DIRECT INSTRUCTION AND PROMOTING INTERACTION IN LEARNING
VERSUS LEARNING INDEPENDENTLY
David Alan Madden
B.A., California State University, Sacramento, 2003
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
EDUCATION
(Language and Literacy)
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SUMMER
2011
DIRECT INSTRUCTION AND PROMOTING INTERACTION IN LEARNING
VERSUS LEARNING INDEPENDENTLY
A Thesis
by
David Alan Madden
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Cid Gunston-Parks, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Marcy Merrill, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: David Alan Madden
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the
University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library
and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.
Rita M. Johnson, Ed.D., Department Chair
Department of Teacher Education
iii
Date
Abstract
of
DIRECT INSTRUCTION AND PROMOTING INTERACTION IN LEARNING
VERSUS LEARNING INDEPENDENTLY
by
David Alan Madden
A large sum of reading research concludes that powerful instruction is directly
instructing (Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2009), modeling (Roehler & Cantlon, 1997), and
guiding students’ practice (Carnine, Jitendra, & Silbert, 1997) of comprehension
skills, and deeper levels of understanding are attained through interaction (Kuhn,
Shawa, & Felton, 1997), and this proves especially true for English language learners
(ELLs) (Genesse, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2005). Though there is
considerable research defending the importance of directly instructing skills and
providing students an opportunity to interact, teachers fall prey to their reliance on
their teacher’s manual to provide students the valuable instruction required for
comprehension skill development. This paper synthesizes the qualitative and
quantitative data collected over a six-week period in an attempt to evidence the need
to manipulate Read 180’s, a commercialized reading program, lesson design from one
of student independence to that of direct and scaffolded instruction, along with
opportunities for students to generate interactions with their peer based upon what
iv
they are reading. By comparing a group of students following Read 180’s prescribed
lesson design to that of the current treatment, which included instruction and guidance
in students’ development of comprehension skills, as well as structuring cooperative
environments for small groups of students to assist the initiation of student dialogues,
the data and observations correlated to much of the reading research reviewed.
, Committee Chair
Cid Gunston-Parks, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank several people for their assistance and support throughout
my time completing this thesis. First of all, my family (Rex, Natalie, Sarah, Felicia,
Muffin, Dolly, Ziggy, and Lacy) supported and encouraged me while I went through
the Language and Literacy program. It was trying at times to complete the Language
and Literacy program and remain dedicated to the successful management of my
various reading groups at Howe Avenue. Also, Dr. Cid Gunston-Parks and Dr. Marcy
Merrill for their guidance, time, and interest while I completed the writing of my
thesis. Both of my advisors provided me a great amount of assistance in organizing the
content of my thesis. Lastly, I would like to thank Dr. Elizabeth Keenan for her advice
during the writing process of my thesis and assistance in editing my thesis in order to
give it its final touches.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures.............................................................................................................. ix
Chapter
1.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................. 2
Rationale ........................................................................................................... 3
Methodology..................................................................................................... 5
Definition of Terms .......................................................................................... 7
Limitations and Delimitations of the Research .............................................. 11
Organization of the Thesis.............................................................................. 15
2.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .......................................................... 16
Learning Cooperatively Versus Independently .............................................. 16
Self-Regulation ............................................................................................... 21
Student Interaction.......................................................................................... 23
Focused and Scaffolded Comprehension Instruction ..................................... 28
Summary......................................................................................................... 31
3.
METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 32
Introduction .................................................................................................... 32
Sample Population .......................................................................................... 33
Instruments ..................................................................................................... 36
Methodology................................................................................................... 38
Treatment and Procedures .............................................................................. 39
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 73
vii
4.
RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 74
Question #1 ..................................................................................................... 74
Question #2 ..................................................................................................... 77
Question #3 ..................................................................................................... 89
Question #4 ................................................................................................... 110
5.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 119
Research Question #1 ................................................................................... 119
Research Question #2 ................................................................................... 121
Research Question #3 ................................................................................... 125
Research Question #4 ................................................................................... 128
Recommendations for Future Classroom Practice ....................................... 131
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................ 132
Summary....................................................................................................... 135
Appendix A. Week 1, 3, and 5 ............................................................................... 136
Appendix B. Week 2, 4, and 6................................................................................ 138
Appendix C. Student Initial Data ........................................................................... 140
Appendix D. Treatment Group: SRC Quizzes ....................................................... 142
Appendix E. Control Group: SRC Quizzes ............................................................ 145
Appendix F. Control Group Written Responses..................................................... 147
Appendix G. Treatment Group Written Responses ................................................ 153
References ................................................................................................................ 171
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.
Control Group Pre-Post Scores ...................................................................... 76
2.
Treatment Group Pre-Post Scores .................................................................. 77
ix
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
In the observations of classroom interactions, Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec
(1990, 1994) noted classrooms were structured cooperatively approximately 7-20% of
the time and this is far too few interactions occurring amongst students. Students crave
interaction with one another, and Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, and Skon
(1981) found student interaction proved valuable to students’ achievement and
productivity. Incorporating interaction may not be the only instructional strategy that
proves beneficial to the improvement of students’ comprehension skills; therefore, the
combination of direct instruction (Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2009), modeling of
(Roehler & Cantlon, 1997), and guided practice with (Carnine, Jitendra, & Silbert,
1997) comprehension skills in conjunction with providing opportunities to interact
may prove more beneficial in the improvement of students’ comprehension skills
instead of learning independently.
The target school’s district recently adopted Read 180, a commercialized
reading program, which was designed to accelerate the reading abilities of English
language learners, students with learning disabilities, and struggling readers who are
far below grade-level standards. A critical component of Read 180 offers students an
opportunity to independently read non-fiction books of high interest that progress in
difficulty level; text levels increase sequentially because students’ reading abilities are
challenged as they progress through the program. Read 180’s protocols require
2
students to read these texts and complete the texts’ related worksheets as
independently as possible.
The current treatment altered the instructional strategy at Read 180’s
independent reading rotation. Read 180 mimicked Durkin’s (1981) findings that only
5.3% of reading programs, and the current treatment focused on directly instructing
specific comprehension skills, to one of direct instruction, modeling of, and guided
practice with comprehension skills as detail recall, supportive details, and evaluation.
This treatment also structured cooperative groups to provide students an opportunity to
engage in dialogues in an attempt to obtain similar results as Baker (1979) and
Schallert and Kleinman (1979) who found the cognitive processes necessary for
deeper levels of understanding only occurred through dialogue and interaction. The
current treatment examined the advantages of providing direct instruction, modeling,
and guided practice with comprehension skills and the structuring of cooperative
learning versus practicing comprehension skills and learning independently.
Statement of the Problem
A portion of Read 180 offered students an opportunity to independently read
texts of high interest for approximately twenty minutes per day, and this time spent
reading was designed to motivate students’ interest in reading and improve students’
comprehension skills; students were to read texts, complete worksheets independently,
and take a Scholastic Reading Counts (SRC) quiz at the completion of a text’s
worksheets. Dewitz, Jones, and Leahy (2009) argued that commercialized reading
programs do not provide enough to ensure a given skill is being learned, and teachers
3
should provide what publishing companies lack. The current treatment sets out to
resolve the problem of the teacher abiding by a Read 180’s scripted lesson, which
results in students losing out on direct instruction and applicable practice with
valuable comprehension skills along with opportunities for students to discuss similar
texts of high interest. For improved skills development, the teacher should provide
instruction in a specific skill (Block & Duffy, 2008), model the skill (Duke & Pearson,
2002), and guide students’ practice of the skill (Carnine et al., 1997); learning may
also be enhanced by structuring cooperative learning groups in an attempt to generate
interactions between students because Topping and Trickey (2007) reported many
interventions that focused on thinking skills involved the enhancement of interactive
dialogue, yet there are few reported examples of such interventions in schools.
Rationale
Being a newly implemented and expensive commercialized reading program,
the target school district expected teachers to utilize Read 180 with fidelity. Using this
program with fidelity meant that students would be practicing and learning
comprehension skills independently with no opportunities to interact with others about
the texts used for comprehension skill practice. Au (2001) stated that the classroom
teacher is the key to tailoring reading instruction to meet the needs of learners.
Therefore, in various studies, students demonstrated great improvements in skills and
learning by working in small groups versus independently (Johnson et al., 1981;
McClintock & Sonquist, 1976). Similar evidence has been produced that demonstrated
small groups improved students’ performance compared to that of students learning in
4
a traditional presentation method, which is that of the teacher instructing to the whole
group and causing students to independently obtain as much information as possible
(Johnson & Johnson, 1975, 1988).
In order to study the successes of a small, cooperative group versus those of
the individual, it is important for students to be given the opportunity to interact with
one another. Many classrooms have the teacher doing a majority of the talking, yet
students’ dialogue can provide the teacher with very informative observations, which
would allow the teacher to scaffold learning for students who are struggling with a
specific skill (Palincsar 1986). The specific details and evaluations being shared by
students reveal their comprehension of a text and any interactions generated outside of
those specific comprehension skill presentations may also be indicative to the learning
occurring.
Cooperative learning as a means to improve comprehension skills requires
specific behaviors from group members including: students should work cooperatively
with one another (Kuhn, Shawa, & Felton, 1997) and students should be required to
actively participate in the small group (Duffy et al., 1986).
Prior to students engaging in discussion, the teacher can greatly improve a
student’s cognitive processing and reading comprehension by explicitly identifying
what students needed to obtain from the text (Tovani, 2005); students given a purpose
for reading may also approach a text with more understanding to better interpret the
information (Conner & Farr, 2009). After direct instruction, the teacher must model
the thought processes for each step of the strategy (Duke & Pearson, 2002). Finally,
5
the teacher should guide students’ practice of a skill to ensure that they can apply the
strategies taught (Carnine et al., 1997).
It was hypothesized that modifying Read 180’s passive instructional format of
learning comprehension skills by completing worksheets independently to one of
directly instructing, modeling, and guiding students’ independent practice would prove
beneficial to thinking skills and comprehension skill development. The research
questions addressed in the current treatment include:
Research Question #1: Does cooperative learning benefit students’ higherlevel cognitive processes greater than learning independently?
Research Question #2: Is direct instruction, modeling, and guided practice of
comprehension skills more beneficial to students’ ability to learn and apply
comprehension skills as compared to students completing worksheets that practice
these skills independently?
Research Question #3: Does the structuring of cooperative learning groups
generate student dialogues?
Research Question #4: Can the manipulation of a commercialized reading
program from one of independent activity to cooperative efforts offer better
observation and assessment of students’ metacognitive understanding of
comprehension skills?
Methodology
This mixed methods treatment collected data qualitatively as well as
quantitatively. A Design 3, Pretest-Posttest Control Group Design (non-randomly
6
selected) research model quantitatively measured students’ comprehension skills in the
treatment and control group with a teacher-created pre and post-test. Qualitative data
was collected by the teacher who recorded cooperative groups’ interactions and acted
as, what McMillan and Schumacher (2001) would term, an “on-site participant
observer” to note any interactions that were not recorded throughout the treatment.
Field observations anecdotally noted interactions to include: the types of dialogues
occurring, non-verbal behaviors, helping behaviors, and/or any other interactions that
demonstrated an exchange of language amongst students.
The students who participated in this study included 11 English language
learners and 1 native English speaking fourth grade students at a local elementary
school in the Sacramento area. Students placed in Read 180 are those who operate far
below grade-level standards and require more assistance in developing their reading
abilities. Students diagnosed with learning disabilities were also placed in this reading
group, yet these students were excluded from the treatment because of their varying
instructional needs. This study was designed in an attempt to create an alternative
instructional practice to the independent reading rotation of Read 180 based on
research and best practice.
Students participated in a six-week treatment; weeks 1 and 3 provided direct
instruction, modeled the application of a comprehension skill, and guided practice of
this skill; weeks 2, 4, and 6 reviewed instruction and had students practice the given
comprehension skill more independently (see Appendices A and B). The teacher
anecdotally noted observations and kept an observation journal during students’
7
guided and/or independent practice time. Students presented how they completed a
specific comprehension skill using their text to their cooperative group in an attempt to
generate student dialogues related to the presented information. Presentations and any
interaction amongst students were recorded via video and audio recording devices for
further analysis. Lastly, students were assessed on their text by completing the
Scholastic Reading Counts (SRC) quiz (see Appendix D).
The control groups’ students followed Read 180’s design which scripted that
students select texts sequentially for skill practice, complete the text’s worksheets, and
the text’s SRC quiz as independently as possible. Observations provided evidence that
the control group operated as was prescribed by Read 180, and students’ worksheets
(written responses [see Appendix F]) and SRC quiz data (see Appendix E) offered
some understanding of their comprehension skills.
Definition of Terms
Asking Questions/Giving Answers: These are interactions in which a speaker
either asks or answers a question (Lonchamp, 2009).
Clarification: A clarification is when more information is provided to an
audience for a more clear understanding of what is being discussed (Lonchamp, 2009).
Corrective Behaviors: Corrective behaviors exhibited by a student who
corrected their peer on either the identification, application, or presentation of a
specific comprehension skills throughout the course of the treatment.
Evaluation: An evaluation is something said that demonstrates agreement or
disagreement with the person talking (Lonchamp, 2009).
8
Explanation: An explanation is a further telling about information which is
given of the learner’s own accords (Lonchamp, 2009).
Helping Behaviors: Helping behaviors were noted as students being observed
providing assistance to another peer in an attempt to help them be successful with the
current treatment.
Helping Groups: A helping group, as Stodolsky (1984) would define, “children
with individual goals (which are generally the same), but are in a face-to-face group”
(p. 115). Cooperative groups in the current treatment should be thought of in terms of
Stodolsky’s (1984) definition of helping groups because these students shared a
common goal of practicing specific comprehension skills, and they met in a face-toface group to assess one another’s ability with a given skill.
Independent Reading Rotation: A Read 180 lesson rotates students through
three small group activities related to literacy. The allotted time for small group
activities was approximately 70 minutes. This meant that students were at the
independent reading rotation for 23-25 minutes. While at this rotation, students in the
control group read various texts (either along with an audio CD or not), completed
worksheets, and took an SRC quiz on their book upon completion of their worksheets.
Students in the treatment group read their text along with an audio CD on the initial
day, practiced applying comprehension skills with texts that were organized based on
comprehension skills and those skills were directly taught, discussed these details with
members of their cooperative group, wrote their agreed upon responses onto
9
personalized, colored post-its and placed the post-its onto the poster/enlarged
worksheets.
Interactions: Students were responsible for sharing specific information from
the text. Any discussions occurring during or after the presentation of information
were referred to as an interaction. Interactions were classified as a specific form of
chat and/or a type of behavior.
Lonchamp’s 5 Categories of Chat: In order to identify and analyze the
interactions occurring amongst students, the interactions were categorized as being
one of five differing categories of chat: suggestions, evaluations, explanations,
clarifications, or questions and/or answers (Lonchamp, 2009).
Miniature Posters/Worksheets with Sentence Starters: In an attempt to make
the information on the posters visible and accessible, students were provided a copy of
the poster on a standard 8.5 x 11 size piece of paper. These pages were referred to as
miniature posters, but they were different from the normal “wrap up” worksheet
because they contained sentence starters to aid students’ ability to write complete
responses after presenting information to group members.
Non-Verbal Behaviors: These were behaviors that suggested to an observer
that an exchange of language was taking place without the observer actually hearing
any dialogue. Non-verbal behaviors demonstrated some form of engagement in an
interaction, even lacking engagement, about what was being discussed. Examples of
these behaviors may include: nodding or shaking of the head, rolling eyes,
demonstrating to others what is being discussed, etc.
10
Peer Assessment: Topping (1998) defined peer assessment as, “An
arrangement in which individuals consider the amount, level, value, worth, quality,
and/or success of the products or outcomes of learning of peers of similar status” (p.
250). The occurrence of peer assessment would assist in determining the cognitive
processes of students participating in cooperative learning because students’
assessments of presented information would allow the researcher to determine
students’ understanding of comprehension skills.
Posters/Enlarged Worksheets: Every book found in Read 180’s independent
reading rotation had a “wrap up” worksheet to be completed during the reading of a
book. The posters were enlarged, poster-sized “wrap up” worksheets. The posters
offered students a reference to the comprehension skills being practiced and a place
for written responses on personalized, colored post-its upon completion of presenting
information to group members.
Read 180: When discussing Read 180, it is being discussed as either a whole
program with its various components, or it is describing the components that make up
the entire reading program. As a whole, Read 180 is a commercialized reading
program that is designed to improve the reading abilities of English language learners,
students with learning disabilities, and struggling readers. The structure of Read 180
followed a pattern of whole group instruction, small group rotations, and whole group
wrap-up. The small group rotations included a small group receiving instruction and
practice with a skill, another group independently working with computer software,
and a final group of students practicing comprehension skills with texts independently.
11
Small Group: Students in the whole group were divided into two groups of
three. The small groups of three presented their information in cooperative groups in
an attempt to generate interactions related to the presentation.
Suggestion: A suggestion is a propositioning of some type of action or idea
(Lonchamp, 2009).
Whole Group: The entire reading group, approximately 17-18 students, was
divided into three equal groups with approximately 6 students per group which rotated
through the three small group activities. The whole group discussed in this study
referred to the six students who were at the independent reading rotation.
Limitations and Delimitations of the Research
In one week, the teacher did not have sufficient time to fully assess and
determine students’ strengths and weaknesses in reading. The first week into the
treatment, it became very clear to the teacher that a majority of the participants in the
treatment greatly struggled with decoding the easier texts, which was Sports Bloopers
(Gutierrez, 2009b). The teacher had to remove several texts from the treatment’s use,
due to their difficulty. The number of texts remaining did not offer students enough
choice to truly provide as much freedom in their selection of a text for independent
practice.
Another limitation to this current study is the amount of personnel it required.
Read 180’s curriculum has students complete tasks independently at the independent
reading rotation. The current study placed a teacher at the independent reading rotation
to provide instruction in comprehension skills. Over the course of the treatment, the
12
researcher was given an instructional assistant to work with students on activities
being completed at literacy rotations other than that of the current treatment. In
classrooms with only one teacher, this study may not be easily replicable.
Participants of the treatment easily learned the procedures of the treatment and
post-treatment interviews demonstrated students’ ability to internalize the treatment’s
procedures. The teacher and students both noted that the pacing of the treatment
forced students to feel more rushed in their practice of comprehension skills than they
would have felt working independently. The planned upon pacing did not have an
element designed into it to allow any students an extended amount of time on
activities, if needed. Students were quickly transitioned from instruction or review, to
guided or independent practice, to presentations in small groups. There was less time
than anticipated for students to track their texts on audio CDs or practice reading
independently.
Though the current treatment’s instructional strategy required students to prove
their evaluation of a text by placing small post-its next to at least two supportive
details, it was extremely difficult to abide by the treatment’s protocols to evidence the
ability to evaluate. For instance, students were to evaluate African Journey (Bakke &
O’Connor, 2009) by telling where in the world they would like to travel. The demands
required to provide an evaluative response following the treatment’s procedures was
very abstract. The pacing of the treatment generated angst in assisting students’
understanding and application of their evaluation, and students neither fully nor
13
successfully demonstrated an understanding of how to apply and present evaluations
of a text.
Students not participating in the treatment were either in a small group
completing a literacy task or working with computer software on a laptop. Specific
behaviors required training to work successfully and at a more independent level while
at these literacy rotations. The teacher was pulled away from the current treatment
much more often than anticipated because students required assistance or refocus at
one of the literacy rotations other than that of the treatment. After three weeks into the
treatment, students developed a better understanding of the expectations while
completing tasks at these literacy rotations. By students obtaining more independence
at literacy rotations, it offered the teacher more opportunity to closely observe and
note the behaviors and interactions of students participating in the treatment.
The pacing of the treatment also limited the number of comprehension skills
practiced throughout the treatment. Originally, weeks five and six of the treatment
were designed to provide instruction in and practice with summarization. During week
two (the first week of independent practice), the teacher altered the treatment from
instruction of summarization to one of continued review and independent practice of
supportive details and evaluation because students’ demonstrated a weak
understanding these comprehension skills.
The teacher believed himself to be prepared to successfully scaffold instruction
in comprehension skills, but he felt much less confident in scaffolding student
dialogues. The overwhelming number of English language learners, some with early
14
language learning abilities, were put through oral language tasks that were demanding
in terms of language control. The teacher thought the use of sentence starters would be
enough to develop many necessary language functions, but much greater scaffolds
were required. Direct instruction, modeling, and guided practice with how to interact
with one another would have greatly benefited these language learners.
The teacher was much more involved in the management of materials than he
thought he would have been. Students participated in the treatment for 23 minute
segments, and the allotted time was soon consumed by academic tasks. Material
management (moving chairs to set-up small groups, cleaning up post-its, cueing CD
players, etc.) became the teacher’s responsibility. The teacher’s concern and focus
placed on materials definitely distracted his attention from making observations of
student behaviors and/or interactions.
Finally, the size of the classroom was extremely difficult to maneuver
throughout the treatment. The classroom where the treatment took place was
approximately one-third the size of a typical classroom, and a total of 17 students were
present in the classroom while the treatment was occurring. These tight quarters
created several issues, such as difficulty with video/audio recording cooperative
groups’ presentations, frustrations with material placement, transitions with little
wiggle room, and noise levels that were distracting at times. Aside from the
video/audio recording, which was later corrected, these issues were problematic in a
variety of ways throughout the treatment.
15
Organization of the Thesis
Chapter 1 has provided an overview to this thesis with an introduction to,
rationale of research questions and hypotheses, definitions of terms related to, and
limitations corresponding to the facilitation of direct instruction of comprehension
skills and students’ presentations of skills in small groups to improve students’
comprehension and cognitive abilities. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the relevant
literature in the following areas: cooperative versus independent learning, selfregulation, student interaction, and focused and scaffolded comprehension instruction.
Chapter 3 includes discussions of the subjects, treatment, and procedures during the
course of the experiment. Chapter 4 presents the results of both qualitative
(interactions of students) and quantitative (thinking skill outcomes) research. Chapter
5 connects the findings to related literature and discusses the implications for further
research and classroom practice.
16
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
A portion of the current treatment’s commercialized reading program provided
students an opportunity to independently read texts and complete worksheets. Students
independently practiced valuable comprehension skills without any direct instruction
or teacher modeling before gradually being released to practice these comprehension
skills on their own. By practicing worksheets independently, students were missing
out on opportunities to interact with one another about these high interest texts
scaffolded instruction in conjunction with the structuring of cooperative learning
would enable students to become more successful at applying comprehension skills to
texts being read and generating interaction would improve students’ thinking skills
while reading. This chapter presents a review of the literature related to the current
study. The first section is an overview of various aspects, effectiveness, and
controversies of working independently versus cooperatively. The next section
explores research on methods about developing students’ self-regulative abilities.
Then, a section surrounding interactions is presented. The last section discusses an
increased understanding of comprehension skills as a consequence of focused,
scaffolded instruction.
Learning Cooperatively Versus Independently
Cooperative learning and independent learning are both methods of learning
utilized in classrooms. According to Weller, Brandhorst, ERIC Processing and
Reference Facility, & Computer Science Corp. (1997), instructional conversations in
17
U.S. schools are rare, and, more often than not, the teaching is through recitation of a
scripted program. Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (1990, 1994) noted classrooms were
structured cooperatively only 7% to 20% of the time. A number of thinking skills
interventions involve enhancing interactive dialogue, yet there are few rigorously
reported examples of such interventions in schools (Topping & Trickey, 2007). The
reviewed professional literature provided considerable evidence of cooperative work
benefiting English language learners (Kagan, 1986; Long & Porter, 1985), improving
students’ deeper levels of understanding (Kuhn et al., 1997), and increasing student
participation (Gillies, 2006; Webb & Farivar, 1999). Durkin (1978/1979, 1981) argued
that students should engage in more discussions and promote more interaction with
books being read rather than completing worksheets on an individual basis.
English Language Learners
A major factor for learning in a second language was the degree in which
learning took place in an interactive environment rather than a passive one (SkutnabbKangas & Cummins, 1988). After reviewing research related to instructional
approaches, Genesse, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian (2005) categorized the
interactive approach (working with peers, teachers, and other literacy activities) to be
the most effective for English language learners. Kagan (1995) determined ELLs
should participate in cooperative learning because the repetition of language while
working cooperatively allows the ELL to move content heard from short-term to longterm acquisition. The speech generated is personally relevant and related to “real life”
situations, which may more likely add to an ELL’s fluency. An ELL may be less likely
18
to feel corrected in cooperative groups because the correction in cooperative groups is
derived from an actual conversation instead of a formal instructional situation, and
cooperative groups are supportive and interdependent so an ELL may feel more
comfortable speaking.
The grouping of students should be given forethought by the teacher.
Goldenberg (2008) cautioned that students should not just be grouped together; instead
they should be engaged in instructionally meaningful activities and participate at their
level of English language proficiency. Garcia & Learning Point (2009) suggested that
teachers might use scores from annual English language learners’ proficiency
assessment, together with data from other sources, to group students according to the
goal of the activity and students’ proficiency levels in speaking, listening, reading, or
writing.
Deepening of understanding. Johnson and Johnson (1992) found impressive
support for the relationship between cooperative learning and increases in various
measures of higher order thinking skills, cognition, and metacognition. If students are
expected to summarize, explain, or teach something in a cooperative group, higher
levels of cognitive organization and elaboration were required than simply learning the
material for one’s own use (Sharan, 1999). According to Maheady, Mallette, and
Harper (1991), peers mediated one another’s learning in a cooperative group by
modeling various levels of thinking, explaining how a problem was solved, and giving
each other feedback and encouragement. It was also interesting to note Ghaith and
Yaghi’s (1998) findings that cooperative learning provided more benefit to students of
19
low aptitude because the dynamics for cooperative learning provides these students
repeated input from a variety of sources and they receive multiple opportunities for
comprehension and redundancy. Johnson and Johnson (1992) concluded that
the superiority of cooperative over competitive and individualistic learning
increases as the task is more conceptual, requires more problem solving,
necessitates more higher-level reasoning and critical thinking, needs more
creative answers, seeks long term retention and requires more application of
what is learned. (p. 122).
In a study by Topping and Trickey (2007), they found weekly collaborative inquiry
intervention in primary school led to gains from pre to post-assessment in cognitive
ability.
Student participation. Student participation in cooperative groups is a valued
approach to learning because it allows the teacher to analyze the level of
understanding by observing students’ dialogues. By simply structuring interactions in
cooperative groups, students may show increased participation and engage in fewer
interruptions while others speak and provide more intellectually valuable contributions
(Gillies, 2006; Webb & Farivar, 1999). Brown (1978) wrote that passive learners in a
cooperative group were more able to complete an activity; though these passive
participants did not always fully understand it. Students’ participation may be
hindered, as Doyle (1979) and Emmer, Evertson, and Anderson (1980) stated, by
cooperative behaviors not being achieved, which resulted in increased misbehaviors
and cooperation being completely lost.
