I have read studied and taught the findings on ...



Question 2. What reading strategies have proven most effective to increase reading comprehension in first through fourth grade poor readers? What does the research indicate?

To look at the question of which strategies are most effective with first through fourth grade poor readers to increase reading comprehension, I began with the National Reading Panel Report. In it seven categories are said to have firm scientific base. These are comprehension monitoring by the reader, cooperative learning, graphic organizers, question answering, question generating, use of story structure and summarization (NRPR, p.17).

I have read research studies involving all these strategies. The effectiveness of the strategy is partially dependent on the knowledge of the strategies of the instructor. Lack of sufficient training was seen as a factor in the failure of the volunteers to increase comprehension (Elliot, et al., 2000). The willingness of teachers to learn and use the strategies was also seen as significant concern (Ferro-Almeida, 1993).

The effectiveness of strategies is also dependent on the developmental level of the reader. Many studies use students who have already developed good decoding skills (Marr, et al., 1982; Dowhower, 1987). Although Dowhower used second grade students for the repeated readings study, they had to have adequate decoding skills to participate. A study to address poor third and fourth grade readers through assisted reading practice required that students be able to pass a reading test to participate (Shany et al., 1995). In fact, I had to eliminate numerous studies from my search because they did not involve students in fourth grades or below. Several studies involved children in third grades and higher and specifically noted that although the third grade students made significant improvement, the older students improved more (Hashey et al., 2003; Stevens et al., 1987; Paris et al., 1084). These studies did not suggest the strategies should not be used with third grade students; they seemed to be pointing to developmental differences and the readiness of students to make the most of the strategies. Strategies which worked with third and fourth grade students included cooperative learning, activating prior knowledge, vocabulary study, study of structure of language, predicting, generating questions, visualizing, summarizing and teaching students when and why to use these strategies.

The studies which involved students who had not yet developed good decoding skills (Crowe, 2005; Aarnoutse, et al., 1997) used the strategies orally. Aarnoutse’s study indicates reading comprehension skills may be limited by poor listening comprehension skills. If poor listening skills are evident, that is an important place to start with younger students. Strategies used effectively with these students were: making predictions with pictures, discussion to activate prior knowledge, retelling, summarization, vocabulary instruction, language structure instruction and instruction in strategic listening strategies.

It is apparent from the National Reading Panel and from these studies that students must first be taught decoding skills and use them with ease before comprehension strategies can become the primary focus. The strategies that are then taught should be designed with the needs of the students in mind. Not all students need to be taught strategies. Good readers have developed their own. We need to help poor readers determine which strategies are most appropriate for their developmental levels and learning styles. For example while some students may respond well to story maps, others might find them obstructive. The teacher must not only thoroughly understand the strategies but know how to determine which are best suited to the individual student.

I have read, studied and taught the findings on comprehension from the National Reading Panel but until I did this research, I never really understood what has happened in the area of reading in the past 25 to 30 years. It is amazing to look at the understanding of reading comprehension in the 60s and 70s and to see how it has developed. Researchers have progressed from looking at one strategy at a time and evaluating their effectiveness to evaluating the instruction of multiple strategies. They now take for granted the findings of the 70s and 80s and base their research on those findings. I knew this but I didn’t know it until I did this study. History has come alive for me.

I find it amazing that all this activity and discovery has been taking place while I have been basically unaware. Yes, I was aware when the schools went from phonetic instruction to whole language and I was horrified. As a special education teacher educated at ASU in the mid 70s, I was aware my students had to have phonics instruction in order to learn to read. In addition, I was certain many children who wouldn’t place in special education programs also needed phonics instruction to learn to read. I realize now what I have missed by not reading the professional journals. Although I tried to attend workshops and keep up with current trends, that was not adequate. I have been concerned that when I finish this masters program, I will fall behind in knowledge of my field. I am glad I was required to do a search of the literature. I plan to continue reading professional journals.

It concerns me that the research findings take a very long time to effect classroom instruction. Even when they begin to use strategies, most teachers have little idea why they are using the strategies. Workshops and in-service teacher training are not effectively conveying the research.

Bibliography

Aarnoutse, C., Brand-Gruwel, S. (1997). Improving reading comprehension strategies through listening. Educational Studies, Vol. 23, 2, 209-228.

Crowe, L. K. (2005) Comparison of two oral reading feedback strategies in improving reading comprehension of school-age children with low reading ability. Remedial and Special Education, Vol.26, 1, 32-42.

Dole, J.A., Brown, K. J., Trathen, W. (1996) Effects of strategy instruction on the comprehension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 31,1,62-88

Dowhower, S. L. (1987) Effects of Repeated Reading on Second-Grade Transitional Readers’ Fluency and Comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 22, 4, 389-406.

Elliot, J., Arthurs, J., Williams, R. (2000). Volunteer Support in the Primary Classroom: The Long Term Impact of One Initiative upon Children’s Reading Performance. British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 26. 2, 227-244.

Ferro-Almeida S. (1993). Teachers’ Initial Perceptions of Transactional Strategies Instruction. The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 94, 2, 201-205.

Gimbrell, L. B., Bales, R. J. (1986). Mental Imagery and the Comprehension-Monitoring-Performance of Fourth- and Fifth-Grade Poor Readers. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 21, 4, 454-464.

Hashey, J. M., Conners, D. J. (2003) Learn From Our Journey: Reciprocal Teaching Action Research. The Reading Teacher, Vol. 57, 3, 224-232.

Marino, J. L., Gould, S. M., Haas, L. W. (1985). The Effects of Writing as a Prereading Activity on Delayed Recall of Narrative Text. The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 86, 2, 199-205.

Marr, M. B., Gormley, K. (1982). Children’s recall of familiar and unfamiliar text. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 18, 1, 89-104

National Reading Panel Report (2000) Findings and determinations by topic areas: Reading comprehension.

Paris, S. G., Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The Benefits of Informed Instruction for Children’s Reading Awareness and Comprehension Skills. Child Development, Vol. 55, 6, 2083-2093.

Shany, M. T., Biemiller, A. (1995). Assisted Reading Practice: Effects on Performance for Poor Readers in Grades 3 and 4. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 30, 3, 382-395.

Stevens, R. J., Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1987). Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition: Two Field Experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 22, 4, 433-454.

