Alexandra Thomas

11 October 2015

How a targeted and explicit interest-based reading comprehension program

assists Year Four students understanding of informative texts

Alexandra Thomas
Master of Teaching (Primary)
University of Western Australia

Abstract

A targeted and explicit interest-based reading comprehension program was implemented

with two struggling ten-year-old boys. The ten-day intervention program focused on the
effectiveness of metacognitive strategies (main idea, vocabulary in context, and
summarising) in relation to interest-based informative texts. The Comprehensive Assessment
of Reading Strategies (CARS) series D were used as pre-, mid-, and post-tests to assess
knowledge, monitor progress and to adjust teaching to suit the participants individual
learning needs. Both participants showed improvements between the pre- and post-tests,
particularly relating to the targeted strategies. This intervention has shown the importance
of explicit instruction of reading comprehension strategies, however it must be noted that due
to the small sample size and personalised program, results may be difficult to replicate.

Acknowledgements
I acknowledge the assistance provided by my lecturers at the University of Western Australia.
I also acknowledge the assistance of my mentor teacher and the Head of Curriculum Support
at the students school for their ongoing support throughout the intervention process, and
would like to thank the participants parents for their permission to work with their children.

Alexandra Thomas

11 October 2015

Statement of the area of inquiry

This action research investigation will explore the effectiveness of a targeted and
explicit interest-based program when assisting students struggling with their reading
comprehension skills. The two participants, Bill and Ben, are both Year Four students at an
elite all-boys school in the Perth metropolitan area. Reading comprehension was selected
by the classroom teacher to be the focus of the intervention, as both boys were at the
bottom of the year-group mainstream class (based on formal and informal assessment), but
were not eligible for further assistance at the schools Curriculum Support centre. To engage
and motivate the students, interest-based texts were adapted to suit their learning needs.
Informative texts were identified as an area which required additional attention, as both
boys were struggling with comprehension tasks in other subjects such as History and Science.
The aim of this intervention was to implement an engaging reading comprehension program
which explicitly taught reading comprehension strategies for informative texts, which the
boys could then apply to other subject areas.
Literature Review
Reading comprehension
Reading comprehension is described as the construction of meaning from texts
(Rupley & Blair, 1983), and depends on interaction between the reader and the text
(Basaraba, 2012). Reading comprehension is a vital skill and is necessary for understanding
in all subject areas, and throughout life. It is generally accepted that reading comprehension
can be broken into three levels of understanding (literal, inferential and evaluative), with
each level requiring different amounts of interaction with the text while imposing a range of
cognitive demands upon the reader (Basaraba, 2012). Comprehension processes occur on
multiple levels across language: word level, sentence level, and text level (Perfetti, 2005).
The success of any reading comprehension task involves a variety of text-related (text type,
new information presented) and student-related (prior knowledge, motivation and decoding
ability) factors (De Corte, Verschaffel & Van De Ven, 2001), as well as instructional style.
The main opportunity for classroom teachers to examine and develop reading
comprehension skills is during guided reading (GR) sessions. It has been found that effective

Alexandra Thomas

11 October 2015

GR lessons should predominantly involve teaching comprehension strategies (Hagtvet, 2003;

