Talk:Reading comprehension

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zoemarrott. Peer reviewers: Hattiegroat.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Permission

Permission was obtained. However, after further searching, I found a better definition and set of recommendations. The section on reading comprehension testing is my own, summarized from a selection of reading comprehension journals. EBlack 07:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Definition

I think the definition of reading comprehension is very bad. For one thing, it uses a synonym in the definition, understanding. Secondly, it introduces a related element, level. I think it is best to start out with a recognition that 1. we don't have a clear idea of what reading comprehension is, and 2. there are many different definitions. Bdubay (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Reading Comprehension Tests

There must be a library of good reading comprehension tests on the net. - It would be great if we could have an external link or links to such site(s). Richard001 19:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)...

http://mrnussbaum.com/readingpassageindex/EJET63 (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

Reading comprehension → Reading comprehension in the United States — All of the content and refernces of this artilce only apply the Education System and Education Practicioners of the United States, there is little or no scope for globalisation dolfrog (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• This may be a case where globalizing it is better. What is reading comprehension called in the UK? Is there enough material to discuss in two or more regionalized articles? 199.125.109.124 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

First I find it very difficult duscussing anything with a number, so if you have a real ID it would be much appreciated. I hope you do note mind but i have copied you post on my talk page to my own idiots guide to WIKI User:Dolfrog/Sandbox Waht you are failing to understand is that the issue has nothing to do with waht comprehension is calle in the UK, but about how each contry resolves these issues differently, using different educational teaching and support systems. This more about the first steps towards the teaching of reading by country, so that anyone who moves from contry to another can bewgin to understand the differences that exist between the different cultures, this could be helpful say for families in the US Military serices who are posted around the world so that thye will have a beeter understanding of how the teaching of reading and the expectaions of comprehasion may differ from one contyr ot another. There are differences between the USA and thre UK as I am discovering as I research Dyslexia which is about those who have a neurological disability with regard to the task of reading. Until i started doing any indepth research into these issues I was like you of the opinion that all was very much the same in both the USA and the UK, due to our shared langauge. But there are many differences which need to be understood and explained, and this issues are not as easily transferable as most would first assume. The problem is that most like me even until the last month or so assumed that everything was the same with no real variations, but the furthr away you get from the reading industry selling books on the subject and morer into the peer reviewed research, the difference become easier to identify, as the opinion becomes less and small amount of real research begins to expose the differences. There are different usages of words and their meaning between the different countries, and even different spellings and pronouciations of identical words, and so text books even on the teaching of reading are not transferable from one country to another. And this needs to be explained especially for those who have learning problems concerned with reading, especially the parents of children who movearound the world expecting the same education systems in all English speaking countries for example, or those learning other langauges to understand the variatiosn which may exist from one cultuer to another as each culture makes changes to their own version of a nominally shared language. Many langauges have a European origin, but after 100 years or more each culture developes their own version of these langauges, and the conformity disappears.

So we do need a whole "reading by country" Category and this and other reading articles about reading in the USA and the UK and Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany, China, etc, can be biuld a useful library or encyclopedia of information about this very complex topic with international complications. There is no one single globlal appraoch to this issue, much that I like you wish there were. More research needs to be done by linguists etc to provide more clarity regarding the variations. I am only trying to get a better understanding of Dyslexia, well Auditory Processing Disorder which causes me to be dsylexic, and the further i dig into the research the wider the range of issues becomes, and the greater the national difference become more apparent. The root of the problems lies in the different writing systems, and they real question there is why did these different writing systems evolve in the first place. But that is a different bu very related topic. dolfrog (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not support this move. Dolfrog asserts, but does not provide, minimal evidence to support it. There are some differences in schools and languages, but the asserted evidence is of the "In America, it's a 'truck', and in the UK it's a 'lorry'" type — which has zero effect on reading comprehension, which is the process of turning marks on a page into a mental image of the thing itself. There is no particular reason to think that this mental process is different in different English-speaking countries.