Summary of Studies Read

|Research |Strategies Studied |Population |

|Marr, et al., 1982 |Familiarity with topic (prior knowledge) |Randomly selected 4th |

| | |grade students |

|Paris, et al., 1984 |Evaluation, planning, self-regulation (taught when and why to use strategies) |Grades 3 & 5 |

| | |Whole classes |

|Marino, et al., 1985 |Prewriting to activate prior knowledge |Grades 4 & 5 |

| | |Poor readers |

|Gimbrell, et al., 1986 |Mental imagery |4th and 5th grade |

| | |students-reading level |

| | |1 to 2 yrs below |

|Dowhower, 1987 |Repeated readings to 100 words per minute: child reads along with tape or teacher |2nd grade students who |

| |assists with specific words |could decode |

|Stevens, et al., 1987 |Cooperative learning along with reading strategies: vocabulary study, decoding |Grades 3 & 4 |

| |review, repeated oral readings, discussions involving predictions, summarizations |Whole classes |

| |and conclusions | |

|Ferro-Almeida, 1993 |Transactional strategy instruction: contextual clues, predictions, visualizing, |Teachers grades 1-6 and|

| |thinking aloud, story-grammar analysis, prior knowledge, self-questioning, |EC teacher and Chapter |

| |summarizing and interpretation |1 |

|Shany, et al. 1995 |Teacher assisted readings and tape assisted readings |3rd an 4th grade |

| | |poor readers |

|Aarnoutse, et al., 1997|Teaching strategic listening strategies: questioning, clarifying, summarizing and |Ages 9-11 with |

| |predicting |Poor decoding |

| | |Poor listening vs |

| | |average listening |

|Elloit, et al., 2000 |Volunteers to work with students – not effective |Prereaders and |

| | |beginning readers from |

| | |disadvantaged |

| | |neighborhoods |

|Hashey, et al., 2003 |Reciprocal teaching: predicting, question generating, clarifying and summarizing | |

|Crowe, 2005 |Making predictions using pictures, discussion to activate prior knowledge, | |

| |summarize, vocabulary study, language structure study | |

Aarnoutse, C., Brand-Gruwel, S. (1997). Improving reading comprehension strategies through listening. Educational Studies, Vol. 23, 2, 209-228.

Studies show a strong correlation between reading comprehension and listening comprehension (Danks & End, 1987; Rispens, 1990; Smiley et al., 1977). The researchers accept this correlation and state that students with poor listening, poor decoding and poor reading comprehension should be instructed in each of these areas. They see a need to instruct middle grade students who have inadequate decoding skills in comprehension skills as well as decoding skills. Due to the poor reading ability, they wonder whether these skills can be taught through listening by presenting strategies verbally.

They site the Palincsar and Brown (1984) study in strategy instruction in reciprocal teaching. They want to use the four strategies used in that study but introduce and instruct strategies one at a time. They also want to compare students who have poor decoding skills and poor listening comprehension skills with those who have poor decoding skills and average listening comprehension to determine success of verbal strategy instruction.

The instruction of four strategies was presented verbally. Questioning, clarifying, summarizing, and predicting were taught and practiced one at a time and strategies already taught were reviewed while new strategies were being taught. The researchers used reciprocal teaching in which the teacher initially is responsible for the learning process, then in guided practice the students work individually or in small groups. Finally, the student applies strategies to work independently.

The subjects in the study were children in schools for children with learning disabilities in the Netherlands. They were nine to eleven years old. The experimental group was composed of 24 students, 16 of which had poor decoding and poor listening skills and eight who had poor decoding skills and average listening skills. The control group was composed of 15 students with poor decoding skills and poor listening skills and eight who had poor decoding and average listening skills. Students were selected as a result of scores on standardized decoding and general listening comprehension tests.

Pre and post testing included a decoding test, a reading comprehension test, a listening comprehension test and a strategic listening test. The strategies were taught twice a week for a total of 20 lessons of 30 minutes each. A graduate student trained by the researchers taught students the strategies in a step-by-step manner, outside of class.

The results showed a significant improvement in the strategic listening posttest results for the experimental group over the control group. No differences were found between the poor and average listeners in either group. However on the listening comprehension posttest there was no difference between results of the control and experimental groups showing no transfer into more general areas. The experimental group also made no more progress than the control group on the reading comprehension posttest.

The researchers concluded that the verbal instruction of strategies was effective as far as it went. They stated that four strategies might not have been enough. They also questioned whether the strategy instruction was taught long enough. They suggested extending strategy instruction to 40 sessions, adding more strategies and working on integrating these strategies in other texts. They also saw a need to refine questioning and summarizing strategies.

I certainly think the students would need more intensive, extensive instruction in the strategies. It has been my experience with the learning disabled student that resistance to instruction, which is developing as the new definition, is key. For any strategy to be effective, it must be taught thoroughly and practiced frequently. I have a problem with the strategies being taught outside of class with no apparent interaction with the teacher. I have found listening comprehension difficult to remediate and I think it would be more effective if addressed several times each school day with the coordinated efforts of teachers and therapists.

Margaret Greene

Works Cited

Danks, J. H. & End, L. J. (1998). Processing strategies for reading and listening, in: R.

Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds) Comprehending Oral and Written Language, pp.271-

294 (San Diego, CA, Academic Press Inc.).

Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering

and comprehension monitoring activities, Cognition and Instruction, 1, p. 117-175.

Rispens, J. (1990).Comprehension problems in dyslexia, in D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores, D.

Arcais & K. Rayner (Eds) Comprehension Processes in Reading, p. 603-620

(Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum).

Smiley, S. S., Oakley, D.D., Worthen, D., Campione, J.C., & Brown A.L. (1977). Recall

of thematically relevant material by adolescent good and poor readers as a function of

written versus oral presentation, Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, p. 381-387.

Crowe, L. K. (2005) Comparison of two oral reading feedback strategies in improving reading comprehension of school-age children with low reading ability. Remedial and Special Education, Vol.26, 1, 32-42.

There have been many studies relating the instruction of reading strategies to increase in reading comprehension. One approach is the use of highly structured and systematic instruction of decoding tasks with the attitude that comprehension is the natural result of recognizing words and attaching meaning to words, phrases and sentences (Tunmer & Cole,1991; Reichmuth,1997). The author contrasts that with communicative reading strategies (CRS; Norris, 1988) in which the teacher activates prior knowledge, helps summarize, defines unfamiliar words and helps with understanding of language structure. The author of this study relates studies in which CRS has been effective in increasing comprehension (Hernandez, 1989) and increasing oral and written language performance (Crowe. 2003). This researcher notes there have been few studies comparing effects of CRS to decoding based traditional intervention in the area of reading comprehension for poor readers. That comparison is the purpose of this study.

