Learning Strategy for Reading Comprehension · Tables, forms, and sample documents may be...

FIVESStrategy for Reading Comprehension

The

©2016 by Learning S

ciences International. All rights reserved.

MARY SHEA

NANCY ROBERTS

FIVESStrategy for Reading Comprehension

The



Copyright © 2016 by Learning Sciences International

All rights reserved. Tables, forms, and sample documents may be reproduced or displayed only by educators, local school sites, or nonprofit entities who have purchased the book. Except for that usage, no part of this book may be reproduced, transmitted, or displayed in any form or by any means (photocopying, digital or electronic transmittal, electronic or mechanical display, or other means) without the prior written permission of the publisher.

1400 Centrepark Blvd, Suite 1000

West Palm Beach, FL 33401

717-845-6300

email: [email protected]

learningsciences.com

Printed in the United States of America

21 20 19 18 17 16 1 2 3 4 5 6

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016933581

Publisher’s Cataloging-in-Publication Data provided by Five Rainbows Cataloging Services

Names: Shea, Mary. | Roberts, Nancy-Jill.

Title: The FIVES strategy for reading comprehension / Mary Shea [and] Nancy-Jill Roberts.

Description: West Palm Beach, FL : Learning Sciences, 2016. | Includes bibliographical references.

Identifiers: ISBN 978-1-943920-01-3 (pbk.) | ISBN 978-1-943920-04-4 (EPUB)

Subjects: LCSH: Reading comprehension--Study and teaching. | Literacy. | Effective teaching. | Common Core State Standards (Education) | Education--Standards--United States. | BISAC: LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Reading Skills. | EDUCATION / Teaching Methods & Materials / Reading & Phonics. | EDUCATION / Teaching Methods & Materials / Language Arts. | EDUCATION / Standards.

Classification: LCC LB1050.45 .S52 2016 (print) | LCC LB1050.45 (ebook) | DDC 372.47--dc23.



This book is dedicated to all educators whose professional lives truly reflect service to others.

—Mary Shea

This book is dedicated to my husband, Joe, for the support and encouragement he has always provided me.

—Nancy Roberts



vii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xv

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter 1

The FIVES Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

The Components of FIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Rationale for FIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Connection to the Common Core State Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

The FIVES Path to Full Comprehension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Whole to Part and Back to Whole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Chapter 2

F Is for Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Teaching FIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Understanding the Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Working With Intervention Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Working With ELLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Creating a Lesson Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49



T H E F I V E S S T R A T E G Y F O R R E A D I N G C O M P R E H E N S I O Nviii

Chapter 3

I Is for Inferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Inferring in Daily Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Making an Inference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Creating Thick Prompts for Supported Inferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Selecting Evidence and Phrasing Explanation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59


Working With ELLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Meeting Common Core State Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65


Chapter 4

V Is for Vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Determining Tiers of Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Learning Words in Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Examining Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Selecting Words for Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Examining Context for Meaning Clues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Using Resources for Word Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Creating Thick Prompts for Word Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Defining a Word’s Meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Using Words Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89


Working With ELLs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Meeting Common Core State Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91


Chapter 5

E Is for Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Making Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Understanding the Personal Nature of Associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Using Discussion to Enhance Learning and Build Community . . . . . . . . 104

Creating Thick Prompts for Relevant Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Providing Evidence for Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Working With Intervention Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111



Table of Contents ix


Creating a Lesson Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Chapter 6

S Is for Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Distinguishing a Well-Constructed Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Creating Thick Prompts for Effective Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124



Meeting Common Core State Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Creating a Lesson Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Chapter 7

From FIVES to Integrated Response Essay (IRE) . . . . . . 137

Examining the Prompt: Question or Petition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Reviewing Notes From FIVES Completed on a Topic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Getting Started: Using the Question or Petition to Set the Course . . . . . . 139

Integrating Components of FIVES Effectively Across Paragraphs . . . . . . . 144

Writing Memorable Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Effectively Using Traits for Good Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147



Meeting Common Core State Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175



xi

Acknowledgments

I have the extraordinary good fortune to work with amazing colleagues and grad-uate students. I learn so much from them and am continuously enriched by their collegiality. Randy Seiwell shared the initial seed for the FIVES concept in the courses she taught as an adjunct in our graduate literacy program. Nancy Roberts also used FIVES with our literacy candidates as well as with elementary, middle, and high school students. It was a graduate student who suggested the addition of S for Summary. Nancy’s enthusiasm about FIVES encouraged me to try it in my classes. Students found it easy to use and seemed to learn and recall more from the readings, and many shared how they applied it in their classroom. Nancy presented the FIVES at workshops and conferences. She kept saying, “FIVES needs to be shared more widely; it works!” It was her persistence with that mantra that sparked the suggestion that we write a proposal to do just that.

Having authored other books, I knew what the task demanded in time, energy, persistence, and patience. I felt confident in taking the journey with Nancy. I appre-ciated that she accepted the challenge—“Let’s do it.” Nancy is a dedicated, passion-ate, and hardworking teacher who always goes above and beyond. Students and colleagues highly respect her and hold her in warm regard. She makes them laugh, feel inspired, and believe in themselves—as teachers, as learners.

Turning the writing you’ve labored over into a published text still feels like a bit of magic to me. I can hardly believe it when the copy first arrives. All the angst that existed at moments in the process evaporates. I am ever so grateful to everyone who put the proverbial lipstick on my words. Publication does take a village. I know I can-not name all of the people involved in the production of this book; I don’t have their names. I can only offer my sincere appreciation for their efforts. We couldn’t have done it without you! Special thanks to Dani Smiles, who navigated us through the initial review of our proposal, and to the reviewers who kindly read and responded to it. We also greatly appreciate the thoughtful and thorough editing of this work by Lesley Bolton. Her suggestions were very helpful; her encouragement inspired us.

—Mary Shea



T H E F I V E S S T R A T E G Y F O R R E A D I N G C O M P R E H E N S I O Nxii

I have had the benefit of wonderful mentors and colleagues over the years. Dr. Mary Shea and Dr. George Wenner both inspired in me a desire to learn more and dig deeper. To add to this, I then had the good fortune of working with administrators who believed in and encouraged me to work toward finding answers that matched the needs our students had. Sister Jeanne Eberle, Dr. Ryan Schoenfeld, and Dr. Bernadette Smith were those who backed the process of teaching diagnostically and within the wide parameters of diversity found in all classrooms. They are the Facts who gave me the energy and will to always work toward possibilities.

Mary has been more than a coauthor, and the work has been more than research and writing. Mary has been a supportive collaborator and guiding friend. Sometimes I even forgot we were working! Thank you for all this and more.

Over the past twenty years, I have been blessed to work with students who offered me the opportunity to learn from them. One would be amazed to know what a six- or sixteen-year-old can teach a teacher. The FIVES has been more than a strategy I teach; it is a way to think, read, respond, cope, and communicate in all areas.

I wish to acknowledge my appreciation for the numerous coworkers who gave me the chance to work beside them and share in a collaboration that made the FIVES an adjective in teaching. Their willingness to share back with me, teaching me about the literacy needs they had within each curriculum area, has been a joy.

To my husband, Joe, and children, Camilla and James, thank you. Your listening, discussing, reviewing, and support mean the world to me as you invested in my pas-sion to reach and teach from the early days in my career to the present.

A sincere thank-you goes out to Dani Smiles, who first supported our journey in putting the FIVES to print. And, to Lesley Bolton, for the gentle feedback, sugges-tions, and thoughtfulness, which are greatly appreciated.

—Nancy Roberts



Acknowledgments xiii

Learning Sciences International would like to thank the following reviewers:

Katie Brown 2014 Washington Teacher of the Year Shuksan Middle School Bellingham, Washington

Kristen Karszes2014 Beaufort County School District

Teacher of the YearHilton Head Island High School Hilton Head Island, South Carolina

Jen Haberling 2009 Michigan Teacher of the Year Baldwin Street Middle School Hudsonville, Michigan

Andrea Noonan Fox 2013 North Dakota Teacher of the Year Cheney Middle School West Fargo, North Dakota

Jennifer Toledo2013 Downey Unified School District

Teacher of the YearGauldin Elementary School Downey, California

Natalie Wester 2010 Ohio Teacher of the Year Gearity Professional Development School University Heights, Ohio



xv

About the Authors

Mary Shea is a professor at Canisius College in Buff alo, New York, where she teaches in and directs the graduate literacy programs. Previously, she worked for many years in western New York schools as a classroom teacher, literacy specialist, and language arts coordinator. She is the author of fi ve other texts for teachers, a chapter in an edited book, and numerous journal articles and teacher guides. Mary regularly conducts workshops for teachers, staff developers, and administrators. She recently was a visiting professor at St. Patrick’s College in

Dublin, Ireland. Mary has held leadership positions in local and state professional organizations and continues to work with and support these groups.

