* acting more as resource persons than as
judges,
Metacognition: Materials
2. When Students Do Not Feel Motivated for Literacy Learning
3. QAR (Question Answer Relationship)
5. Better Reading Comprehension
7. Reciprocal Teaching: A Reading Strategy
8. Interview Forms to Encourage Metacognition During Reading
11. A Model of Metacognition Thinking Skills
12. Metacognitive Interview Forms
"Failure syndrome" is one of several terms that teachers commonly use (others include "low self-concept," "defeated," and "frustrated") to describe students who approach assignments with very low expectations of success and who tend to give up at early signs of difficulty. Psychologists have described this phenomenon as "learned helplessness," a slightly more technical definition but referring to a similar pattern of behavior. Unlike students of limited ability, who often fail despite their best efforts, failure syndrome students often fail needlessly because they do not invest their best efforts--they begin tasks half-heartedly and simply give up when they encounter difficulty. This Digest delineates the nature of the problem, suggests strategies for coping with failure syndrome students, and discusses how teachers can help.
Most failure syndrome symptoms, however, develop through social learning mechanisms centered around experiences with failure. Most children begin school with enthusiasm, but over time many find the experience anxiety-provoking and psychologically threatening. Many children find it difficult to have their performance monitored in classrooms where failure carries the danger of public humiliation.
It is not surprising, therefore, that some students, especially those who have experienced a continuing history of failure or a recent cycle of failure, begin to believe that they lack the ability to succeed. Eventually such students abandon serious attempts to master tasks and begin to concentrate instead on preserving their self-esteem in their own eyes and their reputations in the eyes of others (Ames, 1987; Rohrkemper & Corno, 1988).
ATTRIBUTION RETRAINING. This strategy involves bringing about changes in students' tendencies to attribute failure to lack of ability rather than to a remediable cause, such as insufficient effort or use of an inappropriate strategy. Typically, attribution retraining involves exposing students to a planned series of experiences, couched within an achievement context, in which modeling, socialization, practice, and feedback are used to teach them to (1) concentrate on the task at hand rather than worry about failing, (2) cope with failures by retracing their steps to find their mistake or by analyzing the problem to find another approach, and (3) attribute their failures to insufficient effort, lack of information, or use of ineffective strategies rather than to lack of ability.
EFFICACY TRAINING. These programs also involve exposing students to a planned set of experiences within an achievement context and providing them with modeling, instruction, and feedback. However, while attribution retraining programs were developed specifically for learned helplessness students and thus focus on teaching constructive response to failure, efficacy training programs were developed primarily for low achievers who have become accustomed to failure and have developed generalized low self-concepts of ability. Consequently, efficacy training helps students set realistic goals and pursue them with the recognition that they have the ability needed to reach those goals if they apply reasonable effort.
STRATEGY TRAINING. In this approach, modeling and instruction are used to teach problem-solving strategies and related self-talk that students need to handle tasks successfully. Strategy training is a component of good cognitive skills instruction to all students; it is not primarily a remedial technique. However, it is especially important for use with frustrated students who have not developed effective learning and problem-solving strategies on their own, but who can learn them through modeling and explicit instruction.
Ames (1987) noted that these cognitive retraining approaches do not take into account the social aspects of the classroom and the reward structures in effect there. Citing findings that an emphasis on competition and social comparison will increase performance anxiety, Ames recommended emphasizing private rather than public feedback, phrasing such feedback in terms of progress beyond the individual's own previous levels rather than comparisons with classmates, and avoiding such practices as publicly grading on a curve or posting students' achievement scores.
These teachers would make it clear to failure syndrome students that they were expected to work conscientiously and persistently so as to turn in work done completely and correctly, but they would also provide help if needed, reassure them that they would not be given work that they could not do, monitor their progress and provide any needed assistance, and reinforce them by praising their successes, calling attention to their progress, and providing them with opportunities to display their accomplishments publicly. This special treatment would be faded gradually as the students gained confidence and began to work more persistently and independently. These strategies are in line with what is known about cognitive retraining.
Brophy (1998) found that highly effective teachers and other teachers generally implemented similar strategies to help failure syndrome students--such as including encouragement and shaping strategies in their responses to the student, engaging in supportive behaviors, providing reassurance, and making personal appeals to the student to improve performance. But the higher-rated, more-effective teachers appeared to place greater emphasis on insisting on better effort and seemed to have greater confidence that the improvements the student could achieve would be stable over time rather than merely temporary. They tended to assume that the demands made on students were appropriate (and therefore that failure syndrome problems stemmed from the students' mistakenly pessimistic attributions and self-efficacy perceptions), while lower-rated teachers were more likely to fear that their task demands were too difficult for the student to handle.
Dweck and Elliott (1983) argued that students who have developed an "entity" view of ability (e.g, who see it as fixed and limited) stand to benefit from direct training designed to shift them to an "incremental" view (e.g., seeing ability as something that can be developed through practice).
Teacher behaviors that encourage incremental rather than entity views of ability include:
* acting more as resource persons than as
judges,
* focusing students more on learning
processes than on outcomes,
* reacting to errors as natural and useful
parts of the learning process rather than as evidence of failure,
* stressing effort over ability and
personal standards over normative standards when giving feedback, and
* attempting to stimulate achievement
efforts through primarily intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivational
strategies.
This Digest was adapted from: Brophy, Jere. (1996). TEACHING PROBLEM STUDENTS. New York: Guilford. Adapted with permission of the author.
Brophy, Jere. (1995). ELEMENTARY TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF AND REPORTED STRATEGIES FOR COPING WITH TWELVE TYPES OF PROBLEM STUDENTS. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University. ED 389 390.
Brophy, Jere. (1998). MOTIVATING STUDENTS TO LEARN. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Coley, Joan Develin, & Hoffman, Dianne M. (1990). Overcoming learned helplessness in at-risk readers. JOURNAL OF READING, 33(7), 497-502. EJ 406 809.
Deschler, Donald P., & Schumaker, Jean B. (1993). Strategy mastery by at-risk students: Not a simple matter. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL, 94(2), 153-167. EJ 474 774.
Dweck, C., & Elliott, E. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. Mussen (Ed.), HANDBOOK OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY. VOL. 4. SOCIALIZATION, PERSONALITY, AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (pp. 643-691). New York: Wiley.