20
Creating a product. Johnson et al. (1981) described cooperation as being
enhanced while completing a product when peer tutoring was encouraged and the
product did not require a division of labor. The product should not be too complicated
because Doyle and Carter’s (1984) findings noted a product having too much
difficulty or ambiguity forced students to focus more on the product instead of the
content. Anderson, Reder, and Simon (1997) warned that cooperative learning can be
misused when tasks given to cooperative groups were not well structured, or students
were not provided sufficient amounts of time to process and practice skills
independently to mastery. A study by Blanton, Wood, and Moorman (1991)
introduced students to guides (worksheets) during pre-reading and then had the
students work in cooperative groups to complete the guides. Post-reading discussions
by the students were observed to provide interactions about learning, explore any
obstacles, and decide how they might improve their performance.
Knowledge transfer to the individual. A controversy to cooperative learning
is based on the premise that an individual’s rewards promote higher achievement than
that of any group reward (Johnson et al., 1981), yet Johnson and Johnson (2004)
stated, “the power of groups is reflected in their impact on individual achievement” (p.
8). Students benefited from group work with decreased student absenteeism and
increased student preparation and effort (Dinan, 1995), and students tended to achieve
and retain more working cooperatively instead of individually (Johnson & Johnson,
1989). According to Yager, Johnson, and Johnson (1985), understanding transferred
from the group to the individual if each student demonstrated mastery independently
21
within the group. Johnson and Johnson (2004) listed a number of advantages to an
individual participating in a group including: groups can raise individuals’ levels of
aspirations; groups can inspire individuals to achieve beyond their own expectations;
groups can give individuals insights and understandings that could never be achieved
alone; and groups can change the way people perceive the world and the reality of
their lives.
Self-Regulation
Cooperative learning requires students to be self-regulative in their
understanding of the required task, and evaluative of other participants in the group.
For students to become independent in their learning for the betterment of the group,
they should be encouraged to obtain independence (Rosenberg, 2003) and provided
instruction to assist independent practice (Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2009).
Obtaining Interdependence
According to Frey, Fisher, and Everlove (2009), the ultimate goal for
structuring collaborative learning for students was to have them reflect and assess their
own learning, plan any next steps, and apply their learning in novel ways. When a
classroom focused on building community through interdependence, students will
more likely develop habits of independence, as opposed to when individual
competition is the constant outcome (Rose-Duckworth, 2009). Rosenberg (2003)
described an ideal learning environment as one where students are not only concerned
about their own learning, but are also equally concerned for the learning of everyone
else. Hulse-Killacky, Killacky, & Donigian (2001) described two types of learning
22
(process and content learning) during collaborative work, and students gained an
understanding of themselves as learners and members of a team during process
learning. Students who participated as teacher in cooperative groups gained
considerable awareness of the learning process and may view themselves and peers as
resources, not competitors (Rosenberg, 2003).
Improved Awareness of Comprehension Skills
In cooperative situations, the goals of each member are structured
interdependently to produce mutual outcomes (Garibaldi, 1979). One might think that
telling a reader what to learn would be a simple instructional modification, but it turns
out to be a much more complex affair (Frase, 1977). A single purpose for reading was
proven more effective than multiple purposes because multiple purposes for reading
led to cognitive confusion and disruption of the comprehension process (Blanton et al.,
1991).
Hollingsworth and Ybarra (2009) argued that a properly designed lesson with
clear learning objectives contain concepts (main idea), skills (measurable behavior),
and sometimes a context (restricting condition) that describes what students will be
able to successfully and independently do by the end of instruction. Explicit direct
instruction is metacognitive because the instruction provides an understanding as to
what, when, and why one would want to know the instructional strategy and how to
correctly apply it (Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2009).
In conjunction with providing students with direct instruction, Nuyts (2001)
stated a dynamic view of language must be reflected in a teacher’s modeling if
23
students are to be cognitively accurate. Teachers let students know that meaning is
crafted through not only activity, mostly cognitive activity, but also through overt
activities such as drawing pictures and making notes (Block, 1999). Approaches to
being more active during reading required less direct instruction as it did modeling and
explanation of sophisticated response to literature (Block, 1999). Mandel-Morrow,
Gambrell, and Pressley (2003) noted that research is helping the development of
approaches to increase the active mental processing of students as they read because, it
is assumed, students use the processes practiced together as they read new texts alone;
much more is needed to be done in relation to this topic with many great challenges.
Student Interaction
Students can be useful resources to one another and an analysis of students’
generated interactions may provide a better understanding of the benefits of allowing
students to collaborate in a group work setting. In the following section, topics related
to interaction include: English language learners and their comprehension
development benefiting from interaction; theories and research discussing the
structuring of interaction within cooperative groups and an analysis of the types of
interactions that may occur.
Interaction Benefiting English Language Learners
Most second language theorists would endorse some form of “input
hypothesis,” which meant that second language learning depended upon access to the
input of language (Chen, 2009). Second language learners greatly benefited from
quality talk because the talk improved their language development and thought
24
processes of communicating in the second language (Lantolf, 1994). Interactive
activities provide opportunities to improve speaking skills, practice vocabulary in
meaningful contexts, and promote comprehension by engaging language learners in a
discussion of academic content (Goldenberg, 2008). Researchers have claimed that
literature can be used to generate quality talk by introducing issues and encouraging
second language learners to negotiate meanings (Boyd & Maloof, 2000; Gambrell &
Almassi, 1996), and Genesee, Lindholm-Leahry, Saunders, & Christian (2006) also
defended the participation of English language learners (ELLs) in educational
activities because the interaction was related to an improvement in reading and writing
skills.
Interaction Enhances Comprehension
Professional literature has provided a myriad best practices teachers should
employ to improve students’ cognitive processing and comprehension through
interaction in contrast to learning independently (Doyle, 1979). Discussion in
cooperative learning groups promoted more frequent oral summarizing, explaining,
and elaborating of what one knows, and these cognitive activities are associated with
memory and retention (Sharan, 1999). Palincsar and Brown’s (1984) functions of
learning would prove more beneficial for students’ comprehension skill development
by working cooperatively rather than independently, and these functions included:
understanding the purpose for reading; activating background knowledge; focusing on
the content; critically evaluating content for consistency and compatibility with prior
25
knowledge; monitoring ongoing activities to see if comprehension is occurring; and
drawing and testing inferences of many kinds.
Structuring Interactions
Piaget (1926) held that arbitrary knowledge, language, values, rules, morality,
and symbol systems (reading/math) can be learned only through interaction with
others. Teachers who fall prey to the most notably recognized method of teaching,
which Palincsar (1986) described as a common instructional technique of “talking at”
students will create passive learners. This section explores research related to the best
practices of engaging students’ dialogues by effectively grouping students, eliciting
interactions from students, and creating a product.
Webb (1982) reported heterogeneous groupings may prove more effective than
homogeneous groups. Heterogeneity could refer to academic achievement, gender,
ethnicity, learning style, ability/disability, and personality, and these groupings
promoted elaborative thinking, progressively refined explanations, and continuous
opportunities for adaptability as students gradually developed feelings of mutual
concern (Sudzina & Douvre, 1993). According to Garcia and Learning Point (2009),
teachers might use scores from annual English language proficiency assessment,
together with data from other sources, to group students flexibly with the goal of the
activity in mind.
Rabow, Charness, Kipperman, and Radcliffe-Vasile (1994) scripted criteria for
how to effectively develop interactions for students in cooperative groups, and the
criteria included: members must regularly attend and come prepared to discuss
26
material; the discussion is a cooperative learning experience; everyone is expected to
participate; group sessions and task learning should be enjoyable; material is
adequately and efficiently covered; and there is an evaluation of group process and
individual contributions. Various types of thinking, such as detail recall, similarity,
difference, cause and effect, example to idea (specific to general), idea to example
(general to specific), and evaluation elicited certain responses (Adger, Kalyanpur,
Petersent, and Bridger, 1995); therefore, students require instruction in how to respond
to these various types of thinking.
Types and Analysis of Interactions
Studies have shown opportunities for substantive conversation are greater in
small peer groups than teacher controlled class discussions, and the interaction
associated with these small groups include: sense making; meaning negotiation; or
joint problem-solving activities (Gillies, 2006; Mercer, 1996). When learning occurs
within a cooperative group, each group member can be given a degree of
responsibility for managing the talk that occurs and determining the direction of the
discussion (Gillies, 2006; Mercer, 1996). There is value in examining small group
discourse because Coulthard (1977) stated that interaction in a classroom differs from
other kinds of talk because its purpose is to instruct and inform.
Lonchamp (2009) categorized chat into five different categories: suggestion,
such as proposing properties, actions, or ideas; evaluations that agree or disagree with
other kinds of feedback; explanation by a learner of their own actions; precision or
27
clarification by a learner of their suggestions or evaluations; asking questions and
responding to these questions.
In order to analyze discourse for type and function to determine the ability
level, the teacher should observe the recordings through an analytic yet efficient lens
to be able to quantify the amount of learning made by a student. First, the teacher may
find it best to label the groups (Group 1, Group 2,…) and determine how much
discussion took place in each group (Klinger, Vaugh, & Schumm, 1998). Once an
overall net has been cast to assist in an understanding of how much each group is
typically interacting, the actual discussions of groups, according to Webb (1982),
would best be analyzed by examining specific categories of student’s discussions,
instead of generally measuring the number of utterances or the number of seconds
spent talking.
To prevent the need, and the far from realistic practice, to transcribe the
discussions of students Webb (1982) described a common observation procedure of
scanning the room in intervals of three to thirty seconds. This data acted as a periodic
“snapshot”, instead of using every single utterance made during students’ time of
collaboration (Webb, 1982). These “snapshots” could be an important condition to
observe whether students were actively assessing one another during the process of
interaction (Black & Williams, 1998). Webb (1982) found analysis of data on an
individual student’s behavior and discussions provide richer and more accurate
information on the impact of students’ experiences within the group on achievement.
The best information used to determine the amount and level of student learning
28
should be chosen based on the recommendations of Klinger et al. (1998), which stated
recordings reflecting the groups’ most normal operations were used for analysis.
Focused and Scaffolded Comprehension Instruction
Dewitz, Jones, and Leahey (2009) discussed core programs as useful, but
teachers need to know they have flaws; there has been no virtue found in teaching with
fidelity to a flawed program. Durkin (1991) discovered core programs covered many
topics with instruction offered quickly and often superficially. More current findings
by Dewitz et al. (2009) found core programs do not provide enough practice or
scaffolding to ensure a given skill was sufficiently learned strongly enough to utilize
the given skill on their own. This section presents findings of curriculum used for
comprehension skill instruction in schools, and research supporting an increased
understanding of students’ comprehension skills as a consequence of directly
instructed, modeled, and guided practice.
Comprehension Instruction in Commercialized Curriculums
Durkin (1981) concluded that commercialized reading curriculums had “to
teach” by implication rather than with direct instruction. In addition to lacking
instruction, Chambliss and Calfe (1998) categorized CORE reading programs as
moving from pre-reading activities to text reading to question answering, devoting
little time for guided practice with students. Durkin (1981, 1991) documented
evidence that CORE reading programs alone failed to offer teachers the necessary
tools required to helps students understand how to better comprehend text. Teachers
can provide students reading skills and strategies that publishing companies do not
29
offer by: instructing more thoroughly; modeling with more examples; providing more
guided practice; and altering the scope and sequence of the program’s lesson guide
(Dewitz et al., 2009). Au (2001) summed it up best by proclaiming the classroom
teacher to be key in tailoring instruction to meet the needs of students.
Direct Instruction
One of the most acknowledged principles applied, as a remedial treatment in
reading, is direct instruction (Bryant, 1980). Instruction in strategies contributed to
improved reading comprehension (Duke & Pearson, 2002). The most beneficial
instruction, according to Hollingsworth and Ybarra (2009), must focus on clear
learning objectives, and these objectives ensured students were taught concepts and
skills that focused on specific skills needed for independent practice, allowed teachers
to measure students’ achievement, and provided expectations of what students were to
do. Tovani (2005) agreed that teachers can greatly improve comprehension by
explicitly identifying what students need to get from the text. Haring and Bateman
(1977) summed up this topic by making the point that students need direct, intensive,
and systematic input from the teacher.
Modeling Instruction
After direct instruction, the teacher must model the strategy by verbalizing
each step of the strategy’s use because the comprehension process is hidden and
modeling can make it more clear (Duke & Pearson, 2002). Roehler and Cantlon
(1997) described explicit modeling as “working through” specific steps, and students
are encouraged to adopt similar schemas in resolving the task.
30
Examples of modeling included either think-alouds, where comprehension was
shown as an emerging process of understanding, and talk-alouds, where the
teacher demonstrated how to ask relevant questions and formulate
systematically contingent comments (i.e., showing students how to apply a
strategy by thinking aloud). (Roehler & Cantlon, 1997, p. 555)
Duffy et al. (1987) evaluated the modeling of strategies with third graders over the
course of an academic school year, and these students outperformed those in the
control group on standardized measurements of reading. Fuller (1999) also determined
that a teacher’s modeling of strategies for students proved to be a beneficial
instructional method for at-risk readers.
Guided Practice
Carnine et al. (1997) described guided practice as the means by which a
teacher ensures that students can apply an instructional strategy. Guided practice
should provide students a scaffold as they practice a specific skill, and the purpose for
guided practice is to assist students in becoming independent as quickly as possible
(Ford & Opitz, 2008). After a strategy has been introduced, students should be
provided ample time, with a teacher’s guidance, to practice their new understandings
in order to internalize the strategy (Cecil & Gipe, 2003). Students who were provided
guided practice were found to be successful by adopting the cognitive activities of the
teacher, and this transfer of knowledge and responsibility were critical aspects of
learning and instruction (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Carnine et al. (1997) noted that
systematically controlled prompts and questions during guided practice led to efficient
31
learning and minimized erroneous thought and application of strategies among
students.
Summary
The literature review provided a context for the current treatment. Cooperative
learning in conjunction with well-planned instruction instead of learning
independently has the potential to enhance comprehension skills. The next chapter
describes the methods of the current treatment using direct and modeled instruction of
comprehension skills, the guidance of students’ practice with these skills by presenting
comprehension skills in small groups, and the analysis of any generated interactions
within these cooperative groups. Following chapters describe and discuss the results of
this investigation.
32
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Read 180 is a commercialized, intervention reading program, published by
Scholastic, designed to provide a research-based means to propel students with
learning disabilities, learning English as a second language (ELL), and struggling with
reading skills closer to grade-level standards. Scholastic’s Read 180 contains an
independent reading rotation that has students read a variety of texts, fiction and nonfiction, answer worksheets independently, and take Scholastic Reading Counts (SRC)
quizzes on those books upon their completion. Students participate in Read 180’s
independent reading rotation for approximately twenty minutes per day. Though a
student’s eyes on text for approximately twenty minutes per day may be considered
ideal by many teachers to improve reading skills and interest in reading, the
independent reading rotation of Read 180 could be manipulated to also facilitate small
group discussions about texts as a means to develop students’ thinking and
comprehension skills. In this study, it was hypothesized that students working
cooperatively to discuss comprehension skills they would otherwise be practicing
independently and passively in a small, cooperative group may prove more effective
than students working independently. The following sections describe the sample
population, instrumentation used throughout the study, the methodology and
procedures, and a conclusion that introduces the outcomes of the research.
33
Sample Population
The current study took place in a school district’s second year of implementing
Read 180 as the intensive reading intervention program for students in grades four
through eight who are far below grade-level standards in language arts. The target
school was a Kindergarten through fifth grade elementary school in the Sacramento
area with a population of 541 students. One hundred percent of the target school’s
students received free or reduced lunch, and 65% of the school’s population were
classified as ELLs. The 12 fourth grade students, in terms of interactions or other
language transmitting behaviors, were observed and analyzed, but, more importantly,
understanding students’ data prior to beginning treatment may assist in determining
any gains in the participants’ thinking and comprehension skills throughout the
treatment. Students’ initial data included:
Kalani: The only English speaker who participated in the treatment group. He
scored Far Below Basic (FBB) on the California Standardized Test (CST). Kalani was
observed to be difficult to motivate and was unengaged in activities leading up to the
treatment.
Dagmawit: An ELL who spoke Ethiopian as her native language. She scored
FBB on the CST. Her information from the California English Language Development
Test (CELDT) categorized her reading skills as beginning, speaking skills as
intermediate, listening skills as intermediate, and writing skills as beginning.
Dagmawit was observed to participate actively in academic tasks and put forth her
best efforts on any assignments.
34
Maria: An ELL who spoke Spanish as her native language. She scored FBB on
the CST. Maria’s CELDT data categorized her reading skills as early intermediate,
speaking skills as early advanced, listening skills as early advanced, and writing skills
as beginning. Maria was recognized as demonstrating a lot of motivation to learn and
work hard at becoming a better reader; she appeared to complete tasks in an efficient
manner and clarify misunderstandings.
Favio: An ELL who spoke Spanish as his native language. He scored FBB on
the CST. His CELDT data reflected his reading skills as beginning, speaking skills as
intermediate, listening skills as early intermediate, and writing skills as beginning.
Favio was observed as a student who wanted to be successful on tasks assigned to
him, though he regularly struggled with maintaining his focus.
Brandom: An ELL who spoke Spanish as his native language. He scored FBB
on the CST. His CELDT data categorized his reading skills as beginning, speaking
skills as early intermediate, listening skills as intermediate, and writing skills as
beginning. Brandom was often observed to be unmotivated and he had difficulty
becoming and remaining engaged in any given activity leading up to the treatment.
Octavio: An ELL who spoke Spanish as his native language. He scored FBB
on the CST. Octavio’s CELDT data scored his reading skills as beginning, speaking
skills as advanced, listening skills as early intermediate, and writing skills as
beginning. Octavio was a very energetic student and greatly enjoyed discussing a
variety of topics; he scored advanced in speaking skills on the CELDT, though he
35
could be very difficult to understand when he spoke because he did not articulating
clearly.
Michelle: An ELL who spoke Spanish as her native language. She scored FBB
on the CST. Michelle’s CELDT data categorized her reading skills as beginning,
speaking skills as intermediate, listening skills as intermediate, and writing skills as
beginning. Michelle was observed to always have a very good attitude about
attempting to complete academic tasks assigned to her, though she struggled decoding
a variety of texts and did not completely understand her given assignments.
Yoana: An ELL who spoke Spanish as her native language. She scored FBB on
the CST. Yoana’s CELDT data reflected her reading skills as beginning, speaking
skills as early advanced, listening skills as intermediate, and writing skills as
beginning. Yoana was observed to have a lacking sense of confidence, therefore, she
would seek out assistance with assignments prior to attempting on her own.
Orlando: An ELL who spoke Spanish as his native language. He scored FBB
on the CST. His CELDT scored placed Orlando’s reading skills as early intermediate,
speaking skills as advanced, listening skills as early advanced, and writing skills as
beginning. Orlando was a very eager learner and appeared to want to be successful on
tasks assigned to him. He scored advanced on his speaking skills, though he could be
very difficult to understand because he did not articulate clearly.
Gina: An ELL who spoke Spanish as her native language. She scored FBB on
the CST. Gina’s CELDT scores rated her reading skills as beginning, speaking skills
36
as early advanced, listening skills as early intermediate, and writing skills as
beginning. Gina was observed to be a hardworking and a very quietly spoken student.
Daniela: An ELL who spoke Spanish as her native language. She scored FBB
on the CST. Daniela’s CELDT data scored her readings skills as early intermediate,
speaking skills as early advanced, listening skills as intermediate, and writing skills as
beginning. Daniela was observed as an energetic and enthusiastic student, but she
required refocusing at times.
Dagim: An ELL who spoke Ethiopian as his native language. He scored FBB
on the CST. Dagim’s CELDT data categorized his reading skills as beginning,
speaking skills as advanced, listening skills as intermediate, and writing skills as
beginning. Dagim appeared to enjoy discussing a range of topics. He also enjoyed
helping his peers as often as possible.
Instruments
A pre and post-assessment, written by the researcher, measured students’
thinking skills while listening to a text read aloud on audio CD. Thinking skills were
rated from the easiest (1) to most difficult (4), and these skills included: retelling (1);
paraphrasing (2); making connections (3); and evaluation (4). The assessment
consisted of students tracking an unfamiliar text with an audio CD for three minutes.
During pre assessment, students followed along with The Champ and Other Stories
(Levington, 2009), and, for post assessment, Win or Lose (Apte, 2009). As students
tracked the text, they were instructed to pause the CD to conduct a think-aloud about
anything the text made them think. The experimenter recorded and later transcribed
37
the think-alouds for analysis. Both groups’ pre and post-assessment think-alouds were
analyzed and compared to determine the effectiveness of the current treatment versus
that of the control group.
Scholastic Reading Counts (SRC) quizzes assessed students’ comprehension of
their text. The SRC quiz was an assessment that consisted of 10 questions, and the
questions assessed students’ ability to recall details from the text. Students took an
SRC quiz upon the completion of their text and its accompanying tasks (worksheets).
In both the control and treatment groups, a passing score was 7 out of 10.
The teacher in the control group was interviewed prior to and at the end of the
study. The interview obtained insight from the teacher regarding her opinion of the
strengths and/or weaknesses of Read 180’s independent reading rotation. For instance,
the teacher was asked what elements in this portion of the program appeared
successful with students, how she knew the students enjoyed the books they read, they
were also asked how often they needed to redirect behaviors during this time.
Responses of the teacher regarding successes, attitudes, and behaviors were compared
to anecdotal notes made by the experimenter during observations of the control group.
In the treatment group, the teacher-researcher video and audio recorded
interactions in both the whole and small groups. Group recordings were analyzed to
determine whether student interactions assisted in the improvement of comprehension
skills. Analysis of recordings required the teacher to categorize and rate notable
behaviors inclusive to: passivity of group members; non-verbal, corrective, or helping
behaviors; and the groups’ ability to peer assess one another. This information was
38
collected, observed, and categorized during any type of interaction beyond the
expected presentation of how students completed specific comprehension skills.
The control group was observed to determine notable patterns and/or behaviors
of students reading and completing worksheets independently during the independent
reading rotation.
Methodology
This mixed methods research collected data qualitatively as well as
quantitatively. Quantitative measures evaluated comprehension of text within and
between the experimental and control groups. A Design 3, Pretest-Posttest Control
Group Design (non-randomly selected) research model was used to compare the
teacher-created pre and post-assessment. There were numerous qualitative measures
used to evaluate the depth and breadth of the students’ comprehension skills while
engaged in presentations related to the completion of comprehension skills and
interaction with one another about any presented information or the text being read.
While making anecdotal notes of observations, the teacher was, what McMillan and
Schumacher (2001), would describe as an “on-site participant observer”, which is an
observer that is present in the field for an extensive time. Field observations and
anecdotal notes highlighted any nonverbal cues (facial expressions, gestures, tone of
voice, body movements, and other non-verbalized social interactions that suggest the
subtle meanings of language), determined occurrences that should be included and
what was excluded, dated and identified the context of any notable observations.
Recorded observations were monitored immediately after the administration of the
39
treatment, and these observations synthesized the main interactions and scenes
observed, assessed the quality of the data, suggested questions and tentative
interpretations (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). The treatment instructed, modeled,
and guided students to independently practice the comprehension skills of fact recall,
supportive details, and evaluations; students then presented their completion of the
comprehension skills to the members of their cooperative group.
Treatment and Procedures
The treatment’s design came from the teacher-researcher’s initial year
observing students reading the texts offered to them at Read 180’s independent
reading rotation. The teacher observed students read texts, complete worksheets, and
take SRC quizzes independently. Soon enough, a number of students had completed
similar texts and began discussing them with one another, or other students’ interest
was sparked about texts based on the discussion of texts that they had not yet read.
Also noted, students practiced valuable comprehension skills without any direct
instruction. Texts in Read 180 were organized by comprehension skills, and these
skills were spirally practiced when the texts were read sequentially.
This study took place over the course of six weeks. Its purpose was to
determine whether or not comprehension skills were better developed through direct
and scaffolded instruction, guided in their practice towards independence, and
presented to members of a small, cooperative group.
Prior to the treatment beginning, a pre-assessment of thinking skills was
administered by the teacher-researcher. The pre-assessment measured students’ think-
40
alouds as they tracked along with the text The Champ and Other Stories (Levington,
2009) as it was read on an audio CD. Students listened and followed along for threeminutes as the story was read to them, then they were to pause the CD and share any
thoughts the text conjured up for them. Each student had this process modeled for
them before they attempted the assessment independently. A similar process was
repeated at the conclusion of the six-week study. The teacher transcribed recordings of
both the pre and post-assessment to analyze, compare, and determine whether there
were any improvements in the thinking skills of students in either the treatment and/or
control group.
The six weeks of this study was divided into bi-weekly segments. Each
segment contained one week when comprehension skills were explicitly taught,
modeled in their application, and guided towards independence, and, in the other
week, comprehension skills were reviewed in their instruction and application with
more independent rather than guided practice. Weeks 1 and 2’s comprehension skills
were detail recall and evaluation; weeks three and four skills were supportive details
of a main idea and evaluation; and weeks five and six skills included summarization
and evaluation.
Students were divided into small cooperative heterogeneously groups.
Groupings were determined based on language proficiency using the CELDT
assessment, gender, and anecdotal notes collected prior to the treatment to determine
which students demonstrated higher motivation and abilities versus those of weaker
41
motivation and abilities during reading. Students were grouped with an understanding
that adjustments may be made as necessary.
Behavioral expectations were modeled, practiced, and positively reinforced
throughout the current treatment. While working cooperatively, students were
expected to demonstrate the following behaviors: students should not interrupt or
distract one another during independent reading, practice of comprehension skills,
and/or students’ presentation of comprehension skills to group members; interactions
that may occur in small groups were expected to stay on topic; and students were to
actively listen and participate during and small group discussions.
The materials used by students over the course of this treatment included: a
basket to hold reading materials; posters, which were enlarged “wrap-up” worksheets
provided by Read 180, with teacher-created sentence starters; small post-its to mark
the location of practiced comprehension skills; personalized, colored post-its for
written responses and for placement on the posters; audio CDs that read each text in
the program aloud; and students used laptops to take the SRC quizzes.
Data collection was conducted in a number of ways in an attempt to illustrate
the importance of learning interactively. Small group presentations and any other
interactions, if possible, were recorded for later analysis, and an observation journal
was used to note any interactions that may have led to improved comprehension skill
development. SRC quizzes reflected students’ understanding of the text they used for
practice. Finally, pre and post-assessment think-alouds were analyzed to determine
any gains in the thinking skills of students.
