Features of instructional talk predictive of reading comprehension

Increasingly, reading research has begun to address how students’ linguistic environments may explain their reading achievement. In this exploratory analysis, we investigated how the rates of specific instructional talk moves predicted student reading comprehension achievement. Transcripts from thir...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Reading & writing 2018-03, Vol.31 (3), p.725-756
Hauptverfasser: Michener, Catherine J., Patrick Proctor, C., Silverman, Rebecca D.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 756
container_issue 3
container_start_page 725
container_title Reading & writing
container_volume 31
creator Michener, Catherine J.
Patrick Proctor, C.
Silverman, Rebecca D.
description Increasingly, reading research has begun to address how students’ linguistic environments may explain their reading achievement. In this exploratory analysis, we investigated how the rates of specific instructional talk moves predicted student reading comprehension achievement. Transcripts from third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade classrooms (teacher n  = 31; student n  = 236), were coded for nine talk moves established in the literature as involved in literacy and learning outcomes. Two-level hierarchical linear modeling was used to identify sources of linguistic comprehension, a necessary component of student reading comprehension. Controlling for students’ decoding and fluency, semantic-syntactic knowledge, and initial reading comprehension, we found two talk moves significantly predicted reading comprehension. Teacher explanations [γ 07 (20.89); p  ≤ 0.05] and simple follow-up moves [γ 06 (10.44); p  ≤ 0.05] provided students with explicit instruction and exposure to academic language and the positive reinforcement to encourage student attention to the learning tasks and thus potentially more language exposure. In this sample, these moves provide further support for the simple view of reading (Hoover & Gough, 1990 ) that suggests that fostering student linguistic comprehension is pedagogically important for student reading at these levels.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11145-017-9807-4
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1968661601</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1169109</ericid><sourcerecordid>1968661601</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-4c00ad8a4f42f06dce6a14f5fd2c5839e3230924afecfe00f006486b58a3d6193</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE9LxDAQxYMouK5-AA9CwXN0pknT9KjLrn9Y8KLnENPJ2nW3XZOu4Lc3pSJePA3M-817w2PsHOEKAcrriIiy4IAlrzSUXB6wCRal4FBBccgmUOU5l2VZHrOTGNcAkGspJux2QbbfB4pZ57OmjX3Yu77pWrvJert5z3aB6iZtPmkAAtm6aVeZ67ZJeKM2JvSUHXm7iXT2M6fsZTF_nt3z5dPdw-xmyZ0QuufSAdhaW-ll7kHVjpRF6Qtf567QoiKRi_SltJ6cJwAPoKRWr4W2olZYiSm7HH13ofvYU-zNutuH9Gk0WCmtFCrAROFIudDFGMibXWi2NnwZBDNUZcaqTKrKDFUZmW4uxhsKjfvl54-IqkIYkvNRj0lrVxT-JP9r-g2zh3VX</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1968661601</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Features of instructional talk predictive of reading comprehension</title><source>Education Source</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Michener, Catherine J. ; Patrick Proctor, C. ; Silverman, Rebecca D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Michener, Catherine J. ; Patrick Proctor, C. ; Silverman, Rebecca D.</creatorcontrib><description>Increasingly, reading research has begun to address how students’ linguistic environments may explain their reading achievement. In this exploratory analysis, we investigated how the rates of specific instructional talk moves predicted student reading comprehension achievement. Transcripts from third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade classrooms (teacher n  = 31; student n  = 236), were coded for nine talk moves established in the literature as involved in literacy and learning outcomes. Two-level hierarchical linear modeling was used to identify sources of linguistic comprehension, a necessary component of student reading comprehension. Controlling for students’ decoding and fluency, semantic-syntactic knowledge, and initial reading comprehension, we found two talk moves significantly predicted reading comprehension. Teacher explanations [γ 07 (20.89); p  ≤ 0.05] and simple follow-up moves [γ 06 (10.44); p  ≤ 0.05] provided students with explicit instruction and exposure to academic language and the positive reinforcement to encourage student attention to the learning tasks and thus potentially more language exposure. In this sample, these moves provide further support for the simple view of reading (Hoover &amp; Gough, 1990 ) that suggests that fostering student linguistic comprehension is pedagogically important for student reading at these levels.