Research on Comprehension
by Susan Drew, Graduate Student at California State University Fresno

Background Knowledge – is knowledge that is acquired through study or experience.

To summarize the conclusions of the studies listed below the researchers found that in order for people to understand what they read and/or hear they must have knowledge of the language and of the world. Bransford and Johnson’s study was with adults, however Pearson, Hansen, and Gordon (1979) did a similar study with children and had parallel results. The greater the background knowledge of the material, the greater the understanding there will be.

Identical untitled passages were given to three groups of adults: one group was told what the passage was about before they read it, another group was told what the passage was about after they read it, and a third group was not told what the passage was about at all.
Bransford and Johnson found that the ability to understand messages is based not only on the comprehender's knowledge of language but also on his/her general knowledge of the world.

They found the people who were told what the passage was about before they read it comprehended and recalled the passage twice as well as the people in the other groups.

According to Bransford and Johnson people gain greater understanding of presented materials when they are able to connect it with something they have heard or learned about prior to reading.

Bransford, J.D., & Johnson, M.K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 711-726.

Pearson, Hansen, and Gordon found that young children use background knowledge to make sense of print. They asked 20 average second-grade children with the same overall intelligence and general reading level—10 who knew a great deal about spiders and 10 who knew little about spiders—to read a passage on spiders.

They found that the children who knew more about spiders before they read the passage were significantly better at answering questions on information in the passage than the children who knew less about spiders before they read the passage.

Similar to the Bransford and Johnson study, this one concluded how vital it is for teachers to present good background information to students on new topics to ensure that children have the ability to make connections with the new information. This is especially important for our struggling readers and our English language learners. All students need guidance and support in the effort to present information in a fair and just manner.

Pearson, P.D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on young children's comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 201-209.

Taylor found that young children use background knowledge to make sense of print and that below-average readers do especially well on making sense of passages on familiar topics as opposed to unfamiliar topics. She gave 31 third- and fifth-grade children passages on a topic generally familiar to children—bird nest building—and on a topic generally unfamiliar to children—bee dancing. The third-grade children were average third-grade readers. The fifth-grade children were average and below-average fifth-grade readers.

Taylor found all the children recalled significantly more on the familiar topic than on the unfamiliar topic. The below-average fifth-graders were the most affected by whether they were reading on a familiar or unfamiliar topic. They recalled as much as the third graders when reading on the unfamiliar topic but as much as the average fifth graders when reading on the familiar topic.

Similar to the previous findings, Taylor found that the students who gained a significant amount in recalling information were the struggling readers. If unfamiliar information is presented to students, without the support of scaffolding, we are doing them a disservice. Taylor implied that by presenting background knowledge to children we have an opportunity to offer more meaningful lessons and possibly begin to close the achievement gap.

Taylor, B. (1979). Good and poor readers' recall of familiar and unfamiliar text. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 375-388.

Lipson found that young children use background knowledge to make sense of print. She gave 32 fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade average and above-average readers two passages, one was entitled First Communion and the other was entitled Bar Mitzvah. Half the children were attending a Catholic school and half were attending a Hebrew school.

Lipson found the children read significantly faster and recalled significantly more on the culturally familiar passages than on the culturally unfamiliar passages.

Like Taylor’s findings, Lipson found that when presented with cultural familiar and unfamiliar passages, the students were much more successful with the culturally familiar. Students attending Catholic school would undoubtedly be familiar with a First Communion and the students who attend Hebrew school would be familiar with a Bar Mitzvah. To be familiar with a subject assists in the process of making meaning and also with being able to further connect with other new subjects or topics.

Lipson, M.Y. (1983). The influence of religious affiliation on children's memory for text information. Reading Research Quarterly, XVIII, 448-457.
Access to Books

Below are studies that suggest the importance of children having access to books. It is vital that students have access to many high-interest books that cross genres in a literacy-rich classroom.

Elley and Mangubhai found that increasing access to books for children with limited access to books increased their literacy achievement. They studied 614 children in 4th and 5th grade classrooms in rural Fijian schools with very few books. Of these children, 380 were in classrooms where the researchers provided 250 high-interest, illustrated storybooks in English per classroom, and 234 were in the on-going English language program that put little emphasis on reading. Eight of the 16 experimental classes used sustained silent reading. The other 8 experimental classes used the Shared Book Experience (a.k.a., shared reading), a teaching technique where the teacher points to the print in full view of the children while reading to the children. The researchers found that after eight months, the pupils in the two experimental groups progressed in reading comprehension at twice the rate of the comparison group.

