1

ABSTRACT

Reading comprehension has been highlighted as a problem among middle primary school students.

Many students while being proficient text decoders have difficulty comprehending text. When there is

little to no emphasis on comprehension, on exploring the meaning behind the words, students are not

actually reading but merely making the appropriate sounds.

The present investigation aims to extend earlier research through the hypothesis: Teaching year three

and four students synonyms and paraphrasing is associated with improving reading comprehension of

fictional texts.

The study compares two groups of students, a control group and a teaching group. Students in each

group were assessed (pre and post) on synonyms, paraphrasing and reading comprehension. The

teaching group undertook ten, one hour long lessons specifically targeting, and explicitly teaching

synonyms and paraphrasing, using the RAP strategy.

Trends from the group indicate support for the hypothesis. The average scores for the teaching group

improved in all the assessed areas. The results from this study imply that there is reason to suggest that,

teaching year three and four students’ synonyms and paraphrasing is associated with improving reading

comprehension of fictional texts.

Prediction:

Teaching year three and four students synonyms and paraphrasing is associated with improving

reading comprehension of fictional texts.

2

INTRODUCTION

Reading comprehension has been highlighted as a problem among middle primary school students.

Many students while being proficient text decoders have difficulty comprehending text. Literacy strategies

in the junior levels concentrate primarily on decoding texts. Great emphasis is placed on phonological

awareness, phonemes, blends, rimes, fluency and phrasing. The most important aspect of reading is

overlooked; according to Fountas and Pinnell (2001 p.322) “Reading is comprehension. Reading is the

construction of meaning.” There is little to no emphasis on comprehension, on exploring the meaning

behind the words. Therefore students are not actually reading but merely making the appropriate sounds.

When exploring models such as ‘Multiple Levels of Text Processing’ (Munro 1999), or ‘The Four

Resources Model’ (Luke and Freebody 1999) many Literacy lessons focus primarily on word level, on

text breaking. Once a child reaches their expected text level in regards to decoding they are deemed a

proficient reader, despite the fact that they may have little or no understanding of what they are reading.

A lack of emphasis is placed on what the student has read, what it means, what can be inferred, and

what the message being presented is. It is assumed that once decoding skills are being effectively used,

that reading comprehension will naturally follow (Hagaman & Ried 2008). Naturally, this is not always the

case.

For some students reading comprehension does come easily, however to make the assumption that any

child reading at their age appropriate level comprehends what they have read is a serious issue. This is

a text driven world, the need to read and comprehend is a life skill and one that is necessary to live and

contribute effectively in society. As students progress through their schooling, their education is text

driven. Science, history, even the Arts require students to read information and comprehend it. If they

cannot comprehend the basics of a text, they have little hope of educational or vocational success.

Research into this area is relatively new, however the case for the necessity of explicitly teaching reading

comprehension skills is strong.

Inquiries and research such as The National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (2009), found that in

order for students to learn best, teachers need to use an integrated approach when teaching reading,

where the explicit teaching of reading comprehension is included along with phonics, fluency and the

like. The National Inquiry also noted that while much assessment is conducted in schools on reading

3

comprehension, little teaching of the strategies is carried out. (The National Inquiry into the Teaching of

Literacy 2009).

The importance of teaching cognitive strategies related to reading, where by what the student thinks and

does before, during and after reading is also gaining emphasis (Lee and Von Colln 2003). The explicit

teaching of these cognitive reading strategies has been proven by research, to be an effective tool in

assisting students to comprehend texts. The comprehension strategy of paraphrasing, with an emphasis

on synonyms, is one such cognitive way of explicitly teaching students to understand what they are

reading.

Explicitly teaching synonyms is also important as synonyms are directly related to vocabulary. The words

in sentences and the context in which they are placed, are what give text meaning. (Fountas and Pinnell.

2001) Having a wide vocabulary and having knowledge of synonyms allows the reader to link words with

meaning, using words they are familiar with to comprehend what they are reading. Paraphrasing allows

students to manage the text and understand what it is they are reading, and what the text is telling them

(Fisk &Hurst 2003). While the research conducted into paraphrasing and synonyms and their effect on

comprehension is limited thus far, the results are promising (Hagaman & Ried 2008).

The research that has been conducted around the cognitive strategy of paraphrasing in order to

comprehend, has suggested it to be a most effective reading comprehension strategy, as students are

processing and understanding what they are reading both during and after reading (Fisk &Hurst 2003).

One such cognitive after reading strategy based on paraphrasing was developed by Schumaker, Denton,

and Deshler in 1984. It is centred around the concept of recalling the main ideas and important facts

(Sorrell, Adrian & Lloyd, 1996). The acronym RAP is used in a simple three step process. A passage,

paragraph, or sentence is selected and the following three steps are followed:

R- Read a paragraph

A - Ask yourself the question, “What were the main ideas and important information in the paragraph?”

P - Put the main ideas and important information into your own words.

It is through this cognitive paraphrasing strategy that comprehension is attained (Lee and Von Colln

2003). Through the inclusion of a similar process by Schumaker, Denton, and Deshler in 1984 which

includes discussion, note taking and sharing, a strongly scaffolded strategy is presented.

Used in other research into reading comprehension, the RAP strategy is noted as being simple, logical

and easy to use in classrooms (Sorrell, Adrian & Lloyd, 1996). Furthermore when used in prior research,

4

it has produced many positive and promising results. A factor that gives such success to the RAP

strategy as a tool in reading comprehension, is its inclusion of all forms of communication. Children are

reading text, writing down paraphrased sentences and then discussing their paraphrases using the skills

of speaking and listening (Fisk &Hurst 2003). Another factor in the effectiveness of the strategy is the

established link between reading and writing, and its effect on reinforcing reading comprehension. When

reading and writing is integrated students think about what they will read, and what they have read, when

they are writing. (Vacca and Vacca 1999 in Fisk &Hurst 2003). When a reader improves their

paraphrasing, and uses the RAP strategy, their reading comprehension improves. This is because they

have thought about what they have read and asked themselves “What is important? What is the

message?” Then they write it in their own words, to reinforce the message and give it meaning for them.

