Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment and Comprehension

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reading Comprehension

Abstract

Reading comprehension is a multifaceted and complex activity and cannot be easily assessed using simple instruments. For teachers to be able to make adequate assessment of their students they may need to employ a multifaceted approach with a thorough diagnosis of individual reading difficulties. Assessment should be dynamic; teachers should be using multiple sampling techniques to develop a broader understanding of a student’s engagement with reading. For example, the inclusion of a metacognitive focus will enable a more child-centered approach that incorporates techniques such as think-aloud strategies and the asking of appropriate questions related to the use of particular strategies during their reading. This will enable the design of appropriate interventions to suit the needs of individual children. Educators should use a responsive approach that will include a focus on a child’s ability to respond to instruction. Where possible, the student should be involved in assessment process so that they can develop appropriate self-monitoring and self-regulation skills.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Afflerbach, P., P.D. Pearson, and S.G. Paris. 2008. Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher 61(5): 364–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • August, D., and T. Shanahan (eds.). 2006. Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language minority students and youth. Malwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, D.V.M., and M.J. Snowling. 2004. Developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment: Same or different? Psychological Bulletin 130: 858–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caccamise, D., and L. Snyder. 2005. Theory and pedagogical practices of text comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders 25: 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K. 2007. Deriving word meanings from context: Does explanation facilitate contextual analysis? Journal of Research in Reading 30(4): 347–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K., and J. Oakhill. 2007. Reading comprehension difficulties: Correlates, causes, and consequences. In Students’s comprehension problems in oral and written language: A cognitive perspective, ed. K. Cain and J. Oakhill, 41–75. London: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairney, T. 2000. Beyond the classroom walls: The rediscovery of the family and community as partners in education. Educational Review 52: 163–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clay, M.M. 1992. Reading Recovery: The wider implications of an education innovation. In Prevention of reading failure, ed. A. Watson and A. Bedenhop, 22–47. Auckland: Ashton Scholastic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culican, S.J., and M. Emmitt. 2002. Putting literacy in the middle: Key learnings from the middle years literacy research project. Literacy Learning in the Middle Years 10: 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, A.E., and K.E. Stanovich. 1997. Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology 33: 934–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daneman, M., and I. Green. 1986. Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context. Journal of Memory and Language 25: 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Droop, M., and L. Verhoeven. 2003. Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and second-language learners. Reading Research Quarterly 38(1): 78–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, L.M., and L.M. Dunn. 1981. Peabody picture vocabulary test – Revised. Minnesota: American Guidance Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durgunoglu, A.Y. 2002. Cross-linguistic transfer in literacy development and implications for language learners. Annals of Dyslexia 52: 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durrant, C., and B. Green. 2000. Literacy and the new technologies in school education: Meeting the l(IT)eracy challenge? The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 23: 89–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkins, J. 2000a. Learning difficulties/disabilities in literacy. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 25: 11–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkins, J. 2000b. All empires fall, you just have to know where to push: Antecedent issues for a study of learning difficulties in Australia. The Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties 5: 4–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkins, J. 2007. Learning disabilities: Bringing fields and nations together. Journal of Learning Disabilities 40(5): 392–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Everatt, J., I. Smythe, E. Adams, and D. Ocampo. 2000. Dyslexia screening measures and bilingualism. Dyslexia 6: 42–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehring, H. 2005. Critical, analytical and reflective literacy assessment: reconstructing practice. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy 28: 95–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freebody, P. 2006. Expanding the repertoires of practice in literacy education: Special needs students and the Four Roles Model. In A resource book: Strategies for students with learning difficulties and disabilities, eds. T. Spinks, and C. Kilham, 122–118. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved 16 Sept 2007, from http:www.dest.gov.au/RN/rdonlyres/34675037-83EC-413E-860C-F4DE14E863445/15460/FinalProductResourceBookFINALDec06.pdf

