RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

Initial Meeting with Cooperating Teacher, October 2, 2014

Student B: This student was chosen by Dr. Underbakke for the research group because of
her high score on the Fountas and Pinnell Reading Test at the end of the previous year. She
exhibits an interest in reading, and appears to be reading fluently. She is very social and is able
to quickly grasp new concepts. Because she is so quick to understand new concepts, she
becomes bored in class and loses focus.
Student C: This student was chosen by Dr. Underbakke for the research group because
she is a very high achieving student. She reads quickly and fluently, and enjoys reading.
Because she came from a private school, Dr. Underbakke did not have any test scores from the
previous year, but felt that her scores would have been equivalent or higher than Student Bs
scores. He also felt that she would benefit from being in the research group by being challenged.
She is often bored in class and becomes very talkative and distracting to other students.
The Question:
After discussing with Dr. Underbakke the students strengths and prior knowledge, he felt
that the best goal for the students was to broaden their comprehension beyond the basic who,
what, when, where, why, and how, and be able to look more in-depth at literature. With this goal
in mind, I began with the question of What are the most effective strategies for improving
comprehension? After a few meetings with the students however, it was evident that this area
was much too broad to be able to effectively work with in such a short time. After some
discussions with my professors and Dr. Underbakke, I narrowed my area and redeveloped my
final question and the ultimate focus of my research to What are effective strategies for
improving understanding of authors purpose? Authors purpose is an often overlooked area of
comprehension that contributes a great deal to the students understanding of the literature.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

Understanding the authors purpose in writing the literature allows the student to understand the
work in a deeper way, going beyond surface comprehension such as identifying the characters or
the setting.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

Timeline
Pre-Session
Initial Meeting with Dr. Underbakke
Chose students for the group.

Discussed the different strengths and weaknesses of the students.

Discussed the goal of the group.

Developed the initial question.

Session 1

Assessments:

Reading Interest Inventory

Garfield Interest Inventory

Session 2

Literature:

The Legend of the Indian Paintbrush by Tomie dePaula

Session 3
Literature:
Dark Night on the Water
Assessments (Initial):
Benchmark Passage Quick Check
Session 4
Literature:
The Great Zoo Escape
Assessments:

Benchmark Passage Quick Check

Benchmark Passage Running Record
Session 5

Literature:

Becoming Expert Readers

Banning Junk Food

Recess

Earrings by Judith Viorst

Assessments (Midpoint):
Independent Practice Worksheet
Session 6
Assessments:

Slide to Pie Activity

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

4
Session 7

Literature:

A Lion in the Bedroom

Bare Bones
Give Thanks

A Day to Celebrate Earth

Assessments (Final):

Slide to Pie Activity

Question Sheets.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

First Session Reflection, October 9, 2014

After administering the first assessments, I felt like I better understood the students.
Beyond what the survey results gave me, I found out that both girls were extremely talkative, and
were already friends, so much of the session was them having a conversation with me and each
other about what they like to read, what they dont like to read, who reads with them at home,
and that then led to them talking about their plans for the weekend, their pets, and what kind of
animals they liked. I found this information very valuable because it allowed me to connect with
the students on a more personal level. I felt like this set the stage for developing a relationship
with them, and it helped in the long run because while they did not necessarily enjoy taking the
assessments, they did enjoy getting to work in a small group with me, and they were enthusiastic
about the research group. Every time I was in the class, they would ask me within the first ten
minutes of being there whether they were going to be working with me. If I told them that we
wouldnt be working together that day, they were so disappointed, and if I told them that we
would be, they would be so excited and make sure to remind me every 15-20 minutes not to
forget, or ask me repeatedly what they would be doing.
As far as the information provided by the assessments, there was nothing that was very
surprising to me. From the Reading Interest Survey, I found that both students enjoyed reading,
but Student C appeared to have more support from her parents when reading at home (Wokanick,
n.d.). They both enjoyed dancing and a wide variety of genres, but put their favorite genre as
being mysteries. This led to a discussion of the Mercy Watson books by Kate DiCamillo, a
series that I had never heard of before. The girls took great joy in explaining to me all about the
books, and which ones they had read. One thing I noticed was that while they were very
enthusiastic about the books, they had a hard time really explaining them. They frequently