Children with learning difficulties tend to struggle with comprehending texts, particularly beyond literal

comprehension. The RAP strategy could easily be used with students with learning difficulties to improve

their reading comprehension. This is due to its cognitive links, the ability to be heavily scaffolded during

the teaching process, the scope for reading, writing and discussion and the easy to follow steps. The

strategy has been reported to be suitable for a wide range of learners. Furthermore studies on students

with mild learning disabilities using RAP have reported improvement in reading comprehension (Lee and

Von Colln 2003). Given the positive results attached to RAP for students at risk and it’s simplicity as a

strategy, it becomes another tool to aid those who struggle with comprehension.

The present investigation aims to extend earlier research, by examining the affects that teaching year

three and four students the RAP paraphrasing strategy and synonyms has on:

1) improving their ability to use synonyms

2) improving their ability to paraphrase

3) improving reading comprehension

Prediction:

Teaching year three and four students synonyms and paraphrasing is associated with improving reading

comprehension of fictional texts.

5

METHOD

Design:

The study uses a case XOX design, in the context of a ‘real’ classroom. The gains in year three and four

students’ ability to paraphrase and comprehend what they read will be monitored. These gains will follow

from explicit teaching of the use of synonyms and the RAP paraphrasing strategy. The study compares

two groups of students, a control group and a teaching group.

Participants:

The participants in the study are all year three and four students, of mixed ability. All students attend a

metropolitan school in Melbourne which has high transiency, and a high enrolment of ESL and new

arrival students. As the school has two year three/four grades, students from one three/four class were

selected as the control group and the other three/four class as the teaching group. The groups are

reasonably matched with children funded for learning difficulties included in each group. Of the students

participating approximately 28% are not decoding at the expected level for their age and almost 35% of

the students participating in the study have had previous Literacy intervention including Reading

Recovery, GREEAD and similar small group intervention sessions with teachers (Table 1). The school

also has a history of being below the average Literacy level of other ‘like schools’ in state and national

testing. The participants’ ages, entry reading ability, and all other relevant details are listed blow in Table

1.

Table 1

Name 0 =Teaching 1 = Control Group

Sex Age in Months

ESL No=0 Yes=1

Previous Literacy Intervention No=0 Yes=1

Funded Learning Difficulty No=0 Yes=1

Text level

A 0 M 110 0 0 0 28+

B 0 F 101 0 0 0 28+

C 0 M 125 0 1 0 28+

D 0 M 112 1 0 0 28+

E 0 F 109 0 0 0 28+

F 0 M 99 1 0 0 21

G 0 M 114 1 1 0 18

H 0 F 113 1 0 0 28+

I 0 F 99 1 0 0 28+

J 0 F 96 1 1 0 21

K 0 M 103 1 1 0 27

L 0 F 102 1 1 0 11

M 0 F 107 1 0 0 21

N 0 F 114 1 0 0 28+

O 0 M 117 1 0 0 28+

P 0 F 109 1 0 0 28+

Q 0 F 101 1 1 0 28+

R 0 F 101 1 1 1 18

S 0 M 117 1 1 0 27

T 0 M 99 1 0 0 26

6

U 0 F 113 0 0 0 28+

V 0 F 104 0 0 0 28+

W 0 M 98 0 1 0 21

X 0 F 112 1 0 0 28+

1 1 M 101 1 0 0 28+

2 1 M 105 1 0 0 28+

3 1 M 108 1 1 0 28+

4 1 F 116 1 0 0 28+

5 1 F 112 0 1 0 28+

6 1 F 112 1 0 0 28+

7 1 M 95 1 1 1 11

8 1 F 105 0 0 0 28+

9 1 F 110 1 1 0 28+

10 1 F 100 1 0 0 28+

11 1 F 104 1 0 0 28+

12 1 M 112 1 0 0 28+

13 1 F 118 1 1 1 21

14 1 M 105 1 0 0 28+

15 1 M 120 1 0 0 28+

16 1 M 111 0 1 0 11

17 1 F 112 0 1 0 28+

18 1 F 100 1 0 0 28+

19 1 F 117 1 0 0 28+

20 1 F 96 1 0 0 28+

21 1 M 104 1 0 0 28+

22 1 F 111 1 0 0 28+

Teaching Group: A – X Control Group 1 – 22

Materials:

Materials used include the following

• Tests - TORCH comprehension test Pre – “Lizards Love Eggs”

Post – “The Zoo”

TORCH uses a standardised score to identify comprehension levels to give an estimated

level of a students reading comprehension. “Lizards Love Eggs” and “The Zoo” are fictional

comprehension tests appropriate for year three and four students. The scoring system and

answers to the tests came from the TORCH Test of Reading Comprehension book.

- Paraphrasing Task (John Munro, 2005) used for pre and post.

The Paraphrasing task allows the assessor to gauge how well students put sentences into

their own words while maintaining meaning. Students were awarded 2 points for each

sentence that had been reworded, with more than 50% of the words in the sentence

substituted with synonyms, or 2 points if the words in sentence had been rearranged with

meaning maintained. 1 point was awarded for each sentence with less than 50% of the words

in the sentence substituted with synonyms. No points were awarded if a sentence was simply

7

re written, or did not maintain meaning. Raw scores were obtained and needed to be

transferred to percentage scores.