  • Freebody, P., and J. Frieberg. 2001. Re-discovering practical reading activities in homes and schools. Journal of Research in Reading 24: 222–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambrell, L.B., B.A. Kapinus, and R.M. Wilson. 1987. Using mental imagery and summarization to achieve independence in comprehension. Journal of Reading 30(7): 638–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, G.E., G. McKoon, and D. August. 2008. Language and literacy assessment. In Developing reading and writing in second-language learners, ed. D. August and T. Shanahan, 251–274. New York: Roughtledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genesee, F., K. Lindholm-Leary, W. Saunders, and D. Christian. 2005. English language learners in US schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk 10(4): 363–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gersten, R., L.S. Fuchs, J.P. Williams, and S. Baker. 2001. Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research 71: 279–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geva, E. 2000. Issues in the assessment of reading disabilities in L2 students: Beliefs and research evidence. Dyslexia 6: 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geva, E., and L. Verthoven. 2000. Introduction: The development of second language reading in primary students-research issues and trends. Scientific Studies of Reading 4(4): 261–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gresham, F.M., and D.L. MacMillan. 1997. Teachers as ‘tests’: Differential validity of teacher judgments in identifying students at risk. School Psychology Review 26: 47–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J.T., A.L.W. Hoa, A. Wigfield, S.M. Tonks, N.M. Humenick, and E. Littles. 2007. Reading motivation and reading comprehension growth in later elementary years. Contemporary Educational Psychology 32: 282–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hay, I. 1995a. Understanding self-perception: Some school and home implications. School Talk, August/September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, I., Elias, G., and Booker, G. 2005. Schooling issues digest – Students with learning difficulties in relation to literacy and numeracy. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth Department of Education Science and Training. Retrieved 15 Feb 2006 from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/schooling_issues_digest/schooling_issues_digest_learning_difficulties

  • Hecht, S.A., and D.B. Greenfield. 2001. Comparing the predictive validity of first grade teacher ratings and reading-related tests on third grade levels of reading skills in young students exposed to poverty. School Psychology Review 30: 50–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibbing, A.N., and J.L. Rankin-Erickson. 2003. A picture is worth a thousand words: Using visual images to improve comprehension for the middle school struggling readers. The Reading Teacher 56: 758–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horner, S.L., and C.S. Shwery. 2002. Becoming an engaged, self-regulated reader. Theory into Practice 41(2): 102–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, J., H. Whiteley, C. Smith, and L. Connors. 2004. The early identification of dyslexia: Students with English as an additional language. Dyslexia 10: 179–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isreal, S.E., K.L. Bauserman, and C.C. Block. 2005. Metacognitive assessment strategies. Thinking Classroom 6(2): 21–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. 2002. Learning disabilities in the context of communication disorders. Thalmus 20(1): 19–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, M., and P.G. Aaron. 2000. The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology 21: 85–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn-Horwitz, J., J. Shiron, and R.L. Sparks. 2006. Weak and strong novice readers of English as a foreign language: Effects of first language and socioeconomic status. Annals of Dyslexia 51(1): 161–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamps, D., M. Abbott, C. Greenwood, C. Arreaga-Mayer, H. Wills, J. Longstaff, et al. 2007. Use of evidence-based, small group instruction for English language learners in elementary grades: Secondary-Tier intervention. Learning Disability Quarterly 30(3): 153–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach, J.M., H.S. Scarborough, and L. Rescorla. 2003. Late-emerging reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology 95: 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesaux, N.K. 2006. Building consensus: Future directions for research on English language learners at risk for learning difficulties. Teachers College Record 108(11): 2406–2438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesaux, N.K., E. Geva, K. Koda, L.S. Siegel, and T. Shanahan. 2008. Development of literacy in second-language learners. In Developing reading and writing in second-language learners, ed. D. August and T. Shanahan, 27–59. New York: Roughtledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Limbos, M., and E. Geva. 2001. Accuracy of teacher assessments of ESL students at-risk for reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities 34: 136–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linan-Thompson, S., P.T. Cirino, and S. Vaughn. 2007. Determining English language learners’ response to intervention: Questions and some answers. Learning Disability Quarterly 30(3): 185–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey, K.A., F.R. Manis, and C.E. Bailey. 2003. Prediction of first-grade reading in Spanish-speaking Engish-language learners. Journal of Educational Psychology. 95(3): 482–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louden, W., L.K.S. Chan, J. Elkins, D. Greaves, H. House, M. Milton, S. Nichols, J. Rivalland, M. Rohl, and C. Van Kraayennoord. 2000. Mapping the territory, primary students with learning difficulties: Literacy and numeracy, vol. 1, 2 & 3. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig, C. 2004. Literacy in the learning Areas: A proposition. Literacy learning in the Middle Years 8: 37–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luke, A., and P. Freebody. 1999. A map of possible practices: Further notes on the four resources model. Practically Primary, ALEA 4: 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manset-Williamson, G., and J.M. Nelson. 2005. Balanced, strategic reading instruction for upper- elementary and middle school students with reading disabilities: A comparative study of two approaches. Learning Disability Quarterly 28: 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Reading Panel. 2000. Teaching children to read: Report of the comprehension instruction subgroup to the National Institute of Child Health and Development. Washington, DC: NICD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neal, J.C., and P.R. Kelly. 2002. Delivering the promise of academic success through late intervention. Reading and Writing Quarterly 18: 101–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakhill, J., and K. Cain. 2007. Introduction to comprehension development. In Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written language: A cognitive perspective, ed. K. Cain and J. Oakhill, 3–40. London: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz, A.A., C.Y. Wilkinson, P. Robinson-Courtney, and M. Kushner. 2006. Considerations in implementing intervention assistance teams to support English language learners. Remedial and Special Education 27(1): 53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oster, L. 2001. Using think-alouds for reading instruction. The Reading Teacher 55: 64–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paris, S.G., and E.R. Oka. 1989. Strategies for comprehending text and coping with reading difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly 12: 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P.D., and T.E. Raphael. 1990. Reading comprehension as a dimension of thinking. In Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction, ed. B.F. Jones and L. Idol. New Jersey: Hillsdale Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M. 2002a. At-risk students: Learning to break through comprehension barriers. In Improving comprehension instruction, ed. C. Collins Block, L.B. Gambrell, and M. Pressley, 354–369. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M. 2002b. Improving comprehension instruction: A path for the Future. In Improving comprehension instruction, ed. C. Collins Block, L.B. Gambrell, and M. Pressley, 385–389. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quay, L.C., and D.C. Steele. 1998. Predicting students’ achievement from teacher judgements: An alternative to standardized testing. Early Education and Development 9: 207–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riccio, C., A. Amado, S. Jiménez, J. Hasbrouck, and B. Imhoff. 2001. Cross-linguistic transfer of phonological processing: Development of a measure of phonological processing. Spanish Bilingual Research Journal 25: 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salend, S.J., and A. Salinas. 2003. Language differences or learning difficulties: The work of the multidisciplinary team. Teaching Exceptional Students 35(4): 36–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. 2003. Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modelling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly 19: 159–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C.E. 2002. Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica: Rand Corp. Retrieved 12 Dec, 2002, from http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1465/.

