|
|
 |
 |

Spring 2003
Research Round-Up
Poor Children's Fourth-Grade Slump
Jeanne
S. Chall and Vicki A. Jacobs
Words Are Learned Incrementally Over Multiple Exposures
Steven A. Stahl
Oral Comprehension Sets the Ceiling on Reading Comprehension
Andrew Biemiller
Poor Children's Fourth-Grade Slump
Jeanne S. Chall and Vicki A. Jacobs
Administrations of reading tests by NAEP (National
Assessment of Educational Progress) have since 1971 confirmed what has long
been part of the commonsense and intuitive knowledge of both teachers and
laypeople: Children from more economically advantaged families score
significantly higher than the less advantaged at all ages tested (nine, 13,
and 17), and the gaps become greater with increasing age. The questions are:
Why do these differences occur? Why are they so enduring and so universal?
A Developmental Model of Reading
In Chall’s stages of reading development (1983, 1996), reading is
conceptualized not as a process that is the same from beginning stages
through mature, skilled reading, but as one that changes as the reader
becomes more able and proficient.
Changes in reading development fall into six stages--from Stage 0 (prereading)
to Stage 5 (the most mature, skilled level of reading in which readers
construct and reconstruct knowledge from their own reading). Generally,
Stages 1 and 2 (typically acquired in grades 1, 2, and 3) can be
characterized as the time of "learning to read"--the time when simple,
familiar texts can be read and the alphabetic principle is acquired (i.e.,
readers are able to decode words they do not immediately identify, and they
become fluent, especially when reading texts that use language already
within their experience and ability); Stages 3 to 5 can be characterized,
roughly, as the "reading to learn" stages--when texts become more varied,
complex, and challenging linguistically and cognitively. Beginning at Stage
3 (grades 4-8), students use reading as a tool for learning, as texts begin
to contain new words and ideas beyond their own language and their knowledge
of the world. Words and concepts in such material are beyond the everyday
experience of children. In order to read, understand, and learn from these
more demanding texts, the readers must be fluent in recognizing words, and
their vocabulary and knowledge need to expand, as does their ability to
think critically and broadly. If children are unable to make the transition
from Stage 2 to 3, their academic success is usually severely challenged.
Using this developmental stage model of reading, we focused a research study
on the critical transition from Stage 2 to Stage 3--from "learning to read"
to "reading to learn." Teachers have often reported a "fourth-grade slump"
in literacy development, particularly for low-income children—precisely at
the point of the Stage 2-3 transition. We wanted to examine the skills and
abilities of a low-income population to determine why some might meet the
challenge of Stage 3 reading whereas others might not.
The Study
The subjects in the study (see Chall, Jacobs, and Baldwin, 1990) were 30
children--about 10 each from grades 2, 4, and 6, whom we followed for two
years (through grades 3, 5, and 7 respectively). Low-income status was
determined by the students’ eligibility for a free-lunch program. Each child
was given a series of individual tests of reading and language (as well as
writing, but those findings are not presented here; see Chall and Jacobs,
1983). The reading measures were scores on the six subtests of the
experimental version of the Diagnostic Assessments of Reading (DAR) (Roswell
& Chall, 1992) that consist of word recognition, word analysis, oral
reading, word meaning, reading comprehension, and spelling.
The most significant finding of the study for reading was that low-income
children in grades 2 and 3 achieved as well as children in the normative
population on all six subtests. However, as predicted by the theoretical
model of reading used for the study, some of the students’ scores started to
decelerate around grade 4. This "fourth-grade slump," reported often by
teachers of disadvantaged children, started in grade 4 on some tests and
later on other tests.
The first and strongest to slip was word meaning. The low-income children in
our study--in grades 4 through 7--had greatest difficulty defining more
abstract, academic, literary, and less common words as compared with a
normative population on the word meaning test. In grade 4, the children were
about a year behind grade norms. By grade 7, they were more than two years
behind norms. Next to decelerate were their scores on word recognition and
spelling. Oral reading and silent reading comprehension began to decelerate
later in grades 6 and 7.
Thus, if we view reading as composed of the three basic components proposed
by Carroll (1977)--cognition, language, and reading skills--cognition seemed
to be a lesser problem for them than language. In grades 4 to 7, they did
best on the reading tests that relied on context and required
understanding--reading comprehension and connected oral reading. The
children had greatest difficulty in grades 4 through 7 in defining less
common words and in recognizing and spelling them--skills and abilities
needed for reading at higher levels of complexity (Chall, 1983, 1996).
The language tests assessed vocabulary meaning, metalinguistic awareness,
and grammatical judgment. All but the vocabulary measure (the WISC-R
vocabulary subtest) were developed by Carol Chomsky.
Our population seemed to do well on measures of basic language abilities
through the third grade. After the third grade, they began to decelerate
first in knowledge of the meanings of words (on the WISC-R as on the
DAR)--especially the less common, more academic words found in books used in
the intermediate and upper elementary grades and higher. The children’s
basic linguistic competencies, as shown in their grammar and language
awareness scores, were stronger than their word knowledge, especially after
the third grade.
In sum, the low-income population in our sample achieved as well in literacy
and language as a normative population through the third grade. Beginning
with the fourth grade, however, they exhibited signs of a slump. First and
strongest to decelerate was word meaning. The slowest to decelerate were
reading comprehension and oral reading.
Causes of the Fourth-Grade Slump
One possible reason for the fourth-grade slump may stem from lack of fluency
and automaticity (that is, quick and accurate recognition of words and
phrases). We found this particularly among the poorest readers who read
slowly and hesitatingly in grade 2 and beyond. Lack of fluency tends to
result, ultimately, in children’s reading less and avoiding more difficult
materials (see Chall, 1983, 1996; Stanovich, 1986).
The deceleration of the scores on word meaning, beginning with grade 4 and
continuing through grade 7, suggests a difficulty that, if not improved,
ultimately affects children’s reading comprehension as well. The high
correlation of word knowledge with reading comprehension has been found
consistently in the research literature from the turn of the century to the
present time (see Anderson & Freebody, 1981; E.L. Thorndike, 1917; R.L.
Thorndike, 1973-1974).
It is important to realize that the vocabulary scores of our population,
when they were in grades 2 and 3, were on a par with the general population.
At these levels, the words tested were of high frequency and were familiar.
It is when the words became less common (at grade 4 and beyond) that they
presented a problem.
Importantly, too, the vocabulary lag did not at first seem to affect
negatively the children’s silent reading comprehension scores. Although
their vocabularies decelerated in grade 4, their comprehension still held up
well against norms. It was at grade 6 that their comprehension began to
decline. This suggests that the students used context well to compensate for
their weakness in word meanings. But when there were too many difficult
words, their comprehension declined as well.
Why should low-income children have greater difficulty with word meanings at
about the fourth grade? One reason is that the words at fourth grade and
above are less familiar. Although the children’s language seemed to have
been sufficient for the first three grades, they were not prepared to meet
the challenge of the greater number of abstract, technical, and literary
words characteristic of the reading materials of grades 4 and beyond. Such
language--often termed literary and abstract--is more
complex than that used by children in everyday, oral interaction.
A follow-up study of our low-income children, five years later when they
were in grades 7, 9, and 11, found decelerative patterns of scores similar
to those the children exhibited when they were in the elementary grades (see
Snow et al., 1991). On most tests, their scores were below norms, and the
discrepancies between their scores and norms were greater in each succeeding
grade. By grade 11, their reading scores were in the 25th
percentile--considerably below their achievement in grades 4 through 7.
Similar to the deceleration in the earlier grades, the seventh- and
ninth-grade students decelerated slowest on tests that permitted the use of
context. However, by the 11th grade, even their reading comprehension scores
had fallen. Thus, similar to their achievement in the earlier grades, the
children scored relatively well, as long as their meaning vocabularies and
word recognition were not too weak and when they could compensate through
the use of context on reading comprehension. But when there was too great a
mismatch between the students’ word-meaning knowledge and the difficulty of
the text, their use of context was not sufficient to help them to understand
the text.
The trends for grades 2 through 7 and grades 7 through 11 suggest that we
cannot be sanguine when students do well in silent reading comprehension
despite apparent difficulty in word meanings and word recognition. As
predicted by the model of reading development, if children are lacking in
certain aspects of reading, later reading development will usually suffer.
Because of the developmental nature of reading, the later one waits to
strengthen weaknesses, the more difficult it is for the children to cope
with the increasing literacy demands in the later grades. Moreover, those
who have reading difficulties in the intermediate grades will, most likely,
have serious trouble with the study of science, social studies, literature,
mathematics, and other content study that depend, in great part, on printed
text.
The late Jeanne S. Chall is remembered as a great researcher
who devoted over fifty years to helping children learn to read well. She
authored such classics as Learning to Read: The Great Debate
and Stages of Reading Development. Vicki A. Jacobs is
associated director of the Teacher Education Program and lecturer at the
Harvard Graduate School of Education. This article is based on research
originally presented in The Reading Crisis: Why Poor Children Fall Behind
by Jeanne Chall, Vicki Jacobs, and Luke Baldwin; it is excerpted with
permission from "Reading, Writing, and Language Connection" in J Shimron
(ed.) Literacy and Education: Essays in memory of Dina Feitelson.
Cresskill, N.J.; Hampton Press, Inc. 1996, pp. 33-48.
References
Anderson, R.C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. T.
Guthrie (ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research review (pp.
71-117), Newark, Del.: International Reading Association.
Carroll, J.B. (1977). Developmental parameters of reading comprehension. In
J.T. Guthrie (ed.), Cognition, curriculum, and comprehension
(pp.1-15). Newark, Del.: International Reading Association.
Chall, J.S. (1983). Stages of reading development, New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Chall, J.S., & Jacobs, V.A. (1983). Writing and reading in the elementary
grades: Developmental trends among low-SES children. Language Arts,
vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 617-626.
Chall, J.S., Jacobs, V.A., & Baldwin, L.E. (1990). The Reading Crisis:
Why Poor Children Fall Behind. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed.). Fort
Worth, Tex.: Harcourt Brace.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (1971). 1969-1970
writing: Group results for sex, region, and size of community. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Roswell, F.G., & Chall, J.S. (1992). Diagnostic assessments of reading and
trial teaching strategies (DARTTS). Chicago: Riverside Publishing.
Snow, C.E. Barnes, W.S., Chandler, J., Goodman, I.F., & Hemphill, L. (1991).
Unfulfilled expectations: Home and school influences on literacy,
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Snow, C.E., & Dickinson, D.K. (1991). Skills that aren’t basic in a new
conception of literacy. In A. Purvis & T. Jennings (eds.), Literate
systems and individual lives: Perspectives on literacy and schooling
(pp. 175-213). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of
individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research
Quarterly, 21, (pp. 360-407).
Thorndike, E.L. (1917). Reading as reasoning: A study of mistakes in
paragraph reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8, (pp.
323-332).
Thorndike, R.L. (1973-74). Reading comprehension education in fifteen
countries (International Studies in Evaluation III). Stockholm, Sweden:
Almquist and Wiksell.

Articles may be
reproduced for noncommercial personal or educational use only; additional
permission is required for any other reprinting of the documents.

|