Talk:Reading comprehension

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

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

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

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

message: Since the turn of the 21st century, comprehension lessons usually consisted of students answering teachers' questions, writing responses to questions on their own, or both.  The whole group version of this practice also often included "Round-robin reading", wherein teachers called on individual students to read a portion of the text (and sometimes following a set order). In the last quarter of the 20th century, evidence accumulated that the read-test methods assessed comprehension more than they taught it. The associated practice of "round robin" reading has also been questioned and eliminated by many educators.
Instead of using the prior read-test method, research studies have concluded that there are much more effective ways to teach comprehension. Much work has been done in the area of teaching novice readers a bank of "reading strategies," or tools to interpret and analyze text. There is not a definitive set of strategies, but common ones include summarizing what you have read, monitoring your reading to make sure it is still making sense, and analyzing the structure of the text (e.g., the use of headings in science text). Some programs teach students how to self monitor whether they are understanding and provide students with tools for fixing comprehension problems.
Instruction in comprehension strategy use often involves the gradual release of responsibility, wherein teachers initially explain and model strategies.  Over time, they give students more and more responsibility for using the strategies until they can use them independently.  This technique is generally associated with the idea of self-regulation and reflects social cognitive theory, originally conceptualized by Albert Bandura.
putting this here for a moment while try to edit article and merge content from Comprehension critical task--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: moving first paragraph that had been in the intro to the history section--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: looks like it all goes in history--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hold rambling text from intro 

message: In the Definition section (permalink) it currently says "There are 9 essential skills for reading comprehension: …". This sentence has no references, and appears to be incomplete (it ends without full stop). I've often seen such incomplete structures be left behind due to incomplete reversal of vandalism, so I did some digging.
The sentence was first added in October 2018 by @Dcazalvilla, as follows (to my surprise, it was already missing a full-stop and never had a reference):
There are 6 essential skills for reading comprehension: Decoding, Fluency, Vocabulary, Sentence Construction and Cohesion, Reasoning and background knowledge Working memory and attention
It was updated in February 2019 to say "There are 7 essential skills …", although even with the missing comma added here, I still count six, not seven items.
Lastly, it was updated once more in February 2020, to break up "Sentence Construction and Cohesion", "Reasoning and background knowledge" and "Working memory and Attention", and the count increased from six to nine.
There are 9 essential skills for reading comprehension: Decoding, Fluency, Vocabulary, Sentence Construction, Cohesion, Reasoning, Background knowledge, Working memory and Attention
Regardless of these minor changes, the sentence seems oddly specific and rather matter-of-fact about there being exactly these and just these "essential" skills, with no sources to back it up, nor any indication of its intended scope or perspective where it would apply.
I've remove it for now as such. --Krinkle (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essential skills 

message: In which strategies can be applied in the classroom 197.241.43.124 (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Instructional method teacher use in teaching reading comprehension to grade 6 

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

message: — Assignment last updated by Ivy.ej (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Content Area Literacy

message: Does the claim that people read more deeply on paper vs. online hold up to peer review? I'm not sure I want to take the word of this one author. The book may have citations to sources which are more useful, though I don't happen to have a copy.
:Reader, Come Home: The Reading Brain in a Digital World by Maryanne Wolf     	 
-- Beland (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paper vs. digital 

message: — Assignment last updated by Kcj475 (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Content Area Literacy

message: My suggestions mainly pertain to organization
* Move the definition section. Incorporate this section into the very beginning part of the article that is currently unlabeled instead of having it by itself. Its current placement just creates confusion and repetition. Once that's been completed, label the beginning part of the article the definition of reading comprehension. This will assist in making the article clearer.
* Combine the overview and history section. They appear to share similarly related information. This will assist in reducing confusion because the sections will not be separated. Readers will not have to renavigate the content.
* Label the vocabulary section differently. Its current title is misleading. It implies it is going to discusses reading comprehension vocabulary not how vocabulary is related to reading comprehension.
Areas of strength
* Citations. This article contains numerous citations to be able to locate information.
* Content. This article contains a high volume of information. One can tell the topic was well-researched.
* Examples. This article provides a wide variety of strategies associated with reading comprehension. Readers can understand how it is implemented.
Camiadmire (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Comment