This article does have some problems; for example, the lead asserts that whole language is generally preferred to phonics, which is about 15 years out of date. However, the inability of this concept to apply to more than one country is not one of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Again WhatamIdoing only has ideas about the USa and the UK, there some other 200 ood countries who also have reading comprehension issues some of which are very different fro the issues which exist in eithe the USA or the UK, and there are differences between the UK and the USA due the ove 400 years of a split evolution of the english langauge due to very differsnt cultural experiences. So there will be a need for a Category "reading instruction by country" to include all the othger countries of the world, the other writing systems, and the various orthographes in these different writng systems. This is called Globalisation, which is at core of WIKI policy about articles English is an international langauge an many who learn english have previously learn to read using a diffeent writing system. so you can have bilingual people who are monoligual dyslexics nad have comprehansion problems in one of the two langauges they use. dolfrog (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing I case you had not noticed the move was made last week by a Wiki administrator, after the request was on the request list for a move for over a week. So hopefully you can help develop more articles for the new "Reading Instruction by country" category so that when even those from the USA want to find out how reading taught the different education systems in countries they may have to move to, thyey will be beeter informed of the changes they mar need to ake as part of their move to another country. dolfrog (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

from Reading Comprehension in the United States

Reading Comprehension

the current Reading comprehension article has the content for his article, Reading comprehension in the United States The editors who keep reversing this come from the USA and seem unable to understand the real global view of Reading, and appear to claim that the USA is the font of all knowledge, especially when it comes to reading, when they only have an adopted language, which is part of the Latin writing system. So the whole content is of limited global interest So the content of present Reading comprehension article belongs here,Reading comprehension in the United States, and there needs to a more WIKI global summary style approach to the Reading comprehension article dolfrog (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the editors that oppose your goal have this idea that the concept of "understanding what those marks on a piece of paper mean" is an issue that transcends both language and geography.

Wikipedia needs an article on the concept of reading comprehension. This article is incomplete, not wrong. You need to fix it, not just shove it out of sight and leave Wikipedia with no article on the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This hopefully will be my last contribution to this debate, this is only a side issue of a side issue of my main reason work trying to work on WIKI. First there is no agreed scientific working model for the task of reading. Reading in the context of reading the written word, or text, requires at least visual, auditory and attention skills and abilities, thee could be more as the research into the workings of the brain continue to improve our understanding of these issues. Reading is a man made task, and is about a secondary man made communication system the visual notation of Speech. WE all have different learning ability stengths and deficits which we use to help us learn to read, and to understand what we are reading. And the cognitive skills required for reading vary according to the structure of the writing systems we use and the different orthographies within each writing. system. Most of the research currently available only refers to the Latin writing system , although more research is now being done especially into the Chinese writing systems. So comprehension requires a summary article to define what comprehension of language is, and then sub articles by country or orthography. you may find this table helps explains the issues

	Variable		Differences
	Writing System		Orthography
	Orthography		Neurlogical skills
	Neurological Abilities		Weaknesses Deficits
	Neurological Abilities		Strengths
	Support Provision		National
	National		Statutory Provisions
	National		Support Structures

and may be have a look at Dyslexia: Orthography

As for me fixing it , I currently do not have the time, to carry out the research required to fix this particular problem, because it would require a revision of all of the WIKI reading articles, and currently I am way behind my planned schedule for editing / contributing to the dyslexia project articles, so that when I finally get around to researching what I am really interested in the Auditory Processing Disorder I know that there will little or no conflict with the dyslexia articles. So fixing any reading article is way down my list of priorities but as I am sure you could get some help from the Linguistics support teams if you really wanted to. dolfrog (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As a point of fact, reading does not require any auditory skills at all. Deaf people are perfectly capable of learning to read. Most people use auditory skills, but that's not the same as requiring them.

For the rest: if you don't wish to fix it, then you don't have to. Eventually someone will be interested in doing so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Reading comprehension on the internet?