Parker & Hurry, 2007), however Hobsbaum, Gamble and Reedy (2002) concluded that
teachers spend 75% of GR time listening to students read. Due to the large amount of
content within the Australian Curriculum, teachers often do not have enough time to
explicitly develop students reading comprehension strategies (Fisher, 2008; The Sydney
Morning, Herald, 2014), which can cause struggling students to fall even further behind.
Cognitive load and working memory
An individuals cognitive processing has a large influence over their ability to
comprehend what they are reading. If text decoding is not automatic, readers require
greater cognitive resources to understand the meaning of the words they are trying to read
(Maguire, Frith & Morris, 1999; McNamara & Magliano, 2009; Basaraba et al., 2012). When
the cognitive load becomes too great, extracting meaning from a passage of text becomes
very difficult, as information retrieved from the text needs to be stored in the working
memory while the individual is reading. In order to make sense of the text, information
stored in the working memory needs to be used in conjunction with prior knowledge about
the subject. This complex cognition process therefore requires individuals to be able to
recognise the words being read with minimal effort in order to comprehend the meaning of
the whole text (Perfetti, Landi & Oakhill, 2005; McNamara & Magliano, 2009).
Prior knowledge
It is widely recognised that a readers prior knowledge has an impact upon their
reading comprehension ability (Pearson, Hansen & Gordon, 1979; Baldwin, Peleg-Bruckner &
McClintock, 1985; Kendeou & van den Broek, 2007; Kamalski, Sanders & Lentz, 2008). While
this is generally a positive relationship, Kendeou and van den Broek (2007) found that prior
knowledge based on misconceptions has an adverse effect on the comprehension of
informative texts. Kendeou and van den Broek (2007) also found that readers adjust their
cognitive processing based on their prior knowledge of the content area and text structure,
and that readers recall of the text improved with higher levels of prior knowledge. High
levels of prior knowledge have been shown to improve literal and inferential levels of
understanding of the text (Pearson et al., 1979). Finally, Kamalski et al.s 2008 study

Alexandra Thomas

11 October 2015

concluded that readers with low prior knowledge benefited most from literal coherence
marking (e.g. a because b) rather than inferential cues when working with informative
texts.
Informative texts
Informative texts are written to convey information about the natural or social
world, with Duke and Bennett-Armistead distinguishing it from nonfiction works, which can
be anything factual (2003). Yopp and Yopp describe that children from Kindergarten to Year
Three have very little exposure to informative texts (2006), despite being the key to success
in later schooling and life, with over 96% of content on the internet being expository (Duke
& Bennett-Armistead, 2003). Informative texts are a difficult genre to comprehend, as each
text involves technical vocabulary specific to the topic (Surber & Schroeder, 2007; Tarchi,
2010). It has been commented that informative texts are easier to adapt to student
interests than other forms of text, which in turn increases student engagement and abilities
(Duke & Bennett-Armistead, 2003). Surber and Schroeder (2007) noted that text length
plays a significant role in the comprehension of informative texts, as it becomes increasingly
difficult to understand overarching concepts as the length of the text increases. Additionally,
Tarchi (2010) describes that metacognitive ability plays a significant role when reading
informative texts.
Metacognitive strategies
Metacognition is defined in two parts by Kuhn (2000), as a process which enhances
awareness of what one believes and how one knows and the control in application of the
strategies that process new information. Boulware-Gooden (2007) describes that the
development of metacognition is on a continuum, with the earliest form being evident from
three years of age (Kuhn, 2000). When considered in relation to reading comprehension, it
has been found that adept readers use at least one metacognitive strategy when reading a
new text (Boulware-Gooden, 2007). The selection of which strategy to use develops over
time as the reader learns which is more appropriate based on the genre and structure
(Pressley, Wharton-McDonald, Minstretta-Hampston & Echevarria, 1998). Pressley et al.
(1998) also found that reading comprehension performance improved by focusing on a
single strategy when compared with the control group. The Comprehensive Assessment of

Alexandra Thomas

11 October 2015

Reading Strategies (CARS) series features 12 different reading strategies to improve reading
comprehension ability, as displayed below in Figure 1 (2006). Of these strategies, this report
will focus on finding main idea, finding word meaning in context, and summarising.
Finding Main Idea

Recalling Facts and Details

Understanding Sequence

Recognising Cause and Effect

Comparing and Contrasting

Making Predictions

Finding Word Meaning in

Drawing Conclusions and

Distinguishing Between Fact

Context

Making Inferences

and Opinion

Interpreting Figurative

Identifying Authors Purpose

Language

Summarising

Figure 1: CARS series reading comprehension strategies (2006).

