jane e. pollock debra j. pickering robert j. marzano...

R E S E A R C H - B A S E D S T R A T E G I E S F O R I N C R E A S I N G S T U D E N T A C H I E V E M E N T

What works in education? How do we know? How can teachers find out? Howcan educational research find its way into the classroom? How can we apply it to help our individual students?

Questions like these arise in most schools, and busy educators often don’t havetime to find the answers. Robert J. Marzano, Debra J. Pickering, and Jane E.Pollock have examined decades of research findings to distill the results into ninebroad teaching strategies that have positive effects on student learning:

● Identifying similarities and differences.● Summarizing and note taking.● Reinforcing effort and providing recognition.● Homework and practice.● Nonlinguistic representations.● Cooperative learning.● Setting objectives and providing feedback.● Generating and testing hypotheses.● Questions, cues, and advance organizers.

This list is not new. But what is surprising is finding out what a big difference itmakes, for example, when students learn how to take good notes, work in groups,and use graphic organizers. The authors provide statistical effect sizes and showhow these translate into percentile gains for students, for each strategy. And eachchapter presents extended classroom examples of teachers and students in action;models of successful instruction; and many “frames,” rubrics, organizers, and chartsto help teachers plan and implement the strategies.

E D U C A T I O N$ 2 4 . 9 5 U . S .

Rober t J. Marzano

Debra J. Pickering

Jane E. Pollock

Rober t J. Marzano

Debra J. Pickering

Jane E. Pollock

CLASSRO

OM

INSTRU

CTION

THA

T WO

RKS ●

MA

RZAN

O PICKERIN

G PO

LLOCK

VISIT US ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB:http://www.ascd.org

Association for Supervision and Curriculum DevelopmentAlexandria, Virginia USA

R E S E A R C H -B A S E D S T R A T E G I E S

F O R I N C R E A S I N G S T U D E N T A C H I E V E M E N T

ClassInstruct Cover 12/11/02 9:40 AM

Robert J. Marzano

Debra J. Pickering

Jane E. Pollock

Robert J. Marzano

Debra J. Pickering

Jane E. Pollock

A s s o c i a t i o n f o r S u p e r v i s i o n a n d C u r r i c u l u m D e v e l o p m e n t • A l e x a n d r i a , V i r g i n i a U S A

R E S E A R C H -B A S E D S T R A T E G I E S

F O R I N C R E A S I N G S T U D E N T A C H I E V E M E N T

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

1703 N. Beauregard St. • Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 USA

Telephone: 1-800-933-2723 or 703-578-9600 • Fax: 703-575-5400

Web site: http://www.ascd.org • E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2001 by McREL. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be repro-

duced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including pho-

tocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from

McREL. Readers who wish to duplicate material copyrighted by McREL or ASCD may do

so for a small fee by contacting the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Dr.,

Danvers, MA 01923, USA (telephone: 978-750-8400; fax: 978-750-4470). ASCD has autho-

rized the CCC to collect such fees on its behalf. Requests to reprint rather than photocopy

should be directed to ASCD’s permissions office at 703-578-9600.

ASCD publications present a variety of viewpoints. The views expressed or implied in this

book should not be interpreted as official positions of the Association.

netLibrary E-Book: ISBN 0-87120-733-8 Price: $24.95 • Retail PDF 1-4166-0078-7

Quality Paperback: ISBN 0-87120-504-1 ASCD product no. 101010 ASCD member price: $20.95

nonmember price: $24.95

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

(for paperback book)

Marzano, Robert J.

Classroom instruction that works : research-based strategies for increasing student

achievement / Robert J. Marzano, Debra J. Pickering, Jane E. Pollock.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.

ISBN 0-87120-504-1

1. Effective teaching—United States. 2. Academic achievement—United States—

Statistics. I. Pickering, Debra. II. Pollock, Jane E., 1956– III. Title

LB1025.3 .M339 2001

371.102—dc21 00-012007

______________________________________________________

07 06 05 04 03 02 01 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

®

00--Frt Matter--ii-vi(e-bo).qxd 2/7/05 7:59 AM Page 2

List of Figures _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ iv

1 Applying the Research on Instruction:An Idea Whose Time Has Come _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1

Research-Based Strategies 2 Identifying Similarities and Differences_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 133 Summarizing and Note Taking _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 294 Reinforcing Effort and Providing Recognition _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 495 Homework and Practice_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 606 Nonlinguistic Representations _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 727 Cooperative Learning _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 848 Setting Objectives and Providing Feedback _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 929 Generating and Testing Hypotheses _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 103

10 Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 111

Specific Applications 11 Teaching Specific Types of Knowledge _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 12312 Using the Nine Categories in Instructional Planning _ _ _ 14613 Afterword _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 156

Appendix: Conversion Table for Effect Size/Percentile Gain _ _ _ _ _ _ 159References _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 161Index _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 174About the Authors _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 177

C L A S S R O O MI N S T R U C T I O Nthat works

C L A S S R O O MI N S T R U C T I O Nthat worksR E S E A R C H - B A S E D S T R A T E G I E S F O R I N C R E A S I N G S T U D E N T A C H I E V E M E N T

1.1. The Normal Distribution _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 51.2. Average Effect Size Using Higher-Level Questions _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 61.3. Categories of Instructional Strategies That Affect Student Achievement _ _ _ _ _ _ 71.4. Three Elements of Effective Pedagogy _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 10

2.1. Selected Research Results for Identifying Similarities and Differences _ _ _ _ _ _ 152.2. Definitions _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 172.3. Venn Diagram _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 182.4. Comparison Matrix _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 192.5. Venn Diagram: Pioneer Days and Today _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 212.6. Graphic Organizers for Classification _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 222.7. Graphic Organizer for Metaphors_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 252.8. Graphic Organizer for Analogies _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 282.9. Graphic Organizer for Analogies in Use _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 28

3.1. Research Results for Summarizing Strategies _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 303.2. Exercise in Summarizing _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 31

A. The Photographic Process _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 31B. Macrostructure of the Photographic Process _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 31

3.3. Summarizing Strategy: Sample Passage _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 333.4. The Narrative Frame_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 353.5. The Topic-Restriction-Illustration Frame _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 373.6. The Definition Frame _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 383.7. The Argumentation Frame _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 393.8. The Problem/Solution Frame _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 40

L I S T O F F I G U R E S

L I S T O F F I G U R E S v

3.9. The Conversation Frame _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 413.10. Reciprocal Teaching _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 433.11. Research Results for Note Taking _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 443.12. Teacher-Prepared Notes: The Bill of Rights _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 453.13. Student Notes: Informal Outline—The Circulatory System _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 463.14. Student Notes: Webbing—Olympic Games _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 473.15. Student Notes: Combination Technique—Inflation _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 48

4.1. Research Results for Reinforcing Effort _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 514.2. Effort and Achievement Rubrics _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 52

A. Effort Rubric_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 52B. Achievement Rubric_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 52

4.3. Effort and Achievement Chart _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 534.4. Research Results for Providing Recognition _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 544.5. Guidelines for Effective Praise _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 564.6. Meta-analytic Results Supporting Rewards _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 574.7. Influence of Abstract Versus Tangible Rewards _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 58

5.1. Research Results for Homework _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 615.2. Recommended Total Minutes Per Day for Homework _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 625.3. Research Results for Graded Homework _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 645.4. Research Results for Practice _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 665.5. Learning Line _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 675.6. Increase in Learning Between Practice Sessions_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 68

6.1. Research Results for Nonlinguistic Representation _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 746.2. Descriptive Pattern Organizer_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 756.3. Time Sequence Pattern Organizer _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 766.4. Process/Cause-Effect Pattern Organizer_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 766.5. Episode Pattern Organizer_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 776.6. Generalization/Principle Pattern Organizer_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 776.7. Concept Pattern Organizer _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 786.8. Time Sequence Pattern in Arbitration_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 796.9. Process/Cause-Effect Pattern for Negotiation_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 796.10. Concept Pattern for Voluntary Mediation_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 806.11. Student Pictograph _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 83

7.1. Research Results for Cooperative Learning _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 867.2. Homogeneous Grouping Versus No Grouping _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 877.3. Homogeneous versus Heterogeneous Grouping _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 887.4. Size of Groups _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 88

C L A S S R O O M I N S T R U C T I O N T H A T W O R K Svi

8.1. Research Results for Goal Setting_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 938.2. Research Results for Providing Feedback _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 978.3. Research Results for Corrective Feedback _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 988.4. Timing of Feedback _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 988.5. Rubrics for Providing Feedback _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 100

A. General Rubric for Information _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 100B. Generic Rubric for Processes and Skills _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 100

8.6. Rubric Adaptations_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 101A. Industrial Revolution Rubric—Information _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 101B. Reading Bar Graph Rubric—Processes and Skills _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 101

9.1. Research Results for Generating and Testing Hypotheses_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1049.2. Inductive versus Deductive Approaches _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 106

10.1. Research Results for Cues and Questions _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11210.2. Definition of Analytic Skills _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11610.3. Research Results for Advance Organizers _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11710.4. Graphic Organizer: French Class _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 120

11.1. Chances of Learning New Words in Context _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 12511.2. Imagery-Based Instructional Techniques _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 12711.3. Details _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 13011.4. Types of Instruction and Effect on Learning_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 13111.5. Organizing Ideas _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 13411.6. Strategies for Correcting Misconceptions _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 13511.7. Types of Word Problems _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 13911.8. Effect Sizes for Various Approaches to Writing _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 142

