Think Aloud Learning Method - Literature review Example

Eric Last EDU 311 Fall 2007 Article Analysis Migyanka, J. M., Policastro, C., & Lui, G. (2005). Using a think-aloud with diverse students: Three primary grade students experience Chrysanthemum. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(1), 171-177. Summary of the theory of prior research: Prior research has been based on the theory that in the course of reading, good readers use strategies that facilitate comprehension and that these strategies can be taught to children with reading difficulties by using the “think-aloud” method (Wilhelm, 2001; Zimmerman & Hutchins, 2003 – both cited in Migyanka, Policastro, & Lui, 2005). More generally, the theory is that comprehension depends upon focusing one’s attention on the meaning of what is being read, e.g., instead of attending to meaning, you can read words while thinking about an upcoming vacation, especially when reading an assigned book that you may find boring. The strategies in the “think-aloud” method include using mental imagery, asking yourself questions, making inferences about what you’ve read, determining major themes, and using prior knowledge and surrounding words to find the meaning of a word you don’t understand (Zimmerman & Hutchins, 2001, cited in Migyanka, Policastro, & Lui, 2001). In demonstrating the “think-aloud” method, the teacher chooses a book to be read (based both on the quality of the book and the interests and abilities of the children) and tells the children the purpose of the method. He or she reads a short section aloud, stopping often to demonstrate strategies, such as asking a question, relating what was read to another book or to prior knowledge, trying to predict what will happen later in the book, etc. (Wilhem, 2001, cited in Migyanka, Policastro, & Lui, 2005). Research questions: The researchers investigated whether children with different kinds of difficulties in reading could benefit from use of the “think aloud” method of teaching. More specifically, they investigated whether particular strategies that are part of the method would benefit children. However, they were less concerned with testing the method than with providing a demonstration that other teachers could use to apply the “think-aloud” method in their own classes. Methods: The participants were one first-grade (“Courtney”) and one second-grade girl (“Callie”) and one second-grade boy (Yobo) (ages not included). Courtney guesses what a word means by choosing a word with the same first letter or one that’s consistent with her interpretation of an illustration. Although not stated in the article, giving up after encoding the first letter suggests difficulty in grapheme-to-phoneme conversion, typical of those who are dyslexic. Using illustrations to find word meaning, although she’s usually incorrect, suggests she’s trying to use context, displaying what seems to be fairly advanced meta-cognition for a first-grader. Callie has difficulty remembering instructions, makes literal interpretations (their nature isn’t clear, since second-graders in general understand little, if anything, about metaphor), and fears failing. Yobo speaks English as a second language (ESL) and is having some difficulty with vocabulary and in understanding when reading about events typical to American culture but not in his culture. (Based on his being a recent immigrant and examples in the article, it seems reasonable to suspect that like most immigrant children his age, he’ll soon be reading at grade-level.) The researchers conducted a think-aloud session. Before reading, one researcher (also a teacher) showed the children the book’s cover and asked questions about the title, author, and illustration. Yobo’s response seemed most reasonable: Since the title was the name of a flower and a flower was the largest part of the illustration, he thought the book would be about flowers. After reading a sentence, the researcher stopped and thought aloud – for example, predicting what would happen next. When the two girls in the study asked about the meaning of a word, the researcher read surrounding words, guiding them to use context to find meaning. During the reading, the children followed instructions to underline or highlight sentences or phrases. Type of research: The research was a qualitative description of a demonstration of a procedure. The study was structured in the sense that the researchers chose the book to use, the passage to read, and the strategies to demonstrate prior to beginning, but, of course, their responses to the children’s questions and comments were spontaneous. Findings: No quantitative measures were used in the study, thus no quantitative results were reported. They reported examples they interpreted as successful use of the “think-aloud” method – e.g., when one participant “observes excitedly” that the book reminds her of another book, when another participant “connects with” the main character’s “feelings” and relates them to a classroom experience. They also described another participant as he was reading by himself after the “think-aloud” demonstration. They observed “one could see an array of emotion as he personally connects with the text” (p. 171). The researchers interpreted their demonstration as successful in helping students (p. 177). Limitations of the study: As an informal attempt to apply a method developed and based on the theory of other researchers, the study should be considered part of larger-scale research-in-progress. While detailed studies of small numbers of children should not be discouraged (no-one denies the major influence that Piaget contributed to cognitive developmental theory, based on detailed, interactive studies of individual children), eventually researchers will also need to conduct experiments, where one strategy is varied, i.e., is an independent variable, while the other strategies are held constant, and develop a measure to use as the dependent variable in order to assess the strategy. However, even in a preliminary demonstration, they should have noted alternative interpretations (e.g., as noted above, Yubo’s improvement was likely in the absence of intervention). Also, had they taped the demonstration, they may have been able to categorize and evaluate the children’s responses. They also could have explained why they expected some of the strategies to be effective. For example, they certainly must realize that underlining and highlighting is a task that can be done without paying attention. Also, in a group exercise, of course the teacher must choose the book, but one is left with the impression that they believe children learn best when the teacher chooses an appropriate book for them. It’s a mistake to believe that children, especially in culturally diverse populations, don’t differ in what they find interesting. Learning to read is usually a cognitively demanding task, and if a child actually wants to read a particular book, there at least is incentive for doing the hard work. In second grade, children are young enough to be spared the depressing news that all too soon they’ll probably be reading some mind-numbingly boring books in exchange for grades. Significance of the study: Despite the limitations noted above, these researchers are doing exactly the kind of work that needs to be done in order to eventually rid education of the read-test-give-them-an-M & M-and-when-they’ve-passed-X-number-of tests-give-them-a-pizza-party methods still often used. Also, while in second grade some attention should be given to phonics (at least with children who are not dyslexic), it’s of major importance to find ways to teach children what essentially determines comprehension – focusing on meaning. Read More