The Review of the Instruction of Reading Comprehension by P. David Pearson and Margaret C. Gallaghe

    While it is still possible to lament the lack of good solid causally interpretable research in the area of reading comprehension instruction (Jenkins & Pany, 1980; Tierney & Cunningham, 1980), there can be little question that more research about the basic processes and instructional practices of reading comprehension has been packed into the last half-decade (1978-1982) than in any previous period (however long). The purpose of this review is to characterize, summarize, and evaluate that research in terms of its contribution to principles of instructional practice. 

    The first and most formidable task of a reviewer is to limit his or her search for potentially relevant studies. This is especially important in the area of reading comprehension given the enormous output of the field in each of the last 6 or 7 years. Since our focus is on instruction rather than basic processes or the development of processes, we will deal with the process or cross-age studies only to establish a feeling for the milieu in which research about instruction has been conducted or only if the implications for the instruction of a particular, say the developmental, study is so strong as to compel comment about it. The major criterion for inclusion, then, becomes, “Did the study examine either comprehension instruction or the consequences of comprehension instruction and/or learning?” A secondary criterion became obvious during the search. The studies dealing with instruction varied along a continuum of interpretability; that is, some studies appeared, prima facie, to be about comprehension instruction, but they were difficult if not impossible to evaluate within the prevailing zeitgeist. In short, they seemed to add little to our cumulative knowledge about either the nature of comprehension, comprehension instruction, or the relationship between the two. This criterion of interpretability, or, if you will, contribution to cumulative knowledge, became a criterion not for inclusion/exclusion but rather for the degree of assigned emphasis. 

    The second task of a reviewer is to establish a framework for organizing the various research efforts that pass the inclusion test.