Rohrkemper, Mary, & Corno, Lyn. (1988). Success and failure on classroom tasks: Adaptive learning and classroom teaching. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL, 88(3), 297-312. EJ 366 495.
Rosenshine, Barak, & Meister, Carla. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, 64(4), 479-530. EJ 500 529.
Struthers, C. Ward, & Perry, Raymond P. (1996). Attributional style, attributional retraining, and inoculation against motivational deficits. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF EDUCATION, 1, 171-187.
Vacca, Richard T., & Padak, Nancy D. (1990). Who's at risk in reading. JOURNAL OF READING, 33(7), 486-488. EJ 406 807.
Young, Andrea C. (1997). Higher-order learning and thinking: What is it and how is it taught? EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 37(4), 38-41. EJ 547 829.
-----
This publication was funded by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract no. RR93002007. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of OERI. ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be freely reproduced.
2. When Students Do Not Feel Motivated for Literacy Learning
ABSTRACT:
Teachers' responsiveness to and empathic understanding of students' perceptions
when they are not motivated are critical in a) promoting students' ownership of
the literacy learning agenda; b) in helping students with their motivational
difficulties; and c) in establishing classrooms that focus on the enhancement of
caring. This report of an interpretive study, conducted in a 5th/6th-grade whole
language classroom, provides insights about students' thoughts, feelings, and
actions when not motivated for literacy tasks, and examines students' subjective
experiences in three different motivational situations. The study offers clues
about the affective and cognitive processes that enable some students to become
engaged in literacy activities and prevent others from beginning them. It argues
that a responsive classroom culture that honors students' voices may enhance
students' ownership of literacy learning and alleviate feelings of anger,
anxiety, alienation, and powerlessness.
Marcel, a fifth grade student who participated in an interpretive study of student motivation, described how he felt when he was not able to do an assignment:
Just my whole body feels like I want to throw up or something, if I don't like something....I can't do it at all....I feel like sick, and I feel so sick....My body feels completely wrong.
This paper offers the perspectives of Marcel and his classmates on their experiences when they did not feel motivated for academic tasks. Their views provide insights about the social, affective, and cognitive processes that may enable some children to become engaged in literacy activities, and prevent others from even beginning those activities. These indicators are derived from an analysis of stu- dents' responses when they did not feel motivated for literacy learning in differently evolving situations. The situations include (a) either doing or not doing a particular activity, and (b) either becoming motivated or not becoming motivated in the process. The elements analyzed include students' reported thinking processes, actions, and their focus on intrinsic or extrinsic goals.
Although Marcel was experiencing motivational problems in the particular situation described above, he and his fellow classmates generally perceived that their classroom experiences supported their intrinsic interest in learning. They also found that even when they did not initially feel motivated for an activity, they were often - but not always - able to become engaged in their learning.
The findings reported in this paper are part of a study exploring students' reasons and purposes for being or not being involved in learning activities, with specific attention given to literacy activities. (See Oldfather, 1991, 1993a, 1993b; West & Oldfather, 1993). The word literacy is used broadly and refers to all literate activity. Examples are drawn not only from reading and writing, but from science, social studies, and even mathematics (for purposes of illustrating a particular teacher-student interaction). In the next two sections the theoretical framework that undergirds both the focus and methodology of this research will be presented.
Rohrkemper (1989) proposed a Vygotskian perspective on adaptive learning that emphasizes the role of classroom interactions. Rohrkemper defined adaptive learning as "the ability to take charge of frustration and maintain the intention to learn while enacting effective task strategies in the face of uncertainty - taking charge of one's motivation, emotion, and thinking" (1989, p. 143). Rohrkemper emphasized the importance of interactions with others, as well as with tasks, in working through problems with difficult learning. Rohrkemper and Corno (1988) found that children can learn important adaptive strategies when they are confronted with stressful situations, and argued that these adaptive strategies can and should be deliberately promoted within classrooms. As students learn to cope with stress and boredom and to respond flexibly to new situations, they become able to take control of their own learning.
Cullen (1985) identified four types of responses in students reacting to school failure: a) strategyoriented, b) actionoriented, c) anxietyoriented, and d) angeroriented. Parallels to Cullen's four types were found in the students' responses to motivational struggles reported in this paper. Cullen (1981) also found that the negative emotions that children felt when they failed in their first attempts to complete a task interfered with their ability to use metacognitive strategies.
Eccles (1983) suggests that in some situations an individual's interpretations of events shape his/her actions more powerfully than the events themselves. Weinstein (1989) emphasizes the importance of student perceptions as a "missing link" in understanding students' motivation and achievement. "It is only recently that we have come to appreciate that children are active interpreters of the classroom reality, as of any social reality, and not simply passive recipients of instruction" (Weinstein, 1989, p. 190).
We cannot assume that adult or "outsider" perceptions will coincide with those of students within classroom cultures. In fact, ethnological analysis of interpretive studies that focus on children's experiences in school indicates that what students view as significant in the classroom is likely to be quite different from what adults see (LeCompte & Preissle, 1992). Although a great deal of attention has been paid to students' perceptions by educational researchers, and particularly by motivation researchers, there has been very little indepth interpretive research that has been conducted on student motivation for literacy learning with a focus on understanding stu-dents' subjective experiences or their emic or "insider" views of classroom culture. Erickson and Shultz (1992, p. 467) in their recent review of the literature found that "virtually no research has been done that places student experience at the center of attention." However, a few studies representing students' academic perspectives that are relevant to literacy motivation are emerging (See Allen, Michalove, & Shockley, 1993; Collins & Green, 1992; Dahl & Freppon, in press; Marshall and Weinstein, 1986; Myers, 1992; Nicholls & Hazzard, 1993; Oldfather & McLaughlin, in press; Weinstein, 1983, 1989).
