Young Children's Thinking in Relation to Texts: A Comparison With Older Children

Abstract

Th is study in vestigated th e th inking in wh ich young chi ld ren engage in relation to authentic literature a s expressed in their unassisted retellings. Young children (ages 5 and 6) were read a narrative text and then engaged in an oral, dictated retelling. For comparison, a group ofold er children (g rade 6) were also read a narrative and th en engaged in a written retell ing. R etellings were examined for evidence ofth inking pro cesses, which were tallied for both groups. There were no significant differences in the lengths ofthe retellings by old er and younger chi ldren, and few sig ni fican t differences in the amount or type s of thinking. Older chi ldren tended to provide summaries of paragraphs and single sentences, while younger children provided more summaries of paragraphs and multiple paragraphs. S om e d ifferences in th e typ es of th inking also were observed, such as th e use of text ill ustra tions and drawing inferences of text events and actions; thes e were used to a greater extent by younger, not older students. For the most part, both gro ups of children engaged in th e same types, and to the same extent, of th inking. This research suggests that young children are cap able of engagi ng in many typ es ofthinking in relation to texts, and that retellings may be used a s one means ofevaluating this th inking.Text: The skeleton chased the little old lady up a tree. It stayed on the ground. For what if it fell from that tree and broke its bones? particularly whether we are accurately evaluating their capacity to think about the texts they read or have read to them. (Tom my, age 5)Retelling: She climbed a tree, but the sk eleton didn't climb the tree, because if he climbed up the tree , he thought that he would break his bones. So he didn't climb the tree.

Searching for Culturally Responsive Formative Reading Assessments: Retellings, Comprehension Questions, and Student Interviews

“…There are thirteen kinds of thinking in addition to seven different levels of summarization. For further details, see Feathers (2002). Table 1 Examples of Text-Related Thinking (Feathers, 2002) The second data source, comprehension questions, consisted of five implicit and five explicit questions.…”

“…For further details, see Feathers (2002). Table 1 Examples of Text-Related Thinking (Feathers, 2002) The second data source, comprehension questions, consisted of five implicit and five explicit questions. The questions were generated by 30 graduate students who were studying assessments, and they served as raters for the validity of the comprehension questions.…”

“…The retellings were analyzed a second time using the Text-Related Thinking (TRT) analysis (Feathers, 2002). This tool provides a framework that helps identify the various kinds of thinking used to retell a passage.…”

“…Over a period of four sessions, each participant engaged in the following assessments: 1) retellings which were analyzed using two different kinds of analyses (Feathers, 2002;Goodman, Watson, & Burke, 2005), 2) 10 comprehensions questions analyzed using the pre-determined answers modeled after the QRI-5 (Leslie & Caldwell, 2010), and 3) open-ended informal student interviews analyzed for thematic patterns (Merriam, 1998;Schensul, Schensul, & LeCompte, 1999). Lastly, participants engaged in a fifth and final interview in which they compared their thinking across four texts and made overall reflective statements.…”

Peer Interaction Does Not Always Improve Children’s Mental State Talk Production in Oral Narratives. A Study in 6- to 10-Year-Old Italian Children

“…Generally primary school children tell stories as a list of actions (Carnine et al, 1982; McConaughy et al, 1984), but if they possess a certain level of mental state talk, which allows them to connect action with consciousness, then they are also able to integrate the plot actions with the characters’ mental states (Pelletier and Astington, 2004). Moreover, if the characters’ intentions are explicitly stated, primary school children are able to identify the characters’ mental states (Feathers, 2002). Pelletier and Beatty (2015) examined children’s developing understanding of Aesop’s fables from Kindergarten through Grade 6, and found that as children grow, they are increasingly able to understand fables through their mental state talk, beyond the contribution of general vocabulary.…”