42
Week 1
The first two weeks of the current treatment were designed to provide students
the necessary scaffolds to more independently practice the comprehension skills of
detail recall and evaluation. The text, Sports Bloopers, (Gutierrez, 2009b) was used
during the first week to provide direct instruction, modeling, and guided practice with
the afore mentioned comprehension skills.
Day 1 (Introduction to a book walk and small group presentation related
to the book walk following the procedures of the treatment). On the first day, the
teacher introduced Sports Bloopers (Gutierrrez, 2009b) to students. The teacher then
modeled the procedures that students would be expected to follow when taking a book
walk more independently in the future.
Initially, students gathered as a whole group and received their copy of Sports
Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b). During book walks, students were to determine
information such as the book’s title, book’s author, and a general idea of what the text
was about. Students were also given an option to locate pictures, captions, charts, or
anything else of interest while going through the text on this first day of the treatment.
The teacher modeled a book walk using Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b) by saying,
[The teacher introduced the teacher-created, first day’s sentence starters,
therefore, students would be aware of them each succeeding week.] “Before I
even read the book, I right away see the title of the book, which is Sports
Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b), [The teacher put a small post-it next to the title.],
and the author of this book is Peter Gutierrez. [The teacher placed a small post-
43
it next to the author’s name.] The book’s title and author were pieces of
information I needed to complete on the first day’s sentence starters, so we
marked them with our small post-its. Before I listen to Sports Bloopers
(Gutierrrez, 2009b) on CD, I’m going to quickly go through this book to see if
there may be anything of interest I might want to present to my group
members. I first see the smart words that are found in every book. I will look
more closely at these words when I actually listen to the book on CD, but, for
now, I notice a couple of athletes playing sports in the pictures. One of the
athletes looks like he slammed into a wall. On page 3, I see a funny picture that
my group might like. [The teacher placed a small post-it on this picture.] I
know my group will find the picture with the legs in the air on page 4 funny.
[The teacher put a small post-it on this picture.] There are some accidents
happening on page 5. Page 6 has the same picture as the one in the smart words
where the athlete ran into the wall. [The teacher put a small post-it on the
picture.] Finally, there are more accidents occurring on page 7. Now, I have
some things of interest marked with small post-its in case I have time to share
anything else of interest with the members of my small group. I still have to fill
in my sentence starters telling what this text is about, so I am going to read
along in my book as it plays on the audio CD.
The teacher played the audio CD, and students tracked along in their copies of
the text. When the CD finished, the teacher informed students that they would
normally get into their small groups to discuss how they would present the first day’s
44
sentence starters. The teacher modeled this small group presentation of a book walk
with students by saying,
Now that we are done reading along with the CD, we have to form our small
groups to present the information we found to complete the first day’s sentence
starters. Watch me as I present the information needed to complete the first
day’s sentence starters. The first thing to share is my book’s title. [The teacher
directed attention to the first day’s sentence starters, which was “The title of
my book is _____”.] The title of my book is Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009).
Next, I am supposed to present the author of the book. [The teacher again
motioned to the first day’s sentence starters, which stated, “The author of my
book is _____”.] The author is Peter Gutierrez. Lastly, I am to present what my
book is about. [The teacher pointed out this sentence starter, which read, “The
book is about _____”.] It seems that every picture and story in this book has an
athlete making a mistake, and it sometimes looks like the mistakes hurt, so I
think this book is about athletes having accidents. It looks like I still have some
time left, so I can present some interesting things I found during the book walk
using the optional sentence starters on the first day’s poster. [The teacher
showed students where the optional sentence starters were on the first day’s
poster, and these sentence starters were “It was interesting that _____ because
_____” and “I thought _____ was interesting because _____”.] Look at some
of these pictures of accidents. It was interesting that, here on page 4, those legs
are in the air because they belong to a basketball player who flipped over a
45
table, and I have never seen that happen to a basketball player before. I thought
this picture here on page 6 was also interesting because it is of a baseball
player that slammed into a wall while chasing after a ball.
The teacher, with the remaining time, allowed students to present anything
they found and may have thought was interesting with group members and reviewed
the procedures students had followed on this first day of the treatment.
Day 2 (Introduction, modeling, and guided practice with and presentation
of detail recall.). Day 2 introduced students to the comprehension skill of detail recall
and modeled how to apply this comprehension skill to the text Sports Bloopers
(Gutierrez, 2009b). After students were guided through and given some independent
practice applying this skill, the teacher then modeled how students would be expected
to present their details with group members before writing their approved
presentations onto their personalized, colored post-its.
Students were directly instructed in how to recall details in a text. Then, the
teacher demonstrated how to apply this comprehensions skill to the text Sports
Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b) following the treatment’s procedures. The teacher
modeled how to practice detail recall by saying,
When we recall details we are to locate specific information that is “right
there” in the text. I am going to use the Sports Bloopers’ (Gutierrez, 2009b)
poster to know which details I need to find in our book. [The teacher aimed
students’ attention to where the poster was located.] The first question on the
Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b) poster asks us why the baseball player
46
doesn’t get a hit in the section titled “Strike Three on page 3”. If we are
recalling details, I should be able to find why the baseball player doesn’t get a
hit “right there” in the text while I’m reading the section “Strike Three on page
3”. I will reread “Strike Three on page 3”, and I want you to listen for why the
baseball player doesn’t get a hit. It should be “right there” in the book, so let’s
see if you can recall this detail. [Students were instructed to put a hand on their
head if they heard why the baseball player did not get a hit, and the teacher
read the text aloud to students as they tracked along in the text.] I am so glad to
see some of you with your hands on your head because I also heard why the
player doesn’t get a hit. I heard right here that the player doesn’t get a hit
because his cap slipped, and it went over his face. [The teacher pointed out to
students where the answer was located in the text.] Wouldn’t it be hard to hit a
baseball if a helmet was covering your face? [The teacher scanned the room for
a thumbs up/thumbs down response.] This detail definitely answers why the
baseball player doesn’t get a hit. When we are able to locate our detail, we are
to put one of our small post-its in the text next to the detail. [The teacher
showed his text as an example of where the small post-it should be placed, and
he had students place a small post-it in their text next to this detail.] We
marked our detail with a small post-it, so I can easily remind myself of what it
was and prove to my small group’s members that I did, if fact, locate the
correct detail.
47
The teacher then guided students through a similar process by drawing their
attention back to the Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b) poster to review the next
detail students were to recall in the text. He read this portion of the text while students
read with him. Students were expected to locate and mark the necessary detail with a
small post-it independently. The teacher quickly scanned students’ texts to assess their
ability to correctly apply this comprehension skill.
The next portion of the experiment required students to form their small groups
to present their recalled details. The teacher modeled this portion of the treatment with
the first question before he had them follow the same procedures more independently
with the second question on the Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b). The teacher
modeled the small group presentation as,
After we are given time to practice our comprehension skill, we are to get into
our small groups to present the details we marked with our small post-its. Let
me show what this small group time will look like using the first question we
located on our Sports Bloopers’ (Gutierrez, 2009b) poster. If you remember,
we were asked why the baseball player doesn’t get a hit. [The teacher
reminded students where this question was found on the Sports Bloopers
poster.] You agreed with me when I found the detail telling how the baseball
player’s cap had slipped, and it covered his face. [The teacher showed students
his text to demonstrate that the small post-it helped with locating the necessary
detail.] I want the detail I present to be a complete answer, so I use my
sentence starter on the Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b) poster. [The teacher
48
directed students’ attention to the first question’s sentence starter on the Sports
Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b) poster.] The sentence starter says “The player
does not get a hit because _____”. Now, if I fill in the sentence starter’s blank
with my detail and show my group that I did, in fact, use the text to locate the
detail with my small post-it, it should be enough to prove to my group’s
members that I completed the poster’s question fully and completely. [The
teacher gave students a complete answer using the sentence starter and backed
up his presentation using the small post-its in the text as proof. Then, the
teacher had students reaffirm that the model sufficiently proved that the answer
was correct and complete.] Since you all agree I was able to prove that my
detail is correct, I am going to write my complete answer on my personalized,
colored post-it and put it on the Sports Bloopers (Gutierrrez, 2009b) poster.
The baseball player does not get a hit because his helmet slipped over his face,
and he couldn’t see.
Finally, students were guided in their practice of the treatment’s procedures
with the second question on the Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b) poster. The
teacher monitored students’ understanding of the procedures and provided corrective
feedback as necessary.
Day 3 (Review and guided practice with and presentation of detail recall).
On Day 3, instruction of detail recall was reviewed and application and presentation
was modeled again for students using Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b). The teacher
modeled the treatment’s procedures with the third question on the Sports Bloopers
49
(Gutierrez, 2009b) poster before students were guided in their practice of the
remaining three questions.
The teacher reviewed the instruction and application of detail recall with the
third question, “Hang In There on page 5”, on the Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b)
poster. The teacher guided students through the third question by reviewing the detail
they were to be listening for by chorally reading this portion of the text with students,
and monitoring students’ abilities in correctly marking the necessary detail. When it
appeared that students successfully applied this comprehension skill, they were to then
practice the application of this comprehension skill more independently with the
remaining three questions on the Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b) poster.
Then, students formed their small groups to present the details they located to
the last three questions on the Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b) poster. The teacher
modeled again how students were to present their details to their small group’s
members. The teacher modeled this portion as,
Let’s review how you are expected to present the details you found using the
third question on the Sports Bloopers’ (Gutierrez, 2009b) poster. We are to
present what mistake the hockey player made. On page 5, I read the hockey
player grabbed the bar of the goal. [The teacher showed students his text,
which had a small post-it where the detail was located.] You too have a small
post-it in your books to show where the detail telling where the mistake the
hockey player made was located. At this point, I know the detail I want to
present to my group, and I want to try and present my detail as a complete
50
answer; therefore, I have to use the third question’s sentence starter. [Students
were shown where to find the sentence starter to the third question on the
Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b) poster.] The sentence starter says, “The
slip-up the hockey player made was _____”. Then, I put my detail in the blank
to share a complete response to my group’s members. The slip-up the hockey
player made was that he grabbed the bar of the goal. I know because it says
right here in the text what the hockey player did. [The teacher pointed to where
the small post-it had been placed.] If I was able to convince you that this
answer is correct, I am going to write my complete answer on my personalized,
colored post-it and place my post-it on the Sports Bloopers’ (Gutierrez, 2009b)
poster”. [The teacher scanned the room for students’ confirmation of
understanding.]
Lastly, students practiced presenting and writing their responses to the
remaining three questions on the Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b) poster more
independently. The teacher monitored students’ progress during this time and assisted
students, as needed.
Day 4 (Introduction, modeling, and guided practice with and presentation
of evaluation). On Day 4, the teacher provided instruction and modeled the
application of how to evaluate a text. He then modeled for students how to present
these evaluations to members of the small group before writing the agreed upon
response onto their personalized, colored post-its. Students were then guided in their
practice applying the comprehension skill and presenting it to their small group.
51
The teacher began by directly instructing how to evaluate a text and modeling
the application of this skill using Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b). He modeled a
possible way that Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b) could be evaluated by saying to
students,
We just learned that evaluating a text means coming up with an answer using
more than one piece of information. In Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b), we
are being asked to tell which blooper title we liked the best and why. If I were
to evaluate Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b), I could tell lots of reasons why
I like a lot of these titles, but I need to evaluate this book in a way that I can
make very clear to my group’s members why I might choose one specific title
to be my favorite. The small post-its will be used to mark the reasons why I
chose one specific title to be my favorite. [The teacher had students open
Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b) to “Man Meets Wall” on page 6.] Out of all
the blooper titles, I liked the title “Man Meets Wall” best. This title was my
favorite for a few different reasons. First of all, the picture makes it look like
the man is facing the wall and “meeting” it. I know that the man actually ran
into the wall, so it is funny that the title is “Man Meets Wall”. [The teacher put
a small post-it on the picture of the player running into the wall, so he could
easily use this information during his presentation.] After I read the section
“Man Meets Wall”, there were several parts in the text that made me like this
title best. In the beginning, the author used words like “smack” and “ouch”.
These words let me know it probably hurt when the player ran into the wall.
52
[The teacher showed students how he put a small post-it next to the words
“smack” and “ouch”.] Another place the text made this blooper title my
favorite was when it said that the player slammed into the wall chasing after a
ball. [The teacher pointed out to students where he had put a small post-it next
to the text being shared.] This part made it very clear that the title was trying to
be silly because the player definitely did not “meet” the wall; the player hit the
wall hard chasing after a ball and probably got hurt. Now, I have a lot of good
information to prove to my small group that I have correctly and completely
evaluated Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b).
Students were then given time to practice their evaluative reasoning more
independently. The teacher assessed and guided students toward success. Next, the
teacher modeled how to present evaluations in small groups before allowing students
to practice independently. The small group presentation was modeled as follows,
When we present our evaluations, we have to use more than one piece of
information in the text to support how we evaluated the text. Today’s
presentation will be about our favorite blooper title in Sports Bloopers
(Gutierrez, 2009b). I already shared with all of you that my favorite blooper
title was “Man Meets Wall on page 6”. I had several reasons why this blooper
title was my favorite. I marked those reasons with my small post-its. One small
post-it was on the picture because it made the baseball player look like he was
facing the wall and “meeting” it. I put two post-its in the text because it told of
the baseball player slamming into the wall while chasing after a ball and used
53
words like “smack” and “ouch” to describe what it felt like to hit the wall.
Now, I am ready to present a complete answer to my group members by using
the sentence starter on the Sports Bloopers’ (Gutierrez, 2009b) poster. The
sentence starter says “The blooper title I liked best was _____ because _____”.
[The teacher pointed out to students where the sentence starter could be found
on the poster and used the information he reviewed with students to fill in the
blanks.] The blooper title I liked best was “Man Meets Wall” because the
picture made it look like the baseball player was facing and “meeting” the
wall, but the text let me know that he probably got hurt running into the wall
with words like “smack” and “ouch” while chasing after a baseball”. [The
teacher demonstrated that he used the text to develop his evaluation by
showing the placement of small post-its, and he scanned students for a thumbs
up/thumbs down response to obtain confirmation that the response was
acceptable. If a majority of students gave a thumbs up, the teacher wrote his
response on his personalized, colored post-it and stuck it on the Sports
Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b) poster.]
Lastly, students practiced presenting their evaluations in their small groups
more independently. The teacher monitored and assessed students’ abilities to present
their evaluations and provided corrective feedback and assistance, as needed.
Day 5 (Introduction, modeling, and guided practice with the whole group
presentation; students read text aloud and took their text’s SRC quiz). The fifth
day of the treatment was designed as a day to “wrap up” the text being read. Students
54
were expected to present information located on the day five, teacher-created poster.
After each student had a turn to present to the whole group, they were given time to
read their text independently and aloud. Finally, students concluded their work with
their text by taking their text’s SRC quiz.
First, the teacher modeled how students would be expected to present the
information on the day five’s poster. He modeled by saying to students,
I have really enjoyed reading Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b), and there are
a lot of things I could share with all of you that I liked. I am going to use the
sentence starters for our fifth day’s poster to present complete answers telling
why I liked Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b). [The teacher directed students’
attention to the fifth day’s poster used during the whole group discussion.] I
see my fifth day’s sentence starters are: “The book I read was _____ by
_____”; One thing I (liked/didn’t like) about this book (was/were) _____
because _____”; “Another reason I (liked/didn’t like) this book (was/were)
_____ because _____”; and “I (would/would not) recommend this book to a
friend”. We all read the same book, so the sentence starter about the book’s
title and author will be the same for all of us; we all know we read Sports
Bloopers by Peter Gutierrez (2009b). One thing I liked about this book were all
the pictures of the athletes playing sports because I love playing sports.
Another reason I liked this book was the basketball player’s story because I
have seen many players dive to save a ball, but I never saw a player flip over a
55
table like this guy on page 4. I would recommend this book to a friend because
they would enjoy reading about mistakes that athletes made.
Each student was then given an opportunity to present to the whole group, and
the teacher was able to monitor and guide students to success. Finally, students read
Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b) independently and aloud, therefore, the teacher
could assess students’ fluency with the text. Upon completion of reading, students
took the text’s SRC quiz.
Week 2
In Week 1, students were given instruction, modeled the application of, and
provided guided practice with the comprehension skills of detail recall and evaluation.
The second week of the treatment continued the development and practice with detail
recall and evaluation, but students selected the text they used to practice these
comprehension skills more independently. Read 180 offered various texts organized to
practice the comprehension skills of detail recall and evaluations; texts included:
Travels With Mapman (O’Connor, 2009), Gross Bugs (Feltes, 2009), African Journey
(Bakke & O’Connor, 2009), and Fun Body Facts (Carson, 2009).
Day 1 (Review of application and small group presentation of a book
walk). Students began this week of the treatment by selecting a text. The teacher
reviewed the first day’s sentence starters, had students track their text as it played on
an audio CD at one of the listening stations and allotted time for students to complete
the first day’s sentence starters.
56
Then, the teacher reviewed how students were expected to present the
completion of the first day’s sentence starters before participating in small group
presentations independently.
Day 2 (Review of instruction, application, and presentation of detail
recall). This portion of the treatment required the teacher to review the instruction and
application of detail recall using Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b). The teacher also
reviewed how students were to present their details to the members of their small
group. Students practiced the application and presentation of detail recall as
independently as possible.
Day 3 (Brief review of instruction, application, and presentation of detail
recall). Day 3 was generally a carbon copy of Day 2, but the reviews given by the
teacher with Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b) were more brief; a speedier review
allowed more time for students to practice the treatment independently.
Day 4 (Review of instruction, application, and presentation of an
evaluation of a text). The instruction and application of how to correctly evaluate a
text was reviewed using Sports Bloopers (Gutierrez, 2009b). Students were then
expected to practice the same processes independently with their text.
Day 5 (Review of whole group presentation; students read text aloud and
took their text’s SRC quiz). On this day, the teacher reviewed the fifth day’s poster
with students. Students then presented to the whole group, read their text
independently and aloud, and completed their text’s SRC quiz.
57
Week 3
The next two weeks of the treatment were designed to provide students
instruction, modeling, review, and guided and independent practice with the
comprehension skill of locating details to support a main idea and continued review
and guided practice with evaluating a text. Week 3 utilized the text Hunt and Kill
(Camacho, 2009) to model and guide the application and presentation of these
comprehension skills.
Day 1 (Review of procedures and presentation of a book walk). The teacher
introduced Hunt and Kill (Camacho, 2009) and reviewed the procedures for
application and presentation of the first day’ book walk before having students
practice independently.
Day 2 (Introduction, modeling, and guided practice with and presentation
of details that support a main idea). Day 2 required the teacher to provide
instruction and model the application of the comprehension skill of how to locate
details that support a main idea in a text. Students were then guided through the
practice of this skill before being given time to practice more independently. The
teacher reviewed the process of small group presentations by modeling the
presentation of supportive details. As students were released to practice the treatment
more independently, the teacher monitored students’ application and procedural
understanding.
58
After the teacher instructed how to locate details that support a main idea in a
text, he modeled its application using the text Hunt and Kill (Camacho, 2009). The
teacher modeled for students by saying,
We just learned that a main idea in a text has details to support it, or they can
provide more information about the main idea. I am going to use the Hunt and
Kill (Camacho, 2009) poster to know the main idea I have to support with
details. [The teacher showed students where the Hunt and Kill (Camacho,
2009) poster was located.] The main idea on the Hunt and Kill (Camacho,
2009) poster is about great white sharks. In Hunt and Kill (Camacho, 2009),
there were lots of main ideas because the book taught us about many different
predators, and our Hunt and Kill (Camacho, 2009) poster gives us great white
sharks as the main idea we must find details to support. We should be able to
hear specific details that describe great white sharks as I reread the section,
“Great White Sharks”. I want you to listen for information that describes a
great white shark. [Students were instructed to put a hand on their head if they
heard a detail describing great white sharks, and the teacher read the text aloud
to students as they tracked along.] I am so glad to see some of you with your
hands on your head because I also heard details describing great white sharks. I
heard right here that great white sharks can get as big as cars. [The teacher
pointed out to students where he found a detail located in the text.] Doesn’t
knowing that a great white shark can get as big as a car give me a good
description of how big these creatures can get? [The teacher scanned the room
59
for a thumbs up/thumbs down response.] Since this detail provides a good
description of a great white shark, we are going to place a small post-it next to
this detail. [The teacher showed his text as an example of where the small postit could be placed, and he had students place one of their small post-its next to
this detail in their texts.] The small post-it will act as a reminder when I join
my small group to present supportive details.
Students were then guided in their practice of locating two more details that
describe great white sharks. The teacher assessed students’ application of this
comprehension skill before modeling how students would be expected to present this
comprehension skill in their small groups. The teacher modeled the small group
presentation of supportive details by saying,
The Hunt and Kill (Camacho, 2009) poster was in search of supportive details
of the main idea great white sharks. [The teacher reminded students where this
information was found on the Hunt and Kill (Camacho, 2009) poster.] You
agreed that the detail located earlier describing great white sharks being as big
as a car was a supportive detail. [The teacher showed students his text to
demonstrate that the small post-it marked the location of one of the supportive
details.] This is the detail I am going to present to my group members. I want
to try and present a complete answer, so I have to use one of the sentence
starters on the Hunt and Kill (Camacho, 2009) poster. [The teacher showed
students where sentence starters were positioned on the Hunt and Kill
(Camacho, 2009) poster.] The sentence starter I will use says, “Great white
60
sharks could be described as (being/having) _____”. Now, if I fill in the blank
with the supportive detail I found to describe great white sharks to my group
members, my group’s members will tell me whether or not my detail is correct.
[The teacher gave students a complete answer using the sentence starter and
demonstrated where the detail was located by showing the placement of the
small post-it in the text. Then, the teacher had students reaffirm that his
presentation was sufficient with a thumbs up/thumbs down response.] Since
you agree my supportive detail was correct, I am going to write my complete
answer on my personalized, colored post-it and place it on the Hunt and Kill
(Camacho, 2009) poster. Great white sharks could be described as being as big
as a car.
Students then practiced their small group presentations of supportive details
more independently. The teacher monitored and assessed students’ ability to apply or
present their supportive details, and he provided feedback and/or clarification, as
needed.
Day 3 (Review and guided practice with the application and presentation
of details that support a main idea). On Day 3, the teacher began by reviewing the
instruction, application, and presentation of supportive details introduced the previous
day. Though students practiced the skill of locating and presenting supportive details
with more independence, the teacher closely monitored students’ understanding while
practicing the application and presentation of the comprehension skill.
61
Day 4 (Review instruction, model application and presentation, and
guided practice of evaluation). At this time, the treatment required the teacher to
review the previously given instruction and remodel the application and presentation
of an evaluation using Hunt and Kill (Camacho, 2009). The teacher then guided
students’ practice with the application and presentation of evaluating Hunt and Kill
(Camacho, 2009).
The teacher began by reviewing how to evaluate a text. Then, he modeled the
application of this skill. The teacher modeled the treatment’s application by saying to
students,
When we evaluate Hunt and Kill (Camacho, 2009), we are to find more than
one piece of information to support our evaluation. Let’s go over our Hunt and
Kill (Camacho, 2009) poster to know how we are supposed to evaluate. [The
teacher showed where the evaluative portion of the Hunt and Kill (Camacho,
2009) poster was located.] In Hunt and Kill (Camacho, 2009), we are to decide
what makes a great white shark a top predator. I read lots of reasons why a
great white shark is a top predator. One reason I thought the great white shark
is a top predator is the fact that they can be as big as a car. If a great white
shark is as big as a car, I bet it can easily kill their prey when they attack.
Another reason I think the great white shark is a top predator was the text said
they swim fast. If these sharks can swim fast, they can probably catch whatever
prey they want.” [The teacher demonstrated his placement of small post-its
next to the information he presented to students.]
62
The teacher guided students in their practice with evaluating the Hunt and Kill
(Camacho, 2009) text. The next step also had the teacher model the presentation of
their evaluation of Hunt and Kill (Camacho, 2009). The small group presentation was
modeled as,
When we evaluated our text, we were to locate more than one piece of
information to support the evaluations we presented to our group’s members.
In my evaluation of Hunt and Kill (Camacho, 2009), I had marked where it
said great white sharks can get as big as a car, and great white sharks swim
fast. [The teacher demonstrated that multiple sources of information were used
to support the evaluation by modeling his placement of small post-its in the
text.] Using the sentence starter on the Hunt and Kill (Camacho, 2009) poster,
I want to try to give my group a complete answer. Great white sharks are top
predators because they can be as big as a car, and they swim fast too! [The
teacher looked for confirmation from students with a thumbs up/thumbs down
response. Then, the teacher wrote the given response on his personalized,
colored post-it and placed it on the Hunt and Kill (Camacho, 2009) poster.]
Students were then given time to practice presenting their evaluations of Hunt
and Kill (Camacho, 2009). The teacher guided students’ understanding by offering
corrective feedback and assistance, as necessary.
Day 5 (Review of whole group presentation; students read text aloud and
took their text’s SRC quiz). The teacher reviewed the information on the fifth day’s
poster that students were to present to the whole group. After they presented, students
63
read Hunt and Kill (Camacho, 2009) aloud and independently. Students concluded
their work with Hunt and Kill (Camacho, 2009) by taking its SRC quiz.
Weeks 4
In Week 3, students were given instruction, modeled the application of, and
provided guided practice with the comprehension skills of supportive details and
evaluation. The fourth week of the treatment continued the development and practice
with supportive details and evaluation, but students selected the text they wanted to
practice these comprehension skills more independently. Read 180 offered various
texts organized to practice the comprehension skills of supportive details and
evaluations, and texts included: Fast! (Caggiano, 2009), Fashion Flashback (Camden,
2009), In Search of Giant Squid (Norlander, 2009), Samurai Fighter (Friedman,
2009), Killer Croc (Carney, 2009), and Sky Walkers (Smith, 2009b).
Day 1 (Review of application and small group presentation of a book
walk). Students began the fourth week of the treatment by selecting a text. The teacher
reviewed the first day’s sentence starters, had students track along in their text as it
played on an audio CD at one of the listening stations, and allotted time for students to
complete the first day’s sentence starters.
Then, the teacher reviewed how students were expected to present information
to complete the first day’s sentence starters before participating in small group
presentations independently.
Day 2 (Review of instruction application, and presentation of supportive
details). This portion of the treatment prescribed the teacher to review the instruction
64
and application of supportive details using Hunt and Kill (Camacho, 2009). The
teacher also reviewed how students were to present their supportive details to the
members of their small group. Students practiced the application and presentation of
supportive details as independently as possible.