Think alouds
Think alouds involve the explicit verbalisation of cognitive processes and strategies
used when constructing meaning from texts (Baumann, Seifert-Kessell & Jones, 1992;
Bereiter & Bird, 1985). Baumann, Seifert-Kessel and Jones (1992) found that students who
were taught think aloud strategies reported and demonstrated greater reading
comprehension abilities than students who were not. Bereiter and Bird (1985) concluded
that for think alouds to be an effective tool, they needed to be modelled to students, and
the strategies being used explicitly identified.
Main idea and summarising
The CARS series considers the main idea of a text to be a sentence that tells what
the passage is mostly about (2006). In order to do this, the reader needs to be able to
identify and recall important information which contributes to the big idea that the text is
conveying, which can then be used to understand the authors purpose (NSW Centre for
Effective Reading, 2010a).

This reading comprehension strategy looks at overarching

concepts within the text, and helps students to locate the most important information
presented.

Alexandra Thomas

11 October 2015

Writing a text summary is an important metacognitive strategy, which requires the

careful evaluation of all information (Boulware-Gooden, 2007). Duke and Pearson (2002)
found that instruction in, and practice of, summarising improves readers overall
comprehension of text content. While it is similar to the main idea strategy, summarising
requires the student to study each detail within the text, and is generally considered to be
one of the most difficult strategies to master (NSW Centre for Effective Reading, 2010b).
This can be practiced using the 6Ws (who, what, when, where, why and how), and through
the use of selective underlining to help readers sort through the given information (Amer,
1994). In order for readers to grasp this strategy, it must be modelled multiple times by the
teacher, and they must be given many opportunities to practice with a range of different
texts (NSW Centre for Effective Reading, 2010b).

This is a highly useful reading

comprehension strategy, and supports success in high school and tertiary education (NSW
Centre for Effective Reading, 2010b).
Vocabulary
Nagy (1988) describes the importance of vocabulary knowledge during reading
comprehension, commenting that one cant understand the text without knowing what
most of the words mean. The ability to decipher and understand new vocabulary has been
found to be strongly correlated with reading comprehension skills. Biemiller and Slonim
(2001) have determined that if a child struggled with their vocabulary in Year Three, they
would continue to be behind for the rest of their school years. Nagy (1988) outlines three
critical concepts of vocabulary acquisition: integration (integrating new words with prior
knowledge), repetition (reducing required cognitive effort), and meaningful use (active use
of the vocabulary in context).
Teachers must be selective when choosing vocabulary to target during learning
activities it is not feasible to closely examine every word in the text (Kinsella, Stump &
Feldman, 2002).

The vocabulary needs to be generative and be relevant to student

understanding in other topics/subjects (Kinsella et al., 2002). Additionally, the vocabulary

needs to be considered in context by examining how significant the word(s) are to the
overall text. Kinsella et al. (2002) explains that the most benefit will be gained from

Alexandra Thomas

11 October 2015

vocabulary study if attention is given to critical academic vocabulary. When helping to

build students word banks, it is important to do more than just define unknown words, but
to also help students build connections through discussions (Stahl, 1999).
Interest-based texts
Personal interest in the topic of a text has been found to have a positive effect on
text comprehension (Baldwin, Peleg-Bruckner & McClintock, 1985; Schiefele, 1992).
Schiefele (1992) defines personal interest as being the ongoing enthusiasm for a type of
object, an activity, or an area of knowledge. By presenting students with texts relevant to
their interests, teachers immediately increase student engagement in the given activity.
Interest in the text topic generates intrinsic motivation within the student, which can affect
cognitive and emotional variables relating to the learning process, such as willingness to
exert effort and the quality of the emotional experience (Schiefele, 1992). Hidi (2001)
expands on this, adding that when working within interest areas, students are more likely to
use strategic processing and tend to learn more than students without interest in the topic.
When using interest-based texts in the classroom, students are more likely to make
connections with their own prior knowledge of the topic (Baldwin et al., 1985). This is highly
beneficial, especially when working with students who are having difficulties with the
inferential and evaluative levels of comprehension (Basaraba, 2012).
Methodology
Statement of Research Question
How does a targeted and explicit interest-based reading comprehension program
assist Year Four students understanding of informative texts?
Design
This intervention has been informed by Stringers action research approach. Action
research is described by Brydon-Miller, Greenwood and Maguire (2003) as an approach to
research rather than an academic principle. Action research is described as a cyclical
process which alternates between action, data collecting and reflection (Stringer, 1999; Ary,
Cheser Jacobs & Sorensen, 2006), with Stringer (1999) simplifying this into an action