12.1. Instructional Strategies for Use at the Beginning of a Unit _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 14712.2. Example of Unit Goals: The Power of the Weather _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 14812.3. Instructional Strategies to Use During a Unit: Monitoring Learning Goals _ _ _ _ 14912.4. Instructional Strategies to Use During a Unit: Introducing New Knowledge _ _ _ 15012.5. Sample Student Notebook _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 15112.6. Instructional Strategies for Use During Unit: Practicing, Reviewing,

and Applying Knowledge _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 15212.7. Sample Long-Term Project: What If . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 15312.8. Instructional Strategies for Use at the End of a Unit: Helping Students

Determine How Well They Have Achieved Their Goals _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 154

We educators stand at a special point in time. This is not because a newdecade, century, and millennium have

begun (although this phenomenon cer-tainly brings new opportunities and com-plexities). Rather, it is because the “art” ofteaching is rapidly becoming the “science”of teaching, and this is a relatively newphenomenon. It may come as a surprise tosome readers that up until about 30 yearsago, teaching had not been systematicallystudied in a scientific manner. This is not tosay that effective teaching strategies wereabsent before 1970. Indeed, educators haveeffectively used Socratic inquiry as an ex-plicit instructional strategy for two and onehalf millennia. At the beginning of the1970s, however, researchers began to lookat the effects of instruction on studentlearning. In fact, the decade before wasmarked by the belief that school reallymade little difference in the achievement

of students. This was a conclusion of thenow famous report entitled Equality of Edu-cational Opportunity published in 1966 (seeColeman et al., 1966). The report is com-monly referred to as the “Coleman report”in deference to its senior author, JamesColeman. After analyzing data from some600,000 students and 60,000 teachers inmore than 4,000 schools, Coleman and hiscolleagues concluded that the quality ofschooling a student receives accounts foronly about 10 percent of the variance instudent achievement.

To understand what this means, con-sider the following example: Assume youare analyzing the science achievementscores for a group of 100 eighth-grade stu-dents from three different schools. Thesestudents will no doubt vary greatly in theirscience achievement. Some will have verylow scores, some very high scores, andsome in the middle. The findings from the

1A P P L Y I N G T H E R E S E A R C H O N

I N S T R U C T I O N : A N I D E A W H O S E

T I M E H A S C O M E

1

C L A S S R O O M I N S T R U C T I O N T H A T W O R K S2

Coleman report indicate that only 10 per-cent of these differences are caused by thequality of the schools these 100 studentsattend. In other words, going to the best ofthe three schools as opposed to the worstof the three schools, will change only about10 percent of the differences in studentachievement.

A logical question is, What influencesthe other 90 percent? Coleman and his col-leagues concluded that the vast majority ofdifferences in student achievement can beattributed to factors like the student’s nat-ural ability or aptitude, the socioeconomicstatus of the student, and the student’shome environment. Unfortunately, theseare all things that cannot be changed byschools. These same findings were corrobo-rated by Harvard researcher ChristopherJencks in his book Inequality: A Reassess-ment of the Effects of Family and Schools inAmerica (see Jencks et al., 1972). Jencksand his colleagues re-analyzed much of thedata used in the Coleman report. Again,the conclusion that schools make little dif-ference was pre-eminent. As Jencks notes:“Most differences in . . . test scores are due to factors that schools do not control”(p. 109).

The conclusions by Coleman andJencks did not paint a very hopeful picturefor educators and education. If most ofwhat influences student achievement is outof the control of schools, why even try?Fortunately, in retrospect, we now see someserious flaws in these conclusions. In fact,

we now can look at the possible influenceof schools and teachers with great hope.But how is this so? First, the techniqueused by Coleman and Jencks of focusing onthe percentage of explained differences inscores paints an unnecessarily gloomy pic-ture. This point has been made quite elo-quently and convincingly by researcherRobert Rosenthal and by researchers JohnHunter and Frank Schmidt. Those inter-ested in a technical discussion should con-sult Rosenthal (1991) and Hunter andSchmidt (1990). Briefly, though, the moremeaningful way to interpret the Colemanand Jencks finding is in terms of percentilegain in achievement. (We will explain thisin more depth in a subsequent section.) Toillustrate, the finding that schools accountfor only 10 percent of the differences instudent achievement translates into a per-centile gain of about 23 points. That is, theaverage student who attends a “good”school will have a score that is 23 per-centile points higher than the average stu-dent who attends a poor school. From thisperspective, schools definitely can make adifference in student achievement.

The second and more important reasonthat we now have a more optimistic viewof what schools can do, is that researchconducted since the Coleman and Jencksstudies has shown that an individualteacher can have a powerful effect on herstudents even if the school doesn’t. This find-ing makes the most sense if we rememberthat Coleman and Jencks examined the

A P P L Y I N G T H E R E S E A R C H O N I N S T R U C T I O N : A N I D E A W H O S E T I M E H A S C O M E 3

average effect of schools. Within a givenschool, though, there is a great deal of vari-ation in the quality of instruction fromteacher to teacher. If we can identify whatthose highly effective teachers do, theneven more of the differences in studentachievement can be accounted for.

The conclusion that individual teacherscan have a profound influence on studentlearning even in schools that are relativelyineffective, was first noticed in the 1970swhen we began to examine effective teach-ing practices. In fact, after reviewing hun-dreds of studies conducted in the 1970s, re-searchers Jere Brophy and Thomas Good(1986) commented: “The myth that teach-ers do not make a difference in studentlearning has been refuted” (p. 370).

More recently, researcher WilliamSanders and his colleagues (see Sanders &Horn, 1994; Wright, Horn, & Sanders,1997) have noted that the individual class-room teacher has even more of an effect on student achievement than originallythought. As a result of analyzing theachievement scores of more than 100,000students across hundreds of schools, theirconclusion was

The results of this study will document thatthe most important factor affecting studentlearning is the teacher. In addition, the resultsshow wide variation in effectiveness amongteachers.The immediate and clear implicationof this finding is that seemingly more can bedone to improve education by improving theeffectiveness of teachers than by any othersingle factor. Effective teachers appear to be ef-

fective with students of all achievement levels,regardless of the level of heterogeneity in theirclassrooms. If the teacher is ineffective, stu-dents under the teacher’s tutelage will showinadequate progress academically regardlessof how similar or different they are regardingtheir academic achievement (Wright et al.,1997, p. 63).

This book attempts to add practical per-spectives to the optimistic picture pre-sented by the research conducted since theworks of Coleman and Jencks. This bookpresents and exemplifies instructionalstrategies that we have extracted from the research base on effective instruction.Teachers can use these strategies to guideclassroom practice in such a way as to max-imize the possibility of enhancing studentachievement. Before presenting thesestrategies, however, we first briefly considerthe nature and quality of educational re-search in general.

A t t i t u d e s A b o u tE d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a rc hAlthough a great deal of educational re-search has been and is currently being con-ducted in many universities and researchcenters, some educators and noneducatorshold a fairly low opinion of that research.Some people believe that research in edu-cation is not as rigorous or conclusive asresearch in the “hard sciences,” such asphysics and chemistry. The general lack of


confidence in the findings of educationalresearch was addressed in depth in 1987 inan article by researcher Larry Hedges enti-tled “How Hard Is Hard Science: How SoftIs Soft Science?” Hedges examined studiesacross 13 areas of research in psychologyand education, which he referred to as the“social sciences,” and compared them withstudies in physics. He found that the stud-ies from physics were almost identical tothe studies from the social sciences interms of their variability: “Almost 50% ofthe reviews showed statistically significantdisagreements in both the social sciencesand the physical sciences” (p. 450). Thus,studies in physics exhibit the same discrep-ancies in results as do studies in educa-tion—one study shows that a particulartechnique works; the next study shows thatit does not. Hedges also found that re-searchers in the hard sciences much morefrequently discard studies that seemed toreport “extreme findings.” For example, inthe area of particle physics, roughly 40 per-cent of the studies were omitted from asynthesis of studies because their findingswere considered unexplainable. However,in education and psychology, Hedges foundthat it is rare for even 10 percent of studieswith extreme findings to be discardedwhen research is synthesized.

Hedges’ overall conclusion was that re-search in the soft sciences like education is,indeed, comparable to research in the hardsciences in terms of its rigor. Hedges’ over-all recommendation was that educators,

like researchers in the hard sciences, lookfor general trends in the findings from stud-ies. In other words, findings from no singlestudy or even a small set of studies shouldbe taken as the final word on whether astrategy or approach works well. Instead, asmany studies as can be found on a giventopic should be analyzed. The compositeresults of those findings should be consid-ered the best estimate of what is knownabout that topic.

O v e r a l l E f f e c t s o fI n s t r u c t i o n a l Te c h n i q u e sTo prepare this book, researchers at Mid-continent Research for Education andLearning (McREL) analyzed selected re-search studies on instructional strategiesthat could be used by teachers in K–12classrooms (see Marzano, 1998, for a moredetailed description of that effort). We used a research technique referred to asmeta-analysis. A meta-analysis combinesthe results from a number of studies to de-termine the average effect of a given tech-nique. When conducting a meta-analysis, aresearcher translates the results of a givenstudy into a unit of measurement referredto as an effect size. An effect size expressesthe increase or decrease in achievement ofthe experimental group (the group of stu-dents who are exposed to a specific instruc-tional technique) in standard deviationunits. To illustrate, assume that the effect


size computed for a specific study is 1.0.This means that the average score for stu-dents in the experimental group is 1.0 stan-dard deviation higher than the averagescores of students in the control group.Another way of saying this is that a studentat the 50th percentile in the experimentalgroup would be one standard deviationhigher than a student at the 50th percen-tile in the control group.