Nancy Roberts is a literacy specialist at the high school in the Lockport City School District in New York and works with grades 9–12 in various content areas, weaving literacy skills and strategies into all curricular areas. Within her position, Nancy teaches collaboratively and in lab settings. Her students include 12:1:1, 15:1, CT/504, ESL, and general education. She provides staff development to support literacy instruction across grades K–12 and addresses the Common Core ELA requirements in all content areas.

Nancy also works at Canisius College in Buff alo, New York, in the graduate literacy program as an adjunct professor. Her work there includes teaching and working in the clinical experience as well as teaching a course on the changing role of a literacy specialist.

Previously, Nancy worked many years as a classroom teacher and literacy specialist in an elementary/intermediate parochial school in Buff alo. Most recently, Nancy has



T H E F I V E S S T R A T E G Y F O R R E A D I N G C O M P R E H E N S I O Nxvi

worked with a specialized grant to engage collaboration in literacy instruction across curricula with teachers. She has presented at the New York State Reading Association (NYSRA) conference in Albany on the FIVES and collaborative teaching with fellow literacy specialist Sarah Kozarowicz and building administrator Bernadette Smith.



xvii

Preface

Several years ago, an instructor at a local college introduced Nancy to the emphasis on essential components for comprehension. This instructor explained that these components were presented at a local staff development workshop she attended that was focused on writing document-based questions (DBQs). Although comprehen-sion elements presented in the workshop were not identified as FIVE, the instructor organized her notes that way. The workshop outlined the importance of students’ application of higher-level thinking when constructing responses to DBQs, responses supported with evidence in the text (Anderson et al., 2001; Tantillo, 2012, 2014). Over the years, Nancy adapted the strategy to make it developmentally appropriate for K−12 students as well as her graduate literacy candidates. One graduate student suggested the addition of S for summarize, rounding out the strategy with the inclu-sion of another essential skill, one also emphasized in literature for writing effective constructed responses and in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

We recently found evidence that Friends of Hana, an organization founded in 2010 in Hawaii to work with Hana School and other community organizations, has heard about FIVES and reports the use of FIVES on their website as a summer school curricular emphasis. Jen Nadler, a certified literacy specialist and graduate of the MS literacy program at Canisius College, where both of us teach, reportedly coordinated the Hana Summer Program around FIVES. Jen’s introduction of FIVES to the Hana program, using the associated term Investigative Reader, introduced by Nancy in her graduate course, inspires us.

The Investigative Reader

When you read anything, you are meant to read for INFORMATION! You do this when you read something for entertainment, to understand or learn something new, to find out the latest sport scores or news, and to “get it” when reading texts in school. You want to learn and do well in school and take this acquired knowledge and skills into the world—to use in your life and career.



T H E F I V E S S T R A T E G Y F O R R E A D I N G C O M P R E H E N S I O Nxviii

There are five things you collect when you read—or should be collecting. These are:

Facts—This is what is right there in the text. You can go back and point it out. It is not just a matter of I know it; I can point to it or show it.

Inference—This is what the text makes you add because of what the author suggests or hints. You read between the lines, adding logical details based on your own knowledge and life experiences.

Vocabulary—These are the words in the text that are either new or are used in a new way. Using words and sentences around target words helps readers get a better understanding of them.

Experience—As they read, investigative readers read beyond the lines. Think: Have you met these or similar ideas in other text? Have you had ex-periences like ones in the text? Do you have a friend who knows anything about this or does anything like this? Did you see a movie or news show that connects to this? Investigative readers connect ideas in texts read to themselves, the world, and/or with other texts.

Summary—As you read, collect important facts or key ideas (i.e., who, where, when, why, what, how). Try for three and keep them in order. Determine a central theme or the big idea. Write a summary of the text, including key ideas and central theme. You can add an inference or connection to con-clude your summary, but keep that brief. (Roberts, 2012)

We are thrilled that the message of FIVES has spread. Using FIVES with in-service teachers in our online literacy MS program—which includes candidates across the United States as well as internationally—should produce even more far-reaching effects. That is exciting. FIVES, like other models, catches on when teachers imple-ment the strategy with different demographic groups. This builds a body of evidence for the efficacy of an approach.

The Question Into Paragraph (QuIP) model, suggested by McLaughlin (1987), has a degree of similarity. The QuIP offers a framework for doing research, structuring note writing, and summarizing information. In this model, students pose questions to guide their search for information on the topic, take notes from multiple sources, and summarize notes for each question. They construct a paragraph or sections of a research report.

Another method that has shown to be effective with middle and high school strug-gling readers is collaborative strategic reading (CSR) (Bremer, Vaughn, Clapper, & Kim, 2002). CSR integrates modified components of reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) with cooperative learning formats (Johnson & Johnson, 1987) and some other effective practices for efficient comprehension (Bryant et al., 2000). Consistent practices of CSR include previewing the text, self-recognition of when information is clicking (one understands it) or clunking (confusing the reader),



Preface xix

getting the gist (identifying the central idea or theme), and wrapping up (summariz-ing). Each step involves self-questioning at surface and deeper levels, reviewing, and applying fix-up strategies when meaning is lost. FIVES includes components that align with those in CSR.

We developed the FIVES method to focus on comprehension of one text at a time, intending to create a mental model for including micro and macro aspects of com-prehension in an integrated and natural flow through the self-production of prompts to guide reading and understanding.



1

Introduction

Preparing students of today for their future in an increasingly global society—where the rhythms and activities of daily life, as well as career opportunities, seem to con-tinuously await the unveiling of the newest version of some device—is more about teaching how to construct and apply knowledge to reason, learn, adapt, innovate, collaborate, communicate, and be comfortably flexible than it is about ensuring that discrete facts and isolated skills are mastered. Genuine competency in such cognitive functions grows incrementally only when nurtured through practice with tasks that replicate applications associated with real-life situations, issues, or problems that are relevant to students. Countries that meet this challenge will be the leaders of this 21st century global community, both economically and politically. National standards in currently high-achieving countries tend to focus on broad, meaningful skill perfor-mances that are language and domain specific; there’s a notable appreciation for the role of language in learning across content areas. Without searching for a silver bullet to ameliorate all problems, academically successful nations have worked systemati-cally to construct a solid yet malleable-to-new-research-findings educational struc-ture (Sahlberg, 2011). The movement in the United States toward such a structure is beginning to gather momentum.

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) outline rigorous expectations (CCSS, 2012; CCSSO & NGA, 2010; NAP, 2011) that mirror competencies needed for success as citizens of a community, country, and world. The CCSS call for students to read increasingly more complex text with a higher percentage of the total in the informational category (see table I.1, page 2). The implementation of the CCSS has created debate, but the broad goals and expected outcomes stated in these standards appear in line with skills students will need for success in life and career.



T H E F I V E S S T R A T E G Y F O R R E A D I N G C O M P R E H E N S I O N2

Table I.1: Percentages of Type of Text in the CCSS

Grade Type of Text

Literary Informational

K−4 50% 50%

5–8 45% 55%

9–12 30% 70%

Source: NAEP, 2008.

