1

Improving Reading Comprehension, Science Domain Knowledge, and Reading

Engagement Through a First-Grade Content Literacy Intervention

Kandyce Wood
Department of Education, North Carolina State University
ECI 540: Reading in the Elementary School
Dr. Jackie Relyea
September 15th, 2020
 2
Rationale

The focus of Improving Reading Comprehension, Science Domain Knowledge, and

Reading Engagement Through a First-Grade Content Literacy Intervention reflects the
emphasis of integrating and exposing academic content with emergent literacy. As an
educator of primary grades, I find this study could be impactful and resourceful when
exposing informative texts within literacy instruction. Without the instruction and
exposure of academic language, then students may struggle with comprehending
informative texts. This relates with Foundational Skills to Support Reading for
Understanding in Kindergarten through 3rd Grade,
“By guiding students to develop their academic language skills, teachers can
mitigate some of the challenges that students encounter when learning to
comprehend text (IES What Works Clearinghouse, 2016, p.6).”
Content literacy allows students to explore informative facts that may impact their retell
of historical figures, theories, and explanations. If students lack appropriate academic
vocabulary, then their ability to explain, analyze, recount, or connect could be subdued.
Students could disconnect or show anger when they are presented with words that have
foreign meaning. While primary grades focus heavily on basic literacy components,
educators also have standardized assessments weighing upon their planning and
curriculum resulting in a high emphasis for decoding, fluency, and comprehending short
stories resulting in less opportunity for embarking on informative texts. The lack of
informative texts being interpreted by students reflect as cited in KIM ET AL.,p.2,
descriptive findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, “fewer than 5% of
United States first graders can understand informational texts requiring prior knowledge
of science and social studies content (Reardon, Valentino, & Shores, 2012).”

Key words: science domain knowledge, content literacy, academic language

 3
Description of the program: The idea of content literacy is not a novice concept, as

enunciated previously in Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children,

“argued that integrating rich science and social studies content into early grade

literacy instruction was essential to preparing children to read complex texts in

the later grades (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998, National Research Council as

cited in KIM ET AL.p.2).”

With a lack of evidence to support integrating domain knowledge, the Model of Reading

Engagement (MORE) intervention was created as a resource to support literacy

instruction within a first grade classroom. The Model of Reading Engagement (MORE)

“provided a framework for students to connect new learning to a meaningful

schema (i.e., Arctic animal survival) and to pursue mastery goals for acquiring

domain knowledge (pg. 4, KIM ET AL.).”

Educators were provided after school support, along with scripted lessons over a span

of ten school days. The extensive lessons reflected state standards and allowed

teachers the opportunity over ten days to assess schemas, introduce vocabulary,

observe key features of nonfiction texts, collaboratively voice opinions, apply new

knowledge, compare differences and similarities, practice choice, conduct independent

and small group research before communicating findings, opinions, and reasons to

support open ended questions.

“A total of 38 first-grade classrooms equaling 674 students within 10 elementary

schools were randomly assigned to (a) MORE at school (MS), (b) MORE at
 4
home, (MS-H), in which the MS condition included at-home reading, or (c) typical

instruction (KIM ET AL.p.1).”

The Model of Reading Engagement (MORE) attested that integrating content literacy

instruction can build domain knowledge without impacting basic literacy skills,

“The MORE intervention had a positive and significant effect on science domain

knowledge, as measured by vocabulary knowledge depth (effect size [ES] .30),

listening comprehension (ES .40), and argumentative writing (ES .24). The

MORE intervention effects on reading engagement as measured by situational

interest, reading motivation, and task orientations were not statistically

significant. However, the intervention had a significant, positive effect on a distal

measure of reading comprehension (ES .11), and there was no evidence of

Treatment Aptitude interaction effects (KIM ET AL.p.1).”

