Teachers provided little challenging instruction to talented readers, instead giving them work that was too easy. The study examined whether teachers could be taught to provide more advanced reading strategy instruction to students of differing ability levels. It found that teachers using the SEM-R method asked more higher-level questions and had students read more minutes than control teachers. SEM-R teachers used similar higher-level strategies like inference-making with students of all ability levels, but may need more training to adequately challenge talented readers.

1. Can Teachers Teach Talented
Readers?
Signature Series
Addressing the Needs of Today’s Gifted
Learners: Putting Research into Practice
Dr. Liz Fogarty
foga0017@umn.edu

2. Talented readers receive
little challenging instruction,
instead doing work that is
simple and redundant for
them.
(Archambault et al., 1993; Reis et al., 2004; Reis, Westberg, Kulikowich,
& Purcell, 1998; Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, & Salvin, 1993;
Westberg et al., 1998)

3. Integral Aspects of Reading
Instruction for Talented Readers
 Use of higher-level questioning techniques
 Self-selected reading
 Independent research projects
 Development of research skills
(Dole & Adams, 1983; Reis & Renzulli, 1989; Renzulli, 1977)

4. Reading Comprehension
Strategies
Lower Level Higher Level
Decoding/Phonics Synthesizing
Slowing down/Rereading Making Inferences
Using pictures Making Connections
Knowledge Determining Importance
Other Visualizing
Questioning
Metacognition
Keene & Zimmerman, 1997; Harvey & Goudvis, 2000

5. Sample
 10 treatment teachers
 5 elementary
 5 middle school
 6 control teachers
 3 elementary
 3 control
 100% Caucasion
 87% Female
 83% M.A. or Specialist Degrees

6. Instrumentation
 ITBS - Iowa Test of Basic Skills
 CBM - Oral Reading Fluency Indicators
 Teaching Reading: Attitudes and Practices
 Reading Classroom Practices Record
 SEM-R Treatment Fidelity Scale

7. Methodology
1. Developed manual & trained co-researchers
to use RCPR.
2. Analyzed ITBS & CBM fluency data to find
H, A, & L students. Randomly chose one
from each level for each teacher.
3. Conducted 80 observations, 5 of each
teacher – used 20% for interrater reliability.
4. Analyzed data using the constant
comparative method, inferential statistics.

8. Determining Achievement
Level
Reading
Achievement
Level
ITBS National
Percentile
Norms
CBM National
Percentile Norms
High Achiever (H) 90-99 90-99
Average Achiever
(A)
40-60 40-60
Low Achiever (L) 1-30 1-25
Table 3.6

9. Interrater Reliability
Questions
Asked
Strategy
Instruction
Strategy
Codes
Pre-
discussion
Strategy
Codes
Post-
discussion
Whole Group
Total (N=16) .64 .86 .87 .97
SEM-R
Classes (N=9)
.59 .91 .95 1.0
Control
Classes (N=6)
.70 .79 .74 .92
Conferences
Total .84 .72 .81 .93
High .84 .67 .80 .93
Average .81 .67 .84 .96
Low .85 .83 .79 .91
Table 3.9

10. Research Question #1
Do types of reading strategy instruction
differ in treatment and control
classrooms?
Analysis
Constant comparative method
Descriptive Statistics
Independent samples t-test

11. Results for RQ 1: Methods
 Control classrooms frequently used:
Round Robin reading, test preparation,
guided reading, worksheets, and novels.
 SEM-R classrooms used: read-alouds,
supported independent reading, and
conferences.
Constant Comparative Method

12. Results for RQ1: Higher Level
Questions Used in Whole Group
Instruction
Treatment Classes 68%
Control Classes 54%
Descriptive Statistics

13. Results for RQ1: Higher Level Questions
Used in Whole Group Instruction
There was a statistically significant
difference in the proportion of higher order
strategy questions used between treatment
and control classrooms at [Z = 2.882, p<.01]
within the elementary sample. The
difference in the proportion of higher level
strategy questions used at the middle
school level was not significantly different [Z
= -1.589, ns] in the two conditions.
Proportion Comparison

14. Results for RQ 1: Minutes Read
Control Classrooms (M = 10.80, SD = 3.82)
Treatment Classrooms (M = 35.68, SD = 5.94)
These differences were significant (t =
-9.604, p = .01) indicating that students in
the treatment classrooms spent about 3
times as many minutes reading than
students in control classrooms.
Inferential: t-test