The children of this study were divided into two groups. Those who were in group 1 studied vocabulary words before reading the chapter and periodically discussed events in the story as they read. As they read they were encouraged and helped to decode words, reread a misread word and divide words into syllables to decode. The children in group 2 were asked to look at pictures to make predictions about the story, join in discussions to activate prior knowledge, summarize material as they read, discuss unfamiliar words as they read, and received any help needed to comprehend language structure and make connections throughout the material read.

The subjects of this study were eight children from eight to eleven years old. They had no diagnosed disabilities other than language or reading. There were two girls and two boys in each group and all children had good phonological awareness skills. Pre and post testing involved different forms of the same standardized reading comprehension test. The intervention took place over five weeks and was conducted for one hour twice a week by the author of the study. Each session began by the researcher asking five to six comprehension questions from the previous session. The comprehension questions for data analysis were collected on eight different days.

The results showed significant growth for group 2 with each child showing gains in reading comprehension. In the control group, no child showed growth and two showed decreases. Group 2 showed better recall of factual information after four days but there was no difference in inferential information recall for the groups.

The author notes group 2 scored higher on lower level comprehension questions but there were no significant differences in more abstract questions. She notes the small sample size as a factor limiting the generalization of the results. She also discusses the engagement of the children in group 2 with the material and the lack of engagement with group 1 resulting in inattention and behavior problems. She suggests that additional studies are needed to replicate her findings.

I have some problems with this study. The author seemed to have her mind set before she went into this study. I doubt her objectivity. I also have problems with her instructing the groups. I wonder whether she showed any interest with the group 1 children or were they set up for failure from the beginning? No matter what manner of instruction is used, teacher attitudes play a significant role.

Margaret Greene

Works Cited

Crowe, L. K. (2003). Comparison of two reading feedback strategies in improving the

oral and written language performance of children with language-learning disabilities.

American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 16-27.

Hernandez, S. N. (1989). Effects of communicative reading strategies on the literacy

behaviors of third grade poor readers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana

State University, Baton Rouge.

Norris, J. A. (1988). Using communication strategies to enhance reading acquisition. The

Reading Teacher, 41,368-373.

Reichmuth, S. S. (1997).Efficacy of communicative reading strategies as an instructional

approach for adult low-ability readers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan

Dissertation Services.

Tumner, W. E. & Cole, P. G. (1991). Learning to read: A Metalinguistic act. In C. S.

Simon (Ed), Communication skills and classroom success: Assessment and therapy

methodologies for language and learning disabled students (pp.386-400). Eau Clair,

WI: Thinking Publications.

Dowhower, S. L. (1987) Effects of Repeated Reading on Second-Grade Transitional Readers’ Fluency and Comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 22, 4, 389-406.

Repeated reading of a passage has long been an accepted practice in reading instruction. It was described by Huey as a procedure used at the turn of the last century (1908/1968). It has been much more investigated as a practice for reading rate and accuracy than comprehension (Carbo, 1978; Moyer 1982; Neill, 1980). Those who believe it increases comprehension on practiced text are not in agreement as to whether it also increases comprehension on unpracticed text (Burns, Tharp, & Dowhower, 1983; Carver & Hoffman, 1981). The researcher’s purpose for this study was to determine whether repeated readings for second grade transitional students would increase rate, accuracy and oral reading comprehension with practiced and unpracticed text. She defined transitional as those students moving from accurate nonautomatic to accurate automatic reading. She also wanted to determine the effects of rereading on prosodic or oral reading in meaningful phrases. The researcher wanted to compare the effects of assisted to unassisted reading on all these areas.

The two instructional methods compared are assisted rereading and unassisted rereading. The unassisted group read material on their own and received help with a word upon request. The assisted group listened to a taped reading of the passage and read along with the tape. The students in the assisted and unassisted groups read the practice passage as many times as necessary until they could read it at the rate of 100 words per minute.

The subjects in this study were 18-second grade students who had adequate decoding skills but who read slowly word-by-word. They were divided into equal groups of assisted and unassisted. Five separate passages of equal reading level and length were used. Passages were from six stories at the beginning of second grade basal readers and were rewritten so they were 400 words in length. Each passage was divided in half to determine whether increase in reading skills carried over in the same text. Then children were tested to determine whether the gains made in one passage carried over to the next. Children were tested the first time they read the first half of each passage and the last time they read it and when they read the second half of each passage. They were taped reading the passage and rate, accuracy, phrasal reading and intonation were evaluated. Comprehension was evaluated by asking five unaided recall questions from each text.

Students in both groups showed significant gains from the initial to the final test in reading rate, accuracy and comprehension. The reading comprehension was not significantly increased within a story after rereading the first half and then reading the second, but comprehension increased as more passages were reread. The students in both groups needed fewer rereadings to get to 100 words per minute as the study progressed. The only place assisted did much better than unassisted were in appropriate phrase reading and in intonation.

The author noted that the students who were reading unassisted became much more frustrated at first or until they began reading at least 45 words per minute. The assisted group began to discard the tape after one or two readings when their rate increased to 60 words per minute. She concluded that students need more support until they can read at least 45 words per minute. The author does not claim to know whether repeated readings are more effective done daily, weekly or periodically. She also states that more research needs to be done to investigate the relationship of prosody to comprehension.

It is interesting that this study targets a specific group of students. Teachers should also be careful to target strategies to students needs. Just as the researchers know all methods do not work for everyone, we need to be certain to diagnose needs before planning instructional strategies. Repeated readings have been used effectively for many years but we need to use this method carefully. It can become boring for the student and decrease interest in reading.

Margaret Greene

Works Cited

Burns, C., Tharp, R., Dowhower, S. L. (1983). Effects of reading and math homework on

standardized achievement scores of two first-grade classes (Research Report).

Honolulu, HI: Kamehameha Schools, Center for Development of Early Education.

Carbe, M. (1978). Teaching reading with talking books. The Reading Teacher, 32, 267-

273.

Carver, R. P., & Hoffman, J. V. (1981).The effect of practice through repeated reading on

gain in reading ability using computer based instructional system. Reading Research

Quarterly, 16, 374-390.

Huey, E. (1908-1968).The psychology and pedagogy of reading. Cambridge, MA:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Originally published 1908.

Moyer, S.B. (1982). Repeated reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 619-632.