The book flooding studies were convincing. The students in both the shared reading group and the silent reading group far outperformed those who were in the more traditional model in reading comprehension. By providing a variety high-interest books and giving students the gift of time to read proved to be beneficial to the students.

Elley, W.B., & Mangubhai, F. (1983). The impact of reading on second language learning. Reading Research Quarterly, XIX, 53-67.

Elley found the availability of books is a key factor in reading achievement. He studied the reading achievement of children in 32 countries and found that factors which consistently differentiated high-scoring and low-scoring countries were large school libraries, large classroom libraries, regular book borrowing, frequent silent reading in class, and frequent story reading aloud by teachers. The highest scoring countries typically provide their students with greater access to books in the home, in nearby community libraries and bookstores, and in the school.

The models used by the 16 experimental classes were ones in which scaffolding, guidance, and critical literacy was provided. By rereading the story multiple times, and incorporating activities that extend the story, the teacher lowered the affective filter for the students and reading comprehension increased, making it accessible to all. With such tremendous support it would be difficult to imagine that students not being motivated by a teacher using such great strategies

Elley, W.B. (1992). How in the World Do Students Read? The IEA Study of Reading Literacy. The Hague, the Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

Krashen found a significant positive correlation between each (U.S.) state's 1992 fourth-grade reading comprehension scores on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) and the number of books per students in school libraries as well as library use, regardless of how much money the state spent on education per pupil. The findings suggest that for money spent on education to affect reading scores it needs to be invested in library books.

Krashen’s findings are compelling, however we must determine how to get the books out of the libraries and into the students’ hands. When a school is fortunate enough to have a certified librarian making excellent and varied book selections students will likely make use of the library. Teachers can assist in this with modeling readings across genres. Krashen stated the importance and significance of books being accessible to all students.

Krashen, S. (1995). School libraries, public libraries, and the NAEP reading scores. School Library Media Quarterly, 23, 235-237.

Neuman found that increasing 3- and 4-year-old children's access to books in child care centers serving economically disadvantaged children and providing training to child-care staff in an intervention program known as Books Aloud significantly increased the children's early literacy knowledge. The program flooded over 330 childcare centers with high-quality children's books at a ratio of 5 books per child and provided 10 hours of training to child-care staff. Neuman examined the project's impact on 400 3-and 4-year-old children randomly selected from 50 centers across 10 regions and 100 control children from comparable child care centers not involved in the project.

Neuman found the children in the experimental group showed significantly higher increases in concepts of print, letter name knowledge concepts of writing and concepts of narrative than the control group.

Neuman’s study of book flooding childcare centers demonstrated the importance of children being familiar with books. The population studied was of economically disadvantaged children. It is likely that these children do not have reading materials in their home. Training staff at the centers enables the youngsters to have good modeling and lots of support with the books. The study showed that early intervention of providing opportunities with books would place the children at an advantage when they enter kindergarten, and not at the disadvantage they would have experienced without the program.

Neuman, S.B. (1999). Books make a difference: A study of access to literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, (3), 286-311.

Smith, C., Constantino, R., & Krashen, S. (1997). Difference in print environment for children in Beverly Hills, Compton and Watts. Emergency Librarian, 24, (4), 8-9.

Neuman and Celano found striking differences in access to print between middle-income neighborhoods and low-income neighborhoods. They found children in middle-income neighborhoods have a large variety of resources to choose from while children in low-income neighborhoods have to rely on public institutions which provide unequal resources, both in quantity and quality, across communities.

Neuman’s findings support earlier findings of Krashen (1995) and those of Smith, Constantino, & Krashan (1997) that children who reside in low-income communities do no have the same access to books and other reading materials as those who reside in middle- or high-income communities. The results of the findings suggest a discrepancy that requires further action for improvement.

Neuman, S.B. and Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low-income and middle-income communities: An ecological study of four neighborhoods. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, (1), 8-26.


Natural vs. Contrived Language

Rhodes found children read and comprehend stories with natural language better than stories with contrived language. She asked 13 first grade children to read four stories, two with natural language and two with contrived language. Of the two with natural language, one was a familiar story and one was an unfamiliar story. Of the two with contrived language, one was based on letter-sound correspondences that had been taught and one was based on print words that had been taught.