Informational text is broadly defined by the CCSS (CCSS, 2012; CCSSO & NGA, 2010) to include biographies, autobiographies, and text with information specific to content domains (e.g., history, science, and technical texts that can include direc-tions, forms, charts, diagrams, and digital sources on a myriad of topics). Literary nonfiction or writing that narrates an investigation (e.g., memoirs, personal essays, commentaries, and magazine feature articles) also fall within this category (Bradway & Hesse, 2009). This shift in percentage of genre engagement is essential as the depth and breadth of content subject curriculum increases. It also necessitates differentiated disciplinary literacy instruction (with specificity to content domains) if teachers are to find time to address all English language arts (ELA) and domain standards that focus on meaning construction through language and literacy skills integrated with content from all types of texts and visuals supporting them (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008; Subban, 2006; Tomlinson, 2001). Literacy skills, developed in early grades, do not automatically transfer to applications in later grades. Literacy instruction must be ongoing, focused on increasingly sophisticated texts, and integrated with domains of knowledge (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). Collaboration with literacy specialists and targeted staff development are essential since secondary teachers typically have few courses in literacy instruction when earning certification, making them less prepared for new CCSS expectations (Windschitl, Thompson, & Braaten, 2011).

In reading, the CCSS call for students to read widely and deeply and reread as needed to (CCSSO & NGA, 2010):

• Comprehend the author’s message

• Construct meaning with text

• Cite text evidence as rationale for their thinking

• Identify key ideas and significant details

• Analyze sophisticated and technical vocabulary for contextual meaning



Introduction 3

• Identify the author’s point of view, bias, opinions, or purpose

• Attend to and use visual supports in text

• Effectively use text structures to support comprehension

Furthermore, strategies for using these skills need to be in place, similarly described, taught, reinforced, and consistently practiced across all disciplines. That allows students to assimilate, internalize, and appreciate the range of their applica-tions. Expectations for parallel development and use of other language processes are also described in the CCSS. Speaking and listening standards include students’ sharing of thinking from reading and research. Writing standards require students to demonstrate that they can effectively write about what they’ve read.

Goals for writing focus on using writing to learn. Students integrate writing with reading tasks to express their thinking, knowing, and learning. They (CCSSO & NGA, 2010):

• Compose clear, coherent, and organized writing focused on the task, purpose, and audience

• Conduct short research projects that build knowledge through investigation

• Draw evidence from texts to support responses

• Use technology and digital tools to research information, compose, publish, and collaborate with others

The CCSS further delineate a balance of students’ purposes for writing (National Assessment Governing Board, 2007). Perhaps in response to charges that schools are turning out students who are ill prepared to write beyond personal response (Purcell-Gates, Duke, & Martineau, 2007), the CCSS has outlined a guide for balancing the percentage of students’ engagement with different purposes for writing.

Table I.2: Purposes for Writing

Grade To Persuade To Explain To Convey Meaning

4 30% 35% 35%

8 35% 35% 30%

12 40% 40% 20%

Source: National Assessment Governing Board, 2007.




To meet these demands, teachers do more with less. Students engage in close read-ing that involves “an investigation of a short piece of text, with multiple readings done over multiple instructional lessons. Through text-based prompts and discussion students are guided to deeply analyze and appreciate various aspects of the text . . . and how its meaning is shaped by context . . . and the discovery of different levels of meaning” (Brown & Kappes, 2012, p. 2). Close reading slows the reader down to revisit text, delve into it, analyze ideas presented by the author, consider multiple interpretations, argue perceptions, savor the craft of its creation, and make connec-tions with previous knowledge and experiences. Rereading and revisiting text increase comprehension. Rereading “is always the number one comprehension strategy . . . [one] most useful to readers of all ages” (Routman, 2003, p. 122). Rereading also improves fluency even though it takes time. Fluency is not solely about speed; it’s so much more than that. Fluent reading is “marked by a synchronous combination of word recognition accuracy, confidence, appropriate pacing, and smooth flow (i.e., characterized by appropriate expression, voice pitch, intonation, word phrasing, and word emphasis)” (Shea, 2012, p. 68). Genuine fluency enhances comprehension (Rasinski, 2008): “Fluency has been shown to have a reciprocal relationship with comprehension” (Stecker, Roser, & Martinez, 1998, p. 306). There are extensive and natural scaffolded applications of language and higher-level thinking in collaboration with peers, strengthening students’ interpersonal skills, self-confidence, and motiva-tion to learn (Fischer & Frey, 2014).

The strategy described in this text emphasizes these language and literacy skills as well as the importance the CCSS place on learners’ ability to ask questions about information, phenomena, or ideas encountered. Ciardiello (2012/2013) notes, “Indeed the very first standard for reading literature and informational text rec-ommends that students need to be taught with prompting and support to ask and answer questions about key ideas and details” (p. 15). FIVES is a strategy that mean-ingfully integrates research-based strategies for reading, writing, speaking, listen-ing, viewing, and visually representing for disciplinary literacy instruction related to authentic texts and issues. Each part of FIVES is connected to specific standards in the chapter describing it. It can be universally applied across disciplines to develop high levels of competence with literacy processes and content-specific knowledge and skills. This translates into college, career, and life skills that lead to success.

Although FIVES can be adapted for use at primary and secondary levels, this text will focus examples on upper elementary through middle school grades. Chapter 1 introduces the strategy and how it is applied effectively in the classroom. Chapters 2 through 6 each explain an aspect of FIVES and present a protocol for teaching and practicing it. Examples of students’ work and a lesson plan for teaching each step of FIVES are included. Chapter 7 outlines how FIVES, completed for a text or multiple



Introduction 5

sources, can be used to construct a multiparagraph integrated response essay (IRE). Each chapter contains a Pause and Ponder section that includes prompts intended to stimulate conversations among colleagues or peers in a course.

Using the FIVES process, students begin to realize how content gathered can be applied to extended academic writing. This competency is important for success in the classroom and on formal tests. It’s also essential as a college and career skill set.



7

C H A P T E R 1

The FIVES Strategy

There has and continues to be much discussion and writing focused on teaching students strategies that will enable them to become independent readers (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007; Zimmermann & Hutchins, 2003). However, a distinction between skills and strategies needs to be clear in the minds of teachers and readers to ensure appropriately targeted instruction and effective learning. Serravallo and Goldberg (2007) define skills as “competencies that are applicable to all reading texts and expe-riences” (p. 12). Readers who can activate prior knowledge, determine main ideas and significant details, determine word meanings using context clues, efficiently decode words, draw inferences from text, retell, synthesize, and visualize have developed a repertoire of reading skills.

The way—specifically, how—a reader performs these skills in given situations con-stitutes a reading strategy (Serravallo & Goldberg, 2007). Efficient readers select and apply multiple skills suited to a text, their level of background knowledge, and intended purpose as they construct meaning. But, before that outcome can be achieved, students must be taught useful reading skills, allowed ample time for supported practice with each, and be provided with models of their integration as strategies across multiple kinds of texts for authentic purposes. With the plethora of information and suggestions available, an effective, efficient, and versatile pro-tocol for teaching students skills and how to use them strategically for comprehen-sion and word learning becomes essential. FIVES provides that protocol, integrating research-tested skills and strategies that become internalized and self-initiated by readers across genres of text and purposes for reading. Students read for academic and pragmatic purposes; we must also encourage and make time for them to read for pleasure. “Reading is both a cognitive and an emotional journey” (Miller, 2009, p. 16). Independent reading for pleasure inspires motivation to read more; persistence




with complex texts; discovery of unknown people, places, and times; and the growth of empathy as readers vicariously experience events through characters in books (Miller, 2009).

The Components of FIVESThe letters of FIVES represent a competency or skill for understanding concepts, the message, and vocabulary in text. They also represent making personal connections with background knowledge and experiences as well as elaborating and expanding to construct personal meaning and express it succinctly and accurately.

F stands for facts. Before readers can move to higher levels of thinking on Bloom’s revised taxonomy, they need to initially acquire facts to work with—as grist for engaging in deeper levels of meaning making. The Fact level is expressed as a verb (remembering) rather than as a noun (knowledge) in the revised taxonomy (see figure 1.1); the revisions appreciate that each level involves a cognitive process performed from recalling facts to higher levels of thinking (Anderson et al., 2001). It’s essential that readers recall the stated facts accurately and distinguish key ideas from significant details and interesting but nonessential ones.

Bloom’s revised taxonomy showing skill/level from most complex to least complex:

Original Thinking New Thinking

Evaluation Creating

Synthesis Evaluating

Analysis Analyzing

Application Applying

Comprehension Understanding

Knowledge Remembering

Figure 1.1: Bloom’s revised taxonomy.Source: Anderson, Krathwohl, Airasian, Cruikshank, Mayer, Pintrich, Raths, & Wittrock, 2001.

