“I Skim and Find the Answers”
Addressing Search-and-Destroy in Reading
Andrew P. Huddleston & Tara N. Lowe
The Reading Teacher
Vol. 68 Issue 1
9/2014
Article Summary and Reflection
Michael Miller
Practicum III
Fall 2014
“I Skim and Find the Answers”
Addressing Search-and-Destroy in Reading
Seeking to understand how students are reading assigned passages is a rather easy process; however, rarely does a classroom teacher engage students in this practice. It is assumed that students are reading a passage from beginning to end and other factors are contributing to a lack of reading comprehension, but more often than not, students are employing the search-and -destroy, or skimming, method to identify the answers. In this article, the authors initially sought to explore the experiences of 10 fifth grade students in Georgia with regard to the State’s test-based retention policy. What the authors found, however, was that all of the students were using the search-and-destroy method to some extent when reading and changed their approach to the study by focusing on how this method was contributing to their success or failure on reading assessments. The authors’ report seeks to understand through prior research how the search-and-destroy method has been addressed in education, describes the background and experiences of the 10 case study students and what can be gleaned from observations and feedback, and concludes with practical recommendations on assessing student’s reading approaches, including how and when the search-and-destroy method should be employed.
The term search-and-destroy in reading has been used by researchers and teachers dating back to the 1970’s; however, investigations have failed to explain why students use this method when reading, nor have they offered advice on how to help those students who are unsuccessful with this approach. One fact the existing research offered was how extensive the use of this method is among students, with one study suggesting that 50% of students will read questions first and then skim to find the answers. The research further supported the fact that many students used the search-and-destroy method unproductively, seeking out quick fixes and short cuts to identify the answer. While this method may have worked for some students, for those who were using it the most, they failed to check their answers for accuracy and performed poorly. The research also pointed to some positive aspects of the skimming approach, noting that it is a very valuable strategy that many highly effective readers use regularly. Dating back to the 1920’s, researchers have noted that readers must determine what type of reading is going to be most successful given the task at hand. Huddleston and Lowe add (2014), “The term selective reading has been used to designate the need to teach students how to recognize the most important parts of texts that require more attention and how to recognize other aspects that require less (Cunningham & Shablak, 1975)” (p. 72). Although the research supports the fact that the search-and-destroy method has it’s place in effective reading practices, educators continue to emphasize close reading as the only legitimate form of reading and spend minimal time on using the purpose for reading to inform how students’ read.
The 10 students studied for the purpose of this report represented a diverse group of fifth grade students all receiving intervention in reading, including Response to Intervention (RTI) and Early Intervention Programs (EIP). Additionally, some of the students were receiving ESL services which included a read-aloud accommodation on the State test. While the majority of the students were on a third grade reading level, one was at the first to second grade and two were at the fourth-to fifth grade level. All of the students in the study had previously employed the search-and-destroy method, had a history of struggling with reading, and had failed the State’s reading assessment. Similar to the teacher’s assumptions, the report’s authors assumed that the students were reading the questions and then reading the passages from beginning to end to identify the answers. It was not until the authors began discussing the methods for taking the tests with the students that a student revealed that she does not actually read any of the passages. Further discussion with other students revealed that this was a group-wide issue, with students often sharing that reading was unnecessary or reading was too difficult.
The report goes on to explain the variation amongst the 10 students in the study on how and why they determined that the reading was unnecessary or difficult and how this impacted their performance on the State test. Two of the students shared that they read everything on the actual test but only skimmed the practice tests because it was not going to be graded; therefore, reading all passages in the practice test was deemed unnecessary. Another student learned that some questions did not require her to read the entire passage, specifically those that asked her to define a literary device or part of speech. This student only read the sections of the passage that were specifically mentioned in the question and failed to recall any of the major details of the passage when later asked. For the majority of the students in the study, the decision to use the search-and-destroy method was determined by the difficulty of the passages. Some students noted that they only read short passages and deemed longer selections to be above their capabilities. While observing a small group intervention session, the report’s authors noted that students’ difficulty and inability to read the assigned passages resulted in an abundance of off-task behavior. Eventually, the students simply gave-up and decided that they were too dumb to accomplish the task at hand.