Neill, K. (1980). Turn kids on with repeated readings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 12 63-64.

Elliot, J., Arthurs, J., Williams, R. (2000). Volunteer Support in the Primary Classroom: The Long Term Impact of One Initiative upon Children’s Reading Performance. British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 26. 2, 227-244.

A review of the studies of volunteer support and its effectiveness discussed several studies and their lack of proof of effectiveness on students with severe reading difficulty (Loenon, 1989; Brooks, Cato, Fenandes, & Treganza, 1996). The authors theorize that the support has been with the wrong age group and that the support might be more effective with younger children such as those in first grade or younger. The University of Sunderland developed the volunteer program called Time for Reading. Using pre readers and beginning readers they utilized a story reading and phonological awareness program with well-trained and well-monitored volunteer support to try and avoid weakness they saw in other studies.

Volunteers were given six hours of training over a three-week period by university staff. They were given detailed manuals and agreed to give two half days a week to the instruction. They were assigned to specific classrooms. The classrooms each had volunteers working with the children at all academic instructional times. Most volunteers worked with small groups although a few worked with individuals. The tutors were not engaging students in activities any different from the classroom teachers, but were able to individualize more. Each volunteer kept a diary of daily experiences and reflections and a full-time research assistant monitored the volunteers.

The subjects were three schools in socio-economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. The classes in each school were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. The program began with 140 total students. Three years later all who were still in their original school were given reading and spelling assessments. The criterion for success was whether the experimental group would be more successful than the control group after three years. Trained teacher education students made initial assessments and additional assessments after six months of intervention. An experienced educational researcher using the Wechsler Objective Reading Development Scales gave the three-year assessment.

The results were disappointing in that there was no significant difference in the experimental and control group students after six months or after three years.

The authors of this study discussed the possibility that the duration of the intervention may have been insufficient, the reading program might not have been the most appropriate, the program might have been too broad or that the tutors may not have grasped the book sharing. They also pointed out that many of the students were not from homes which would continue to offer reading assistance. In addition, they saw problems with volunteers willingness to work with difficult children and lack of coordination between volunteers and teachers.

I found this study to be especially interesting because volunteer tutors are a primary intervention in our school. I have been concerned that they are not well trained and not monitored by anyone. I would be interested in the results of a long-term study involving volunteer intervention with the same children for several years. I think schools should design a volunteer program which uses research to effectively train and monitor performance. It was interesting that both the schools and the volunteers in this study thought the Time for Reading project was effective but research proved it wasn’t.

Margaret Greene

Works Cited

Brooks, G., Cato, V., Fernandes, C. & Treganza, A. (1996). The Knowsley Reading

Project: using trained reading helpers effectively (Slough, National Foundation for

Educational Research).

Loenen, A. (1989). The effectiveness of volunteer reading help and the nature of the

reading help provided in practice, British Educational Research Journal, 15, p. 297-

316.

Ferro-Almeida S. (1993). Teachers’ Initial Perceptions of Transactional Strategies Instruction. The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 94, 2, 201-205.

Growing evidence supports the use of transactional strategies (Elliot, 1988; Pressley et. al., 1990). This is a combined use of strategies, which involve “coordinated use of strategies to aid decoding…prediction, visualization, thinking aloud, story-grammar analysis, prior knowledge activation, self-questioning, summerization and intepretation…” (Ferro-Almeido, p. 201-202). While the researcher is not questioning the effectiveness of using these combined strategies based on student and teacher interactions with the material read, she is questioning whether teachers will use this very involved strategy. She realizes that unless a teacher buys into a strategy enough to try it, it will never be used no matter how effective it might be. The author wanted to determine whether teachers would be favorably enough impressed to try this approach.

The instrument used for this study was an 18-item questionnaire which was designed to determine the acceptability of this method to teachers who were unfamiliar with this approach. Transactional strategies are designed to teach students strategies for decoding, comprehension and interpretation through teacher, student and text interactions. Teachers were introduced to the method through the use of two videotapes in which experienced transactional strategies teachers demonstrated instructional lessons. The videos were of instruction to a second grade class and of instruction to students in grades five and six.

The participants were thirty elementary teachers ranging in experience from one to thirty-three years. There were 24 regular education teachers, three Chapter I teachers and three special education teachers. Eight of the regular education teachers taught in grades 1-3 and sixteen taught in grades 4-6. The questionnaire was divided in categories, which assessed teachers’ attitudes about the strategy, practicality of using the strategy, the suitability for different ability groups and expected effects on comprehension and memory. One question addressed possible negative effects of the approach.

Teachers met in individual sessions with the author and or another researcher for about an hour. After reading about the strategy and watching the videos the teachers answered the questionnaire and explained their ratings for each question.

The results were very positive overall. Eighteen of the thirty liked the interaction with students generated by this approach. There was concern that this is not effective with groups of thirty. The teachers felt the strategy had to be taught in smaller groups. While only eleven of the thirty mentioned its use as helpful for good readers, almost all saw it as beneficial for poor readers. Twenty-five participants were impressed with the encouragement of higher level thinking skills and discussion. Nineteen of the teachers noted at least one possible negative effect. The comments ranged from choppy instruction to fear students may lose interest. Some suggestions made were to read the material through before the instruction and to only use the strategy twice a week rather than every day.

The author concludes that while first impressions of the strategy was overall positive; more research needs to be done. She notes that studies need to be done with teachers while they are being trained and then again after they have begun using the program.

I was interested that the teachers recognized this as an effective system to use with the poor reader. I would have liked to have a breakdown of the comments and ratings by the grade level and groups taught. The author did not specify whether there were any different attitudes expressed by the special education teachers, the Chapter 1 teachers or the second grade teachers. I would be interested in that information. I do think the positive effects expected with poor readers through the use of transactional strategies might be in part a result of the varied learning styles addressed by using such a multiple strategy approach.

Margaret Greene

Works Cited

Elliot, S. N., (1988). Acceptability of behavorial treatments in educational settings. In J.

C. Witt, S.N. Elliot, & F. M. Gresham (Eds), Handbook of behavior therapy in

education (p.121-150). New York: Plenum.

Pressley, M., Woloshyn, V., Lysynchuk, L. M., Markin, V., Wood, E., & Willoughby,

T(1990). A promer of research of cognitive strategy instruction: The important issues

and how to adduess them. Educational Psychological Review, 2, 1-58.