I represents inferences. Readers read between the lines, adding what’s in the text content (tc) to what’s in their mind (background knowledge [bk] and experience [e]) to construct an inference. Thus, I = tc + (bk + e) (Shea, 2012). See figure 1.2. It’s important to remember and respect that life’s circumstances and opportunities, friends, family, culture, and school have shaped the background knowledge and experiences that students bring to a text. Although inferences are built from this



The FIVES Strategy 9

mixture, text-based inferences are those supported with a preponderance of informa-tion explicitly stated in the text; knowledge-based inferences are highly supported by readers’ background knowledge and experiences as these connect to content in the text (Beers, 2003). As readers make inferences, they personalize understanding of text content (Irwin, 2007; Keene & Zimmermann, 1997).

Making an inference: I = tc + (bk + e)

= +

Inference = What’s in the book (tc) + What’s in my mind (bk + e)

Figure 1.2: Inference formula.

V is for vocabulary. “Words are important; they have power” (Shea, 2011, p. 194). Authors use precise words to clarify their message, lessening the potential for misun-derstanding. Some words may be new or unfamiliar in the context in which they’re found. It’s incumbent on the reader to fully understand words, terminology, and expressions as used in the context of the text read. Students who have limited vocab-ularies struggle to understand grade-level text, particularly informational selections. Th is is especially true for English language learners (ELLs), who are limited in the academic language required for navigating content area texts and instruction related to it (Kieff er & Lesaux, 2010). (Visit www.htsb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Academic-Language-Functions-toolkit.pdf for the Academic Language Function Toolkit, an informational and highly useful resource that includes instructional sug-gestions and learning activities for developing academic language [i.e., language spe-cifi c to instructional interactions, learning activities, and information or concepts across content areas] with all students in the classroom [e.g., on-level students, strug-gling learners, students with special needs, or ELLs]).

Informational (expository) text is especially replete with terminology that is topic specifi c. Narrative text and other genres also introduce unfamiliar words and multiple meanings for known words. In any text type, readers may come across many words that they have not previously met in print or heard in conversation. Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) call these tier 2 (sophisticated synonyms for basic or tier 1 words) and tier 3 (domain- or content-specifi c) words (table 1.1, page 10).




Table 1.1: Tiers of Words

Tier 1 Words (common words most people understand)

Tier 2 Words (more sophisticated synonyms for common words or words used in new way)

Tier 3 Words (domain- or content-specific words)

small trivial hibernation

wild tempestuous manifesto

hop bound fibula

smart cunning biodegradable

E stands for experiences. Readers elaborate, expand, evaluate, and make connec-tions based on experiences (from background knowledge and life). If we went to the Guggenheim Museum and looked at an abstract painting, we could similarly list the shapes, colors, and medium observed in an abstract painting—the text con-tent. However, our interpretations would differ. The work would evoke personal emotions, memories, and associations; such variations are accepted and respected. In addition, our interpretations may or may not match the painter’s intention. That doesn’t matter; once an artist, painter, author, or composer publishes work, he no longer owns the meaning. Meaning is negotiated between the author and audience. Audience members naturally construct personal understandings, elaborating and expanding based on logical connections with their background knowledge and lived experiences.

Every day, we unconsciously make connections with stimuli that impact our senses; it’s instinctive to interpret incoming information and connect new data to what we know or have experienced. Readers should also do this when engaged with text; sim-ply decoding words is insufficient. Reading involves active thinking throughout the process of engaging with the text. In order to assimilate and accommodate it, readers consider how new information connects to their prior knowledge and experiences. Guiding them to think analytically, share ideas clearly, and make use of their conclu-sions for a deeper understanding of the text content is an essential part of effective literacy instruction.

S is for summary. Shea (2012) states, “In a summary, the reader rephrases the gist of the text with a modicum of inference—or none at all” (p. 77). Readers reveal the accuracy, extent, and depth of their comprehension, ability to discern main ideas and significant details, and degree of clarity in expressing what they’ve gleaned from the




text. Eff ective summaries involve much more than merely lifting details from the text. Summarizers select important ideas, set aside unimportant and redundant details, rephrase information, report ideas in an appropriate sequence, and construct a topic sentence when the author does not provide or explicitly state one (Irwin, 2007). All of this is accomplished in a concise format, allowing readers to capsulize key ideas in a way that makes remembering easier and holding them for use in higher-level thinking behaviors. It is a multilayered, complex process that requires explicit instruction, eff ective modeling, and authentic practice (Cohen & Cowen, 2011). Summarizing becomes an ongoing metacognitive behavior when readers self-monitor comprehension, forming brief mental summaries as they navigate through complex text. Th is signifi cantly increases retention and improves overall comprehension of that text (Gunning, 2010). Readers are activated to engage in summarizing as well as each of the other skills and apply them strategically and eff ectively by the questions or prompts they pose for themselves. Figure 1.3 shows an example of displaying a visual reminder of the components of FIVES.

Figure 1.3: Visual reminder of the components of FIVES.




Order of Introduction

The steps of FIVES are introduced in the order of the acronym, especially as teach-ers initially incorporate this instruction. The acronym creates a clear and straight-forward path for students learning the strategy. It must be noted and emphasized that, although one step is in focus when introducing FIVES, other components of full comprehension are never ignored in the lesson. The teacher still introduces new and unknown vocabulary, discusses content and terms while reading, and summa-rizes with students. This may change as teachers adapt FIVES for use with different groups. Nancy has sometimes found it helpful to introduce the V in FIVES imme-diately after Facts and before Inferences. Review of new or yet-to-be-mastered strat-egies for word solving facilitates understanding content that must be comprehended if logical inferences are to be made, especially when students’ meaning vocabulary is limited. In the chapters on Facts and Inferences, worksheets and model lessons will reflect attention to vocabulary—in methods very familiar to teachers and students—before the V in FIVES is a focus and students construct prompts for words they wish to study in depth. After each step has been taught, FIVES is used strategically, inte-gratively, and differentially to meet the needs of the reader, text, and task. Figure 1.4 demonstrates a student’s initial understanding after an introduction to the concept of FIVES.

Questions and Petition Prompts

Thick questions and petitions call for personal interpretations, critical or creative thinking, drawing conclusions, or connection building. Thin ones require answers or responses that paraphrase information stated in the text (Harvey & Goodvis, 2000). Prompts direct students’ attention toward finding information and construct-ing meaning.

Question prompts are posed in an interrogatory format, typically starting with interrogative pronouns (e.g., who, whom, which, what, how, when, or why) and end with a question mark. They seek information or explanations of thinking, expecting an answer from the person asked. But, questions are not the only type of prompt used to activate reading behaviors and responses; teachers also use petitions. Petition prompts pose directives with words like list, describe, outline, report, or explain; they specify behavior for a response type—from reporting stated information to sharing one’s reasoning (Cole, 2009).

Posing good prompts sets a purpose and course for reading. The questions or peti-tions we pose, as teachers, are models of ones we expect readers to eventually ask themselves before, during, and after any reading act. “Questions lead readers deeper into a piece” of text (Zimmermann & Hutchins, 2003, p. 73). The right prompts

Figure 1.4: A student’s understanding of the concept of FIVES.




Order of Introduction

Th e steps of FIVES are introduced in the order of the acronym, especially as teach-ers initially incorporate this instruction. Th e acronym creates a clear and straight-forward path for students learning the strategy. It must be noted and emphasized that, although one step is in focus when introducing FIVES, other components of full comprehension are never ignored in the lesson. Th e teacher still introduces new and unknown vocabulary, discusses content and terms while reading, and summa-rizes with students. Th is may change as teachers adapt FIVES for use with diff erent groups. Nancy has sometimes found it helpful to introduce the V in FIVES imme-diately after Facts and before Inferences. Review of new or yet-to-be-mastered strat-egies for word solving facilitates understanding content that must be comprehended if logical inferences are to be made, especially when students’ meaning vocabulary is limited. In the chapters on Facts and Inferences, worksheets and model lessons will refl ect attention to vocabulary—in methods very familiar to teachers and students—before the V in FIVES is a focus and students construct prompts for words they wish to study in depth. After each step has been taught, FIVES is used strategically, inte-gratively, and diff erentially to meet the needs of the reader, text, and task. Figure 1.4 demonstrates a student’s initial understanding after an introduction to the concept of FIVES.

