Effect of Teacher Questions on the Reading Comprehension of
Deaf Children
Barbara R. Schirmer
Lewis & Clark College
M. Lynn Woolsey
Washington School for the Deaf
We examined the effect of comprehension questions that require analysis, synthesis, and evaluation on the reading comprehension of deaf children. The subjects were six deaf children ranging in age from 10 years, 9 months to 12 years, 5
months. They were divided into four reading groups for the
study. Quantitative analysis of the children's responses to
comprehension questions indicated that the children could
analyze, synthesize, and evaluate narrative text and their ability to do so did not need to be supported by answering questions related to story details. Qualitative analysis indicated
that the children had some difficulty with seven reading
tasks: locating pertinent information, applying relevant and
accurate background knowledge, expressing themselves unambiguously, understanding the intent of the question, not
relying too heavily or too little on background knowledge,
considering consequential details, and providing sufficient
Research into the questions that teachers ask during
reading lessons constitutes an appreciable portion of
the literature on reading comprehension. Much of this
body of research has traditionally focused on the development of skill hierarchies or taxonomies designed to
delineate levels of questions. The assumption has been
that questions based on lower levels on a taxonomy
encouraged literal thinking and questions based on
higher levels on a taxonomy encouraged inferential and
evaluative thinking (e.g., Barrett, 1976; Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956; Pearson & JohnCorrespondence should be sent to Barbara Schirmer, Office of the Dean,
Lewis & Clark College, 0615 S.W. Palatine Hill Road, Portland, OR
97219-7899.
Copyright ©, 1997 Oxford University Press. CCC 1081-4159
son, 1978; Raphael, 1986; Thompson, Gipe, & Pitts,
1985).
Several studies have suggested that skill hierarchies
do not reflect reader thinking because they are based
on a static notion of reading comprehension whereas
comprehension actually results from dynamic interplay
between reader and text that changes as the reader constructs meaning (Gauthier, 1987; Langer, 1985; Reutzel & Hollingsworth, 1990,1991).
Underlying these two seemingly opposing views is
the role of teacher questions. Both views support the
use of teacher questions to encourage children to think
critically and creatively about what they read. Their
difference lies in whether it is meaningful to construct
questions that build from lower to higher levels on
a taxonomy. Recent research suggests that questions
should be part of a support structure, or scaffolding,
that teachers use to enable readers to interact with increasingly complex and sophisticated texts and to reflect on text along ever-expanding dimensions (Dole,
Duffy, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991; Waggoner, 1993).
The purpose of our study was to examine the effect
of comprehension questions that require analysis, synthesis, and evaluation on the reading comprehension of
deaf children. Previous research indicated that teachers predominantly ask questions requiring children to
relate story details and ask proportionately fewer questions requiring children to draw inferences, analyze,
synthesize, and evaluate (Daines, 1986; O'Flavahan,
Hartman, & Pearson, 1988; Shake, 1988). The rationale has been that understanding story details is a pre-
48 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2:1 Winter 1997
requisite to engaging more deeply with text. However,
previous research also indicated that spending significant instructional time on literal information may be
both unnecessary and detrimental to comprehension
because it can focus the reader's attention on unimportant and even misleading text information, and instructional conversations that involve analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of text information already must
include salient text details (Cooter, Joseph, & Flynt,
1986; Dole, Duffy, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991; Goldenberg, 1992-1993).
For this study, we hypothesized that deaf children
would be able to respond correctly to questions that
required analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of an evolving narrative text under conditions in which they are
never asked questions that required identifying literal
story information. We further hypothesized that questions encouraging deaf children to analyze, synthesize,
and evaluate text information would reveal patterns of
ease and difficulty in interacting with the written material because we expected that the instructional conversations between the teacher and students would provide opportunities for the students to explain reasons
for their interpretations rather than providing the relatively brief answers to questions that literal level questions frequently promote.