One of the more useful aspects of aneffect size is that it can be easily translatedinto a percentile gain—recall that we talkedabout percentile gains in the first section ofthis chapter. Here’s how it is done. Statisti-cians inform us that, in general, we can ex-pect students’ achievement scores to bedistributed like the well known “bell curve”

or “normal distribution.” Figure 1.1 depictsthe normal distribution.

Figure 1.1 shows that the normal distri-bution has a range of about three standarddeviations above the mean and three stan-dard deviations below the mean. Figure 1.1also depicts the fact that about 34 percent ofthe scores in the normal distribution will befound in the interval between the mean andthe first standard deviation above the mean,about 14 percent of the scores will be foundin the interval between the first standard de-viation and the second standard deviation,and so on. Going back to our example of thestudy that showed an effect size of 1.0 stan-dard deviations, we can now interpret this interms of percentile gain.An effect size of 1.0means a percentile gain of 34 points—one

FIGURE 1.1

The Normal Distribution

y

-3 - 2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

68%

95%

98%

2.14 13.59 34.13 34.13 13.59 2.14


standard deviation above the mean encom-passes 34 percent of the scores.

Being able to translate effect sizes intopercentile gains provides for a dramatic in-terpretation of the possible benefits of agiven instructional strategy. Consequently,throughout this book, we discuss the re-search we reviewed both in terms of effectsizes and percentile gain. As a preview ofdiscussions you will encounter in the re-mainder of this book, consider a study con-ducted by Redfield and Rousseau (1981),which is discussed in Chapter 10. In theiranalysis of 14 studies on the use of higher-level questions, Redfield and Rousseau com-puted the average effect size of those stud-ies to be .73. This means that the averagestudent who was exposed to higher-levelquestioning strategies scored 0.73 standarddeviations above the scores of the average

student who was not exposed to higher-level questioning strategies (depicted by theshaded area in Figure 1.2). By consulting astatistical conversion table, for transformingeffect sizes to percentile gains (see Appen-dix), we find that an effect size of 0.73 rep-resents a percentile gain of about 27 points.

Researcher Jacob Cohen (1988) pre-sents still another way of interpreting effectsizes. He explains that an effect size of .20can be considered small; an effect size of.50 can be considered medium; and an ef-fect size of .80 can be considered large (pp. 25–26).

W h a t We H a v e Fo u n dOne of the primary goals of the McRELstudy was to identify those instructional

FIGURE 1.2

Average Effect Size Using Higher-Level Questions

Standard Deviations –3sd –2sd –1sd 0sd 1sd

2

2% 14% 34% 34% 14% 2%

16 50 84 98 99.9

2sd 3sd

Cumulative Percentages

ES = .73Control GroupExperimental Group


strategies that have a high probability ofenhancing student achievement for all stu-dents in all subject areas at all grade levels.Figure 1.3 lists nine categories of strategiesthat have a strong effect on studentachievement.

Subsequent chapters of this book dis-cuss these nine categories in depth. It isuseful, however, to consider them as agroup briefly. As indicated in Figure 1.3,the average effect sizes of these strategiesrange from 1.61 to .59. One of the mostimportant things to remember when inter-

preting Figure 1.3 is that the effect sizesreported in the first column (Average Ef-fect Sizes) are averages for the variousstudies we examined. Some of the studieshad effect sizes much higher than the av-erage; some had effect sizes much lowerthan the average. In fact, the expectedrange of effect sizes for a given category ofinstructional techniques is a spread of sixstandard deviations (three standard devia-tions above the average effect size andthree standard deviations below the aver-age effect size). To illustrate, consider the

FIGURE 1.3

Categories of Instructional Strategies That Affect Student Achievement

Ave. Effect Percentile StandardCategory Size (ES) Gain No. of ESs Deviation (SD)

Identifying similarities and differences 1.61 45 31 .31

Summarizing and note taking 1.00 34 179 .50

Reinforcing effort and providing recognition .80 29 21 .35

Homework and practice .77 28 134 .36

Nonlinguistic representations .75 27 246 .40

Cooperative learning .73 27 122 .40

Setting objectives and providing feedback .61 23 408 .28

Generating and testing hypotheses .61 23 63 .79

Questions, cues, and advance organizers .59 22 1,251 .26

Note: We caution readers that it is impossible to derivethe average effect sizes shown in this figure from the ef-fect-size information provided in the figures in Chapters2–10, which list the synthesis studies used in the analysis ofthe instructional strategy under discussion.The synthesisstudies listed for a given category of instructional strategyoften involve the review of some of the same research,and thus involve some of the same comparisons between

experimental and control groups. An “average of these av-erages” would lead to inaccurate conclusions.The averageeffect sizes reported in Figure 1.3 are based on compar-isons that are independent. Since these averages do notinclude overlapping data, they provide a more accuratesummary statement about the effect of a particular cate-gory of instructional strategy.


general category of instructional strategiesreferred to as reinforcing effort and providingrecognition. As shown in Figure 1.3, the av-erage effect size for this category is .80 andthe standard deviation is .35. We also seethat 21 studies were used to compute theaverage effect size of .80. The standard de-viation of .35 tells us how different those21 studies were. Among the 21 studiesthat were reviewed to compute the aver-age effect size (.80), some had an effectsize as high as three standard deviationsabove the mean—since the standard devia-tion is .35, three times .35 is 1.05. There-fore, some effect sizes in the set of 21 wereas high as 1.85 (.80 + 1.05). Conversely,some effect sizes in the set of 21 werethree standard deviations below the meanof .80. Thus, some effect sizes were as lowas –.35 (.80 – 1.05). Some of the studies,then, have negative effect sizes. A negativeeffect size means that the experimentalgroup actually performed worse than thecontrol group.

The inference that should be drawnfrom this illustration is that no instructionalstrategy works equally well in all situations.We strongly recommend that you keep thisin mind as you review the strategies pre-sented in this book and apply them inclassrooms. Instructional strategies are toolsonly. Although the strategies presented inthis book are certainly good tools, theyshould not be expected to work equallywell in all situations.

W h a t Yo u Wi l l Fi n d i n T h i s B o o kChapters 2–10 discuss the nine categoriesof instructional strategies and provide in-depth examples of each. Most of thesechapters have the same format. First, wesummarize the research and theory.Whenever possible, we present the find-ings of specific studies in effect size andpercentile gain units related to the particu-lar strategy. Next, we discuss generaliza-tions about classroom practice. These gen-eralizations might be considered guidingprinciples for use of the instructionalstrategies presented in each chapter. Fi-nally, we describe explicit instructionalstrategies and present examples. Althoughbusy practitioners might be tempted toskip directly to the specific instructionalstrategies, we strongly recommend thatyou read the research and theory synthesesfor each section, along with the generaliza-tions. A thorough understanding of bothwill provide a basis for a much morethoughtful analysis and use of the specificinstructional strategies.

W h a t We D o n’ t K n o w Ye tAlthough our synthesis of the research hastaught us a great deal, there are still manyquestions as yet unanswered by this re-search. Some of them are


◆ Are some instructional strategiesmore effective in certain subject areas?

◆ Are some instructional strategiesmore effective at certain grade levels?

◆ Are some instructional strategiesmore effective with students from differentbackgrounds?

◆ Are some instructional strategiesmore effective with students of differentaptitude?

These are important questions, the answersto which will surely help move teachingfrom an art to a science. Until then, weshould proceed with caution. In fact, theunexamined use of instructional strategiesmight produce some unintended negativeoutcomes. To illustrate, researchers VanSecker and Lissitz (1999) studied the ef-fects on student science achievement ofsome instructional techniques that are rec-ommended in the National Science Educa-tion Standard (National Research Council,1996). These strategies were

◆ Student-centered instructions◆ Teaching of critical thinking skills◆ Use of “hands-on” laboratory activities

In general, all three of these strategies ex-hibited positive effects on the scienceachievement of 10th grade students. Specif-ically, the effect size for student-centeredinstruction was 1.07, the effect size forteaching of critical thinking was .12, and

the effect size for use of hands-on labora-tory actually was .85. The researchers alsofound, however, that an emphasis onstudent-centered instruction actually in-creased the differences in science achieve-ment between boys and girls and anemphasis on critical thinking actually in-creased the differences in achievement be-tween minority and majority students andbetween students with high socioeconomicstatus (SES) and students with low SES.Although we should draw no hard and fastconclusions from the Van Secker and Lis-sitz study, it illustrates the need to studythe effects of instructional strategies onspecific types of students in specific situa-tions, with specific subject matters. Untilwe find the answers to the preceding ques-tions, teachers should rely on their knowl-edge of their students, their subject matter,and their situation to identify the mostappropriate instructional strategies.

W h a t We H a ve N o t I n c l u d e d

We need to make one final comment onthe limitations of the conclusions that edu-cators can draw from reading this book. Al-though the title of this book speaks to in-struction in a general sense, you shouldnote that we have limited our focus to in-structional strategies. There are certainlyother aspects of classroom pedagogy thataffect student achievement. In fact, we


might postulate that effective pedagogy in-volves three related areas: (1) the instruc-tional strategies used by the teacher, (2) themanagement techniques used by theteacher, and (3) the curriculum designed bythe teacher (see Figure 1.4). This book ad-dresses only the first element of the tripar-tite. McREL is attempting to synthesize theresearch in the other two areas.

