10-second review: Does comprehension instruction in basals (Core Reading Programs) follow the recommendations of researchers in reading? Not altogether.
Title: “Comprehension Strategy Instruction in Core Reading Programs.” P Dewitz, J Jones and S Leahy. Reading Research Quarterly (April/May/June 2009), 102-126.
Quote: “The results of the authors’ analysis revealed that core reading programs (basals) recommend teaching many more skills and strategies than the researchers recommend and may dilute the emphasis on critical skills and strategies. In addition, comprehension strategy instruction does not meet the guidelines of explicit instruction as recommended in a number of research studies. Rarely do the five core programs (Houghton Mifflin, Scott Foresman, Harcourt, McGraw-Hill, and Open Court) follow the gradual release-of-responsibility model nor do the programs provide the amount of practice for skills and strategies that were employed in original research studies.”
Quote: “Core reading programs can more closely reflect the research base on comprehension instruction, but schools must allow for teacher judgment and innovation in comprehension instruction, and publishers must attempt to adhere more closely to what the research says about the content and methods of reading instruction.”
Comment: My experience has been that elementary teachers using basals, once they have experienced the sequence and methods of a coherent reading program, soon complement and select what works from the basal sequence of instruction in reading. RayS.
No comments:
Post a Comment