Methods
Subjects. The subjects were six children (four girls, two
boys) ranging in age from 10 years, 9 months to 12
years, 5 months. Four children were diagnosed with
profound hearing losses, one with a severe-to-profound
hearing loss, and one with a moderate-to-profound
hearing loss. Two of the children communicated in simultaneous sign and speech and the other children
used no speech. The sign language they used was conceptual sign, some using English word order with English morphemes, and some using American Sign Language (ASL) syntax. Determination of their language
was made by the classroom teacher, a certified and experienced teacher of deaf and hard-of-hearing children
who was also a sign language interpreter and the author
of a sign language text. The children's parents were all
hearing and had no knowledge of sign at the time their
children were diagnosed. The investigator was unable
to obtain information regarding the current sign language abilities of the children's parents.
The children attended a self-contained upperelementary public school class for deaf children, and
they were all mainstreamed into general education
classrooms for parts of each day. In their self-contained
classroom, the teacher used ASL and/or pidgin sign,
depending on individual language needs. In previous
years, the children's teachers had predominantly used
a signed English system. When the children were in
general education classes, they used a sign language interpreter.
The children were chosen to participate because
their schedules were flexible enough to allow them to
meet with the investigator once each week during the
study, their parents agreed to allow them to participate,
they were agreeable to participating in the study, and
they had no concomitant disability that would impede
their ability to benefit from reading instruction.
The children were divided into four reading groups
(two groups of two children each and two groups of
one child each) already developed by the teacher that
fit with their respective reading levels, language and
communication systems, and schedules. Two children
at grade 6 used simultaneous English and sign and
were reading at the high-2nd—mid-3rd grade levels;
two children at grade 6 used ASL and were reading at
the high-lst—low-2nd grade levels; one child at grade
6 used ASL and was reading at the high—2nd grade
level; and one child at grade 4 used ASL and was reading at the high-lst grade level.
Materials. Prior to beginning the study, the investigator
had determined the readability of 120 short stories
gathered from three basal reading series. Readability
had been determined through application of the
Spache and Dale-Chall readability formulas and a
readability checklist developed by Schirmer (1994).
The stories were either authored (i.e., they had been
written by authors of children's books and stories) or
were traditional fables or folk tales. Short stories were
chosen for the study because the investigator would be
meeting with the children only once each week and the
children needed to be able to complete reading and discussing the material within a 30- to 45-minute time
segment.
Effect of Teacher Questions on Reading 49
Based upon results of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests administered prior to the first week of treatment, as well as information regarding the children's
current reading abilities shared by the classroom
teacher, the investigator identified the approximate
reading levels of the children and matched these levels
to seven short stories, starting with stories just below
or at their grade level for the first two weeks of the
study, and then using progressively more difficult stories so that during the second two weeks the stories
were above their grade level by no more than half a
grade, and the last three weeks the stories were approximately one grade above their reading levels.
Comprehension questions were taken from a list of
10 model questions that the investigator had developed
prior to beginning the study. The questions, listed in
Appendix 1, were designed to encourage the children
to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate the story they
were reading.
When each group finished reading and discussing
the story, the investigator gave each child a story cloze
to complete. The format of the story cloze and an example are shown in Appendix 2.
Each lesson was videotaped and later transcribed
by the investigator and the classroom teacher.
Procedure. The investigator met with each reading
group for eight consecutive Wednesdays, excluding the
day before Thanksgiving vacation, from October
through December. The investigator, a certified
teacher of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in grades
kindergarten through 12, had more than 20 years experience in teaching deaf and hard-of-hearing children
and educating preservice teachers at the time the study
began. She was the grandchild of a deaf woman and
was considered to be a fluent signer by the supervisor
of the educational program and by the classroom
teacher.
Before the first week of treatment, the investigator
administered the appropriate level of the GatesMacGinitie Reading Test. The appropriate levels were
determined through teacher recommendation.
