Introduction

      To acquire factual or basic conceptual knowledge, some sort of information transmittal must take place. Reading is a commonly used way of doing that. However, reading for content in a science class is different than reading a novel. Different skills are required. 

      The literature reviewed were found in three different sources.  Utah maintains a web site known as Pioneer for research.  All teachers and students can access various educational databases through Pioneer.  Next, the Western Governors University library provided access to many sources.  Finally, Google Scholar, a search engine devoted to scholarly publications on the Internet provided a few pieces of literature to review.  

      The original goal of the the research was to determine the most effective strategies for gaining facts from reading. Many studies discuss differing reading strategies and list effective techniques, but no study was found that talked about the most effective method. The research then focused on three main areas:  reading strategies for content, different teaching techniques for teaching reading content, and how technology can help. 

Review of Literature

Reading Strategies for Content

      Robb, Klemp and Schwartz (2002), in their Reader’s Handbook: A Student Guide for Reading and Learning, outline the basic steps in reading for content in science. Before reading, students need to set a purpose for their reading. In science, that purpose is to learn the facts or concepts needed. Next, students preview the chapter or other reading selection and come up with a plan for reading.

      During reading, students should have a purpose.  Robb, et al. suggest giving students a specific type of strategy to follow.  Once students find out the strategy they like, they can pick. After reading, students should pause and reflect on what they have learned.  They need to acknowledge things they didn’t understand well, reread those sections and then come up with a visual or written way of remembering that information (Robb, et al., 2002).

      Students generally don’t enjoy reading textbooks.  Many people also struggle reading in the workplace. Moore (1994) published a strategy for helping struggling workplace readers comprehend better. The strategy is similar to the one given by Robb, et al. Readers should have a purpose for reading and set goals.  During reading, workers (or students) should annotate the text, take notes, outline the main ideas, make a concept map, cluster the main ideas into groups, or any other strategy to pull out the main points of the reading.  Reading by itself is not sufficient. 

      Allen (1999) proposes three phases for reading a textbook. Textbooks are the main source of information in most science classes. The first phase is the planning phase. Students preview the chapter, predict what will happen, access prior knowledge, and set a purpose for reading.  The second phase is the drafting phase.  Students use generated questions, analogies, concept maps, verbalization, etc. to make them aware of reading. The third phase of reading a textbook is responding/evaluating.  Students predict test questions, take practice tests, discuss concepts in groups, write summaries, etc. to reinforce the knowledge gained in reading. 

      Not all students learn or read in the same way.  There are two well-used theories for constructing assignments or designing reading strategies.  Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy proposes different levels of learning.  Knowledge is the most basic level of learning, just recalling facts.  Each subsequent level of learning increases the depth of the learning. In order following knowledge, are comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Schurr, 1995).  The implication is that learning knowledge is a basic skill, but often times, an essential skill.  Reading a book and learning facts falls under this category.  In order to learn at a higher level in Bloom’s taxonomy, certain knowledge is necessary.

      The other commonly used theory for learning construction is Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple of Intelligences.  His theory essentially proposes that people learn differently and that there are different types of learning abilities.  Some people are verbal/linguistic learners, others are logical/mathematical, visual/special, body/kinesthetic, musical/rhythmic, intrapersonal, and interpersonal (Schurr, 1995). The implication of this theory is that teachers need to provide different methods of learning to help as many students as possible.

Techniques to Teach Reading for Content

      There are a number of different strategies that teachers can use to help students acquire basic facts. Different students need different strategies and some work better in science than other content areas. It is useful, therefore, to look at many different techniques.

      It is often useful to examine strategies for teaching English as a Second Language (ESL) students when discussing reading, because ESL students generally need a little more help when reading a text. Gibbons (2002, pp. 14-38) discusses various group activities for comprehension.  Picture sequencing gets students to relate pictures from the text to the text. Describe and draw is a strategy in which one student describes a main point and the other draws it.  I’m thinking of… is a strategy where students need to describe a main idea.  The Hot Seat strategy puts one person in the middle of a group answering questions from the group. 

      Gibbons later gives a list of reading strategies to learn words/concepts.  Of that list, only those applicable to science are discussed here.  These include predicting from headings, predicting from a key illustration, skimming and scanning the text coupled with rereading for detail, summarizing the text, doing a jigsaw (strategy where each student becomes an expert about a few topics and then teaches his or her classmates), story mapping, completing a cloze worksheet (worksheet where key words are deleted from a selected passage), and matching pictures to sentences (Gibbons, 2002, pp. 111-135).

O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Russo, & Kupper (1985) interviewed ESL students to see what reading strategies they used most frequently.  The students gave a large list of responses, only those of which are applicable to science will be listed here. Advance organizers are general previews of concepts, grouping helps to relate or classify material, note taking includes any strategy where students write down the main ideas, imagery is relating the text to a visual concept, keywords relate new words to familiar ones, contextualization puts new words in meaningful situations, elaboration relates new information to prior knowledge, and making inferences where students guess meanings of new items.

      Blessman & Myszczak (2001) performed an action research project intended to help students with math vocabulary necessary as a foundation for learning more difficult concepts.  Overall, the project was a success.  They had students keep journal and vocabulary dictionaries. Then students could go back and refer to the lists whenever they were confused or had forgotten a term.  Students made children’s books, filled out graphic organizers, used vocabulary checklists, and made connections to background knowledge.