Questions and Petition Prompts

Th ick questions and petitions call for personal interpretations, critical or creative thinking, drawing conclusions, or connection building. Th in ones require answers or responses that paraphrase information stated in the text (Harvey & Goodvis, 2000). Prompts direct students’ attention toward fi nding information and construct-ing meaning.

Question prompts are posed in an interrogatory format, typically starting with interrogative pronouns (e.g., who, whom, which, what, how, when, or why) and end with a question mark. Th ey seek information or explanations of thinking, expecting an answer from the person asked. But, questions are not the only type of prompt used to activate reading behaviors and responses; teachers also use petitions. Petition prompts pose directives with words like list, describe, outline, report, or explain; they specify behavior for a response type—from reporting stated information to sharing one’s reasoning (Cole, 2009).

Posing good prompts sets a purpose and course for reading. Th e questions or peti-tions we pose, as teachers, are models of ones we expect readers to eventually ask themselves before, during, and after any reading act. “Questions lead readers deeper into a piece” of text (Zimmermann & Hutchins, 2003, p. 73). Th e right prompts

Figure 1.4: A student’s understanding of the concept of FIVES.




open new doors of inquiry; they indicate a level of engagement, setting the reader on a quest for answers. Not all prompts stimulate the same depth of thinking; nor are they meant to. Some prompts are thick; some are thin. Prompts lead readers to both surface and deeper analyses of text content. Thin prompts focus on information found predominantly in the text—in a single sentence or across several sentences or paragraphs; thick prompts stimulate deeper thinking about the information and concepts stated and implied in the text (McLaughlin & Allen, 2000; Tierney & Readence, 2000). Thin and thick prompts stimulate the various levels of reading behavior described in figure 1.1 (page 8). The more complex the thinking, the thicker was the prompt that stimulated it. Respondents need to analyze prompts carefully in order to appropriately understand what is asked or expected. (Visit www.teaching channel.org/videos/structuring-questioning-in-classroom for an example of the art of questioning. Transcripts of the lesson can be downloaded.)

Too often, readers fail to notice prompts or focus on the specific behavior they request. When that happens, the response can be incomplete, inappropriate, or off topic. For the purposes of FIVES, teachers need to clarify the distinction between question and petition prompts, noting that questions require answers and petitions expect responses in a specified format. Instruction should include a focus on how to carefully analyze what is requested when deciding how to approach the task. Reinforce that the depth and clarity of one’s answer or response reflects understand-ing and thinking. It’s important to fully express this expectation in a learning com-munity where shared knowledge enriches all.

Rationale for FIVESThere is ample research-based evidence for the array of comprehension strategies presented in professional literature (Block, Gambrell, & Pressley, 2002; Harvey & Goudvis, 2007; Tompkins, 2010). These involve various approaches for ensuring the integration of word reading and meaning processing. Fluid execution of that duality while reading is complex; it takes time to master. In meeting that goal, ELLs face the double challenge of “learning academic content and skills while learning the language in which these skills are taught and practiced” (Goldenberg, 2008). Rather than applying skills separately as practice in isolation, efficient comprehension pro-tocols call for a flexible, strategic integration of reading skills relevant to the situation (Zimmermann & Hutchins, 2003). With effective instruction and ample practice, readers begin to flexibly self-initiate strategies taught as habits of mind when reading independently (Shea, 2012). When that happens, they’ve internalized them.

FIVES calls for such fusion of reading skills when actively engaging with text. It’s a protocol that can be taught across grades in a school, allowing consistency in




the language and formats for comprehension instruction regardless of the text type or content area; it also provides authentic situations for developing metacognition at successive levels of sophistication. FIVES provides a clear plan for decoding and comprehending texts—one all students can use effectively when it’s well taught and they’ve had ample time for guided and independent practice.

FIVES Prereading

Before reading, introduce the text; model how to preview it by skimming through titles, headings, subheadings, visuals, captions, and other sources for clues to its content. Invite students to make predictions, suggesting what they expect the text to be about or the information it will contain. Impress on students that assessing predictions as right or wrong misses the purpose for making them; they are logical or illogical based on the information we have at the moment. Logical predictions guide our thinking and expectations for information. When the author takes an unexpected turn or fails to include what we expect, we alter our expectations accord-ingly. Predictions set and reset purposes for reading. At this point, readers might also be making connections (e.g., with personal experiences, knowledge of the world, or similarity with other sources) that are confirmed and expanded as they read (Rog, 2003). Such frontloading of content and vocabulary needed to successfully navigate text prior to reading is important for all readers (Harper & de Jong, 2004).

FIVES During Reading

As noted, predictions are adapted while reading and new ones are formed. Initial connections are reviewed: Are they confirmed? Are there more points of connection? Proficient readers are continuously self-monitoring understanding as they continue through the text: Does this sound right? Does it make sense?

Whenever meaning is lost, they backtrack and reread in order to find the glitch and get back on track. Rereading is a highly efficient and effective fix-up strategy (Routman, 2003). In the classroom, stopping at appropriate places to discuss content becomes generative. The use of a variety of grouping structures (e.g., jigsaw, num-bered heads together) as well as tools for gathering and organizing ideas (e.g., graphic organizers) allows students to be engaged with a supportive team; they contrib-ute and learn from peers (Ovando & Combs, 2006). Everyone is enriched through discourse characterized by respectful sharing of ideas that are fully explained with rationale. Such breaks become checkpoints for absorbing information, reflecting on it, and preparing to move on. The teacher models taking notes at these discussion points, making bulleted lists or using a graphic organizer matched to a text format (e.g., for narrative, compare/contrast, sequence, proposition/support). Mapping out




one’s thinking—concepts, ideas, reactions, inferences, connections, or questions—during reading helps comprehension (Cohen & Cowen, 2011).

As each aspect of FIVES is introduced, note taking followed by written questions and answers (or petitions and responses) is modeled and practiced. However, other aspects of FIVES are integrated in the oral discussion throughout the reading epi-sode; they are never omitted, reinforcing that such thinking is an essential compo-nent of the reading act.

FIVES Postreading

This stage of the sequence allows readers to recall, synthesize, organize, summarize, and much more. Students use other language processes—listening to others, talking about ideas, and making notes—before crystalizing personal understanding (Cohen & Cowen, 2011). Post reading, structured interactions related to the text deepen comprehension as well as strengthen students’ language skills; they also build confi-dence and community. New and content-specific vocabulary is reviewed after read-ing, using different activities that call for a demonstration of understanding as used in the text and broader transfer made with particular words (Blachowicz & Fisher, 2006). Set the stage for a grand conversation on the text as a whole when the read-ing is complete by posing an open-ended prompt. There may be an awkward silence that extends uncomfortably, but be patient. Wait, and wait some more. If nothing happens, have students turn to a partner to share what they’re thinking or explain their confusion, then call on someone.

Ask, “Jamie, what do you think?” Then, “Sara, do you agree with that? Why?” The effective teacher remains a member of the conversation group, not an evaluator directing convergence on a single right answer. At first, this step—giving control to the discussants—is sometimes difficult. Be patient and supportive; a different role might help. When the teacher is busy as a facilitator, a takeover is less likely. Data on students’ performance as effective discussants can be gathered using an anecdotal checklist such as that in figure 1.5 while the discussion is in progress.

The teacher models note taking based on understandings developed in the discus-sion. After a full and rich discussion, the teacher models the aspect(s) of FIVES that is the focus of the lesson before guiding students’ practice. The process is described in the chapters that follow. Once familiar with all aspects of FIVES, students use the complete worksheet to organize their thinking, prepare for discussion, or construct a focused, coherent written essay. The process ensures that multiple standards are addressed.




Without making data collecting an intrusion on the flow of conversation, give a check for each occurrence of behaviors such as these during discussions . Add others or change these to suit your classroom . The list can also change during the year to reflect discussion behaviors in focus or important to a content area . Share what you are looking for with students . This provides data on students’ developing discussion skills .

