Výuka čtenářských strategií v zahraničí – teorie, trendy, programy a metody

Tato teoretická studie se zabývá výukou čtenářských strategií neboli záměrných a cílených postupů, které pomáhají čtenářům porozumět různým typům textů. Cílem textu je analýza teorií a výzkumů, na nichž staví výuka čtenářských strategií ve školním prostředí, a porovnání zahraničních programů, které začleňují čtenářské strategie do výuky ve školách. V první části budou přiblíženy principy modelu postupného předávání odpovědnosti (gradual release of responsibility), poskytování opory (scaffolding) během výuky a trendy ve vývoji v přístupu k výuce čtenářských strategií. V druhé části je podrobněji pojednáno o úspěšných zahraničních programech, které integrují výuku čtenářských strategií: CORI a Učíme se navzájem. Analýza těchto programů ukazuje na uplatňování modelu postupného předávání odpovědnosti ve výuce čtenářských strategií. Zároveň je poukázáno na trend ve výuce čtenářských strategií, který staví na vytváření významu textu během diskusí spojených s prací na autentickém úkolu. This theoretical study deals with the instruction of reading strategies, which are defined as deliberate and targeted procedures that enhance readers’ ability to comprehend various type of text. The study aims to analyse theories and research studies that reading strategy instruction in schools builds on. In the first part, the gradual release of responsibility is described together with the principle of instructional scaffolding and trends in the development of reading strategy instruction. The second part focuses on the detailed analysis of successful international programmes that integrate reading strategy instruction: CORI and Reciprocal Teaching. Their analyses reveals that they use the gradual release of responsibility model in reading strategies instruction. The study also points to the trend of creating meaning of text during rich discussions connected with the work on an authentic task.

1. Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364−373. CrossRef

2. Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.

3. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

4. Clark, K. F., & Graves, M. F. (2005). Scaffolding students' comprehension of text. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 570−580. CrossRef

5. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1−35. CrossRef

6. Collins, A., & Smith, E. E. (1980). Teaching the process of reading comprehension. Technical Report, no. 182. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.

7. CORI: Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. (2005−2014). Dostupné z http://www.cori.umd.edu.

8. Davey, B. (1983). Think-aloud: Modeling the cognitive processes of reading comprehension. Journal of Reading, 27(1), 44−47.

9. Dijk, T. A. van, & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.

10. Duke, N., & Pearson, P. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup, What research has to say about reading instruction. Newark: International Reading Association. CrossRef

11. Durkin, D. (1978−1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), 481−533. CrossRef

12. Eurydice. (2011). Výuka čtení v Evropě: souvislosti, politiky, praxe. Brusel: Educational, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.

13. Garbe, C., Holle, K., & Weinhold, S. (2009). ADORE project: Teaching adolescent struggling readers. A comparative study of good practices in European countries. Scientific Report (Lueneburg, Germany: University of Lueneburg).

14. Guthrie, J. T., & Klauda, S. L. (2014). Effects of classroom practices on reading comprehension, engagement, and motivations for adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(4), 387−416.

15. Guthrie, J. T., & McPeake, J. A. (2007). Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) teacher training module, grades 3−5. Baltimore: University of Maryland.

16. Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., & Klauda, S. L. (2007). Contributions of Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivations in reading. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 237−250. CrossRef

17. Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., Hancock, G. R., McCann, A., Anderson, E., & Alao, S. (1998). Does concept oriented reading instruction increase strategy use? Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 261−278. CrossRef

18. Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., McCann, A., Wigfield, A., & Bennett, L. (1996). Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies during Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(3), 306−332. CrossRef

19. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & VonSecker, C. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 331−341. CrossRef

20. Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2007). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension for understanding and engagement. Portland: Stenhouse Publishers.

21. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

22. Kamil, M. L., Pearson, P., Moje, E. B., & Affterbach, P. P. (2011). Handbook of reading research, Volume IV. New York: Routledge.

23. Keene, E. O., & Zimmermann, S. (2007). Mosaic of thought: The power of comprehension strategy instruction. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

24. Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67(3), 271−299. CrossRef

25. Miller, D. (2002). Reading with meaning. Portland: Stenhouse Publishers.

26. Najvarová, V. (2008). Čtenářská gramotnost žáků 1. stupně základní školy. Dostupné z http://is.muni.cz/th/14647/pedf_d/VN_disertace.pdf.

27. National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US). (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.

28. OECD. (2013). PISA in focus: Could learning strategies reduce the performance gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students? Dostupné z http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisainfocus/pisa%20in%20focus%20n30%20%28eng%29--Final.pdf.

29. Palečková, J., & Tomášek, V., et. al. (2013). Hlavní zjištění PISA 2012. Matematická gramotnost patnáctiletých žáků. Praha: Česká školní inspekce.

30. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring strategies. Cognition & Instruction, I(2), 117−175.

31. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote independent learning from text. The Reading Teacher, 39(8), 771−777.

32. Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, C. M. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317−345. CrossRef

33. Pearson, P. D., Roehler, L. R., Dole, J. A., & Duffy, G. G. (1992). Developing expertise in reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup, What research has to say about reading instruction. Newark: International Reading Association.

34. Pilonieta, P., & Medina, A. L. (2009). Reciprocal teaching for the primary grades: We can do it, too! The Reading Teacher, 63(2), 120−129. CrossRef

35. Pressley, G. M. (1976). Mental imagery helps eight-year-olds remember what they read. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(3), 355−359. CrossRef

36. Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York: Guilford Press.

37. Roehler, L. R., Duffy, G. G., Putnam, J., Wesselman, R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., et al. (1987). The effect of direct explanation of reading strategies on low-group third fraders: A technical report of the 1984−85 study. Michigan: The Institute for Researchon Teaching.

38. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. E. (1993). Reciprocal teaching: A review of 19 experimental studies. Center for the Study of Reading Technical Report; no. 574.

39. Samuels, S. J., & Farstrup, A. E. (2011). What research has to say about reading instruction, Fourth Edition. Newark: International Reading Association. CrossRef

40. Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Kognitivní psychologie. Praha: Portál. CrossRef

41. Vygotskij, L. S. (1975). Myšlení a řeč. Praha: SPN.

42. Wilkinson, I. A., & Son, E. H. (2011). A dialogic turn in research on learning and teaching comprehend. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach, Handbook of reading research, Volume IV (s. 359−377). New York: Routledge.

43. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89−100. CrossRef