I thought about adding this to the Reading(process) page, but it fits better here. There is a fair amount of research on how hyperlinks affect reading comprehension. I think it's very relevant, especially in an environment like wikipedia that is marked by its rich web of hyperlinks. Comments? Suggestions? I'll add the content in a new section tonight or tomorrow morning. Toxicmegacolonlaptop (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hold rambling text from intro

text from intro

Since the turn of the 21st century, comprehension lessons usually consisted of students answering teachers' questions, writing responses to questions on their own, or both. The whole group version of this practice also often included "Round-robin reading", wherein teachers called on individual students to read a portion of the text (and sometimes following a set order). In the last quarter of the 20th century, evidence accumulated that the read-test methods assessed comprehension more than they taught it. The associated practice of "round robin" reading has also been questioned and eliminated by many educators. Instead of using the prior read-test method, research studies have concluded that there are much more effective ways to teach comprehension. Much work has been done in the area of teaching novice readers a bank of "reading strategies," or tools to interpret and analyze text. There is not a definitive set of strategies, but common ones include summarizing what you have read, monitoring your reading to make sure it is still making sense, and analyzing the structure of the text (e.g., the use of headings in science text). Some programs teach students how to self monitor whether they are understanding and provide students with tools for fixing comprehension problems. Instruction in comprehension strategy use often involves the gradual release of responsibility, wherein teachers initially explain and model strategies. Over time, they give students more and more responsibility for using the strategies until they can use them independently. This technique is generally associated with the idea of self-regulation and reflects social cognitive theory, originally conceptualized by Albert Bandura.

putting this here for a moment while try to edit article and merge content from Comprehension critical task--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

moving first paragraph that had been in the intro to the history section--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

looks like it all goes in history--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Un-read?

What does this mean some one put a citation needed and it links to literacy nothing to do with un-read user:jlin0821 10:44 2/11/17

Essential skills

In the Definition section (permalink) it currently says "There are 9 essential skills for reading comprehension: …". This sentence has no references, and appears to be incomplete (it ends without full stop). I've often seen such incomplete structures be left behind due to incomplete reversal of vandalism, so I did some digging.

The sentence was first added in October 2018 by @Dcazalvilla, as follows (to my surprise, it was already missing a full-stop and never had a reference):

There are 6 essential skills for reading comprehension: Decoding, Fluency, Vocabulary, Sentence Construction and Cohesion, Reasoning and background knowledge Working memory and attention

It was updated in February 2019 to say "There are 7 essential skills …", although even with the missing comma added here, I still count six, not seven items.

Lastly, it was updated once more in February 2020, to break up "Sentence Construction and Cohesion", "Reasoning and background knowledge" and "Working memory and Attention", and the count increased from six to nine.

There are 9 essential skills for reading comprehension: Decoding, Fluency, Vocabulary, Sentence Construction, Cohesion, Reasoning, Background knowledge, Working memory and Attention

Regardless of these minor changes, the sentence seems oddly specific and rather matter-of-fact about there being exactly these and just these "essential" skills, with no sources to back it up, nor any indication of its intended scope or perspective where it would apply.

I've remove it for now as such. --Krinkle (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The Instructional method teacher use in teaching reading comprehension to grade 6

In which strategies can be applied in the classroom 197.241.43.124 (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Mama

hi today 175.176.70.18 (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Content Area Literacy

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2022 and 3 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ivy.ej (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ivy.ej (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Paper vs. digital

Does the claim that people read more deeply on paper vs. online hold up to peer review? I'm not sure I want to take the word of this one author. The book may have citations to sources which are more useful, though I don't happen to have a copy.

Reader, Come Home: The Reading Brain in a Digital World by Maryanne Wolf

-- Beland (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Content Area Literacy

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 6 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Llada75, Bee217hardcore (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Camiadmire, Kcj475.

— Assignment last updated by Kcj475 (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

New Comment

My suggestions mainly pertain to organization

• Move the definition section. Incorporate this section into the very beginning part of the article that is currently unlabeled instead of having it by itself. Its current placement just creates confusion and repetition. Once that's been completed, label the beginning part of the article the definition of reading comprehension. This will assist in making the article clearer.
• Combine the overview and history section. They appear to share similarly related information. This will assist in reducing confusion because the sections will not be separated. Readers will not have to renavigate the content.
• Label the vocabulary section differently. Its current title is misleading. It implies it is going to discusses reading comprehension vocabulary not how vocabulary is related to reading comprehension.

Areas of strength

• Citations. This article contains numerous citations to be able to locate information.
• Content. This article contains a high volume of information. One can tell the topic was well-researched.
• Examples. This article provides a wide variety of strategies associated with reading comprehension. Readers can understand how it is implemented.

Camiadmire (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)