Name Comments reflect interest and curiosity

Asked thick, relevant questions

Interacted with others to seek full answers or responses

Asked other speakers for more infor-mation or clarification

Supported ideas offered with logical reasons

Listened to others respectfully

Figure 1.5: Anecdotal notes on students’ contributions during discussion.Visit www.learningsciences.com/bookresources to download a reproducible version of this figure.




Connection to the Common Core State StandardsThe Common Core State Standards (CCSS) outline rigorous competencies in English language arts, including reading, writing, listening, speaking, viewing, and visually representing. They outline what students should know and be able to do for success as learners. These proficiencies develop over time with effective instruction, guided practice, and ample opportunities to apply skills in all of the language pro-cesses across domains of knowledge. Efficient instructional methodologies integrate standards mindfully, in an interdisciplinary manner.

FIVES provides students with opportunities to work on specific standards as they (CCSSO & NGA, 2010):

• Determine a text’s main idea and explain how it is supported by details

• Support thinking with information and reasons

• Summarize a text

• Explain inferences made with evidence from the text, prior knowledge, and experiences

• Clarify the meaning of new words, terms, and figurative language, using context clues

• Compose clear, coherent, and organized writing focused on the task, purpose, and audience

• Analyze the structure of texts (e.g., sentences, paragraphs, and larger portions)

• Gather relevant information from print

• Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support connections made

• Read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts independently and proficiently

The CCSS for preK−12 schools are intended to lead all students toward college and career readiness as an outcome goal. The standards are developmental in nature while focused on rigorous competencies in all language processes and their applications as tools for learning across domains of knowledge. They also outline expectations for interaction with more complex texts and sophisticated writing in response to reading and learning. The CCSS are focused on what students know and can do. Students read to learn; they discuss and write to report knowledge acquired. But, effective teachers also promote another intended outcome: a lifelong motivation to engage in




literate activities and evolve in all categories of literacy proficiencies. Specifics related to the CCSS are discussed in the chapters that follow.

The FIVES Path to Full ComprehensionThe bottom line in any interaction with text is comprehension. Without understand-ing, a text has not been read; it was only words spoken or viewed. Any strategy for understanding and learning will not be effective if only practiced in isolation with model texts and response sheets—if strict adherence to scripted procedures becomes more important than their purpose. In such cases, the focus becomes doing the steps rather than using the strategy in a personal, self-initiated, and strategic way, one thoughtfully matched to text. In this section, a road map for the journey—that of introducing, practicing, and integrating each step of FIVES with the one(s) previ-ously learned—is provided. Separate chapters elaborate on each component of FIVES with lessons and students’ work samples. An analogy for this journey would be the process of decoding a secret message through an analysis of its linguistic coding pat-terns to arrive at an understanding of the message, the destination of the activity.

A cryptologist needs to match each coded symbol to its equivalent English letter, form words and sentences, and read the sometimes-cryptic message intended by the creator. Only when the message is deciphered is it decoded. Not before. Although the term decoding is used in literacy instruction to describe word recognition, full decoding—just like figuring out an encoded message—requires more than merely matching symbols to English words. Matching symbol to code; attaching mean-ing with each word, phrase, and sentence; connecting sentences; and elaborating between and beyond text is the journey that leads the cryptologist to his destination: an understanding of the message. It’s a whole-part-whole (WPW) process (Swanson & Law, 1993). A cryptologist calls on his holistic understanding about the nature of such messages (i.e., their brevity, use of symbols, and hidden meanings associated with words). He then deciphers symbols, associating them with letters, letters to words, and words to sentences. Applying background knowledge and experience, the decoder reads between and beyond the cryptic text to understand the meaning—back to the whole. Full decoding or comprehension of an author’s message is similarly a complex process, one that happens in the mind. Vision is merely the vehicle for gathering codes, but the mind needs to act as the cryptologist.

Introducing the journey of the FIVES strategy involves a transparent discussion with travelers on the what, how, and when of this journey, creating a holistic under-standing of the trip. Most important, the why, purpose, or destination must be clear and made relevant from the start.




Preparing for the Journey

The FIVES approach is introduced with an engaging interaction that sparks stu-dents’ ability to select clues and understand a situation. The activity demonstrates how one uses cognitive processes to make sense during an interaction; these pro-cesses can also be integrated to understand conversations, lectures, video, writ-ten texts, or other means of communication. Students become aware that FIVES involves the strategic, conscious, and integrated use of familiar cognitive processes to comprehend text.

Through the teacher’s exaggerated dramatization of an outrageous character, stu-dents absorb and evaluate details observed, draw inferences, make connections, elab-orate based on background knowledge and experience, and draw conclusions. They engage in all of these cognitive functions without separating or naming each. The teacher guides students in sharing their thinking; she records comments in categories for FIVE as students share, explaining why each is assigned to a particular category. When the categories of FIVE have been filled with comments, the teacher shows students how to use the notes to construct a summary paragraph, the S in FIVES. See figure 1.6.

Title Introducing FIVES

Rationale Starting with a conceptual whole, the big picture, allow students to have a sense of what the unit of study will encompass, what they’ll be learning, and the final goal they can expect to reach . It’s like viewing the picture of a jigsaw puzzle before scattering the pieces to be put back together bit by bit to re-create the whole . Having that vision sets a purpose and provides a reference for each aspect of the task . It aligns with the whole-part-whole (WPW) theory of learning (Swanson & Law, 1993) . In this lesson, students apply language and cognitive functions to understand and interpret meaning during an oral interaction . That task aligns with language and cognitive functions used to comprehend other forms of communication as well as with the FIVES strategy applied to written text .

Grade 6

Time (# of minutes)

40−50

CCSS Listening and Speaking 1, 2, 3, 4:

• Prepare for and participate effectively in a range of conversations and collaborations with diverse partners, building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively .

• Integrate and evaluate information presented in diverse media formats, including visually, quantitatively, and orally .




CCSS (continued)

• Evaluate a speaker’s point of view, reasoning, and use of evidence and rhetoric .

• Present information, findings, and supporting evidence such that listeners can follow that the line of reasoning and the organization, development, and style are appropriate to the task, purpose, and audience .

Writing 1b, 2a, 2b:

• Support claims with logical reasoning and relevant, accurate data and evidence that demonstrate an understanding of the topic or text, using credible sources .

• Establish and maintain a formal writing style .

• Develop the topic with relevant well-chosen facts, definitions, concrete details, quotations, or other information and examples .

Objective (antecedent, behavior, criterion for success)

Following the teacher’s performance as Mrs . Roberson, demonstrating natural applications of higher-order processing of information, and general explanation of the FIVES strategy, students will show understanding through written notes on an assigned aspect of Mrs . Roberson’s presentation; these are shared with the group . Students will also write a six-sentence paragraph that includes a sentence with two facts, a sentence with an explained inference, a sentence specific to new vocabulary introduced by Mrs . Roberson, a sentence describing related personal experience, and, finally, a conclusion of what they understood from the presentation .

Note: Mrs . Roberson is the teacher’s dramatization of a befuddled substitute teacher, someone trying to perform her job in carrying out the lessons planned by the classroom teacher . The lesson has been successfully used by Nancy; students are amused and engaged in the process of meeting the lesson’s objective .

Motivating Activity (brief activity to get attention and build interest)

1 . The teacher tells students that she will be demonstrating a strategy that will help them understand messages in texts, situations, and conversations and prepare them to respond effectively in each case .

2 . FIVES is listed on the board with spaces between each letter . This will be used in the discussion to record students’ comments . Explain that these letters represent keys to unlock our memory about tools that can be used interactively and strategically to understand texts, situations, or conversations . Using them effectively will require adaptations to meet the complexity of the text, situation, or conversation .

Teacher Instruction (teaching and modeling)

1 . Very briefly, the teacher explains that these are five tools that will facilitate understanding of orally communicated or written messages . Then, the teacher adds letters to spell each word . For example, the teacher adds “acts” to F to spell Facts and says, “State a fact about me .”

continued Figure 1.6: Introducing FIVES lesson plan.




Teacher Instruction (teaching and modeling) (continued)

2 . Add “nference” to spell Inference . This is explained as related to ideas one creates based on facts merged with prior knowledge and experience . The teacher says, “Look outside . What do you see? What do you infer about the weather today? How do you know?”

