The DOI matches its Crossref record; 120 of the 120 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Essential Elements of Fostering and Teaching Reading Comprehension
Abstract
If learning to read effectively is a journey toward ever-increasing ability to comprehend texts, then teachers are the tour guides, ensuring that students stay on course, pausing to make sure they appreciate the landscape of understanding, and encouraging the occasional diversion down an inviting and interesting cul-de-sac or byway. The evidence for this role is impressive. In one study, some teachers of first-grade students in a high-poverty school district got 80% of their students to grade level in reading comprehension by the end of the year, while others in the same school district got only 20% of their students to grade level (Tivnan & Hemphill, 2005). In another study, Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, and Rodriguez (2003) found that second through fifth graders showed dramatically different rates of growth in reading comprehension over the course of the school year, depending on their teacher and the specific practices in which he or she engaged. Teachers can even overcome disadvantages in reading comprehension that students bring to school. For example, Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman, and Hemphill (1991) found that students whose home environments were poor with respect to promoting reading comprehension development nonetheless made adequate progress in reading comprehension if they had strong teachers of reading comprehension for two consecutive years. If otherwise similar students had a strong comprehension teacher for only one year, only 25% made adequate progress, and none of the students who experienced two years of poor comprehension instruction overcame the effects of poor support for reading comprehension development at home. In sum, teachers matter, especially for complex cognitive tasks like reading for understanding.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1991) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-5764 · Cited by 6,847
Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities
Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1 · Cited by 5,186
(1998) · Cited by 4,875
Langenberg, D. N. (2000) · Cited by 4,305
Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading
Barnett, M. A., Singer, H., & Ruddell, R. B. (1987) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/326762 · Cited by 3,086
The Psychology of Written Composition
Cumming, A., Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/327270 · Cited by 2,807
MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S. W., & Fitzgerald, J. (2005) · Cited by 2,327
Brophy, J. (2004) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410610218 · Cited by 1,285
A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1988) · Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139524513.007 · Cited by 1,199
The instruction of reading comprehension
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/0361-476x(83)90019-x · Cited by 1,177
Cited by
Merke, S., Ganushchak, L., & van Steensel, R. (2024) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100572 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Duke, N., Pearson, D., Strachan, S., & Billman, A.
- Venue
- What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction
- Publisher
- International Reading Association
- Published
- 2011-04-20
- Pages
- 51-93
- OpenAlex
- W2315349062
- Cited by
- 331
- References
- 120
- FWCI
- 54.53
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Essential Elements of Fostering and Teaching Reading Comprehension. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1598/0829.03
- The paper
- Duke, N., Pearson, D., Strachan, S., & Billman, A. (2011). Essential Elements of Fostering and Teaching Reading Comprehension. What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1598/0829.03
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.