Gimbrell, L. B., Bales, R. J. (1986). Mental Imagery and the Comprehension-Monitoring-Performance of Fourth- and Fifth-Grade Poor Readers. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 21, 4, 454-464.

Numerous studies have established a positive relationship between mental imagery and comprehension. Research shows that mental imagery increases reading comprehension (Gambrell, 1981; Giesen & Peeck, 1984; Peters & Levin, 1986). The research cited also indicates that young students do not monitor their own comprehension, possibly because they are unaware of their lack of adequate comprehension (Markman, 1979, Baker & Brown, 1984, August, Flavell, & Cliff, 1984). The current study seeks to determine whether “reader-induced strategies such as mental imagery…may facilitate the comprehension monitoring process (Gimbrell, et al., 1986, p. 456). The purpose of this study was to see the effect mental imagery has on student’s self-monitoring of comprehension.

The mental imagery strategy was contrasted to a control group. The day before the testing session, the students were given a 30-minute training session. They were divided into two groups. One was taught to use mental imagery while reading some sentences and paragraphs silently. The other group, the control group, was told to do whatever they could to understand and remember the material they read.

The participants were 124 fourth and fifth grade students who were reading one to two years below grade level. The materials were four expository paragraphs which had contradictions built into them. Two paragraphs were the same passage except in one contradictions were explicit in adjoining sentences. In the other contradictions were implicit, implied across two sentences. Students were given questions to determine their comprehension monitoring. The first level of questions encouraged the children to retell the story in their own words. The second level helped students look for inconsistency with indirect questions and the third involved direct questions concerning the inconsistencies. Students were told they were selected to help decide whether the stories were comprehensible and to look for anything that might not be easy to understand.

After the test students were asked whether they used mental imagery when they read. Of the mental imagery group, 43 of 62 said they used mental imagery while reading and 8 said they used rereading. Of the general instructions group, 37 used rereading and 4 used mental imagery.

The study resulted in positive results in comprehension when students used mental imagery. The differences in comprehension were significantly higher for the mental imagery group, when students were directly questioned in both implicit and explicit passages. However few students in either group found and reported inconsistencies without prompting. The authors thought this might not be a result of poor comprehension but a result of students not being comfortable finding problems in text. They might be making inferences which helped them resolve the problems in the text.

In conclusion, the authors felt the findings of this study were consistent with other research on mental imagery and comprehension. They point out that these were high imagery passages and feel that more study is needed with low-imagery and naturally occurring text. They think mental imagery may be more effective with poor readers, giving them an unobtrusive strategy to consciously use to enhance comprehension.

This study was interesting to me because I have accepted the use of mental imagery as an effective tool for poor readers but have never studied the research. This makes me question the use of mental imagery and want to read studies on its use with low-imagery passages. The question about students and their reluctance to find inconsistencies in passages was also interesting. I wonder if students were trained in questioning the author as discussed by Dr. Linda Kucan, if they would not be much more willing to question material in print.

Margaret Greene

Works Cited

August, D. L., Flavell, J. H., & Cliff, R. (1984). Comparison of

comprehension monitoring of skilled and less skilled readers, Reading

Research Quarterly, 20,39-53.

Baker, L., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D.

Pearson ( Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research (p. 353-394). New York:

Longman.

Gambrell, L.B. (1981). Induced mental imagery and the text performance of

first and third graders. In J. A. Niles & L.A. Harris (Eds.), New Inquiries

in reading research and instruction. Thirty-first yearbook of the National

Reading Conference (p. 3-35). Rochester, NY: National Reading

Conference.

Giesin, C., & Peeck, J. (1984). Effects of imagery instruction on reading and

retaining a literary text. Journal of Mental Imagery, 2, 79-90.

Markman, E. M. (1979). Realizing you don’t understand: Elementary school

children’s awareness of inconsistencies. Child Development, 50, 643-655.

Peters, E. E., & Levin, J. R. (1986).Effects of mnemonic imagery strategy on

good and poor readers’ prose recall. Reading Research Quaarterly,

21,161-178.

Hashey, J. M., Conners, D. J. (2003) Learn From Our Journey: Reciprocal Teaching Action Research. The Reading Teacher, Vol. 57, 3, 224-232.

The teachers involved in this study were interested in finding a way to help all teachers become reading teachers in order to increase comprehension of content material. The authors reviewed the literature on reciprocal teaching (Palinesar, David, Brown, 1989; Babigian, 2002). They developed several questions concerning reciprocal teaching: for which students is it most effective, what instructional strategies help students use it independently, is reciprocal teaching best taught before students participate in literature circles and can it be used in the content area as well as in literature?

To answer these questions, eight teachers from grades three to eight and a reading support teacher participated in the project. They agreed to incorporate reciprocal teaching in their classrooms for a two year period with the agreement that if it didn’t appear to be working, they could stop. They planned the process together and agreed to meet at least once a month to discuss.

They began their project by teaching the components of reciprocal teaching in a sequential manner. Beginning with predicting, each teacher used the methods most appropriate for their students. Then they looked at question generating, discovering their students did not accept responsibility for their comprehension when the questions were generated by the text or teacher. They discovered students read with greater purpose when they were required to develop questions. They then had to develop strategies to help students to develop quality questions and quality responses. Next they addressed clarifying. They developed grade level appropriate strategies to make students think about what they needed to do when they were lost in the reading. Finally they introduced summarizing to their students. In this process they discovered the need to develop appropriate strategies to help students recognize the difference between summarizing and retelling.

The teachers used informal and formal data to evaluate the effectiveness of the project. They used their own teaching journals and the students response journals. The reading teacher gave Individual Reading Inventories three times a year. Sixth and seventh grade students were given the Stanford Achievement Test.

They discovered students best profited from reciprocal teaching beginning in the third grade. They came to this conclusion because test scores showed students who had strong decoding skills showed significant growth and those without the decoding skills did not. However, the IRI given by the reading teacher did show growth in reading independence. They discovered the strategies, which supported reciprocal teaching best, were teacher modeling, think-aloud, guided practice, and independent practice. Another conclusion was that students increased in quality of class participation as well as independence as they reminded each other to implement strategies.

The teacher/researchers conclude that although it takes time and commitment, reciprocal strategies are best taught one by one and thoroughly. They also point out the need for students to have many opportunities to practice these strategies. They saw the results of this in the success experienced for those taught across content areas.

I would have expected these strategies to have significantly increased the thinking skills of the poor reader. I wonder if they were offered opportunity to read the text with a tape or a partner. I wonder if they might not have shown significant growth if the material were presented and tested verbally.