Each week, the investigator taught a 30- to 45minute reading lesson to each group. The lesson format used was a modified Directed Reading Thinking
Activity, a method of reading instruction commonly
used with elementary-level students. Before reading
the story, the investigator introduced new sight words,
vocabulary, idioms, and names of the characters and
discussed them with the children. The investigator
then gave a copy of the story to the children, directed
them to look at the title and picture, and asked, "What
do you think the story will be about?" After discussing
their predictions, the investigator asked the children
to read segments of the story silently. The segments
were usually two to three pages in length. After
each segment, the investigator asked a comprehension
question.
Results
We used quantitative and qualitative methods to analyze the data. For the quantitative analysis, we used
simple descriptive statistics. Two sets of responses
from the children were gathered. The first included
their responses to the comprehension questions during
each lesson; the second, their written responses to the
story cloze. The investigator developed model answers
to each of the questions and compared the children's
responses to the model answers. If a child's answer
agreed on substantive points, it was coded as correct
and if it disagreed on any substantive point, it was
coded as incorrect. In order to determine the reliability
of the coding, a research assistant developed model answers and analyzed one set of story responses for each
subject. The stories were chosen randomly. Interrater
reliability was 97.7%. Figure 1 shows the percentage of
correct responses to the comprehension questions and
story cloze.
The story cloze task required only that the children
provide story details. Although it is possible that the
children could have used the open-ended format to
demonstrate their analysis, synthesis, or evaluation of
the story, none of them did so. In comparing the percentage of correct responses to story cloze with correct
responses to comprehension questions, three findings
emerged:
1. The children had relatively little difficulty responding to comprehension questions requiring them
to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate the story even
though they were asked no questions regarding the de-
50
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2:1 Winter 1997
100.00
95.00
93.90
95.10
90.00
85.80
88.90
85.00
80.00
u
HI
75.00
70.00
69.60
65.00
60.00
55.00
50.00
4
WEEKS
Figure 1 Percentage of correct responses to comprehension questions and story cloze.
answers to story cloze (literal questions); — - — - • answers to analysis/synthesis/evaluation questions.
tails of the text they were reading. During the first
three weeks of the study, the children responded correctly to the comprehension questions more than 87%
of the time, and during the last four weeks, when the
material was between one half and one grade level
above their reading levels, they responded correctly
more than 69% of the time.
2. Although the children were never asked questions about story details during the reading lessons,
they had little difficulty with providing these details in
the story cloze tasks. During the first two weeks of the
study, they responded correctly to the story cloze at
least 93% of the time, and during the last three weeks,
when the stories were one grade level above their reading levels, they responded accurately more than 82%
of the time.
3. The correlation coefficient for correct responses
to comprehension questions and correct responses to
story cloze for each child were variable and low, with
no apparent relationship to reading level. Collapsing
across the six children for seven weeks, however, we
found the correlation to be +.817, indicating a strong
relationship between ability to answer comprehension
questions requiring analysis, synthesis, and evaluation,
and ability to answer questions about story details.
For the qualitative analysis, we conducted a content
analysis (see LeCompte, Preissle, & Tesch, 1993; Patton, 1990). We examined the children's answers to
comprehension questions to identify and categorize
any patterns in these data. The data were initially categorized by matching the answers to one of the 10 model
questions. At this point, the answers were identified according to the child, time in the study (weeks 1-7), and
reading level of the child. Analysis revealed no patterns
in terms of either time in the study or reading level,
nor differences attributed to being part of a group of
two or comprising a "group" of one. However, at this
Effect of Teacher Questions on Reading 51
stage of the analysis, a pattern to answers that were correct but not thorough appeared.
We defined thoroughness as including all the appropriate information relevant to the question. The
students' answers were compared to the model answers
developed by the investigator. (Examples of model
answers to comprehension questions are presented
in Appendix 3.) We examined each less-than-thorough answer to determine what factors influenced
thoroughness. We found that seven factors, or reading
tasks, could account for the lack of thoroughness in the
children's answers. These seven reading tasks presented difficulty to the children some of the time even
when they answered the comprehension questions correctly (Appendix 4 presents examples of student answers for each of the tasks):
1. Understanding the intent of the question. For
this task, the child demonstrated (1) understanding of
the full intent or (2) understanding of only part of the
intent of the question. (If the child did not understand
the intent of the question, it would have originally been
coded as incorrect and not included in this analysis.)