15. TreatmentControl
Experimental Condition
40
30
20
10
MeanNumberofMinutesReadperClass
95% Confidence Intervals of Minutes Read
M = 35.68
minutes
M = 10.80
minutes

16. Research Question #2a
Is there a difference between reading
comprehension strategy questions used
with students of high, average, and low
reading achievement levels?
Analysis
Constant comparative method
Repeated-measures Anova

17. Results for RQ2a: Differentiation
in Control Classrooms
 Grouping was used occasionally
 Curricular modification (assignment,
materials, etc.) was made once
 Questioning was the same for all at the
middle school, varied in two elementary
classrooms
Constant Comparative Method: Open & Axial Coding

18. Lower Level
Questions
Higher Level
Questions
Achievement N M SD M SD
High 10 10.24 8.33 27.30 10.56
Average 9 10.86 4.98 27.64 9.39
Low 9 13.89 8.65 30.04 15.74
Total 28 11.66 7.32 28.33 11.90
Strategy Questions in SEM-R
Classrooms
Table 4.6 Inferential: Repeated-measures Anova

19. LowAverageHigh
Achievement Level
35
30
25
20
15
10
EstimatedMarginalMeans
Higher Level Strategies
Lower Level Strategies

20. Results for RQ2a: Questioning Patterns in
Conferences
Wilks’s Λ = .36, F (1, 25) = 44.50, p <.005.
Cohen’s d = .86 (large effect size)
These results indicate that the mean for teachers’
use of higher level questions was significantly higher
than the mean for teachers’ use of lower level
thinking questions across all achievement levels in
SEM-R classrooms. The absence of an achievement
by strategy interaction shows that strategy patterns
were consistent across all three achievement levels.
Inferential: Repeated-measures Anova

21. Results for RQ 2a:
Differentiation in SEM-R
Classrooms
Though there is certainly differentiation
going on in SEM-R classrooms due to
the fact that no two reading conferences
were the same, the differentiation is not
necessarily providing more challenging
instruction to talented readers than that
which is provided to all readers.

22. Research Question #2b
Is there a difference between reading
comprehension strategy instruction used
with students of high, average, and low
reading achievement levels?
Descriptive Statistics
One-way Anova
Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Test
Analysis

23. Results for RQ2b: Minutes Spent
Conferencing with Students of High,
Average, and Low Reading Achievement
Number of Minutes
Achievement N M SD
High 10 7.41 2.38
Average 9 8.09 2.72
Low 9 7.99 2.10
28 7.83 2.35
Table 4.11 Descriptive Statistics

24. Results for RQ2b: Length of
Conferences
A one-way ANOVA was conducted and it
was determined that the conferences with
students of high, average, and low reading
ability were not significantly different in
length [F (2,27) = 0.24, p = .79].
M = 7.83 minutes (SD = 2.35) minutes
Inferential: One-way Anova

25. Results for RQ2b: Prevalence of Lower and
Higher Level Strategy Instruction Observed in
Conferences
Reading Strategy
High Avg. Low χ2 (2)
Lower Level
Strategies
7 6 15 5.24
Higher Level
Strategies
7 12 25 11.77*
* p < .01, Cohen’s d = .86
Table 4.10 Chi-Square Goodness of Fit

26. Research Question #3
What types of reading comprehension
strategy instruction are embedded into
SEM-R individual reading conferences
for students of differing achievement
levels?
Analysis
Constant comparative method

27. Results for RQ3: Higher Level Strategies
Used Frequently with Readers of All
Achievement Levels
Treatment
 Making
inferences:
character analysis
 Making
connections: text
to self
connections
 Metacognition:
Control
 Making
Inferences
 Synthesis
 Metacognition
Constant Comparative Method: Open & Axial Coding

28. Treatment
 Visualizing
 Questioning
Control
 Visualizing
 Questioning
Results for RQ3: Higher Level Strategies
Used Infrequently with Readers of All
Achievement Levels
Constant Comparative Method: Open & Axial Coding

29. Low/Average
 Metacognition:
monitoring
 Questioning:
primarily used
with low achieving
elementary
readers
Results for RQ3: Higher Level Strategies
Used Frequently with Readers of Certain
Achievement Levels
Talented
 Synthesis: theme
 Metacognition:
challenge
 Making
connections: self
to text
connections
Constant Comparative Method: Open & Axial Coding

30. Implications
 With proper training, teachers are able to
integrate high levels of questioning in
reading strategy instruction and the SEM-
R should be recognized as a valuable
teaching method in the instruction of
learners of varying ability levels.
 Teachers may need additional training to
adequately challenge talented readers.