Evaluation: The study was based on current statistics proving a significant need for

students to improve academic vocabulary, literacy comprehension, vocabulary, and

argumentative writing. All measurements were reflective of core components for

improving content literacy. Results proved that students grew over the course of the

science unit without impacting basic literacy development. The study was conducted

over the course of ten days providing effective feedback; however, the span of ten days

does not allow researchers to analyze the impact of integrating content literacy over a

prolonged period of time. Researchers used prior evidence from proven models such as
 5
“Content Area Literacy Instruction”, (Connor et al., 2017), “In-Depth Expanded

Applications of Science” (IDEAS; Romance & Vitale, 2001), and “Concept-Oriented

Reading Instruction” (CORI; Guthrie & Klauda, 2014; Guthrie et al., 2004 as cited in KIM

ET AL.p.4) for designing MORE, a ten day unit seeking to connect with students’ prior

knowledge before exposing new content. The assessments and activities for student

completion were stemmed using prior research. An example being the rubric for the

argumentative writing assignment,

“The purpose of this process was to reduce presentation bias stemming from

poor handwriting skills (Graham et al., 2011) and to focus on scoring three

dimensions of argumentative writing. This rubric was adapted from previous

research on elementary grade students’ expository writing (McNeill, 2011; Wang

et al., 2017 as cited in KIM ET AL.p.11).”

The unit was designed using the “I do, you do, we do” model to ensure that students

received explicit instruction in all learning realms. Students in group MS-H received the

choice of choosing one of three nonfiction books to read with their parent(s). One could

question the outcome if the parents received prior information in regards to the study

occurring. MORE selected books for students based on engagement and motivation. As

shown in Figure 3,

“read-aloud books used in MORE instruction were significantly more challenging

than those in the TI condition on the level of meaning or purpose, text structure,

text features/illustrations, language conventionality and clarity, content

 6
knowledge demands, cultural knowledge demands, and vocabulary knowledge

demands (KIM ET AL.p. 9).”

Differentiation was acknowledged and proven using the MORE model, because it

provided read alouds, teacher modeling,concept maps, open ended questions, student

led discussions, and questions read aloud. If the MORE model had been created to last

longer than 10 days, then there is possibility of obtaining more feedback for student

engagement, motivation, and listening comprehension. Students may have not felt

comfortable in independently relaying personal thoughts and opinions since the content

being teacher modeled could impact student perceptions.

Implications: Within my classroom I feel that the MORE intervention would be impactful

during tier 1 and tier 2 instruction. It can be differentiated amongst reading levels as

students are given objectives and passages that best fit their learning needs. In a small

group setting, I agree to start the lessons by connecting with students’ schemas in order

to build new knowledge. Charts can be created assessing students' prior knowledge

using digital platforms such as Padlet or KWL charts. Within small groups, critical

thinkers are able to form rational opinions based on research while emergent readers

are exposed to new vocabulary that will allow them to connect nonfiction text concepts.

With new vocabulary, students can collaborate amongst themselves or through the use

of technology to create word predictions, discuss how the word is used in the sentence,
 7
as well as creating lists of synonyms. This correlates with Foundational Skills to Support

Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten through 3rd Grade,

“Students of all ages and text-reading abilities need to engage in activities that

purposefully develop academic language skills. Inferential language instruction

supports students’ ability to think analytically and to understand text that

connects ideas from multiple contexts (IES What Works Clearinghouse,2016,

p.6).”

Concept maps could be modeled by the teacher before having students create their

own concept maps using digital platforms such as SeeSaw where students can connect

images, words, drawings, etc. to their concept map. For students working to build basic

word reading skills, students may rely on images or illustrations within their concept

maps. Students could be further supported in creating their arguments through digital

platforms like ChatterPix where students could select an image and record themselves

stating their argument. Students can replay their ChatterPix to determine if their

argument meets the rubric criteria. Having a variety of open ended questions posted

around the classroom where students could work visually and kinesthetically to choose

their topic and group members. Students need prior practice in exhibiting positive

collaboration techniques.
 8
References

Connor et al. (2017). Content Area Literacy Instruction

Guthrie & Klauda, 2014; Guthrie et al., 2004, CORI, Concept-Oriented Reading

Instruction

Graham et al., 2011

Reardon, Valentino, & Shores (2012). Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey

IES What Works Clearinghouse (2016). Foundational Skills to Support Reading

for Understanding in Kindergarten through 3rd Grade.

Kim, J. S., Burkhauser, M. A., Mesite, L. M., Asher, C. A., Relyea, J. E., Fitzgerald, J., &

Elmore, J.

(2020, March 19). Improving Reading Comprehension, Science Domain

Knowledge, and Reading Engagement Through a First-Grade Content Literacy

Intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000465
 9
Snow, Burns, & Griffin,(1998) National Research Council, Preventing Reading

Difficulties in

Young Children

Romance & Vitale (2001) IDEAS,In-Depth Expanded Applications of Science

Reardon, Valentino, & Shores, 2012, Patterns of Literacy Among U.S Students

Wang et al., 2017