Gaining some access to these subjective perspectives (children's realities) is an essential aspect of efforts to understand the cognitive mediation involved in children's motivational processes (Deci & Ryan, 1987; McCombs, 1991; Weinstein, 1989). As Bruner (1990) asserts,
A culturally sensitive psychology is and must be based not only upon what people actually do, but what they say they do and what they say caused them to do what they did. It is also concerned with what people say others did and why. And above all, it is concerned with what people say their worlds are like. (p. 16)
Sally often articulated to the students her reasons for offering particular activities, topics, or learning processes. For example, when preparing for a cooperative learning jigsaw activity in which students were responsible for "becoming experts" on certain social studies readings in order to teach their peers, she mentioned that researchers have found that more learning takes place when we know we will be responsible for teaching the material to others. After the jigsaw, students examined their learning experience in that light. Sally asked students to critique the value of what they were learning, using questions like the following: "Is this a valuable topic to understand? Why or why not?"; "Have you ever needed to know how to do this in the "real world?"; "How might this skill be useful to you in the future?"; and "Why might the writers of this curriculum believe that this should be included? Do you agree or disagree with their decision?" The focus was on valuing learning, rather than on extrinsic rewards, and as such, fit Marshall's (1990) description of a learning-oriented classroom. As one student described his views on how his school culture was different,
Instead of not wanting to read, they'll read. Instead of not wanting to write, they'll write. They want to write. One of the things I love in school is that we're trying to learn - not just get the right answer. That's really good. You want to get the right answer, but you still learn. You do better because learning is more important than getting the right answer.
This classroom was a caring community of learners in which the contribution of ideas from every member was encouraged and responded to. Risk taking was explicitly encouraged by Sally as an important part of learning. She and the students participated together as learners and as teachers. Through seeking and responding to the ideas and feelings of each member of the classroom culture, Sally was able to convey to her students a sense that their ideas and their own construction of meaning were important, valuable, and worthy of being taken seriously. Students and teacher figured things out together in ways described by Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986) as connected knowing. Sally shared the "ownership of knowing" (Oldfather, 1992).
The students' desks were arranged in groups of four or five. The room was filled with samples of creative work: illustrated poems, stories written on the computer and placed in handmade illustrated books, art projects, and works in progress, which included projects in clay, papiermâché, and other graphic arts. The classroom contained hundreds of books, many related to the thematic unit being studied. The curriculum was developed thematically, incorporating students' interests and suggestions. Topics were based on large concepts, and often included large issues that related to current events (e.g., a censorship debate) or environmental concerns. Students read selfselected books and books from the core curriculum. They kept dialogue journals and reading logs. Writing was the favorite school activity of most students in the class. The schoolwide practice was to give no grades; report cards were in narrative form. Students' dominant experience in this classroom was of interest in and engagement with learning.
The students report that our explicitly collaborative relationship in the inquiry increased their sense of ownership and involvement and led to greater depth in our findings. The students' roles as coresearchers may not appear to outsiders to be very different from those of research participants in other studies. In the end, the critical difference lies in the perceptions of the coresearchers about their participation, and how those perceptions have affected the processes and outcomes of the research. As one student explained, "If I wasn't a coresearcher, I wouldn't really understand what you are doing, so I wouldn't take this so seriously. I might not be telling you much about how I really feel." They also believe that their active roles as coresearchers have facilitated their understanding of themselves as literacy learners. For example, John explained:
I never really realized what I liked. I realized what I didn't like, but I didn't realize what I liked. And when I sat down and thought about it and talked about it, I realized what I like. So it's kind of fun.
The values of the process for students engaged as coresearchers are much the same as those for teachers engaged in research. They gain voice and ownership of their agendas, and are enriched and empowered by the new knowledge constructed in the process (Oldfather, 1991, 1993b; Duckworth, 1987; Goswami & Stillman, 1987; Kincheloe, 1991). They believe that their own motivation for learning has been enhanced through their research participation. For example, Nicki explained:
I find myself in class sometimes now, saying, "This is what I was talking about [in our research]. This is what we should be doing better." I feel like we've looked into it so much, we've talked about it so much, that I've used it positively towards my work and how I feel about school.
The openended interviews were usually conducted in the outdoor courtyard at picnic tables. Questions were based on my classroom observations or were developed from previous interviews, often in response to students' comments. The students themselves frequently suggested issues and topics. Questions explored students' experiences when not feeling motivated: "Do you remember a time when you were supposed to do some work (or an activity) in school, and you really didn't feel like doing it? What was it? Did you do it? Why or why not? How did you feel when this happened?"
The constant comparative method of data analysis (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Glaser & Strauss, 1967) provided a feedback loop to shape both the methodological and analytical facets of the study. To illustrate, before the followup interviews with each coresearcher, I analyzed the content of the prior interviews and prepared questions for clarification, correction, and elaboration of the student's ideas to find out "if I got it right" (Geertz, 1973). I also conducted theoretical sampling (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Strauss & Corbin, 1990) during those interviews, checking the perceptions of each student about categories that were emerging from the study. For example, early in the data collection, a few coresearchers described their experiences of being able to take charge of attitudes about work, that is, to "choose a positive attitude" and therefore overcome their lack of motivation about a particular task. Subsequently, specific questions about this issue were posed to other students and properties emerged. Thus, our ongoing analysis of the interviews helped shape our understanding of important issues to be explored more fully in subsequent interviews.
Categories and properties were inductively generated (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Erickson, 1986). The field notes were cut into segments according to identified units of meaning based on relationships to particular categories and properties. The units of meaning ranged in length from a single phrase to a couple of paragraphs. For example, Paul's comment "I see math as something that we have to do and something that I want to get off my chest so I can do something else" was sorted into the category of Lacking Motivation and given the property of Getting It Over With.
These segments were placed on hundreds of index cards and sorted into piles by categories and properties. The categories were formed through analysis across students. The 14 final categories were analyzed to identify ways in which they related to each other. Frequencies of responses were counted, and patterns for individual student profiles were analyzed in relation to particular categories and properties. There was much diversity in the experiences described by the students in this research, but a few findings were representative of all students. For example, all students preferred being motivated to being unmotivated for learning activities. Individual properties within categories sometimes reflected the unique perspective of a single student (e.g., Marcel's feeling paralyzed, which was reported in the opening vignette).
Validity checks on the coding processes were conducted by two experienced qualitative researchers who coded randomly selected sections of the field notes and compared these with my coding. A high degree of initial consensus was found. Coresearchers also provided verification, correction, clarification, and elaboration during subsequent individual interviews, through focus groups, and through whole class discussions.
