in their teaching practice. They expected to continue building on thisknowledge and applying it in the years ahead.

Conclusions


The research was not without limitations related to the administration of theinformal reading inventories, the timing of the school visit, as well as when and howGuided Reading strategies were taught. These limitations are described in moredetail below.

1) The administration of The Critical Reading Inventory could have been betterhandled. Overall, the researchers were dissatisfied with how the passageswere administered. For instance, difficult questions were not repeated orrephrased, and foreign names were not told to the students. The passageswere much longer than the passages administered in the past, and theretelling portion of the inventory took more time. Students were not askedto expand on their retellings through further questions, such as “thenwhat happened?” or “what else?”

2) The informal reading inventories were not used consistently. The researchersadministered passages from two different inventories (the Diagnostic ReadingProgram and the Basic Reading Inventory) and some used two types ofpassages (narrative and informational), but not consistently. The graphshelped the researchers to see how many passages had been administered,from what reading inventories, and the kinds of passages used.

3) The visit to Sacred Heart School would have been better organized for thefall as planned rather than in January. This timing would have given theresearchers more practical information about teaching Guided Readingstrategies sooner.

4) The Guided Reading Author Study in Grade 4 should have been completedbefore the Star test and the last informal reading inventories wereadministered at the end of May.

5) Two of the researchers used a whole class approach to teaching GuidedReading strategies, while the other two used a small group approach.Multi-grade groupings were not attempted, given the number of siblings thatread at similar levels. Flexible groupings were also not used.

6) Parent questionnaires were not part of the research, as originally planned.Parent reflections would have been a useful way to involve parents more intheir children’s reading and thinking.

Limitations


This action research project led the researchers to formulate the followingrecommendations:

1) That the researchers continue to collaborate by sharing best practices forteaching Guided Reading strategies through Professional LearningCommunities (PLC’s);

2) That provisions continue to be made for teacher release time to allow for theadministration of individual reading assessments;

3) That the researchers share what they have learned from this project withother teachers who teach Grades Three, Four and Five in the Holy FamilyRCSSD, and at the Learning from Practice Exchange of Teacher Knowledgeand Research, sponsored by the McDowell Foundation;

4) That other teachers in the Division be encouraged to use Guided Readingstrategies to help improve student reading outcomes, particularly thedevelopment of higher level thinking skills; and

5) That additional Division-level funding be given to each school thatimplements Guided Reading strategies for the purchase of Guided Readingmaterials, including multiple copies of books for students to use.

Recommendations


Alberta Education. (1989). Diagnostic reading program. Edmonton, AB: AlbertaEducation, Student Evaluation Branch.

Applegate, M. D., Quinn, K. B. & Applegate, A. J. (2004). The critical readinginventory: assessing students’ reading and thinking. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Pearson Education.

Johns, J. L. (2001). Basic reading inventory: Pre-primer through grade twelve andearly literacy assessments (Eighth Edition). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

MacGinitie, W. H. & MacGinitie, R. K. (1989). Gates MacGinitie Reading tests (1989).Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Kim, K-J. (n.d.). Comp. Reading comprehension instructional strategies – elementarylevel. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading. English and Communication.

Block, C. C., & Pressley, M. (Editors). (2002). Comprehension instruction: research-based best practices. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.

Daly, J., Chafouleas, S., & Skinner, C. H. (2005). “Reading comprehension,”Interventions for reading problems: designing and evaluating effectivestrategies. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.

Dole, J. A. “Explicit and implicit instruction in comprehension.” In Taylor, B.M.,Graves, M.F., & Van Den Brock, P. (Eds.) (2000). Reading for meaning. NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press.

Fogarty, R. (1994). The mindful school: How to teach for metacognitive reflection.Palatine, IL: IRI/ Skylight.

Fountas, I. C. & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: good first teaching for allchildren. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Fredericks, A. D. (2001). Guided reading in grades 3-6: 300+ guided readingstrategies, activities, and lesson plans for reading success. Austin, TX:Harcourt Achieve.

Haack, P. (1999). Guided reading to help your students become better readers(Grades 3-6). Bellevue, WA: Bureau of Education & Research.

Herrell, A. L., & Jordan, M. (2006). “Inferences,” 50 strategies for improvingvocabulary, comprehension, and fluency: an active learning approach.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Jamison Rog, L (2003). Guided reading basics: Organizing, managing, andimplementing a balanced literacy program in K-3. Markham, ON: PembrokePublishers.