- Synonyms task (John Munro, 2005) used for pre and post.

The Synonyms task gauges a student’s vocabulary knowledge. Students received one point

for each correct synonym. The students were given room to list three synonyms for each word.

Raw scores are obtained and transferred to percentage scores.

• Texts - Two fictional texts one below the expected reading level and one at the expected reading

level (specific titles included in the resource list).

• Teaching Unit– Ten scaffolded lessons with specific step by step instructions, explicitly teaching and

using synonyms and the RAP strategy (Appendix 1).

• Students workbooks to practice paraphrasing

• Whiteboard to display sentences and paragraphs

• Poster paper and markers to make synonym and RAP display posters

Procedure:

The tasks were administered to all students in the following order:

1. The teaching and control group’s reading comprehension level was pre tested using the fictional

TORCH comprehension test “Lizards Love Eggs”. The students’ ability to paraphrase was

assessed using the Paraphrasing Task (John Munro, 2005) and their knowledge of synonyms was

ascertained using the Synonyms Task (John Munro, 2005). The students’ paraphrasing and

knowledge of synonyms was established, in order to determine whether their improved ability to

paraphrase and use synonyms directly impacted on their reading comprehension.

The pre tests were conducted in either the first or second hour of the Literacy block between 9

and 11 am, on three consecutive days. Each student was allowed one hour for each test. The pre

testing was completed in the students’ regular classrooms and administered by the classroom

teacher. Any students who were absent for pre testing were placed in a quiet space at a later

date, to complete their testing, before the ten lessons took place.

2. Over a two week period students in the teaching group undertook ten, one hour long, lessons

specifically targeting, and explicitly teaching synonyms and paraphrasing using the RAP strategy.

All lessons were conducted by the classroom teacher and took place in either the first or second

hour of the Literacy block, between 9 and 11 am.

8

The lessons were based on whole class, small group and individual activities and discussion.

Concepts taught were heavily scaffolded to provide support for the varying abilities in the teaching

group. The teacher explicitly taught synonyms and each lesson involved the brainstorming of

synonyms to improve students’ vocabulary. Paraphrasing and the RAP strategy were modelled

by the teacher initially, with student contribution introduced as the strategy was consolidated.

Students participated in activities that involved reading, writing, speaking and listening. Constant

revision of the strategy’s acronym and share time at the end of each lesson were included. The

share time was imperative in order to reflect on the effectiveness and usefulness of the RAP

strategy. The teaching unit, which includes detailed descriptions and lesson steps, is in included in

Appendix 1. The control group participated in different Literacy lessons in another classroom with

their classroom teacher and were not exposed to the strategy.

3. Upon completion of the ten lessons students from both the teaching and control group

participated in post assessments. To assess their reading comprehension level after the ten

lessons, the fictional TORCH comprehension test “The Zoo” was used. The students’ ability to

paraphrase was re-assessed, again using the Paraphrasing Task (John Munro, 2005) and their

knowledge of synonyms was re-assessed using the Synonyms Task (John Munro, 2005). The

post tests were conducted in either the first or second hour of the Literacy block between 9 and 11

am, on three consecutive days. Each student was allowed one hour for each test. The post testing

was conducted in a large space with students from both the teaching and control group in the

same place at the same time. The same classroom teacher delivered all three tests. This was not

an ideal situation but necessary due to building works at the school. Due to time constraints, any

students absent when post testing took place were unable to be tested at a later date.

RESULTS

Trends from the group indicate support for the hypothesis, that teaching year three and four students’

synonyms and paraphrasing is associated with improving reading comprehension of fictional texts. The

TORCH comprehension test scores for students in the teaching group indicate that gains in reading

comprehension, on average, were greater than those of the control group (Figure 1 and 2).The teaching

group began with a lower average score for reading comprehension and exceeded the control group’s

average post test score by 3.59 points. A gain in the teaching group’s average score for reading

comprehension was 4.02 points higher after post testing, than that of the control group (Figure 1). The

teaching group’s stanine score improved 0.75 points, while no improvement was indicated in the control

9

group. After post testing the teaching group’s average stanine was 0.38 points higher then the control

group (Figure 2). Findings in this study show that the explicit teaching of paraphrasing and synonyms

was positively associated with student’s comprehension of fictional texts.

Figure 1 Figure 2

TORCH score Pre and Post Average

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Teacher Control

Group

Avera

ge T

OR

CH

sco

re

PRE

POST

The individual TORCH comprehension test scores for students in the teaching group indicate

improvement in 87.5% of the students (Figure 3). Of the students who indicated improvement 62.5% of

them moved up 1 or more stanines (Figure 4). The individual TORCH comprehension test scores for

students in the control group indicate improvement in 59.09% of the students. (Figure 5) Of the students

who indicated improvement 31.81% of them moved up 1 or more stanines. (Figure 6) Therefore the

teaching group demonstrated an improvement 28.41% higher than the control group. Similarly 30.69%

more students from the teaching group moved up one or more stanines than the control group.