In order to conduct further theoretical sampling of the categories and properties, I held a series of small group sessions in which all students in the class participated. In focus groups of about eight members (Patton, 1990), students expressed and audiotaped their ideas on questions central to the study. Data analysis processes and tentative findings were shared in a whole-class meeting that was followed by a videotaped indepth discussion in which essentially no new ideas emerged, thus providing strong indication that the categories were saturated.
This research establishes a basis of comparison (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993) to be used by researchers and practitioners in studying other contexts and other students. Further research is needed in other contexts with students of different ages and varying cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds, and in classrooms where teachers have different educational philosophies, teaching styles, and personal attributes.
In this section, students' experiences in these three situations will be described, as well as their emotions and physical responses when lacking motivation.
There was unanimity among students in relation to two findings: First, all of the fourteen coresearchers occasionally experienced lack of motivation even in this class that they generally found interesting and engaging. Second, all the coresearchers preferred to be interested and involved, rather than bored or uninvolved, in their reading and writing. Although certain students felt stalled in their work occasionally, most found ways to work through the discomfort they experienced when they lacked motivation.
Choosing a positive attitude. Suki explained that her reading for the science project might be a little boring at first, but "I have to think of it as important, because if you thought it wasn't important, you wouldn't do anything about it." Similarly, Brian commented, "If you say `I don't like science' to start out with, you're really not going to pay a lot of attention. You're not going to be reading all the science things." Several students demonstrated metacognitive awareness and attempted to "take charge" of their attitudes in positive ways. The strategies appeared similar to those described by Manning (1990) as part of a person's inner language. These same approaches were reflected in the next category.
Choosing Openmindedness and Searching for Worthwhileness. In remembering his initial reactions when asked to write a poetry dialogue, Andrew reported, "If I come into something openminded and I don't know what the purpose is, but I think it might be worthwhile, I probably will get to like it." When Andrew could maintain an open attitude about the possible value of reading and writing poetry, he found he might have increased willingness to be involved. The teacher's frequent articulation of purposes and students' regular consideration of the value of what they were learning seem to have promoted the students' sense of the worthwhileness of learning activities.
| STUDENTS DID THE ACTIVITY | STUDENTS DID NOT DO THE ACTIVITY | |
| STUDENTS BECAME MOTIVATED | STUDENTS DID NOT BECOME MOTIVATED | |
| SITUATION I | SITUATION II | SITUATION III |
| Thinking | Thinking | AVOIDANCE |
| · choosing a positive attitude | · wanting to "get it over with" | Thinking |
| · choosing open-mindedness | · meeting requirements and | · "I'll just huff and puff and say |
| · searching for worthwhileness | · expectations | I didn't have time." |
| · self-regulating attention | · remembering the classroom | · "I'll hide my homework." |
| · learning from boredom | · accountability system | |
| Doing | Doing | PARALYSIS |
| · observing classmates' interest | · not doing my best: "If it's | Thinking |
| · plunging into an activity | wrong, it's wrong." | · "I can't do this." |
| · just doing the activity | · "I feel sick." | |
| Purposes | Purposes | |
| · intrinsic | · extrinsic | |
Observing classmates' interest. Brian described his feelings about a science project: "It seems kind of like `Oh, no! I have to do this!' But when you look at all the others' [ideas], it's kind of interesting." Andrew also indicated that observing peers who were interested and involved, and seeing how the others approached the task, helped him overcome his own resistance (Ames & Ames, 1984): "Seeing that everybody else likes it in there, I must like it too, once I figure it out." The prospect of competence (Csikszentmihalyi, 1978; Deci & Ryan, 1987) seemed to help motivate Andrew to get started on the tasks. His statement illustrates his experience in a supportive community of learners that encouraged him to be open to possibilities of being interested in and enjoying learning (Ames & Ames, 1984; Deci & Ryan, 1990; Johnson & Johnson, 1991).
Plunging into an activity. Lily often experienced a change in attitude after initial resistance to reading or writing: "Sometimes I'm feeling like I'm stuck with something. But if I can just start to do it, I may get really into it and start to put more effort into it. I don't like having to sit down, but once I get there, I get involved." Lily's statement reflects interest generated through interaction with a task (Csikszentmihalyi, 1978).
Selfregulating attention. Lily used selfregulation, specifically, selfcorrection (Manning, 1990, 1991) in describing her approach to a task: "I kind of daze along with it. I do it, but I don't do it that well. And later on I catch myself [not doing the task], and I do it." Consciously regulating her attention processes, Lily was able to focus on doing the literacy activity and reported increased subsequent engagement.
Learning from boredom. John had a unique view of boredom, which he used in a constructive manner:
John: My favorite thing is to write. It's just from boredom. You think of boredom as nothingness but sometimes it really gets something. Penny: What do you mean by that? John: Well, sometimes people think boredom is really boring. And it is, but it teaches you things. It teaches you how to play by yourself, how to write, how to learn other things, and just, it teaches you. Like it'll teach you while you're at home alone and it's just something that you can learn from.
John sought engagement in activities as a relief from boredom. Yet, he also recognized that boredom precipitated learning and creative activities as he sought to make life more interesting.
Students in Situation I who were able to become motivated for an activity usually did so when they plunged into a task. But plunging in was not enough (as is illustrated by those in Situation II, who did not become motivated when doing a task). Those who did become motivated also kept an open mind. They looked to their peers for inspiration, encouragement, and approval for doing well. They respected and trusted in the teacher's frequently held dialogues about what kinds of learning might be valuable and interesting. They experienced a sense of control about their learning, not only in terms of making choices about what and how they learned, but also in relation to how they thought about their learning: They could monitor attention to a task or choose a positive attitude.
When asked why they did these tasks if they did not want to do them, students identified reasons or purposes that were extrinsic to the task. They frequently referred to the classroom accountability system, known as Superkid. The system provided that those who had completed all their weekly assignments were allowed to choose an activity during free time, or they were given other incentives. Those who had not completed all assignments were required to work on them. Parents were informed weekly of whether students were uptodate on assignments. Paul analyzed his own reactions to Superkid:
Doing Superkid. . . it's not like the goal of my life. But I guess it's something in your subconscious that wants you to do it still. I don't know why. . . . You see, if I don't do Superkid, I'm not going to get punished or anything. So I think it's kind of dumb, but I think something in your subconscious says "Go do it." So I always do everything.