Works Cited

Babigian, K. (2002). Comprehension reciprocal teaching: An effective pathway to

reading. Retrieved July 8, 2002, from

Palincsar, A. S., David, Y., & Brown, A. L. (1989). Reciprocal teaching: A manual

prepared to assist with staff development for educaataors interested in reciprocal

teaching. Unpublished manual. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Marino, J. L., Gould, S. M., Haas, L. W. (1985). The Effects of Writing as a Prereading Activity on Delayed Recall of Narrative Text. The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 86, 2, 199-205.

The authors note that although there is abundant literature linking reading and writing, “research underlying such integration is slim and noticeably atheoretical” (Marino, et al., 1985, p. 199). They look at research involving schema theory (Adams & Bruce, 1980; Steffenson, Joag-Dev, & Anderson, 1979-1990; Mandler & Johnson, 1977; Taylor, 1979). In this theory readers integrate their prior knowledge of culture, general information, language patterns, understanding of story structure and organization to the understanding of material they are reading. Accepting this correlation, they ask then what can be done for the student for whom the background experiences are limited? Reviewing the research of benefits of writing (Emig, 1977; Moffit, 1968; Britton, 1970), the researchers conclude that writing is a schema building process. This study is designed to explore their hypothesis that because reading is dependent on the reader’s schema and writing is a schema building process, specifically designed writing assignments could increase comprehension.

Researchers gave students a letter writing assignment, which required them to identify with the text and think about the events taking place. They were not told they would be reading a selection related to their writing. After writing the letter, they were given the text to read. A control group was given an unrelated writing assignment before reading the same text. The authors were especially interested in whether this assignment would make a significant difference in readers with poor comprehension.

Four fourth grade classrooms were selected to use in the study. Using the California Achievement Test, students were divided in three ability groups: high, medium and low. Ten students were randomly selected from each of the ability groups for the experimental group and ten from each for the control group. Students were instructed and tested in the classrooms by their own teachers. Students were given 30 minutes to complete the writing assignment and then 30 minutes to read the assignment. All students read the same 2,000- word, low fifth grade reading text. The next day they were given 30 minutes to complete a written recall test.

For the groups as whole there was little difference in the results. Then the authors looked at the ability groups and noted that there was a significant difference in performance for the low ability group. The experimental group of low students did significantly better than the control group.

The authors concluded that writing before reading might help poor readers to develop the same skills good readers have already such as making predictions and asking questions. They believe it created a desire to know about the text. They question whether discussion prior to reading might elicit the same results.

This study reminded me of the Dole, Brown and Trathen study (1996) in which they compared the effects of reading strategy instruction on a poor reader and a more proficient reader and their attitudes about reading. It appeared the better reader already had developed her own strategies just as is assumed by authors in this study as they talk about the average and high readers. Again, I am reminded that as teachers we must look at the specific needs of our students and be certain we are addressing the needs of all our students.

Margaret Greene

Works Cited

Adams, M., Bruce, B. (1980). Background knowledge and reading comprehension

(Readin Education Rep. No. 13). Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of

Reading.

Britton, J. (1970). Language and learning. London: Penguin, 1970.

Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and

Communication, 28, 122-128.

Mandler, J., & Johnson, N. (1977). Rememberance of things parsed: Story structure and

recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111-151.

Moffitt, J. (1968). A student generated language arts curriculum: Grades K-12. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin.

Steffenson, M., Joag-Dev, C., & Anderson, R. (1979-1980). A cross cultural perspective

on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 10-29.

Taylor, B. (1979). Children’s and adult’s recall of general concepts and details after

reading. In M. Kamil & A. Moe (EDS.), Reading Research: Studies and applications.

Twenty-eithth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (p. 123-128). Washington,

DC: National Reading Conference.

Marr, M. B., Gormley, K. (1982). Children’s recall of familiar and unfamiliar text. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 18, 1, 89-104.

The authors of this study state that reading instruction has reflected the intuitive assumption, “ readers comprehend material more readily if they already know something about the topic” (Marr, et al., 1982). The current research indicated that children apply prior knowledge to understand text (Anderson, 1977; Brown, Smiley, Day, Townsend, & Lawton, 1977). The authors suggest that prior knowledge affects comprehension when children must put together information and make inferences about what they have read. This study was designed to investigate the relationship between prior knowledge, reading ability and comprehension.

The study involved creating paragraphs on three subjects: sports, insects and fruits. One paragraph on each topic was about a familiar subject and one was about an unfamiliar subject. The three familiar paragraphs were about baseball, mosquito and apple. The three unfamiliar subjects were curling, aphid and papaya. The paragraphs were 100 words long and of equal readability on a third grade reading level.

The subjects of the study were 33 randomly selected fourth graders. According to a standardized reading test eleven of these were good readers, fourteen were average and eight were poor readers who were all able to decode the text. All students were tested individually and in a single sitting. Each child was first asked text based prequestions to determine prior knowledge, he/she then read the passage aloud and immediately retold the passage and finally answered probe questions. Each child was given the six passages. Pretest knowledge was eliminated from posttest responses.

Results showed no differences in responses in relation to ability when looked at as a whole. Students gave better responses by retelling and answering probe questions for familiar topics. There was no difference in results for retelling and probe questions until they compared textual to scriptal questions. When comparing types of results, the researchers found that general knowledge did not determine textual responses but did influence scriptal responses (inferences and elaborations).

The authors conclude that familiarity with a topic has significant influence on comprehension which involves integrating information to draw conclusions and make inferences. They also saw a connection between knowing something about a subject that is like the topic and comprehension.

The researchers conclude that if a subject knows something about a topic which is related to the topic he is reading about, he uses that knowledge to aid in comprehension. However, they find that ability to recall specific textual information is only determined by reading ability.

It is fascinating to look at the beginning of research in reading comprehension. The question of activating prior knowledge or creating points of connection with a passage before reading is now an accepted practice. It may not be done as often as it should, but everyone in education should know it makes a difference. I was interested to read the discovery that students use what they know to better understand related material. I also see that as an accepted teaching tool.

Margaret Greene

Works Cited

Anderson, R. C. (1977). Schema directed process in language comprehension. (Tech,

Rep. No. 50). Urbana: Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois.

Brown, A., Smiley, S., Day, J., Townsend, M., & Lawton, S. (1977). Intrusion of a

thematic idea in children’s comprehension and retention of stories. Child Development,

48,1454-1466.