TORCH Stanine Group Average Pre and

Post

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Teacher Control

Group

Stainine

PRE

POST

10

Figure 3

Teaching Group Individual TORCH score Pre and Post

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X

TO

RC

H s

core

TORCH Score PRE

TORCH score POST

Figure 4

Individual TORCH Stanines Pre and Post

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X

Student

Sta

nin

e

TORCH Stanine PRE

TORCH Stanine POST

11

Figure 5

Control Group TORCH Scores Pre and Post

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Student

TO

RC

H s

core

TORCH Score PRE

TORCH score POST

Figure 6

Control Group TORCH Stanine Pre and Post

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Student

Sta

nin

e

TORCH Stanine PRE

TORCH Stanine POST

The paraphrasing test scores for students in the teaching group indicate improvements in the ability to

paraphrase were, on average, greater than those of the control group. The teaching group began with a

lower average percentage score for paraphrasing and improved by 9.26%, while the control group’s

average post test percentage score went down by 8.85%. Gains in the teaching group’s average

percentage for paraphrasing was 14.39% higher than that of the control group after post testing (Figure

7). The paraphrasing test score percentages for individual students in the teaching group indicate

improvement in 63.63% of the students who took the test (students K and M were unable to be post

tested) (Figure 8). The paraphrasing test score percentages for individual students in the control group

12

indicate improvement in 13.63% of the students, while 72.72 % of students scored lower than in their pre

test (Figure 9).

Figure 7

Paraphrasing Pre and Post Average Score

Percentage

0

10

20

30

40

50

Teacher Control

Group

Perc

en

t

PRE

POST

Figure 8

Teaching Group Paraphraasing Pre and Post Scores

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X

Student

Perc

en

t

Para PRE

Para POST

13

Figure 9

Control Group Paraphrasing Pre and Post Scores

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Student

Raw

Sco

re

Para PRE

Para POST

The synonyms test scores for students in the teaching group indicate improvements in the ability to use

synonyms were, on average, greater than those of the control group. The teaching group began with a

lower average percentage score for paraphrasing and improved by 5.1%, while the control group’s

average post test percentage score went down by 1.22%. After post testing gains in the teaching group’s

average percentage for synonyms were 2.06% higher than that of the control group. (Figure 10). The

synonyms test score percentages for individual students in the teaching group indicate improvement in

77.27% of the students who took the test (students K and U were unable to be post tested) (Figure 11).

The synonyms test score percentages for individual students in the control group indicate improvement

in 50% of the students (Figure 12).

Figure 10

Synonyms Pre and Post Average Score

Percentage

0

5

10

15

20

Teacher Control

Group

Perc

en

t

PRE

POST

14

Figure 11

Teaching Group Synonym IndividualPercetnage Scores Pre and Post

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X

Student

Perc

en

tag

e S

co

re

Synonyms PRE %

Synonyms POST %

Figure 12

Control Group Synonym Individual Percentage Scores Pre and Post

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Student

Perc

en

tag

e S

co

re

Synonyms PRE %

Synonyms POST %

Student C best demonstrated the effect that explicit teaching of synonyms and paraphrasing has on the

reading comprehension of fictional texts. Their TORCH score increased almost ten points from pre to

post test (Figure 13), while their TORCH stanine level jumped 3 levels (Figure 14). Their paraphrasing

percentage score rose 28.15% (Figure 16) and their synonyms score by 18.39% (Figure 16). These

scores suggest that through the improvement of the uses of synonyms and the ability to effectively

paraphrase, reading comprehension is improved.

15

Figure 13 Figure 14

Student C

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

TORCH Score PRE TORCH score POST

Te st

Ser ies1

Student C

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

TORCH St anine

PRE

TORCH St anine

POST

Te st

Ser ies1

Figure 15 Figure 16

Student C

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Para PRE % Para POST %

Te st

Series1

Student C

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Synonyms PRE % Synonyms POST %

Te st

Series1

The student with funding for leaning difficulties in the teaching group, did not follow the trends of the

other students in the teaching group. The results indicate no improvement in paraphrasing and very

minimal improvement in synonyms and reading comprehension (Figure 17).

16

Figure 17

Student R

02468

1012141618

Para

PR

E

% Para

PO

ST

%

Synonym

s

PR

E %

Synonym

s

PO

ST

%

TO

RC

H

Score

PR

E

TO

RC

H

score

PO

ST

TO

RC

H

Sta

nin

e

PR

E

TO

RC

H

Sta

nin

e

PO

ST

Test

Sco

re/%

Student R

Of the students in the teaching group who are decoding at a lower than expected text level, 9 out of 10

showed an improvement in their TORCH reading comprehension score, and 5 out of 9 moved up one or

more stanines (Table 2). Of the students in the control group who are decoding at a lower than expected

text level, 2 out of 3 showed an improvement in their TORCH reading comprehension score, while none

moved up a stanine. One student went back two stanines (Table 3).

Table 2

Teaching Group

Student Text Level TORCH Score PRE

TORCH Score Post

TORCH Stanine Pre

TORCH Stanine

F 21 9.1 17.9 1 2 G 18 14.6 21.2 1 1 J 21 27.4 17.9 4 1 K 27 1.6 23 1 3 L 11 1.6 5.6 1 1 M 21 21 28.1 1 2 R 18 14.6 17 2 2 S 27 21 23.9 1 2 T 26 1.6 23.9 1 3 W 21 21 21.2 3 3

Table 3

Control Group

Student Text Level TORCH Score PRE

TORCH Score Post

TORCH Stainine Pre

TORCH Stainine

7 11 1.6 5.6 1 1 13 21 14.6 12.7 2 1 16 11 1.6 17.9 1 1

17

Despite assessment results demonstrating improvement in synonyms and paraphrasing, students B, J, V

and W showed either no improvement or a drop in their TORCH scores and stanines (Table 4). It should

be noted that all these students are in grade three. It should also be noted that students J and W were

identified at the start of the study as not reading at the text level expected for their age and have

participated in Literacy Intervention in the past (Table 1). They may have performed better with a simpler

text.