Alexandra Thomas

11 October 2015

research helix of look, think, act. It is an ongoing process, during which researchers use the
information gathered from previous experiences to adjust methods and strategies for the
next phase of research. Ary et al. (2006) describe that a key component of action research
is teacher reflection, and Gore and Zeichner (1991) have commented on its role in the
education of pre-service teacher by encouraging them to self-monitor throughout their
careers.
Methods of data collection
Three informative texts and accompanying questions were selected from the CARS
series D, which are used for Year Three to Four students, to be used as the pre-, mid- and
post-tests. The CARS series were selected for this intervention as they are the assessment
Bill and Bens school uses, which would enable the comparison between previous scores and
intervention results. The CARS series focused on 12 reading comprehension strategies, and
are designed to complement the Strategies to Achieve Reading Success (STARS) explicit
instruction program. Each CARS lesson features a text (mixture of narrative and informative),
which has 12 accompanying multiple choice questions, with one question per reading
strategy.
Prior to the intervention, Bill and Bens classroom teacher was interviewed to
determine their previous performance in reading comprehension in formal assessments
(such as NAPLAN and tests from the beginning of each school year), classroom activities, and
general attitudes towards learning. After the pre-test, both boys were asked to list his
interests so texts could be designed around them. Each intervention session was audio
recorded by the researcher with verbal consent from Bill and Ben to monitor developments
between lessons. Additionally, a researcher journal was recorded after each session to track
progress and allow for ongoing reflection.
Participants
The participants of this research project were Bill, Ben, their classroom teacher, and
the researcher.

Bill and Ben were ten-year-old male students struggling with reading

comprehension, who were in a Year Four class at an elite all-boys school in the Perth
metropolitan area. Both students had similar reading comprehension abilities (below

Alexandra Thomas

11 October 2015

national and school averages) so that they could benefit from the same intervention
program.

Description of the intervention

This action research intervention took place across ten days (in a two-week period),
with lessons lasting for approximately 40 minutes. Each session was run with both students
as a small-group activity in a private room within the schools Curriculum Support centre.
Focus was placed on strategies to support vocabulary development, text summarisation and
identification of the main ideas of paragraphs. Sessions one and ten were spent on the preand post-test respectively.
Each lesson was based around a single text based on one of Bill or Bens interests (ice
hockey, robots, cars etc.). This text was adapted by the researcher to suit the boys ability
levels, based on Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Development (1978). From session two, each
lesson began with a vocabulary quiz, during which new or challenging terms encountered
throughout the program were revised. Both boys were highly competitive, and reported
that they enjoyed starting the lessons in this way. The text for the day was then presented
to the boys, where they underlined any words they didnt know. The researcher then read
each text aloud, verbalising, questioning and discussing possible strategies relevant to the
text with the boys. The boys regularly made verbal connections with their prior knowledge
of the topics and the information presented in the text. At the end of each paragraph, the
boys were asked to find a sentence which communicated the main idea in that section of the
text. After the whole text had been read through and discussed, the boys were asked to
write a summary of the text and read it aloud. Feedback was given from their peer and the
researcher, and the researcher then modelled a summary for the text and explained why
some details were included and others omitted.
Ethical considerations
As with all research projects which involve children, there are extensive ethical issues
which need to be considered. Written consent was received from by the children, their
parents and the classroom teacher, with the understanding that their consent could be
withdrawn at any point. All parties were given an information letter about the intervention

Alexandra Thomas

11 October 2015

task to ensure that they were fully informed about the research being performed. In
addition to these, ongoing verbal consent was required from the children, and they received
regular feedback in relation to their progress and how any data collected was to be used. All
audio recordings collected were transcribed and disposed of, and the transcriptions will be
stored on a private, password-protected computer for the next five years.