With all of the limitations of this bookacknowledged, we again affirm our beliefthat we are at the beginning of a new era ineducation—one in which research will pro-vide strong, explicit guidance for the class-room teacher. We hope that this book willhelp usher in that new era.

InstructionalStrategies

ManagementTechniques

Effective Pedagogy

CurriculumDesign

FIGURE 1.4

Three Elements of Effective Pedagogy

R E S E A R C H -B A S E D

S T R A T E G I E S

IDENTIF YING SIMIL ARITIESAND DIFFERENCES

SUMMARIZING ANDNOTE TAKING

REINFORCING EFFORT ANDPROVIDING RECOGNITION

HOME WORK ANDPRAC TICE

NONLINGUISTICREPRESENTATIONS

COOPERATIVELE ARNING

SE T TING OBJEC TIVES ANDPROVIDING FEEDBACK

GENERATING ANDTESTING HYPOTHESES

CUES, QUESTIONS, ANDADVANCE ORGANIZERS

As part of their study of the decade of the 1960s, students in Mrs. Jackson’sAmerican History class read about and listened to Martin Luther King, Jr.’sspeech,“I Have A Dream.” Mrs. Jackson knew that these students had beenexposed to this speech many times before and, therefore, was not sur-prised when they offered only predictable comments in the class discussion.In order to help students understand the speech in a different way and tobuild on the knowledge they had gained throughout the year, Mrs. Jacksonpresented the following incomplete analogy:

“I Have a Dream” was to the Civil Rights Movement as

________________ was to __________________.

In small groups, students were to complete the analogy using another his-torical event or document in the first blank and a movement or event inthe second blank. The students were asked to be ready to explain theircompleted analogy to the entire class.

To Mrs. Jackson’s surprise, students were quite adept in designing and ex-plaining their analogies.To the students’ surprise, this activity deepened theirunderstanding of the effect the “I Have a Dream” speech had on the CivilRights Movement.

Mrs. Jackson has engaged her students in a complex and abstractform of identifying similarities and differences by having them gen-erate and explain analogies.

2I D E N T I F Y I N G S I M I L A R I T I E S

A N D D I F F E R E N C E S

13


R e s e a rc h a n d T h e o r y o nI d e n t i f y i n g S i m i l a r i t i e sa n d D i f f e r e n c e sThis first general category of instructionalstrategies is entitled “identifying similaritiesand differences.” Researchers have foundthese mental operations to be basic tohuman thought (see Gentner & Markman,1994; Markman & Gentner, 1993a, 1993b;Medin, Goldstone, & Markman, 1995). In-deed, they might be considered the “core”of all learning.

The overall power of identifying simi-larities and differences is, perhaps, best il-lustrated by an experiment conducted byGick and Holyoak (1980). They presentedtheir subjects with the following problem(which was adapted from a study byDuncker, 1945):

Suppose you are a doctor faced with a pa-tient who has a malignant tumor in his stom-ach. It is impossible to operate on the patient,but unless the tumor is destroyed the patientwill die. There is a kind of ray that can beused to destroy the tumor. If the rays reachthe tumor all at once at a sufficiently high in-tensity, the healthy tissue that the rays passthrough on the way to the tumor will also bedestroyed. At lower intensities the rays areharmless to healthy tissue, but they will notaffect the tumor either.What type of proce-dure might be used to destroy the tumorwith the rays and, at the same time, avoid de-stroying the healthy tissue (pp. 307–308)?

In general, only 10 percent of people cansolve this problem when first presentedwith it. Gick and Holyoak, however, alsopresented their subjects with the followingstory:

A small country was ruled from a strongfortress by a dictator. The fortress was situ-ated in the middle of the country, surroundedby farms and villages. Many roads led to thefortress through the countryside. A rebelgeneral vowed to capture the fortress. Thegeneral knew that an attack by his entire armywould capture the fortress. He gathered hisarmy at the head of one of the roads, readyto launch a full-scale direct attack.

However, the general then learned thatthe dictator had planted mines on each ofthe roads.The mines were set so that smallbodies of men could pass over them safely,since the dictator needed to move histroops and workers to and from thefortress. However, any large force woulddetonate the mines. Not only would thisblow up the road, but it would also destroymany neighboring villages. It thereforeseemed impossible to capture the fortress.However, the general devised a simple plan.He divided his army into small groups anddispatched each group to the head of a dif-ferent road.When all was ready he gave thesignal and each group marched down a dif-ferent road. Each group continued down itsroad to the fortress so that the entire armyarrived together at the fortress at the sametime. In this way, the general captured thefortress and overthrew the dictator (p. 351).

With this comparison in mind, 90 percentof the subjects were able to solve the prob-lem. Why is it that people find the problem

I D E N T I F Y I N G S I M I L A R I T I E S A N D D I F F E R E N C E S 15

so easy to solve after hearing the story?Quite simply, once the similarities are iden-tified between the story, which is easy tounderstand, and the problem, which is dif-ficult to solve, the solution becomes obvi-ous. Figure 2.1 shows results from some ofthe major studies that have attempted tosynthesize the research on identifying simi-larities and differences.

We can draw at least four salient gener-alizations from the research and theory inthis area:

1. Presenting students with explicitguidance in identifying similarities and dif-ferences enhances students’ understandingof and ability to use knowledge. Probablythe most straightforward way to help stu-dents identify similarities and differencesbetween topics is to simply present thesesimilarities and differences to them. In fact,

a great deal of research attests to the effec-tiveness of this rather direct approach (seeChen, Yanowitz, & Daehler, 1996; Gholson,Smither, Buhrman, & Duncan, 1997;Newby, Ertmer, & Stepich, 1995; Reeves & Weisburg, 1994; Ross, B. H., 1984;Solomon, 1995). Being direct in pointingout similarities and differences, however,does not mean that instruction must berigid or didactic. In many of the studiesthat support this generalization, the presen-tation of similarities and differences was ac-companied by a great deal of rich discus-sion and inquiry on the part of students.

2. Asking students to independentlyidentify similarities and differences en-hances students’ understanding of andability to use knowledge. There is a strongresearch base supporting the effectivenessof having students identify similarities anddifferences without direct input from the

FIGURE 2.1

Selected Research Results for Identifying Similarities and Differences

Synthesis Study No. of Effect Sizes (ESs) Ave. ES Percentile Gain

Stone, 1983 22 .88 31

Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986a 9 1.39 42

20 1.76 46

Ross, J. A., 1988 2 1.26 38

Lee, undated 2 1.28 39

a Two categories of effect sizes are listed for the Stahl and Fairbanks study because of the manner in which the effect sizes werereported. Readers should consult that study for more details.


teacher (see Chen, 1996; Flick, 1992; Gick& Holyoak, 1980; Mason, 1994, 1995;Mason & Sorzio, 1996). At first, this gener-alization might appear contradictory to thefirst, but it is not. Both “teacher-directed”and “student-directed” activities focused onidentifying similarities and differences havetheir place in the classroom. One might as-sume that teacher-directed activities resultin more homogeneous conclusions by stu-dents—the identification of “highly similar”similarities and differences by students;whereas, student-directed activities result in more heterogeneous conclusions bystudents. It would follow, then, that if ateacher wishes students to focus on specificsimilarities and differences, then she shouldprovide students with a teacher-directedactivity. If the teacher’s goal is to stimulatedivergence in students’ thinking, however,then he should provide students with a student-directed activity.

3. Representing similarities and differ-ences in graphic or symbolic form en-hances students’ understanding of andability to use knowledge. One of the more powerful findings within this generalcategory of instructional strategies is thatgraphic and symbolic representations ofsimilarities and differences enhance stu-dents’ understanding of content (see Chen,1999; Cole & McLeod, 1999; Glynn &Takahashi, 1998; Lin, 1996; Mason, 1994).In Chapter 6, we discuss why the use ofgraphic and symbolic representations deep-ens knowledge. Here, we simply note that

their use greatly enhances students’ abilityto understand and generate similarities anddifferences.

4. Identification of similarities and dif-ferences can be accomplished in a varietyof ways. The identification of similaritiesand differences is a highly robust activity.Research indicates that four different“forms” of this activity are highly effective:

◆ Comparing (see Chen, 1996; Chen et al., 1996; Flick, 1992; Ross, 1987;Solomon, 1995).

◆ Classifying (see Chi, Feltovich, &Glaser, 1981; English, 1997; Newby et al.,1995; Ripoll, 1999).

◆ Creating metaphors (see Chen, 1999;Cole & McLeod, 1999; Dagher, 1995;Gottfried, 1998; Mason, 1994, 1995).

◆ Creating analogies (see Alexander,1984; Lee, n.d.; Ratterman & Gentner,1998; Sternberg, 1977, 1978, 1979).

Figure 2.2 defines these forms.Obviously, identifying similarities and

differences is explicit in the process ofcomparing. It is also critical to classifying.To illustrate, when classifying, an individualfirst identifies similarities and differenceswithin a set of elements and then organizesthese elements into two or more categories,based on the identified similarities and dif-ferences. Creating a metaphor involvesidentifying abstract similarities and differ-ences between two elements. Finally, creat-ing analogies involves identifying how twopairs of elements are similar and different.