Paris, S. G., Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The Benefits of Informed Instruction for Children’s Reading Awareness and Comprehension Skills. Child Development, Vol. 55, 6, 2083-2093.

Many studies have shown the direct relationship between children’s understanding of reading or metacognition and comprehension skills (Kobasigawa, Ransom, & Holland, 1980; Paris & Myers, 1981). Other studies have related the skills to development and have not included the instructional factor (Johns, 1980; Reid, 1966, Myers & Paris, 1978). The current study evaluated students for reading awareness and then implemented instruction which involved evaluation, planning and self-regulation to help children determine when and how to use reading comprehension strategies. They wanted to determine whether instruction of this type might increase metacognition and in turn increase comprehension.

They used a carefully scripted interview to determine children’s awareness about their reading and then used multiple-choice tests to measure reading comprehension. Then they began a four-month intervention in which children were taught to use reading strategies and were taught when to use the strategies. At the end of this time frame, the students were again evaluated for reading awareness and comprehension. The children were divided into experimentation and control groups.

The participants in the study were 91 third grade students and 92 fifth grade students. All were from eight intact classrooms. They were composed of a diverse population with fairly equal number of boys and girls, mix of races and with the usual range of abilities found in a classroom. During the pre-instructional and post-instructional individual interview they were asked evaluative, planning and self-regulation questions. They were then given comprehension tests, which involved a standardized comprehension test appropriate for each age level and with different forms used for pre and post testing. They were also given a cloze task in which students had to fill in deleted words using a grade appropriate passage and different passages for pre and post instruction. In addition, the students were given an error detection test in which they were asked to read two passages and to underline words and sentences that did not make sense. The eight passages used for pre and post evaluation were grade appropriate. The instructional aspect taught specific reading strategies dealing with evaluation, planning and regulating comprehension and when and why to use the strategies. The instruction was given twice a week in thirty-minute sessions for 14 weeks.

Although both control and experimental groups showed increase in awareness as is true for normally developing children, the experimental group showed significant increase in awareness of students as compared to the control group. Students were divided into high awareness, moderate awareness and low awareness groups. There were significant increases in reading comprehension directly related to the level of awareness of the child. Therefore children in the experimental groups scored higher on comprehension and the fifth graders scored higher than the third graders. The more highly aware students in both grades scored better on comprehension and increase was not determined by ability.

The author concludes that a direct relationship is seen between reading awareness or metacognition and reading comprehension and that both can be improved through instruction. The data also showed that instruction is effective for all levels of awareness. The authors ask what might have been the results if different strategies were taught and whether awareness might be just one facet of reasoning, which develops along with reading skills. They conclude that more research is needed concerning specific strategy use and strategy awareness.

It is encouraging to see the increased awareness in students successfully taught through strategies no matter what level of a student. It is interesting to read about increase in awareness and the relationship to comprehension. This study helps me to understand some of the current trends in teaching reading and their background. I wonder how many classrooms reflect research on metacognition and comprehension. It seems to me that in many classrooms today the primary strategies taught are test taking strategies.

Margaret Greene

Works Cited

Johns, J. L. (1980). First graders’ concepts about print. Reading Research Quarterly, 15,

539-549.

Kobasigawa, A., Ransom, C. C., & Holland, C. J. (1980). Children’s knowledge about

skimming, Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 26, 169-182.

Myers, M., & Paris, S. G. Children’s metacognitive knowledge about reading, Journal

of Educational Psychology, 70, 680-690.

Paris, S. G., & Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study

strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 8, 5-22.

Reid, J. (1966). Learning to think about reading. Educational Research, 9, 56-62.

Shany, M. T., Biemiller, A. (1995). Assisted Reading Practice: Effects on Performance for Poor Readers in Grades 3 and 4. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 30, 3, 382-395.

It seems many reading researchers have projected the direct correlation between reading practice and improved reading skill. In fact, Shany and Biemiller found that the studies relating practice to reading ability have been correlational (Anderson, Wilson, & Fielding, 1988; Allen, Cipielewski & Stanovich, 1991; Cunningham & Stanovich, 1991). This joint relationship between amount of reading and reading skills was the base for the “Matthew effects” in reading argument by Stanovich (1986). But the authors see a need for studies showing the relationship between increased practice and increase in long-term reading comprehension skills. “Experimental studies of reading practice have demonstrated only short-term effects, usually on the same materials used for practice. Long term changes in reading ability were not demonstrated” (Shany, et al., 1995 p 385). The researchers compared listening comprehension to reading comprehension, which has been found to be significantly lower in poor readers (Sticht, 1979; and Curtis, 1980). They hypothesized that increased practice could increase the efficiency of reading print words and in turn increase reading comprehension skills to the level of listening skills. The authors point out they see assisted reading as only one component in an overall reading instruction program and do not expect this to improve decoding skills.

The two instructional methods used in the study were teacher-assisted reading and tape-assisted reading. The teacher-assisted required a teacher to work one-on-one with a child to provide assistance as needed. The tape-assisted used a recording of the text being read. The tape could go no faster than the child could read the same material orally. The child could adjust the speed of the tape. There was also a control group who just received regular classroom instruction.

The children in this study were 29 third and fourth grade students. They were slow readers with below grade level reading comprehension. Children were eliminated who could not read or who could not pass half the questions on a first grade comprehension test. Students were given a pretest and a posttest as well as being tested at the end of each month. Tests included tests of reading comprehension, listening comprehension, reading speed, reading accuracy, verbal efficiency and decoding. The materials used were two series of basal readers not currently in use in the system. The level of difficulty ranged from grade one to grade four. An equal number of students were assigned to each of the three groups and the tested levels were equivalent. The sessions were 30 minutes a day, four days a week, for 16 weeks. The teacher-assisted students read aloud while tape-assisted could read aloud but usually read silently.

The results were interesting. The tape-assisted group and teacher-assisted group both showed significant increases in reading comprehension over the control group. Surprisingly, both groups also showed significant gains in listening comprehension as well. The tape assisted group read more material in the allotted time than the teacher-assisted group. Both those groups read 5 to 10 times the number of the words the control group read. Both assisted groups also made significant gains in reading speed and verbal efficiency.

The authors noted that although both assisted groups showed significant gains, the tape assisted group read almost twice as much material silently as the teacher-assisted read aloud with similar gains. The authors discussed several possible explanations for this discrepancy in gains for material read but they determined the current data do not allow the testing of possible explanations. The researchers also note that most assisted students read through two and a half years of basal material in 64 days with 32 hours of reading time. They point out the lack of improvement in decoding skills shows the need for additional work on decoding skills.