Findings
Quantitative results
After the pre-test was completed, the results were examined to identify areas of
need which both boys shared (see Table 1). Bill achieved 4 questions correct out of 12, and
Ben achieved 6 out of 12, which confirmed the need for them to have targeted instruction in
this areas. Based on the diagnostic results, both boys had weaknesses in the finding main
idea, sequencing, comparing and contrasting, finding word meaning in context and
summarising comprehension strategies. Due to the limited time period, it was determined
that focusing closely on three strategies would be more beneficial to the students ability to
understand and apply the strategies than working briefly on all five. The mid-test was
administered on the fifth session, with Bill achieving 7 out of 12 (improvement of 3 from the
pre-test) and Ben achieving 5 out of 12 (decrease of 1 from the pre-test).
Following the ten-day intervention, Bill and Ben had significant improvements in their
overall scores compared to their pre-test, and were both able to answer the questions
relevant to the three focus areas (main idea, word meaning in context, and summarising)
correctly. Bills post-test result was 8 out of 12, an improvement of 4 from the pre-test and
1 from the mid-test. Ben achieved 10 out of 12, an improvement of 4 from the pre-test and
5 from the mid-test.
Both boys answered the word meaning in context questions correct in the mid-test
and post-test, which suggests that the targeted vocabulary quizzes at the beginning of each
session taught them strategies which they quickly grasped and implemented. Ben correctly
answered the main idea question in the mid-test, while both boys took longer to
understand the summarising strategy.

Summarising is seen by many educational

researchers as one of the most difficult reading comprehension strategies to master, which

10

Alexandra Thomas

11 October 2015

is reflected by the collected data (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Perfetti, 2005; Boulware-Gooden,
2007; NSW Centre for Effective Reading, 2010b).

F.M.I.

F. &
D.

Seq.

C. &

C. &

E.

C.

Pred.

W. M.

Conc.

F. &
O.

A. P.

F. L.

Summ.

Total
/12

Bill
Pre-test

Mid-test

Post-test

Ben
Pre-test

Mid-test

Post-test

10

Table 1 Bill and Bens CARS results for pre-, mid-, and post-tests (refer to Fig. 1 for full
strategy titles).
Qualitative
Both boys demonstrated that they were attempting to incorporate their prior
knowledge when approaching new vocabulary. During the second lesson, Bill and Ben were
asked if either of them knew what commuting meant. Ben attempted to form connection
with his prior knowledge of the word root, rather than the text context (the history of cars),
and thought it meant communicating. Bill asked whether it had anything to do with
community. This shows that in the early stages of the intervention, neither boy was able to
consider a word in its context, and instead tried to liken it to words with similar roots. The
development of their understanding was shown in the ninth session, when Bill explained

11

Alexandra Thomas

11 October 2015

that a practitioner is someone who practices something its pretty easy: practice-tion-er.
This shows that Bill had merged his understanding of word roots with the context of the text
being read. When asked what a peer was, Bill responded that Ben is my peer, because
were in the same class. This example shows that Bill had recalled the meaning of peer by
placing it in his own context.
After reading each text, the boys were asked to summarise what they had read.
During session two, this was done aloud, however it became clear that Bill had copied what
Ben had said, so this activity was adapted for the subsequent lessons so that both boys
wrote their summaries instead, giving a more accurate reflection of their understanding of
the summarising strategy. Session threes text focused on Bills favourite sport, ice hockey.
Bill wrote that: The text is about a game turning into a better sport. All its doing is elvoving
[evolving], while Ben wrote that: This text is telling us about how hockey was made and
the people whow [who] were in it and what happen if stuff went wrong in hockey and how it
can be inproved [improved]. The comparison of these summaries show that both boys
were struggling to know what information should be included in a text summary, as well as
the structure of a summary.
It was Bens birthday during session eight, so the text selected was about the
history of birthday cakes. Ben showed significant improvement in his summary: The
Germans invented the cake. The first cake every made was made out of bread. The
Germans celebrate childrens birthdays with cake calling it Kinderfest., as he included
details from the text and answered some of the 6W questions. Bill was still struggling to
summarise texts, writing: Theyre telling you about the first cakes made and who made it
and tell what the cakes were back then and also telling about how better now the cakes
are.. Both boys were able to correctly answer the summarising question of the post-test,
however they would benefit from continued practice writing their own summaries.
Limitations
Upon reflection, there are several limitations of this intervention research. Due to
the restricted time frame, the above results may not be a true indication of Bill and Bens
reading comprehension ability. As different texts were used for each stage of assessment,