All of the students reported being influenced at least occasionally to participate in some learning activities for extrinsic rewards. The Superkid program appeared to play an important role, particularly for those in Situation II, although it had quite different meanings for different students. In some instances, the extrinsic rewards were seen as indicators of selfcompetence. In other cases, it appeared that rewards were valued for themselves. It appeared that Superkid served as a "motivational safety net" or a "purpose of last resort" (Oldfather, 1991) for students in Situation II who did not value the activity for intrinsic purposes. The accountability system obviously did not work for those in Situation III, as they did not do the activity.
For example, the avoidance situation was articulated by Lauren, who explained frankly, "Sometimes I'll just huff and puff and say I didn't get around to it." The more serious state of perceived helplessness was experienced by Marcel, who remarked poignantly, "My body feels completely wrong." Marcel felt "homework can be pure torture for kids." Both students volunteered that they had attempted to conceal from the teacher and parents the fact that their homework was not finished.
Feeling anger and rebellion. Anger and rebellion were common reactions when students felt unmotivated. Andy explained, "Teachers kind of get on your back and everything. I get really mad. I want to tell them to go away." Brian reported, "You begin and you've gotta do a geography map or something. Then you get real mad, because you don't want to do it. But then you have to." Feelings of anger appeared to be associated with students' feeling that they were denied opportunity for selfdetermination.
Wanting to have autonomy. When students felt unmotivated to do required tasks, they became aware of their desire for autonomy. For example, John described his reaction to a required science project: "I want to want to do a science project. But I can't want to do a science project if they say you have to do a science project." As he explained, "I want to be myself. I want to imagine what I want. I want to like what I want. I want to enjoy what I want. I want to be me."
Feeling anxious and less than competent.
Students reported lacking motivation in situations in which they felt less than competent and/or highly anxious. Marcel explained that he did not often want to do math, especially when he did not understand it. When Marcel found that other students completed a timed math test before he did, he expressed discouragement:
I just don't really liked being timed. It doesn't feel good when you see some other people get ahead of you, and you hear somebody say "Oh yeah, good, I'm finished." It just makes me feel like I'm so terrible at it.
Some students who felt anxious and less than competent also experienced extreme physical symptoms, as described in the following section.
Feeling physically ill. As mentioned previously, Marcel, whose body felt "completely wrong," had a severe physical reaction when he felt unable to do a required task. Marcel's experiences can be understood from a variety of perspectives. Anxiety has been recognized as negatively related to intrinsic motivation (Gottfried, 1982). Physical symptoms such as headaches may be experienced by individuals who perceive a lack of control over outcomes (Pennebaker, Burnam, Schaeffener, & Harper, 1977). Lack of perceived control can lead to a sense of helplessness which then impairs learning and performance (Hiroto & Seligman, 1975). Miller and Ross (1975) suggest that attribution of failure to a physical problem may be a selfserving bias that preserves the individual's ego.
All explanations aside, Marcel's strong physical reaction virtually paralyzed his participation. Marcel's first remedy was to "wait until it's time to do something else. It's like when you eat too much of something, you feel full for that, but sometimes you can eat something else." Marcel explained that he felt better when he could go outside and "get his energy out," or read a book he liked. Marcel's teacher was able to recognize his condition and to provide some support and relief. When Marcel voiced his feelings of anxiety about timed tests, the teacher's empowering response was to make participation in timed tests optional and use untimed assessments instead.
Needing to move. Andy, who said he liked to read, described what he experienced at Hebrew School:
Andy: I have so much energy, I have to keep moving. Sometimes I get really nervous and my hands start shaking and I can't read, so I just stop. Penny: How do you feel when you have to sit still? Andy: Well, sometimes I just wiggle my toes.
As Andy's experience in Hebrew School illustrates, some students had to struggle to carry through their reading activities when they were required to sit still or to remain in their seats for long periods of time. If the children were not allowed to move about and release energy, they had difficulty sustaining engagement with learning. The common disciplinary practice of depriving students of recess must create problems for students like Andy. The "sometimesIjust-wigglemytoes" strategies may not provide an energy release sufficient to allow the student to reconnect with the work.
The focus on collaborative construction of meaning also supported students' motivation. As Paul explained, the teacher "helps us build our thoughts." The coresearchers felt that being part of this community of learners made the transition from being unmotivated to becoming motivated less difficult.
Students in Situation II who did not become motivated for an activity, but did complete the activity were, nevertheless, supported by the learningoriented classroom culture. Even if their reasons for doing an activity were extrinsic rather than intrinsic, most students valued being "good students." The responsiveness of the classroom to their ideas, feelings, and interests helped alleviate the feelings of resistance or alienation that are often experienced when students are not intrinsically motivated to do required tasks. Thus, they were more open to moving into intrinsically motivated modes of engagement in their learning.
For students in Situation III, who lacked motivation and were either unwilling or unable to do a task, the nurturing, responsive aspects of the classroom culture met a particularly critical need, not only for promoting students' engagement in learning, but in supporting them through their motivational struggles. This is exemplified by Marcel's case. When his body felt "completely wrong," he was able to communicate his needs and feelings to the teacher. She responded to students with care and empathy and took action that alleviated anxiety levels and allowed students to have a greater sense of selfdetermination. Marcel felt much better.
The primary aim of every educational institution and of every educational effort must be the maintenance and enhancement of caring.... I am drawing attention to priorities. I certainly do not intend to abandon intellectual and aesthetic aims. If what we do instructionally achieves the instructional end - A learns X - we have succeeded instructionally, but if A hates X and his teacher as a result, we have failed educationally [italics added] (p. 174).
