This brainy bit packs a whole lot of punch. It’s based on Teresa Ukrainetz’s response to articles by Alan Kamhi and Hugh Catts (see references below) in which they drive home the idea that reading comprehension is multi-faceted and that approaches to intervention should be tailored to the reader, the text (linguistic structure/content), and the task (purpose). Ukrainetz makes this functional by providing strategies for our roles as SLPs
And so….. here are some of her recommendations: Stick to content familiar to the reader. Building treatment around a single topic (vs. the workbook approach) allows students to deepen and organize background information. Break down curricular topics in a whole-part manner (e.g. national parks into geological formations). Revisit text with students in a “close reading” fashion by evaluating the author’s word choices (e.g., “gushing versus bubbling geyser”) and making judgments about the text (e.g., whether evidence is fact or opinion-based). Provide support for word recognition and vocabulary by providing phonemic awareness support or instructing the words that the student experiences in context. Instruct linguistic structures that relate to the content (narrative vs. expository, embedded clauses, etc.). Promote “strategic reading” for reading tasks; Help students become mindful readers through reading strategies (implemented prior, during, and after reading) that correspond to the purpose of the reading (e.g., skim text vs. read certain paragraphs thoroughly).
Why the heck is this important? Catts and Kamhi’s multi-dimensional framework makes our approach to reading comprehension individualized and strategic. This is not just limited to intervention; It also leads us to be critical of standardized assessments. As Catts and Kamhi mention, poor readers can outperform skilled readers depending upon the familiarity of the text and the expected outcome. Moreover, a number of reading comprehension tests have been found to have low correlations amongst them although they claim to target the same skill. If we want to maximize the functioning of our students and make meaningful contributions as SLPs through therapy and diagnostics, it’s helpful to keep this multi-layered view of reading comprehension in mind.
Resources
The Brains: Teresa A. Ukrainetz, Alan G. Kamhi, and Hugh W. Catts
The full articles:
Catts, H.W., & Kamhi, A.G. (2017). Prologue: Reading comprehension is not a single ability. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 48, 73 – 76.
http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/article.aspx?articleid=2618565
Kamhi, A.G., & Catts, H.W. (2017). Epilogue: Reading comprehension is not a single ability-implications for assessment and instruction. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 48, 104 – 107.
http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/article.aspx?articleid=2618571
Ukrainetz, T.A. (2017). Commentary on “Reading Comprehension is Not a Single Ability”: implications for child language intervention. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 48, 92 – 97.
http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/article.aspx?articleid=2618569
Brainy Bits Blog 