Crédito Tributario Adicional por Hijos

Processes When They Select Books

This test assists students to become more active participants in increasing their own metacognitive abilities. It also enables you to determine how well students assume the responsibility of assessing their own metacomprehension when they select a book.

Step 1. Metacognitive readers know that they can read more advanced books in topics about which they have read extensively in the past. Therefore, students identify the topic about which they want to read based on how much and what they want to learn in this particular reading experience. Do they want to learn, relax, review, or escape into another person’s world? As students ap- proach a set of books, their purpose for reading will determine the thickness of the book they select. For example, if they want to relax, they may choose a shorter book than if they want to learn very specific information about a topic.

Step 2. Metacognitive readers select books written by authors that they en- joy. Students are taught, and are then assessed as to how well they survey specific author writing styles. If a favorite author or captivating title attracts the attention of highly skilled metacognitive readers, they examine that book, till the text, and scan the authorial writing pattern before deciding to read it.

Step 3. Students are taught, and then assessed, to thumb through a book to determine the density of the text and the amount of effort that they will have to exert to enjoy this author’s writing. Then, they are to select a single page near the middle of the book to read to determine whether or not they know the majority of words. As they read that page, students can press one finger down on the oppo- site page for every word that they do not know. If the student presses down all five

fingers on one hand before a single page has been read, this student could deduce that this book may cause so much frustration in decoding, that the comprehen- sion and enjoyment of it may be compromised. In such cases, students are taught and metacognitively evaluated as to whether or not they returned to Step 1 to re- peat the prior steps in this book selection process.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Much research must be completed before we can determine how many of the metacognitive tests in this chapter are needed in a single year. We must also identify which types of metacognitive evaluations can become standardized and norm referenced. Our body of knowledge has not yet proven which tests in this chapter should be administered first. Can an evaluation hierarchy be built? Are certain tests better indicators of young children’s metacognition than others? The tests in this chapter are an initial effort to present research-based tests of metacognition. Many other metacognitive tests need to be created and validated.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important that our profession move ahead to expand our capacity to docu- ment students’ self-initiated metacognitive processing before, during, and after reading. The assessments in this chapter have demonstrated significantly impor- tant ways to do so. This chapter was designed to describe several of the newly de- veloped metacomprehension assessment instruments. Each is intended to dem- onstrate comprehension processes in action. Many are performance based, such as “What Do We Need to Fill in” tests, “What’s the Problem” tests, and “Did You Till the Text” tests. Others assess students’ abilities to reflect on their own metacomprehension processes, such as the “Thinking to the End Metacognitive Summary” test, the “What Were You Unable to Think About in the Harder Book” test, the “Tell Me What I Should Do and I’ll Do It” test, and the long-term memory test. Many involve students’ self-assessment or participation through written forms, folders, and multiple work samples (e.g., self-assessment systems, color-coded comprehension portfolios, and the selecting book test). By using these evaluations, educators provide valuable, metacomprehension instructional and evaluative experiences for students. Through them, students and teachers come closer than ever before in identifying specific meaning-making problems that have limited the pleasure and profitability of past reading experiences. Through them, our profession comes closer than ever before in determining the specific metacognitive processes that can be developed to create optimal enjoy- ment and information for all readers in the future.

REFERENCES

Block, C. C. (2004). Teaching comprehension: The comprehension process approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Block, C. C., Gambrell, L., & Pressley, M. (2003). Improving comprehension instruction: Re-

thinking research, theory, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Block, C. C., & Israel, S. (2004). The ABC’s of Effective Think Alouds. The Reading Teacher,

47(2), 117–130.

Block, C. C., & Mangieri, J. (1996). Reason to read: Thinking strategies for life through literature. Boston: Dale Seymour.

Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1985). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension strategies: A natural

history of one program to enhance learning (Tech. Rep. No. 334). Urbana, IL: University of Il-

linois, Center for the Study of Reading.

Durkin, D. (1976/1977). The teaching of reading comprehension in elementary classrooms.

Reading Research Quarterly, 11(1), 17–39.

Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Guthrie, J. T., Cox, K. E., Knowles, K. T., Buehl, M., Mazzoni, S. A., & Fasulo, L. (2000). Building toward coherent instruction. In L. Baker, M. J. Breher, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), En-

gaging your readers: Promoting achievement and motivation (pp. 209–236). New York: Guilford.

Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (1995). The Literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writ-

ing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Mak, K. (2002). My Chinatown. New York: Harper Collins.

Mangieri, J. (2004). Best practices in comprehension. Report 312. Charlotte, NC: Institute for Lit- eracy Enhancement.

National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHHD). (2000, April).

Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading: Report of the subgroup on vocabulary (NIH Publication No. 00-4-4769, pp. 1–269).

National Reading Research Panel (NRP). (1999). National Reading Research Panel Progress Re-

port to the NICHD. Washington, DC: NICHD.

Oakhill, J., & Yuill, N. (1999). Higher order factors in comprehension disability: Processes and remediation. In L. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Models of effective educational assessment (pp. 111–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pearson, P. D., Roehler, L. R., Dole, J. A., & Duffy, G. G. (1992). Developing expertise in read- ing comprehension. In J. Samuels & A. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading

instruction (pp. 145–199). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

METACONNECTION FOR CHAPTER 5

Part I provided us with a sound theoretical base for understanding meta- cognition. As we move into the assessment section, chapter 5 by Block de- fines metacognitive assessments and presents a variety of informal assess- ment strategies for the classroom teacher. In chapter 6, Schmitt guides us as we learn more about assessing student awareness and control of meta- cognitive strategies.

Perfetti, C. A., & Lesco, R. (1979). Sentences, individual differences, and multiple texts: Three issues in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 23, 337–355.

Pressley, M. (1976). Mental imagery helps eight-year olds remember what they read. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 68, 355–359.

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively re-

sponsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reznitskaya, A., & Anderson, R. C. (2001).The argument schema and learning to reason. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 319–334). New York: Guilford.

Ryland, C. (1998). Scarecrow. New York: Scholastic Inc.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). The Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences for individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407. Stewart, M., Cummins, C., Block, C. C., & Lewis, S. (2004, December). The international and

transfer of comprehension process. Symposium conducted at the National Reading Confer-

ence, San Antonio, TX.

Sweet, A., & Snow, C. (2002). The RAND Corporation: New perspectives on comprehension. In C. C. Block, L. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Re-

thinking research, theory, and practice (pp. 7–23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tergeson, J. K., & Wagner, J. (1987). What it means to learn to read. Child Development, 56(5), 1134–1144.

Tierney, R. (1998). A new look at reading assessment. The Reading Teacher, 41(3), 301–318. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

I understand how important metacognition is to successful literacy learning. It is very evident in my classroom which students are demonstrating their metacognitive awareness. These students are aware of many skills to assist in their reading, they know how to employ those skills, and they are able to successfully use the skills dur- ing their reading. In self-selected reading, my students are in charge of monitoring their reading. I teach them many strategies, but they must choose the appropriate strategy. I can teach them the strategies, but they must decide to employ them. They must also decide which strategy to employ. If metacognition does not come naturally, what can I do to help?

—Melinda Young, First Grade, Illinois

Melinda recognizes the importance of awareness and control of metacognition in literacy learning. This chapter provides her with tools for measuring student awareness and control so that she can help her students who do not naturally de- velop this ability.

INTRODUCTION, OVERVIEW, BACKGROUND