12

Alexandra Thomas

11 October 2015

the perceived improvement in results could be due to the range of text content. The small
sample size of this action research project must also be considered, as the perceived
improvements in reading comprehension skills could be specific to Bill and Ben, and may not
be able to be replicated. While the use of the CARS series of assessments was beneficial to
track the overall progress of specific reading strategies, the texts were chosen for their genre
(informative texts) rather than being interest-based.
Conclusion
In summary, the above findings show that the reading comprehension ability of both
participants improved as a result of the intervention.

Both students made significant

improvements in their ability to implement reading comprehension strategies relating to the

context of vocabulary and identifying the main idea of a text, and some progress was made
in the selection of an appropriate summary of a text. The use of interest-based texts was
popular with the participants, and encouraged increased student motivation and the
connections between the text and their prior knowledge.
The explicit instruction and modelling of reading comprehension strategies proved to
be effective in improving the ability of low-performing students. This shows the need for
explicit instruction in this area during classroom comprehension activities and guided
reading tasks. Writing text summaries has shown to be a difficult skill for Bill and Ben to
master, which could imply that other low-achieving students may struggle in this area.
The next phase of this action research task would be to consider the longitudinal
effects of the explicit instruction of reading comprehension strategies. This intervention
only allowed a brief glimpse into the potential benefits of this approach, and a long-term
study to track student progression would be beneficial to drawing accurate conclusions
about the possible teaching and learning implications of this approach. Exploring the use of
interest-based texts with high-achieving students could also have influence over the design
of extension programs, and should be further explored.
In conclusion, this intervention has found some evidence for the effectiveness of
explicitly teaching reading comprehension strategies through the use of interest-based texts,
and this is an area which would benefit from further investigation.

13

Alexandra Thomas

11 October 2015

References
Amer, A. A. (1994). The effect of knowledge-map and underlining training on the reading
comprehension of scientific texts. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 35-45.
Ary, D., Cheser Jacobs, L., & Sorensen, C. K. (2006). Introduction to Research in Education (8 th
ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Baldwin, R. S., Peleg-Bruckner, Z., & McClintock, A. H. (1985). Effects of topic interest and
prior knowledge on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4), 497504.
Basaraba, D., Yovanoff, P., Alonzo, J. & Tindal, G. (2012). Examining the structure of reading
comprehension: do literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension truly exist?.
Reading and Writing, 26, 349379.
Baumann, J. F., Seifert-Kessell, N., & Jones, L. A. (1992). Effect of think-aloud instruction on
elementary students comprehension monitoring abilities. Journal of Reading
Behaviour, 14(2), 143-172.
Bereiter, C. & Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identification and teaching of reading
comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2(2), 131-156.
Biemiller, A. & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and
advantaged populations: evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 498-520.
Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., Joshi, R.M. (2007). Instruction of
metacognitive

strategies

enhances

reading

comprehension

and

vocabulary

achievement of third-grade students. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 70-77.

Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Maguire, P. (2003). Why action research? Action
Research, 1(1), 9-27.
De Corte, E., Vershaffel, L., & Van De Ven, A. (2001). Improving text comprehension
strategies in upper primary school children: a design experiment. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71, 531-559.

14

Alexandra Thomas

11 October 2015

Duke, N. K. & Bennett-Armistead, V. S. (2003). Reading and Writing Informational Text in the
Primary Grades. New York: Scholastic Teaching Resources.
Duke, N. K. & Pearson, P. D.