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0922-4777</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-0905</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11145-017-9807-4</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Academic language ; Classroom Communication ; Classroom Environment ; Coding ; Correlation ; Decoding ; Education ; Educational activities ; Elementary School Students ; Elementary School Teachers ; Fluency ; Grade 3 ; Grade 4 ; Grade 5 ; Hierarchical Linear Modeling ; Language and Literature ; Language Skills ; Learning ; Learning outcomes ; Linguistics ; Literacy ; Neurology ; Predictor Variables ; Psycholinguistics ; Reading Achievement ; Reading Comprehension ; Reading Fluency ; Reinforcement ; Semantics ; Social Sciences ; Syntax ; Teachers ; Teaching Methods</subject><ispartof>Reading &amp; writing, 2018-03, Vol.31 (3), p.725-756</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017</rights><rights>Reading and Writing is a copyright of Springer, (2017). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-4c00ad8a4f42f06dce6a14f5fd2c5839e3230924afecfe00f006486b58a3d6193</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-4c00ad8a4f42f06dce6a14f5fd2c5839e3230924afecfe00f006486b58a3d6193</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0956-1299</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11145-017-9807-4$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11145-017-9807-4$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1169109$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Michener, Catherine J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patrick Proctor, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Silverman, Rebecca D.</creatorcontrib><title>Features of instructional talk predictive of reading comprehension</title><title>Reading &amp; writing</title><addtitle>Read Writ</addtitle><description>Increasingly, reading research has begun to address how students’ linguistic environments may explain their reading achievement. In this exploratory analysis, we investigated how the rates of specific instructional talk moves predicted student reading comprehension achievement. Transcripts from third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade classrooms (teacher n  = 31; student n  = 236), were coded for nine talk moves established in the literature as involved in literacy and learning outcomes. Two-level hierarchical linear modeling was used to identify sources of linguistic comprehension, a necessary component of student reading comprehension. Controlling for students’ decoding and fluency, semantic-syntactic knowledge, and initial reading comprehension, we found two talk moves significantly predicted reading comprehension. Teacher explanations [γ 07 (20.89); p  ≤ 0.05] and simple follow-up moves [γ 06 (10.44); p  ≤ 0.05] provided students with explicit instruction and exposure to academic language and the positive reinforcement to encourage student attention to the learning tasks and thus potentially more language exposure. In this sample, these moves provide further support for the simple view of reading (Hoover &amp; Gough, 1990 ) that suggests that fostering student linguistic comprehension is pedagogically important for student reading at these levels.</description><subject>Academic language</subject><subject>Classroom Communication</subject><subject>Classroom Environment</subject><subject>Coding</subject><subject>Correlation</subject><subject>Decoding</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Educational activities</subject><subject>Elementary School Students</subject><subject>Elementary School Teachers</subject><subject>Fluency</subject><subject>Grade 3</subject><subject>Grade 4</subject><subject>Grade 5</subject><subject>Hierarchical Linear Modeling</subject><subject>Language and Literature</subject><subject>Language Skills</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Learning outcomes</subject><subject>Linguistics</subject><subject>Literacy</subject><subject>Neurology</subject><subject>Predictor Variables</subject><subject>Psycholinguistics</subject><subject>Reading Achievement</subject><subject>Reading Comprehension</subject><subject>Reading Fluency</subject><subject>Reinforcement</subject><subject>Semantics</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Syntax</subject><subject>Teachers</subject><subject>Teaching Methods</subject><issn>0922-4777</issn><issn>1573-0905</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE9LxDAQxYMouK5-AA9CwXN0pknT9KjLrn9Y8KLnENPJ2nW3XZOu4Lc3pSJePA3M-817w2PsHOEKAcrriIiy4IAlrzSUXB6wCRal4FBBccgmUOU5l2VZHrOTGNcAkGspJux2QbbfB4pZ57OmjX3Yu77pWrvJert5z3aB6iZtPmkAAtm6aVeZ67ZJeKM2JvSUHXm7iXT2M6fsZTF_nt3z5dPdw-xmyZ0QuufSAdhaW-ll7kHVjpRF6Qtf567QoiKRi_SltJ6cJwAPoKRWr4W2olZYiSm7HH13ofvYU-zNutuH9Gk0WCmtFCrAROFIudDFGMibXWi2NnwZBDNUZcaqTKrKDFUZmW4uxhsKjfvl54-IqkIYkvNRj0lrVxT-JP9r-g2zh3VX</recordid><startdate>20180301</startdate><enddate>20180301</enddate><creator>Michener, Catherine J.</creator><creator>Patrick Proctor, C.</creator><creator>Silverman, Rebecca D.