Day 3 (Brief review of instruction, application, and presentation of
supportive details). Day three was generally a carbon copy of Day 2, but the reviews
given by the teacher with Hunt and Kill (Camacho, 2009) were more brief; a speedier
review allowed more time for students to practice the treatment’s application and
presentation of supportive details more independently.
Day 4 (Review of instruction, application, and presentation of an
evaluation of a text). The instruction, application, and presentation of how to
correctly evaluate a text was reviewed using Hunt and Kill (Camacho, 2009). Students
were then expected to practice the same process independently in their text.
Day 5 (Review of whole group presentation; students read text aloud and
took their text’s SRC quiz). On this day, the teacher reviewed the fifth day’s poster
with students. Students then presented to the whole group, read their text
independently and aloud, and completed their text’s SRC quiz.
Week 5
The last two weeks of the treatment were designed to provide students
instruction, modeling, and guided and independent practice with the comprehension
skills of summarizing and evaluating a text. The teacher modeled instruction and
65
guided students’ practice with these comprehension skills using the text Wonders of
the World (Davis, 2009).
Day 1 (Review of application and small group presentation of a book
walk). The teacher introduced Wonders of the World (Davis, 2009), reviewed the
application and presentation of the required information to complete a book walk
before having students practice independently.
Day 2 (Introduction, modeling, and guided practice with the application and
presentation of summarizing a text). Day 2 required the teacher to provide instruction
and model how to summarize a text. Students were then guided through the practice of
this skill before being given some time to practice more independently. The teacher
reviewed the process of the small group presentation by modeling how to present the
summarization of a text. As students were released to practice the treatment with more
independence, the teacher monitored students’ application and understanding of the
comprehension skill.
After the teacher instructed students in how to summarize a text, he modeled
its application with the text Wonders of the World (Davis, 2009). The teacher modeled
for students by saying,
We just learned that a summary is a few sentences that give the main ideas
about a certain topic. I am going to use the Wonders of the World (Davis,
2009) poster to know the topic I need to summarize. [The teacher showed
students where the Wonders of the World (Davis, 2009) poster was located.]
The first topic in Wonders of the World (Davis, 2009) I am supposed to
66
summarize is the section titled “Internet on page 3.” In Wonders of the World
(Davis, 2009), we learned many reasons why the internet is such an amazing
thing. If Wonders of the World (Davis, 2009) discusses the internet in the text,
the internet must be really important. I will read this section, “Internet on page
3,” and I want you to listen for information that tells the different things we
hear about the internet. [Students were instructed to put a hand on their head if
they were able to hear a reason why the internet is such an amazing thing, and
the teacher read the text aloud to students.] I am so glad to see some of you
with your hands on your head because I also heard information about the
internet that made me think it is very important. One thing I heard is that it
links computers around the world. [The teacher pointed out to students where
he found and placed a small post-it next to information located in the text
telling of something that the internet does.] Doesn’t knowing that the internet
allows computers to communicate with one another all over the world make
me think that this is something pretty impressive that the internet can do? [The
teacher scanned the room for a thumbs up/thumbs down response. Then, the
teacher followed a similar procedure to go over the other main ideas presented
in the section titled “Internet on page 3,” which included: people use the
internet to find news fast; and it is used to send emails.] My small post-its will
mark the different information I found that tells me why the internet is so
amazing.
67
Students were then guided in their practice of locating the main ideas to
summarize the next section, “Pyramids of Giza on page 4.” The teacher assessed
students’ abilities to apply the comprehension skill before modeling how to present
their summaries to their group’s members. The sentence starters referred to in this
section of the treatment varied from those discussed previously. In order to
summarize, one must synthesize the information to successfully develop a summary,
therefore, sentence starters that had students fill in blanks, as previously used, would
not be effective in the case of this comprehension skill; moreover, the sentence starters
acted as a reminder to students that they needed to find the different main ideas they
learned about in the different sections of the text, therefore, the sentence starters in this
portion of the treatment are referred to as “sentence starters.” The teacher modeled the
small group presentation of summarization by saying,
Let me demonstrate what this presentation will look like by summarizing the
section “Internet of page 3” in Wonders of the World (Davis, 2009). You
agreed with me when I modeled information I found describing why the
internet was a wonder in the world, and the main ideas were that it connects
computers all over the world, helps people find news fast, and sends email.
[The teacher showed students his text to demonstrate how the small post-its
identified those main ideas.] These are the main ideas I am going to share with
my group’s members to summarize this section of the text. Normally, we
would then use a sentence starter to present information to the group. The
sentence starter found on the Wonders of the World (Davis, 2009) poster is
68
more like a reminder about the information I am supposed to present to my
group members. The “sentence starter” for the section “Internet on page 3”
said, “Find what is important to know in “Internet on page 3.” What is
“Internet on page 3 about? Find 3-4 sentences that tell what it is about.” [The
teacher showed students where sentence starters were positioned on the
Wonders of the World (Davis, 2009) poster.] Now, I tell my group members
what the section “Internet on page 3” was about in my own words. [The
teacher modeled an example of a summary of “Internet on page 3.” Then, the
teacher had students reaffirm that his summary was sufficient with a thumbs
up/thumbs down response.] Since you agree that my summary was correct, I
am going to write my summary on my personalized, colored post-it and place
it on the Wonders of the World (Davis, 2009) poster. The internet is a wonder
because it allows computers to link up to one another. It also helps people find
news fast. Emails can be sent using the internet too!
Students then practiced their small group presentation by summarizing the
section “Pyramids of Giza on page 4” with the teacher’s guidance. The teacher
monitored and assessed students’ understanding and provided assistance as necessary.
Day 3 (Review and guided practice with a presentation of summarization).
On Day 3, the teacher began by reviewing the instruction, application, and
presentation of how to summarize a text. The teacher guided students’ practice of
summarization as students became as independent as quickly as possible.
69
Day 4 (Review instruction, model application and presentation of, and
guide practice with evaluating a text). At this time, the treatment required the
teacher to review the previously given instruction and model the application and
presentation of an evaluation using Wonders of the World (Davis, 2009). The teacher
then guided students’ practice with evaluating Wonders of the World (Davis, 2009).
The teacher began by reviewing the instruction in how to evaluate a text. Then,
he modeled for students the application of this comprehension skill. The teacher
modeled for students by saying,
When we evaluate Wonders of the World (Davis, 2009), we need to look at the
Wonders of the World (Davis, 2009) poster to know how we are supposed to
evaluate this text. [The teacher showed where the evaluative portion of the
poster was located.] In Wonders of the World (Davis, 2009), we are to come up
with a wonder we know of that belongs in this book and tell why it is such an
amazing thing and belongs here. When we evaluate a text, we need to find
more than one piece of information to back up our answers. There are a lot of
amazing things in this world, made by people or that are naturally occurring,
that did not appear in this book. [The teacher showed a couple of pictures of
the Grand Canyon and tried to make it very clear to students how immense the
Grand Canyon is.] If the Grand Canyon has similar qualities to the amazing
things in this book, it means the Grand Canyon could also belong in Wonders
of the World (Davis, 2009). The Grand Canyon is very large, just like the Great
Wall of China. Also, the Grand Canyon is recognized as an American icon,
70
just as the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of freedom and hope in the United
States”. [The teacher identified information on the Great Wall of China being
immense and the Statue of Liberty as symbolizing freedom with small postits.]
The teacher guided students’ practice with evaluating Wonders of the World
(Davis, 2009) more independently. The next step also had the teacher model the
presentation of their evaluation of Wonders of the World (Davis, 2009). The small
group presentation was modeled as,
When we evaluated our text, we were to use more than one piece of
information to defend our answer to group members, just like I found more
than one piece of information in my evaluation of Wonders of the World
(Davis, 2009). I had marked the text where it said people can see the Great
Wall of China from space, and the Statue of Liberty stood for freedom and
hope. [The teacher showed students his book to demonstrate the marking in the
text.] Using my sentence starter on the Wonders of the World (Davis, 2009)
poster, I will give my group a complete answer. A wonder that did not appear
in this book is the Grand Canyon. It is a wonder because it is big like the Great
Wall of China, and it is an American icon like the Statue of Liberty.” [The
teacher looked for confirmation from students with a thumbs up/thumbs down
response. Then, the teacher wrote his response on a personalized, colored postit for the Wonders of the World (Davis, 2009) poster.]
71
Students were then given time to practice their evaluations of Wonders of the
World (Davis, 2009). The teacher provided guidance to students as needed.
Day 5 (Review of whole group presentation; students read text aloud and
took their text’s SRC quiz). The teacher reviewed the information on the fifth day’s
poster that students were to present to the whole group. After they presented, students
read Wonders of the World (Davis, 2009) aloud and independently. Students
concluded their work with Wonders of the World (Davis, 2009) by taking its SRC quiz.
Week 6
In Week 3, students were given instruction, modeled the application of, and
provided guided practice with the comprehension skills of summarizing and
evaluation. The final week of the treatment continued the development and practice
with summarization and evaluation, but students selected the text they wanted to
practice these comprehension skills more independently. Read 180 offered various
texts organized to practice the comprehension skills of summarization and evaluation,
and these texts included: Signs, Ripped From the Headlines (Gutirrez, 2009a), Crash!
(Smith, 2009), From the Heart (Phillips, 2009), Weird Science Jobs (Disconslglio,
2009), and Everyday Heroes (Kean, 2009).
Day 1 (Review of application and small group presentation of a book
walk). Students began this week of the treatment by selecting a text. The teacher
reviewed the first day’s sentence starters, had students track along in their text as it
played on an audio CD at one of the listening stations, then allotted time for students
to complete the first day’s sentence starters.
72
Next, the teacher reviewed how students were expected to present their
completion of the first day’s sentence starters before participating in small group
presentations independently.
Day 2 (Review of instruction, application, and presentation of
summarization). This portion of the treatment had the teacher review the instruction
and application of summarization using Wonders of the World (Davis, 2009). The
teacher also reviewed how students were to present their summaries to the members of
their small group. Students practiced the application and presentation of summarizing
their texts as independently as possible.
Day 3 (Brief review of instruction, application, and presentation of
summarization). Day 3 was generally a carbon copy of Day 2, but the review given
by the teacher with Wonders of the World (Davis, 2009) was more brief; a speedier
review allowed more time for students to practice the treatment independently.
Day 4 (Review of instruction, application, and presentation of an
evaluation of a text). The instruction and application of how to correctly evaluate a
text was reviewed using Wonders of the World (Davis, 2009). Students were then
expected to practice the same process independently in their text.
Day 5 (Review of whole group presentation; students read text aloud and
took their text’s SRC quiz). On this day, the teacher reviewed the fifth day’s poster
with students. Students then presented to the whole group, read their text
independently and aloud, and completed their text’s SRC quiz.
73
Conclusion
Chapter 4 provides an overview of the outcomes of implementation of the
group treatment. One should note that modifications were made to the implementation
of the treatment in response to discerned students’ needs. Data analysis included:
teacher interviews and anecdotal notes taken during observations of the control group;
video/audio recording during presentations and other times throughout the treatment
(if possible) during the whole and small groups; the teacher kept a journal to record
anecdotal notes during times students were not recorded via video/audio devices;
students’ SRC quiz data and written responses were analyzed in both the treatment and
control groups; and pre/post assessment think-alouds were analyzed to determine
gains of students’ thinking skills in both the treatment and control groups.
74
Chapter 4
RESULTS
The commercialized reading program, Read 180, was originally designed to
offer English language learners, struggling readers, and those with designated learning
disabilities texts of high interest at a variety of readability levels; students in Read 180
read engaging text and practiced comprehension skills independently. The current
treatment postulated that providing students direct instruction, modeling, and guided
practice with specific comprehension skills (detail recall, supportive details, and
evaluation) and then structured an opportunity for students to work in cooperative
groups to present their practice of comprehension skills would generate interactions
amongst students. Consequently, generated interactions of students would develop
higher levels of thinking skills.
Question #1
Does cooperative learning benefit students’ higher-level cognitive processes
greater than learning independently?
Pre/Post Assessment
Students in both the treatment and control groups were administered a
researcher created pre and post-assessment. The pre and post-assessments were
recorded think-alouds that were later transcribed for closer analysis. Transcriptions of
students’ think-alouds were analyzed to determine whether comprehension skills
demonstrated higher versus lower level thinking skills. Thinking skills were rated (1 to
4) from easier to more difficult thinking skills: paraphrasing (1), responding (2),
75
making connections (3), and evaluations (4). Think-alouds from the treatment group
(students working cooperatively) and control group (students working independently)
were compared using the pre and post-assessment to determine which groups’ students
improved their demonstration of thinking skills.
Pre assessment data revealed (see Figures 1 and 2) that all but one student in
the control group (n=7) was able to recite at least one example of a thinking skill while
assessed. The treatment group (n=9) had five students perform 0 thinking skills during
the pre-assessment (see Figures 1 and 2). The data collected from the pre-assessment
seemed to demonstrate that the students in the treatment group were less able to
demonstrate think-alouds while following along in a text.
After administrating the post assessment to students in both the treatment and
control groups, the data reported that there were a greater number of students in the
treatment group that improved their ability to demonstrate any thinking skills while
reading along in a text. T-tests determined the range of growth in thinking skills
between the pre-assessments to the post-assessments of both the treatment and control
groups. The difference of the pre and post-assessment for the students in the control
group was t=.138, df=16, p>.05; whereas, students in the treatment group
demonstrated much greater gains (t=1.12, df=16, p>.05). Though more students in the
treatment group remained constant in their performance of any think-alouds between
the pre and post assessments, more students in the control group had a decline in their
usage of thinking skills (see Figures 1 and 2). The decline in the number of thinkalouds generated by the control group’s students may correlate to the amount of
76
independent practice given with a text; these students were not required to present the
information required to complete their text’s worksheets as students in the treatment
group were expected to do. The current treatment may have proven beneficial to
students’ thinking skills because these students tactilely applied comprehension skills
in which they were directly instructed in and guided in their practice, and then these
students presented their practice of the comprehension skills to their group’s members.
The combination of the treatment’s procedures provided students enough opportunity
to develop their thinking skills during the treatment and transfer that practice of
thinking skills during post-assessment.
Control
(pre)
Alexandria
Aziza
Jasmine
Maricela
Carlos
Falicia
Camren
Genevieve
Control
(post)
Alexandria
Aziza
Jasmine
Maricela
Carlos
Falicia
Camren
Genevieve
0
(no response)
1
(paraphrase)
1
2
(respond)
3
(connection)
4
(evaluation)
2
1
3
0
4
3
8
2
8
3
2
0
0
0
6
3
3
13
1
1
1
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
6
3
3
Figure 1. Control Group Pre-Post Scores.
1
total
77
Treatment
(pre)
Dagmawit
Orlando
Brandom
Dagim
Octavio
Maria
Yoana
Gina
Daniela
Favio
Treatment
(post)
Dagmawit
Orlando
Brandom
Dagim
Octavio
Maria
Yoana
Gina
Daniela
Favio
0
(no response)
1
(paraphrase)
1
2
(respond)
3
(connection)
4
(evaluation)
1
1
3
1
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
3
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
total
1
0
13
1
8
8
0
0
0
0
9
1
9
16
8
20
0
6
0
0
Figure 2. Treatment Group Pre-Post Scores.
Question #2
Is direct instruction, modeling, and guided practice of comprehension skills
more beneficial to students’ ability to learn and apply comprehension skills as
compared to students completing worksheets that practice the same comprehension
skills independently?
An important design feature implemented in the treatment provided students
direct instruction, modeling, and guided practice of comprehension skills, such as
78
detail recall, supportive details, and evaluation; whereas, students in the control group
practiced similar skills independently. During practice of comprehension skills, the
teacher of the treatment group conferred with and observed students’ understanding
and application of comprehension skills following the treatment’s procedures, but the
control group’s students were unable to be observed by the researcher for any
understanding of their practiced comprehension skills during reading because these
students were not required to identify specific information in the text, using small
post-its, or to demonstrate their understanding of comprehension skills. Upon
completion of tasks, in both the treatment and control group, written responses and
Scholastic Reading Counts (SRC) quizzes were analyzed to compare students’
comprehension of the texts they read. The data produced from the SRC quizzes was
interesting to examine, though not very viable to compare. Students working
independently in the control group were much more successful passing SRC quizzes
on a more consistent basis. The students in the control group also completed multiple
SRC quizzes in the same day, which led the researcher to believe that these students
had no systematic manner in which SRC quizzes were taken. The treatment group’s
students were much more systematic in how they completed their SRC quizzes, which
was one quiz per week, but the students in the treatment group passed much less
frequently. Though less students passed their SRC quizzes in the treatment group than
the control groups, some students in the treatment group were very close to passing,
scoring 6 out of 10, because they were instructed in and applied the treatment’s
79
procedures of referencing the text for specific information during the week which
appeared to transfer to their administration of the SRC quiz.
Observations by the researcher, on two separate occasions, of the control group
were unable to determine students’ understanding of any practiced comprehension
skills while reading with a text. A discussion with the control group’s teacher reported
that students would sometimes clarify the task they were required to complete on Read
180’s worksheets, and students demonstrated their understanding upon their
completion of a text’s worksheet, which the teacher checked over for grammatical
issues, or their text’s SRC quiz. The treatment group’s students were provided time to
practice comprehension skills, and the teacher conferred with students about their
application and understanding of the comprehension skills in an attempt to assist them
in becoming as independent with the treatment as possible.
Conferencing With Students
Using qualitative methodology, interactions recorded at times other than a
cooperative group setting were recorded because the teacher carried around a
camcorder during guided or independent practice, and he transcribed any conferences
he had with students for further analysis. Other recorded interactions were recognized
by the teacher as an exchange occurring amongst students and placed a camcorder in
front of the students to closely observe their interactions.
After the teacher provided either direct instruction or reviewed a
comprehension skill, students were given time to practice their own application of the
skill using their text. The teacher conferred with students to assess their understanding
80
of the comprehension skill. Early in the treatment, an interaction occurred, and this
interaction encapsulated a majority of the interactions recorded during conferencing.
On September 23, 2010, the teacher conferred with Daniela and Michelle to discuss
their evaluative reasoning as to whether or not they would use maggots to heal their
cuts:
Teacher: “So…would either of you girls let a doctor use maggots on you to
heal your cuts?”
Daniela: (Begins reading from the text.) “Doctors use them, and the bugs help
you because they eat the dead skin around a cut.”
Teacher: “That is good information about doctors using maggots on cuts and
why they do so. Would you let a doctor use maggots on you to heal a cut you
might have?”
Daniela: “Do maggots just come if you get a cut?”
Teacher: “No, the doctor has to put them there.”
Daniela: (In a hesitant tone.) “I kinda would let the doctor put them on, but I
don’t know.”
Michelle: (Talking to the teacher.) “I had a big cut on my hand.” (Michelle
pointed out where on her hand she had a cut.)
Daniela: (Also, talking to the teacher.) “Me too!”
Teacher: “What do you girls think you will share with your group’s members?
Would you or would you not let a doctor put maggots on you to heal a cut and
tell why?”
81
Daniela: “I would let a doctor put maggots on me because they make you feel
better putting them on, and they eat the dead skin.”
Michelle: “That’s what I’m going to say too.”
Initially, this interaction began a bit awkwardly, with Daniela simply reading
information from her text, but it became more natural when Michelle shared about the
cut on her hand, although this portion of the interaction was directed towards and
through the teacher instead of one another. The interactions recorded during other
conference times were very similar to this, in that, the dialogue appeared unnatural or
awkward, and the teacher played a key role in the generation of interactions during
conferencing.
Students’ Application of Comprehension Skills
The treatment’s weeks for students’ independent practice of comprehension
skills (Weeks 2, 4, 5, and 6) provided a means of assessing students’ understanding of
a text following the treatment’s procedures. The treatment required students to place
one small post-it for each detail and at least two small post-its for each evaluative
response. When students demonstrated a misunderstanding of a comprehension skill,
they either had difficulty applying the treatment’s procedures because the details were
difficult for students to locate or some texts’ evaluative responses were very abstract
to successfully practice in such a short allotment of time.
Observations of students locating details in difficult texts noted that students
seemingly placed small post-its arbitrarily; therefore, they were unable to successfully
present recalled or supportive details to their group’s members. The fact that students
82
had difficulty presenting details to their group’s members may also support why
students in the treatment group were less successful on their SRC quizzes; SRC
quizzes primarily assessed details that could be recalled directly from the text. When
students were to evaluate the texts Fast! (Caggiano, 2009) and African Journey
(Bakke & O’Connor, 2009), the teacher had trouble properly assisting students’
application of this skill based on the pacing of the current treatment. Fast! (Caggiano,
2009) expected students to come up with something fast that should also be found in
the text; African Journey (Bakke & O’Connor, 2009) asked students to explain where
in the world they would like to visit. Following the treatment’s procedures, it was
extremely difficult to use at least two sources of information in the text to support
students’ rationale. It should also be noted that the comprehension skill of evaluation
was only practiced one day per week. Limited amounts of practice evaluating texts
may have led to more difficulty applying and successfully presenting evaluations over
the course of the treatment.
SRC Quizzes
Scholastic Reading Counts (SRC) quizzes were another measure of students’
comprehension of texts. A majority of the SRC quizzes’ questions assessed the ability
to recall details in a text. Read 180’s protocols required students to complete texts
sequentially (1, 2, 3…), which was how students in the control group completed their
text’s SRC quizzes. The difficulty in comparing SRC quiz scores of the treatment and
control groups was primarily premised in the fact that the students in the treatment
group practiced with much more difficult texts because they were offered texts based
83
on their organization instead of sequential numeration. Students in the control group
passed more SRC quizzes on a more regular basis. The more interesting findings were
derived from observations of both the treatment and control groups during the
administration of SRC quizzes. A greater number of students in the treatment group
referenced their text in an attempt to locate the necessary detail; whereas, students in
the control group were observed completing SRC quizzes with their text unopened. In
a discussion with the teacher of the control group, she stated that students were
instructed to reference their text during the SRC quiz, though she did not monitor
them. On the other hand, the students in the treatment group were observed to ensure,
to the best of the teacher’s ability, that texts were referenced while completing SRC
quizzes. If students in the treatment group were not looking back in their text, the
teacher reminded them of this strategy. Though many SRC quizzes were not passed by
students in the treatment group, their usage of the text while taking an SRC quiz may
have assisted students in achieving scores closer to passing than they may have
otherwise received (see Appendix D).
Written Responses
Written responses by students were another demonstration of their
understanding of comprehension skills practiced throughout the six-week treatment.
Students in the control group abided by Read 180’s original design, which meant texts
were read sequentially, and students completed worksheets independently; whereas,
the treatment planned for students to practice specific comprehension skills (detail
recall, supportive details, and evaluation) and offered students texts from Read 180
84
that practiced these comprehension skills. Written responses of students in both the
treatment and control groups were analyzed by the researcher to determine their
correctness, completeness, and clarity. Responses were rated as no understanding,
somewhat understanding, and full understanding; spelling and punctuation did not
hinder scoring, unless it impeded any meaning. Data found that students in the
treatment group had a greater quantity of written responses; these written responses
related back to the text more regularly, yet the conventions and grammar appeared to
impede the meaning of many responses. Students in the control group had more
incorrect responses, which meant that their written responses did not use information
located directly in the text.
Each week, the treatment required students to provide written responses of the
comprehension skills presented to their group’s members; therefore, students in the
treatment group completed six texts’ written responses. Students in the control group
completed far fewer written responses over the course of the six weeks because
students were left to their own devices to complete their worksheets with written
responses. One student completed four worksheets, which was the greatest number of
written responses in the control group, and several students completed only one
worksheet.
It was interesting to note the number of incorrect and/or incomplete written
responses by students in the control group. Students in the treatment group had
instances of incorrect and/or incomplete written responses, but they occurred much
less frequently throughout the time of the treatment. Examples of incomplete
85
responses in the control group included: Maricela wrote a supportive detail
incompletely as, “thay are grat run” [they are great run]. Jasmine also responded with
an incomplete answer while writing a supportive detail about cheetahs in Fast!
(Caggiano, 2009) as, “very fast.” Incomplete responses did not provide sufficient
evidence of a students’ understanding of the comprehension skill practiced. Students
in the control group also wrote a high number of incorrect responses. Incorrect
responses either did not address the comprehension skill or did not respond using
information found directly in the text. Incorrectly written responses from students in
the control group included: Camren was to recall a detail in Sports Bloopers
(Gutierrez, 2009b) telling how the gymnast slipped, but he only read the picture and
answered, “She was gofing off.” [He was supposed to answer that she lost her
balance.]; Aziza was to locate supportive details about cheetahs and wrote several
incorrect responses such as, “very smart” and “very hiper” [very hyper] [These were
both details that were not found in the text.]; and Maricela provided another example
of an incorrect written response, as she wrote a supportive detail about great white
sharks to be, “a great white is very mean” [This was not any information presented in
the text.] In each example of the incorrect written responses, students in the control
group did not link information to the text to demonstrate their understanding of the
practiced comprehension skill.
Students’ incorrectly written responses in the treatment group appeared to be
related to students’ inability to successfully locate details in texts, or their lacking
understanding of how to successfully operate the treatment’s procedures. Some
86
students in the treatment group struggled with fully understanding how to complete
the teacher created sentence starters’ blanks using the information presented to group
members. Michelle was an example of a student who had difficulty manipulating the
sentence starters as she wrote, “A cheetah (has/is a cheetahoh are fast and it of a dig
long legs. clawe.” [A cheetah is fast because it has big long legs and claws.] Errors
such as this indicated a misunderstanding as to how to correctly follow the treatment’s
procedures while writing responses. The other type of incorrect response was
attributed to the fact that students in the treatment group may have had difficulty
decoding the text because the texts offered were organized based on comprehension
skill, instead of sequentially. As a result of practicing with texts at a more difficult
level, students attempted to follow the treatment’s procedures while writing responses,
but they randomly copied information found in the text to complete the sentence
starter’s blank. Daniela and Favio were examples of this occurrence. Daniela’s written
responses of supportive details appeared to be copied right from the text. Her
responses included: “later, they can run again,” “They can run 71 miles.” [They can
run 71 miles per hour.], and “that is faster than most speed limits”. Favio also wrote
responses that were seemingly copied from the text. His supportive details about
samurai fighters using the text Samurai Fighter (Friedman, 2009) were, “take away
people’s swords,” “some samurai had to find other work,” and “In 1588 the top
samurai made a plan.” The conclusion was drawn that primarily, the incorrect
responses written by students in the treatment group reflected students’ inability to
comprehend texts provided by Read 180 when organized by comprehension skill.