I was very impressed by the gains made with tape-assisted reading. This is much more applicable to the regular classroom setting. It is also more applicable for a reading class or special education class. I must admit I have been skeptical of the use of tapes to increase reading skills with students when professors have suggested it. I have never used players whose speed could be adjusted and I think that could be a significant factor. I am interested in the silent reading factor. Do students learn to read as well when reading silently?

Margaret Greene

Works Cited

Allen, L., Cipielewski, J., & Stanovich, K. E. (1991). The construct validity of measures

of reading habits and attitudes. Unpublished manuscript. Toronto, Canada: Ontario

Institute.

Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how

children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23,285-303.

Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1991).Tracking the unique effects of print

exposure in children: Associations with vocabulary, general knowledge, and spelling.

Journal of EducationPsychology, 83, 2 264-274.

Curtis, M. E. (1980). Development of components of reading skill. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 72,656-669.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual

differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21,360-406.

Sticht, T. (1979). Applications of the audread model to reading evaluation and

instruction. In L. B. Resnick & P. A. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of early

reading (Vol. 1, p. 209-226). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stevens, R. J., Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1987). Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition: Two Field Experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 22, 4, 433-454.

There has been considerable research in the positive effects of cooperative learning (Slavin, 1983a, 1983b). “However conspicuously lacking in research on cooperative learning have been studies of two of the most important subjects in the elementary school curriculum: reading and writing” (Stevens, et al., 1987, p. 434). The researchers note concerns with traditional instruction. They support the necessity for leveled reading groups but were concerned with the ineffective use of reading follow up time while teacher was occupied with groups (Beck, McKeown, McCaslin, Burkes, 1979; Anderson, Brubaker, Alleman-Brooks, Duffy, (1985). Also a matter of concern was lack of time for oral reading, which was found to be about 90 seconds per day for second graders ( Thurlow, Groden, Ysseldyke, Algozzine, 1984). The researchers wanted to eliminate these problems in a cooperative learning situation. They wanted to compare cooperative learning to traditional instruction for reading and composition and evaluate students’ performance on standardized tests. They planned to conduct two similar studies.

The researchers in this study developed a complex cooperative learning approach focused on reading and composition curriculum and instructional methods. The structure involved teacher instruction, team practice, individual assessments and team recognition. They designed an approach in which students read aloud with partners and worked in groups on activities related to their reading. Students also worked in teams on specific skills related to reading comprehension. In addition researchers developed a writing process involving interaction with peers.

Study 1

The students involved were 461 third and fourth graders in 21 classrooms. The 11 experimental classrooms were of equal ability with the 10 control classrooms. All teachers in each grade were allocated the same amount of time for reading and writing. Experimental teachers were given instruction on use of cooperative learning and strategies observed using the approach and offered feedback while control teachers used their regular instructional methods. The California Achievement Test was used for pre and post testing along with a writing prompt. The study lasted for 12 weeks.

Grade level basal readers were used for the reading program. Teachers discussed vocabulary, reviewed decoding skills, conducted repetitive oral reading and used vocabulary discussion to introduce the story. Discussions involved making predictions, drawing conclusions and major components of the story. Follow up group activities were directly related to the teacher instruction. Partner reading gave students additional practice in reading and students were taught to follow along and assist as needed. Writing was directly related to the reading. Students practiced reading word lists for accuracy with partners and participated in vocabulary development by looking up new words and writing sentences, which showed the word’s meaning. Students also summarized the material read with partners and described events in order. In addition, students helped partners learn to spell by practicing together. This all came together because groups earned points for individual mastery as well as team performance. The points were rewarded with certificates and praise.

Results showed significant growth over the control group in Reading Comprehension, Reading Vocabulary, Language Expression, and Spelling. The only area where there was no significant difference was Language Mechanics. The fourth grade students showed a more significant difference than the third grade students. There was a fairly equal improvement shown over all ability levels.

Study 2

The second study was basically a replication of the first. The duration changed to 24 weeks rather than 12. In addition, the researchers added Informal Reading Inventories to the evaluation.

The students were 450 third and fourth graders from 22 classrooms. There were 9 experimental classes and 13 control classes. The only change in teacher training was the more intensive instruction for specific reading comprehension skills. The language arts instruction was revised to increase the amount of time students spent writing and to increase feedback.

The results again showed significant growth of the experimental group over the control group in Reading Comprehension, and Language Expression. They added significant difference in Language Mechanics and showed no difference in Spelling on the California Achievement Test. Differences in favor of the experimental group were also seen on the Informal Reading Inventory.

In Study 1 the remedial reading students and special education students were pulled out of the regular classroom during reading instruction but were trained in the strategies used in the experimental group. The students showed equal growth to the regular students. For Study 2, they were left in the regular classroom and pulled out at another time for remediation. The results were a more significant growth than seen with the regular students and seen in Study 1.

The authors state that the results prove the effectiveness of the their cooperative learning design. They plan to study the individual components of their approach to determine the unique contribution of each. They realize the complexity of the program makes it difficult to determine which components resulted in which effects. However, they see the strength of the program as being in its comprehensive design.

I would have been interested in the results if the researchers had chosen to divide into three groups; an experimental cooperative learning group, an experimental group involving traditional instruction but using the strategies taught to the experimental teachers and a control group. I also am not surprised at the increase for remedial students and special education students in Study 2. They were getting an increased amount of instructional time in reading in Study 2 and building confidence through peer interaction. The strategies used in the regular classroom were obviously appropriate for them as well as the regular education students.

Margaret Greene

Works Cited

Anderson, L. M., Brubaker, N., Alleman-Brooks, J., & Duffy, G. G. (1985). A

qualitative study of seatwork in first-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal,

86,123-140.

Beck, I., Mckeown, M., Mccasllin, E., & Burkes, A. (1979). Instructional dimensions

that may affect reading comprehension: Examples from two commercial reading

programs (Tech. Rep. No. 1979/20). Pittsburgh,PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning

Research & Development Center.

Slavin, R. E. (1983a). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.

Slavin. R. E. (1983b). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement?

Psychological Bulletin, 94,429-445.

Thurlow, M., Groden, J., Yesseldyke, J., & algozzine, R. (1984). Student reading during

class: The lost activity of reading instruction, Journal of Educational Research, 77,

267-272.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download