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

bounced off of each other to expand their conversation. I also noticed that neither of them
enjoyed reading out loud, unless it was specifically to someone else. They both told me that they
preferred to read silently because they could read it faster that way. This made me wonder how
much of the literature they were actually comprehending, or whether it was more a matter of
them wanting to get to the end of another chapter book. The Garfield Interest Survey gave me
similar information about their likes and dislikes related to reading (Kear, Coffman, McKenna, &
Ambrosio, 2000). Both students scored very closely, with Student C scoring a raw score of 98,
and was in the 88th percentile, and Student B scoring a raw score of 99 and in the 89th percentile.
This survey did not produce as much conversation, and I rather felt that I could have learned just
as much about the students from just the Reading Interest Survey (Wokanick, n.d.).

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

Second Session Reflection, October 20, 2014

The book that I chose for this session was The Legend of the Indian Paintbrush by Tomie
dePaula. I chose this story because I thought that it lent itself to the goal of helping the students
look more in-depth at the literature. Because this was a Native American Folk Tale, I felt that
the students would benefit from being able to understand that there was a deeper purpose behind
the story. I had discussed using this book with Dr. Underbakke, and he agreed that it would be
good to use. He has an extensive collection of Folk Tales specifically by dePaula, and I felt that
this would be a good book to begin with because it would be something that was slightly familiar
to them. I also had to take into consideration the limited time I had to work with them, and a
shorter story allowed me to spend more time discussing it with them. I was actually quite
surprised by the students lack of comprehension beyond the surface level. The students were
both able to easily identify the characters and re-tell the story, but when I asked them why the
author had written the story, they were both unable to correctly answer. In retrospect, this was
the beginning of my understanding that they should be focusing on understanding authors
purpose, rather than the broader concept of comprehension, as it was apparent that they were
able to perform many other areas of, such as summarization. The students did answer when I
asked them about why the author wrote the book though. What surprised me was how
committed they were to their answers. Both students thought that the purpose behind the story
was to teach a lesson about promises, but in reality, it was to explain why a certain type of flower
grows on hills in the Midwest. Even after I explained that the purpose was not to teach a lesson,
they stuck to their ideas, and simply reworded them. After I read them the authors explanation
of the story, we were able to go back and reread parts of the story where it was evidenced, but
the students still did not appear to fully understand the purpose. Something else that I noticed by

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

listening to them discuss the book was that while both students were able to discuss their
thoughts, Student C was much better able to articulate her ideas.
Third Session Reflection, October 22, 2014
For this session, I changed my approach in the passages that I chose and how I assessed
them. The passage that I chose for this session was from the Reading A-Z program, a level I,
and called Dark Night on the Water. I chose to use the benchmark assessments that came along
with the passage, the Benchmark Passage Quick Check (Reading A-Z: Leveled Reading, n.d.).
At this point in the research study, I was still trying to find the best method of testing such a
broad concept, as I had not narrowed my topic yet. Student B missed one of the questions and
Student C was able to correctly answer all of them. She was able to then go on to explain some
of the connections that she had made with the story, such as noticing the illustration of the ship
on the bottom of the passage. Because the students had been learning about Christopher
Columbus in some other areas, she told me that before she read it, she thought it was going to be
about him because the ship looked like the pictures of his ships that she had seen in class earlier.
She also mentioned that because of that, she thought it was going to be nonfiction, but then
noticed the tentacles and knew that it was going to be fiction, because that didnt happen in real
life. Both girls also mentioned that they felt the reading was very easy. Because I had not
received Student Bs Fountas and Pinnell scores, I was unaware really what level they were on,
other than knowing they were above the class average. Had I had the scores previously, I dont
believe that I would have started with this level, and would rather have gone up quite a few
levels to find something more challenging.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

Fourth Session Reflection, October 24, 2014

For this session, Student B was absent so I was only able to administer the assessment to
Student C. The passage and assessment were similar to the one I used during the third session,
though I jumped up to Level K because of the feedback regarding the previous selection. This
passage, The Great Zoo Escape, proved more challenging, with Student C describing it as Easy,
but not too easy. Looking back, this level would have been the better one to begin with. The
assessments I used with this passage included a Benchmark Quick Check, similar to the previous
one, as well as a Running Record (Reading A-Z: Leveled Reading. n.d.). Student C did very
well on these assessments, correctly answering all of the Quick Check questions, and scoring a