(2002). Effective practices for developing reading

comprehension. In Farstrup, A. E. & Samuels, S. J. (Eds), What Research Has to Say

About Reading Instruction (pp. 205-242). Newark: International Reading Association.
Fisher, A. (2008). Teaching comprehension and critical literacy: investigating guided reading
in three primary classrooms. Literacy, 42(1), 19-28.
Gore, J. M. & Zeichner, K. M. (1991). Action research and reflective teaching in preservice
teacher education: a case study from the United States. Teaching & Teacher Education,
7(2), 119-136.
Hagtvet, B. E. (2003). Listening comprehension and reading comprehension in poor
decoders: evidence for the importance of syntactic and semantic skills as well as
phonological skills. Reading and Writing, 16, 505-539.
Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: theoretical and practical considerations.
Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 191-209.
Hobsbaum, A., Gamble, N., & Reedy, D. (2002). Guided Reading Key Stage 2. London:
Institute of Education.
Kamalski, J., Sanders, T., & Lentz, L. (2008). Coherence marking, prior knowledge, and
comprehension of informative and persuasive texts: sorting things out. Discourse
Processes, 45, 323-345.
Kendeou, P. & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on
comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35(7),
1567-1577.
Kinsella, K., Stump, C. S, & Feldman, K. (2002). Strategies for Vocabulary Development.
Retrieved from http://www.phschool.com/eteach/language_arts/2002_03/essay
Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
9(5), 178-181.

15

Alexandra Thomas

11 October 2015

Maguire, E. A., Frith, C. D., & Morris, R. G. M. (1999). The functional neuroanatomy of
comprehension and memory: the importance of prior knowledge. Brain, 122, 18391850.
McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension.
In Ross, B. (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 297-384). Burlington:
Academic Press.
Nagy, W. (1988). Teaching Vocabulary to Improve Reading Comprehension. Newark:
International Reading Association.
NSW Centre for Effective Reading. (2010). Comprehension Main Idea. Retrieved from
http://www.cer.education.nsw.gov.au/documents/249903/250184/Main%20Idea.pdf.
NSW Centre for Effective Reading. (2010). Comprehension Summarising. Retrieved from
http://www.cer.education.nsw.gov.au/documents/249903/250184/Summarising%20.
pdf.
Parker, M. & Hurry, J. (2007). Teachers use of questioning and modelling comprehension
skills in primary classrooms. Educational Review, 59(3), 299-314.
Pearson, P. D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on
young childrens comprehension of explicit and implicit information.

Journal of

Reading Behavior, 11(3), 201-209.

Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N. & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill.
In Snowling, M. J. & Hulme, C. (Eds.), The Science of Reading: A Handbook (pp. 227247). Oxford: Blackwell.
Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston, J., & Echevarria, M. (1998).
Literacy instruction in 10 fourth-grade classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 2(2), 159-194.
Rupley, W. H., & Blair, T. R. (1983). Reading Diagnosis and Remediation: Classroom and Clinic
(2nded.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

16

Alexandra Thomas

11 October 2015

Schiefele, U. (1992). Topic interest and levels of text comprehension. In Renninger, K. A., Hidi,
S., & Krapp, A. (Eds.), The Role of Interest in Learning and Development (pp. 151-182).
New York: Psychology Press.
Stahl, S. A. (1999). Vocabulary Development. Cambridge: Brookline Books.
Stringer, E. (1999). Action Research (4th ed.). California: SAGE Publications.
Surber, J. R. & Schroeder, M. (2007). Effect of prior domain knowledge and headings on
processing of informative text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 485-498.
The Sydney Morning Herald. (2014). Abbott government to overhaul crowded curriculum.
Retrieved

from

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-

government-to-overhaul-crowded-curriculum-20141011-114vrg.html.
Tarchi, C. (2010). Reading comprehension of informative texts in secondary school: a focus
on direct and indirect effects of readers prior knowledge. Learning and Individual
Differences, 20(5), 415-420.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Yopp, R. H. & Yopp, H. K. (2006). Informational texts as read-alouds at school and home.
Journal of Literacy Research, 38(1), 37-51.

17