References

Assessment Tools

Books


McLaughlin, M. & Allen, M. B. (2002). Guided comprehension: A teaching model forgrades 3-8. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Miller, D. (2002). “Inferring,” Reading with meaning: Teaching comprehension in theprimary grades. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Patterson, L., Santa, C. M., Short, K. G., & Smith, K. (1993). Teachers are researchers:reflection and action. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Reithaug, D. (2002). Orchestrating success in reading. West Vancouver, BC:Stirling Head Enterprises.

Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B. (2004). “Improving reading comprehension,”Teaching children to read: putting the pieces together. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Pearson.

Robb, L. (2000). Teaching reading in middle school: a strategic approach to teachingreading that improves comprehension and thinking. New York, NY: Scholastic.

Saunders-Smith, G. (2003). The ultimate guided reading how-to book: buildingliteracy through small-group instruction. Tuscon, Arizona: Zephyr.

Tankersley, K. (2005). “Comprehension” and “Higher-order thinking,” Literacystrategies for grades 4-12: reinforcing the threads of reading. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Widmer, K., & Buxton, S. (2004). Workshops that work! 30 days of mini-lessons thathelp launch and establish all-important routines for an effective reading andwriting workshop. New York, NY: Scholastic.

Zimmerman, S., & Hutchins, C. (2003). “Weaving sense into words: key 4:drawing inferences,” Keys to comprehension: how to help your kids read itand get it! New York, NY: Three Rivers.

Saskatchewan Education. (January 2002). English language arts: a curriculum guidefor the elementary level (K-5). Regina, SK: Saskatchewan Education.

Applegate, M. D., Quinn K. B., & Applegate, A. J. (2002). Levels of thinkingrequired by comprehension questions in informal inventories: Informalreading inventories may not be the tool of assessing higher level thinkingskills. The reading teacher, 56 (2), 174-181.

Bird, M.D. (1989). Helping students think and read more critically. Journal ofReading, 32 (8), 743-745.

Blevins, W. Strategies for struggling readers: Making predictions. Instructor.(1990).108 n2 (September1998): 49 (1). Thomson Gale National LibraryWeek Trial. 22 April 2006.

Block, C. C. (1993). Strategy instruction in a literature-based reading program. Theelementary school journal, 94 (2), 139-151.

Callison, D. (1998). Critical thinking. School libraries media activities monthly, 15(3), 40-42.

Curriculum Guide

Journal Articles


Ketch, A. (2005). Conversation the comprehension connection. Reading teacher, 59(1), 8-13.

Pitts, E. T. (1991). But teacher! You can teach Johnny to read. ReadingImprovement, 28 (4), 283-286.

Pressley, M., Johnson, C. J., Symons, S., McGoldrick, J. A., & Kurita, J. A.(1989). Strategies that improve children’s memory and comprehension oftext. The School elementary journal, 90 (1), 3-32.

Primeaux, J. (2000). Shifting perspectives on struggling readers. Language arts, 77(6), 537-542.

Babbitt, N. (1975) Tuck everlasting. Toronto, ON: Collins.

Downie, M.A. & Downie, J. (1984). Allison’s ghost. Scarborough, ON: NelsonCanada.

Gardiner, J. R. (1980). Stone fox. New York, NY: Harper Trophy.

Hunter, M. (1975). A stranger came ashore. New York, NY: Harper Trophy.

Mowat, F. (1961). Owls in the family. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart.

Salata, E. (1984). Mice at centre ice. Scarborough, ON: Nelson Canada.

2005 AFL reading assessment: Holy Family RCSSD 140-Grade Five Report.

Anderson, T., O’Leary, D., Schuler, K. & Wright, L. (2002). Increasing readingcomprehension through the use of guided reading. Master of Arts ActionResearch Project. Chicago, IL: Saint Xavier University & Sky Light.

Fabrikant, W., Siekierski, N. & Williams, C. (1999). Improving students’ inferentialand literal reading comprehension. Masters Action Research Project.Chicago, IL: Saint Xavier University and IRI/Skylight.

Billings, H. & Billings, M. (1999). Heroes: 21 true stories of courage and honor – withexercises for developing reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.Lincolnwood, IL: Jamestown Publishers. Jamestown Publishers.

Carratello, J. (1984). Literature and critical thinking: book 1. Huntington Beach, CA:Teacher Created Materials.

Hoogeboom, S. & Goodnow, J. (1987). The problem solver 3: activities for learningproblem-solving strategies: Mountain View, CA: Creative Publications.

Solski, R. (2000). Lest we forget, grades 4-6: Napanee, ON: S & S Learning Materials

Hoyt, L. & Forman, K. (2002). Instructional strategies for guided reading thatenhance students’ reading comprehension grades 3-6: video trainingprogram. Bellevue, WA: Bureau of Education & Research.