C l a ss r o o m P r a c t i c e i nI d e n t i f y i n g S i m i l a r i t i e sa n d D i f f e r e n c e s

Comparing

The key to an effective comparison isthe identification of important characteris-tics. These characteristics are then used asthe basis for which similarities and differ-ences are identified.

Teacher-Directed Comparison Tasks.Although the process of comparing might

seem simple, it is not. We suggest thatteachers introduce the process of compar-ing by presenting students with highlystructured tasks. This means that a teacheridentifies for students the items they are tocompare and the characteristics on whichthey are to base the comparison. Thesetasks, by definition, focus (even constrain)the type of conclusions students will reach.Consequently, they should be used when ateacher’s goal is that all students obtain ageneral awareness of the same similaritiesand differences for the same characteristics.The following example shows a teacher-directed comparison task that a historyteacher might present to students.

During “Women in History” month, Ms.Collier wanted her students to increase their understanding of the changing role of women in America.To begin the unit, sheguided her students through a comparisonof several First Ladies, including MarthaWashington, Mary Todd Lincoln, FlorenceKling Harding, Anna Eleanor Roosevelt,Mamie Eisenhower, and Hillary RodhamClinton. Using information from the WhiteHouse Web site (http://www.whitehouse.gov), students were to compare thesewomen on the following characteristics: theirbackgrounds, their major responsibilities asFirst Lady, and things for which they werepraised.Whereas students all focused on thesame characteristics and the same first ladies,the information they gathered from theWhite House Web site was quite diverse.After they presented what they had found,all students agreed that they had gained a broad perspective on women’s changingroles in American society.

FIGURE 2.2

Definitions

Comparing is the process of identifyingsimilarities and differences between or amongthings or ideas.

Classifying is the process of grouping thingsthat are alike into categories on the basis oftheir characteristics.

Creating metaphors is the process of identify-ing a general or basic pattern in a specifictopic and then finding another topic that ap-pears to be quite different but that has thesame general pattern.

Creating analogies is the process of identify-ing relationships between pairs of concepts—in other words, identifying relationshipsbetween relationships.

Note: Technically, the term comparing refers to theprocess of identifying similarities, and the termcontrasting refers to the process of identifyingdifferences. Most educators, however, use the termcomparing to refer to both.


Student-Directed Comparison Tasks.Student-directed comparison tasks arethose in which the students select the char-acteristics on which the items are to becompared, or the students select both theitems to compare and the characteristics onwhich they are compared. Examples A andB, respectively, depict these two versions ofstudent-directed comparison tasks.

AAt the beginning of a unit on fairy tales, Mr.Webb asked each of his students to selecttwo fairy tales with which they were familiar.He then introduced the major elements ofliterature that students would be applying tothese fairy tales. As he introduced each ele-ment, such as universal theme, character-plotinteractions, and point of view, Mr. Webbhelped the students identify these character-istics in their two fairy tales. Students thenwere asked to compare their two fairy taleson the literary elements Mr. Webb had de-scribed. When reporting their results, stu-dents not only had to describe what theylearned about the fairy tales they selected,but they also had to explain what theylearned about the literary characteristics.

BJulia loved her year in Ms. Anchor’s musicclass; she was even enjoying the final test. Shehad to select any four pieces of music andcompare them according to any of the ele-ments of music that they had learned thatyear. Julia didn’t own that many CDs, but stu-dents were allowed to come in after schooland select from Ms. Anchor’s incredible se-lection of music. She decided to compare aclassical piece, a country-western song hermom liked, a current pop hit, and one of herfavorite Disney songs. She even thought that

listening to these tunes over and over as shedid the comparison was going to be fun.

Graphic Organizers for Comparison.Two types of graphic organizers are com-monly used for comparison: the Venn dia-gram (Figure 2.3) and the comparison ma-trix (Figure 2.4).

As depicted in Figure 2.3, the Venndiagram provides students with a visual dis-play of the similarities and differences be-tween two items. The similarities betweenelements are listed in the intersection be-tween the two circles. The differences arelisted in the parts of each circle that do notintersect. Ideally, a new Venn diagramshould be completed for each characteristicso that students can easily see how similarand different the elements are for eachcharacteristic used in the comparison.

As Figure 2.4 illustrates, the compari-son matrix provides for a more detailedapproach to comparison than does theVenn diagram. Teachers use slightly more

FIGURE 2.3

Venn Diagram


detailed directions for students when theyuse the comparison matrix. Example Acontains directions to a task that involvesthe comparison matrix; Example B is a taskthat involves the Venn diagram.

AOver the past several weeks, we have beenlearning about the explorers who helpedsettle the western United States. We havelearned, for example, about the incredibleexpedition of Lewis and Clark and the excit-ing story of Zebulon Pike.You are now goingto compare several explorers, using thecomparison matrix.You may select some ofyour own characteristics for the comparison,but you must include the following: “whocommissioned the exploration,” “the kindsof risks involved,” and “how people’s liveshave been influenced by the exploration.”

After you have completed the centerportion of the matrix, you are to create anew matrix using the same characteristics.This time, you will take this new matrix toyour science class.Your teacher will presentinformation to you about scientists who, intheir own way, have engaged in exploration.For each characteristic in the comparisonmatrix, fill in information about these scien-tists. If you think of additional characteristics,add them to your matrix but also apply thenew characteristics to the explorers matrix.

Finally, place the two matrixes side by side.Examine the information for all of the ex-plorers, both from this class and from scienceclass, and identify similarities and differencesthat strike you as important or interesting.

BThe first graders in Mrs. Bolton’s classworked together to create a Venn Diagram

FIGURE 2.4

Comparison Matrix

Items to be compared

Characteristics #1 #2 #3

1.

2.

3.

4.

Similarities

Differences

Similarities

Differences

Similarities

Differences

Similarities

Differences


to examine the similarities and differencesbetween life today and life in the pioneerdays (two of the diagrams are shown in Fig-ure 2.5). Using these diagrams, one for eachmajor characteristic, helped them to seeclearly how their lives are similar to and dif-ferent from the pioneers.

Classifying

Classifying involves organizing elementsinto groups based on their similarities. Oneof the critical elements of classifying isidentifying the rules that govern class orcategory membership.

Teacher-Directed Classification Tasks.Teacher-directed classification tasks arethose for which students are given the ele-ments to classify and the categories intowhich the elements should be classified. Inthese tasks, the focus is on placing itemsinto their appropriate categories and under-standing why they belong in those cate-gories. The following example depicts theuse of a teacher-directed classification taskin a physical education class.

Mr. Trelfa wanted his elementary physical ed-ucation students to increase their generalunderstanding of sports. He provided themwith an ongoing task to be completed asthey watched the Olympic events, both athome and at school. The students were givena complete list of events in the Olympics andwere asked to classify them into the follow-ing categories:

◆ Events that require mainly strength andagility.

◆ Events that require mainly precision andaccuracy.

◆ Events that have about equal require-ments for strength/agility and precision/accuracy.

In class, students were asked to describe howthey categorized events and defend why spe-cific events belonged in specific categories.

Student-Directed Classification Tasks.Student-directed classification tasks arethose in which students are given the itemsto classify but must form the categoriesthemselves. Additionally, students can beasked to generate both the items to classifyand the categories into which they are or-ganized. The following example shows astudent-directed classification task in whichstudents have control over the items theycategorize and the categories into whichthey place items.

An advanced placement literature class hadjust finished the last book they were to readfor the year. As a culminating activity, Mrs.Blake, a teacher many students had for twoyears, asked them to do the following activ-ity, both to use what they know and to dis-cover some new connections they had pos-sibly missed through the years.

With a partner, make a list of as many char-acters as you can recall from the books wehave read.Then, classify them into categoriesof your choosing. Stay away from obviouscategories, such as gender or nationality. Usecategories that show your understanding ofcharacter development. When you are fin-ished, reclassify the characters, using newcategories. Find another pair of students anddiscuss your work.


Graphic Organizers for Classification.Figure 2.6 shows two popular graphic orga-nizers for classification. The graphic orga-nizer on the left (which looks like a boxed

table) is most appropriate when all cate-gories are equal in terms of their level ofgenerality. The graphic organizer on theright (a “bubble” chart) is better used when

Pioneer Days Today

Food

Major Holidays and Celebrations

FIGURE 2.5

Venn Diagram: Pioneer Days and Today

• Couldraise,grow, orhunt

• All foodgroups

• Thanksgiving

• Religious:Christmas,Hanukkah,Easter

• 4th of July

• Weddings,birthdays,anniversaries

• Memorial Day

• Labor Day

• Martin LutherKing, Jr.’s Birthday

• Most people buyat store; can raise,grow, or hunt

• Storage is good:refrigerator/freezer

• Large variety

• Mainly had to raise,grow, or hunt

• No good way to store

• Limited variety


some categories are more general thanothers.

Students can be encouraged to usethese graphic organizers as they completetheir teacher- and student-directed classifi-cation tasks. The following example de-scribes a task that requires students to use aclassification graphic organizer.

The following characters are from books wehave read in class this year. Using the graphicorganizer for classification, organize thesecharacters into two or more categories. Beprepared to explain the rules that governmembership in each category and why par-ticular characters belong in that category.