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

10

WCPM score of 95, and error rate of 1:24, an accuracy rate of 96%, and a self-correction rate of
1:1. She was not able to make as many connections with this passage as she was able to with the
previous one; rather she focused more on retelling the story and the details present in the story.
While she was able to remember the story very well, it was interesting to see that she couldnt
make connections or inferences for this passage.
This session was the last session before I narrowed my focus to my final research
question. This session made me really see how confusing it can be without a narrowed area to
focus on. While the running record provided interesting information, it ultimately did not help
me make any decisions on how I should proceed, or help me understand where the student was at
in her grasp of comprehension, and really should not have been an assessment that I should have
focused on. The Quick Check showed me her ability to recall the story and make basic
inferences; however a lot of the information I gained through that, I felt could have been gained
through a discussion regarding the passage, which we did.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

11

Fifth Session Reflection, October 30, 2014

This session was the first session where I was focusing solely on Authors Purpose. I
introduced the session by explaining what authors purpose was, and the girls seemed hesitant at
first, and unsure if they understood the new concept. Once they were able to see and discuss
different examples, they appeared to be much more comfortable with the concept. I brought
multiple examples, focusing on persuasion, to this session. The majority of these passages were
letters written. Becoming Expert Readers, Banning Junk Food, and Recess were all short
letters written in a school setting. These letters made were easier for the students to connect to,
because it was easier for them to understand asking the principal for something, or trying to
convince their teacher to do something. We also discussed other examples of persuasion that
they might see. The students are used to seeing movie posters and book advertising posters and
they were able to connect those examples as persuasion. One thing I noticed that they really
struggled with understanding why the examples and samples were persuasive, beyond stating
that they were trying to convince them or the specified reader to do something. This was evident
during the assessment as well. The Independent Practice Worksheet that I used in connection
with the text Recess, a short letter written to a teacher from students to convince the teacher
that recess is important. The students were easily able to find that the authors purpose was to
persuade. Student C was able to find a vague piece of evidence. After observing the students
struggle to find the evidence, we looked at the passage in-depth and were able to find evidence
after rereading the passage and discussing it together. We also read the story Earrings by Judith
Viorst and pulled out evidence of persuasion within the text, and the girls really enjoyed this
story and it sparked a conversation about how they felt about getting their ears pierced, because

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

Student C had hers pierced. We discussed how Student B could convince her parents to let her
get her ears pierced.

12

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

13

Sixth Session Reflection, November 20, 2014

During this session, I really focused on reviewing persuasion and making sure that the
students understood the three different areas of authors purpose, persuade, inform, or entertain.
It really helped that I had given them the PIE acronym. When I asked them what we had learned
about the previous session, they were able to quickly remember PIE, and then remembered what
each of the letters stood for. The students had been asking the past few sessions to play a game,
and so I found a file folder game that focused on Authors Purpose. The Slide to PIE game made
them extremely excited to get through the material so they could play. The game is a board
game and each turn the student takes a card with a short passage on it. They read the passage
and decide what the authors purpose is and move their piece to a P, I, or E, or if they pick up a
piece of pie, they move to the corresponding picture. The students loved playing the game, and
it was useful for me to be able to see which cards they got wrong and use that to decide where I
needed to repeat or focus instruction for the next session. Student B missed four cards and three
of them where informing cards. Student C only missed one card, an entertaining card. The
students were very good at identifying persuasive pieces because of the emphasis on it from the
last session.
Seventh Session Reflection, December 4, 2014
For this last session, I used material that would encompass all we had covered regarding
authors purpose. I gave the students passages that focused on authors purpose as informing and
entertaining because those were the weakest areas shown by the last sessions data. The
passages I used were from the same program as the previous passages because I felt that they had
done a good job of focusing the students attention on finding evidence of the purpose, their
greatest weakness. I gave Student B Bare Bones and A Day to Celebrate Earth both