Table 4

Student Paraphrasing

PRE % Paraphrasing

POST % Synonyms

PRE % Synonyms

POST %

TORCH Score PRE

TORCH score POST

TORCH Stanine

PRE

TORCH Stanine POST

B 53.12 78.12 12.64 16.09 51.1 33.7 8 5

J 0 18.75 10.34 14.94 27.4 5.6 4 1

V 46.87 62.5 10.34 18.39 40.2 35.5 6 5

W 0 3.12 4.59 6.89 21 21.2 3 3

All students in the teaching group demonstrated gains in at least one, if not more, of the skills assessed.

All students in the teaching group whose TORCH scores and stanines improved, showed improvement in

at least one, if not both the areas of synonyms and paraphrasing (Table 5).

Table 5

Student Paraphrasing

PRE % Paraphrasing

POST % Synonyms

PRE % Synonyms

POST %

TORCH Score PRE

TORCH score POST

TORCH Stanine

PRE

TORCH Stanine POST

A 62.5 75 25.28 41.37 38.2 43.8 4 5

B 53.12 78.12 12.64 16.09 51.1 33.7 8 5

C 40.6 68.75 13.79 32.18 29.2 39.4 3 5

D 9.37 6.25 17.24 13.79 25.5 26.1 2 2

E 84.37 84.37 11.49 19.54 47.5 41.5 6 5

F 3.12 3.12 6.89 13.79 9.1 17.9 1 2

G 6.25 15.62 22.98 16.09 14.6 21.2 1 1

H 34.37 50 13.79 18.39 21 33.7 1 4

I 21.87 25 12.64 13.79 14.6 28.1 2 4

J 0 18.75 10.34 14.94 27.4 5.6 4 1

K 15.62 * 5.74 * 1.6 23 1 3

L 3.12 3.12 6.89 6.89 1.6 5.6 1 1

M 9.37 * 9.19 12.64 21 28.1 1 2

N 21.87 46.87 14.94 22.98 36.4 43.8 4 5

O 59.37 56.25 13.79 29.88 36.4 61.7 4 8

P 75 84.37 21.83 21.83 47.5 56 6 7

Q 40.6 43.75 13.79 20.68 34.6 41.5 5 6

R 0 0 3.44 4.59 14.6 17 2 2

S 15.62 25 13.79 17.24 21 23.9 1 2

T 12.5 21.87 10.34 12.64 1.6 23.9 1 3

U 46.87 40.6 21.83 * 31 39.4 3 5

V 46.87 62.5 10.34 18.39 40.2 35.5 6 5

W 0 3.12 4.59 6.89 21 21.2 3 3

X 56.25 50 12.64 21.83 29.2 41.5 3 5

* absent

18

An interesting finding to note in this study was that the explicit teaching of paraphrasing and synonyms

was positively associated with ESL students’ comprehension of fictional texts. Of the 17 ESL students in

the teaching group (Table 1), 16 showed improvement in their TORCH reading comprehension score

and 12 of the 17 moved up one or more TORCH stanines (Figure 18 and 19). Additionally, of the 18 ESL

students in the control group, 9 showed improvement in their TORCH reading comprehension score and

6 moved up one or more TORCH stanines (Figure 20 and 21).

Figure 18

ESL Students Teaching Group Pre and Post TORCH Scores

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T X

Student

Sco

re TORCH Score PRE

TORCH score POST

Figure 19

ESL Students Teaching Group Pre and Post TORCH Stanines

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T X

Student

Sta

nin

e

TORCH Stanine PRE

TORCH Stanine POST

19

Figure 20

ESL Students Control Group Pre and Post TORCH scores

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 22

Studetn

Sco

re TORCH Score PRE

TORCH score POST

Figure 21

ESL Students Control Group Pre and Post TORCH stanines

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 22

Student

Sta

nin

e

TORCH Stanine PRE

TORCH Stanine POST

Similar results were recorded for the paraphrasing and synonym scores of the ESL children in the

teaching group. 9 of the 17 students improved in their paraphrasing and 12 improved in their synonyms

scores, compared with just 1 of the 18 ESL students in the control group improving their paraphrasing

and 9 improving their synonyms scores (Table 6).

20

Table 6

Name ESL No=0 Yes=1

Paraphrasing PRE %

Paraphrasing POST %

Synonyms PRE %

Synonyms POST %

Teaching

D 1 9.37 6.25 17.24 13.79

F 1 3.12 3.12 6.89 13.79

G 1 6.25 15.62 22.98 16.09

H 1 34.37 50 13.79 18.39

I 1 21.87 25 12.64 13.79

J 1 0 18.75 10.34 14.94

K 1 15.62 * 5.74 *

L 1 3.12 3.12 6.89 6.89

M 1 9.37 9.19 12.64 N 1 21.87 46.87 14.94 22.98

O 1 59.37 56.25 13.79 29.88

P 1 75 84.37 21.83 21.83

Q 1 40.6 43.75 13.79 20.68

R 1 0 0 3.44 4.59

S 1 15.62 25 13.79 17.24

T 1 12.5 21.87 10.34 12.64

X 1 56.25 50 12.64 21.83

Control

1 1 34.37 21.87 9.19 21.83

2 1 31.25 9.37 17.24 14.94

3 1 9.37 3.12 6.89 9.19

4 1 62.5 56.25 22.98 16.09

6 1 46.87 12.5 17.24 11.49

7 1 6.25 6.25 0 3.44

9 1 12.5 62.5 19.54 8.04

10 1 18.75 21.87 6.89 8.04

11 1 21.87 9.37 3.44 4.59 12 1 56.25 37.5 18.39 25.28 13 1 9.37 3.12 3.44 4.59

14 1 37.5 18.75 13.79 17.24

15 1 75 59.37 39.08 37.93

18 1 3.12 3.12 8.04 9.19

19 1 34.37 31.25 37.93 25.28

20 1 53.12 9.37 20.68 11.49 21 1 40.6 31.25 26.43 18.39

22 1 46.87 40.6 20.68 28.37

* absent

A full table of results of pre and post assessment results can be found in Appendix 2.