Novels

Research Reports

Teaching Materials

Video


September 12, 2006

Dear Parents/Guardians:

This letter is to let you know about an exciting project we are involved in duringthe 2006/2007 school year. Four teachers at St. Olivier School are teaming up todo an action research project. The project is called, “Guided Reading Strategiesto Improve Students’ Critical Thinking Skills in Grades Three, Four and Five.”The project is sponsored by the Dr. Stirling McDowell Foundation for Research intoTeaching. A grant of several thousand dollars has been received to fund the project.

The purpose is to identify the best Guided Reading strategies to improve studentlearning in a variety of subject areas. Guided Reading involves direct instructionon specific reading strategies. The project will focus on higher level thinkingskills including making inferences or reading “between the lines.”

Teachers will study Reading methods and strategies by reading articles andbooks, watching training videos, and by visiting other classrooms where teachersuse Guided Reading to enhance critical thinking skills.

Students’ reading levels will be measured; strategies taught; and student andteacher surveys used to measure growth in students’ critical thinking skills.Data will be compiled, evaluated and the results shared. The results will bepublished by the McDowell Foundation.

All students in Grade Three, Four and Five will be participating. A parentalpermission form is attached that explains how the collected data will be used.

We look forward to working closely with you this year to improve student learning.If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact your child’s teacher.

Sincerely,

Mrs. OlsonMrs. LarsenMrs. BoltonMrs. Verhelst

Appendix 1: Parent Letter


Release Formfor

Guided Reading Strategies to Improve Students’ Critical ThinkingSkills in Grades Three, Four and Five

I hereby authorize St. Olivier School to use the following with my permission:

• A photograph of my child � Yes � No

• A videotape with my child � Yes � No

• A quote from me from the Parent Questionnaire � Yes � No

I consent that these items will be used in the following:

• in a PowerPoint presentation � Yes � No

• in publications about the Guided Reading project � Yes � No

I understand that names of all students and parents participating in the projectwill be kept confidential.

Name _____________________________________________________________

Address ___________________________________________________________

Phone ________ - ____________ Signature ____________________________

Appendix 2: Release Form


BEFORE READING• I wonder if…

• I already know that…

• This reminds me of…

• This relates to…

• Because of the title I think…

• The title of this text makes methink of…

• I want to answer thesequestions…

• I think that I will learn…

• I want to know…

• I want to know if…

• Because of the text, I think…

• Because of the pictures, Ithink…

• I think the author will say…

Appendix 3: Sentence Stems for Before,During and After Reading

DURING READING• The message is…

• The big idea is…

• The author believes…

• The author’s view of the worldis…

• An important key word in thispassage is…

• The idea of this sentence is…

• The purpose of this text is to…

• The idea that I’m getting is…

• I experienced this once when…

• If…, then…

• I need to listen again to the partwhere…

• I need to skim this part tolearn…

• I got lost because…


• I can relate to this because…

• I see why…

• I bet…

• I wonder…

• My thinking changed when Iheard, saw, read…

• Based on the clues in this text, Ithink the character felt…

• In my mind I see, hear, smell,taste, feel…

• The important ideas in what Ihear, read and view are…

• I can picture…

• If this were a movie…

AFTER READING• My first reaction was…

• What I learned was…

• I learned…

• This text was about…

• The overall message was…

• The main idea is…

• The most important messageis…

• So the point is…

• I thought…

• I felt…

• This could be more effective if…

• I do not like… because…

• I would add or delete…

• This is important and relevantbecause…

• I enjoyed…

• I really like…

• This relates to…


• I can also see how…

• A question that I have is…

• I wonder if…

• I want to know more about…

• I still wonder…


A) IMAGERY WITH OWLS IN THE FAMILY, GRADE 3 ST. OLIVER SCHOOL

Appendix 4: Student Work Samples


B) I WONDER… I THINK… MICE AT CENTRE ICE, GRADE 4

Examples of I wonder…

• what happens when they get caught,

• how are they going to get the Cheddar Cup,

• where it’s at,

• who wins,

• if they go on a holiday,

• how many goals they will get,

• if they’re good at playing hockey,

• if the Big M. will come back,

• if the Rink Rats are going to give up,

• what the end of the story is going to be about,

• how they are going to get rid of the guards,

• why is it called, “Trapped?”

• if they live in a house,

• if Big Boris will cheat again, and

• how they’ll get the cup.

Examples of I think…

• it’s about hockey and the Cheddar Cup,

• they are going to have a hockey game,

• the mice will win,

• they are smart,

• the mice are going to visit the Big M.,

• the Rink Rats are going to lose!!!,

• they are trying very hard,

• they are going to feed the guards,

• it’s good so far,

• it is interesting,

• it is a very smart idea,

• Big Boris will quit for a while, and

• this book is funny.