</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AIMQZ</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>CPGLG</scope><scope>CRLPW</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>LIQON</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PMKZF</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PRQQA</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0956-1299</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20180301</creationdate><title>Features of instructional talk predictive of reading comprehension</title><author>Michener, Catherine J. ; Patrick Proctor, C. ; Silverman, Rebecca D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-4c00ad8a4f42f06dce6a14f5fd2c5839e3230924afecfe00f006486b58a3d6193</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Academic language</topic><topic>Classroom Communication</topic><topic>Classroom Environment</topic><topic>Coding</topic><topic>Correlation</topic><topic>Decoding</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Educational activities</topic><topic>Elementary School Students</topic><topic>Elementary School Teachers</topic><topic>Fluency</topic><topic>Grade 3</topic><topic>Grade 4</topic><topic>Grade 5</topic><topic>Hierarchical Linear Modeling</topic><topic>Language and Literature</topic><topic>Language Skills</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Learning outcomes</topic><topic>Linguistics</topic><topic>Literacy</topic><topic>Neurology</topic><topic>Predictor Variables</topic><topic>Psycholinguistics</topic><topic>Reading Achievement</topic><topic>Reading Comprehension</topic><topic>Reading Fluency</topic><topic>Reinforcement</topic><topic>Semantics</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Syntax</topic><topic>Teachers</topic><topic>Teaching Methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Michener, Catherine J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patrick Proctor, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Silverman, Rebecca D.</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>Linguistics Collection</collection><collection>Linguistics Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature - U.S. Customers Only</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Digital Collections</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Reading &amp; writing</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Michener, Catherine J.</au><au>Patrick Proctor, C.</au><au>Silverman, Rebecca D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1169109</ericid><atitle>Features of instructional talk predictive of reading comprehension</atitle><jtitle>Reading &amp; writing</jtitle><stitle>Read Writ</stitle><date>2018-03-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>725</spage><epage>756</epage><pages>725-756</pages><issn>0922-4777</issn><eissn>1573-0905</eissn><abstract>Increasingly, reading research has begun to address how students’ linguistic environments may explain their reading achievement. In this exploratory analysis, we investigated how the rates of specific instructional talk moves predicted student reading comprehension achievement. Transcripts from third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade classrooms (teacher n  = 31; student n  = 236), were coded for nine talk moves established in the literature as involved in literacy and learning outcomes. Two-level hierarchical linear modeling was used to identify sources of linguistic comprehension, a necessary component of student reading comprehension. Controlling for students’ decoding and fluency, semantic-syntactic knowledge, and initial reading comprehension, we found two talk moves significantly predicted reading comprehension. Teacher explanations [γ 07 (20.89); p  ≤ 0.05] and simple follow-up moves [γ 06 (10.44); p  ≤ 0.05] provided students with explicit instruction and exposure to academic language and the positive reinforcement to encourage student attention to the learning tasks and thus potentially more language exposure. In this sample, these moves provide further support for the simple view of reading (Hoover &amp; Gough, 1990 ) that suggests that fostering student linguistic comprehension is pedagogically important for student reading at these levels.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s11145-017-9807-4</doi><tpages>32</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0956-1299</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0922-4777
ispartof Reading & writing, 2018-03, Vol.31 (3), p.725-756
issn 0922-4777
1573-0905
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1968661601
source Education Source; SpringerLink Journals
subjects Academic language
Classroom Communication
Classroom Environment
Coding
Correlation
Decoding
Education
Educational activities
Elementary School Students
Elementary School Teachers
Fluency
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Hierarchical Linear Modeling
Language and Literature
Language Skills
Learning
Learning outcomes
Linguistics
Literacy
Neurology
Predictor Variables
Psycholinguistics
Reading Achievement
Reading Comprehension
Reading Fluency
Reinforcement
Semantics
Social Sciences
Syntax
Teachers
Teaching Methods
title Features of instructional talk predictive of reading comprehension
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-19T05%3A03%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Features%20of%20instructional%20talk%20predictive%20of%20reading%20comprehension&rft.jtitle=Reading%20&%20writing&rft.au=Michener,%20Catherine%20J.&rft.date=2018-03-01&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=725&rft.epage=756&rft.pages=725-756&rft.issn=0922-4777&rft.eissn=1573-0905&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11145-017-9807-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1968661601%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1968661601&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1169109&rfr_iscdi=true