21

DISCUSSION

In reflecting on the results of this study, there is support for the hypothesis that suggests that, teaching

year three and four students’ synonyms and paraphrasing is associated with improving reading

comprehension of fictional texts. Students improved in the use of paraphrasing and synonyms and these

skills, for the most part, impacted positively in the improvement of the reading comprehension of fictional

texts. While most results indicated positive gains, it would be necessary for the teaching of synonyms

and paraphrasing to be taught over an extended period of time and reinforced regularly, to ensure the

use of synonyms and paraphrasing are imbedded and used consciously and subconsciously by students

when reading any type of text.

The results lend support for the work of Schumaker, Denton, and Deshler (1984), Sorrell, Adrian & Lloyd

(1996), Lee and Von Colln (2001), Fisk &Hurst (2003) and Hagaman & Ried (2008), who suggest that

the explicit teaching of the paraphrasing strategy will improve students’ reading comprehension. This

was particularly demonstrated by students A,C,F,H,I,K,M,N,O,P,Q,S,T,U and X, following the

intervention. (Appendix 2 and Figure 6)

Using Schumaker, Denton, and Deshler’s RAP strategy was an excellent tool in assisting the children to

remember to read, identify the main points and paraphrase. The revision of the strategy in each lesson

assisted in helping the students remember the steps. The acronym was also easily recalled by the

students due to its popular musical connotation. The students were able to easily follow the steps and

initially used the poster of the acronym to help them recall them. At the end of each session the students

were able to articulate how the RAP strategy had helped them to understand the text better. The

students’ explanations also improved with practice over the ten lessons. More importantly the students

really enjoyed paraphrasing, although having a lesson a day for ten days did dampen some students’

enthusiasm.

As almost 80% of the teaching group students are of an ESL background, therefore the explicit teaching

of synonyms was challenging, as most of the students have a very limited vocabulary. The use of a

thesaurus and visualising assisted in some ways to help those students who were struggling to

generated lists of synonyms. As the lessons progressed, the students paraphrasing improved. They

endeavoured to use more synonyms in their sentences. It is interesting to note that the students’ writing

has improved as a result of the explicit teaching of synonyms. The students are more confident in

experimenting with word choice and are using thesaurus dictionaries which once sat on the shelves

gathering dust. Not all students fully grasped the concept of synonyms and this did affect their ability to

22

paraphrase. This was particularly evident with students D, F, L, M, S and W, all of which, bar one, are

ESL students (Table 1).

As the lessons progressed, students were more confident in paraphrasing one or two sentences,

however struggled when it came to paraphrasing paragraphs. Most students also continued to rely on

replacing every word they could with a synonym, rather than writing the sentence in their own words. A

conscious effort was made by the teacher to regularly and explicitly model how to paraphrase, however

due to the small number of lessons students were not able to fully grasp the concept. A number of

students missed, were late to, or left during lessons for varying reasons. Students B, K and R in

particular missed numerous lessons and this has been reflected in their post assessment. Due to

unavoidable disruptions to the students’ learning space, due to renovations, the post testing took place in

a different building with double the number of students in the room. This too could have impacted on the

students’ post test results.

Despite independent variables, the results from this study imply that there is reason to suggest that,

teaching year three and four students synonyms and paraphrasing is associated with improving reading

comprehension of fictional texts. To further improve students reading comprehension a variety of

cognitive strategies need to be taught that engage the reader before, during and after reading. Such

strategies could include visualising (which proved valuable in this study), using a ‘Meaning Making Motor’

(Munro 2009) and reading plans. The explicit teaching of synonyms could begin in the junior literacy

classroom as an oral language activity, as could paraphrasing, with the writing aspect slowly introduced

as the students gain confidence with their writing.

Paraphrasing and using synonyms doesn’t have to be taught and used exclusively within Literacy

lessons or with fictional texts. The strategies of using synonyms and paraphrasing can be integrated into

Science, Art, Social Studies, etc. therefore embedding the practice across the curriculum. A set of ten

lessons could have been taught just on synonyms. This would have been of great benefit to ESL

students and students with learning difficulties. It could also help to further improve students’ writing as

was suggested above.

Further study into paraphrasing and synonyms and their links with improving reading comprehension is

needed. Future research could involve students whose first language is not English and the implications

their lack of English vocabulary has on their comprehension. The research conducted in this study could

be replicated using non fiction reading comprehension tests and teaching texts, to measure the success

23

paraphrasing has on the comprehension of non fiction texts. Further research and development is

needed into all strategies, and the way in which they are taught, particularly to those students who have

learning difficulties.

24

REFERENCES

Australian Government, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2009). The

National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy. http://www.dest.gov.au/nitl/report.htm

Fisk, C. Hurst. B. (2003). Paraphrasing for Comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 57, 2, 182-185.

Fountas I.C, Pinnell G.S. (2001). Guiding Readers and Writers Grades 3-6 Teaching Comprehension,

Genre, and Content Literacy. Portsmouth, Heinemann.

Hagaman, J.L, Reid, R. (2008). The Effects of the Paraphrasing Strategy on the Reading

Comprehension of Middle School Students at Risk for Failure in Reading. Remedial and Special

Education, 29, 4, 222-234.