3 . Add “ocabulary” to spell Vocabulary . Ask, “I just explained inference to you . Who can give me an explanation of inference?”

4 . Add “xperience” to spell Experience . Mention that this means that you make connections, elaborate, evaluate, or integrate background knowledge from prior reading and life experiences . Ask, “Will someone elaborate on what we are doing here right now and give me examples?”

5 . Add “ummary” to spell Summary . Explain, “When my friend Mrs . Roberson comes in to visit us, I will ask you to summarize what we understand by FIVE .”

6 . The teacher explains that she will be leaving and Mrs . Roberson will be coming in as the substitute . They will understand this interaction in the sense of evaluating her performance as a substitute teacher to determine whether she should be asked to come back . Each row of students will be responsible for one of the letters, except S . (Summary will be done collectively .)

Guided Practice (GP) (students work with support of teacher or peers)

The teacher leaves, and Mrs . Roberson enters . Her glasses are askew, her sweater is disheveled, she has on slippers, and she’s carrying a big book of sudoku .

As she enters the room, she bellows, “Hey there . How ya doing?” She goes into a dialog . This lasts about five to seven minutes . (Teachers can be spontaneous in creating their own script . What follows is an example .)

Mrs . Roberson is very gruff in her manner and speech . She insists it’s a science class when it is an English class . She asks what they are supposed to be studying . When students respond, she says, “Well take out your books and study because I have a sudoku match on the computer to complete .”

She asks the students, “Well which one of these computers works?” Then she, off the cuff, asks students, “Have I seen you in Rite Aid?” or “Where did you get those sneakers? I like those . I want to get some .” In the course of her conversation, she uses words/terms such as by gum and by golly, getting a flip do, and going home to sit on the divan and listen to my Hall and Oates .

Mrs . Roberson goes to the teacher’s desk . After a minute, she asks, “Hey, did you hear that phone ring? Hope they don’t have a party line .”

Mrs . Roberson looks at the clock and says, “Oh my goodness, I have a bunion appointment .” She gets to the door and tries to open it, has difficulty, but eventually succeeds in getting it open . She exits the room, and the classroom teacher returns .

The classroom teacher says, “Now, you should have understood the situation with Mrs . Roberson and be able to share information about her performance with me . That will help me make an informed decision about whether she should be called back to sub in our school again .”




Guided Practice (students work with support of teacher or peers) (continued)

Row one reports on facts collected about Mrs . Roberson . For example, “She wore glasses that were crooked .” The teacher writes this comment under Facts . Sometimes a student might suggest an inference at this point . For example, “Mrs . Roberson is confused .” At this point, the classroom teacher would say, “That’s an opinion, an inference .” She will write the statement under Inference that is another row’s column . Then, she asks, “What facts do you have to support your inference?” Those statements are recorded under Facts .

The students continue sharing inferences, vocabulary, and elaborations .

Inference example: Mrs . Roberson has bad eyesight .

Fact evidence: She wears glasses .

Vocabulary example: Mrs . Roberson said “by golly, by gum” and “di-van .” Students explain meanings they understand for these words, typically elaborating with personal experience . The classroom teacher points out those elaborations in their responses and records the meaning and elaboration in the appropriate column .

Elaboration example: Often, students will note, “I’ve had a sub like that .” They are asked to explain the similarities . Responses are recorded .

At this point, the classroom teacher notes all the information recorded; she explains how she will take the details from the FIVE columns to write a paragraph about Mrs . Roberson’s performance that could be used to make a decision about rehiring her .

Example paragraph that models the sequence of the event:

Mrs . Roberson substituted for our ELA class today . She wore glasses and a green sweater with holes . She appeared to be confused because she couldn’t remember what class she was supposed to be teaching . Mrs . Roberson talked about sitting on her divan and getting a flip do; these are old-fashioned words for a sofa and longish hair that flips up at the end . We’ve had other subs like this before—ones who didn’t know what they were doing . It seems that they weren’t well prepared to teach or know our school routines . Mrs . Roberson just wanted to do her sudoku . For these reasons, Mrs . Roberson should go to a remedial class for substitute teachers and be re-evaluated before she’s called back as a substitute .

Closure (brief summation of learning by teacher or students)

* Closure precedes independent practice (IP) here because IP will be homework

The teacher asks students to demonstrate their current level of understanding for each aspect of FIVES by showing one to five fingers . Five means fully understand, three means so-so, and fewer than three means unsure . Areas of “unsure” are briefly explained . The teacher lets students know that they will be spending more time on each aspect, exploring it more closely . The teacher will use her iPad or phone to take a picture of the notes on the board; these are e-mailed to all students . They will have this to use in completing homework .

continued




Independent Practice (students work independent of teacher)

For homework, students will write a six-sentence paragraph that includes a sentence with two facts, a sentence with an explained inference, a sentence specific to new vocabulary introduced by Mrs . Roberson, a sentence describing related personal experience, and, finally, a conclusion of what they understood from the presentation . It cannot be a repeat of the classroom model .

Assessment (during and after lesson)

The teacher will assess throughout the lesson, noting students’

• Responses during the interaction with Mrs . Roberson

• Ability to collect appropriate notes for area assigned during Mrs . Roberson’s performance

• Oral input of information to be recorded on the board under each column

• Ability to work together effectively, listen, and expand on information in the discussion

• Contributions to the group summation written during the lesson

• Successful completion of the homework assigned

Possible Adaptations/Modifications

The teacher could use a short YouTube video clip depicting an outrageous character (e .g ., from Family Matters) .

Limit observations to facts and inferences during Mrs . Roberson’s performance . Another day, do V and E with another performance . On the third day, summarize .

After watching a video clip (e .g ., on Hamlet), students put sticky notes, recorded while watching, on four posters around the room . Each poster had a word—Facts, Inferences, Vocabulary, and Elaboration . The next day they would write the summary .

Reflection (completed after teaching)

How successful was the lesson? What could be changed? Who needs reinforcement?

This introduction lesson for FIVES reflects an essential sequence for successful instruction. It begins with teacher modeling, includes guided practice by students that is teacher assisted, and allows students to work independently applying the new strategy or knowledge. See figure 1.7.

The lesson provides a whole image of FIVES—presenting the pieces, how they are realized, how they are integrated, and how they are applied in a relevant meaning- making activity that leads to understanding. Over and over during the trials and cele-brations of the journey—a natural part of any extended trip—travelers are reminded of what awaits them at the destination. That motivates persistence. In this case, stu-dents are told that their scaffolded practice of this strategy will lead to independence in strategically and competently using it to read and respond to text.




I Do

The teacher models the skill, strategy, or task . Every behavior expected of students is first demonstrated along with an oral description of the teacher’s thinking while doing the behavior . This is a read-aloud, think-aloud (RATA) or a think-aloud, write-aloud (TAWA) .

We Do

After the modeling episode and follow-up discussion, students give it a try alone, with a partner, or in small groups while the teacher circulates to assess and assist . Discussion allows students to summarize their learning and express areas of confusion .

You Do

Students apply the strategy, skill, or knowledge independently to complete a meaningful task .

Figure 1.7: Consistent instructional sequence.

Reaching the Destination: Comprehension

There is seminal research and theory on comprehension (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000; Irwin, 1991; Tierney, Readence, & Dishner, 1995; Zimmermann & Hutchins, 2003) that concludes the essential components for full and deep comprehension and sug-gests effective strategies for reaching the goal. Irwin’s (1991) model portrays the com-plexity of comprehension. Irwin outlines processes in a linear fashion, but they are not intended to be hierarchical. When used proficiently, they operate simultaneously and interactively, depending on the characteristics of the reader, the complexity of the text, and the demands of the situation. When comprehension breaks down, there is a problem in one or more of these processes (Shea, 2006). FIVES offers a strategy that integrates Irwin’s (1991) micro and macro processes, essential for reaching the destination, for comprehension.