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

14

informational pieces. I gave Student C A Lion in the Bedroom and Give Thanks an
entertaining piece and an informational piece. As for the assessments, I gave them the
corresponding question sheets, but I gained most of my final data from the ending discussion
between all three of us about their individual passages, although these questions related much
more to authors purpose than the benchmark questions that I had started out using. If I were to
continue this research, I would continue using these questions. Student B missed two of the five
questions, and Student C correctly answered all of the questions. During the final discussion,
both students were much better able to not only state the authors purpose for each article, but
share specific evidence from the passage that told then what the purpose was, such as, the author
states facts, or the story isnt real because this couldnt happen, so it must be to entertain. I think
it definitely helped that I gave the students different passages because they only had to rely on
themselves to find the information and make the conclusions, rather than add on to each other as
I had noticed they tended to do when discussing anything.
Because we had some time left before the students had to transition to their specials, we
played Slide to PIE again, and the students showed great improvement. Student B only missed
one card, and Student C was able to correctly identify all of her cards.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

15

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

16

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

Date
10/9

Student Strategies Used

2
Variety of
Assessments

17

Literature
N/A

Activity
N/A

Assessment
Reading
Interest
Inventory
Garfield
Interest
Survey

Discussion N/A
about the
book.

10/20 2

Answering
questions
Reflect
Monitor
Comprehension

The
Legend of
the Indian
Paintbrush
by Tomie
dePaula

10/22 2

Answering
questions
Summarizing
Monitor
comprehension

Dark Night N/A

on the
Water
(Reading
A-Z) Level
I

Benchmark
Passage
Quick
Check

10/24 1 (C)

Variety of
Assessment
techniques
Reflect
Monitor

The Great
Zoo
Escape
(Reading
A-Z)

Benchmark
Passage
Quick
Check
Benchmark

N/A

Anecdotal Observations
Both students filled out the
inventory quickly and
appeared to be excited to
work with me. They were
friends with each other and
enjoyed talking about the
inventories. We talked a lot
about them and their
interests and how they
related to what they liked to
read. They both talked
about reading the Mercy
Watson stories by Kate
DiCamillo.
The students had a very
difficult time understanding
the purpose behind the
story, why it was written.
They made some very good
inferences, but once they
had an idea, they continued
to look for support for that
idea, even though there
wasnt any. We had to go
back and reread a lot of the
books to try and show them
the evidence for authors
purpose.
Student C answered all of
the questions correctly
while Student B missed 1.
Student C went beyond to
make some excellent
inferences from some ideas
about Christopher
Columbus that she had
learned earlier in the school
year. She felt it was very
easy.
She answered all of the
questions correctly and said
that it was harder than the
other passage, but not too
hard.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

comprehension
Summarizing

18

Level K

Passage
Running
Record
Becoming Discussion Independent
Expert
about
Practice
Readers
finding
Worksheet
Banning
textual
Junk
evidence
Food
regarding
Recess
authors
Earrings
purpose
by Judith
Viorst

10/30 2

Use multiple
texts
Reflect
Monitor
comprehension
Generating
questions
Summarizing

11/20 2

Variety of
assessments
Monitor
comprehension
Use multiple
texts

N/A

Slide to
Pie

Number of
cards
correct

12/4

Use multiple
tests
Monitor
comprehension
Summarizing
Metacognition
Reflect

A Lion in
the
Bedroom
Bare
Bones
A Day to
Celebrate
Earth
Give
Thanks

Slide to
Pie

Question
Sheets.
Number of
Cards
correct.

The students were really

interested in learning about
authors purpose, a topic
that they hadnt learned in
class yet. We focused
mainly on Persuasion but
touched on Informing and
Entertaining briefly. They
were able to come up with
some good examples of
persuasive works after
brainstorming together.
The girls really loved
playing the game, and they
did fairly well with getting
the purpose of the passages
on the cards. After they
knew what the purpose was
for the cards they got
incorrect, they were able to
go back and find evidence
for the purpose.
They were able to identify
specific points from the
passages as evidence of
authors purpose much
easier than the last time.
They were able to make
connections from other
examples as well. They did
much better with the game
this time around.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