Lee, S.W, Von Colln, T. (2003). The Effect of Instruction in the Paraphrasing Strategy on Reading

Fluency and Comprehension. Reports - Research

Luke and Freebody. (1999). Further Notes on the Four Resources Model.

http://readingonline.org/research/lukefreebody.html. Downloaded 31 May, 2009.

Munro, J. K. (2008). Literacy Intervention Strategies, 472697. Lecture notes. 2008

Schumaker, J.B. Denton, P.H, Deshler, D.D. (1984). The Paraphrasing Strategy: Instructor’s Manual.

Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Institute for Research and Learning.

Sorrell, Adrian & Lloyd (1996) Triadic Approach to Reading Comprehension Strategy Instruction. Paper

presented at the Annual Conference of the Learning Disabilities Association of Texas (32nd Austin TX, 25

Oct, 1996)

Resources

Dahl, R. (1982).The BFG, London: Puffin Books.

Mahy, M. (1983).The Bubbling Crocodile, Wellington: Learning Media Limited.

25

Mossenson, Stephanou, Forster, Masters, McGregor, Anderson Hill and Hill. (1987) TORCH Tests of

Reading Comprehension. Melbourne: ACER.

Munro, J. K (2008) Literacy Intervention Strategies, 472697. Paraphrasing Task

Munro, J. K (2008) Literacy Intervention Strategies, 472697. Synonyms Task

26

APPENDICES

Appendix 1

PARAPHRASING LESSON PLANS

Lesson Activities 1 1. Introduce synonyms.

2. Ask students if they know what the word means/have examples. 3. Write a definition on a poster for display and list some examples. 4. Discuss how synonyms and paraphrasing can help us to understand what we are

reading. 5. Display a sentence. 6. Read the sentence as a class. 7. Teacher models paraphrasing through the use of synonyms. Writing the synonyms under

the original words. Teacher asks for other suggestions for those words and writes them underneath. As a class read the new sentences using the synonyms. Teacher repeats with the rest of the paragraph.

8. Write the words happy, sad, said, pretty and ugly on the board. 9. In small groups children will think of as many synonyms as they can for each word. 10. Students share their ideas with the class. List these synonyms. 11. Students share reflections: What do we do when we use synonyms? How does it help us

to understand the meaning of sentences? Does it work? Share examples. 2 1. Revise synonyms

2. Display a paragraph. 3. Read the paragraph as a class 4. Teacher models paraphrasing sentence by sentence in whole group activity writing on

the board. 5. Display 4 sentences on the board. In pairs, students use synonyms to re-write the

sentences. 6. Students share their sentences with the class. 7. In their journals students are given 4 sentences and use synonyms to re-write them

independently. Students share their sentences 8. Students share reflections: What do we do when we paraphrase? How does it help us to

understand the meaning of sentences? Does it work? Share examples 3 1. Revise synonyms referring to the definition, poster and lists.

2. In small groups students are given a word to brainstorm as many synonyms as they can. Words are shared and displayed for future reference.

3. Repeat steps 1-4 from lesson 1 for paraphrasing. 4. Introduce the RAP (Schumaker, Denton, and Deshler, 1984) strategy: Read a

paragraph/sentence, Ask yourself “What are the main ideas and details?” Put the main idea and details in your own words.

5. Create a poster to display the strategy 6. Repeat steps 2-8 from lesson 2 using a paragraph.

4 1. Revise paraphrasing and synonyms 2. Revise RAP strategy – what do we tell ourselves to do when we paraphrase? 3. In small groups students are given a different word per group to brainstorm as many

synonyms as they can. Words are shared and displayed for future reference. 4. Teacher reads aloud a paragraph. 5. Teacher models paraphrasing sentence by sentence thinking out loud using the RAP

strategy. Explaining and modelling how both using synonyms and paraphrasing work. 6. In small group’s students are given a paragraph to paraphrase sentence by sentence,

writing down their sentences thinking out loud using the RAP strategy.

27

7. Students share their paraphrased paragraphs. 8. In their journals students are given a paragraph to re-write sentence by sentence

independently. 9. Students share reflections: What do we do when we paraphrase? How does it help us to

understand the meaning of sentences? Does it work? Share examples. 5 1. Revise paraphrasing and synonyms

2. Revise RAP strategy – what do we tell ourselves to do when we paraphrase? 3. In small groups students are given a different word per group to brainstorm as many

synonyms as they can. Words are shared and displayed for future reference. 4. Teacher and students read aloud a paragraph. 5. Teachers and students paraphrase pairs of sentences using the RAP strategy in whole

group activity with the teacher scribing. 6. Repeat steps 6-8 from lesson 4 but in step 7 students paraphrase pairs of sentences.

6 1. Revise paraphrasing and synonyms 2. Revise RAP strategy – what do we tell ourselves to do when we paraphrase? 3. In small groups students are given a different word per group to brainstorm as many

synonyms as they can. Words are shared and displayed for future reference. 4. Students read aloud a paragraph.

5. Students paraphrase pairs of sentences in whole group using the RAP strategy with

teacher scribing.

6. Repeat steps 5-8 from lesson 4 but in step 7 students paraphrase pairs of sentences. 7 1. Revise paraphrasing and synonyms

2. Revise RAP strategy – what do we tell ourselves to do when we paraphrase? 3. In small groups students are given a different word per group to brainstorm as many

synonyms as they can. Words are shared and displayed for future reference. 4. Students read aloud 2 paragraphs.

5. Teacher and students paraphrase paragraph by paragraph using the RAP strategy in

whole group activity.

6. Repeat steps 5-8 from lesson 4 but in step 7 students paraphrase a paragraph. 8 1. Revise paraphrasing and synonyms

2. Revise RAP strategy – what do we tell ourselves to do when we paraphrase? 3. In small groups students are given a different word per group to brainstorm as many

synonyms as they can. Words are shared and displayed for future reference. 4. Students read aloud 2 paragraphs.

5. Students paraphrase paragraph by paragraph (2 paragraphs) in whole group activity

using the RAP strategy with teacher scribing.

6. Repeat steps 5-8 from lesson 4 but in step 7 students paraphrase a paragraph. 9 1. Revise paraphrasing and synonyms

2. Revise RAP strategy – what do we tell ourselves to do when we paraphrase? 3. In small groups students are given a different word per group to brainstorm as many

synonyms as they can. Words are shared and displayed for future reference. 4. Students silently read a paragraph. 5. Students independently paraphrase 3 paragraphs in their journal paragraph by paragraph

using the RAP strategy. 6. Students share their new paragraphs with the class. 7. Students share reflections: What do we do when we paraphrase? How does it help us to

understand the meaning of sentences? Does it work? Share examples 10 1. Repeat steps 1-6 from lesson 9

28

2. Students will write in their journal to reflect on what they have learnt about paraphrasing and using synonyms. What do we do when we paraphrase and use synonyms? How does it help us to understand the meaning of sentences? Does it work? Write examples.

29

Appendix 2

Student

ESL No=0 Yes=1

Earlier Intervention No=0 Yes=1

Para PRE %

Para POST %

Synonyms PRE %

Synonyms POST %

TORCH Score PRE

TORCH score POST

TORCH Stanine PRE

TORCH Stanine POST

Text level

A 0 0 62.5 75 25.28 41.37 38.2 43.8 4 5 28+

B 0 0 53.12 78.12 12.64 16.09 51.1 33.7 8 5 28+

C 0 1 40.6 68.75 13.79 32.18 29.2 39.4 3 5 28+

D 1 0 9.37 6.25 17.24 13.79 25.5 26.1 2 2 28+

E 0 0 84.37 84.37 11.49 19.54 47.5 41.5 6 5 28+

F 1 0 3.12 3.12 6.89 13.79 9.1 17.9 1 2 21

G 1 1 6.25 15.62 22.98 16.09 14.6 21.2 1 1 18

H 1 0 34.37 50 13.79 18.39 21 33.7 1 4 28+

I 1 0 21.87 25 12.64 13.79 14.6 28.1 2 4 28+

J 1 1 0 18.75 10.34 14.94 27.4 5.6 4 1 21

K 1 1 15.62 * 5.74 * 1.6 23 1 3 27

L 1 1 3.12 3.12 6.89 6.89 1.6 5.6 1 1 11

M 1 0 9.37 9.19 12.64 21 28.1 1 2 21

N 1 0 21.87 46.87 14.94 22.98 36.4 43.8 4 5 28+

O 1 0 59.37 56.25 13.79 29.88 36.4 61.7 4 8 28+

P 1 0 75 84.37 21.83 21.83 47.5 56 6 7 28+

Q 1 1 40.6 43.75 13.79 20.68 34.6 41.5 5 6 28+

R 1 1 0 0 3.44 4.59 14.6 17 2 2 18

S 1 1 15.62 25 13.79 17.24 21 23.9 1 2 27

T 1 0 12.5 21.87 10.34 12.64 1.6 23.9 1 3 26

U 0 0 46.87 40.6 21.83 * 31 39.4 3 5 28+

V 0 0 46.87 62.5 10.34 18.39 40.2 35.5 6 5 28+ W 0 1 0 3.12 4.59 6.89 21 21.2 3 3 21

X 1 0 56.25 50 12.64 21.83 29.2 41.5 3 5 28+

1 1 0 34.37 21.87 9.19 21.83 25.5 21.2 3 3 28+

2 1 0 31.25 9.37 17.24 14.94 9.1 5.6 1 1 28+

3 1 1 9.37 3.12 6.89 9.19 9.1 12.7 1 1 28+

4 1 0 62.5 56.25 22.98 16.09 47.5 46.3 6 5 28+

5 0 1 43.75 21.12 18.39 12.64 27.4 28.1 2 2 28+

6 1 0 46.87 12.5 17.24 11.49 42.3 37.4 5 4 28+

7 1 1 6.25 6.25 3.44 1.6 5.6 1 1 11

8 0 0 68.75 71.85 27.58 35.63 56.5 41.5 8 6 28+

9 1 1 12.5 62.5 19.54 8.04 21 23.9 1 2 28+

10 1 0 18.75 21.87 6.89 8.04 9.1 5.6 1 1 28+

11 1 0 21.87 9.37 3.44 4.59 21 23.9 3 3 28+ 12 1 0 56.25 37.5 18.39 25.28 36.4 46.8 5 6 28+ 13 1 1 9.37 3.12 3.44 4.59 14.6 12.7 2 1 21

14 1 0 37.5 18.75 13.79 17.24 23.4 26.1 3 4 28+

15 1 0 75 59.37 39.08 37.93 40.2 46.3 5 6 28+

16 0 1 3.12 3.12 8.04 16.09 1.6 17.9 1 1 11 17 0 1 25 12.5 14.94 11.49 27.4 31.8 2 3 28+

18 1 0 3.12 3.12 8.04 9.19 14.6 12.7 2 1 28+

19 1 0 34.37 31.25 37.93 25.28 56.5 46.3 8 6 28+

20 1 0 53.12 9.37 20.68 11.49 29.2 33.7 4 5 28+ 21 1 0 40.6 31.25 26.43 18.39 42.3 41.5 6 6 28+

22 1 0 46.87 40.6 20.68 28.37 32.8 43.8 3 5 28+

* absent Para – Paraphrasing A-X teaching group 1-22 control group