87
Students in the treatment group may have written more successful responses
had their conventions and grammar skills been stronger in their writing. Many written
responses began correctly with the use of the teacher created sentence starters, but
conventional writing and grammar issues quickly impeded any intended
understanding. Orlando was a student who exemplified this issue; for instance, his
written responses of supportive details about a giant squid were, “Theis is a detail
about giant squid pealpe thote tate giant squid attac kes ships” [This is a detail about
giant squid people thought that giant squid attack ships], “A detalst a bout giant squid
is isrerd wastu on a beta.” [A detail about giant squid is I read one washed up on a
beach], and “An important thing to know a bout int squid is that person to capchor live
squid.” [An important thing to know about giant squid is that no person has captured
a live squid] Brandom was another example of a student who struggled with
conventions and grammar in his writing. He wrote supportive details about cheetahs in
Fast! as, “The cheetah nas they can ran 71 miles” [The cheetah can run 71 miles per
hour], “The cheetah has they must rest” [The cheetah must rest], “the cheetah has they
get not” [The cheetah can get hot], and “the cheetah cheetahs are built to run”
[Cheetahs are built to run]. These were several examples of similar issues that many
of the students demonstrated in their written responses throughout the treatment. The
overwhelming majority of students who participated in the treatment were English
language learners who scored at a beginning level in writing on the CELDT
assessment, which may have accounted for the high volume of grammatical and
convention errors errors.
88
Other Observations and Interactions During Independent Practice
While students in the treatment group practiced applying comprehension skills
with guidance or independently, the teacher observed and noted students interacting
with one another by demonstrating a pattern of helping behaviors during the
completion of various tasks.
There were a handful of students in the treatment group who struggled
decoding many of the texts used throughout the treatment; and, students were
regularly observed assisting one another with the reading of specific words.
Students in the treatment group were also observed assisting one another in the
completion of recalled or supportive details. While observing students’ application of
supportive details, the teacher noted an interaction between Daniela and Michelle that
proved beneficial to Michelle’s small group presentation. On this occasion, the teacher
was about to transition students to their cooperative groups, yet Michelle had only
located two of her three necessary details for her group presentation. Daniela
responded to Michelle’s plea for extra time by working with her to locate another
detail supporting the main idea of fashion. Daniela’s assistance benefited Michelle
because she was able to present her supportive details more successfully to her group’s
members than she may have possible done on her own with a text that appeared to be
above her ability at this time of the school year.
89
Question #3
Does the structuring of cooperative learning groups generate student
interactions?
Students appeared to struggle with engaging in dialogues during times of
cooperative group work, or at any other time throughout the treatment that students
were not structured in cooperative learning groups, such as transitional times, times
designated for comprehension skill practice, and/or times to complete written
responses. Overall, the teacher was disappointed with the amount of interactions
observed throughout the six-week treatment. Of 300 opportunities provided to students
in the treatment group to interact with one another, these students only interacted
beyond merely presenting information to their group’s members 130 times. Students
appeared unaccustomed to and uncomfortable with interacting with one another. The
treatment’s design provided an opportunity for students to initiate interactions with
their group’s members by presenting the completion of their specified comprehension
skill, and another chance to interact was given as students in the cooperative group
were expected to assess their peer’s presentation of information. Both opportunities to
interact produced minimal amounts of interaction, if any. Though there were fewer
interactions than anticipated, the treatment group was observed participating in
interactions that demonstrated a pattern of helping behaviors with one another. Given
the minimal amounts of interaction, the teacher considered whether there was a carry
over from the homeroom classrooms’ social expectations. The teacher also observed
90
grade-levels (K-5) during a block of language arts instruction to determine the extent
and frequency for students’ opportunities to interact with their peers.
Types of Cooperative Group Interactions
The interactions recorded during cooperative group work were analyzed and
classified as: the presenter interacting with their own presentation; group members
interacting with the presenter; and interactions involving the teacher.
Students who presented their comprehension skills generated interactions
in relation to their own presentation of information several times during the
treatment. Octavio and Dagim were students who enjoyed speaking when given the
opportunity; moreover, both of these students generated interactions based on their
own presentations of comprehension skills. In Octavio’s case, it appeared that he
overcompensated for his lacking understanding of the treatment’s procedures by
providing an overly detailed description about what was witnessed in the pictures of
the text. For instance, on September 22, Octavio was to present to his group’s
members’ using Travels With Mapman (O’Connor, 2009), what kind of boat race
takes place on Green Lake in Washington, and what activity is held in Shelley, Idaho.
The answers should have been a milk carton race and potato tug-of-war. Instead,
Octavio explained the kind of boat race as, “They cut the milk cartons to put the boats
together. There are a bunch of different boats they make, like animals and people,”
and he went on to describe the activity in Idaho by explaining, “They mash potatoes
and put them in a hole. Then, kids get a rope and pull it to see who falls in the
potatoes. Then, people throw arrows at the potatoes.”
91
Dagim also generated interactions based on the information he presented to his
group’s members. In one presentation, Dagim questioned the group and made
suggestions based on the information he presented to his group members while
presenting recalled details from Gross Bugs (Feltes, 2009). Dagim asked the group,
“Could you see this foot?” after discussing the use of maggots to heal wounds; this
solicited a response of “Ewww!” from members of the group. Then, Dagim suggested
to group members, “It’s gross that they eat dead skin around the foot.” A different
presentation when Dagim interacted with his own presentation was when he was
evaluating the information he presented to his group’s members using Fast!. During a
book walk on October 4, 2010, Dagim told his group after presenting about the fast
growing plant, “If I grew four feet a day, I would be bigger than (inaudible), and I
wouldn’t fit in the room!” Next, Dagim presented about the spacecraft and followed
up his presentation by saying, “This is cool!” and “I wish I was there; that’s fast!”
Maria was observed to be less enthusiastic to speak as the previously described
boys, but she also generated an interaction based on her own presentation of
evaluative reasoning African Journey (Bakke & O’Connor, 2009) on September 23,
2010. After Maria presented her evaluation of African Journey (Bakke & O’Connor,
2009), she went on to explain something to her group. The teacher could tell that she
was discussing the text because she directed her group members’ attention towards it,
though her explanation was in Spanish and incomprehensible to the teacher. A group
member clarified by asking a question in Spanish, and Maria responded in Spanish.
These were several examples of students generating their own interactions based on
92
the comprehension skill they presented to their group. The instances when students
interacted with their own presentation signaled to the teacher that group members may
not have understood how to interact with the presented information, and teacher
modeling of how to possibly interact with a given presentation may benefit students’
ability to interact with one another.
Members of the cooperative group interacted with the student who
presented specified comprehension skills, though it occurred less frequently than
anticipated. These interactions primarily generated student dialogues involving
questioning, clarification, or evaluative responses. Dagim was observed on a number
of occasions questioning students’ presentations in search of clarification. On
September 30, 2010, an interaction occurred in which Dagim questioned Dagmawit
about her evaluation of Hunt and Kill (Camacho, 2009). Dagim, during his interaction
with Dagmawit, appeared to be coaching her in how to present an evaluation
successfully. This interaction was observed as:
Dagim: “Why does them being as big as cars make them a top predator?”
Dagmawit: “They swim up fast.”
Dagim and Favio: “No!”
Dagim: “Why does that make them a top predator?”
Dagmawit: (She read an inaudible detail from the text.)
Dagim: “That doesn’t help me understand why a great white shark is a top
predator.”
93
Dagmawit never attempted to modify or continue her evaluation’s presentation, and
this interaction ended without resolve.
In a different scenario, October 13, 2010, Dagim questioned Favio during his
presentation, and Dagim appeared as though he was quizzing Favio. At the end of
Favio’s presentation of supportive details, Dagim questioned:
Dagiim: “Who runs 71 miles per hour?”
Favio: “Cheetahs.”
Dagim: “How do the claws help them run fast?”
Favio: “The claws grip the ground.”
Favio: “Cheetahs get hot and need to rest before they run again.” (Favio
appeared to explain this information in an attempt to prevent Dagim from any
further questioning.)
Though this may not have been a typical interaction involving questioning, it was an
example of how students may question one another in a cooperative group setting.
Another peer-generated interaction was evaluative in its response to
presented comprehension skills. After Favio presented his recalled details in Gross
Bugs (Feltes, 2009) on September 22, 2010, his presentation received several
responses that appeared evaluative from his group’s members, which were similar to
responses observed occurring in other cooperative groups throughout the treatment.
The interaction generated by Favio occurred as:
Favio: “Ticks live in the woods, and they eat pet skin, too.”
Student 1: “Ewww…cool.”
94
Favio: “There are more than 3,000 kinds of cockroaches; some live years.”
Student 2: “Gross!”
Favio: “Maggots can hell (heal) cuts.”
Student 2: “Ewww…”
As was the case of similar interactions in cooperative groups, the presenter never
really responded to their peers’ evaluative responses, therefore, a student dialogue
never developed. If students were provided with more teacher modeling of possible
interactions that may occur in situations when others are evaluating what is being
discussed, students may prove more successful in developing interactions with one
another.
Lastly, interactions that searched out the teacher or included the teacher
in students’ dialogues were observed throughout the treatment. The teacher
continually observed students in the treatment group participating in cooperative
groups that searched out to obtain the teacher’s assistance or approval of the
interaction. Also, the teacher’s guidance of, participation with, or proximity to
students’ interactions appeared to alter the groups’ dynamics.
The most common reasons for requesting teacher assistance were for
reminders of the treatment’s procedures or assistance decoding unfamiliar
words. During Octavio’s presentation on September 24, 2010 there were examples of
both of these instances that were recurring throughout the treatment. This exchange
began with the teacher completing a review of the fifth day’s procedures; Octavio then
began his presentation:
95
Octavio: (Immediately turned to look at the teacher.) “Do I have to read it?”
Teacher: “Can someone help remind Octavio how he is supposed to present?”
Student 1: “You have to fill in those blanks.” (The student pointed out where
the fifth day’s poster was located.)
Student 2: (While presenting his information, Octavio gets stuck sharing the
author.) “The author is right here.”
Octavio: “How do you read the author’s name?”
Students: (Various voices in the group could then be heard trying to sound out
the author’s name.)
Octavio: (Octavio called for the teacher’s assistance to read the author’s
name.) “Mr. Madden, what does this say?”
This interaction represents a carbon copy of many of the interactions observed by the
teacher over the course of the treatment. Students, as will be evidenced later in this
chapter, were capable of learning the procedures of the treatment successfully, which
led the researcher to believe that students’ searching out assistance was related to the
fact that the texts were too difficult when they were offered to students based on their
organization, instead of in their sequential order.
The teacher became involved in students’ interactions to provide
guidance, ensure factual correctness, and refocus students. Interactions including
the teacher engaged students, but the teacher quickly became the focal point of the
discussion. When Brandom presented to the whole group on October 1, 2010, there
was a greater amount of interaction, but the teacher was involved and soon became the
96
focal point for students during the interaction. This day’s interaction occurred as
follows:
Brandom: “I liked sharks.”
Student 1: “Great white sharks.”
Brandom: (Repeated correction.) “Great white sharks.”
Brandom: “I once saw a shark like the great white shark on a boat, but his head
was different.” (He puts his hands positioned out wide from his head to
demonstrate its shape.)
Teacher: “Maybe it was a hammerhead?”
Student 1: “I wonder if they hit things with their heads?”
Teacher: “Their heads look like hammers, but they don’t really hit stuff.”
Student 2: “I think they pop things with their head.”
Teacher: “They actually don’t pop things; they attack like other sharks.”
Student 3: “They have small mouths.”
Brandom: “This shark could run very fast.”
Student 3: “Run?...Don’t you mean swim?”
Student 3: “I know why they swim fast…they are lighter.”
Teacher: “They are really just very strong. Think about people that run very
fast. Runners don’t run fast because they are lighter. They run fast because
they are stronger.”
Whole Group: “Oh…” (Students seem to understand and agree with the
teacher’s comparison.)
97
This was observed to be a very engaging discussion for students. The teacher
predicted that this interaction would have occurred much differently had he not been
present. Since the teacher was attempting to observe students’ generation of
interaction when structured cooperatively, he should have embraced these
occurrences, modeled, and guided students towards adopting similar methods for
interacting with one another more independently.
The teacher’s proximity to cooperative groups appeared to spark
students’ interest in obtaining the teacher’s viewpoint or altered students’
natural reactions in certain situations. For instance, on October 22, 2010, the
teacher was partially involved in assisting Octavio with his presentation, but students
appeared overly dramatic and overly supportive in their responses, as if to show-off, to
presented information because the teacher was proximal to the group. Octavio’s whole
group presentation occurred as:
Octavio: (Asking the teacher.) “How do I say the author’s name?”
Teacher: (Reads the author’s name for Octavio.)
Octavio: “I liked the rules of the samurai.” (Octavio showed his text to the
whole group.) “See em?”
Whole Group: Yeah! (There appeared to be a group response, though two
students were observed to not have looked up at what Octavio was
demonstrating.)
Octavio: “Samurai women hit harder than men.” (Octavio held up his text, as if
to show a picture, yet he only demonstrated text to the group.)
98
Student 1: “That is awesome!”
Octavio: “I liked how the samurais fight; I liked their horses; I liked their
swords.”
Teacher: “We should probably wrap up our presentation, so we can have
enough time to finish everything.”
Octavio: “Can I share one more thing?”
Teacher: “Ok.”
Octavio: “I liked samurai armor.”
Student 2: “You did not share whether or not you would recommend the book
to a friend.”
Octavio completed his presentation by recommending Samurai Fighter (Friedman,
2009) to a friend. The teacher believed that this presentation would have taken place
much differently than it did had he not been proximal to the whole group throughout
all of Octavio’s presentation. There were other instances in which group members
were thought to be overly enthusiastic or dramatic because of the teacher’s presence. It
was as though they were employing a teacher pleasing strategy and attempting to
attain the teacher’s attention.
The teacher predicted that structuring students in heterogeneous, cooperative
groups would then encourage interactive behaviors beyond the times they were
expected to cooperatively work and interact, such as transitional times, times that
students were to practice their application of comprehension skills, or when students
99
were completing their written responses. A recurring observation noted the students’
had a heavy reliance on the teacher as a resource and a focal point during interactions.
The teacher observed one of these dialogic instances on September 29,
2010 when students participated in an interaction though they interacted with
one another while focusing on the teacher. On several occasions, students would
attempt to obtain the teacher’s opinions of a particular interaction they were having,
yet these students appeared to require the teacher for the simple fact that they did not
appear comfortable interacting with one another independent of the teacher’s presence.
During the time allotted to complete written responses, Daniela and Yoana engaged
the teacher in an interaction, developed the interaction through the teacher, yet the
teacher was not necessarily participating in their interaction at all. This interaction was
observed as:
Daniela: (Looking at the teacher.) “I don’t like crocodiles; they are scary.”
Yoana: (Looking at the teacher) “Great white sharks are scarier.”
Daniela: (Still looking at the teacher) “Crocodiles are way scarier.”
Yoana: (Still looking at the teacher) “Bull sharks are the worst of all.”
The teacher did nothing but provide eye contact and acknowledge their comments
with head nods. An interaction as Daniela and Yoana’s occurred several times during
the treatment, which was frustrating for the teacher because he figured that students
would simply perform this interaction with one another. Instead, he found that
students relied on the teacher to lead and/or actively participate in many interactions.
100
These findings may also demonstrate the need for the teacher to model and practice
the skills necessary to successfully interact with one another.
The teacher noted several instances of attempted interactions not being
acknowledged by their peers. Michelle and Orlando were examples of an interaction
that was attempted by Orlando and not acknowledged, or seemingly ignored, by
Michelle, and interactions such as these occurred more often than the teacher
anticipated.
While presenting on October 7, 2010, Orlando immediately interrupted
Michelle’s presentation and informed her, “I can’t hear you.” Michelle seemingly
ignored Orlando’s comment and continued on at the same volume. After Michelle
completed her presentation, Orlando said something inaudible to Michelle; Michelle
looked right at Orlando, did not say one word or give any non-verbals, and then
looked on to the next presenter to listen to the next presentation. On October 21, 2010,
there was another interaction in which Michelle did not acknowledge what Orlando
was attempting to help with. Initially, Orlando read a word aloud that Michelle was
having difficulty reading, yet she did not repeat Orlando’s pronunciation of the word,
though it was correct. At the conclusion of Michelle’s presentation, Orlando told
Michelle, “You weren’t supposed to just read; you had to use your small post-its.”
Michelle closed her book and said, “The end!” In neither of these attempted efforts of
Orlando to assist Michelle did have any intention of redoing any of her presentation,
or seemingly, know how to interact with Orlando’s assistance. Interactions as these
may have occurred as a result of students lacking understanding of how to more
101
naturally and successfully interact with one another. Instruction and modeling of
interactions may have alleviated this type of interaction from occurring during the
treatment.
Peer Assessment
The amount of students’ observed peer assessment provided evidence
regarding the amount of focus and attention given to the student presenting a practiced
comprehension skill. The teacher analyzed group members’ amount and level of
assessment provided during recorded presentations. The teacher rated any observed
peer assessments as no peer assessment, some peer assessment, or a greater degree of
peer assessment. Peer assessment was either non-existent, or there were only some
instances where group members assessed the presentation of their peers. The limited
amounts of students’ peer assessment produced several noteworthy patterns of
findings.
First, a pattern that emerged noted cooperative groups containing only one girl
produced a greater amount of peer assessment than other cooperative groups. The girls
(Michelle, Gina, and Dagmawit) were observed by the teacher to be the most quietly
spoken members of the group, and, at times, the teacher had difficulty clearly
communicating with these girls because they either spoke so quietly or did not
articulate clearly.
In Gina’s case, the boys in her group did not always remain focused on her
presentation for the entire time, though they appeared to begin each of Gina’s
presentations ready to listen. Gina’s group members were boys who had difficulty in
102
slow moving situations, and the fact that they somewhat assessed (2 times) and
strongly assessed (1 time) Gina’s presentations of comprehension skills was
noteworthy. Dagmawit and Michelle were assessed by their peers differently than
Gina’s group members. The assessments that Dagmawit and Michelle received were
corrective, either in terms of the content or procedural understanding. Michelle was
very quiet and, at times, had difficulty clearly articulating what she wanted to say, and
the texts she used to practice were extremely challenging for her. Her group members’
assessment of presentations primarily focused on helping read text and/or speaking
clearly. There were three observed instances when Michelle’s group member
(Orlando) could be heard telling her, “We can’t hear you”; there were also three times
that either Kalani or Orlando were observed assisting Michelle with decoding specific
sections of her text.
In the cooperative group of only girls, there was an interesting dynamic that
occurred. This group of girls (Daniela, Maria, and Yoana) demonstrated the most
natural ability to work cooperatively and, in comparison to other groups, provided the
presenter with the richest peer assessment. The teacher predicted that this group would
have proven even more successful learning cooperatively had Daniela ever appeared
completely comfortable with the various aspects that cooperative learning demanded.
On October 7, 2010, the girls’ group had a powerful interaction in which Daniela and
Maria were attempting to assist Yoana in presenting her evaluation of Fashion
Flashback (Camden, 2009). Yoana was expected to locate two pieces of information
103
in her text to support her evaluative reasoning. During Yoana’s presentation, the
following interaction occurred:
Yoana began her presentation of how she evaluated the text, but Daniela
immediately pointed out that Yoana had only placed one small post-it on the
page she was showing. Yoana appeared to look back at Daniela blankly.
Daniela then tried to clarify and used her own text to try and demonstrate. She
said, “You have to have two post-its telling what you liked.” The teacher
observed Daniela’s explanation and tone to be helpful in nature. Yoana again
seemed to not be processing what Daniela was explaining to her. Maria then
translated what Daniela had just explained in Spanish. At this point, Yoana put
her head down and simply shut down.
Yoana was frustrated at being corrected by her peers. After the teacher
reviewed this recorded interaction with the girls, he informed Yoana that there were
no observable instances of Daniela or Maria being anything but supportive and
reiterated with all three girls that the cooperative groups were set up in order to help
one another. Yoana appeared comfortable with this explanation and continued with the
treatment more positively.
On September 29, 2010, Maria, Daniela, and Yoana demonstrated a more
successful example of rich, cooperative learning. In this interaction, Maria was
presenting her supportive details of the text Hunt and Kill (Camacho, 2009):
After Maria presented her three supportive details, group member (1) asked,
“Didn’t you share that (detail) already?” Group member (2) then said, “That
104
was two (details)”. Maria clarified by repeating her three supportive details.
Groups members (1) and (2) chorally responded, “Ok”.
The teacher anticipated interactions as well as rich and thoughtful peer assessment as
these, to have occurred more frequently throughout the treatment; yet this was the only
example recorded in the six-week period. If the skills to interact were modeled and
given more guidance in their practice, the all girls’ group may have participated in rich
peer assessment more frequently, and the other cooperative groups would have a better
understanding of what was expected of them.
Pattern of interactions outside the structured cooperative group setting.
The teacher observed instances of students interacting with one another about their
texts’ beyond the structured cooperative group setting. Examples of these interactions
included: Gina and Dagmawit exchanged texts with one another to see what the other
was reading; Kalani pointed to a place in Daniela’s text while they were completing
their text’s SRC quiz; and Octavio and Brandom were engaged in a dialogue that
observed them engaging in eye contact and referencing their texts. Behaviors observed
as sharing texts, pointing out specific information in a text, and referencing texts
allowed the teacher to make the determination that a legitimate interaction occurred.
The teacher anticipated more interactions such as these to have occurred over the
course of the treatment. The pacing of the treatment forced students to quickly
transition from activity to activity, and such a rapid pace may have prevented students
from having many opportunities to interact with one another beyond the structured
cooperative group work time.
105
Pattern of helping behaviors. During recorded presentations, group members
demonstrated either helping or corrective behaviors while interacting with their peers.
The assistance provided was generally correct and supportive to student learning,
though there were also instances of helping behaviors proving to be factually
incorrect.
Students were observed helping one another on a regular basis with the
decoding of texts. Many times, texts would prove challenging for students, and they
would search out and/or receive assistance from their peers in the decoding of various
words. If students were not able to act as a resource for one another, they would seek
out the teacher for further assistance.
One example was a student helping to cue Gina as to whether or not it was her
turn to present her information. On September 28, 2010, the camcorder’s positioning
prevented some things from being observed. One of Gina’s group members was heard
telling her, “Go!” because it was her turn to present. Before Gina began, the
camcorder picked up a group member whispering something to Gina. To the teacher, it
sounded as though the student was reminding Gina of how to complete her
presentation because phrases such as, “…and then you’ll need to…” could be
detected. Another instance that signaled Gina to begin her presentation was after
Brandom asked her a question in a helping manner on October 18, 2010. It was Gina’s
turn to present and Brandom asked, “What’s the title?” Gina required more think time,
and group members’ prompting appeared to improve Gina’s readiness to present.
106
Similar prompting techniques were observed in other groups, though it seemed to
prove most beneficial to Gina.
Secondly, the teacher recorded instances when students assisted one another in
the completion of the treatment’s procedures. Many times, the teacher recognized
students assisting one another but was only able to record the ending, if any, of these
interactions, and these interactions appeared to be helping in nature. Towards the end
of the treatment, Dagim asked the teacher if he could try explaining to Favio how to
correctly use the teacher created sentence starters to write a complete written response;
the teacher had explained the process and modeled how to complete the written
response portion of the treatment many times to Favio, yet he still struggled with how
to complete the procedures. The teacher agreed, and he set up the camcorder in a
manner to record this interaction. By observing this interaction more closely, the
teacher wondered whether a student’s assistance would prove different than the
teacher’s assistance. The interaction between Dagim and Favio occurred as:
Dagim: “Don’t just write the answers. You have to fit it in these blanks. And
you have to write this whole thing.” (Favio was not looking at what Dagim
was pointing at and talking about.) “Look here! You have to write the whole
thing, and then say a time that…”(Dagim looked toward Favio’s text for a
marked detail.)
Favio: “The samurais were powerful.”
Dagim: “Yeah, you have to fit it inside the blank. Ok?”
Favio: “So I gotta write it on here?” (Favio pointed at his mini-poster.)
107
Dagim: “No! You write these, and you write this but don’t write it on here.”
(Dagim was referring to writing the sentence starter and detail but not writing
that information on the mini-poster.)
Favio: “Ok, I’ll put that question.”
Dagim: “Which one do you want to choose? You can choose any of them and
fill it in ok.” (Dagim pointed to the teacher created sentence starters on the
mini-poster.) “You get it now?”
Favio: “Ok.” (Favio’s response implied he understood, though his tone did not
sound confident nor completely clear in his understanding.)
Favio greatly struggled to correctly utilize the teacher created sentence starters
throughout the treatment. Though Dagim’s explanation did not alleviate all of Favio’s
misunderstandings, the teacher observed Favio to be more receptive to Dagim’s
assistance and constructive feedback than the teacher’s. Favio was a student who was
redirected by adults frequently, therefore, a student such as Favio may have appeared
more receptive to having a peer assist him instead of an adult.
The teacher observed examples of peer assistance that proved ineffective or
factually incorrect. On October 7, 2010, Brandom presented his evaluation of
something that could belong in the text Fast!. While presenting something about a
machine gun (Brandom could be difficult to understand), Octavio jumped into his
presentation to repeat himself two times, “It’s like a…you know what?” Brandom
responded, “I don’t know what,” and this seemingly distracted Brandom because he
never returned to his response to complete it. An example of assistance provided that
108
was factually incorrect occurred on October 13, 2010 when Orlando tried to help
Michelle in her presentation of supportive details using Fashion Flashback (Camden,
2009). Michelle had been reading information from the text instead of presenting
specific supportive details, so Orlando assisted Michelle in how she was to complete
the task of presenting various supportive details, though he explained task erroneously.
He told Michelle, “You need to share that most dresses were taken to prom.” This
detail was not one provided in the text, yet Michelle on this occasion, repeated the
information Orlando gave her. These issues of interacting ineffectively or incorrectly
may have been more easily corrected had the teacher been able to focus his attention
on the students participating in the treatment. At times, the teacher was required to
assist a student or group of students working at literacy stations other than those
directly participating in the treatment. These distractions prevented the teacher, at
times, from assisting cooperative groups that were known to struggle more regularly.