Irwin (1991) represents comprehension as a complex cognitive act involving the seamless integration of micro and macro processes. This model does not function in a unidirectional manner; readers move recursively as they navigate the micro and macro, weaving mental operations together in unique ways for particular texts. Just like Irwin’s (1991) linear presentation of the model, FIVES is introduced step by step, modeled, and supported in guided practice and independent practice, but, as they are learned, each is integrated with the next one. The focus is on building com-petency with the parts in order to apply them holistically to the task. Separate chap-ters offer ideas for FIVES instruction and practice with each step. Each step is linked to the one that follows, continuously emphasizing their connection—as threads in a finely woven fabric. When students have assimilated all the steps of FIVES to the point of internalizing and self-initiating their interactive use, it becomes less about the strategy practice and more about strategic implementation with each text met, resulting in full understanding of the author’s message and effective personal




responding (orally or in writing). The alignment of FIVES with Irwin’s (1991) model is shown in figure 1.8.

Micro Processes Chunking words into meaningful phrases (F)

Integrative Processes

Understanding vocabulary, figurative language, and word referents (F + V)

Building connections between sentences and paragraphs (F + V + I)

Making mini inferences between sentences and paragraphs (F + I)

Macro Processes Grasping the overall gist of the text; constructing deep meaning with the text (F + I + E + S)

Elaborative Processes

Organizing and summarizing (S)

Connecting relevant personal experience (E)

Creating mental images (F + I + E)

Responding affectively (I + E)

Making predictions (F + I)

Integrating prior knowledge from other sources (E)

Applying higher-level thinking (E)

Metacognitive Processes

Monitoring personal understanding (FIVES)

Self-initiating fix-up strategies (FIVES)

Figure 1.8: Irwin’s five aspects of comprehension.Source: Adapted from Tompkins, 2003.

Visit www.learningsciences.com/bookresources to download a reproducible version of this figure.

The end goal of FIVES instruction is to encourage active reading, characterized by seamless strategy use when interacting with text. The final destination (back to the whole) is always the goal—and that place is always deep comprehension. Ortlieb (2010) notes:

Students are now required to answer complex questions which call for in-dependent integration, interpretation, critique, and evaluation of texts . . . students must think deeply about what is being presented plus be able to organize text, identify causal relationships, and identify important details in texts, graphs, photos, and other materials. (p. 145)

Engagement across Irwin’s (1991) five aspects of comprehension using FIVES increases opportunities to refine those skills.




Micro Process

First, there’s the micro process that includes understanding vocabulary used in a text or passage along with chunking words (stringing together) into meaningful phrases and sentences. In order to effectively do that, readers must have an under-standing of the meaning conveyed by the words in the context they are used. This skill is a critical component of fluency. The V in FIVES helps students notice import-ant, interesting, complex, or unusual words in a text and realize that they need to think about, investigate, and/or clarify these in order to fully understand—get the gist of—the author’s message.

Integrating Information: Reading Between the Lines

Next is the integrative process; this requires bridging sentences and paragraphs together, understanding word referents used across sentences, and making mini infer-ences between sentences and paragraphs. For example, assume a student reads the following in a text.

The boy tried out his new fishing pole in the local pond . He con-cluded that it was a good investment for getting the catch of the day in that spot .

The reader needs to immediately understand that he in the second sentence refers to the boy mentioned in the first sentence, and it represents the new fishing pole. From prior knowledge or experience, he’ll have to understand that the expression catch of the day means a fish. He’ll also have to make the connection that the author is referring to the local pond in the first sentence with the phrase in that spot in the sec-ond sentence. Finally, the reader, understanding the use of investment and the word conclude, might assume that a fish was caught since the boy concluded that the new pole was a good investment (Shea, 2006). This all involves F (what is explicitly stated in the text), V (word and figurative language meanings), and I (mini inferences).

Macro Process

The macro processes lead to getting the gist, the big idea or overall meaning. This is evidenced by students’ ability to organize ideas and express appropriate under-standing of (orally or in writing) what they’ve read—a summary (S). Summarizing is different from retelling. “In a summary the goal is to be concise” (Cecil & Gipe, 2003, p. 240) rather than include personal interpretations and conclusions as in a retelling. Tierney, Readence, and Dishner (1995) suggest constructing a twenty-word




gist statement for a passage read. Although a word maximum is not recommended as a rule, the idea is to encourage conciseness that includes key ideas.

Elaboration: Reading Between the Lines

The next aspect is the elaborative phase in which students expand the gist. They make predictions, integrate relevant background knowledge and experience, make room for affective responses, and engage in higher-level thinking. At this point, the reader is making connections with the text (F), background knowledge from other sources (F + E), and personal experiences in the world (I + E). An emphasis is always on providing evidence or a rationale for personal meanings that are con-structed. Calkins (2000) calls it grounding; the discussant can respond to a query such as, “On what grounds do you think that?” Students need to understand that their audience will expect to be provided with cogent explanations if they are to be persuaded by ideas.

Metacognitive Process

Lastly, there’s the metacognitive aspect in which listeners or readers monitor their own understanding and apply fix-up strategies. They go back to reread or they ask for repeats of specific information that was unclear; they pose questions for clarification. Garner (1987) explains that metacognition relates to “learners’ knowledge and use of their own cognitive resources” and reports that this “can help explain performance levels, and can offer a theoretical framework for devising instructional interventions to promote greater strategy use among readers” (p. 1).

Some children become skilled with these processes in a natural way. Early literacy experiences allow these aspects to evolve and grow. Children are enveloped with the wholeness of stories and information; they process meanings acquired, organizing and summarizing ideas in their schema. As they do so, they begin to elaborate in ways that reflect higher-level thinking, affective responses, and predictions. They are constantly building connections (integrative) and repairing confusions (metacogni-tive); they ask questions when they don’t understand. The incessant why is the child’s heuristic tool. The child experiences the world as a whole; significant others begin to identify, categorize, and label stimuli. Then, the child interacts in his world, integrat-ing his knowledge, know-how, and skills. Successful learning—whether learning how to ride a bike, to play a game, or to read—typically involves thoughtful reflection by the learner and assimilation that follows whole to part to whole (WPW) (Swanson & Law, 1993).

The WPW model integrates two camps in the field of learning psychology—the behaviorist’s emphasis on mastery of parts with the cognitive approach that empha-sizes the gestalt and idea of the sum as greater than its parts—presenting a theory




that proposes “a natural whole-part-whole rhythm to learning” (Swanson & Law, 1993, p. 44).

Whole to Part and Back to WholeIncorporating FIVES in any curriculum begins with a whole. The teacher provides students with a picture of FIVES as a whole—as a process naturally used when learning inside or outside of school. It’s like reviewing the picture on the cover of a puzzle box, noticing some details about the whole that will assist when working with the pieces. It also provides a vision of the destination. Students experience an overall introduction to the strategy’s parts, process, purpose, and rewards. When effectively done, this ensures students’ motivation to engage and persist in the journey; they agree with the value of the reward and trust in the journey’s leader.

To make the long trip endurable, it’s broken down into steps, into parts. Travelers accomplish each leg of the trip, celebrating successful arrival at that milestone. Students learn, practice, and acquire proficiency with each aspect of FIVES before moving on. As they move to the next step, they reflect back and integrate the skill they’ve learned with the new one. When all steps of FIVES are acquired—when stu-dents approach the destination—the focus is on transfer. Students work on apply-ing FIVES with whole texts. They have arrived at the destination when FIVES is no longer composed of separate steps of a strategy to be practiced but ones that are self-initiated and used interactively, strategically, and with appropriate adaptation for each text in order to make sense of it and understand it fully. We know that this is a critically important goal for lifelong learning, but, more immediately, it’s a require-ment for academic success.

PAU S E A N D P O N D E R

Use the following prompts to initiate discussion with colleagues.

1. Describe activities you have included (or will include) during reading sequences that address the cognitive functions included in the FIVES.

2. How can attention to the stages of a reading episode (i.e., pre, during, and post) increase students’ engagement and learning?

3. Explain how your current practice aligns with CCSS for developing students’ competency with the identified cognitive functions and complex text structures.




4. Describe the issues your school has faced in implementing the CCSS. What steps has the faculty taken?

5. How does comprehension instruction in your school align with Irwin’s model? Where are there gaps?

6. Share your response to the whole-part-whole concept for instruction and learning. Give examples of the concept as reflected in your classroom or school.



Learning Strategy for Reading Comprehension · Tables, forms, and sample documents may be...

Documents

Transcript of Learning Strategy for Reading Comprehension · Tables, forms, and sample documents may be...