◆ Ponyboy Curtis in The Outsiders by S. E.Hinton

◆ Johnnycake in The Outsiders by S. E. Hinton◆ Cherry Valance in The Outsiders by S. E.

Hinton

◆ Jake Barnes in The Sun Also Rises byErnest Hemingway

◆ Brett Ashley in The Sun Also Rises byErnest Hemingway

◆ Pedro Romero in The Sun Also Rises byErnest Hemingway

◆ Celie in The Color Purple by Alice Walker◆ Mr. in The Color Purple by Alice Walker◆ Shug Avery in The Color Purple by Alice

Walker

◆ Ethan Frome in Ethan Frome by EdithWharton

◆ Zenobia Frome in Ethan Frome by EdithWharton

◆ Mattie Silver in Ethan Frome by EdithWharton

◆ Gene Forrester in A Separate Peace byJohn Knowles

◆ Finny in A Separate Peace by JohnKnowles

FIGURE 2.6

Graphic Organizers for Classification

Categories


◆ Antonio Marez in Bless Me, Ultima byRudolfo Anaya

◆ Ultima in Bless Me, Ultima by RudolfoAnaya

◆ Scout in To Kill a Mockingbird by HarperLee

◆ Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird byHarper Lee

◆ Boo Radley in To Kill a Mockingbird byHarper Lee

Metaphors

The key to constructing metaphors is torealize that the two items in the metaphorare connected by an abstract or nonliteralrelationship. For example, “Love is a rose” isa metaphor. On the surface, love and a rosehave no obvious relationship. At an abstractlevel, however, they do. Here’s how onecan say love is a rose!

Literal: Rose: The blossom is sweetto smell and pleasant totouch, but if you touch thethorns, they can stick you.

Abstract: Something is wonderful andyou want to go near it, butif you get too close, youmight get hurt.

Literal: Love: Makes you feel happy,but the person you love canend up hurting you.

It is at the abstract level only that love androse appear related. It follows, then, that in-structional strategies involving metaphors

should always address the abstract relation-ship between the elements.

Teacher-Directed Metaphors. Teacher-directed metaphors are those in which theteacher provides the first element of themetaphor and the abstract relationship. Thisstructure provides a “scaffold” on which stu-dents can build. The following example de-picts a teacher-directed metaphor activityin the context of a science class.

Mrs. Blair started her science unit on extinc-tion by handing out an article about theDodo bird (see next page).

Mrs. Blair then guided the students througha process of identifying the general, abstractpattern from the information about theDodo bird. As a group, they extracted thefollowing pattern:

1. Something was thriving in a specific environment.

2. This thing changed over time because ofchanges in its surroundings. Some of thechanges actually limited it in some ways.

3. Yet another influence came along and cutoff what it needed to survive and de-stroyed where it used to exist. Because ofits limitations, there was no way it couldmove to a new place.

4. The thing no longer exists.

Mrs. Blair then asked students to use thisgeneral pattern, which was derived from thestory of the Dodo bird, to identify some-thing else that fit the pattern.

Student-Directed Metaphor Tasks.Once students become familiar with theconcept of an abstract pattern or relation-ship, they might be provided with tasks in


The Dodo bird was first sighted around1600 on Mauritius, an island in the IndianOcean. It was extinct less than eightyyears later.The Dodo’s stubby wings andheavy, ungainly body tell us that the birdcould not fly. Moreover, its breastbonewas too small to support the huge pec-toral muscles a bird this size would needto fly. Yet scientists believe that theDodo evolved from a bird capable offlight. When an ancestor of the Dodolanded on Mauritius, it found a habitatwith plenty of food and no predators.Because there was no reason for Dodosto leave the ground, they eventually losttheir ability to fly.Other factors also con-tributed to the Dodo birds’ extinction.

For example, many birds were eaten bythe Dutch sailors who discovered them.However, the two most influential fac-tors in terms of the Dodo birds’ extinc-tion were the destruction of the forest(which cut off the Dodo’s food supply),and the animals that the sailors broughtwith them, including cats, rats, and pigs.These animals destroyed Dodo nests.

Scientists at the American Museumof Natural History and other institu-tions around the world have learnedfrom the Dodo bird.They hope that thelesson of the Dodo can help preventthe extinction of other forms of animallife and aid us in preserving the diversityof life on earth.

The Dodo Bird—A Lesson in Extinction


which they are presented with one elementof a metaphor and asked to identify thesecond element and describe the abstractrelationship. Such tasks are more student-directed. The following example showssuch a task in the context of a science class.

Two science students were standing in frontof the class pointing to the diagram of theStarship Enterprise (from Star Trek) as theypresented their project. Their assignmentwas to identify the major structures of a celland describe the function of each.They werethen to restate the information in more gen-eral, abstract terms and, finally, to identify an-other system that is similar to the cell, at anabstract level. These two students had se-lected the Enterprise as the second elementof the metaphor, and identified the followingabstract pattern connecting a cell with thestarship:

Cell General, Abstract Enterprise

Nucleus The part that The bridgeruns the system

Selectively Part that keeps Transporter permeable out bad things Roommembrane and lets in the

good

In a detailed and articulate way, students de-scribed how each aspect of the cell was likea feature of the Enterprise.

A Graphic Organizer for Metaphors.Graphic organizers are not as commonwith metaphors as they are with compari-son and classification tasks. Figure 2.7shows a graphic organizer that can be usedto provide a visual representation of the na-ture and function of a metaphor.

The key aspect of this graphic organizeris that it depicts the fact that two elementsmight have somewhat different literal pat-terns, but share a common abstract pattern.Using the graphic organizer, students canfill in the elements of a metaphor, the lit-eral pattern for each element and the ab-stract pattern that connects them. The fol-lowing is an example of how a teachermight adapt this graphic organizer.

Mrs. Zeno was trying to get her primary stu-dents to understand the steps of writing aparagraph. She started by writing the phrase“Making a Sandwich” (see next page) in the

FIGURE 2.7

Graphic Organizer for Metaphors

Element #1Literal

Pattern #1 AbstractLiteral

Pattern #2 Element #2


box on the left, and the phrase “Writing a Paragraph” in the box on the far right.She then wrote the questions you might askto make a satisfying sandwich. As a class,they translated these questions to a moreabstract form in the box labeled “AnotherWay to Say It.” With these in place, the classidentified the questions they would need toanswer to write a good paragraph.

Analogies

Like metaphors, analogies help us seehow seemingly dissimilar things are similar,increasing our understanding of new infor-mation. Typically, analogies take the formA:B::C:D (read as, “A is to B as C is to D”).For example:

◆ hot:cold::night:day (“hot is to cold asnight is to day”); cold and day are oppositesas are hot and night.

◆ carpenter:hammer::painter:brush(“carpenter is to hammer as painter is tobrush”); hammer and brush are tools usedby a carpenter and a painter, respectively.

Analogies are probably the most complexformat for identifying similarities and dif-ferences in that they deal with “relation-ships between relationships.” Just like otherforms of identifying similarities and differ-ences, analogies can be used in teacher-directed or student-directed activities.

Teacher-Directed Analogies. By defini-tion, teacher-directed analogies are thosefor which students are provided a greatdeal of structure. For example, a teachermight present the following analogy:

thermometer is to temperatureasodometer is to distance

The teacher would then ask students to ex-plain how the relationship between ther-

Making a Sandwich Another Way to Say It Writing a Paragraph

What are you hungry for?

What kind of bread?

What will I put in the sandwichthat will make it tasty?

Shall I add something to makeit better? Pickles? Mustard?Banana slices?

What is my goal?

What will hold it together?

What will go in the middle that willall go together?

How can I make it even better?

What is the topic or purpose ofthe paragraph?

What will be my first and lastsentences?

What sentences do I need to helpthe topic of my paragraph?

What can I do to make it moreinteresting or easier to understand?Adjectives? Another detail?


pint is to quartas1000 lb. is to __________

acute is to triangle as square is to _________

circumference is to circleasperimeter is to __________

1/2 is to fractionas5 is to __________

mean is to averageasmode is to __________

Student-Directed Analogies. Student-directed analogy tasks ask students to pro-vide more elements of an analogy than doteacher-directed analogy tasks. For example,a teacher might present students with theelements of the first pair of an analogy andask them to generate the elements of thesecond pair. Obviously, this type of analogytask would require much more explanationfrom the student. The following exampleshows student-directed analogy tasks thatmight be presented in a literature unit.

Robert Frost is to poetry as__________ is to __________

__________ is to __________ in the novel1984

as__________ is to __________ in The Scarlet

Letter

mometer and temperature is similar to therelationship between odometer and dis-tance. Specifically, a thermometer measuresincremental changes in temperature and anodometer measures incremental changes indistance. In addition, a teacher might pre-sent students with one element missingwithin the four parts of an analogy. Exam-ples A and B depict these two forms ofteacher-directed analogy tasks, respectively.

AThe following analogies were included on a study sheet students were given to helpthem study for their final exam.

Oxygen is to humansascarbon dioxide is to plants

tsunami is to waveasearthquake is to tremor

core is to earthasnucleus is to atom

frequency is to sound as ampere is to electricity

Newton is to force and motionasBernouli is to air pressure

BA math teacher presented students with thefollowing analogy problems to help increasetheir understanding of math concepts.

eighty is to eightasdime is to ____________


Figure 2.8 shows a graphic organizer thatmight be used with students to help themunderstand the nature of analogies. Again,students would use the graphic organizer tofill the elements of an analogy, as Figure 2.9shows.