Grade level observations. Grade-levels (K-5) at the target school where the
treatment was administered were observed for the amounts and types of student
interactions related to the research topic that may be taking place in the students’
regular classrooms. Classrooms at each grade-level were observed for 15 minute
segments. There were no classrooms that generated any on-task interactions exceeding
the instructed expectations of the teacher. The only grade-level that offered students an
opportunity to collaborate with a partner during the time of observation was in a thirdgrade classroom. In this third-grade classroom, students were being guided through a
writing lesson towards independence; they were to share with their partner how they
109
were going to add dialogue in a specific portion of their writing. It appeared that every
pair of students, except one, had a one to one correspondence and then the interaction
ended. At the conclusion of sharing, it was noted that students either sat silently
anticipating the next instruction or appeared to begin off-task behaviors. The teacher
briefly roamed the room to listen in on the various things students were sharing. All in
all, an observation of this third-grade classroom’s language arts lesson found students
being given the opportunity to interact, and students completed the assigned
interaction to its minimal expectation. The pair of students in the observed third grade
classroom who appeared to interact far beyond what was expected were speaking in
Spanish. One student translated instructions and assisted a more beginning English
language learner; these students interacted back and forth about the task during the
entire time, which lasted approximately two minutes. When the teacher retained
control of the whole group again, she reviewed examples of students’ responses, took
several comments from students, and then students practiced the task independently in
their own writing. During independent practice, several students were observed trying
to interact with their partner and many of these interactions appeared to be on topic
because of non-verbal behaviors, such as pointing at their own stories. The teacher did
not allow interactions during independent practice. The lessons observed at the other
grade-levels included: the teacher guiding towards independence in a whole group
setting with no opportunities to interact; whole group discussion about a reading with
the teacher in the leading/facilitating role; or students working independently while the
teacher conferred with individual students. The teacher-researcher found these
110
observations to be noteworthy and informative when examining the amount of student
interactions generated throughout the current treatment.
Question #4
Can the manipulation of a commercialized reading program from one of
independence to cooperative efforts offer better observation and assessment of
students’ ability to comprehend text following the treatment’s procedures?
The teacher’s manipulation of Read 180’s instructional design provided
students direct and scaffolded instruction in and modeled and guided the practice of
applying comprehension skills independently, and then students presented their
application of comprehension skills in cooperative groups in an attempt to generate
interactions amongst group members. There were many successes in operating a
treatment as this, yet observations noted occurrences that required modifications or
were distracting to the teacher while attempting to observe or confer with students.
Observational tools, such as checklists, may have better assisted the teacher’s
understanding of students’ ability to apply comprehension skills and present
comprehension skills to their group’s members.
Distractions to the Treatment
Distractions during the treatment prevented valuable observations to be made
by the teacher. The teacher anecdotally noted some observations during the first half
of the treatment, but he was able to observe much more closely and frequently during
the second half of the treatment because students better understood the treatment’s
routines and expectations.
111
The most distracting materials to students during the first half of the treatment
were the camcorders that video recorded cooperative group presentations. The
camcorders’ presence was challenging because students either presented information
in a manner different from how they were more typically observed, or they prevented
group members from focusing on the camcorder’s viewfinder during students’
presentations. The teacher positively reinforced natural presentations in front of the
camera, which appeared to end much of the silliness. Brandom and Octavio, though it
was Brandom on a more regular basis, performed their presentations as though it was a
game show. Presentations that appeared overly inflected and silly in nature were very
distracting to any cooperative learning that may have occurred. Also, the teacher
greatly struggled with refocusing students’ attention away from the camcorder’s
viewfinder. Students appeared to get lost in watching presentations through the
viewfinder, rather than actively listening to the information being presented. The
teacher fully resolved this distraction at the start of the fourth week when he covered
the viewfinder with a small post-it; students immediately lost interest in this aspect of
the camcorders.
While some students participated in the treatment, there were two other groups
of students who were not directly participating in the treatment and completed tasks in
the classroom; one group practiced reading skills on computer software, and the other
group practiced skills in a small group setting. Typical distractions to the treatment
groups’ participants were behavioral issues or technical difficulties.
112
The teacher was distracted with the need to manage the materials used during
the treatment much more than initially predicted. The teacher planned for students to
manage and control a majority of their own materials; however, the teacher was
required to become extremely “hands on” in order to make transitions more efficient
between the various groups of students participating in the treatment.
Small post-its affected the second group of students who transitioned into the
treatment group because students in the first group forgot to remove all of their small
post-its from their text after practicing the application of comprehension skills.
Students in the second group became distracted with small post-its that were already
placed in the text and had to remove them, or they used the information previously
marked whether or not it was correct. The teacher enacted a new practice to assist with
the problem; he would scan the pages of returned texts by the first group and remove
any forgotten small post-its.
A similar problem of transitioning groups occurred when students in the first
group had not completed their written responses or SRC quizzes when students in the
second group required these texts for the treatment’s use. Though this issue of
overlapping materials never extended beyond four minutes, it disrupted the timing and
pacing of the day’s lesson.
Another issue with the management of materials involved the use of the CD
players, which students used on the first day (Monday) each week of the treatment.
Had the teacher not become “hands on” with CD players and audio CDs, there would
have been considerable amounts of time lost in the pacing of the treatment because
113
students were not provided sufficient practice time to become proficient in operating
the CD players and cueing the audio CDs. The teacher anticipated that students would
have had an opportunity to utilize the CD players as desired during times given to
practice comprehension skills, yet time constraints prevented the use of CD players
beyond the initial day of each week. The teacher cued each of the four CD players for
each of the texts students selected.
The teacher was “hands on” on a regular basis by shifting students’ chairs and
baskets during the course of the treatment. Prior to the start of the treatment, the
teacher envisioned that students would position their baskets proximal for easy access
and out of the way of other students in the class; the teacher also planned for students
to position their own chairs for cooperative group work. Almost immediately after
beginning the treatment, the problems associated with these materials were noted and
continually problematic throughout the treatment. The issue with the baskets was the
amount of space they filled. The classroom where the treatment occurred was so small
that there were no locations in the room to provide easy accessibility as well as the
ability to safely maneuver around the room. Consequently, the teacher repositioned
baskets and chairs on a daily basis. As the teacher became more efficient with these
tasks, he became more available to observe and monitor students’ application and
presentation of comprehension skills.
A final disruption to the treatment took place on the weeks that the teacher
provided direct instruction and guided students’ practice of comprehension skills. On
these instructional weeks (weeks 1 and 3), the teacher photocopied and bound extra
114
copies of the texts Sports Bloopers and Hunt and Kill because Read 180 does not
supply a set of six copies, which was the amount required to administer the treatment.
After limited amounts of use, the photocopied texts began falling apart. The teacher
repaired these texts as needed, though they were observed to be very difficult for the
students to manipulate.
Students’ Application of Comprehension Skills
The teacher introduced the process of applying comprehension skills in the
treatment one way, but students quickly modified the instructed method as to one that
worked better for them. Students were to place their small post-its in the margin of the
text lateral to where this information was found. Soon enough, students were
positioning small post-its in a manner that seemed to make more sense to them, as
though they were taking ownership in the process. It did not matter to the teacher
where students placed their small post-its as long as they could successfully go back
into the text to recall the necessary information.
Evaluations were much more difficult for students to apply using the
treatment’s procedures. Students were to locate two, or three if desired, pieces of
information in their text to support their evaluative reasoning. For some of the texts,
the placement of post-its was less abstract in its cognitive demands, but other texts
required evaluative reasoning that was extremely complex for the teacher to explain
and for students to apply following the treatment’s procedures. For example, the texts
African Journey and Fast! were cognitively demanding in their requirement to
evaluate following the treatment’s procedures. African Journey (Bakke & O’Connor)
115
wanted students to share a place they would like to visit in the world and explain why;
Fast! (Caggiano, 2009) expected students to brainstorm an object that was fast and
explain why that object belonged in the text. Students required much more assistance
with both of these evaluative tasks. The students who were observed applying and
presenting their evaluations were not able to successfully evaluate either Fast!
(Caggiano, 2009) or African Journey (Bakke & O’Connor, 2009); two students
demonstrated somewhat of an understanding, but these presentations came after
extensive guidance and explanation from the teacher.
After the first week of the treatment, modifications were made to the
treatment’s procedures in an attempt to generate more natural interactions during
presentations. The original design had students use teacher created sentence starters to
present practiced comprehension skills to their cooperative groups’ members. Using
this technique to present information appeared very unnatural for students, and the
difficulty that students displayed manipulating the sentence starters greatly distracted
the presenter and group members from the information being presented. The teacher
modified how students would be expected to initiate their presentations. Instead of
sentence starters, students were to begin by explaining what the task was that they
were to complete. This alteration did not appear to impact the amount of interactions,
but the manner in which students presented was noted as appearing much more
natural. By the end of the treatment, a majority of the students seemed comfortable
beginning their presentations following this new method.
116
On days one and five of each week throughout the treatment, students
presented information that either introduced the text (Day 1) or concluded work with
the text (Day 5), and these days of the treatment continued the usage of teacher created
sentence starters to present information to group members. Some students, Daniela
most notably, began their presentations with the day one sentence starters each day of
the treatment, instead of explaining the comprehension skill being completed. By
requiring students to present information in a formulaic manner, using teacher created
sentence starters, these sentence starters appeared to remove the child’s voice from
their presentations. Student voice and ownership in their presented information may be
restored by beginning the treatment having students explain the task they were
required to complete instead of using sentence starters.
Post-treatment Interviews
Post treatment interviews of students in the treatment group provided
additional support to demonstrate that students clearly understood the procedures
expected throughout the treatment. At the treatment’s conclusion, students began
completing reading tasks independently following the Read 180’s procedures.
Students were interviewed and questioned as to their preference of Read 180’s or the
treatment’s procedures. Overwhelmingly, the students stated that they would prefer to
continue with Read 180’s independent procedures. Only one student, Gina, chose that
she would rather practice the treatment’s procedures. When asked why, she responded,
“I like sharing my ideas with someone”. Aside from Gina’s feelings, students’
reasoning to work independently demonstrated their understanding that the treatment
117
had ramifications that prevented students’ success with texts, such as limited amounts
of time to practice with texts and that the texts Read 180 offered when organized by
comprehension skill were difficult for the students to read.
Post-treatment interviews reflected students’ recognition of the lacking time
and limited opportunities to access their texts using the audio CD. Yoana shared her
preference for Read 180’s procedures by saying, “I get more time with the book”.
Dagim discussed his reasoning for working independently by saying, “In the old way
(following the treatment’s procedures), I didn’t get to read as much before taking the
quiz”. Dagmawit also pointed out how the independent procedures provided the
opportunity to track along with texts on audio CDs as often as desired. Students’
responses provided the teacher evidence that students understood the treatment offered
limited amounts of time to practice reading and applying comprehension skills during
the treatment, and increased practice time while working independently was felt
immediately by students.
It was also interesting to note students’ recognition of the rapid increase in the
texts’ difficulty during the treatment. Daniela and Orlando both commented how they
liked the independent procedures more than those of the treatment because they could
select texts at their appropriate readability level. Orlando said, “The books got too
hard fast doing it the old way (following the treatment’s procedures)”; Daniela
commented, “I like this new way (independent procedures) because I can think about
the books better, and the old way (treatment’s procedures) the books got too hard.”
118
Students who participated in the current treatment and then practiced Read
180’s independent procedures stated their preference for Read 180’s because of
observed problems occurring in the treatment, such as not enough practice time with
texts and texts became too difficult too quickly when organized by comprehension
skill. It was interesting that students in the treatment group took issue with not
receiving enough time to practice reading and applying comprehension skills and
verbalized these frustrations. Another interesting note was that texts were described as
too difficult instead of the instructional practices implemented in the treatment were
too much effort.
119
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The current treatment collected data qualitatively and quantitatively to
determine whether direct instruction, modeling, and guided practice coupled with an
opportunity to present the completion of comprehension skills in cooperative groups
proved more valuable to students’ thinking skills than reading and completing
comprehensions tasks independently. Students in both the treatment and control
groups were administered a pre and post-assessment to quantitatively compare the
gains made by those in the treatment versus those in the control group. Qualitative
observations found successes and drawbacks to having students participate in either
the current treatment or control group. Professional literature and research was found
to support the data collected and observations made during the treatment. The
following research questions are discussed.
Research Question #1
Does cooperative learning benefit students’ higher-level cognitive processes
greater than learning independently?
An analysis of students’ quantitative data (pre and post-assessment) in both the
treatment and control groups determined that a greater number of students in the
treatment group demonstrated greater amounts of thinking skills than students in the
control group. The results for the treatment group from the pre to post-assessment
demonstrated that the students either remained at the same amount or improved their
amount of performed thinking skills. Pre and post assessment of students in the control
120
group were highlighted by the fact that students’ thinking skills remained constant or
decreased. Since an overwhelming majority of the students in the treatment group
were ELLs, the results of the treatment group’s post-assessment data appeared to
reflect considerable evidence in professional literature that cooperative work benefits
English language learners (Kagan, 1986; Long & Porter, 1985) and improves students’
deeper levels of understanding (Kuhn et al., 1997).
English Language Learners
The majority of students who participated in the treatment group were ELLs,
and Skutnabb-Kangas and Cummins (1988) would have argued that these students
should be placed in interactive environments because these environments can play a
major factor in an ELL’s learning. Post-assessment data in the current treatment
reflected better learning outcomes, which may have resulted due to the structuring of
ELLs in a cooperative group environment. These gains may be related to what Kagan
(1995) determined as the importance in having repetition in language learning and
practice because it moves content from short-term to long-term acquisition; any
speech generated is related to “real life” situations and may add to an ELL’s fluency.
Improved Cognitive Abilities
That students in the treatment group demonstrated higher level thinking skills
was anticipated as Johnson and Johnson (1992) found impressive support for the
relationship between cooperative learning and the increases in higher order thinking
skills and cognitive abilities. Sharan (1999) stated that higher levels of cognitive
organization were required if students were expected to summarize, explain, or teach
121
something in a cooperative group. The current treatment required students to explain
how they completed specified comprehension skills, and members of the cooperative
group were expected to assess the correctness of the presented explanation. Just as
ELLs require repetition, Ghaith and Yaghi (1998) found the dynamics for cooperative
learning provided repeated input from a variety of sources, and participants of lower
aptitude received multiple opportunities for comprehension practice.
Research Question #2
Is direct instruction, modeling, and guided practice of comprehension skills
more beneficial to students’ understanding and application of comprehension skills as
compared to students completing worksheets independently to practice comprehension
skills?
Providing students explicit instruction, modeling, and guidance towards
independence was an important variable in the treatment group versus the control
group. Durkin (1981) argued that commercialized reading programs should teach
comprehension skills with direct instruction, instead of through implication. Students
in the treatment group applied their understanding of the comprehension skills (detail
recall, supportive details, and evaluation), using small post-its, that they were directly
taught and scaffolded. Students’ application of comprehension skills offered the
teacher an opportunity to observe the students’ understanding of specific
comprehension skills; however, the students in the control group independently
completed worksheets, which did not permit observable evidence of their
understanding of specific comprehension skills during the time they spent practicing
122
reading. Both the treatment and control groups wrote responses to specific
comprehension skills after presenting them to group members. The control group’s
students provided written responses with details that did not directly link back to the
text; whereas, students in the treatment group had fewer errors in their written
responses because they provided details that were directly located within the text, and
they may have proven even more successful with their written responses had their
written conventions and grammar skills been stronger. The treatment group’s students
appeared to benefit from direct instruction, teacher modeling, and guided practice
because of these students’ abilities to provide responses that related directly to
provided evidence of engaging in strategic reading behaviors. Research and findings
in professional literature defended the observations made in the current treatment that
students learned a specific skill when directly instructed (Hollingsworth & Ybarra,
2009); teacher modeling assisted students in adopting similar reading strategies
(Roehler & Cantlon, 1997); and teacher guidance allowed the teacher to monitor and
assess student learning more closely and propel them towards independence (Carnine
et al., 1997).
Direct Instruction, Modeling, and Guided Practice
Direct instruction, modeling, and guided practice of comprehension skills
provided to students in the treatment group enabled the teacher to monitor students’
understanding during practice with comprehension skills. Students in the treatment
group were required to place small post-its in the text to identify the information
required to complete a comprehension skill; these students, for the most part, proved
123
successful in applying similar processes more independently. The control group was
unable to provide evidence of any understanding during their practice of
comprehension skills because they completed their tasks (worksheets) independently
with no means of demonstrating understanding during comprehension skill practice.
Based on the literature of Hollingsworth and Ybarra (2009), direct instruction
of clear learning objectives ensured students were taught concepts and skills, focused
on specific skills needed for independent practice, allowed teachers to measure
students’ achievement, and provided expectations for what students were to do. The
observations of students successfully, or assisted as necessary, identifying specific
information to complete comprehension skills during the treatment supported
Hollingsworth and Ybarra’s (2009) findings of what direct instruction can provide for
both the teacher and students. Modeling of the treatment’s procedures was an
important component because students participating in the treatment were expected to
follow similar procedures more independently. Just as Roehler and Cantlon (1997)
described modeling as “working through” specific texts and encouraging students to
adopt similar schemas, it was interesting to note that students did, in fact, adjust the
treatment’s procedures in a manner which they desired and found comfortable for
them. After the teacher modeled how to apply comprehension skills, Carnine et al.
(1997) described guided practice as the means by which a teacher ensures that students
can apply an instructional strategy. During guided practice, the teacher of the current
treatment quickly determined individual students’ needs or overlying issues that may
have prevented a student from successfully applying the treatment’s procedures. The
124
purpose of guiding students’ application and practice of comprehension skills was
paralleled by Ford and Opitz’s (2008) argument that the purpose for guided practice is
to assist students in becoming independent as soon as possible.
Written Responses
The final task that students in both the treatment and control group completed
was a written response related to the comprehension skills being practiced. Students in
the treatment group were provided sentence starters and had presented the information
they were writing to their group’s members, whereas, students in the control group
were not provided sentence starters and simply completed their written responses.
After an analysis of written responses in both groups, it turned out that the students in
the treatment group had a greater number of written responses containing details that
directly linked to the text, however, conventions and grammatical issues played a
pivotal role in preventing understanding of some written responses. The overwhelming
majority of students in the control group provided written responses that did not fully
demonstrate their ability to recall details in a text because these written responses did
not contain any information that could be located in the text.
Originally, sentence starters were to be used both for group presentations of
information and written responses. Cohen (1994) found that providing scripts helped
students raise their levels of discourse, increase participation, and achievement.
Though the teacher created sentence starters were unsuccessful when used during
cooperative group presentations, they proved much more valuable in assisting
students’ written responses.
125
Research Question #3
Does the structuring of cooperative learning groups generate student
dialogues?
In the structuring of cooperative groups, the teacher presumed students would
have quickly engaged in dialogues about the texts they used for comprehension skill
practice based on observations of interactions students participated in with one another
using similar texts. Students were grouped cooperatively and offered the opportunity
to generate interactions based on the information presented by group members, yet
interactions occurred far less frequently than had been anticipated. Though there were
few interactions observed, the interactions that were observed revealed a pattern of
students primarily displaying helping behaviors with one another.
Student Grouping
Since the teacher had anticipated students would generate interactions, he
ensured that best practices were attended to when grouping students to work
cooperatively. The majority of the students in the treatment were ELLs, therefore,
results from the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) were used
as one of the criterion to group students (see Appendix C). Students were also group
based on their gender and anecdotal observations of students’ behaviors and
personalities prior to beginning the treatment. Students were encouraged to work with
one another, and the distribution of time to present information was kept as equal as
possible. Johnson et al. (1981) determined that cooperation would be enhanced when
peer tutoring was encouraged, and the task did not require a division of labor. In
126
conclusion, the teacher hypothesized that structuring groups heterogeneously would
prove more beneficial in generating interactions amongst students; but students
actually required more direct instruction, modeling, and guided practice from the
teacher as to how to interact with one another more successfully. This lack of
interaction may also be attributed to the rapid rise in the difficulty of the text the
students were reading.
Helping Behaviors
As previously discussed, there was a low volume of interactions generated.
The interactions observed also noted that students primarily demonstrated helping
behaviors with one another. Students were observed to demonstrate helping behaviors
with one another, and helping behaviors were the most notable interaction throughout
the treatment.
Helping behaviors were anticipated to occur based on the findings of Webb
(1982), in which it was discovered that helping behaviors occurred in heterogeneous
groups. The primary helping behavior observed throughout the treatment could be
classified as, what Doyle (1979) would name, “cohort production.” In the majority of
the treatment group’s instances of helping behaviors, students would attempt to fill in
their peer’s misunderstanding with clarification, whether or not it was always correct.
Doyle (1979) referred to “cohort production” as a student answering for the presenter
in the case of a hesitation during presentations; this helping behavior allowed students
to receive “credit” without having learned the material. Again, the difficulty of the text
may have contributed to this behavior.
127
Low Amounts of Interaction
At the conclusion of the treatment, the teacher realized that thoughtful
structuring of cooperative groups and the opportunity to interact was not enough to
generate student dialogues. The previous school year the teacher observed students
interacting about their texts without any guidance or encouragement; it was assumed
that designing a cooperative learning environment would more easily afford students
the opportunity to interact about their texts. However, instead of generating any
interactions based on the information presented by group members, students
completed their presentations, as instructed, with little to no interaction. A similar
behavioral pattern of students completing tasks with virtually no student interaction
was noted during grade-level language arts time across grades and multiple
classrooms. The students appeared to not understand how to interact beyond the
teacher’s specific instructions during an academic task.
The low amounts of interaction observed by the researcher during the
treatment may be related to the students observed across various grade-levels and
classrooms not receiving much practice or exposure to working cooperatively, as
demonstrated by Johnson and Holubec’s (1990, 1994) findings that classrooms were
structured cooperatively only between 7-20% of the time. As the current treatment
revealed, structuring students in cooperative groups may not be enough to generate a
high volume of interactions. The teacher followed the criterion for successful group
work by Rabow, Charness, Kipperman, and Radcliffe-Vasile (1994), with the
exception of the criterion which was to have students evaluate the group’s process and
128
individual contributions during group work. An oversight as minute as not requiring
students to evaluate their performance, as well as that of their group’s overall
performance, may have prevented the teacher from realizing the importance in
providing students with instruction and modeling in how to interact with one another.
A main cause for students’ lacking the ability to successfully interact with one another
could be that students may have required direct instruction in how to interact with one
another. Adger, Kalyanpur, Petersen, and Bridger (1995) stated various types of
thinking, such as detail recall, similarity, difference, cause and effect, example to idea
(specific to general), idea to example (general to specific), and evaluation elicited
certain types of verbal interactions. In the current treatment’s research, the
comprehension skills of detail recall, supportive details (idea to example), and
evaluation were instructed and scaffolded throughout the treatment, yet students were
not provided instruction or modeling in how to verbalize their thoughts as they relate
to these skill processes.
Research Question #4
Can the manipulation of a commercialized reading program from one of
independent activity to cooperative efforts offer better observation and assessment of
students’ metacognitive understanding of comprehension skills?
The teacher’s manipulation of Read 180 prescribed design provided students
direct and scaffolded of comprehension skills, and then offered students an
opportunity to present their application of comprehension skills to members of their
129
cooperative group. Students’ presentations were intended to provide students an
opportunity to generate interactions about the information presented.
Application of Treatment’s Procedures
The treatment utilized texts provided by Read 180 but offered them to students
based on their organization by comprehension skills. These texts presented problems
during the treatment because students either had difficulty decoding the texts or
applying the treatment’s procedures while evaluating in the texts Fast! (Caggiano,
2009) and African Journey (Bakke & O’Connor, 2009). The teacher did not anticipate
that the texts would become such a struggle so quickly for many of the students, nor
did the teacher realize how difficult it would be to guide students’ success while
evaluating the texts Fast! (Caggiano, 2009) and African Journey (Bakke & O’Connor,
2009) following the treatment’s procedures.
For the most part, students clearly understood the treatment’s procedures and
what was expected of them at each task throughout the treatment. Doyle and Carter
(1984) noted that a product being too difficult, or ambiguous, forced students to focus
more on the product, instead of the content. Students in this study understood the task
they were to complete, but the reading level of the text or the abstractness of the
evaluative task was following the treatment’s procedures may have been far too
difficult for some of the students to demonstrate achievement.
Serendipitous Outcomes
Two outcomes from the research were unanticipated. The first, students’ lack
of skill in cooperative discourse appeared to be linked to the lack of interactive
130
instruction in the regular classrooms from which these students were drawn. Given
that treatment occurred in the beginning of the year, before any cohort
contextualization could occur, it was not surprising that so little discussion actually
occurred during treatment. The second unanticipated outcome from the research
occurred during the analysis of the think-aloud measure. The control group members
were far less able to articulate their understanding on this measure than the students in
the treatment group, who were able to make sophisticated connections to text during
reading. This outcome is in opposition to the independent story performance of the
control group on the computer measures of comprehension provided by the Read 180
program. How can the treatment group members, who appear to interact in a dynamic
way with text on one measure, not compare well with the control group who
completed successfully many more of the Read 180 tests. After careful consideration
of the behaviors necessary for the completion of both measures, it was surmised that,
when Read 180 is practiced in the strict compliance of their protocols, students have
the opportunity to read and read the text, while listening to the text on audio CD, to the
point that the text is auditorily “memorized”, allowing for a higher passing rate than
would have occurred if the text was read only or read/listen occurred only once or
twice. Consequently, one could hypothesize that the Read 180 test measured listening
comprehension more than reading comprehension. Once again, this hypothesis is
supported by the lack of sophisticated processing of text by the control group students
on the read-aloud assessment.
131
Recommendations for Future Classroom Practice
Future classroom practice of the current treatment may be enhanced by
providing students direct and scaffolded instruction in how to interact with one
another, offering more practice working collaboratively, and creating a safe
environment during interaction related to academic tasks.
Interaction Instruction
Students had low amounts of interaction throughout the treatment. It was
hypothesized that students’ presentations of practiced comprehension skills would
prompt the group’s members to interact with the presented information. It turned out
that students presented their comprehension skills, as instructed, and instead interacted
as little as possible. Providing students better instruction in how to generate dialogue
based on information that was presented may transfer into students’ own dialogues.
The teacher-researcher who replicates this treatment will benefit by pre-planning the
instruction in how students should be expected to interact in a cooperative group.
More Collaboration
A collaborative environment was arranged, yet students did not work as
collaboratively as was anticipated. If the treatment had more cooperative work
designed into it, issues of lacking amounts of interaction may have declined. Possibly,
greater amounts of collaborative efforts could be encouraged by structuring the
treatment in a format similar to that of reciprocal reading, or something resembling a
jig-saw approach to learning. The inclusion of a more collaborative environment that
132
created an equal amount of labor and opportunity to interact may prove more
beneficial in generating interactions amongst students in a cooperative group setting.
Supplementing Texts
An issue for many of the students over the course of the treatment was related
to students practicing with texts that were at a difficult level for them. The texts
provided by Read 180, when organized according to comprehension skill instead of
sequentially, became much too difficult for a majority of students. In order to better
ensure that students are provided texts closer to their reading ability, the teacher
should supplement texts organized by similar comprehension skills to those of Read
180’s texts when organized by comprehension skill.