Strategies Used
1. Monitor Comprehension
2. Metacognition
3. Answering Questions
4. Summarizing (Adler, n.d.)
5. Question
6. Reflect (Identify Authors Purpose, 2014)
7. Use a variety of assessment techniques to inform instruction
8. Use Multiple Texts (Bluiett, n.d.)
Assessments Used
1. Fountas and Pinnell
2. Reading Interest Inventory (Wokanick, n.d.)
3. Garfield Interest Survey (Kear, Coffman, McKenna & Ambrosio, 2000)
4. Benchmark Passage Quick Check Level I
5. Benchmark Passage Quick Check Level K
6. Benchmark Passage Running Record Level K (Reading A-Z, n.d.)
7. Concepts of Comprehension Question Sheets (Authors Purpose, n.d.)
Literature Used
1. The Legend of the Indian Paintbrush by Tomie dePaula
2. Earrings By Judith Viorst
3. The Great Zoo Escape Reading A-Z Level K
4. Dark Night on the Water Reading A-Z Level I (Reading A-Z, n.d.)

19

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

5. Becoming Expert Readers
6. Banning Junk Food
7. Recess
8. A Lion in the Bedroom
9. Bare Bones
10. A Day to Celebrate Earth
11. Give Thanks (Authors Purpose, n.d.)

20

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

21

Instructional Changes
1. After beginning using complete books, I realized that I was spending the majority of our
limited instructional time reading the story rather than discussing it. Because we had such
limited time, 10-20 minutes on average, I made the decision to use mainly shorter passages
that were 1-2 pages. While I recognized that the passages were not at their instructional level
for fluency, I felt that because my main focus was on their comprehension, it was better for
them to be able to read the passages multiple times within our time, and be better able to
discuss and reflect on the passages than try to understand new vocabulary.
2. After struggling to understand exactly what to focus on, I met with my professors and
cooperating teacher to narrow my topic. We eventually decided that focusing on authors
purpose would be the best way to achieve the goals that we had originally outlined. I hadnt
explored this aspect of comprehension before, because authors purpose is often overlooked
as an important part of comprehension. Once I researched more about it however, I realized
how essential it is for students to be able to understand the purpose behind literature, and
how much it really strengthens their comprehension skills. Being able to narrow my focus
also aided me in finding relevant literature and assessments, something I had really struggled
with prior.
3. After using a fun activity to assess the students, I was able to find which areas of authors
purpose they were struggling with the most, and that really helped me be able to focus our
last session on those areas, and they were able to show significant improvement after being
able to focus on those specific areas, rather than just briefly covering all three areas again.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

22

Documentation of Data

Student

Assessment

Results

Reading Interest
Inventory

Reading Interest
Inventory

Garfield Interest Survey

She enjoys reading and reads at home with her mom, she
doesnt like superheroes, but loves pretty much every
other
she likes to read, but doesnt read at home with her
parents. She likes pretty much every genre of book.
Doesnt like to read out loud.
98 raw score, 88 percentile

Garfield Interest Survey

99 raw score, 89 percentile

Benchmark Passage
Quick Check

3/3 correct

Benchmark Passage
Quick Check

2/3 correct

Benchmark Passage
Quick Check

5/5 correct

Benchmark Passage
Running Record

WCPM 95; Error Rate 1:24 Accuracy Rate: 96% SelfCorrection Rate 1:1

Independent Practice
Worksheet

Found limited evidence from the text, and was able to

identify purpose of persuasion.

Independent Practice
Worksheet

Number of cards correct

Was able to find identify evidence of persuasion from the

text only after group discussion and assistance from the
teacher.
5/7

Number of cards correct

4/8

Question Sheets

5/5

Question Sheets

3/5

Number of cards correct

6/6

Number of cards correct

5/6

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

23

Student Progress Monitoring Chart

I designed this half-page reflection paper for the students to fill out at the end of each
session. I found it very helpful in monitoring what they liked or disliked. It was what made me
see that they really wanted to play a game, and when I introduced the Slide to PIE activity they
were very excited, and it showed that I valued what they had to say. It also helped gave me a
place to write down my anecdotal observations at the end of the session.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