The following example describes how ateacher in a technology class used the anal-ogy graphic organizer.

With his class,Mr. Waters has been discussingthe impact the computer has had on modernsociety. As a way of deepening their thinkingabout this topic, he presents students withthe following analogy graphic organizer:

Relationship: _____________________

as

Even though the elements in the first pair ofthe graphic organizers have been filled out,Mr. Waters spends some time discussing therelationship between these elements withthe class.After the discussion, students workin groups of three to fill out the elements inthe second pair of the analogy graphic orga-nizer. The next day, each group presents theircompleted analogy graphic organizer andexplains and defends the relationship linkingthe two pairs.

♦ ♦ ♦

Identifying similarities and differences canplay out in many ways in the classroom.Students can be engaged in tasks that in-volve comparisons, classifications, metaphors,and analogies. In addition, these tasks canbe either more teacher directed or studentdirected.

FIGURE 2.9

Graphic Organizer for Analogies in Use

is to

is toas

thermometer

odometer

temperature

distance

Relationship:

is todigital computer

is to

FIGURE 2.8

Graphic Organizer for Analogies

measures incremental changes in something

In previous years, Mrs. Zimmers taught her middle school unit on mythol-ogy by assigning the students a selection of myths to read and asking themto construct their own myths using a story structure in which many of thecharacters undergo dramatic changes. While the students often enjoyedthe storytelling nature of the task, they seemed to miss the deep historicalimportance of the myths to the people who created them.This year shehad a plan to change things.To gain a deeper understanding about the his-tory of ancient Greece, students were asked to read two essays and viewa short film on Greek mythology. Additionally, students were asked to sum-marize each essay as homework. Finally, Mrs. Zimmers asked students toturn in the notes they took during the film.

Mrs. Zimmers was taken aback with what she received.When she readthe first summaries, she realized that many students did not really summa-rize the information or did not understand the nature and purpose of asummary.They simply reworded information from the text and made noattempt to translate it into a synthesized form. To her dismay, she concludedthat her students did not know how to summarize. Mrs. Zimmers set forherself the goal of teaching her students a specific summarizing strategy.Mrs. Zimmers also realized that she would have to teach note-taking strate-gies and skills. Most of the students took far too few notes, although a cou-ple of students tried to record everything they heard or read.

After realizing a skill weakness in her students, Mrs. Zimmers haschosen to explicitly teach two of the most useful academic skillsstudents can have: summarizing and note taking. We have assignedthese skills to the same instructional category because they both

3S U M M A R I Z I N G A N D

N O T E T A K I N G










29


require students to distill information intoa parsimonious, synthesized form.

R e s e a rc h a n d T h e o r y o n S u m m a r i z i n g

Summarizing has a robust and long historyof research. Figure 3.1 reports findingsfrom some of the studies that have at-tempted to synthesize the research onsummarizing.

Researchers Valerie Anderson andSuzanne Hidi have provided highly usefulreviews of the rather voluminous literaturebase in summarizing (see Anderson, V., &Hidi, 1988/1989; Hidi & Anderson, 1987).We can extract at least three generaliza-tions from this research:

1. To effectively summarize, studentsmust delete some information, substitutesome information, and keep some informa-tion. This generalization springs from thework of cognitive psychologists like WalterKintsch and Teun van Dijk (see Kintsch,1979; van Dijk, 1980) who have studiedthe basic cognitive mechanisms involved insummarizing. To illustrate, consider Figure3.2, which contains a sample passage aboutthe photographic process.

If you were to read this passage withthe purpose of summarizing it, your mindwould quite naturally engage in three activ-ities: (1) deleting things, (2) substitutingthings, and (3) keeping things. To obtain asense of the outcome of these threeprocesses, consider part B of Figure 3.2,which shows how a reader might summa-rize this passage.

FIGURE 3.1

Research Results for Summarizing Strategies


Pflaum,Walberg, Karegianes, & Rasher, 1980a 2 .62 232 .73 27

Crismore, 1985 100 1.04 35

Rosenshine & Meister, 1994 10 .88 31

Hattie, Biggs, & Purdie, 1996 15 .88 31

Rosenshine, Meister, & Chapman, 1996 16 .87 31

Raphael & Kirschner, 1985 3 1.80 47

a Two categories of effect sizes are listed for the Pflaum et al. study because of the manner in which the effect sizes were reported.Readers should consult that study for more details.

FIGURE 3.2

Exercise in Summarizing

A

The Photographic Process

The word photography comes from the Greekword meaning “drawing with light.”. . . Light is themost essential ingredient in photography. Nearlyall forms of photography are based on the factthat certain chemicals are photosensitive—that is,they change in some way when exposed to light.Photosensitive materials abound in nature; plantsthat close their blooms at night are one example.The films used in photography depend on a lim-ited number of chemical compounds that darkenwhen exposed to light. The compounds mostwidely used today are silver and chemicals calledhalogens (usually bromine, chlorine, or iodine).

Source: From “Photography.” In Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 99, CD-ROM, Microsoft, 1999.

S U M M A R I Z I N G A N D N O T E T A K I N G 31

Note how much of the content hasbeen deleted in Figure 3.2B. The readersimply decided that this information is notcentral to the overall meaning of the pas-sage. Also note that one term has been sub-stituted for a term in the original text—theterm crystals has been substituted for theterm compounds. In a summary, the “substi-tute” terms can be more general or morespecific than those in the text. Finally, notethat a few phrases and sentences that seemto convey the key information have beenkept. This final, parsimonious synthesis ofthe information is technically referred to asthe “macro-structure” for the information.

2. To effectively delete, substitute, andkeep information, students must analyzethe information at a fairly deep level. Al-though the mental operations involved insummarizing—deleting, substituting, keep-ing—seem quite simple, they demand a fairamount of analysis of the information beingsummarized. To illustrate using Figure 3.2again, it requires no small amount of ana-lytic thinking to conclude that the infor-mation about the origin of the word photog-raphy is not critically important, but theinformation that light is an essential ingre-dient is. In fact, in their synthesis of re-search, Borak Rosenshine and his colleagues

B

Macro-structure of the Photographic Process

The word photography comes from Greek wordsand means “drawing with light.”. . . Light is themost essential ingredient in photography. Nearlyall forms of photography are based on the factthat certain chemicals are photosensitive—that is,they change in some way when exposed to light.Photosensitive materials abound in nature; plantsthat close their blooms at night are one example.Photography depends on chemical crystals thatThe films used in photography depend on a lim-ited number of chemical compounds that darkenwhen exposed to light. The compounds mostwidely used today are silver and chemicals calledhalogens (usually bromine, chlorine, or iodine).


(see Rosenshine & Meister, 1994; Rosen-shine, Meister, & Chapman, 1996) con-cluded that strategies that emphasize theanalytic aspect of summarizing, producethe most powerful effects in terms of stu-dents’ ability to summarize.

3. Being aware of the explicit structureof information is an aid to summarizing in-formation. Most writers present informa-tion in the context of an explicit structure,and the more a person is aware of this ex-plicit structure, the better she is able tosummarize the information. This general-ization was brought to the attention of ed-ucators by the work of psychologists likeBonnie Meyer (see Meyer, 1975; Meyer &Freedle, 1984). To illustrate, assume you areabout to read an article in an educationjournal on the topic of effective disciplinestrategies. Even before reading the article,you would know that it will probably takea certain form. You would expect there tobe an introductory section explaining whyeffective disciplinary strategies are impor-tant; there would probably be a section dis-cussing what has been done in the past.Then, there would be a section describingthe strategies the author considers mostuseful. At the end, there probably wouldbe some type of summary statement. Anawareness of this structure helps you iden-tify which parts of the article to attend tothe most. This knowledge helps you sum-marize the information. In general, researchhas demonstrated that making studentsaware of the specific structure in informa-

tion helps them summarize that informa-tion (see Armbruster, Anderson, & Os-tertag, 1987; Raphael & Kirschner, 1985).

C l a ss r o o m P r a c t i c e i n S u m m a r i z i n g

The “Rule-Based ” StrategyOne summarizing strategy developed

by Brown, Campione, and Day (1981) isreferred to as a rule-based summary strat-egy. As the name implies, the strategy isone of following a set of rules or steps thatproduce a summary. Those rules are asfollows:

◆ Delete trivial material that is unnec-essary to understanding.

◆ Delete redundant material.◆ Substitute superordinate terms for

lists (e.g., “flowers” for “daisies, tulips, androses”).

◆ Select a topic sentence, or invent oneif it is missing.

It is fairly easy to see that these rulesclosely mirror the cognitive process of sum-marizing as described in Generalization 1—deleting, substituting, keeping. In effect, therules given students are the very thingsthey have to do to produce a summary.Simply directing students what to do,however, is not the same as showing themhow to do it. To make these rules “comealive” for students, a teacher might initially


demonstrate them in some detail. The fol-lowing example shows how a teachermight do this.

Mr. Newton is trying to walk studentsthrough the rule-based summarizing strategyin the context of a science unit. He begins bypresenting them with a passage on the originof the solar system (see Figure 3.3).

He first asks students to read the passagesilently. After they read the passage, Mr.Newton explains that he is going to use it todemonstrate the “rule-based strategy” forsummarizing which he introduced them tothe previous day. He talks them through theprocess as follows:

“I’m going to think aloud as I apply therules of this strategy. See if my thinkingmakes sense to you.