Recommendations for Future Research
Topics of research that should be examined when replicating a study such as
that of the current treatment include: beginning the treatment later in the school year;
studying a different population of students; practicing different methods of
comprehension skill practice, such as reciprocal reading and/or focusing on specific
comprehension skills week by week; matching texts to students’ reading abilities; and
avoiding the immense variable of students’ writing ability.
Further Into the School Year
The current treatment began one month into the school year, and this made it
extremely difficult for researcher and students in a number of aspects. Beginning the
current treatment so early in the school year rushed the teacher’s observations of
students’ reading abilities and personalities, consequently, the teacher grouped
133
students in a manner that did not work out as smoothly as anticipated. Students
appeared affected by such a quick transition into learning cooperatively and
interacting with their peers because they were forced to conform to interactive
procedures to which they were not accustomed. Many students were observed to act
unnaturally in the cooperative group setting and were unsure as to how to interact with
one another. Students in the treatment group may perform more interactively if they
are more comfortable with their new teacher, environment, and peers.
Speakers’ of English Only
The participants of the current treatment were primarily those who spoke
English as a second language. Having so many English language learners may have
been related to students’ low amounts of interaction. The students who participated in
the current treatment demonstrated a great degree of difficulty manipulating the
necessary language to participate in and develop the interaction that the researcher had
predicted would have occurred. Students speaking English as their primary language
may initiate different dynamics of language because of their stronger vocabulary and
comfort with interacting in their primary language.
More Cooperative Work
Cooperative learning was an important aspect in the development of
comprehension skills and interaction throughout the current treatment. It may prove
more beneficial to students’ interactive abilities if collaborative efforts were
incorporated more regularly over the course of the treatment. The current treatment
could be modified to offer more opportunities to interact by structuring the treatment
134
to resemble a learning format similar to that of reciprocal reading. Reciprocal reading
techniques could be incorporated into the current treatment by having the teacher
create details (recalled or supportive) or evaluative responses for the members of a
cooperative group to determine which is the best. By having students discuss which
information is best, instead of presenting their completion of a specific comprehension
skill, students’ voice may appear more natural and more easily generate interactions
amongst group members.
Skill by Skill
Each week, the current treatment practiced comprehension skills, such as
details (recalled or supportive) and evaluation, only two days or less per week.
Students would benefit more from comprehension skill instruction and guided practice
if the weeks were designed to instruct and practice skills in a more focused manner.
One week could instruct and guide the practice of detail recall; another week could
focus on supportive details; and then a third week might include the teaching of
evaluations. These instructional weeks could then repeat to provide students the
opportunity to practice comprehension skills more independently.
Excluding Writing
Many students who participated in the current treatment demonstrated
difficulty with the written responses that they were to produce after presenting how
they applied their comprehension skill in a text to their group. Written responses to
comprehension skills were very difficult for students in the treatment group to
successfully complete, possibly due to their beginning level of writing in English.
135
Students’ difficulty completing written responses may be alleviated by having students
in cooperative groups determine which detail or evaluation is best for them from a
teacher generated list. If students orally determined, as a group, which example best
completes their comprehension skill’s task, students would not be required to provide
a written response using teacher created sentence starters.
Summary
This research study provided many insights and a few surprises regarding the
learning context, the larger school context, and the Read 180 program itself. While the
outcomes were confounded by measures, instruments, and student language ability,
the notion that discourse and instruction in specific skills as valued instructional tools
has been shown to be very effective in assisting students to even comprehend text
written at a readability much higher than their instructional level.
136
APPENDIX A
Week 1, 3, and 5
137
Week 1, 3, and 5
Day
1
Day 2
Day 3
Comprehension skills: detail recall,
supportive details, and summarization
Teacher
distributed
texts for
direct
instruction
(2 min)
Teacher
modeled a
book walk
(2 min)
Teacher
guided
small group
discussion
of book
walk (6
min)
Day
5
Comprehension
skill: text evaluation
Teacher
modeled
instruction and
application of
comprehension
skills (8 min)
Teacher
reviewed
instruction and
application of
comprehension
skills (6 min)
Teacher
modeled
instruction and
application of
an evaluation (7
min)
Teacher guided
practice of
comprehension
skills (4 min)
Teacher
provided more
independence in
practice of
comprehension
skill (6 min)
Teacher guided
practice of an
evaluation (4
min)
Teacher
modeled small
group
presentation of
comprehension
skills (7 min)
Teacher
reviewed small
group
presentation of
comprehension
skill (5 min)
Teacher
modeled small
group
presentation of
an evaluation (6
min)
Teacher guided
practice of
small group
presentation of
comprehension
skill (4 min)
Teacher
provided more
independence in
presentation of
comprehension
skill (6 min)
Teacher guided
practice of
small group
presentation of
comprehension
skill (6 min)
Students
read book
with audio
CD (8 min)
Teacher
modeled
small group
discussion
of book
walk (5
min)
Day 4
Teacher
modeled
whole group
discussion (6
min)
Teacher
guided
students’
presentations
to the whole
group (9
min)
Students
independentl
y read their
text aloud (8
min)
Students
took their
text’s SRC
quiz
138
APPENDIX B
Week 2, 4, and 6
139
Week 2, 4, and 6
Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Comprehension skills: detail recall,
supportive details, and summarization
Students
selected
texts for
independen
t practice
(2 min)
Teacher
reviewed a
book walk
(2 min)
Students
read book
with audio
CD (8 min)
Teacher
reviewed
small
group
discussion
of book
walk (3
min)
Students
independen
tly
presented
their book
walk (8
min)
Day 4
Day 5
Comprehension
skill: text evaluation
Teacher
reviewed
instruction and
application of
comprehension
skills (3.5 min)
Teacher
reviewed
instruction and
application of
comprehension
skills (2 min)
Teacher
reviewed
instruction and
application of
an evaluation
(3.5 min)
Teacher
reviewed
whole
group
discussion
(3 min)
Students
independently
practiced
comprehension
skill (7 min)
Students
independently
practiced
comprehension
skill (7 min)
Students
independently
practiced
evaluating (5.5
min)
Students
independen
tly
presented
to the
whole
group (12
min)
Teacher
reviewed small
group
presentation of
comprehension
skills (3.5 min)
Teacher
reviewed small
group
presentation of
comprehension
skill (2 min)
Teacher
reviewed small
group
presentation of
an evaluation
(3.5 min)
Students
independently
presented
comprehension
skill (9 min)
Students
independently
presented
comprehension
skill (12 min)
Teacher guided
practice of
small group
presentation of
comprehension
skill (10.5 min)
Students
independen
tly read
their text
aloud (8
min)
Students
took their
text’s SRC
quiz
140
APPENDIX C
Student Initial Data
141
Student Initial Data
Student
Treatment
Group
Dagmawit
CST 10
CELDT
(reading)
CELDT
(speaking)
CELDT
(listening)
CELDT
(writing)
fbb 251
beginner
intermediate
intermediate
beginner
Maria
fbb 239
early
intermediate
early
advanced
Favio
Kalani
fbb 215
fbb 239
beginner
intermediate
early
advanced
early
intermediate
Brandom
fbb 210
beginner
early
intermediate
intermediate
beginner
Octavio
fbb 210
beginner
advanced
early
intermediate
beginner
beginner
intermediate
intermediate
beginner
intermediate
early
advanced
early
intermediate
beginner
Michelle
early
advanced
beginner
beginner
Yoana
fbb 215
Orlando
fbb 225
beginner
early
intermediate
Georgina
fbb 230
beginner
advanced
early
advanced
Daniela
Dagim
fbb 251
fbb 251
early
intermediate
beginner
early
advanced
advanced
intermediate
intermediate
beginner
beginner
Control
Group
Alexandria
fbb 239
Aziza
Jasmine
fbb 251
fbb 225
early
intermediate
advanced
advanced
early
intermediate
Maricela
fbb 239
early
intermediate
early
advanced
Carlos
Falicia
Camren
Genevieve
fbb
fbb
fbb
fbb
intermediate
advanced
239
251
225
251
intermediate
early
advanced
beginner
beginner
early
intermediate
intermediate
142
APPENDIX D
Treatment Group: SRC Quizzes
143
Treatment Group
Student
Orlando
Date
9\17
9\24
10\1
10\8
10\15
10\22
SRC Quiz
Sports Bloopers
Travels With Mapman
Hunt and Kill
Fast!
In Search of Giant Squid
Fashion Flashback
score
9\10
10\10
10\10
10\10
5\10
6\10
Gina
9\17
9\24
10\1
10\8
10\15
10\22
Sports Bloopers
African Journey
Hunt and Kill
Fashion Flashback
In Search of Giant Squid
Fast!
9\10
9\10
10\10
5\10
8\10
10\10
Daniela
9\17
9\24
10\1
10\8
10\15
10\22
Sports Bloopers
Gross Bugs
Hunt and Kill
Fashion Flashback
Fast!
Samurai Fighter
7\10
7\10
10\10
9\10
9\10
6\10
Dagim
9\17
9\24
10\1
10\8
10\15
10\22
Sports Bloopers
Gross Bugs
Hunt and Kill
Fast!
Samurai Fighter
In Search of Giant Squid
5\10
7\10
8\10
7\10
7\10
5\10
Brandom
9\17
9\24
10\1
10\8
10\15
10\22
Sports Bloopers
Gross Bugs
Hunt and Kill
Fast!
Fashion Flashback
In Search of Giant Squid
4\10
1\10
10\10
6\10
7\10
6\10
Octavio
9\17
9\24
10\1
10\8
10\15
10\22
Sports Bloopers
Travels With Mapman
Hunt and Kill
Fast!
In Search of Giant Squid
Samurai Fighter
5\10
8\10
10\10
6\10
3\10
6\10
144
Michelle
9\17
9\24
10\1
10\8
10\15
10\22
Sports Bloopers
Gross Bugs
Hunt and Kill
Fast!
Fashion Flashback
Samurai Fighter
4\10
5\10
6\10
4\10
6\10
4\10
Yoana
9\17
9\24
10\1
10\8
10\15
10\22
Sports Bloopers
Gross Bugs
Hunt and Kill
Fashion Flashback
Fast!
In Search of Giant Squid
6\10
10\10
9\10
tech. diff.
7\10
8\10
Dagmawit
9\17
9\24
10\1
10\8
10\15
10\22
Sports Bloopers
African Journey
Hunt and Kill
Samurai Fighter
In Search of Giant Squid
Fashion Flashback
8\10
10\10
10\10
7\10
7\10
8\10
Maria
9\17
9\24
10\1
10\8
10\15
10\22
Sports Bloopers
African Journey
Hunt and Kill
Fashion Flashback
Fast! (not here)
In Search of Giant Squid
6\10
Favio
9\17
9\24
10\1
10\8
10\15
10\22
Sports Bloopers
Gross Bugs
Hunt and Kill
Fashion Flashback
Fast!
Samurai Fighter
7\10
4\10
not here
4\10
5\10
5\10
Kalani
9\17
9\24
10\1
10\8
10\15
10\22
Sports Bloopers
Travels With Mapman
Hunt and Kill
Fast!
In Search of Giant Squid
Samurai Fighter
6\10
5\10
10\10
9\10
8\10
6\10
9\10
6\10
not here
6\10
145
APPENDIX E
Control Group: SRC Quizzes
146
Control Group
Student
Maricela
Date
10\11
10\12
10\12
10\15
10\15
10\25
10\25
SRC Quiz
Fast!
Messy Jobs
Sports Bloopers
I Do Not Eat Worms
Wonders of the World
Mystery Photo
Travels With Mapman
score
8\10
9\10
9\10
10\10
7\10
9\10
8\10
Camren
10\22
10\26
Messy Jobs
Fast!
8\10
8\10
Jasmine
10\15
10\15
10\25
10\25
10\25
10\25
Fast!
Wonders of the World
I Do Not Eat Worms
Mystery Photo
Travels With Mapman
Wonders of the World
7\10
6\10
9\10
10\10
10\10
8\10
Alexandria
10\15
Wonders of the World
10\10
Aziza
no quizzes taken
Genevieve
10\25
10\25
Messy Jobs
Hunt and Kill
10\10
10\10
Falicia
10\25
10\25
Messy Jobs
Hunt and Kill
7\10
10\10
147
APPENDIX F
Control Group Written Responses
148
Control Group
Skycrest Written Responses
Maricela
Mystery Photo (detail recall)
1) you can eat Pizza
2) you can cice
3) you can eat Lobster
4) A very tall Bidling
5) you have to stop.
6) you read books
7) They are wild animos
Mystery Photo (evaluation)
Hints, It is can be black or white or both. It is fury and playful. It can be fat or thin.
Wonders of the World (summarization)
1) this building is a big tomb! Ann empars wife died.
2) the Great wall of China is 4,000 miles long. people can see it from space!
3) the year was 1876. the unitedstates truned 100.
Wonders of the World (evaluation)
what is a wonder in my life is how is my grate grate grama and grand pa’s name.
I Do Not Eat Worms (and Other Poems) (evaluation)
1) I will not Eat worms I don’t eat worms.
2) I will sing on tv I sing with stiyle.
3) my grandma Love’s me the most
4) Homework Hill someday I will climb homework hill
I Do Not Eat Worms (and Other Poems) (evaluation)
Her secret journal because She has a lot of secret stuff in it.
Fast! (supportive details)
1) they are very fast
2) they are good at run
3) their rate is about 120 mph
4) they can run 100 mph
5) they are grat run
Fast! (evaluation)
I will add nace car to the book because it is very fast.
149
Sports Bloopers (detail recall)
1) She smackin to the hurdle
2) He Jumps on the net.
3) It bounced over the wall.
4) He gets hit in the face.
5) She Lost her balanse
Sports Bloopers (evaluation)
I Like Nice legs becuce he flipt over the table.
Messy Jobs (evaluation)
1) messiest pait of my Job is the pant hiting me
2) Fotouch Feet and fiches feet
3) Tofall on the ground and to get mess esty
Messy Jobs (evaluation)
The messy Job I thing most importen is To touch feet and to carer feet and smell
stincky feet.
Hunt and Kill (supportive detail)
1) a Great white is very mean
2) A great white is a fast swimmer
3) A Grat white a huge
4) A Great whites
5) A Great white is seary
Hunt and Kill (evaluation)
Becas of are prettier Becase of their sharpe teeth.
Camren
Fast! (supportive details)
1) They ron very Fast
2) They haw to stop in 10 mines
3) They very silut to run
4) They run 71 mine per Hore
5) Cheetoh foninta The get hot then they stop.
Fast! (evaluation)
The fast is plant is fast they gro about 4 feet a day. We do not gro like that if we did
we wont be miot long.
150
Sports Bloopers (detail recall)
1) she try to jump the riak.
2) He maclh a point and then he said that i never miss.
3) It went over the wall and he rac into the wall.
4) He gets hunrt by getting lik in the Fase.
5) She was gofing off.
Sports Bloopers (evaluation)
The socer playes i like more then the ather people. I like heads up. I like socer so
that’s the title I want For if I mack a book.
Messy Jobs (evaluation)
1) The messy pat of my job is painting a ship.
2) They messy pat of my job is clining Feet.
3) The messy pat of my Job is the Jumps
Messy Jobs (evaluation)
I think the most important job is oil spill because the it will kill fish.
Hunt and Kill (supportive details)
1) Great like to eat selk
2) Great whites are top predatore
3) Great white get Fish
4) Great whites get people
5) Gart whites ore ose big as car.
Hunt and Kill (evaluation)
Great white shark top predators because they eat seals.
Jasmine
Mystery Photo (detail recall)
1) Americans eat 3 billion
2) It is made of rubber.
3) It lives in the water.
4) It is very tall
5) It brings traffic to a stop
6) It is made of olb poper
7) It eats seales
Mystery Photo (evaluation)
What is Glod and has skels what is it.
151
Wonders of the World (summarization)
1) These are very old. And the king and Queen are cleig there
2) The great wall of china is 4,000 miles long and you can see it from space
3) This response copied very lightly and it too difficult to read.
Wonders of the World (evaluation)
I have a friend named azia. I think awame azia is a wonder of a world
I Do Not Eat Worms (evaluation)
1) worms are sling and room is a messy
2) I will sing on tv and my voice will make a chilk
3) She brush her hair and she smell like spice
4) I looke the and I gasse the anser
I Do Not Eat Worms (evaluation)
Home hill. I rese why I tick that eyinal because that is what I do.
Fast! (supportive details)
1) very fast
2) spoted
3) wild
4) Lime very Fast
5) Family of cat
Fast! (evaluation)
Bamboo grows Fast because it grows froa the earth.
Alexandria
Wonders of the World (summarization)
1) The Pyramids are more than 4,500 years old.
2) This is the Longest wall in the world.
3) The statue stands 305 feet high.
Wonders of the World (evaluation)
My wonder is seeing the bigest plane. My wonder is a new bike.
Fast! (supportive details)
1) run 71 miles
2) claws help cheeta run fast
3) They rest
4) claws grip ground
5) faster than speed limits
152
Fast! (evaluation)
I would add the fastest plan in the world in the book. Why so So Planes can git people
to places faster.
Aziza
Fast! (supportive details)
1) fatter than an car
2) very smart
3) There praterin camlflag whi planets
4) very Breve
5) very hiper
Fast! (evaluation)
A Jet it’s very fast.
Genevieve
No written responses
Falicia
Messy Jobs (evaluation)
1) it is Really messy to panet a sip
2) this Foot is really stiencky and messy and a litol borring.
3) it is cool to ise on a motosical and to be in a Rac. I also like the say ve Dres.
Messy Jobs (evaluation)
I thanck cleaning a spill is rily nasty because you well get sticky an it well get pacing
afer a wiyale, and if you spil it willy kill fish
Hunt and Kill (supportive details)
1) a great wites are tog predators.
2) a great wites have sarp teth.
3) thay rig in to preder.
4) that must eat to liv.
5) thay nah other sharks.
Hunt and Kill (evaluation)
a great white sharkis a top predators because it has the sarp teeth and it hads into uther
sharks.
153
APPENDIX G
Treatment Group Written Responses
154
Treatment Group
Howe Written Responses
Favio
Gross Bugs (detail recall)
1. Bust mites like inyore ded and yore co weedand yore carpat.
2. Bed Bug Thay suke yore blood.
3. Tick lven in the woods, The eat pat skin too
4. Thre are more Than 3,000, other live six yers
Gross Bugs (evaluation)
it gives me the creeps, it mite cut yore fot.
Hunt and Kill (supportive details)
1. Thay must eat to live is a good way to describe great white sharks.
2. Great whit shaks are can be scary
3. a way to describe great white sharks is that they have Big teeth.
4. breat wnite sharks could be described a being as Big as cre
5. That Thik popole are silse
6. Thay Have sorp tehe
Hunt and Kill (evaluation)
He can swimm up fast to He’s pattreand it ript the parey.
Fast! (supportive details)
1. The cheetah can fun 71 miles per hour
2. Thal can gat bake up.
3. Thay can gat tiged
4. Thay Have long legs.
5. The claws help cheetahs run fast
6. They can fun 71 miles per hour!
Fast! (evaluation)
Another fast object I would add to this book is a gocar and a cauch
Samurai Fighter (supportive details)
1. and thay war long jackets and pants
2. a detail about a samurai is became powerful
3. another detail about a samilrai is thay war mask’s
4. take away people’s swords.
155
5. some samurai had to find other work
6. In 1588 the top samurai made a plan
7. The samurai gat to keep their swords.
Samurai Fighter (evaluation)
Daniela
Gross Bugs (detail recall)
1. they are in your bed.
2. Bed Bug Bite people.
3. That cockroach there are more then 3,000 types is Big
4. I like maggot because they make people feel beter wen you have a cute.
Gross Bugs (evaluation)
I would want a doctor because maggot help you so say thang to this bug!
Hunt and Kill (supportive details)
1. the way to describe great white sharks is that they are scary
2. the skake then that people are seal.
3. An important detail about great whit sharks is they sometime kill people
4. something kill people is a good way
5. Great white shark could be described an being as big as cars
6. Great white sharks are abaul attack seal and the shar are men because they want to
hurt the seal
Hunt and Kill (evaluation)
a great white shark is a top predator because these sharks something kill people.
Fashion Flashback (supportive details)
The fashion from above that is my favorite is grungy, that fashion is my favorite
because the pant are ript.
Fast! (supportive details)
1. the claws help cheetahs isomthing ella cheetah has
2. later, they can run again
3. They can run 71 miles.
4. they get hot
5. their claws grip the ground.
6. that is faster than most speed limits
156
Fast! (evaluation)
Another fast animal I will add to this book is a dog They reached 150,000 miles per
hour. I know this object is fast because now that is fast
Samurai Fighter (supportive details)
1. These families were called clans.
2. They wer the most powerful people in Japan!
3. He was a fighter name Yoshiie
Samurai Fighter (evaluation)
In time, the fighters became powerful. They served the clans by fighting
Octavio
Travels With Mapman (detail recall)
1. Honolulu
2. (unreadable word) boat
3. potato tug of war
Travels With Mapman (evaluation)
The salt flats, dog show
Hunt and Kill (supportive details)
1. Grea white shark are fast day drelk we are silos
2. A way to dedcrib great white shurks is that day nab udr shaks.
3. An important detail ubot reat while shark is they nab udr sharks
4. Great white sharks could be described as being having a car.
5. Great white sharks rip into prey
6. Great white sharks thick we are seal so day eat us
7. Great white sharks use their big teeth
Hunt and Kill (evaluation)
Great white sharks They rip into prey, Great white shurks they use their big teeth.
Fast! (supportive details)
1. the Cheetars has lung Leys
2. Cheetah the scan run as urn
3. Cheetah the in uv Lang Less
4. the choetah the scan run buain
5. The conectah They mustst
6. the Cheatah kan run 71 a owr
157
Fast! (evaluation)
Another Fst object I would aD to this book is Jet. I know this object is fast because it
is cool
In Search of Giant Squid (supportive details)
1. Giant squid are BiG
2. Giant squid have a long till
3. Giant squid are cool
4. Gian suuy are 60 Feet
5. Giant squid huve Big tuil
6. Giant squid are BiG
In Search of Giant Squid (evaluation)
X
Samurai Fighter (supportive details)
1. Samurai Fighters swarts are sroe
2. Samurai Fighters are strog
3. samurai Fighters are cool and asum
4. sumurai fighters are have good sceLs
5. sumarai fiyhten are cool
6. samurai fighters are Fast
Samurai Fighter (evaluation)
I neat a samurai to conewant wrok For me, xSamurai are strog, they are Fast
Dagmawit
African Journey (detail recall)
1. I learn mount Kilmanjaro is the tallest mount in Africa.
2. I also lern about Zebras they hid
3. The birds get meal and ride, zebras hide in tall grass., The zebras are watching out
for each other.
2. This leopard is eating in the three so nobody would steal It., The lions group is
called pride
African Journey (evaluation)
The cheetah mak me think of my grma when she make close out of the cheetah and the
lion, thik of my Grma. when she play with the birds
158
Hunt and Kill (supportive details)
1. Great Whito attack seals
2. Great white sharks also eat Fis and Sharks.
3. Great whit sharks have big teeth
4. Great white shark could be described as bing as big as car
5. Great white sharks thik people are sals
Hunt and Kill (evaluation)
Grat whit shark sometimes kill peoples, Great white shark can get as big as car
Samurai Fighter (supportive detail)
1. samuai fighters wher called clans
2. I also lener They braided ther hair
3. samurai woman ride hors very fast
4. A detail about a samurai is the former samura called ronin
5. another detail about a samurai is they had sord fights with each other
Samurai Fighter (evaluation)
I need a samurai to come and work For me. I want my samura to Be able to Fight my
enme, and the peoples who wnt to, Figt me, and I will tlak to my smaurai
In Search of Giant Squid (supportive details)
1. anthoer detaiale gian squid are dangerous
2. a detail about giant squid is That they are not enost giaAn squids.
3. one thig to know about Gian squid is the have long leg and armo
4. a detail about giant squid is They are 25 Feet Long.
5. Giant squids are fast hunters
6. Giant squid Live very deep in water is about ginnt squid
In Search of Giant Squid (evaluation)
The sailors prblby called the giant s quid amonster because the gina squid hase.
Fashion Flashback (supportive details)
1. I read women dressed in heavy dress.
2. one fashion forn the past is women cut their hair short.
3. Another Fashion from the pas is many pople Lik to dressed wid belled jeans.
4. A Fashon Frome the past is Peoples dressed in wild clothes.
5. Another Fashio is womn were Long skirts.
6. I Read women Dressed in heavy dresses
159
Fashion Flashback (evaluation)
The fashion from above the is my favorite is the 1920s I Lik the womens Dresses
havee dresses
Kalani
Travels With Mapman (detail recall)
1. capital Honolulu
2. milk cartons
3. both teams pull th loses fall in potatoes
4. Great salt Laake
5. the grand canyon is in Arizona
6. Albany is the capital
Travels With Mapman (evaluation)
It is made of white salt the land, The salt Flats is a park. It is near the Great salt Lake.
Hunt and Kill (supportive details)
1. A way to describe great white sharks is that they must eat to live.
2. A way to describe great white sharks is that these top predators can be scary.
3. A way to describe great white sharks is that they swim up fast.
4. great white sharks could be described as big as car
5. An important detail is they have to eat to live.
Hunt and Kill (evaluation)
Great white sharks have they sometimes kill people and they even nab other sharks
Fast! (supportive details)
1. Cheetahs are built to run
2. Cheetahs have long legs
3. Cheetahs they must rest
Fast! (evaluation)
I know this object is fast because It can run as fast as cheetahs
In Search of Giant Squid (supportive details)
1. One thing to know about giant squid is they could wrap its arms around a ship it
could drag the ship under water
2. Giant squids they can iskap
3. Giant squids have All squids have beaks
4. An important thing to know about giant squid is all squid beaks look like birds
beaks
160
5. One thing to know about giant squid is they can washed up on a beach
6. they col the giant squids the Kraken
In Search of Giant Squid (evaluation)
The sailors probably called the giant squid a monster because it could wrap its arms
arms around a ship it could drag the ship under water.
Samurai Fighter (supportive details)
1. samurai figters got to kee their swords
2. peole said she could not be defeated
3. Another detail about a samurai is in battle samurai word body armor
4. (to-mo-ay). She could ride a horse very fast
5. A detail about a samurai is samurai were easy to spot
6. A detail about a samurai is they grew their hair long in the back
Samurai Fighter (evaluation)
I need a samurai to come and work for me. I want my samurai to be able to be able to
fite in a batall.
Yoana
Gross Bugs (detail recall)
1. Bed bug red they bite people., The leve in the bed and the pillow.
2. theres are more than 3,000.
Gross Bugs (evaluation)
I would not let the doctor put maggot on me.