24

Additional Reflection
While I felt that I struggled initially with trying to find my focus topic, once I did, I felt
very confident in the students progress. I feel like we met the original goal set by Dr.
Underbakke and myself. In retrospect, the biggest changes I would have made would be to have
found a more consistent method of assessment so to better monitor their progress, and to have
found a way to better establish the students baseline data. The data that I collected after
beginning focusing on the final research topic would have served as good baseline data, but it
was difficult to truly monitor progress because we had such limited time afterwards. I also feel
that my assessments could have been more challenging to the students, particularly the ones I
used early on, because they questioned comprehension more related to remember specific
aspects of the text, something the students were already proficient at. If I were to continue the
project, I feel that I could gather more chartable data that could better represent the students
progress. As it was, the most useful data that I gathered came more from my anecdotal records
and observations rather than how they did on the assessments. The time constraint was difficult
to work with as well. The class transitioned to specials mid-morning, and early morning they
had an hour of math. The only time that I could realistically pull them out of class was during
their reading time, which varied depending on what else the students had going on that day.
Often my sessions were between 10-20 minutes, which cut down on the time we had to discuss
after reading and assessing. I feel that more opportunities to spend longer amounts of time
together would have been beneficial. Both girls were very social and enjoyed talking with me
and each other, and I think they would have easily been able to go more in-depth in our
discussion of the literature and lessons.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

25

I felt that I succeeded in getting the students engaged with the material and in the
discussions by finding passages that were interesting, and by establishing a connection with them
early on. The students felt very comfortable with me, and I explained the whole project and that
this was like my homework, so they were very excited that they were getting to help with
college work. I feel that the strategies that I implemented were successful in aiding their
progress, and I began to see it reflected in their comprehension outside of our sessions towards
the end. The other Samford student in Dr. Underbakkes class shared with me that when she was
reading with Student C, Student C was able to talk about the authors purpose in a book for a
chapter book that she was reading independently during class. This really showed me that what
they were learning during the research sessions was really making an impact in how they read
other pieces of literature.
One of the greatest impacts this research project has had on me as a future teacher is the
understanding that just because there is an area that is not widely emphasized or discussed, that
doesnt mean that that area is not important to students education. It was very difficult for me to
find research specifically behind authors purpose, but after seeing how much it has impacted
their comprehension, I have a greater respect and understanding of how much understanding of
authors purpose can improve a students reading ability.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

26

Authors Purpose in Relation to Reading Comprehension

Rachael Ann Celia
Samford University
Orlean Bullard Beeson School of Education

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

27
Abstract

Through the development of an understanding of the authors purpose for writing, students
develop better reading comprehension overall. By understanding why the author is writing, the
students are better able to make connections with the text, as well as better understand the main
ideas about the text. It is important for teachers to focus on teaching authors purpose when
teaching reading comprehension to their students.
Keywords: authors purpose, comprehension, main idea, engagement.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

28

Authors Purpose in Relation to Reading Comprehension

It is no secret that reading comprehension is an extremely important aspect in the
development of good reading skills. To many, reading comprehension is simply the
understanding of what the text is communicating. But what does that mean exactly? There are
some common answers such as who, what, when, where, why, and how, or the five ws and h as
they are commonly referred to. One skill that is often overlooked when teaching reading
comprehension is authors purpose. However, when examining different methods included in
comprehension, authors purpose can be found listed as an important area to focus on. It can be
difficult at first to make the connection between the two, as sometimes authors purpose can
seem to be something that should be set aside after the students are able to comprehend the text.
Apparently, this thinking is not uncommon, as authors purpose is marked by a noticeable lack of
research to explain why it is important that students learn it. There are many lessons and ideas
available for teaching authors purpose, but minimal explanations as to why it should be taught.
This is particularly conspicuous in the face of an abundance of research in the areas such as
fluency, vocabulary, and other areas of comprehension. With such an emphasis on researchbased teaching, and best-practice teaching, this can lead one to question whether identifying
authors purpose is still a skill that is relevant in the classroom.
After a great deal of searching and shifting through similar lesson plans and worksheets
with pieces of pie on them, there is research to be found that answers that question. No, authors
purpose is not outdated, and it can indeed provide students significant aid in developing their
reading comprehension. As Mckeown, Beck, and Worthy (1993) stated in Chapter 7 of
Teaching Children to Read, Questioning the author attempts, in a sense, to engage students in
a conversation with the author (as cited in Reutzel & Cooter, 2015, p. 270). Almost every