Rhodes found 3 of the children read all four stories without difficulty. However, among the10 children who had some difficulty, the children read and retold the stories with the natural language better than the stories with the contrived language. On average, the children retold 61% of the unfamiliar story with the natural language, 52% of the story based on letter-sound correspondences, and 24% of the story based on print words.

Rhodes also noted that several times the children laughed and smiled in the process of reading the stories with natural language but only one child had the same reaction (and then only once) in the process of reading a story with contrived language.

The findings of Rhodes demonstrated that children are able to understand and comprehend stories better when the language presented is natural and familiar to them. The affective filter would be lowered and therefore children would be able to relax and enjoy the story and opposed to having to concentrate intently on it and not gain meaning.

Rhodes, L.K. (1979). Comprehension and predictability: an analysis of beginning reading materials. In New Perspectives on Comprehension, edited by J. C. Harste and R. F. Carey, pp. 100-31. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University School of Education.


Bridge, Winograd, and Haley found children learn to recognize print words significantly better when working with texts with natural language than with contrived language. They studied 16 first grade slow learners, 8 with reading instruction using predictable reading materials (texts with familiar, natural language) and 8 with reading instruction using preprimer materials (texts with contrived language).

They found that after four weeks of instruction, the children receiving instruction using the predictable reading materials learned significantly more target words and non-target words than the students using the preprimer materials.

They also found that the children who had been reading the predictable materials reported more positive feelings about reading aloud while the preprimer children reported more negative feelings about reading aloud in the reading group.

Like the findings of Rhodes, Bridge, Winograd, & Haley discovered that children had positive feelings about reading and were successful through the use of predictable materials. The repeat practice provides the support necessary for children to not feel threatened, but to be confident and excited about their progress.

Bridge, C., Winograd, P.N., & Haley, D. (1983). Using predictable materials vs. preprimers to teach beginning sight words. The Reading Teacher, 884-891.




Fluency

Fluency- is the ability to read a text accurately and quickly. When fluent readers read silently, they recognize words automatically. They group words quickly to help them gain meaning from what they read. Fluent readers read aloud effortlessly and with expression. Their reading sounds natural, as if they are speaking. Readers who have not yet developed fluency read slowly, word by word. Their oral reading is choppy and plodding.
Fluency is important because it provides a bridge between word recognition and comprehension. Because fluent readers do not have to concentrate on decoding the words, they can focus their attention on what the text means. They can make connections among the ideas in the text and between the text and their background knowledge. In other words, fluent readers recognize words and comprehend at the same time. Less fluent readers, however, must focus their attention on figuring out the words, leaving them little attention for understanding the text.

Stahl found that instructing students to say words in isolation faster does not necessarily mean they have stronger comprehension skills. Studies have demonstrated that a child’s reading a fluency passage might improve, however there are no findings that show that comprehension improved along with the fluency.

I have had difficulty with my middle school students who read TOO quickly. They were under the impression that reading fast, meant reading well. When they read their won poetry, they read it so fast that no one in the class understands the beautiful work they have written. I take their work and read it more slowly with lots of expression, pausing frequently to enphasize the language and emotions, and the students begin to realize that reading FAST is not being fluent.

Stahl, S. (2004). What do we know about fluency? Findings of the National Reading Panel. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.


Fluency is a result of contextual reading, including sustained silent reading. It should not be practiced aside from authentic contextualized reading experience.

Fluency is not decoding or based on speed, however it is having the ability to make meaning while reading. Fluent readers comprehend what they are reading while they are reading. Students must read quickly enough to be able to understand and to be understood if reading to others- that- is the fluent reader.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). The report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read (00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Samuels warned us to beware in his paper by stating that “speed barking” at print does not always demonstrate to teachers that students understand what they are reading. He continued with the fact that many ELL students are able to decode with speed, but have weak comprehension because of vocabulary problems. These students are able to decode, however they cannot be considered fluent readers of English.

I see this with students who are second language learners, as eighth grade students. They can reading quickly, skip over words they don’t know, and are happy to be finished with the passage. This is where I work with my students in small groups or individually, and slow them down, discuss unfamiliar words, idioms and colloquialisms. Pre-teaching using this methodology is vitally important, to teach the students the difference between decoding/word-calling and being truly fluent- which includes UNDERSTANDING!

Samuels, S. J. (2006) Introduction to reading fluency. Paper presented at Spotlight on Fluency: Research and Practice from International Reading Association Publications, 51st IRA Annual Convention Chicago, IL