2. Locating information pertinent to the question.
For this task, the child demonstrated that he or she had
located (1) only pertinent information or (2) some nonpertinent information.
3. Considering consequential details. For this task,
the child considered (1) all the consequential details,
(2) some but not all of the consequential details, or (3)
some inconsequential details.
4. Applying relevant and accurate background
knowledge. For this task, the child applied (1) only relevant and accurate background knowledge or (2) some
irrelevant or inaccurate background knowledge.
5. Relying appropriately on background knowledge. For this task, the child demonstrated that he or
she had relied (1) appropriately on background knowledge, or had relied either (2) too heavily or (3) too little
on background knowledge.
6. Expressing self unambiguously. For this task,
the child expressed himself or herself (1) unambiguously or (2) ambiguously (i.e., the child's answer could
be open to more than one interpretation or meaning
because his or her expression lacked clarity).
7. Providing sufficient answer. For this task, the
child provided (1) a correct and sufficient answer, or
(2) a correct but insufficient answer.
To determine the reliability of coding the children's responses according to the seven tasks, a research assistant analyzed one set of answers for each child. The
sets were chosen randomly. Interrater reliability was
92.5%. Figure 2 shows the percentage of responses for
each task. Bar graph 1 represents Reading Task 1; A
represents (1) "understanding of the full intent" and B
represents (2) "understanding of only part of the intent
of the question." Bar graph 2 represents Reading Task
2, and so forth.
The reading tasks that gave the children the least
difficulty involved locating pertinent information, applying relevant and accurate background knowledge,
and expressing self unambiguously. Yet even with these
three tasks, the children located nonpertinent information, applied irrelevant or inaccurate background
knowledge, and expressed themselves ambiguously approximately 25% of the time. Two tasks, understanding the intent of the question and not relying too heavily or too little on background knowledge, presented
difficulty to the children approximately one third of the
time. The two tasks that gave the children the greatest
difficulty involved their ability to consider consequential details and to provide answers that were sufficient
as well as accurate. They considered inconsequential
details and only some consequential details 70% of the
time, and they expressed themselves ambiguously 63%
of the time.
Discussion
At the outset of the study, we hypothesized that deaf
children would be able to respond correctly to questions that required analysis, synthesis, and evaluation
of an evolving text under conditions in which they are
never asked questions that required identifying literal
story information. Results of the quantitative analysis
indicate that upper elementary-level deaf children
can analyze, synthesize, and evaluate narrative text and
their ability to do so does not need to be supported by
answering separate comprehension questions related to
52
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2:1 Winter 1997
80.00
70.00
10.00
o.oo
READING TASK
Figure 2 Percentage of responses for each reading task. 1-7 = reading tasks. A,B,C = performance on the reading tasks
(e.g., Task 1—understanding the intent of the questions, A—demonstrated understanding of the full intent, B—demonstrated understanding of only part of the intent).
story details, or what has traditionally been referred to
as literal information. That one needs to understand
significant story details is undeniable, but that spending time on questions that refer only to story details
does not seem a necessary prerequisite to asking questions that involve analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of
story information. A second hypothesis at the outset of
the study was that questions encouraging deaf children
to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate would reveal patterns of ease and difficulty in interacting with written
material. Qualitative analysis revealed seven reading
tasks that presented some difficulty to the children
even when they were able to respond to the comprehension questions correctly. Along a continuum, three
tasks presented the least difficulty (locating pertinent
information, applying relevant and accurate background knowledge, and expressing self unambiguously), two tasks presented moderate difficulty (understanding the intent of the question and not relying too
heavily or too little on background knowledge), and
two tasks presented the greatest difficulty (considering
consequential details and providing sufficient answers).