      Sharp & Ashby (2002) performed a study to improve reading comprehension skills. Students need to comprehend what they are reading in a science text.  They broke the reading strategies up into two main categories:  initial strategies (before reading) and during reading strategies.  The initial strategies had students define unfamiliar words, make a vocabulary dictionary, and look for familiar words to activate prior knowledge.  During reading, the researchers had students fill out graphic organizers, and use metacognitive skills suck as opinions, values, beliefs, and feelings to evaluate what they learn.  More involved strategies included the SQ3R (study, question, read, review, recite), the KWL (What do you know?  What do you want to know?  What did you learn?), dramatic role playing and Venn diagrams (for comparing and contrasting). 

Technology in Acquiring Content

      All of the previously mentioned strategies are focused on reading textbooks. Strategies such as these help students identify facts, details, main ideas, and put words in a better context.  When teachers demonstrate and students use strategies such as these effectively, comprehension increases, though not universally.  The following pieces of literature focus on integrating technology into this process.  Reading does not have to just involve a textbook. 

      Technology has frequently been used as a substitute for a lecture. Information is posted to a website or put on a CD-ROM where students are expected to read it.  Ally (2004) points out that technology, specifically online learning, needs to be more than that.  Before learning, teachers should give the rationale as to why learners need to know the proceeding information.  Teachers should give learners the learning outcomes so students know the goal they are trying to obtain. Students also need to know the prerequisite skills needed to proceed.  The learning itself can be in many forms:  reading, audio, video, visuals, etc., but students should be active participants by writing in a reading journal, filling out a content map, summarizing, or practicing their skills.  Teachers should then give students a chance to apply the knowledge in a real life setting.  All learning should follow this general model.  Tell the students what they need to know.  Give them resources and the opportunity to learn, and then have them apply it.

      Brown (2001) advocates using computers to help increase comprehension of concepts from reading, not just to help recall facts.  Like Ally (2004), Brown points out that students need to be engaged in learning by performing a task such as a thinking map or a graphic organizer.  Almost in contrast, Wenglinsky (2005) states that computers are frequently and effectively used to drill facts into students.  While he states that computers should be used to promote higher-order thinking as well, they can also be simple machines to help students with basic facts. 

      A webquest is a structured problem to solve using the web.  Chatel & Nodell (2002) state that webquests should be inquiry based.  Students should use the information they find on the Internet, not just find information on the Internet. Activities should be used that many of Bloom’s levels of taxonomy.  Chatal and Nodell give six major components of an inquiry-based webquest.  An introduction should explain the assignment.  The task itself should be explicit with objectives.  Resources such as appropriate websites should be given so students can focus their searches.  The process is the lesson plan with directions for the project.  An evaluation is how students are graded.  Finally, the conclusion is where students summarize their learning or answer final questions.  Carter, Evans & Faulk (2002) performed a webquest with a biology class and then did a standard lab with the same students.  When surveyed, students reacted as positively to webquests as they did to labs. 

      There are numerous studies that support the need for students to read (either a textbook or through technology) in order to gain information.  There are numerous strategies to accomplish this task, each fitting into a greater theory such as Bloom’s taxonomy or Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences. 

Conclusion

      In order to perform higher-order learning activities, students need a basic set of facts to build upon. The research showed that there are a lot of strategies that can help students gain this factual knowledge. However, there are a few strategies that seem to be more applicable in science. The reading strategies include concept/picture maps, jigsaws, KWLs, SQ3Rs, Venn diagrams, outlines, classification maps, identification of main ideas or keywords, and activating prior knowledge. The technology strategies include webquests, reading outlines from a CD-ROM or a website, and “drill and kill” exercises.  The proceeding study will determine which strategy is best at acquiring factual knowledge. This researcher’s hypothesis is that  the strategies using technology will help students gain and retain factual knowledge better than more traditional, written strategies.

 

 

 

References:

 

Allen, S. (1999). Helping students make connections to textbooks. Paper presented at the NISOD Conference, Austin, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 434700).

 

Ally, M. (2004). Foundatioins of educational theory for online learning. In Anderson, T. & Elloumi, F. (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 3-31). Athabasca, AB, Canada: Athabasca University Press.

 

Blessman, J. & Myszczak, B. (2001). Mathematics vocabulary and its effect on student comprehension. Unpublished master’s action research project, St. Xavier University, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED455112).

 

Brown, C. (2001). Using computers in the classroom to promote generative strategies for reading comprehension. Unpublished report, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 470072).

 

Carter, C. Evans, R., & Faulk, L. (2002). Student perceptions of a webquest activity in high school biology. Project presented at Wake Forrest University Annual Research Forum, Winston-Salem, NC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 489980).

 

Chatel, R.G. & Nodell, J. (2002). Webquests: Teachers and students as global literacy explorers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Connecticut Reading Association, Cromwell, CT. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 471 843).

 

Gibbons, P. (2002). Classroom talk: Creating contexts for language learning. In Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom (pp. 14-38). Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.

 

Gibbons, P. (2002). Classroom talk: Creating contexts for language learning. In Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom (pp. 111-135). Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.

 

Moore, R. (1994). Workplace reading II: Increasing comprehension and confidence. Washington DC: Office of Vocational and Adult Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED380657).

 

Robb, L., Klemp, R., & Schwartz, W. (2002). Reader’s handbook: A student guide for reading and learning. Wilmington, MA: Great Sources.

 

Schurr, S.L. (1995). Prescriptions for success in heterogeneous classrooms. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 396858).

 

Sharp, P. & Ashby, D. (2002). Improving student comprehension skills through instructional strategies. Unpublished master’s action research project, St. Xavier University, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 468240).

 

Wenglinsky, H. (2005). Technology and achievement: The bottom line. Educational Research, 63(4), 29-32. Retrieved Monday, December 18, 2006 from the Academic Search Premier database.