Noddings' statement puts into perspective the broader outcomes of education and emphasizes affective goals as integral to learning, selfesteem, and caring. If, as Noddings suggests, we view the student as infinitely more important than the subject, we will be more likely to respond to children's motivational struggles in ways that empower and motivate them, rather than in ways that make them feel powerless and alienated. The responsive classroom environment has the potential to nurture students' ownership of learning. Belenky et al. in Women's Ways of Knowing (1986) further explore the concept of caring and nurturing in education, articulating the process of connected teaching. Connected teaching is based on a constructivist epistemo-logical stance that all knowledge is constructed and that the knower is an intimate part of that which is known (Belenky, et al. 1986). The constructive process of each individual learner is respected. The teacher "shares the ownership of knowing" (Oldfather, 1992). This stance changes the power relations in the classroom. Connected teachers create a caring community of learners that encourages risk taking. Everyone in the community (including the teacher) teaches, as well as learns. Connected teachers invite students' collaboration in the construction of meaning, and they nurture students' voices by facilitating "the having of wonderful ideas" (Duckworth, 1987). In such an environment, students become more fully engaged in their learning.
This research was conducted in the context of one classroom. Students' experiences in family and community contexts are likely to have significant impact on their motivation for literacy learning, and those elements are not encompassed by this study. In order to provide a basis for comparability, further research is needed in a variety of other contexts, including other whole language classrooms, other grade levels, different socioeconomic contexts, with students of varied cultural backgrounds, and in classrooms with different styles of teaching. A longitudinal study is underway to follow the original fourteen coresearchers into other classroom contexts.
In contrast to many studies on motivation, it was not the intent of this study to measure either motivation or achievement. I have attempted to understand and represent students' experiences as fully and fairly as possible, and to report (in Bruner's words) "what they say their worlds are like." As in all research, these findings are interpreted first through the lens of the researcher - and then by the reader. In spite of the limitations of our constructed understandings, it is important that we attempt, as Beekman (1986) suggests, to see students' motivational struggles and the world of classroom literacy from a "common horizon" with students.
Ames, R., & Ames, C. (1984). Research on motivation in education: Vol. 1. Student motivation. New York: Academic Press.
Beekman, T. (1986). Stepping inside: On participant experience and bodily presence in the field. Journal of Education, 168(3), 43.
Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Bloome, D. (1986). Reading as a social process in a middle school classroom. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Literacy and schooling (pp. 123149). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1982). Qualitative research for education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Collins, E., & Green, J. L. (1992). Learning in classroom settings: Making or breaking a culture. In H. H. Marshall, (Ed.), Redefining student learning: Roots of educational change (pp. 5985). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1978). Intrinsic rewards and emergent motivation. In M. Lepper & D. Greene (Eds.), The hidden costs of reward: New perspectives on the psychology of human motivation (pp. 205216). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cullen, J. L. (1981). Children's reactions to school failure. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 16, 5868.
Cullen, J. L. (1985). Children's ability to cope with failure: Implications of a metacognitive approach for the classroom. In D. L. ForrestPressley, G. E. MacKinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (pp. 267300). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Dahl, K. L., & Freppon, P. A. (in press). A comparison of innercity children's interpretations of reading and writing instruction in the early grades in skillsbased and whole language classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly.
deCharms, R. (1984). Motivation enhancement in educational settings. In R. E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation on education: Vol. 1. Student Motivation (pp. 275-312). New York: Academic Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Intrinsic motivation and selfdetermination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1990). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. Paper presented to the Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Lincoln, NE.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280 298.
Dewey, J. (1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. In C. A. McMurry (Ed.), Third Yearbook, Part I. National Society for the Scientific Study of Education (pp. 930). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Duckworth, E. (1987). The having of wonderful ideas and other essays on teaching and learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 674685.
Dyson, A. H. (1992). Whistle for Willie, lost puppies, and cartoon dogs: The sociocultural dimensions of young children's composing. Journal of Reading Behavior 24(4), 433462.
Eccles (Parsons), J. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75146). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook on Research in Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119161).
Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. (1992). Students' experience of the curriculum. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 465485). New York: Macmillan.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266275.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Glasser, W. (1986). Control theory in the classroom. New York: Harper & Row.
Goswami, D., & Stillman, P. R. (1987). Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher research as an agency for change. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/ Cook.
Gottfried, A. (1982). Relationships between academic intrinsic motivation and anxiety in children and young adolescents. Journal of School Psychology, 20(3), 205215.
Grumet, M. (1988). Bitter milk: Women and teaching. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hiroto, D., & Seligman, M. (1975). Generality of learned helplessness in man. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 311327.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Johnston, P. H. (1992). Constructive evaluation of literate activity. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Kincheloe, J. L. (1991). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment. New York: Falmer Press.
LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1992). Toward an ethnology of student life in schools and classrooms: Synthesizing the qualitative research tradition. In M. D. LeCompte & J. Preissle (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education. New York: Academic Press.
LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San Diego: Academic Press.
Manning, B. (1990). Cognitive selfinstruction for an offtask fourth grader during independent academic tasks: A case study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 3646.
Manning, B. (1991). Cognitive selfinstruction for classroom processes. New York: State University of New York Press.
Marshall, H. H. (1990). Beyond the workplace metaphor: The classroom as a learning setting. Theory into Practice, 29(2), 94101.
Marshall, H. H., & Weinstein, R. S. (1986). Classroom context of studentperceived differential teacher treatment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 441453.
McCombs, B. L. (1991). Motivation and lifelong learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(2), 117127.
Miller, D., & Ross, M. (1975). Selfserving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213225.
Myers, J. (1992). The social contexts of school and personal literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(4), 297332.
Nicholls, J. G., & Hazzard, S. P. (1993). Education as adventure: Lessons from the second grade. New York: Teachers College Press.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Oldfather, P. (1991). Students' perceptions of their own reasons/purposes for being or not being involved in learning activities: A qualitative study of student motivation (Doctoral dissertation, The Claremont Graduate School, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 853A.
Oldfather, P. (1992). Sharing the ownership of knowing: A constructivist concept of motivation for literacy learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Oldfather, P. (1993a). What students say about motivating experiences in a whole language classroom. Reading Teacher, 46(8), 672681.
Oldfather, P. (1993b, April). Facilitating participation and ownership through engaging students as coresearchers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Oldfather, P., & Dahl, K. (in press). Toward a social constructivist reconceptualization of intrinsic motivation for literacy learning. Journal of Reading Behavior.
Oldfather, P., & McLaughlin, J. (in press). Gaining and losing voice: A longitudinal study of students' continuing impulse to learn across elementary and middle level contexts. Research in Middle Level Education, 17.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pennebaker, J., Burnam, M., Schaeffener, M., & Harper, D. (1977). Lack of control as a determinant of perceived physical symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 167174.
Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. New York: Grossman.
Poplin, M. (1987). Selfimposed blindness: The scientific method in education. Remedial and Special Education, 8(6), 3137.
Rohrkemper, M. M. (1989). Selfregulated learning and academic achievement: A Vygotskian view. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Selfregulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research and practice. New York: SpringerVerlag.
Rohrkemper, M. M., & Corno, L. (1988). Success and failure on classroom tasks: Adaptive learning and classroom teaching. Elementary School Journal, 88(3), 297312.
Santa Barbara Discourse Group (Green, J., Dixon, C., Lin, L., Floriani, A., Bradley, M. with Paxton, S., Mattern, C., & Bergamo, H.)
(1992). Constructing literacy in classrooms: Literate action as social accomplishment. In H. H. Marshall (Ed.), Redefining student learning: Roots of educational change. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
von Glaserfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watzlawick (Ed.), The Invented Reality (pp. 1740). New York: Norton.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. JohnSteiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation: From mechanism to cognition. Chicago: Markham.
Weinstein, R. (1983). Student perceptions of schooling. Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 286312.
Weinstein, R. (1989). Classroom perceptions and student motivation. In R. E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 3. Goals and cognitions (pp. 187221). New York: Academic Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
West, J., & Oldfather, P. (1993). On working together: An imaginary dialogue among real children. Language Arts, 70, 3344.
White, R. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297333.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, B. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89100.
3. QAR (Question Answer Relationship)
QUESTION ANSWER RELATIONSHIPS
The value of QAR instruction lies in the way it clarifies how students can approach the task of reading texts and answering questions. It helps them to realize the need to consider both information in the text and information from their own background knowledge. Students without QAR instruction often show a lack of strategic behavior when reading and answering questions.
In QAR instruction, students learn that questions are classified according to the relationship between the questions and the sources of the answers given. It involves sensitizing students to the sources of information available for responding to questions.
Younger children, prior to second grade, seem to respond best when initially introduced to two sources of information: the book or story that has just been read, and the reader's background knowledge.
RIGHT THERE
The answer is in the story, usually easy to find. The words used to make up the question and words used to answer the question are RIGHT THERE.
IN MY HEAD
The answer is not in the story. You need to think about what you already know, what the author tells you in the text, and how it fits together.
Older children learn three sources of information.
RIGHT THERE
The answer is in the story, usually easy to find. The words used to make up the question and words used to answer the question are RIGHT THERE.
What to do? Find the word used to create the question and look at the other words in that sentence to find the answer.
THINK AND SEARCH The answer is in the story, but a little -harder to find. You probably wouldn't find the words in the question and words in the answer in the same sentence, but you would need THINK AND SEARCH.
What to do? Look for clues in more than one sentence or paragraph to find the answer.
ON MY OWN
The answer won't be told by words in the story or text. You must find the answer in your head from what you already know. What to do? Think: "I have to answer this question ON MY OWN."
Three Kinds of Questions
Right There
What it is: The answer is in the story, easy to find. The
words used to make the question and the words that make the answer are RIGHT
THERE, in the same sentence.
What to do: find the words used to create the question and look at the other words in that sentence to find the answer.
Think and Search What it is: The answer is in the story, but a little harder to find. You probably wouldn't find the words in the question and words in the answer in the same sentence, but would have to THINK AND SEARCH for the answer.
What to do: Look for clues in more than one sentence or paragraph to find the answer.
On My Own What it is: The answer won't be told by words in the story. You must find the answer in your head, from what you already know.
What to do: Think: "I have to answer this question ON MY OWN. The story will help some."
PRIOR KNOWLEDGE can be explained as a combination of the learner's preexisting attitudes, experiences, and knowledge:
Experiences
Knowledge
Excerpted from The Strategic Teaching and Reading Project Guidebook (Kujawa & Huske, 1995).
ontent and general comments: info@ncrel.org
Technical information: pwtech@ncrelsgi.ncrel.org
Copyright © North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. All rights reserved.
|
|
Better Reading Comprehension |
 |
Renae Spears works on QAR poster for Kindergarten, T-1 and First Grades. |
Research shows the QAR (Question, Answer, Relationship) teaching strategy meets Kansas State Standards. This strategy has been shown to increase student's comprehension of text more than some other questioning strategies. (Jenkins and Lawler, 1990) This strategy works most effectively with younger students especially those who are less able. (Raphael 1982)
It was a faculty decision to be trained in, and implement QAR at Garfield School. Sherry Reed, Greenbush Coordinator introduced the model to the staff.
K - 5 teachers are using the technique of a "Stoplight Poster" to reinforce the strategies of the QAR process.
The committee members decided on dates for QAR tests to be given. They collected the data and graphed the results.
The committee members compiled information and lesson ideas for the staff. They have written a parent handout with information about this teaching strategy.
|
|
K-5 teachers are using a stoplight poster as reminder to students of QAR process. Q1 questions are green so the students know they can "go" right to the answer. Q2 questions are yellow as students "slow down" to think and search for the answer that could be in more than one sentence or paragraph.Q3 questions are red. Students are taught when they come across these types of questions, they need to stop and think about what the author has told them and their own prior experience. |
"At the beginning of the year with our new Science series, the test scores were low. The tests require a lot of writing. After QAR was introduced the test scores came up dramatically." Connie Jaggers
 |
"It's a happy experience to see the students build confidence in themselves each time they tell me what kind of question I've just asked, and this is when I haven't asked them to identify the kind of sentence!" Barbara Groh |
"It (QAR) has helped me find the answers in reading , math problems and even in other subjects. It has helped me get better grades." Scott (5th grade)
| "Low achievers are showing great gains in reading comprehension with the QAR strategy." Jann Brownlee |  |
Reading Committee for the 00-01 school year is being lead by Co-chairs - Connie Jaggers and Debbie Vacca.Other members include Sonya Austin, Jo Locke, Carolyn Price, Renae Spears, and Julie Wiles.
Check out our results using this strategy during the 1998-1999 school year at QAR graph. The results for the 1999-2000 school year show growth in reading comprehension.