Results of the qualitative analysis indicate that when
asked to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate what they are
reading, deaf children (1) can locate pertinent story information but they may not consider all of the consequential details and frequently consider inconsequential details, (2) oftentimes rely on background
knowledge that is either irrelevant or inaccurate, as well
as rely either too heavily or too little on their background knowledge, and (3) have difficulty with receptive and expressive communication that can present
itself as not understanding the intent of the question
and providing answers that are ambiguous and insufficient.
The findings of this study suggest that teachers can
use comprehension questions to encourage deaf children to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate; however, the
Effect of Teacher Questions on Reading 53
children need support in identifying salient story details, building accurate and pertinent background
knowledge, applying background knowledge appropriately, and communicating clearly. Through their questions, teachers are modeling what it means to comprehend. When teachers ask questions that encourage deaf
children to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate, they are
demonstrating that reading is mostly about analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation. And if the teacher asks questions that require paying attention to salient details,
drawing on background knowledge about the topic, and
engaging in conversations rather than providing brief
responses to questions, the teacher is also modeling the
importance of salient details, background knowledge,
and communication towards comprehension.
The major limitation of the study is the small sample size. It is quite common for studies with deaf children to use small sample numbers; however, the small
sample size does limit the generalizability of the findings. Included in this limitation is the difference in dynamics between the groups of two children and the
"groups" of one'child. The children in the groups of
two could use one another for ideas in analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating the story material, whereas
the children in the groups of one had more opportunity
to interact with the investigator and to respond to a
greater number of questions because they were not
sharing the session. Another limitation of the study involves accurately identifying reading tasks with which
the children in the study had difficulty, particularly the
child's application of background knowledge and the
child expressing himself or herself unambiguously.
Given that knowledge and language are internal processes and evaluation is based on external performance,
which may or may not fully reflect these processes, we
recognize that in this study, the children's actual reading comprehension abilities may have been underrated.
The results of this study suggest that future research examine issues involved in using challenging
reading material with deaf children and encouraging
them to think deeply about what they read. In the current study, the children did not demonstrate any breakdown in comprehension with materials a full grade
level above their reading levels. Similarly, Ewoldt, Israelite, and Dodds (1992) found that teachers underestimated the extent to which their deaf high school stu-
dents would be able to comprehend reading material.
As Child R (age 12 years, 0 months, mid-3rd grade
reading level) said, "I don't like boring stories but I like
fun stories. This one was fun. I like to read mystery
story. Lois Lowry, she's my favorite author. It's in my
backpack."
Appendix 1
Model Comprehension Questions
Why did (the character) do (the action)?
What's the main idea of this story?
What kind of story is this?
What does (the author/the character)(believe/assume)?
What would have happened if. .. ?
What would be a better (action/ending/etc.)?
How would you have solved (the character's) problem?
What doesn't make sense? or Is this (action/behavior)
logical?
Do you see any (errors/inconsistencies/fallacies) in the
story?
What are the (strengths/weaknesses) of this story?
Appendix 2
Story Cloze
Format
At the beginning of the story
(Story details about each major story episode).
At the end of the story .
Example
"The Beach" by Tony Johnston
At the beginning of the story, Mole and Troll went
to the beach.
The problem starts when they shouted each other
that Mole said to Troll that Troll pinched him. And
Troll said Did not.
Mole and Troll argue because Mole thought Troll
did it.
They try to solve the problem by staying still, to see
what was it.
At the end of the story they saw the crab laughing,
and Troll and Mole apologize each other.
54 Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2:1 Winter 1997
Appendix 3
Examples of Model Answers to Comprehension
Questions
1. Why is the cat eating everyone?
(After reading 11 pages of The Fat Cat) .
Model answer: "He's crazy, mean, or very very
hungry."
2. What's the main idea of this story?
(After reading all of Amelia Bedelia)
Model answer: "The main idea is that Amelia Bedelia
always followed directions exactly, or literally, and Mrs.
Rogers learned to be careful what she told Amelia Bedelia to do."
3. What kind of story is this?
(After reading page 1 of The Beach)
Model answer: "This story is fiction."