Hunt and Kill (supportive details)
1. They must eat alut to live.
2. Great whites are relly relly scary.
3. They can eat other sharks.
4. Great Whith sharks could be as big as cars.
5. Great white shaks could eat sels and other sharks.
6. and they could have Big teeth.
Hunt and Kill (evaluation)
A great white shark are top predtor because they kill people they could eat big fish.
Fashion Flashback (supportive details)
1. are another fashion from the past 70s Jeans were out.
2. one fashion from the past dresses were tight.
3. one fashion from the past is loose dresses became popular.
161
Fashion Flashback (evaluation)
The fashion from above that is my favrite is feeling groovy.
Fast! (supportive details)
1. cheetas have clow to help cheetas run fast.
2. cheetahs have long legs.
3. cheetas can run 71 mills per hours.
4. cheetas can run faster then, nost sped limet.
5. cheetas are billt to run fast.
6. the cheeetas claws gripl at the grand.
Fast! (evaluation)
Another fast Animal ca be a shark
In Search of Giant Squid (supportive details)
1. The giant squid eyes can be the size of the soccer Ball.
2. Thee giant squid can be as be 60 feet long.
3. The giant squid beak is very big and. It is very sharp.
4. It is a relly huge sea monster.
5. giant squid have long arms.
6. It had a huge budy.
Fast! (evaluation)
The sails were afraid it might attak them. The sails they called the giant squid a
monster could drag the ship underwater.
Gina
African Journey (detail recall)
1. in mount celemengaro I lernd it’s the lales mountins, it sleves itat in the ran forest
2. next I went to a safary its very dnqy zebras look for water
3. The eleffint gets bugs on its skin the Birds eat the Bugs, The ZiBraz are wachig out.
4. The masiya Bild Ther Housis in sirkls
African Journey (evaluate)
Some people in Meexico milk cous to., ILL go to mexeco in African some animals
(unreadable)
Hunt and Kill (supportive details)
1. That thik peopol are seals
2. Sharks cold eat oto peopol
3. grat wit sharks cold eat other sharks
4. grat wit shark can be psebd as Big as Big as car
162
5. grat wit shark atak sells
6. the grat wit shark thing peopol ar sels
Hunt and Kill (evaluate)
The grat wit shark is the top preDeDor beoos they must et to liv, a grat wit shar is a
top predeeors beuus they swim up fast!
Fashion Flashback (supportive details)
1. I reDe some LouD niBoots
2. onothor Fasinis sparkaly anD Brit coloru
3. a fusin from the past is some drest in Jins
4. some wor Broun annD green
5. one fashon from IPast is viPt clos
6. Loos Presoes Becam Papyaler are anotno fashon from the Past
7. one fashon from the Past is someLikt skinnyJens
8. women wore HevyDreses
Fashion Flashback (evaluate)
Almos evry won HaD Lots of Her, some Dress in sporkoLs anD Bolt coLors, the
fashon that is my favroh the 1470 Loy skerts, some LovD ni Boots, men anD Boys
wor Suts wit wiD Leps, meny peopole dresst in Jens
In Search of Giant Squid (supportive details)
1. Gint squids arnt monstrs
2. it can Drag asipond wotr
3. squids are very dangers
4. Giant squid are fast huntrs
5. The squid is is nerle 25 fet
6. squids liv very dip in the wate
In Search of Giant Squid (evaluate)
Gint squid are monstors they atak bots some salors came across a kerechr He is Hug
they nadDHimtn craken
Fast! (supportive details)
1. Chetas Hav Long Leg
2. Chetas Huv cLos that graBthe ground thut HeLPs it ran fust
3. Chetas vun fust that’s faster than most speed Limits
4. Chetas are Bild to ran
5. The Cneta can run 71 miLs preour
6. Cnetas must rest
7. They Huv Long Legs
163
Fast! (evaluate)
Fast runner anD Chetas must rest a Fast object is bBgect is afast oletor
Maria
African Journey (detail recall)
1. it took a week the top, it is the tallest
2. Leslie watit in a saite so sint get it teneny
3. The bind wat have rand to bugs
Fast! (evaluate)
If I could traved anywhere in the world I would go to hawenisy because I (unreadable
word) seye vocnolwesn
Hunt and Kill (supportive details)
1. the it poulle the or so the trim
2. Graet white sharks are abot to rent it to peaney
3. They must eat to live is a good wat to describ great white sharks
4. Graet white sharks cald be dedcribed as beig as big in a car
5. A way to describe great white sharks is that they have big teeth
6. A way to describe great white sharks is that They swim up fast
Hunt and Kill (evaluate)
A gret white shark is a to paredtor thy even nab toher shark and kill poul
Fashion Flashback (supportive details)
1. in the 1980s dressed in bind Golow
2. The 1990 in grage clothes
3. in the 1990 wone grs lo boy’s
4. The 1990 ripped up cows
Fashion Flashback (evaluate)
The fashion frow above that is my favorite is datiform shoe That favnte my favit beaus
spakles and bright
Fast! (supportive details)
1. The cheetah can run at 71 meni powe ouren
2. The cheetah can gitt veles hot
3. Cheetahs have lang leng
In Search of Giant Squid (supportive details)
1. giant squids harc eye can be the size of socer balls
2. giant squids have They are lined with teeh
3. if you oor the prwe ralefendy Genb Sanend
164
4. A detail about grant sauid is they can reach 60 feet
5. a detai about giant squid is They were afraid is migna attad
6. A detail about giant squid is They saida huge monstr
In Search of Giant Squid (evaluate)
The sailors probably the giant squid a monster becale I could array the ship anderr
water The sailors ploblky colled the giant sqidameastev bevcub they were afraid it
might attack so
Dagim
Gross Bugs (detail recall)
1. I learned mites have levid on your pillow
2. Bed Bug are tiny
3. There are more Than 3,000 types
Gross Bugs (evaluation)
I would not want a doctor heal my maggots ket because They never stop eating your
skin
Hunt and Kill (supportive detail)
1. Great white sharks have big teeth
2. Great white sharks nab other sharks
3. GREAT WHITE SHARK could be describes being as big a car
4. They kill shars
5. GREAT WHITE SHARK Think a person is a seal.
Hunt and Kill (evaluation)
A great white shark is a top predator because their big teeth and they rip into prey
Fast! (supportive detail)
1. A cheetahe mast rest
2. A cheetahs have long legs
3. The cheetah also run Fast
4. The cheetah can run 71 miles per hour
5. The sheetah has most speed limits
6. The cheetah’s claws help Them run Fast
Fast! (evaluation)
I would add a Dog becas It gos 7 miles per hour
165
Samurai Fighter (supportive details)
1. samurai mears to cerve
2. samurai became powerful
3. Tomowe is a leaond
4. samuroi Fought each other
5. samurai carried two sworde
6. samurai pighrers powerful
Samurai Fighter (evaluation)
I need a samurai T Want my smeerai To heable to be pewrtul and war a lost soas
In Search of Giant Squid (supportive details)
1. Giant squids are 25 Feet long
2. some people thought the Kraken did n ot realle
3. people thought giant squid is a monster is a detail about giant squid
In Search of Giant Squid (evaluation)
The sailors probably called the giant squid a monster because it’s is 25 feet
Michelle
Gross Bugs (detail recall)
1. Dust mite live in the huse and they live in the pillow and in the bed.
2. Bed bugg they live in the bed.
3. there are more then 3,000
4. slug are soft they are slimy
Gross Bugs (evaluation)
Does that sound gross? Maybe it does. But these bugs can help you! How? Doctors
put maggots on cuts.
Hunt and Kill (supportive details)
1. These sharks sometimes kill people they think a person is a seal.
2. The sharks they swin up fast to get the food to eat for them.
3. A way to describe great white sharks is that prey and the sharks they must eat to live
and the sharks they thingck that people are seal
4. They must eat to live.
5. Great white sharks could be described au being described cars.
6. These sharks sometimes kill people.
Hunt and Kill (evaluate)
A great white shark is a top predator because they swim up fast They use their big
teeth. They rip into pray.
166
Fast! (supportive details)
1. Cheetatah are Fast and they are riling fast
2. A cheetatah (has/is a cheetahoh are fast and it of a dig long legs. clawe.
3. Cheetaoh hav big clos.
Fast! (evaluation)
Another fast object I would add to this book is the car I know this object is fast
because is they are fastest vehicles in the sky.
Fashion Flashback (supportive details)
1. dressed in heavy dresses. The dresses were tight. Ouch.
2. loose dresse became people.
3. a fashion from the past the next day it is out
4. Do not get tricked. Peopl did care about looking cool.
5. so women dressed in pants.
6. another fashirn from the past is/are som liked Jeans with. belled.
Fashion Flashback (evaluation)
The fashion from above that is my favorite is 1970 that fasion is my favorite because
some loved high boots. And the uther thing is many people dressed in Jeans.
Samurai Fighter (supportive details)
1. A detail about a samurai is In time, the fighters becaome powerful.
2. A detail about a Jamurai is samurai women also know bow to fight.
3. A detail about a Jamurai is grew their hair long in the back.
4. What did samurai man fightes.
5. Samurai were easy samurai fighters con be described.
6. samurai fighters can be described as woman can rad a horse fast.
Samurai Fighter (evaluation)
I need a samurai to come and work for me. I want my samurai to be abie to In thay
served the clans by fighing
Orlando
Travels With Mapman (detail recall)
1. I capital uf Hawaii is Honolulu
2. The boat milk cartons
3. The (unreadable word) is potato tug-of-war
4. Great Salt Lake
5. Colorado river
6. Albany
167
Travels With Mapman (evalutation)
Would we (unreadable word) (unreadable word) be iin in a milk corten race. West
(unreadable word) I wot make co(unreadable word)
Hunt and Kill (supportive details)
1. Great wnite sharks are thnk person are seal.
2. A way to describe graet white shars is that they kill people
3. Is a good way to describe grat whit sharks ned to eat to live.
4. oreat white shark could be described a being as a car
5. An important detail about great white sharks is tha are top prteaters
6. An important detail about grea white sharks is they have to swim up fast.
Hunt and Kill (evaluation)
A way to describe great white sharks is that they attack sael and big fish and othe
shaorks.
Fast! (supportive details)
1. a Cheetah is they get hot.
2. The cheetah has to rest
3. Cheetahs are fast.
Fast! (evaluation)
Another fast object I would add to this book is a bout I know this object is fast because
the Fastest furniture is lik the same sede limles.
In Search of Giant Squid (supportive details)
1. Theis is a detail about giant squid pealpe thote tate giant squid attac kes ships
2. A detalst a bout giont squid is isrerd wastu on a beta.
3. An important thing to kouw a bout int squid is that person to capchor live squid.
In Search of Giant Squid (evaluation)
The sailrs probable called the giant squid a monster bess it attacked ships. The sailors
probably cocled the giant squid a monster tand shareuy the suckerc
Fashion Flashback (supportive details)
1. A no the fashion from the past is thut women wen Baggy pants
2. Anotour fashin from the past is that plen dessen in sild clothg
3. Another Fashin from the past is that women dressed in heavy dresses
4. A fashion from the past is that women ued tight dresses
5. A fashion fros the past is that pleals have thet hair big to mak in a fasen
6. A fashion from the past is tad pleal did not calle abou looks
168
Fashion Flashback (evaluation)
The fashion from above that is my fanorite is fare, 1970. that fashion is my cand bend
will close is cool
Brandom
Gross Bugs (detail recall)
1. eat peoqle tood Too
2. they bite people
3. ticke bite animals. They bite people too
4. than 3,000 types
5. slug have no leas they move by gliding
Gross Bugs (evaluation)
They never stop eating, bugs can help you
Hunt and Kill (supportive details)
1. hreat white sharks could se descrbed as being gig
2. A sau to describe great white sharks is that
3. hreat white sharks deari about reat white sharks is they being
4. A way to describe great white sharks is that they must eat to live
5. A way to describe great white sharks that swim up fast.
6. A way to describe great whit sharks is that kill people
Hunt and Kill (evaluation)
A great white shark is a top predat becoude the idn, A great white shark is a top
predato because they swim up fast
Fast! (supportive details)
1. The cheetah nas they can ran 71 miles
2. The cheetah has they must rest
3. the cheetah has they get not
4. The cheeteh they con run 71 miles per hour
5. The choetah (unreadable word) must
6. The cheetah cheetahs are built to run
Fast! (evaluation)
Another fast obyect I wuld u old to this book is fast I know this object is fast because
magingac.
In Search of Giant Squid (supportive details)
1. An imqotunt huy to know about giant squid is They named ill The Kraken
2. An important thing tknow ubout giant squid is They nameb it the KraTen
169
3. this is the fisrt enote orcliv giant squid it askakan 20U5
4. in 2000 scionts coato rool this yiant squid to was
5. some people thought the Kruken did hot really exist
6. this dsad giant is 25 squid feet long
In Search of Giant Squid (evaluation)
The sailors probably colled the giat squid a monster It had many long arms. The
sailors probably colled the giant squid a monstes because They cre d guns at They
wrapped arge They didn’t know Thigdeao gensad
Daniela
Gross Bugs (detail recall)
1. they are in your bed.
2. Bed Bug Bite people.
3. That cockroach there are more then 3,000 types is Big
4. I like maggot because they make people felt beter wen you have a cute
Gross Bugs (evaluation)
I would want a doctor because maggot help you so say thang to this bug!
Hunt and Kill (supportive details)
1. the way to describe great white sharks is that they are scary
2. the skake then that people are seal.
3. An important detail about great whit sharks is they sometime kill people
4. something kill people is a good way
5. Great white shark could be descried an being as big as cars
6. Great white sharks are abaul attack seal and the shar are men because they want to
hurt the seal
Hunt and Kill (evaluation)
a great white shark is a top predator because these sharks something kill people
Fashion Flashback (supportive details)
1. in the 1990s Jeans and shirts were ripped up.
2. in the 1990s people “dressed up in grungy clothes.
3. in the 1980s they liked acid-washed jeans.
Fashion Flashbacks (evaluation)
The fashion from above that is my favorite is grungy, that fashion is my favorite
because the pant are ript.
170
Fast! (supportive details)
1. the claws help cheetahs isomthing ella cheetah has
2. later, they can run again
3. They can run 71 miles.
4. they get hot
5. their claws grip the ground
6. that is faster than most speed limits
Fast! (evaluation)
Another fast animal I will add to this book is a dog They reached 150,000 miles per
hour. I know this object is fast because now that is fast.
Samurai Fighter (supportive details)
1. These families were called clans.
2. They wer the most powerful people in Japan!
3. He was a fighter named Yoshiie
Samurai Fighter (evaluation)
In time, the fighters became powerful. They served the clans by fighting
171
REFERENCES
Adger, C., Kalyanpur, M., Petersen, D., & Bridger, T. (1995). Engaging students:
Thinking, talking, cooperating. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.
Anderson, J., Reder, L., & Simon, H. (1997). Applications and misapplications of
cognitive psychology to mathematics education. Unpublished manuscript,
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Apte, S. (2009). Win or lose. New York: Scholastic Inc.
Au, K. (2001). Reading programs. The Reading Teacher, 54(8), 758-760.
Baker, L. (1979). Comprehension monitoring: Identifying and coping with text
confusions (Technical Report No. 145). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois,
Center for the Study of Reading.
Bakke, L., & O’Connor, S. (2009). African journey. New York: Scholastic Inc.
Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment of classroom learning. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5, 7-74.
Blanton, W., Wood, K., & Moorman, G. (1991). The role of purpose in reading
instruction. Reading Teacher, 43(7), 486-493.
Block, C. (1999). Comprehension: Crafting understanding. In L. B. Gambrell, L. M.
Morrow, S. B. Neuman, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy
instruction (pp. 98-118). New York: Guilford Press.
172
Block, C., & Duffy, G. (2008). Research on teaching comprehension: Where we’ve
been and where we’re going. In C. C. Block and S. R. Paris (Eds.),
Comprehension instruction: Research based practices (pp. 19-37). New York:
Guilford.
Boyd, M., & Maloof, V. (2000). How teachers can build on student-proposed
intertextual links to facilitate student talk in the ESL classroom. In J. Hall & L.
Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom
interaction (pp. 163-182). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of
metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol.
1, pp. 77-165). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bryant, N. (1980). The effects of some instructional variables on the learning of
handicapped and nonhandicapped populations: A review. Integrative reviews
of research (Vol. 1). New York: Teachers College Institute for Study of
Learning Disabilities.
Caggiano, J. (2009). Fast!: The world’s fastest couch and other fast things. New
York: Scholastic Inc.
Camacho, R. (2009). Hunt and kill: A look at predators. New York: Scholastic Inc.
Camden, R. (2009). Fashion flashback. New York: Scholastic Inc.
Carney, E. (2009). Killer croc. New York: Scholastic Inc.
173
Carnine, D., Jitendra, A., & Silbert, S. (1997). A descriptive analysis of mathematic
curricular materials from a pedagogical perspective: A case study of fractions.
Remedial and Special Education, 18(2), 66-81.
Carson, M. (2009). Fun body facts. New York: Scholastic Inc.
Cecil, N., & Gipe, J. (2003). Literacy in the intermediate grades: Best practices for a
comprehensive program. Scottsdale, AZ: Halcomb Hathaway Publishers.
Chambliss, M., & Calfee, R. (1998). Textbooks for learning: Nurturing children’s
minds. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Chen, Y. (2009). Language support for emergent bilinguals in English mainstream
schools: An observational study. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 22(3),
57-70.
Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small
groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35.
Conner, J., & Farr, R. (2009). Purposeful reading at the middle level. Principal, 88(4),
56-57.
Coulthard, M. (1977). Classroom interaction. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), An introduction
to discourse analysis (pp. 93-115). London: Longman.
Davis, J. (2009). Wonders of the world. New York: Scholastic Inc.
Dewitz, P., Jones, J., & Leahy, S. (2009). Comprehension strategy instruction in core
reading programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(2), 102-126.
Diconslglio, J. (2009). Weird science jobs. New York: Scholastic Inc.
174
Dinan, F. (1995). A team learning method for organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical
Education, 72, 429-431.
Doyle, W. (1979). The tasks of teaching and learning in classrooms (R & D Rep No.
4103). Austin: The Research and Development Center for Teacher Education,
University of Texas at Austin.
Doyle, W., & Carter, K. (1984). Academic tasks in classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry,
14, 129-149.
Duffy, G., Roehler, L., Meloth, M., Vavrus, L., Book, C., Putnam, J., & Wesselman,
R. (1986). The relationship between explicit verbal explanations during
reading skill instruction and students’ awareness and achievement: A study of
reading teacher effects. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(3), 237-252.
Duffy, G., Roehler, L., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M., . . . Bassiri, D.
(1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading
strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 347-368.
Duke, N., & Pearson, P. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading
comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to
say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Durkin, D. (1978/1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading
comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), 481-533. doi:
10.1598/RRQ.14.4.2
175
Durkin, D. (1981). Reading comprehension instruction in five basal reader series.
Reading Research Quarterly, 16(4), 515-544. doi: 10.2307/747314
Durkin, D. (1991). Comprehension instruction in current basal reader series (Tech.
Rep. No. 521). Urbana, IL: Center for the study of Reading, University of
Illinois.
Emmer, E., Evertson, C., & Anderson, L. (1980). Effective classroom management at
the beginning of the school year. Elementary School Journal, 80(5), 219-231.
Feltes, K. (2009). Gross bugs! New York: Scholastic Inc.
Ford, M., & Opitz, M. (2008). Guided reading: Then and now. In M. Fresch (Ed.), An
essential history of current practice (pp. 66-81). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Frase, L. (1977). Purpose in reading. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.), Cognitive curriculum and
comprehension (pp. 42-64). Newark, Del. International Reading Association.
Frey, N., Fisher, D., & Everlove, E. (2009). Productive group work: How to engage
students, build teamwork, and promote understanding. Alexandria, VA: ACSD
Publications.
Friedman, M. (2009). Samurai fighter. New York: Scholastic Inc.
Fuller, P. (1999). Effective teaching strategies for the reduced size class grades K-3.
(Unpublished masters project). California State University, Sacramento.
Gambrell, L., & Almassi, J. (eds) (1996). Lively discussions: Fostering engaged
reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
176
Garcia, P., & Learning Point, A. (2009). Connecting research about English language
learners to practice: An introductory guide for educators. Naperville, IL:
Learning Point Associates. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database
Garibaldi, A. (1979). Affective contributions of cooperative and group goal structures.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(6), 788-794.
Genesse, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English
language learners in US schools: an overview of research findings. Journal of
Education for Students Paced At Risk, 10(4), 363-385.
Genesse, F., Lindholm-Leahry, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (Eds.). (2006).
Educating English language learners. A synthesis of research evidence. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1998). Effect of cooperative learning on the acquisition of
second language rules and mechanics. System, 26(2), 223-234.
Gillies, R. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative and
small group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 271-287.
Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research doesand does not-say. American Educator, 32(2), 8-44.
Gutierrez, P. (2009a). Ripped from the headlines. New York: Scholastic Inc.
Gutierrez, P. (2009b). Sports bloopers. New York: Scholastic Inc.
Haringer, N., & Bateman, B. (1977). Teaching the learning disabled child. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
177
Hollingsworth, J., & Ybarra, S. (2009). Explicit direct instruction EDI: the power of
the well-crafted, well-taught lesson. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hulse-Killacky, D., Killacky, J., & Donigian, J. (2001). Making task groups work in
your world. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1975). Learning together and alone: Cooperation,
competition, and individualization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. (1988). Cooperative learning-two heads are better than
one. Transforming Education, 18(34). Retrieved from
http://www.context.org///.htm
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and
research. Edina, MN: Interaction.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1992). Creative controversy: Intellectual challenge in the
classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2004). Assessing students in groups: Promoting group
responsibility and individual accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1990). Circles of learning: Cooperation in
the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1994). The new circles of learning:
Cooperation in the classroom and school. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
178
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Scott, L. (1978). The effects of cooperative and
individualized instruction on students’ attitudes and achievement. Journal of
Social Psychology, 104, 207-216.
Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of
cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89(1), 47-62.
Kagan, S. (1986). Cooperative learning and sociocultural factors in schooling. In
California State Department of Education, Beyond language: Social and
cultural factors in schooling language minority students (pp. 231-298). Los
Angeles: California State University, Evaluation, Dissemination and
Assessment Center.
Kagan, S. (1995). We can talk: Cooperative learning in the elementary ESL
classroom. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 382035).
Kean, P. (2009). Everyday heroes. New York: Scholastic Inc.
Klinger, J., Vaugh, S., & Schumm, J. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during
social studies in heterogeneous fourth grade classrooms. The Elementary
School Journal, 99(1), 3-22.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on
argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287-315.
Lantolf, J. (1994). Sociocultural theory and second language learning: introduction to
the special issue. Modern Language Training, 78, 414-420.
Levington, M. (2009). The champ and other stories. New York: Scholastic Inc.
179
Lonchamp, J. (2009). A three level analysis of collaborative learning in dualinteraction spaces. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative
Learning, 4(3), 289-317.
Long, M., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language
acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207-228.
Malheady, L., Mallette, B., & Harper, G. (1991). Accommodating cultural, linguistic,
and academic diversity within integrated school settings: some peer mediated
options. Preventing School Failure, 36, 28-31.
Mandel-Morrow, L., Gambrell, L., & Pressley, M. (2003). Best practices in literacy
instruction (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual
introduction (5th ed.). New York: Longman.
Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the
classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6, 359-377.
Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitivepragmatic perspective. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
McClintock, E., & Sonquist, J. (1976). Cooperative task-oriented groups in a college
classroom: a field application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 588596.
Norlander, B. (2009). In search of the giant squid. New York: Scholastic Inc.
Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitivepragmatic perspective. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
180
O’Connor, S. (2009). Travels with mapman. New York: Scholastic Inc.
Palincsar, A. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolding instruction.
Educational Psychologist, 21, 73-98.
Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering
and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2),
117-175.
Phillips, M. (2009). From the heart. New York: Scholastic Inc.
Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of a child. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Rabow, J., Charness, M., Kipperman, J., & Radcliffe-Vasile, S. (1994). William
Fawcett Hill’s learning through discussion (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Roehler, L., & Cantlon, D. (1997). Scaffolding: A powerful tool in social
constructivist classrooms. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding
student learning: Instructional approaches and issues (pp. 6-42). Cambridge,
MA: Brookline.
Rose-Duckworth, R. (2009). Fostering learner independence: An essential guide for
K-6 educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Rosenberg, M. (2003). Life-enriching education: Non violent communication helps
schools improve performance, reduce conflict, and enhance relationships.
Encinitas, CA: Puddle Dance Press.
181
Schallert, D., & Kleinman, G. (1979). Some reasons why the teacher is easier to
understand than the textbook. (Reading Education Report No. 9). Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading (ERIC Document No.
ED172189).
Sharan, S. (1999). Handbook of cooperative learning methods. Westport, CT: Praeger
Publishers.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Cummins, J. (Eds.). (1988). Minority education: From shame
to struggle. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Slavin, R. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Slavin, R., & Oickle, E. (1981). Effects of cooperative learning teams on student
achievement and race relations: treatment by race interactions. Sociology of
Education, 54, 174-180.
Smith, S. (2009a). Crash! New York: Scholastic Inc.
Smith, S. (2009b). Sky walkers. New York: Scholastic Inc.
Stodolsky, S. (1984). Frameworks for studying instructional processes in peer work
groups. In P. L. Peterson, L. C. Wilkinson, and M. Hallinan (Eds.). The social
context of instruction: Group organization and group processes (pp. 107-124).
New York: Academic Press.
Sudzina, M., & Douvre, S. (1993, February). Using cooperative learning to teach “at
risk” students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 73rd meeting of the
Association of Teacher Educators, Los Angeles, CA.
182
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in college and universities.
Review of Educational Research, 68, 249-276.
Topping, K., & Trickey, S. (2007). Collaborative philosophical inquiry for
schoolchildren: Cognitive gains at 2-year follow up. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 77, 787-796.
Tovani, C. (2005). The power of purposeful reading. Educational Leadership, 63(2),
48-51.
Webb, N. (1982). Student interaction and learning in small groups. Review of
Educational Research, 52(3), 421-445.
Webb, N., & Farivar, S. (1999). Developing productive group interaction in middle
school mathematics. In A. O’Donnell, & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive
perspectives on peer learning (pp. 117-150). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Weller, C., Brandhorst, T., ERIC Processing and Reference Facility, & Computer
Sciences Corp. (1997). An annotated bibliography of digests, information
analysis products, and other major publications of the ERIC clearinghouses
and support contractors announced in “resources in education” (RIE)
January-December 1996. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database
Yager, S., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1985). Oral discussion, group-to-individual
transfer, and achievement in cooperative learning groups. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 77(1), 60-66.