Grade FourSt. Olivier SchoolNovember/December 2006



C) BEFORE-, DURING- AND AFTER-READING ACTIVITIES USING

LEGENDS, GRADE 4



D) STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS FROM FANTASY UNIT, GRADE 5

1. Did you like the Fantasy Literature Circle unit?

Yes (11) A little bit (1) Kind of (1)

a) Why?

• I like being in groups and the book and the activities.• I got to read a good book with friends and we got to share opinions.• I got to work in a group and I got to tell what I predicted and how I think

the story is going to end.• It was fun working in groups and answering some of the questions.• We got to work in groups and the book was an adventure.• It took me to a different place.• It was about a ghost and I think ghosts are cool.• It was fun because we were in groups and I liked doing the projects.• I like fantasy stuff.

b) Why not?

• The part I didn’t like was the part where we had to answer the questionsand do the summary.

2. Did you like using the Before, During and After cards for our readingassignments?

Yes (4) Okay (20) Kind of (1) Not really (4) No (1)

a) Why?

• I got to hear what everybody else predicts and I got to tell what Ipredicted.

• They gave a good picture of what might happen in the book.• You got to share your answer with the class.• I improved on answering questions.• It helps you think and listen a little better.

b) Why not?

• I wasn’t really good at it and maybe I could of tried harder.• Sometimes I didn’t know what to say.• Some of the questions I didn’t get.• They kinda confused me.• I can’t answer some of them.• I wanted to keep on reading and not stop.• It didn’t help.



3. Did writing or drawing in your A. R. duotang help you to understand and toremember what you read better?

Yes (6) A little bit (1) Not really (4).

a) Why?

• It’s a really handy thing.• I like to remember things by pictures.• It made me remember because I wrote it down.• But we didn’t get enough time to fill them out.• Because some of the stuff I didn’t get.• Before you take a test you can look at it and see what you read.• It’s kind of like studying for your A. R. test.• Some of the stuff I didn’t get.• It did help me understand and remember the book.• It was mostly just fun to keep track of the stories.

b) Why not?

• I just know the answers (I do not know why). • There are hard words and I read slower than everyone else.• Usually I can remember what I read the last time so I didn’t really need

it.• It just stopped us from reading.• I already picture it in my head and make predictions in my head.• All it did was remind me of what happened in the chapters.

4. Are you a good reader?

Yes (8) Sometimes (1) Okay (1) Not really (1) No (2)

a) Why?

• My Star test says I can read up to 12.9 - 13.0 books. • I’ve been reading novels since I was in Grade 1 and I love to read.• It is just I don’t have the time to and reading isn’t my favorite unless it is

a good book that I enjoy.• I think I’m a decent reader but should read more at home and school.• I’m always challenging myself to read in less time.• People listen to me and tell me I’m good, I just need to read more.• Harry Potter is not hard for me but it’s just long!• I rarely make mistakes.• I guess I was born with it.

b) Why not?

• Sometimes it hurts my eyes. • I don’t have 50 points (on A. R.).• I haven’t reached my 25 points yet.


Student’s Name: ________________________________ Grade: ____

EX VG G

COMPREHENSION SKILLSmakes predictions � � �

matches story vocabulary with definitions � � �

compares characters � � �

makes inferences about a character � � �

relates stories to his/her own experience � � �

identifies the author’s message � � �

identifies story problem and solution � � �

sequences story events � � �

ORAL READING SKILLSreads with expression � � �

reads fluently � � �

WRITING SKILLSuses graphic organizers (Venn diagram, & charts) � � �

writes sentences with correct mechanics � � �

creates a well-written paragraph � � �

interprets vocabulary by writing words in context � � �

uses jot notes to brainstorm ideas � � �

creates chapter titles � � �

writes questions after reading � � �

uses correct spelling � � �

works neatly so writing is legible � � �

corrects work, after being edited � � �

SPEAKING SKILLSspeaks clearly � � �

expresses his/her ideas � � �

retells stories � � �

LISTENING SKILLSfollows directions � � �

listens carefully to others’ opinions � � �

WORK HABITS cooperates with other group members � � �

participates voluntarily in discussions � � �

works well independently � � �

completes work on time � � �

Comments:

Date:

Appendix 5: Guided Reading Evaluation Checklist

2317 Arlington AvenueSaskatoon SK Canada S7J 2H8

Phone: 306-373-1660Toll Free: 1-800-667-7762

Fax: 306-374-1122E-mail: [email protected]

www.mcdowellfoundation.ca

161 Guided Reading Strategies

Documents

Transcript of 161 Guided Reading Strategies