  • Snow, C.E. 2003. Assessment of reading comprehension. In Rethinking reading comprehension, ed. A.P. Sweet and C.E. Snow, 191–206. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. 2008. Cross-cutting themes and future directions. In Developing reading and writing in second-language learners, ed. D. August and T. Shanahan, 275–300. New York: Roughtledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spinelli, C.G. 2008. Addressing the issue of cultural and linguistic diversity and assessment: Informal evaluation measures for English language learners. Reading & Writing Quarterly 24: 101–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K.E. 1986. Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly 21: 360–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truscott, S.D., C.E. Cohen, D.P. Sams, K.J. Snborn, and A.J. Frank. 2005. The current state(s) of referral intervention teams. Remedial and Special Education 26(3): 130–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vellutino, F.R., J.M. Fletcher, M.J. Snowling, and D.M. Scanlon. 2004. Specific reading disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychiatry 45(1): 2–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoeven, L. 2000. Components in early second language reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading 4(4): 313–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villaume, S.K., and E.G. Bradham. 2002. Comprehension instruction: Beyond strategies. The Reading Teacher 55: 672–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westwood, P. 2004. The affective components of difficulty in learning: Why prevention is better than attempted cure. In Learning difficulties: Multiple perspectives, ed. B.A. Knight and W. Scott, 187–202. Frenchs Forest Australia: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • York-Bar, J., G. Chere, and J. Sommerness. 2007. Collaborative teaching to increase ELL Student Learning: A three-year urban elementary case study. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk 12(3): 301–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neale, M.D. 1988. Neale analysis of reading ability revised. Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durkin, D. 1978. What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly 14:481–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, C.C., S.R. Paris, K.L. Reed, C.S. Whiteley, and M.D. Cleveland. 2009. Instructional approaches that signify increased reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology 101(2):262–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Mt. Gravatt Campus, Brisbane, Queensland, 4111, Australia

    Dr. Gary Woolley

Authors
  1. Dr. Gary Woolley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary Woolley .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Woolley, G. (2011). Assessment and Comprehension. In: Reading Comprehension. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1174-7_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation