- 1 -

Explicit instruction, in a regular classroom context, in paraphrasing using a combination of

reading, writing, discussion, repetition and reflection will improve comprehension.

Abstract

For many years of primary school, the emphasis in learning to read is on decoding. When

students can decode, many teachers assume that they also understand what they are

reading. This is not the case for some students. Consequently, by the time these students

reach Year 6, they experience difficulty with comprehension, especially when texts become

more complex. The present study investigated the effect of explicitly teaching the

paraphrasing strategy to students who experience difficulty with comprehension. The study

combined reading, writing, discussion, reflection, repetition and the use of synonyms to

teach this skill to the students. It employed the use of the OXO design and focused on a

small group of 10 students in a regular classroom setting. The students improved in their

ability to use synonyms, paraphrase and comprehend texts as a result of the intervention.

The results indicate that paraphrasing is a useful strategy to teach students who have

problems with comprehension. The structured approach to the lessons and the fact that this

strategy can be taught to the whole class as well as a focus group, makes teaching using this

strategy approach a valuable tool for teachers.

Introduction

When learning to read in the early years of primary school, the emphasis has always been

on teaching the skills that are necessary to decode the words on the page. In most cases,

students will also develop comprehension skills in order to understand what they are

reading; however, teachers should not assume that this is the case for all students

(Hagaman and Reid, 2008).

As students progress through primary school, their reliance on text for information

increases, as does the complexity of the texts they read. Good readers self-monitor, ask

questions and form a framework for how they are going to find information within a text.

They use a set of strategies and skills to help them comprehend. For students who

experience difficulty comprehending what they are reading, by the time they reach year 6,

this lack of understanding inhibits their learning in a variety of subjects. They become

overwhelmed by the amount of text and the complexity of the texts they are reading. These

students are therefore unable to access the information they are seeking, complete

research projects or enjoy literature that is pitched at a year 6 level. This causes them to fall

- 2 -

further behind other students in their class and affects their confidence as readers and

learners. Of major concern to teachers is the knowledge that these comprehension

difficulties will cause great stress to these students as the demands on their ability to

understand text increases again in secondary school. It is therefore imperative that they are

taught a range of strategies that they can apply when reading a variety of text types.

Students who have difficulty with comprehension need explicit instruction in the use of

strategies to help them understand what they are reading (Hagaman and Reid, 2008). They

need to be able to practice, discuss and reflect on each strategy and its usefulness to them

as readers. These students need to become empowered with a set of comprehension skills

that they can use independently. Brown and Palincsar, (1989) and Pressley (2000), as cited

in Hagaman and Reid (2008), have shown that explicit instruction in this area improves

students’ comprehension. However, very little time is being used by teachers in classrooms

to teach comprehension skills. Reasons for this include time available in the classroom, and

lack of research into the area of comprehension strategies and how to teach and assess

them (Hagaman and Reid, 2008).

One comprehension strategy that is useful in assisting students in understanding what they

are reading, is paraphrasing. Good readers automatically make connections between what

they already know about a topic and new information. They identify the main ideas in a text

quickly, recognize the tone in a text and use knowledge of sentence structure to help them

comprehend more complex information. Students who require support to comprehend text

do not automatically look for the main idea or use synonyms to help them understand

unfamiliar or difficult words. They look at the whole text instead of breaking it down into

parts. They do not use models or examples of how to approach more difficult texts.

Paraphrasing allows students to break information down into manageable chunks and

teaches them the use of synonyms in order to say what they have read in their own words.

Use of paraphrasing also helps students to recall information more quickly. It helps to

develop a readers’ short term memory of what is happening in a text as they read, and

make connections between other events in the text (John Munro Paraphrasing and

Visualising; nmr-my-paraphrasing[1], 2009).

However, paraphrasing is not simply a matter of saying or rewriting text using different

words. It includes teaching students how to identify the main idea and tone of a text, and

pick out details that support these things. Fisk and Hurst (2003) assert that teaching

paraphrasing is an effective way of developing comprehension skills and deepening

- 3 -

students’ understanding of text. Paraphrasing should include reading, writing, speaking and

listening components; it should provide students with the opportunity to listen to and

discuss others’ ideas. Fisk and Hurst purport that a combination of these elements will assist

students to better understand and remember what they are reading.

Research conducted by Katims and Harris (1997) found that paraphrasing considerably

improves reading comprehension. They cite evidence from a study by Schumaker, Denton

and Deshler (1984), who found that the more frequently the students practiced this

strategy, the better their comprehension results were. The effects of explicit instruction in

the use of paraphrasing were also evident in research conducted by Hagaman and Reid

(2008). After strategy instruction in this area, all their subjects recorded an increase in their

ability to identify the main idea and recall details from text. They credit the combination of

the paraphrasing strategy and the strategy instruction model they used, for their results.

Lee and Von Colln (2003) also reported optimistic results in their study of the impact of the

paraphrasing strategy on comprehension. They mention that their subject’s comprehension

results prior to their intervention were low and getting lower with each assessment.

However, after the intervention, the subject’s scores increased, as did their reading rate.

Several researchers, including Lee and Colln (2003), mention the lack of study that has been

conducted in the area of strategy instruction and, in particular, in the use of paraphrasing as

a tool to assist reading comprehension. The present investigation aims to extend the earlier

research by examining the influence of paraphrasing on reading comprehension in year 6

students who have experienced difficulties with comprehension for most of their years at

school.

This study aims to show that a small group of year 6 students who have regularly scored

poorly on comprehension tests will improve their skills, and therefore their results, through

explicit instruction in a regular classroom context, in the use of paraphrasing, using a

combination of reading, writing, discussion, repetition and reflection.

Method

Design

This study used a case study OXO design in which improvements in reading comprehension

through explicit teaching in the use of the paraphrasing strategy were examined in year 6

students. The study was conducted using 2 groups of 10 students – a control group and an

- 4 -

intervention group. Both the control group and the intervention group were pre-tested

using the TORCH comprehension test, John Munro’s synonym test and John Munro’s

paraphrasing test. The intervention group then received explicit instruction in using the

paraphrasing strategy to assist with their comprehension, using a variety of genres and

having their progress monitored through teacher notes on student discussion and

participation. The students also completed a written paraphrase of the texts used in every

lesson. Both groups were then post tested using the TORCH test, John Munro’s synonym

test and John Munro’s paraphrasing test.

Participants

The participants in this study were from 2 separate year 6 classes, each containing 26

students, in a Prep to Year 12 single sex school. The researcher had easy access to these

students as their regular class teacher, and the control group was provided through the

support of another member of the year 6 teaching team whose classroom was situated next

door.

The students chosen to be part of the intervention and control groups had all experienced

difficulty with comprehension and had produced poor test results in this area. 3 factors

were considered when choosing the subjects for each group: the students’ TORCH test

scores from the end of 2008, discussion with previous classroom teachers and special

education teachers who have assisted these students in the past, and their performance in

reading, comprehension and Literature Circle activities this year.

All but 3 students from each of the groups, started at the school in year 5 in 2008. This is not

surprising as the school has one of its largest intakes at year 5 from many different feeder

schools. As there are no boundaries restricting where the students come from, it receives

students from a large area across Melbourne. These new students come to the school with a

variety of literacy capabilities.

In December 2008, the TORCH scores for these students revealed a stanine range of

between 1 and 5. Pre-testing for this study showed an improvement in most of the scores

since then. However, comprehension activities used so far this year such as paraphrasing,

questioning the text and preparing knowledge for learning (John Munro HRLTPs) have raised

concern about the students’ ability to say what they read in their own words, identify main

ideas, remember what they have read and make connections with prior knowledge. All but

3 of the students scored at below the National Average in their NAPLAN tests in 2008.

- 5 -

Because of the emphasis on the use of these skills for reading and research purposes for the

remainder of year 6 and on progression into secondary school, these students have been

identified as requiring the necessary intervention that will instruct them in how to use the

paraphrasing strategy to assist with their learning independently.

Table 1 displays a profile of the students that participated in the study and the testing and

intervention they have had previously.

0 = None 1= N – Neale Analysis 2= LA – Language Assessment 3= W – WISC 4= AP –

Auditory Processing.

Table 1 - Participant Background

Name Teaching=0 Control = 1 Age in MONTHS

Gender 0= Female 1=Male

Years of Schooling

Earlier Intervention No=0 1= N 2= LA 3=W 4=AP

A 0 138 0 6 1

B 0 138 0 6 0

C 0 133 0 6 0

D 0 144 0 6 0

E 0 133 0 6 4

F 0 140 0 6 0

G 0 128 0 6 0

H 0 136 0 6 0

I 0 134 0 6 0

J 0 141 0 6

K 1 153 0 6 1

L 1 140 0 6 0

M 1 140 0 6 0

N 1 152 0 6 2, 3

O 1 142 0 6 0

P 1 134 0 6 0

Q 1 131 0 6 0

R 1 139 0 6 0

S 1 138 0 6 0

T 1 134 0 6 0

Most of the students in the present study have not received prior literacy testing or

intervention. Many of them have only been at the school since 2008.

Only students ‘A’, ‘E’ and ‘J’ from the intervention group have received any type of

assistance from special education teachers or extra testing in the past.

- 6 -

Concern was raised about the comprehension ability of student ‘A’ when she started at the

school in year 4 in 2007. A Neale analysis was conducted in 2008 which revealed a reading

age of 11.1, but a comprehension age of only 9.5.

Student ‘J’ has attended the school since prep and was previously identified as requiring

assistance with reading and spelling. She participated in a phonological awareness program

in her early years of schooling and worked one-on-one with an educational needs teacher to

develop her oral language. However, her NAPLAN results in 2008 showed that she was at or

above the national average for reading and writing so there has been improvement since

beginning school.

Student ‘E’ received testing for Auditory Processing in 2007. Her results showed that

background noise affected her ability to concentrate and understand instructions. Other

results, such as Short Term Auditory Memory (STAM) showed age appropriate

development. Her hearing was normal, however she responds better to one-on-one

instruction.

Within the control group, student ‘K’ comes from an Indigenous background and receives

funding to attend the school. She came from a rural primary school in 2008 to live in

Melbourne with a relative, as her mother could not take care of her. This student has always

been thought of as capable, but her frequent absences from school have impacted on her

progress. She has had a teacher aide to assist her in some lessons over 3 days a week,

however she was often absent on the days the aide was scheduled to be with her. Previous

testing includes a Neale analysis in 2008 which revealed a reading age of 8.7. Student ‘K’s

assistance was mainly aimed at keeping her up to date with and focused on work she missed

through her absences.

Student ‘N’ from the control group has previously undergone a WISC IV assessment which

showed average results on the Verbal Comprehension Index and Perceptual Reasoning

Index. Her working memory was shown to be in the low average range. In term 1, 2009, she

had a Language Assessment which showed she has difficulty sequencing information and

her working memory is still poor.

- 7 -

Materials

The materials used in this study include the following:

For pre and post testing:

� The TORCH reading test – “The Swamp-Creature”

� John Munro’s Paraphrasing Test

� John Munro’s Synonym Test

For teaching purposes:

� Reading texts for small group instruction – variety of fiction and non-fiction (See

reference list.

� Sequence of 10 lessons for explicit teaching of synonyms and the paraphrasing

strategy (Appendix 2)

For student monitoring/teacher notes:

� Focus sheets on student participation and discussion during small group teaching

Procedure

All students in both year 6 classes were pre-tested using the TORCH comprehension test,

and John Munro’s Synonym and Paraphrasing Tests. The students in the control group will

eventually receive teaching in how to use the paraphrasing strategy, so the testing provided

data on the 10 students in the control group for the researcher, and valuable information

for the other teacher for when she instructs her own class on how to use paraphrasing as a

strategy for comprehending text. While all students in the intervention classroom were

tested and received the benefit of the instruction, only the 10 students identified as

requiring explicit instruction had their results recorded for the purposes of this study

(Focus/intervention Group). These students received small group instruction during every

lesson while other students worked more independently after initial teaching.

- 8 -

10 one hour lessons were conducted over a 6 week period. Each lesson time was 45minutes

to 1 hour in length. For most of this time the lessons were conducted about twice a week,

however there were interruptions due to Year 6 camp, music concerts, school tours and

Easter Liturgy rehearsals. The lessons were run following the whole – small – whole

approach where the entire class reviewed and practiced the paraphrasing skill, then worked

on the next phase in the series of lessons in small groups. The whole class activity was

designed to model what the students who were not working with the teacher, would be

doing independently.

The students worked in 3 groups according to their ability, which included the intervention

group, so that they could all gain something from the experience. While the intervention

group worked through each lesson with the teacher, students in the other 2 groups worked

either independently or with one other person to practice the skill.

At the conclusion of each lesson the students reflected both verbally and in writing on what

they had learnt during the session and whether they were finding learning the skill valuable.

The data collected during each lesson was used to track student progress, ie: which students

engaged in discussion, identified the main idea and tone of a passage? Did they offer

suggestions for the use of synonyms? Was discussion about each paragraph helping

students to understand what they were reading? The teacher observed whether the

students were contributing to these discussions and which students confidently attempted

to re-write each paragraph using her own words? Which students still gleaned information

from other students? The students were asked to write a short statement about what they

thought the main idea and tone of each paragraph was, before beginning their paraphrase.

The teacher collected the students’ written work at the end of each lesson to assess

whether the students had identified these aspects of the text correctly, and paraphrased

the text effectively, using synonyms and their own words while maintaining the main idea.

- 9 -

Results

The prediction investigated by this study, that instruction in the use of paraphrasing using a

combination of reading, writing, discussion, repetition and reflection with a small group of

students who experience difficulty understanding what they are reading, will help them to

improve their comprehension, is examined in this section.

Group Trends

Table 2 – Intervention Group PRE and POST Test Results

Complete table with Intervention and Control Group results in Appendix 1

As the data in Table 2 show, trends for the Intervention Group indicate that the students

improved or maintained their TORCH comprehension scores after the intervention and post

testing. Figures 1 and 2, show a comparison of the students’ TORCH scores and stanines

before and after the intervention.

Stu

den

t

Pa

ra P

RE

Para

PO

ST

TO

RC

H

raw

PR

E

TO

RC

H

sco

re P

RE

TO

RC

H

%ile

PR

E

TO

RC

H

sta

nin

e P

RE

TO

RC

H

raw

PO

ST

TO

RC

H

sco

re

PO

ST

TO

RC

H

%ile

PO

ST

TO

RC

H

sta

nin

e P

OS

T

Syn

on

ym

s

PR

E d

ep

th

Syn

on

ym

s

PR

E b

read

th

Syn

on

ym

s

PO

ST

dep

th

Syn

on

ym

s

PO

ST

bre

ad

t

A 24 29 19 51.7 56 5 20 53.9 66 6 80 45 121 62

B 20 26 21 56.7 76 6 22 60.7 88 7 114 55 121 65

C 14 29 18 49.9 48 5 21 56.7 76 6 90 45 105 54

D 26 30 22 60.7 88 7 22 60.7 88 7 70 35 153 78

E 15 30 17 48.3 41 5 20 53.9 66 6 90 50 135 70

F 23 29 22 60.7 88 7 22 60.7 88 7 65 34 66 33

G 10 28 19 51.7 56 5 20 53.9 66 6 69 36 124 65

H 17 28 7 35.3 4 1 13 42.9 19 3 84 42 124 59

I 22 28 20 53.9 66 6 21 56.7 76 6 98 48 114 54

J 19 27 19 51.7 56 5 22 60.7 88 7 76 38 127 64

- 10 -

Figure 1

Figure 2

Improvement in the TORCH scores (Figure 1) ranged between 2.2 and 9.0. The average

increase in post test TORCH scores was 4.02. 3 of the students improved their score

significantly. The median TORCH score at pre testing was 51.7; after the post test it was

56.7. After pre testing the median stanine score was 5; after intervention and post testing

the median score for the group was 6. 50% of the group moved 1 stanine, 20% of the group

moved 2 stanines and 30% of the group remained on the same stanine. The average

improvement in the group was 1 stanine.

- 11 -

Table 2 also reveals an improvement in the students’ ability to paraphrase after the

intervention and post testing. Figure 3 below displays a comparison between the pre and

post test scores for the Intervention Group. The scores for this test were out of a possible 32

points. It is clear that the students’ ability to paraphrase improved significantly after the

intervention.

Figure 3

The average paraphrasing score for this group of 10 students in the pre test was 19 out of

32. After the intervention and post testing, the average score was 28.4. Improvements

ranged between 6 and 18 points within the group. The students improved their scores by an

average of 9.4 points. 4 students increased their score significantly, with improvements

ranging from 11 to 18 points. Before the intervention, the group’s median score was 19.5;

however, after the intervention and post testing the median score had increased to 28.5.

- 12 -

Figure 4

Figure 4 shows a comparison between the pre and post testing of students’ knowledge of

synonyms. The results indicate that there was an improvement in both the depth and

breadth domains of synonym knowledge and use. The number of synonyms a student is

able to provide for a particular word, or the DEPTH of synonym knowledge (from a possible

score of 290), improved considerably in most cases. The average score in this domain in pre

testing was 83.6, and the median score was 82. After the intervention and post testing the

average score was 119 and the median score was 122.5. The average improvement was 35.4

words. The BREADTH domain, or the number of synonyms each student was able to use in

total (from a possible score of 145), increased from an average of 42.8 in pre testing, to an

average of 60.4 after the intervention and post testing. The median score in this domain

increased from 43.5 to 63. All the students’ scores improved in both domains in this test,

indicating that their ability to use synonyms had developed since completing the pre test.

These pre and post test results show that, with the exception of the students whose scores

remained unchanged in the TORCH test, students in the Intervention Group improved in

every area that this study investigated. Some students’ scores increased significantly and

some improved only slightly. Most students made gains in their TORCH testing from the pre

test to the post test, and all students improved in their ability to use synonyms and

paraphrase text. The students with the lowest scores to begin with made the most progress

in all areas tested. The smallest gains were achieved in the TORCH test, with most students

moving just 1 stanine.

- 13 -

The post test results for the Intervention Group support the prediction of this present study,

that teaching paraphrasing to a small group of year 6 students who experience difficulty

with comprehension, will assist them in understanding what they are reading. The explicit

teaching of this strategy has appeared to have aided the students in their use of synonyms

and their ability to paraphrase text, two skills that are vital to comprehending more difficult

text.

Individual Trends

Student A improved her scores in all tests. Her greatest gains were in the synonyms test

where she showed an improvement of 14% in her depth scores and 12% in her breadth

scores. Her paraphrasing score improved by only 6%; however, this student had a relatively

high score in the pre test. Her TORCH comprehension score improved from 51.7 to 53.9, and

this moves her from the 56th

percentile to the 66th

percentile. This also places her at stanine

6 from a stanine 5 after pre testing. While these gains were not as significant as some of the

other students, her scores support the prediction of this present study as her

comprehension score shows. Figure 5 below gives a summary of Student ‘A’s performance

and shows how her results supports the prediction.

Figure 5

- 14 -

Student B’s results are represented in Figure 6 below. This student also improved across all

areas tested; however, she made only small gains in some domains. One of the more

significant improvements was in her paraphrasing score. This score improved by 18.75%

after post testing. Her scores in the synonym test again revealed only slight gains. Her

DEPTH score increased by 3%, and her BREADTH score increased by 7%. This was not an

area of significant improvement for her. However, her TORCH comprehension score did

increase after post testing from 56.7 to 60.7. She also moved from the 76th

percentile to the

88th

percentile, taking her from a stanine 6 to a stanine 7. Like student ‘A’, this student did

not make large gains, however her results support the prediction of this present study as

her comprehension score shows.

Figure 6

Student ‘C’ made considerable gains in most areas tested for the present study. Her results

are displayed in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7

- 15 -

Student ‘C’s largest gain was in her paraphrasing score which improved by 53% after post

testing in this domain. Her TORCH comprehension score increased from 49.9 to 56.7. This

resulted in movement from the 48th

percentile to the 76th

percentile and from a stanine 5 to

a stanine 6. Student ‘C’ also obtained higher scores in her synonym testing; her DEPTH score

improved by 5% and her BREADTH score improved by 6%. These 2 scores show only slight

improvement in this student’s ability to use synonyms. These results are not consistent with

the improvement in paraphrasing or comprehension where she made significant gains.

Despite this inconsistency, Student ‘C’s results support the prediction of this present study

as her comprehension score shows.

Student ‘D’s results are represented in Figure 8.

Figure 8

This student’s comprehension scores did not change after post testing. She remains at the

88th

percentile and at stanine 7. However, her paraphrasing score improved by 13% and her

use of synonyms increased significantly. Student ‘D’s DEPTH scores increased by 29% and

her BREADTH scores improved by 30%. These results do not necessarily support the

prediction of this present study as there has been no improvement in the comprehension

score. Improvements have been seen only in the skills designed to assist the student with

her comprehension.

- 16 -

Student ‘E’ made gains across all areas tested in this present study. Her results are

represented in Figure 9.

Figure 9

Figure 9 reveals significant improvement in all areas after post testing. Student ‘E’s ability to

paraphrase increased by 47%. There was also an increase in her TORCH comprehension

score from 48.3 to 53.9, which moved her from the 41st

percentile to the 66th

percentile,

and from stanine 5 to stanine 6. Student ‘E’s use of synonyms in the DEPTH domain

improved by 16%, and by 14% in the BREADTH domain. This student’s results support the

prediction of this present study that teaching paraphrasing to students in Year 6 who are

experiencing difficulty understanding what they are reading, will improve their

comprehension.

- 17 -

Student ‘F’s Student ‘F’s results reveal that she made only small improvements in most of

her scores, and that she did not improve at all on her comprehension scores after post

testing. Her results are displayed in Figure 10 below.

Figure 10

This student made the most significant gains in her paraphrasing results, improving by 19%.

She began the intervention with a TORCH comprehension score of 60.7, placing her in the

88th

percentile and at a stanine 7. After the intervention and post testing, she remained on

the same scores. Her use of synonyms improved by only 0.3% in the DEPTH domain and she

actually achieved a lower score by 0.7% in the BREADTH domain. These results reveal a gain

only in the use of the paraphrasing skill; they do not support the prediction of this present

study that teaching paraphrasing to students in Year 6 who are experiencing difficulty

understanding what they are reading, will improve their comprehension.

- 18 -

Student ‘G’s results show significant gains across all areas tested. Her data is displayed in

Figure 11 below.

Figure 11

Student ‘G’s paraphrasing score improved by 55% after post testing. She also made gains in

her comprehension, with an increase in her TORCH comprehension score from 51.7 to 53.9,

moving her from the 56th

percentile to the 66th

percentile, and from a stanine 5 to a stanine

6. Post testing of her use of synonyms revealed the greatest gains for this student, with an

increase of 19% in her DEPTH score and an increase of 20% in BREADTH score. These results

support the prediction of this present study that teaching paraphrasing to students in Year 6

who are experiencing difficulty understanding what they are reading, will improve their

comprehension.

- 19 -

Student ‘H’ scored very low across all areas tested in the pre testing phase, but has made

some gains after the intervention, as her results show in Figure 12 below.

Figure 12

Even though this student still recorded very low scores after post testing, she improved in all

areas. The most significant improvement was in her ability to paraphrase which improved by

35%. Her TORCH comprehension score increased from 35.3 to 42.9, moving her from the 4th

percentile to the 19th

percentile and from a stanine 1 to a stanine 3. Another significant

improvement can be seen in student ‘H’s use of synonyms. She increased her DEPTH score

by 14% and her BREADTH score by 23%. These results support the prediction of this present

study that teaching paraphrasing to students in Year 6 who are experiencing difficulty

understanding what they are reading, will improve their comprehension.

- 20 -

Student ‘I’ also made some gains in most areas after post testing. Her results are displayed

in Figure 13 below.

Figure 13

Student ‘I’s paraphrasing score increased by 19% and she achieved an improvement in her

TORCH score from 53.9 to 56.7. This moved her from the 66th

percentile to the 76th

percentile; however, she remains on a stanine 6. Her synonym DEPTH score increased by

5%, and her BREADTH score increased by 4%. Although some of these gains are small, they

still support the prediction of this present study that teaching paraphrasing to students in

Year 6 who are experiencing difficulty understanding what they are reading, will improve

their comprehension.

- 21 -

Student ‘J’ recorded significant gains across all areas after post testing. Her results also

support the prediction of this present study that teaching paraphrasing to students in Year 6

who are experiencing difficulty understanding what they are reading, will improve their

comprehension. Her data is shown in Figure 14 below.

Figure 14

Her paraphrasing score improved by 25% and her TORCH comprehension score increased

from 51.7 to 60.7. This result moved her from the 56th

percentile to the 88th

percentile and

from a stanine 5 to a stanine 7. Student ‘J’s use of synonyms improved with an increase on

her DEPTH score after post testing of 18%, and an increase in her BREADTH score of 18%.

- 22 -

Table 3 – Control Group PRE and POST Test Results

Table 3 displays the results of the Control Group from all pre and post testing. This data has

been used in the following graphs to show a comparison between the results of the Control

Group and the Intervention Group (shown in Table 2) across all tests.

Stu

den

t

Pa

ra P

RE

Para

PO

ST

TO

RC

H

raw

PR

E

TO

RC

H

sco

re P

RE

TO

RC

H

%ile

PR

E

TO

RC

H

sta

nin

e P

RE

TO

RC

H

raw

PO

ST

TO

RC

H

sco

re

PO

ST

TO

RC

H

%ile

PO

ST

TO

RC

H

sta

nin

e P

OS

T

Syn

on

ym

s

PR

E d

ep

th

Syn

on

ym

s

PR

E b

read

th

Syn

on

ym

s

PO

ST

dep

th

Syn

on

ym

s

PO

ST

bre

ad

t

K 23 23 20 53.9 66 6 20 53.9 66 6 72 35 72 35

L 22 32 16 46.8 34 4 20 53.9 66 6 88 46 90 50

M 19 21 12 41.7 16 3 11 40.5 13 3 67 35 79 40

N 19 20 4 30.3 1 1 12 41.7 16 3 55 29 65 34

O 18 18 12 41.7 16 3 19 51.7 56 5 88 43 98 48

P 21 20 18 49.9 48 5 18 49.9 66 5 82 43 91 47

Q 24 24 21 56.7 76 6 21 56.7 76 6 65 33 72 37

R 22 22 16 46.8 34 4 18 49.9 48 5 75 38 126 65

S 28 30 19 51.7 56 5 19 51.7 56 5 50 26 76 40

T 25 26 19 51.7 56 5 20 53.9 66 6 80 39 91 45

- 23 -

Figure 15 below displays a comparison of the average paraphrasing scores between the

Intervention and Control Groups. As the data show, after pre testing, the average score of

the Control Group was 22 – higher than that of the Intervention Group which was 19.

However, after the intervention sessions and post testing, the Intervention Group’s average

paraphrasing score was higher at 28. The Control Group’s average score was still 22.

Figure 15

The median score for the Intervention Group increased from 19.5 after pre testing, to 28.5

after post testing, while the median score for the Control Group after pre testing was 22,

again higher than the Intervention Group. However, the control group’s median after post

testing was still 22. Both these sets of data reveal an improvement in the Intervention

Group’s ability to paraphrase after receiving explicit instruction in the use of this skill.

- 24 -

Figure 16

A comparison of the stanine scores of the Intervention and Control Groups in Figure 16

above, reveals an average stanine score of 5.2 after the pre test among the Intervention

Group and an average stanine score of 4.2 after pre testing among the control group. After

the Intervention group had completed their focus sessions and both groups had been post

tested, the average stanine score among the Intervention group was 6.1. The control group

average stanine score was 5.0. This data supports the prediction of this present study. While

there was improvement in the average comprehension scores of both groups, the

Intervention Group achieved a more significant increase in their scores.

The final assessment that was administered to both groups was the synonym test. Pre

testing revealed the average DEPTH score for the Intervention Group was 83.6, and the

median score was 82. The DEPTH score for the Control Group at pre testing was 72.2 and

the median score was 73.5. Intervention and post testing lifted the average DEPTH score to

119 and increased the median score to 122.5. In comparison, the Control Group’s average

DEPTH score after post testing was only 78.8 and the median score was 84.5. While there

was improvement in the scores of both groups, the Intervention Group’s scores increased

markedly compared to those of the Control Group. The average improvement in the DEPTH

scores of the Intervention Group was 35.4 words, compared to the Control Group whose

average improvement was 13.8 words.

- 25 -

Figure 17 below displays a comparison of the average synonym DEPTH scores between the

Intervention and Control Groups at pre and post testing. It clearly shows how the

Intervention Group improved in their ability to list several synonyms for particular words

after explicit instruction in the use of this skill.

Figure 17

In a comparison of average synonym BREADTH scores of both groups, Figure 18 shows that

the average score of the Intervention Group at pre testing was 42.8, while the average

BREADTH score of the Control Group was 36.6. The median score for the Intervention Group

at this stage was 43.5. The Control Group’s median score was 36.5. These results show that

the Intervention Group presented at the testing with a larger bank of synonyms to begin

with compared to the Control Group. After intervention and post testing the average

BREADTH score for the Intervention Group was 60.4 and the median score was 63.0, while

the Control Group’s average BREADTH score was 44.1 and their median score was 42.5. The

average improvement in BREADTH scores for the Intervention Group was 17.7 words, while

for the Control Group the average improvement was 7.4 words. These results support the

prediction of the present study.

Figure 18

- 26 -

Discussion

The results of this present study support the prediction that explicit teaching of the

paraphrasing strategy to a small group of Year 6 students who experience difficulty

understanding what they are reading, in a regular classroom context, through a combination

of reading, writing, discussion, repetition and reflection, will improve their comprehension.

This can be seen by comparing the pre and post test results of the Intervention Group, and

by comparing this group’s scores with those of the Control Group after post testing.

However, the results also highlight the fact that this strategy benefits certain types of

students better than others, and that it can help students with their comprehension skills in

various ways.

The results of the present study show that the paraphrasing strategy benefits students

whose pre test comprehension scores were the lowest. Students A,B,C,E,G,H,J all achieved

gains in their TORCH scores and their stanine scores after post testing. They also improved

their paraphrasing and synonym scores. Students D,F,I improved their TORCH

comprehension scores, but not their stanine scores. However, they did make gains in their

ability to paraphrase and use synonyms in all but 1 case. Despite the comprehension scores

of 3 of the students remaining the same, these results indicate that explicit instruction, the

combination of reading and writing, the opportunity for discussion and reflection and the

repetitive nature of the tasks, were effective in helping the students to understand what

they were reading. All students gained in confidence as the sessions progressed, questioning

each other and justifying their answers to each other. They improved their ability to

paraphrase and use synonyms with every text that was used (including the students who did

not improve their scores significantly after post testing), and their reflections on how they

were using the strategy and how it was helping them, became more detailed and showed an

understanding of what the teaching was aiming to achieve. It was pleasing to see the

students increase their vocabulary throughout the intervention, and show interest in using

new words to convey meaning. After only two sessions, the students became very eager to

share their attempts at using synonyms, and their paraphrasing. Working with small chunks

of text to begin with made the tasks manageable and helped to gradually give the students

more control and confidence.

- 27 -

Students D,F and I made only slight improvements to their scores, or maintained their pre

test scores. They made gains in the skills taught in order to assist their comprehension, but

not necessarily in their comprehension scores.

Student ‘D’ made significant improvement in her synonym BREADTH and DEPTH scores, but

only a minor improvement in her paraphrasing score, and no improvement in her TORCH

comprehension score of 60.7, or stanine score of 7. Student ‘F’ achieved little improvement

in her synonym or paraphrasing scores, and her TORCH comprehension score of 60.7 and

stanine score of 7, also remained the same. Student ‘I’ remained on stanine 6, however she

improved her TORCH score and her percentile score, which shows some improvement in her

comprehension skills. She also made gains in her paraphrasing and synonym scores.

From the results of these students, and by comparing them to the pre and post test results

of students from this group who made significant gains in their comprehension, we can infer

that students who already have a stanine score of 6 or above, do not benefit from the use of

the paraphrasing strategy as much as those who begin on lower scores. Even though these

students made some gains in the use of paraphrasing and synonyms, the improvements

were small compared to the other 7 students. Their gains in this area did not help them

improve their comprehension. These students may not be transferring their knowledge of

synonyms and paraphrasing to their reading, or they may need to be reading more

challenging texts in order to use these skills more effectively. Another possible reason these

3 students did not improve their comprehension scores is that the strategies the whole class

had been exposed to prior to participating in the present study, such as Preparing Your

Knowledge for Learning and Say Questions a Text Answers, may have had an impact on their

pre test scores. These students were all tested at the end of 2008 and students D,F,I had

improved their stanine scores in the 6 months from that test, to the pre test for the present

study. Perhaps more practice with paraphrasing as a higher level comprehension strategy is

required to move them along.

- 28 -

A comparison of the test scores of the Intervention and Control Groups further highlights

how the explicit teaching of these skills improves comprehension. Figure 15 compares the

paraphrasing scores of both groups and reveals that, even though the scores of the Control

Group were higher than those of the Intervention Group after pre testing, the scores of the

Intervention Group improved significantly after the intervention and post testing. Therefore,

we can infer that explicit teaching of this skill does improve the ability to use it effectively.

The Intervention Group’s use of synonyms also increased at the post test. Their results were

significantly higher than those of the Control Group in both DEPTH and BREADTH. We can

therefore infer that explicit teaching of this skill improves a student’s knowledge of

synonyms. From these results we can also infer that an increase in the ability to use

synonyms transfers to an improvement in a students’ ability to paraphrase. There is a

correlation between an improvement in the use of synonyms and the ability to paraphrase.

Figure 16 shows a comparison of the comprehension scores of both groups. The average

stanine scores shown on this graph indicate that the explicit teaching of paraphrasing and

synonyms has improved the students’ ability to comprehend what they are reading. While

some students in the Control Group also made gains, and 3 students in the Intervention

Group did not, the average gain in comprehension scores made the Intervention Group was

greater than those of the Control Group, supporting the prediction of the present study.

Therefore, we can infer that the explicit teaching of paraphrasing to students who

experience difficulty understanding what they are reading, does improve comprehension,

particularly in students whose scores are between stanines 1 and 5.

- 29 -

The results of the present study are consistent with other research into the effectiveness of

paraphrasing as a comprehension study cited in this paper. The approach to each session

supports the findings of Fisk and Hurst (2003), who found combining all these elements

assists students to better understand and remember what they are reading. The inclusion of

discussion about the main idea of tone of text, also used by Fisk and Hurst (2003), helped

the students to paraphrase better. They asserted that students will paraphrase better when

they can express the main idea in their own words. Fisk and Hurst purported that students

need to consider an author’s tone in order to paraphrase well. These two elements were

beneficial in assisting the students in the present study to ‘get inside’ a text, know it,

understand it and write about it well. The present study also took into account Fisk and

Hurst’s suggestion that students need the opportunity to listen to each other’s ideas before

writing anything; therefore, discussion was a large component of each session and this oral

component which encouraged the sharing of ideas, proved beneficial to the students; the

paraphrases they produced each session improved and most students were able to use this

skill to improve their comprehension.

The results of the present study also support research conducted by Hagaman and Reid

(2008). These researchers do not believe that students will automatically be proficient at

comprehending text just because they can decode it. Their research showed that explicit

strategy instruction that involves a series of steps, regular practice, discussion and

reflection, improves comprehension. Hagaman and Reid also purport that consideration of

the main idea of a text is important when teaching students to paraphrase. This research

supports that of Fisk and Hurst, particularly in the use of discussion with others, asking

questions and responding verbally before writing, which they assert is a powerful strategy

for students who experience difficulty with comprehension. The present study also asked

the students to verbally state what they were doing before and after each session which

encouraged them to reflect on the aim of the session and to consolidate the strategy they

were learning. Hagaman and Reid’s study differed in approach to the present study in that

they worked with students individually, not in a regular classroom context.

- 30 -

The discussion and reflection element used in the present study is also consistent with

research conducted by Katims and Harris (1997), who found that ‘verbal rehearsal’ of what

students are going to do, contributes to their understanding of a text. This research also

supports that of the present study in that it was conducted in a regular classroom context,

encourages the students to share their paraphrasing attempts, and reflect on the use of the

strategy. Katims and Harris found that the students participating in their study improved

their comprehension scores following this intervention.

A study into the effectiveness of paraphrasing as a comprehension strategy conducted by

Steven Lee and Theresa Von Colln (2003), found evidence that is consistent with the results

of the present study and those of the other studies mentioned, using the strategy approach

and teaching the skills explicitly. The main difference in their study was that it concentrated

on only one student and it investigated the effects of paraphrasing on reading rate also.

Research into the explicit teaching of paraphrasing as a comprehension strategy conducted

by John Munro (John Munro Paraphrasing and Visualising; nmr-my-paraphrasing[1], 2009) is

consistent with the results from the present study. John Munro suggests that paraphrasing

helps students to break text up into manageable chunks and this helps to develop their

short term memory and recall more information more quickly. Following John Munro’s

suggested lesson plans for teaching paraphrasing allowed the students to break the texts up

into smaller parts – sentence by sentence, into pairs of sentences and then into paragraphs

in order to improve on the skills mentioned above. The students’ reflections revealed that

paraphrasing this way allowed them to learn the skill gradually, and by the time they were

paraphrasing paragraph by paragraph, the task was not so daunting; they could remember

more information and go back to reading a text in smaller sections if they were having

trouble understanding some parts.

The results of the present study can also be attributed to John Munro’s focus on the use of

synonyms to help with paraphrasing and comprehension. Teaching the students how to use

synonyms when they paraphrased was very effective, particularly when they came to a

word or phrase they did not understand. They were taught to get a dictionary and thesaurus

to obtain the meaning of the word, and then investigate synonyms to deepen their

understanding and paraphrase well. Before this strategy was taught explicitly, these

students would just give up reading or read on, losing the meaning of the text.

- 31 -

The results of the present study are therefore consistent with the findings of several studies

conducted into the effects of teaching paraphrasing to students who experience difficulty

understanding what they are reading. There is a positive effect on the reading ability of the

students who have been taught this strategy. A majority of the research conducted in this

area has used small groups of students, and all the studies have used the strategy approach.

The present study extends the knowledge about the use of paraphrasing and the use of

strategy instruction.

Implications For Teaching and Challenges

Both Hagaman and Reid (2008) and Lee and Von Colln (2003) purport that explicit teaching

of comprehension is not done often enough or well enough in schools because of the time

and effort teachers perceive needs to go into the planning and implementation of effective

lessons and assessment. They state that there is a need for teachers to have access to

training in how to use comprehension strategies in their classrooms. Hagaman and Reid

(2008) assert that teachers often mistakenly assume that once decoding has been mastered,

students automatically comprehend what they are reading. The challenge for teachers is to

know which of their students has difficulty understanding what they are reading, and

implement the teaching of comprehension strategies that are easy to follow, and allow

them to assess student progress easily and often.

The paraphrasing strategy has implications for teaching in that it follows a set of steps that

can be incorporated into lesson plans and classroom instruction easily. Assessment can

involve a standardized test or comprehension testing designed by the teacher that tracks

student progress over the year. Another implication for teaching using the paraphrasing

strategy is that it gives the students the ability to self-monitor their reading; it provides

them with a set of skills that they learn to apply in any given reading situation to help them

understand more difficult texts. They develop control and confidence in their learning.

Classrooms are filled with students that have a range of learning needs. Teaching

comprehension strategies that students can apply independently will enable teachers to

cater for all of their students, and provide students with a ‘bank’ of strategies to rely on

when text becomes difficult to understand.

- 32 -

The method of the present study allows the teaching of the paraphrasing strategy to be

conducted in a regular classroom context. Teachers can teach the strategy to their entire

class, giving students texts to work with that challenge their reading ability, which may

include the use of text from a variety of media – books, newspapers, DVDs or the Internet –

and they can still work with a focus group of students that they feel really need explicit

instruction in a small group situation. The sharing of how students use the strategy benefits

all levels of readers and challenges the students to listen to others and question each other

about their ideas.

Directions For Future Research…

At the completion of the present study, the question that comes to mind is, would all

strategies taught this way have positive effects on students’ comprehension? Although not a

lot of research has been conducted into the effectiveness of any strategy instruction (Lee

and Von Colln, 2003), every study conducted has supported the results of the present study.

It is clear that strategy instruction benefits most students who experience difficulty

understanding what they are reading; this is probably because these are the students who

do not use the strategies that good readers use, automatically. They need explicit teaching

in what the strategies are, when and how to use them, and to engage in rehearsal of this

knowledge, both verbally and in writing. Further study into the validity of explicit

instruction in this area would help convince teachers, teacher educators and school leaders

of its usefulness in the classroom in addressing comprehension problems.

Finally, most of the research conducted in this area has been designed to investigate the

usefulness of the paraphrasing strategy with students who experience problems with

comprehension. The study by Katims and Harris (1997) omitted the students who scored

highly on their pre test because they only wanted to analyse the students who had difficulty

in this area. There is no data on whether teaching this strategy to students with good

comprehension skills, assists them with understanding more complex texts. Can it develop

better comprehension skills in these students as well?

- 33 -

Bibliography

Books

Student texts:

1. Brown, K. (2003). Developing Your Comprehension Skills Years 7-10. Glebe, NSW:

Pascal Press.

2. Calderwood, S and McCredie, C (eds). (2004). Rigby Literacy Collections Upper

Primary Series 8. Port Melbourne, Victoria: Reed International Books Australia Pty.

Ltd.

3. Collins, E. (2003). Rigby Literacy Collections Upper Primary Series 9. Port Melbourne,

Victoria: Reed International Books Australia Pty. Ltd.

4. Horsfield, A. (2006). Comprehension and Written Expression Year 5. Sydney, NSW:

Pascal Press.

5. Horsfield, A. (2008). Comprehension and Written Expression Year 7. Glebe, NSW:

Pascal Press.

6. Howard, P. (1997). Excellence in Reading Skills 6. St. Leonards, Australia: Horwitz

Publications.

7. Ianni, N (ed). (2001). Rigby Literacy Collections Upper Primary Series 10. Port

Melbourne, Victoria: Reed International Books Australia Pty. Ltd.

8. Johns, V and Walker, S. (2001). MacMillan English Focus on Texts 6. South Yarra:

MacMillan Education Australia Pty. Ltd.

9. Osowski, M. (2000). Strategies to Achieve Reading Success 7. Australia: Hawker

Brownlow Education.

10. Osowski, M. (2000). Strategies to Achieve Reading Success 8. Australia: Hawker

Brownlow Education.

11. Purdy, C (ed). (2003). Rigby Literacy Collections Upper Primary Series 11. Port

Melbourne, Victoria: Reed International Books Australia Pty. Ltd.

12. Robinson, H. (1999). Read About, Think About 1. St. Leonards, Australia: Horwitz

Publications.

13. Sotoohi, M. (2000). Strategies to Achieve Reading Success 6. Australia: Hawker

Brownlow Education.

- 34 -

(34)

Tests:

1. Mossenson, L. et al. (2003). TORCH Tests of Reading Comprehension (2nd

ed.).

Melbourne, Victoria: Australian Council For Educational Research Ltd.

2. John Munroe’s Paraphrasing Test

3. John Munroe’s Synonym Test

Articles

1. Fisk, C. & Hurst, B. (2003). Paraphrasing For Comprehension. The Reading Teacher,

57, 2, 182-185.

2. 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, 222-234.

3. Katims, D.S & Harris, S. (1997). Improving the Reading Comprehension of Middle

School Students in Inclusive Classrooms. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,

41, 2. Downloaded February 27th,

2009.

4. Lee, S. W. & Von Colln, T. (2003). The Effect of Instruction in the Paraphrasing

Strategy on Reading Fluency and Comprehension. University of Kansas, Lawrence,

US.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b

/80/1b/08/81.pdf

(Downloaded 12/4/09 – 3.15pm).

- 35 -

(35)

Appendix 1

Participant Background and Test Results

Stu

de

nt

Inte

rve

ntio

n=

0 C

on

trol =

1

Ag

e in

MO

NT

HS

Ge

nd

er 0

= F

em

ale

1=

Male

Ye

ars

of S

ch

oo

ling

Ea

rlier In

terv

entio

n N

o=

0 1

= N

2=

LA

3=

W 4

=A

P

Pa

ra P

RE

Pa

ra P

OS

T

TO

RC

H ra

w P

RE

TO

RC

H S

co

re P

RE

TO

RC

H %

ile P

RE

TO

RC

H S

tan

ine

PR

E

TO

RC

H ra

w P

OS

T

TO

RC

H s

co

re P

OS

T

TO

RC

H %

ile P

OS

T

TO

RC

H S

tan

ine

PO

ST

Sy

no

ny

ms

PR

E - te

st d

ep

th

Sy

no

ny

ms

PR

E - te

st b

rea

dth

Sy

no

ny

m P

OS

T - d

ep

th s

co

re

Sy

no

ny

ms

PO

ST

-bre

ad

th

sc

ore

A 0 138 0 6 1 24 29 19 51.7 56 5 20 53.9 66 6 80 45 121 62

B 0 138 0 6 0 20 26 21 56.7 76 6 22 60.7 88 7 114 55 121 65

C 0 133 0 6 0 14 29 18 49.9 48 5 21 56.7 76 6 90 45 105 54

D 0 144 0 6 0 26 30 22 60.7 88 7 22 60.7 88 7 70 35 153 78

E 0 133 0 6 4 15 30 17 48.3 41 5 20 53.9 66 6 90 50 135 70

F 0 140 0 6 0 23 29 22 60.7 88 7 22 60.7 88 7 65 34 66 33

G 0 128 0 6 0 10 28 19 51.7 56 5 20 53.9 66 6 69 36 124 65

H 0 136 0 6 0 17 28 7 35.3 4 1 13 42.9 19 3 84 42 124 59

I 0 134 0 6 0 22 28 20 53.9 66 6 21 56.7 76 6 98 48 114 54

J 0 141 0 6 19 27 19 51.7 56 5 22 60.7 88 7 76 38 127 64

K 1 153 0 6 1 23 23 20 53.9 66 6 20 53.9 66 6 72 35 72 35

L 1 140 0 6 0 32 32 16 46.8 34 4 20 53.9 66 6 88 46 90 50

M 1 140 0 6 0 19 21 12 41.7 16 3 11 40.5 13 3 67 35 79 40

N 1 152 0 6 2, 3 19 20 4 30.3 1 1 12 41.7 16 3 55 29 65 34

O 1 142 0 6 0 18 18 12 41.7 16 3 19 51.7 56 5 88 43 98 48

P 1 134 0 6 0 21 20 18 49.9 48 5 18 49.9 66 5 82 43 91 47

Q 1 131 0 6 0 24 24 21 56.7 76 6 21 56.7 76 6 65 33 72 37

R 1 139 0 6 0 22 22 16 46.8 34 4 18 49.9 48 5 75 38 126 65

S 1 138 0 6 0 28 30 19 51.7 56 5 19 51.7 56 5 50 26 76 40

T 1 134 0 6 0 25 26 19 51.7 56 5 20 53.9 66 6 80 39 91 45

- 36 -

(36)

Appendix 2

Lesson Sequence

- 37 -

Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson

NumberNumberNumberNumber

Outline of LessonsOutline of LessonsOutline of LessonsOutline of Lessons This sequence of lessons is designed for teaching the This sequence of lessons is designed for teaching the This sequence of lessons is designed for teaching the This sequence of lessons is designed for teaching the whole/small/whole model whwhole/small/whole model whwhole/small/whole model whwhole/small/whole model where the students are placed ere the students are placed ere the students are placed ere the students are placed into 3 groups according to ability, one of these groups into 3 groups according to ability, one of these groups into 3 groups according to ability, one of these groups into 3 groups according to ability, one of these groups being the intervention/focus group of the study. Texts are being the intervention/focus group of the study. Texts are being the intervention/focus group of the study. Texts are being the intervention/focus group of the study. Texts are selected based on the ability level of each group. For the selected based on the ability level of each group. For the selected based on the ability level of each group. For the selected based on the ability level of each group. For the purposes of this study, the students were grouped purposes of this study, the students were grouped purposes of this study, the students were grouped purposes of this study, the students were grouped accoaccoaccoaccording to their TORCH pre test scores, but only the rding to their TORCH pre test scores, but only the rding to their TORCH pre test scores, but only the rding to their TORCH pre test scores, but only the intervention group received teacher support throughout intervention group received teacher support throughout intervention group received teacher support throughout intervention group received teacher support throughout the teaching sequence.the teaching sequence.the teaching sequence.the teaching sequence. Text ReferenceText ReferenceText ReferenceText Reference

1111 • WHOLE CLASS: Focus – Synonyms.

• Make a class master list of:

• The actions/behaviours we use when we read.

• The actions/behaviours we can use when we are

finding what we are reading, difficult.

• Introduce the students to the use of synonyms to

prepare them for using paraphrasing more effectively.

• Discuss with the students what synonyms are and how

they might help them to better understand what they

are reading. Explain that when we use synonyms to

replace unfamiliar words, we have to ensure the

meaning of the text is maintained. Have the students

verbalise what synonyms are.

• Read a short text together. On poster paper, write the

more unfamiliar/difficult words, or words that can

easily be changed through the use of synonyms; for eg:

‘void’, ‘robustness’, ‘sturdy’, ‘unique’. Use dictionaries

to investigate what they mean. Students brainstorm

their own ideas and use a thesaurus to suggest other

words that they could use to replace these words.

• Using the Interactive Whiteboard (IWB) or poster

paper, the teacher retypes the short text using the

synonyms chosen by the students. Discuss whether the

meaning of the new words fit with the text. Is the

meaning maintained? How has the use of the

synonyms helped you understand the text better?

• SMALL GROUP WORK:

• Intervention Group – copy the text for each student

with the following words underlined: ‘design’, ‘newly-

formed’, ‘huge’, ‘strange’, ‘upturned’, ‘beneath’,

‘identical’. Read the text together and discuss the main

idea. As a group, brainstorm words that could replace

the underlined words. Teacher types/write up the new

version of the text. Discuss whether the meaning has

been maintained and how the use of synonyms

changed the text.

• Consolidation Group – TORCH scores between 5 and 7.

As above; underline – ‘protect’, ‘internal’, ‘strong’,

‘nutrients’, ‘connect’, ‘tough’. Students complete the

same activity as above – working in pairs to re-write

“Flowers” from STARS 6 p. 9

“The Australian Flag” from

STARS 6 p. 74.

“Bones” from STARS 6 p. 61.

- 38 -

the text and maintain meaning using synonyms.

• Extension Group – TORCH scores of 8 or 9. As above;

underline – ‘misery’, ‘fashioned’, ‘ imposing’, ‘majestic’,

‘majesty’, ‘tarnished’. Students complete the same

activity as above – working in pairs to re-write the text

and maintain meaning using synonyms.

• WHOLE CLASS:

Discuss as a class what the students have learnt this

session about synonyms. Discuss then write a few lines

to look back on before the start of the next lesson.

“Bramston Hall” from STARS

6 p. 11.

2222 • WHOLE CLASS: Focus - Paraphrasing sentence by

sentence– the students will begin explicit teaching in

what paraphrasing is and how it can help them better

understand what they are reading.

• Reflection on the previous lesson – use of synonyms.

Revisit the previous text used and the copy of the same

text using synonyms. Ask the students to again

verbalise what they did and what they learnt from it.

Tell students that they are going to learn a strategy that

will help them to remember what they read –

paraphrasing.

• ‘We are going to be reading several texts and after you

have read each sentence you are going to say what you

have read in your own words. We will begin by doing

this sentence by sentence, then using pairs of

sentences and then with whole paragraphs’. Explain

that when we paraphrase something, the idea is to

convey the main idea and maintain the tone of the

text. We need to gain an understanding of the text in

general, not just replace each word individually.

• Ask students where they have seen paraphrasing used

before – it might be when taking notes, recounting

something someone has told you, giving a speech…

Different pieces of writing or conversation have

different tones. Discuss the types of writing that might

have a serious tone, a funny tone, a lighthearted tone.

• As a group read a short text (2 paragraphs) aloud and

discuss what the main idea of the text might be.

Teacher types ideas onto the IWB.

• List words that describe the tone – for eg: passionate,

angry, funny. Students then read the text again silently.

The students and teacher then paraphrase one

paragraph of the text sentence by sentence using

synonyms to replace words. Type this onto the IWB so

all students can see it. Re-read the text together and

discuss whether the tone and the meaning of the text

are maintained.

• Students then work in pairs to discuss the main idea of

the second paragraph and paraphrase it sentence by

sentence. Share each pair’s re-writing and discuss

STARS 6 p. 13

- 39 -

whether the main idea and tone are maintained.

• SMALL GROUP WORK: repeat the process above in

ability groups.

• Intervention Group – Work with teacher guidance to

read the text and discuss the main idea. Re-read and

paraphrase the first paragraph sentence by sentence

with the teacher, using synonyms. Students work in

pairs to paraphrase the second paragraph. Share

responses and discuss whether the tone and main idea

have been maintained.

Ask the students to say aloud how paraphrasing is going to

help them with their reading: ‘Every time I read I am going to

say what I have read in my own words’. The students write

this into their books.

• Consolidation Group – As above in pairs. Write down

what the main idea and tone of the text is first, then

paraphrase the first 2 paragraphs sentence by

sentence.

• Extension Group - As above in pairs. Write down what

the main idea and tone of the text is first, then

paraphrase the first 2 paragraphs sentence by

sentence.

• WHOLE CLASS:

Discuss what the students learnt about paraphrasing

and how it can help them understand what they are

reading. Write a short reflection to look back on.

“The Sunset” from Rigby

Collections Series 12 p. 56.

“The Frustrated Thief” from

Rigby Collections Series 11 p.

60.

“Children’s Express” from

STARS 7 p. 78.

3333 • WHOLE CLASS: Focus – paraphrasing sentence by

sentence.

• Revisit the previous activity – students reflect on what

they learnt in the last lesson and discuss what

paraphrasing is and how it can us assist to better

understanding what we read.

• Give the students a variety of short texts to read in

small groups – newspaper articles, comics, novels,

information texts, magazines articles. The students

briefly describe what the main idea of the text in front

of them is about and what they think the tone of the

text is.

• The teacher displays a text that is 2 paragraphs in

length. Students and teacher read it aloud together. As

a group, discuss what the text is about, what is the

tone? Then students and teacher paraphrase the first

paragraph sentence by sentence. Type this onto the

IWB so all students can see it. Discuss whether the

main idea and tone of the text have been maintained

after the paraphrase is complete.

• In pairs the students paraphrase the second paragraph

sentence by sentence. Remind them to discuss what

“How Embarrassing” from

MacMillan English 6 p. 23.

- 40 -

the main idea of the paragraph is first. Share as a

group and discuss whether each pair’s re-writing has

conveyed the main idea and maintained the tone of the

text.

• SMALL GROUP WORK:

• Intervention Group – Repeat orally how paraphrasing

is going to help them when they read.

• Repeat the whole class activity with teacher guidance

and discussion with peers. More emphasis is given to

reading aloud and discussion of unfamiliar or difficult

words before paraphrasing. Students discuss then write

down what they think the main idea of the text is.

Paraphrase the first paragraph together using

dictionaries and thesaurus’ to assist. Is the main idea

maintained? In pairs, paraphrase the second paragraph

and discuss responses.

• Repeat orally how paraphrasing is going to help them

when they read.

• Consolidation Group – Repeat whole class activity with

a text 2 paragraphs long, with a partner. The students

write down what they think the main idea of each

paragraph is before paraphrasing.

• Extension Group - Repeat whole class activity with a

text 2 paragraphs long, with a partner. The students

write down what they think the main idea of each

paragraph is before paraphrasing.

• WHOLE CLASS:

• Discuss what the students learnt about paraphrasing in

this lesson and how it can help them understand what

they are reading. Write a short reflection to look back

on.

“Strange Mysteries” from

Comprehension and Written

Expression 5 p. 2.

“World’s Greatest Landmark”

from STARS 6 p. 73.

“Polar Ice” from

Comprehension and Written

Expression 7 p. 6.

4444 • WHOLE CLASS: Focus – paraphrasing in pairs of

sentences.

• Revisit the previous activity – students reflect on what

they learnt in the last lesson and discuss what is

paraphrasing and how does it assist us in better

understanding what we read? Students share orally

then write down 3 things they have learnt so far.

• The teacher displays a short text. Students and teacher

read it aloud together. As a group, discuss what the

text is about, what is the tone? Then students and

teacher paraphrase the first paragraph in pairs of

sentences. Type this onto the IWB so all students can

see it. Discuss whether the main idea and tone of the

text have been maintained after the paraphrase is

complete.

• In pairs the students paraphrase the second paragraph

in pairs of sentences. Remind them to discuss what

the main idea of the paragraph is first. Share some

“The Bedouin on Their

Coffee” from STARS 6 p. 17.

- 41 -

attempts and discuss whether each pair’s re-writing

has conveyed the main idea and maintained the tone

of the text.

• SMALL GROUP WORK:

• Intervention Group – Repeat orally how paraphrasing

is going to help them when they read.

• Repeat the whole class lesson with teacher guidance.

Read the text aloud together; discuss the main idea and

tone of the text. Discuss the main idea of the first 2

sentences. Paraphrase these as a group using

dictionaries and thesaurus’. Continue for the rest of the

paragraph. Reflect on whether the main idea and tone

have been maintained.

• Repeat these steps for the second paragraph in pairs.

Discuss responses.

• Repeat orally how paraphrasing is going to help them

when they read.

• Consolidation Group – Repeat whole class activity in

pairs, in pairs of sentences. Write down the main idea

and tone of the text and note the main idea of each

pair of sentences.

• Extension Group - Repeat whole class activity in pairs,

in pairs of sentences. Write down the main idea and

tone of the text, and note the main idea of each pair of

sentences.

• WHOLE CLASS:

• Discuss what the students learnt about paraphrasing in

pairs of sentences this lesson. How was it different

from sentence by sentence? Was there anything you

had to do differently? Was it harder/easier? Why?

• Students write their thoughts as a reflection on what

they have learnt this lesson.

“Fingerprints” from Rigby

Collections Series 8 p. 4.

“Jasmine’s Problem” from

STARS 7 p. 32.

“On Her Way” from STARS 7

p. 6.

5555 • WHOLE CLASS: Focus – paraphrasing in pairs of

sentences.

• Revisit the previous activity – what is paraphrasing and

how does it assist us in better understanding what we

read? Students share orally.

• The students read aloud a short text. As a group they

discuss the main idea of the text and the tone.

• Paraphrase the first paragraph in pairs of sentences, as

a group. Type this onto the IWB so all students can see

it. Re-read and discuss whether the main idea and tone

are maintained.

• With a partner, paraphrase the second paragraph in

pairs of sentences. Share re-written pieces.

• SMALL GROUP WORK:

• Intervention Group – Repeat orally how paraphrasing

“Why Does the Doctor Feel

Your Pulse?” from Excellence

in Reading Skills 6 p. 46.

- 42 -

is going to help them when they read.

• Repeat steps from previous lesson.

• Repeat orally how paraphrasing is going to help them

when they read.

• Consolidation Group - Repeat steps from previous

lesson. Write down the main idea and tone of the text,

and note the main idea of each pair of sentences.

• Extension Group - Repeat steps from previous lesson.

Write down the main idea and tone of the text, and

note the main idea of each pair of sentences.

• WHOLE CLASS:

• Reflection – discuss the use of paraphrasing in pairs of

sentences. Was it easier this lesson? Why/why not?

How does noting the main idea of each pair help you to

understand the text?

“Spiders and Their Venom”

from Rigby Collections Series

9 p. 4.

“Native Animals As Pets”

from Comprehension and

Written Expression 7 p. 12.

“The Potato Famine” from

STARS 8 p. 32.

6666 • WHOLE CLASS: focus – paraphrasing paragraph by

paragraph.

• Reflection on what students have learnt so far. Go back

to the first lesson on synonyms. How has the use of

synonyms helped you to develop the skill of

paraphrasing so far? Refer to the development of

vocabulary and improvement of comprehension – how

has paraphrasing helped you to understand what you

are reading? Have you used this skill anywhere else? In

your own reading? When speaking to others?

• The students and teacher read a short text aloud

paragraph by paragraph, discussing and taking notes

on, the main idea and tone.

• Teacher and students then paraphrase the first

paragraph together using the IWB. Discuss whether the

main idea and tone are maintained.

• Students then re-read the second paragraph in pairs

and take notes on the main idea. They paraphrase the

second paragraph.

• SMALL GROUP WORK:

• Intervention Group – Repeat orally how paraphrasing

is going to help them when they read.

• Repeat the whole class activity together as a group.

Discuss main idea and tone of the text, then do the

same for the first paragraph before paraphrasing

together. Use thesaurus’ and dictionaries to investigate

unfamiliar words or to assist with synonyms to replace

words where necessary.

“The Revenge of the Bush

Bilby” from Read About,

Think About p. 22.

“A Chorus Of Frogs” from

Rigby Collections Series 10 p.

4.

- 43 -

• Work as a group to repeat the activity above with the

second paragraph.

• Discuss whether the main idea and tone has been

maintained.

• Discuss - What have you learnt so far? How is this skill

helping you?

• Repeat orally how paraphrasing is going to help them

when they read.

• Consolidation Group – Repeat whole class activity

working in pairs and taking notes on the main idea and

tone of the text. Use dictionaries and thesaurus’ to

assist. Make sure these things have been maintained in

students’ paraphrasing.

• Extension Group - Repeat whole class activity working

in pairs and taking notes on the main idea and tone of

the text. Use dictionaries and thesaurus’ to assist.

Make sure these things have been maintained in

students’ paraphrasing.

• WHOLE CLASS: Think, Pair, Share -

Discussion and written reflection on paraphrasing

paragraph by paragraph. How was it different to

sentence by sentence or pairs of sentences? Was it

harder/easier? Why? How might this skill help you with

your reading?

“Labrador Retrievers” from

Read About, Think About p.

76.

“A Midsummer’s Night”

(Wind In The Willows) from

STARS 7 p. 103.

7777 • WHOLE CLASS: focus – paraphrasing paragraph by

paragraph.

• Revisit previous lesson; students read their reflection

on paraphrasing paragraph by paragraph. Discuss what

they had to do differently and how this skill might help

them understand what they are reading?

• Students and teacher read a short text paragraph by

paragraph as a group. Repeat the whole class activity

for previous lesson.

• SMALL GROUP WORK:

• Intervention Group – Repeat orally how paraphrasing

is going to help them when they read.

• Repeat previous lesson.

• Repeat orally how paraphrasing is going to help them

when they read.

• Consolidation Group – Repeat previous lesson.

“Dragons” from STARS 6 p.

103.

“Space Research Vs World

Poverty” from Rigby

Collections Series 11.

“Spiders and Insects” from

Develop Your Comprehension

Skills Years 7-10 p. 19.

- 44 -

• Extension Group - Repeat previous lesson.

• WHOLE CLASS – individual reflection on what the

students have learnt about paraphrasing and how it is

helping them to understand what they are reading.

Where might they need to use this skill? Focus

question: does it help to discuss the main idea and

tone and have someone to share your ideas with

before you paraphrase? Does note taking first help?

“Reefs” from Develop Your

Comprehension Skills Years 7-

10 p. 44.

8888 • WHOLE CLASS: focus – paraphrasing sentence by

sentence individually.

• The students re-read the reflection they wrote at the

end of the last lesson. Ask them to share what they

wrote and discuss how they feel now about tasks such

as note taking, reading difficult texts. What will they do

when faced with reading something they do not

understand?

• The students read a text silently and individually.

• When they have all finished, remind them to

remember everything they have learnt about

paraphrasing so far. Remind them to consider the main

idea and tone of the text and to take notes where they

feel it will help them. They are going to paraphrase this

text sentence by sentence on their own.

• Ensure there are dictionaries and thesaurus’ available

for students to use.

• When all students have completed the first paragraph,

stop the class and ask students to share what they have

written.

• Students then continue paraphrasing individually.

• REFLECTION – when all students are finished, ask them

to meet with their groups and share their paraphrases.

Discuss if the main idea and tone have been maintain

and whether this was a difficult task to do individually.

• Teacher meets with Intervention Group to read and

discuss their writing.

“Rhinos – On The

Endangered List” from Read

About Think About p. 36.

9999 • WHOLE CLASS: focus – paraphrasing in pairs of

sentences. First paragraph in pairs – second

paragraph, individually.

• Intervention Group – to meet with teacher to

paraphrase the first paragraph in pairs.

• Consolidation and Extension Groups – work in pairs to

paraphrase the first paragraph; second paragraph

individually.

• WHOLE CLASS: Intervention group reflect on this task

“Asthma” from STARS 6 p.

63.

- 45 -

with their teacher. Use of synonyms to help? Do they

feel that what they have learnt about this skill so far

helped them? Did they feel in more control? Did they

feel more confident about doing an activity like this

(and others similar such as note taking) after learning

about paraphrasing? Repeat orally how paraphrasing

is going to help them when they read.

• Consolidation and Extension Groups - complete a

written reflection on this task, considering the points

above.

10101010 • WHOLE CLASS: focus – paraphrasing paragraph by

paragraph individually.

• Revisit the skills used in the previous lesson and explain

the goal for this lesson (above).

• What skills can they draw on to help them complete

this activity?

• Students silently read each paragraph of a text.

• Students paraphrase each paragraph of the text

individually and silently.

• SMALL GROUP TEXTS:

• Intervention Group

• Consolidation Group

• Extension Group

• Meet with intervention group before they begin to

reiterate what they can do if they get stuck while

reading. What skills can they now use? Repeat orally

how paraphrasing is going to help them when they

read.

• WHOLE CLASS: How have you used the things you

have learnt to complete this activity? In what other

activities can you use these skills to help you? How do

you feel about reading things you may find difficult

now?

• I Used to Think but now I know…written reflection of

the above discussion to complete the series of lessons.

“Stargazing” from STARS 6 p.

91.

“Pocket Money” from Rigby

Collections Series 9 p. 42.

“Athletes In Action” from

STARS 7 p. 37.