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

29

teacher will acknowledge that students must be engaged with the text for them to improve their
reading skills. When students are interested in the material they feed their own desire to
improve. Something many young readers have a hard time understanding is that authors are real
people. When students are asked to understand the author, and question the author, they are able
to connect more to the author, and in turn, the authors purpose and ideas. In this way, children
engage with text in ways that successful readers use to make sense of complex ideas presented in
texts (Reutzel & Cooper, p. 271).
When was asked to help students develop an understanding of texts beyond the basic
who, what, why, when, where, and how, it can be difficult to pinpoint exactly how to do that. In
the article Seven Strategies to Teach Students Text Comprehension, author C.R. Adler (n.d.)
lists monitoring comprehension, building metacognition, using graphic and semantic organizers,
answering and generating questions, summarizing, and working with students to recognize story
structure as the methods best used when teaching comprehension. These methods focus on the
broader area of teaching comprehension though, rather than the more specific area of authors
purpose. However, the article Identify Authors Purpose details some strategies that show the
connection between comprehension and authors purpose. These strategies include questioning
and reflecting. When the students are able to question the material, they are able to go beyond
the surface level of understanding. Reflection is a way to help students develop metacognition,
an essential strategy when developing comprehension in general. Reflection can be utilized in
different ways, from a group discussion to a written report about the text, through reflection, the
student is able to identify how they thought about the text, and they are then able to draw
conclusions and develop their understanding of the text. That same article also identifies an
often overlooked advantage of understanding authors purpose. It points out that knowing the

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

30

authors purpose helps students to pace their reading correctly and search for specific ideas
(2014). Dr. Tarsha Bluiett (n.d.) also recommends using a variety of both literature and
assessments when teaching literacy. This helps provide a wide variety of feedback for the
instructor as well as keeps the students engaged in the instruction. Kosanovich of the Center for
Instruction (2012) points out that there are instructional routines involving authors purpose that
go beyond just one grade, unlike many other strategies for comprehension (p. 14). Also unlike
many other strategies, there is only one anchor standard that specifically identifies authors
purpose (p. 19).
It is clear that authors purpose plays a significant role in the development of reading
comprehension. When students understand the author, they better understand the text. While
reading comprehension is a large area of literacy, it is important to remember that all aspects of
comprehension should be given importance and should be taught. Understanding the authors
purpose can significantly affect other areas of comprehension and support them to better their
understanding as a whole.

RUNNING HEAD: Action Research

31
References

Adler, C. (n.d.). Seven Strategies to Teach Students Text Comprehension. Retrieved October 11,
2014.
Author's Purpose 2nd Grade Unit. (n.d.). Retrieved October 21, 2014, from
www.readworks.org/lessons/grade2/authors-purpose
Bluiett, T. (n.d.). Best Practices in Litracy Instruction. Retrieved October 10, 2014.
Identify Authors Purpose: Why Did the Author Write the Selection? (2014, January 1).
Retrieved November 16, 2014, from http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/ReadStrat8.html
Kear, D., Coffman, G., McKenna, M., & Ambrosio, A. (2000). Measuring Attitude Toward
Writing: A New Tool for Teachers? The Reading Teacher, 54(1).
Kosanovich, M. (2012, January 1). Using Instructional Routines to Differentiate Instruction: A
Guide for Teachers. Retrieved November 16, 2014, from
http://www.readingrockets.org/sites/default/files/Using Instructional Routines to
Differentiate Instruction.pdf
Reading A-Z: Leveled Reading. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2014, from www.readingaz.com/samples/leveled-reading.html
Reutzel, D., & Cooter, R. (2015). Teaching Reading Comprehension. In Teaching Children to
Read: The Teacher Makes the Difference (7th ed., pp. 270-271). Boston: Pearson.
Wokanick, D. (n.d.). Reading Interest Inventory K-3. Retrieved October 7, 2014, from
http://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Reading-Interest-Inventory-K-3-1043671b