Two of the students, referred to as Donovan and Hallie, struggled the most with reading and used the search-and-destroy method almost exclusively. Donovan was reading on a first-to-second grade level; however, all of the assigned passages were on a fifth grade level. In this instance, Donovan would quickly reach a frustration level and learned to employ the search-and-destroy method once determining if he was able to read 5 words in the first sentence. Interestingly, Donovan was able to pass the State test because he was an ESL student with a read-aloud accommodation. He had strong listening comprehension skills; however, this accommodation disguised the fact that he still struggled with reading comprehension and presented a barrier to early intervention assistance. Hallie simply found reading too difficult and would express her frustration by stating that it gave her a headache. For this reason, Hallie always used the skimming approach and rarely read a passage in its entirety. During the administration of the state test, Hallie quickly skimmed the first section and finished well before her classmates, falling asleep while waiting for the remainder of the class to finish. She then proceeded to guess the answers to the entire second section of the test, resulting in a failing grade on the test and a sub-sequent retest. According to Huddleston and Lowe (2014), “Their teachers’ consistent use of practice passages, the lack of student choice in their reading, and the ongoing expectation that the student read texts beyond their instructional levels all appeared to contribute in some way to the students’ use of search-and-destroy” (p. 76). Addressing just these factors will only solve part of the problem; therefore, the report’s authors offer recommendations to help students understand when and how to use the search-and destroy approach.
The report concludes by offering three classroom recommendations to improve reading comprehension, including learning how students actually read their assignments, discussing what it means to read for a variety of purposes, and how to determine when search-and-destroy is effective and when it is not. Teachers can determine how their students are reading through observations and interviews. Observations can reveal the amount of time spent reading selected passages, what students choose to look at first, and the extent to which students flip back and forth between the questions and the answers. Interviews, however, are often the most valuable tool in revealing reading behaviors as students are often very forthcoming with their approaches to reading. Formal assessments can also be used to reveal reading behaviors, including whole-class and individual student questionnaires that can consist of both open-ended and multiple choice questions. This approach can quickly identify ineffective approaches and help the teacher to differentiate instruction accordingly. Second, teachers should discuss with students what it means to read for a variety of purposes and share that effective readers choose to read in a variety of ways, including careful reading, normal reading, rapid reading, and skimming. Finally, and perhaps the most valuable approach, is to help students understand when using the search-and-destroy method is most successful. By recognizing how to determine if a question requires a deeper understanding of the passage, students can determine if search-and-destroy or careful reading would be most successful.
This studied revealed a wealth of valuable information for the reading teacher seeking to understand the manner in which his/her students read and the challenges they face with reading comprehension. Because struggling readers have often determined that they can’t read or that the practice passages are too difficult, they fail to get any practice in reading comprehension, assuring their challenges will only continue. If a teacher fails to determine how his/her students are actually approaching reading and if they are really attempting to read classroom assignments, practice assignments will only serve to reinforce ineffective search-and-destroy approaches amongst those students who find reading most difficult and require the most assistance. Even the most dedicated and hard-working teachers will fail to realize improvement amongst struggling readers if they do not seek to diagnose the source of the problem. As the old saying goes, “Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.” In keeping with best practices in education, reflecting on the success or failure of classroom interventions will save valuable time and help break the cycle of reading avoidance. In conclusion, to fully understand and diagnose reading comprehension struggles and improve performance, teachers should never assume students are reading assigned passages and should employ approaches to determine reading behaviors, discuss what it means to read for a variety of purposes with students, and explain when the search-and-destroy method can be employed most successfully.
Works Cited
Huddleston, Andrew P., & Lowe, Tara N. (2014). “I Skim and Find the Answers,” Addressing Search-and-Destroy in Reading. The Reading Teacher, Volume 68 (1), pp. 71-79.
No comments:
Post a Comment