4. What do Mole and Troll believe?
(After reading page 3 of The Beach)
Model answer: "Mole believes that Troll pinched him
and Troll believed that Mole pinched him."
5. What would have happened if the man had no ax?
(After reading all of The Fat Cat)
Model answer: "The cat would have eaten the man.
Then the cat would have eaten more and more and gotten fatter and fatter. He could also have gotten sick."
6. What would be a better ending?
(After reading all of The Beach)
Model answer: "It would be a better ending if Mole
and Troll did something more active than just saying
they're sorry. They could shake hands, walk away arm
in arm, or offer to give each other something. It could
also be better if they had caught the crab."
7. How would you have solved Mole and Troll's
problem?
(After reading page 4 of The Beach)
Model answer: "I would either do what they decided
and watch to see who was doing the pinching, or I
would have Mole and Troll search the beach."
8. Does the behavior of Mole and Troll make sense?
(After reading page 2 of The Beach)
Model answer: "It makes sense that they started arguing because Troll thought Mole was pinching him."
9. Do you see any errors in this story?
(After reading the first 5 pages of Amelia Bedelia)
Model answer: "Amelia Bedelia changed the towels in
the bathroom by snipping them, she dusted the furniture with dusting powder, she drew pictures of the
drapes, she put the lightbulbs outside, and she measured two cups of rice with a tape measure."
10. What are the strengths of this story? Weaknesses?
(After reading all of Something Strange is Going On)
Model answer: "The strengths could include how real
the characters seem, how the girls figure out the
mystery of Fletcher's disappearance, and the ending
when Fletcher falls asleep watching the tv commercial.
Strengths could also include whether it was interesting
or funny. The weaknesses could be that it seems pretty
far-fetched that two little girls would be able to spy on
a grown man. Weaknesses could also include whether
the story or parts of the story were boring."
Appendix 4
Examples of Student Answers for Each Reading Task
1. Understanding the intent of the question.
Question: What kind of story is this?
Text Information: Muffin, the last puppy in a litter, was
adopted by Maggie but Muffin was afraid, lonely, and
shy. When Maggie came home from the hospital after
having her tonsils removed, Muffin lost her shyness
with Maggie.
Child R demonstrated understanding of the full intent:
"I think it's a true story."
Child I demonstrated understanding of only part of the
intent: "Muffin's brothers and sisters were taken away
to a new home and nobody wanted Muffin because he
was a shy puppy."
2. Locating information pertinent to the
question.
Question: What doesn't make sense about Toad's behavior?
Text Information: Toad's seeds weren't growing so he
shouted at them, read a story and poems to them and
played music for them. Finally, he fell asleep. While he
was sleeping, the seeds sprouted.
Child C demonstrated that she had located only pertinent information: "They can't hear him reading to
them." Child G demonstrated that he had located some
nonpertinent information: "He's waiting and waiting
and singing music. He's sleeping. Toad is dumb."
Effect of Teacher Questions on Reading 55
3. Considering consequential details.
Question: What did Sheila believe about newspapers?
Text Information: Sheila felt that she could do a camp
newspaper all by herself but she found out that it was
very hard and it's better to have help.
Child A considered all the consequential details: "She
thinks it's hard. I think it's hard."
Child I considered some but not all of the consequential details: "She wanted to make a crossword puzzle.
Typing is hard."
Child R considered some inconsequential details: "She
had warts on the bottom of her feet. Hard to do a newspaper, making mistakes, tossing out."
4. Applying relevant and accurate background
knowledge.
Question: How would you have solved the mother beaver's problem?
Text Information: A mother beaver worked on a dam
while her kits played on shore. Suddenly, an old black
bear came out of the trees.
Child S applied only relevant and accurate background
knowledge: "I would hide. The babies look scared. It's
hard."
Child R applied some irrelevant or inaccurate background knowledge: "Kill it. I would bite the bear's tail.
Bears have little tails."
5. Relying appropriately on background knowledge.
Question: Why did the cat eat all the people?
Text Information: While the old woman was gone, the
soup looked so good that the cat ate all of it. Then he
ate the pot, the old woman, and all the other people
he met.
