A new study in the AERA Open journal examines how to support low-level readers when they tackle complex texts.
Recall that the Common Core English Language Arts standards require that students read grade-level texts. Common Core’s Appendix A states that, “The expectation that scaffolding will occur with particularly challenging texts is built into the Standards’ grade-by-grade text complexity expectations…” “Scaffolds” are instructional supports that help (often struggling) students move to greater understanding and independence. Yet many teachers don’t know what it means to scaffold their instruction, much less how to deploy it well in their classrooms. This study examines the effectiveness of different types of scaffolding to support reading comprehension, in particular “interactional scaffolding”—essentially “in-the-moment” or “on-the-spot” responsive support based on a student’s immediate needs. (This contrasts with “planned scaffolding,” which is more static and often provided by tools and curriculum.)
Though the study addresses an important topic, it is limited in scope, based on just 215 mostly low-income fifth and sixth graders in four urban middle schools. Two-thirds of them scored at the basic or below basic level on their most recent state reading assessments. Scaffolding was provided during four thirty-minute guided reading lessons (i.e., two hours total intervention) by tutors working with small groups. Certified teachers served as tutors for most of the lessons and received three hours of training on how to identify and ultimately deliver the scaffolding techniques.
Five types of scaffolds were included to determine which, if any, supported reading comprehension gains: vocabulary (e.g., “What clues can help us with this word?”); fluency (e.g., “Put your finger under the text as you read”); comprehension (e.g., “What is happening in this part of the story?”); peer (e.g., “Ask two students to read together”); and motivational (e.g., “Give time limits in the form of races to accomplish tasks.”). Students were randomly assigned to small groups for the intervention, and various statistical techniques were put in place to control for how the student data are “nested” within schools, classrooms, intervention groups, and tutors. Researchers measured effects via the silent reading comprehension outcome measure—which measures comprehension of increasingly difficult sentences. .
The key finding is that scaffolds of the motivational variety were the only significant predictor of score increases, producing a 0.73-point bump every time a student received one in any of the four sessions. They also explained about 2 percent of variation in the reading assessment scores. To which the analysts respond: “Although this number may be low, recall that the intervention was only two hours of instruction and the motivational scaffolding only a small part of that instruction.”
In short, this modest study makes a modest contribution to our understanding of “scaffolding”—a word that teachers have learned much more about since the Common Core came onto the scene. That said, motivational scaffolds seem to have less to do with supporting explicit reading comprehension and more to do with engaging students by tapping into their love of games and contests. Indeed, it reinforces what most teachers already know: Kids, like adults, love to compete.
SOURCE: Dan Reynolds and Amanda Goodwin, “Supporting Students Reading Complex Texts: Evidence for Motivational Scaffolding,” AERA Open (October–December 2016).