Interview Forms to Encourage Metacognition During Reading
Metacognitive Interview Forms ask students to explain how they went about reading a passage of text. Here are some sample forms completed by students at Millcreek-West Unity School District:
METACOGNITION consists of three basic elements:
Before - When you are developing the plan of action, ask yourself:
During - When you are maintaining/monitoring the plan of action, ask yourself:
After - When you are evaluating the plan of action ask yourself:
Excerpted from Strategic Teaching and Reading Project Guidebook. (1995, NCREL, rev. ed.).
The metacognitive process enhances learning by guiding students' thinking, and by helping the learner follow a wise course of action as he or she thinks through a problem, makes decisions, or attempts to understand a situation or text. In this rapidly changing world, the challenge of teaching is to help students develop skills that will not become obsolete. Metacognitive strategies are essential for the twenty-first century because they enable students to cope successfully with new situations.
Learners who are well developed metacognitively:
Adapted from Strategic Teaching and Reading Project Guidebook. (1995, NCREL, rev. ed.).
Select a reading passage that the student is able to read without difficulty. (The passage selected is likely to vary from student to student.)
Explain to the student that you want him or her to show you how to read the passage.
Questions
PRIOR KNOWLEDGE can be explained as a combination of the learner's preexisting attitudes, experiences, and knowledge:
Experiences
Knowledge
Excerpted from The Strategic Teaching and Reading Project Guidebook (Kujawa & Huske, 1995).
V. Graphic Organizers, Kentucky Department of Education,www.kde.state.ky.us
Graphic organizers provide a visual, holistic representation of facts and concepts and their relationships within an organized frame. They aid learning and thinking by helping students and teachers represent abstract information in more concrete form, depict relationships among facts and concepts, relate new information to prior knowledge, and organize thoughts for writing. Graphic organizers exist in a variety of forms.
Graphic organizers may be used before an instructional activity (e.g., reading, viewing a film) to activate prior knowledge, to provide a conceptual framework for integrating new information, and to encourage student prediction. During instruction, they can help students actively process and reorganize information. After instruction, they may be used to summarize learning, encourage elaboration, help organize ideas for writing, provide a structure for review, and assess the degree of student understanding.
Teachers should describe the purpose of a new graphic organizer when introducing it to students. They should also model its use and provide ample opportunities for guided practice. When students are choosing a particular graphic structure to use, they should ask themselves questions such as: Are concepts presented in a hierarchy? Does the text suggest a time line of information? Does the author compare and contrast two or more concepts? Is the text an explanation of something? Excerpt from http://www.kde.state.ky.us/oapd/curric/Publications/Transformations/graphicorgan.html.
Reciprocal Teaching: A Reading Strategy
Theory into Practice (TIP) Monograph
This Theory Into Practice (TIP) monograph represents the effort to identify classroom practices that research has shown to result in higher student achievement. The fundamental idea behind TIPs is that efforts to improve instruction must focus on the existing knowledge base about effective teaching and learning. This TIP was developed by the Lanuage Arts Cadre, a group of exemplary teachers, during their 1995 institute at the San Diego County Office of Education. Any questions should be directed to Don Mayfield at 619-292-3822 or donmayfi@sdcoe.k12.ca.us.
The following responses are from the Language Arts 2000 Cadre '95, a group of
exemplary teachers from public schools in San Diego County, who gathered
together for two weeks during the Summer, 1995, to study language arts
instruction issues and to prepare for staff development activities for the
school year.
What is Reciprocal Teaching?
Reciprocal Teaching is a technique used to develop comprehension of expository text in which teacher and students take turns leading a dialogue concerning sections of a text. Four activities are incorporated into the technique: prediction, questioning, summarizing and clarifying misleading or complex sections of the text.
Why is it important for students to design their own questions?
Students involved in the Reciprocal Teaching process are checking their own understanding of the material they have encountered. They do this by generating questions and summarizing. Expert scaffolding is essential for cognitive development as students move from spectator to performer after repeated modeling by adults.
How will Reciprocal Teaching benefit students?
The purpose of Reciprocal Teaching is to help students, with or without a teacher present, actively bring meaning to the written word. The strategies chosen not only promote reading comprehension but also provide opportunities for students to learn to monitor their own learning and thinking. The structure of the dialogue and interactions of the group members require that all students participate and foster new relationships between students of different ability levels.
Which students will benefit the most from the Reciprocal Teaching strategy?
Reciprocal Teaching has proved to be useful with a widely diverse population of students. The RT procedure was designed to improve the reading comprehension ability of students who were adequate decoders but had poor comprehension. However, modifications of this procedure have been used to teach students who were poor decoders, second language learners or non-readers. Poor decoders used the procedure as a read-along activity, second language learners used it to practice developing skills while non-readers learned it as a listening comprehension activity. Teachers have observed that even normally achieving or above average students profit from strategy instruction because it allows them to read and understand more challenging texts. Also, students with more experience and confidence help other students in their group to decode and understand what is being read; students with more experience in questioning (i.e. weaker students) stimulate deeper thinking and understanding in their more academically adept peers.
How do I assess students using the Reciprocal Teaching strategy in their reading?
Listening to students during the dialogue is the most valuable means for determining whether or not students are learning the strategies and whether or not the strategies are helping them. In whole group settings, students may be asked to write out questions and summaries to be checked by the teacher or other students.
How long should teachers continue to monitor students using the Reciprocal Teaching strategy?
Continuous monitoring and evaluation of performance should take place to determine the kind of support or scaffolding the students need to successfully execute the strategies. Monitoring, however, may become more infrequent when students become more adept at monitoring their own performance.
What support do teachers need to start and continue Reciprocal Teaching?
Teachers wishing to adopt the Reciprocal Teaching technique into their curriculum should have the digest provided complete with graphic organizers of the questioning, summarizing, clarifying and predicting strategies. Some thought must be made about the text to provide for instructive purposes during the learning phase. The ability level of the students should be taken into account before choosing a challenging text. A daily journal would be helpful to refer to as students are scaffolding at different rates. Also, at least one other teacher to collaborate with and debrief occasionally would be very helpful.
Sources:
Carroll, Ann-Martin. (1988) Reciprocal Teaching. Presentation given at the California Reading Association, San Diego, CA.
Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension Monitoring Activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
Walker, B. (1988). Diagnostic Teaching of Reading. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing Co.