Child C demonstrated that she had relied appropriately on background knowledge: "Very hungry."
Child S demonstrated that she had relied too heavily
on background knowledge: "He's mean."
Child G demonstrated that he had relied too little on
background knowledge: "He tasted it. The bowl. It
tasted good. Oh, I'll eat it."
6. Expressing self unambiguously.
Question: What is the main idea of the story?
Text Information: Mrs. Rogers gave Amelia Bedelia a
list of things to do and Amelia followed the directions
literally.
Child I expressed herself unambiguously: "That Ame-
lia Bedelia did it wrong. She dusted the furniture with
powder, she drew on the drapes, she dressed the
chicken as a boy, she put it in a nice box, and cut up the
bath towels."
Child S expressed herself ambiguously: "Humorous.
Surprised. Show make laugh."
7. Providing sufficient answer.
^Question: What are the strengths and weaknesses of
this story?
Text Information: The King said that any man who
could make the Princess laugh could have her for his
wife. Peter traded fish for a magic goose that made
people stick to it. The Princess laughed when she saw
all the people stuck to the goose.
Child C provided a correct and sufficient answer:
Strengths—"Nothing." Weaknesses—"The Princess
laughed. The dancing and the music. It's crazy." Child
G provided a correct but insufficient answer:
Strengths—"Nothing. And it's not true. It's really stupid. It's a stupid story. I prefer Stephen King book.
Stephen King is hard."
References
Barrett, T. C. (1976). Taxonomy of reading comprehension. In
R. Smith & T. C. Barrett, Teaching reading in the middle
grades (pp. 51-58). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W. H., &
Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of education objectives:
The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive
domain. New York: David McKay.
Cooter, R. B., Joseph, D. G., & Flynt, E. S. (1986). Eliminating
the literal pursuit in reading comprehension. Journal of
Clinical Reading: Research and Programs, 2(1), 9—11.
Daines, D. (1986). Are teachers asking higher level questions?
Education, 106, 368-374.
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991).
Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61,
239-264.
Ewoldt, C , Israelite, N., & Dodds, R. (1992). The ability of deaf
students to understand text: A comparison of the perceptions of teachers and students. American Annals of the Deaf,
137, 351-361.
Gauthier, L. R. (1987). Differences among fifth graders' comprehension category responses with respect to cognitive demand. Reading Improvement, 24, 213-220.
Goldenberg, C. (1992-1993). Instructional conversations: Promoting comprehension through discussion. The Reading
Teacher, 46, 316-326.
Langer, J. A. (1985). Levels of questioning: An alternative view.
Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 586-602.
56
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2:1 Winter 1997
LeCompte, M. D., Preissle, J., & Tesch, R. (1993). Ethnography
and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed). San
Diego, CA: Academic.
O'Flavahan, J. E, Hartman, D. K., & Pearson, P. D. (1988).
Teacher questioning and feedback practices: A twenty year
retrospective. In J. E. Readence & R. S. Baldwin (Eds.), Dialogues in literacy research (pp. 183-208). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods
(2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Raphael, T. E. (1986). Teaching question-answer relationships,
revisited. The Reading Teacher, 39, 516-522.
Reutzel, D. R., & Hollingsworth, P. M. (1990). Skill hierarchies
in reading comprehension. Reading Improvement, 27, 64-71.
Reutzel, D. R., & Hollingsworth, P. M. (1991). Reading comprehension skills: Testing the distinctiveness hypothesis. Reading Research and Instruction, 30, 32-46.
Schirmer, B. R. (1994). Language and literacy development in children mho are deaf. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Shake, M. C. (1988). Teacher questioning: Is there an answer?
Reading Research and Instruction, 27, 29-39.
Thompson, B., Gipe, J. P., & Pitts, M. M. (1985). Validity of the
Pearson-Johnson taxonomy of comprehension questions.
Reading Psychology, 6, 43-49.
Waggoner, M. A. (1993, April). The language of reflective thinking.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.