Estrategias para involucrar colaborativamente a los apoderados

Teachers need assessments of strategic reading in order to gauge how well their students understand and apply strategies across tasks in the curriculum. Re- searchers need similar assessments so that they can evaluate the benefits of class- room interventions aimed at promoting strategic reading. Students can use the

information from strategy assessments to gain understanding and to monitor their own reading accomplishments. All of these assessment purposes are formative rather than summative, so the key feature of strategic reading assessments is diag- nostic utility as opposed to sorting students by abilities. Diagnostic assessments of strategic reading can be created within academic curricula (e.g., basal reading se- ries, science and social studies curricula), as well as produced as stand-alone as- sessments for teachers. Commercial publishers should be involved in both enter- prises to save teachers time and to create uniform assessments.

Future assessments of strategic reading can make better use of technology. Imagine strategy assessments administered via computers, hand-held PDAs, or multimedia platforms like LeapFrog pads. Students might undergo these assess- ments on their own time without supervision, which would be a huge savings of teachers’ time. They might also take the assessments repeatedly for their own in- formation in order to master the strategies and improve their comprehension. Technology-based assessments permit rapid scoring of the data, multiple displays of data and students’ progress, and ready access to the data by multiple users. The economical assessments of strategic reading through technology might increase their diagnostic use too because teachers do not have to spend inordinate amounts of time scoring and interpreting assessment results.

Researchers need to design and create assessments of strategic reading, but more importantly, they need to conduct basic research on the reliability and validity of the tools. Such research should be rigorous yet innovative because the usual crite- ria may not be appropriate. For example, reliability of strategy use, calculated as test–retest reliability, is difficult to evaluate because rereading the same text should result in better strategy use and comprehension the second time. Moreover, strate- gic reading assessments may not correlate highly with all standardized tests of read- ing because the knowledge required for strategic reading is highly situated and spe- cific, whereas standardized tests reflect individual differences in vocabulary, decoding, intelligence, experience, and a wide variety of factors. Thus, the usual calculations of concurrent and predictive validity may not be appropriate. Imagine a school where teachers provide extra instruction to struggling readers so that they can gain control over specific reading strategies. These readers might improve their reading comprehension, gain metacognition, and increase confidence in their reading, yet they may still score poorly on high stakes tests if those strategies are not applicable on the tests or if the tests require many additional skills besides strategic reading. It would be inappropriate to judge the strategy instruction as ineffective if the outcome measures are not sensitive to the actual cognitive and behavioral gains made by students (Cross & S. G. Paris, 1987).

CONCLUSIONS

Strategic reading is important because it is a foundation for self-regulated reading. Strategic reading allows flexible approaches for reading different texts for different purposes. Thus, it is important to instruct students about what, how, when, and

why to use various reading strategies, and it is equally important to assess whether or not students understand and apply reading strategies effectively. The meta- cognitive aspects of self-appraisal and self-management during reading can be as- sessed with self-reports of thinking, interviews during or after reading, and surveys of the frequency and value of different strategies. Teachers need to become familiar with these methods, as well as the underlying knowledge about strategic reading development, in order to diagnose students’ strengths and weaknesses and to pro- vide appropriate instruction in the classroom. Instruction and assessment of strate- gic reading can be intertwined in daily reading activities so that they provide recip- rocal support for each other. Future research should create uniform and useful methods for assessing strategic reading across grades K–12. If future strategic read- ing assessments are authentic, embedded in the curricula, and based on sound tech- nology, they will be enormously helpful for teachers and students.

REFERENCES

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Almasi, J. F. (2003). Teaching strategic processes in reading. New York: Guilford. Blachowicz, C., & Ogle, D. (2001). Reading comprehension. New York: Guilford.

Brown, A., & Day, J. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing text: The development of expertise.

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1–14.

Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade readers. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 88, 18–37.

Clay, M. M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Craig, M., & Yore, L. (1996). Middle school students awareness of strategies for resolving com- prehension difficulties in science reading. Journal of Research and Development in Education,

29, 226–238.

Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Assessment of reading comprehension: Matching test pur- poses and test properties. Educational Psychologist, 22, 313–332.

Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 131–142.

METACONNECTION FOR CHAPTER 7

Schmitt provided us with two case studies to improve our skills in assessing awareness and control of metacognitive strategies. In chapter 7, Paris and Flukes offer a guide for us to assess a reader’s strategy use as text is read, with the ultimate goal of comprehension. Concrete examples are presented for students in grades 1, 4, and 7. We will continue through middle school with self-assessment strategies discussed by Afflerbach and Meuwissen in chapter 8.

Dixon, R., & Hultsch, D. (1984). The metamemory in adulthood (MIA) instrument. Psycholog-

ical Documents, 14, 3.

Garner, R. (1982). Verbal-report data on reading strategies. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 159–167.

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

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2005). Roles of motivation and engagement in reading compre- hension assessment. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Current issues in reading comprehen-

sion and assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jacobs, J., & Paris, S. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255–278.

Juliebo, M., Malicky, G., & Norman, C. (1998). Metacognition of young readers in an early in- tervention programme. Journal of Research in Reading, 21, 24–35.

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lachman, M. (1986). Locus of control in aging research: A case for multidimensional and do- main specific assessment. Psychology and Aging, 1, 34–40.

Luke, A. (2000). Critical literacy in Australia: A matter of context and standpoint. Journal of

Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 42, 448–461.

Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2002). Assessing metacognitive awareness of reading strategies.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 249–259.

Moore, D., Zabrucky, K., & Commander, N. (1997). Validation of the metacomprehension scale. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 457–471.

Myers, M., & Paris, S. (1978). Children’s metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 70, 680–690.

National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the sci-

entific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC:

National Institute on Child and Human Development.

Paris, A. H., & Paris, S. G. (2003). Assessing narrative comprehension in young children. Read-

ing Research Quarterly, 38(1), 36–76.

Paris, S. G. (1991). Assessment and remediation of metacognitive aspects of reading compre- hension. Topics in Language Disorders, 12, 32–50.

Paris, S. G. (2002). Linking reading assessment and instruction in elementary grades. In C. Roller (Ed.), Comprehensive reading instruction across the grade levels (pp. 55–69). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Paris, S. G., & Ayres, L. J. (1994). Becoming reflective students and teachers with portfolios and au-

thentic assessment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., & Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children’s reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychol-

ogy, 76, 1239–1252.

Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 8, 293–316.

Paris, S. G., & Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 5–22.

Paris, S. G., Paris, A. H., & Carpenter, R. D. (2002). Effective practices for assessing young readers. In B. Taylor & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Teaching reading: Effective schools, accomplished

teachers (pp. 141–160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Paris, S. G., & van Kraayenoord, C. E. (1998). Assessing young children’s literacy strategies and development. In S. Paris & H. Wellman (Eds.), Global prospects for education: Development,

culture, and schooling (pp. 193–227). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa-

tion.

Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (2nd ed., pp. 609–640). New York: Longman.

Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. W. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. J. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15–51). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Paris, S., & Jacobs, J. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children’s reading aware- ness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55, 2083–2093.

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

sponsive reading. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schmitt, M. (1990). A questionnaire to measure children’s awareness of strategic reading proc- esses. Reading Teacher, 454–461.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Stahl, K.A.D. (2004). Proof, practice, and promise: Comprehension strategy instruction in the primary grades. Reading Teacher, 57(7), 598–609.

Wagner, D. A., Spratt, J. E., Gal, I., & Paris, S. G. (1989). Reading and believing: Beliefs, attri- butions, and reading achievement in Moroccan schoolchildren. Journal of Educational Psy-

My reading students use self-assessment checklists a lot in my class. I believe that it makes them aware of their thought process while they are engaged in the reading process. It not only forces them to be aware of their learning, but the checklists also remind them of other reading strategies that they may have forgotten. What are some other forms of self-assessments that middle school students can do besides checklists?

—Andrea Evans, Reading, Grades 6–8, Indiana

This chapter should give Andrea many ideas about how to teach and encourage self-assessment with her middle school reading students.

TEACHING AND LEARNING SELF-ASSESSMENT