“The rules say to ‘delete trivial material,to delete redundant material, and to substi-tute superordinate terms for lists.’ The first

paragraph is almost all background, but itdoesn’t seem trivial. There are, however, acouple of lists. Let’s see, for ‘interstellar gas,dust, and ice’ I’ll substitute ‘interstellar material.’For ‘planets, moons, comets, and asteroids’ I’llsubstitute ‘heavenly bodies.’ Also, I see some-thing redundant: The ‘solar nebula’ and the‘cloud of interstellar material created from pre-vious generations of stars’ are the same thing,so I’ll delete one of them. And come to thinkof it, the expression ‘bumped into’ is a littletrivial and a little redundant. I think I can takeit out, too. Here’s my first paragraph now:”

Most scientists believe our solarsystem was formed 4.6 billion yearsago with the gravitational collapse ofthe solar nebula. As time went ongrains from the solar nebula stuck toone another, eventually forming theheavenly bodies we know today.

“Now I’ll apply the rules to the secondparagraph. Hmm, I don’t see any lists forwhich I could substitute a superordinate

FIGURE 3.3

Summarizing Strategy: Sample Passage

Why Does Studying Solar Wind Tell Us About the Origin of Our Solar System?

Most scientists believe our solar system wasformed 4.6 billion years ago with the gravita-tional collapse of the solar nebula, a cloud of in-terstellar gas, dust, and ice created from previousgenerations of stars. As time went on the grainsof ice and dust bumped into and stuck to one an-other, eventually forming the planets, moons,comets, and asteroids as we know them today.

How this transition from the solar nebula toplanets took place has both fascinated and mysti-fied scientists. Why did some planets, like Venus,develop thick, poisonous atmospheres, while oth-ers, like Earth, became hospitable to life? Partialanswers are available from the study of the chem-

ical composition of the solar system bodies,which scientists find are significantly differentfrom one another. This information helps themmodel various processes for planet formation, butthey are still hampered by one major question:What was the original solar nebula made of?

Our sun may contain the answer. It containsover 99 percent of all the material in the solarsystem and, while its interior has been modifiedby nuclear reactions, its outer layers are believedto be composed of the same material as the origi-nal solar nebula. By collecting and studying solarwind, the material flung from the sun, scientistsmay find more answers to this mysterious puzzle.


term, but ‘fascinated and mystified’ is a littleredundant. I’ll just say ‘intrigued’ which sort ofcombines them. Also, the examples aboutVenus and the Earth, while interesting, aren’tnecessary to my understanding of the para-graph. I think I’ll take them out.

“The rest of the paragraph explains whatscientists already know and what they needto know. It’s not really trivial, but for a sum-mary I’m going to try and say it more simply.I’ll take the part that says ‘partial answers areavailable from the study of the chemical com-position of the solar system bodies, which sci-entists find are significantly different from oneanother. This information helps them model var-ious processes for planet formation, but theyare still hampered by one major question: Whatwas the original solar nebula made of?’ and justsay ‘Scientists have some of the answers butthey really need to know what the original solarsystem was made of.’ How’s this?”

How this transition from the solarnebula to planets took place has in-trigued scientists.They have some ofthe answers but they really need toknow what the original solar nebulawas made of.

“The third paragraph is full of interestinginformation. How can I apply the rules here?Is anything redundant, trivial, or unnecessaryto my understanding?

“The first sentence says ‘our sun may con-tain the answer.’Wow, that’s important so I’llkeep it. The second sentence explains whythe sun may contain the answer. Only partof that sentence—‘its outer layers are be-lieved to be composed of the same material asthe original solar nebula’—is necessary to myunderstanding so I can take out the rest. Inthe last sentence, ‘solar wind’ and ‘the mater-ial flung from the sun’ are the same thing soI’ll keep only one. Now I’ve got:”

Our sun may contain the answer.Its outer layers are believed to be

composed of the same material asthe original solar nebula.By collectingand studying the material flung fromthe sun, scientists may find more an-swers to this mysterious puzzle.

“Finally, I can put it all together. Do thethree new paragraphs make sense? Hmm, Ithink my use of the term ‘solar nebula’ is a lit-tle redundant. I’ll take it out where I canwithout losing clarity. What do you think ofmy final summary?”

Most scientists believe our solarsystem was formed 4.6 billion yearsago with the gravitational collapse ofthe solar nebula. As time went ongrains from the solar nebula stuck toone another, eventually forming theheavenly bodies we know today.

How this transition took place hasintrigued scientists. They have someof the answers but they really need toknow what the original solar nebulawas made of.

Our sun may contain the answer.Its outer layers are believed to becomposed of the same material asthe original solar nebula.By collectingand studying the material flung fromthe sun, scientists may find more an-swers to this mysterious puzzle.

After this detailed description of his ownthinking, Mr. Newton has students try outthe rule-based summarizing strategy on theirown using a different passage from the text-book.

Summary Frames

Summary frames are direct applicationsof Generalization 3. A summary frame is aseries of questions that the teacher providesto students. These questions are designed to


highlight the critical elements for specifictypes of information. We present six typesof summary frames in this chapter:

1. The Narrative Frame2. The Topic-Restriction-Illustration

Frame3. The Definition Frame

4. The Argumentation Frame5. The Problem/Solution Frame6. The Conversation Frame

Each frame captures the basic structureof a different type of text. To illustrate, con-sider Figures 3.4–3.9. Also note the ques-tions that go with each frame.

FIGURE 3.4

The Narrative Frame

The narrative or story frame is commonly found in fiction and contains the following elements:

1. Characters: the characteristics of the main characters in the story.2. Setting: the time, place, and context in which the information took place.3. Initiating event: the event that starts the action rolling in the story.4. Internal response: how the main characters react emotionally to the initiating event.5. Goal: what the main characters decide to do as a reaction to the initiating event

(the goal they set).6. Consequence: how the main characters try to accomplish the goal.7. Resolution: how the goal turns out.

Components 3–7 are sometimes repeated to create what is called an episode.

Frame Questions

1. Who are the main characters and what distinguishes them from others?2. When and where did the story take place? What were the circumstances?3. What prompted the action in the story?4. How did the characters express their feelings?5. What did the main characters decide to do? Did they set a goal, and, if so,

what was it?6. How did the main characters try to accomplish their goal(s)?7. What were the consequences?


The following example shows how a1st grade teacher used the Narrative Frame(Figure 3.4) to teach her students aboutsummarization.

Mrs. Mason used the narrative frame to helpher 1st graders summarize the story, “Ink-tomi Lost His Eyes” (a story from the Assini-boine tribe). First she introduced the framequestions, and told the students to thinkabout them as she read the story aloud.Then she read the story again. This time,however, she occasionally stopped to let thestudents answer the frame questions as aclass. Here are the questions and the an-swers generated by the students:

1. Who are the main characters and whatdistinguishes them from others? Inktomi, thecurious little boy and the singing bird thatcould “throw” his eyes.

2. When and where did the story takeplace? What were the circumstances? TheAssiniboine legend takes place in the forestwhere the little boy was walking.

3. What prompted the action in the story?The boy heard the bird sing in his languageand then “throw” his eyes and sing themback.

4. How did the characters express theirfeelings? The little boy wanted the trick so he would be admired and have power. Heasked the bird for the trick.

5. What did the main characters decide todo? Did they set a goal, and, if so, what was it?The boy abused the trick by not followingthe bird’s warning. He lost his sight and setout to get it back.

6. How did the main characters try to ac-complish their goal(s)? The little boy askedother animals to help him find the bird.

7. What were the consequences? The littleboy got his sight back, but also learned tonot be vain.

Finally, Mrs. Mason and the students usedtheir answers to the frame questions towrite the following summary:

In this Assiniboine legend thattakes place in a forest, a curious boyheard a bird sing, and then “throw”his eyes, and sing them back again.The little boy, who wanted to be ad-mired and have power, asked the birdfor the trick. The boy did not followthe bird’s warning, lost his sight, andset out to get it back. The little boyasked forest animals to help get hissight back. In this lesson, the boylearned to not be vain.

Proceed to thenext frame


Figure 3.5 shows another summariza-tion technique, the Topic-Restriction-Illustration Frame. The following exampleshows how a teacher used the frame toteach students in a geography class:

Mr. Burke uses the T-R-I frame in his 7thgrade geography class as he presents infor-mation about the topic of interdependenceof trade among nations. He first presentsstudents with the following frame questions:

1. T—What is the meaning of “trade”?2. R—How does the definition of trade

vary from different countries (e.g., in indus-trialized or in developing countries)?

3. I —What examples illustrate this?4. R—How can a short-term positive

balance of trade negatively affect long-termtrade in developing countries?

5. I—What examples illustrate this?

Next, in lecture format, he presents infor-mation about trade. Occasionally, he stopsand asks students to fill in answers to theframe questions based on the informationhe has presented. For homework, studentstranslate the answers to their frame ques-tions into a summary paragraph.

FIGURE 3.5

The Topic-Restriction-Illustration Frame

T-R-I stands for topic, restriction, and illustration. This pattern is commonly found in expository material.The T-R-I frame contains the following elements:

Topic (T)—general statement about the topic to be discussed Restriction (R)—limits the information in some wayIllustrations (I)—exemplifies the topic or restriction

The T-R-I pattern can have a number of restrictions and additional illustrations.

Frame Questions

1. T—What is the general statement or topic?2. R—What information narrows or restricts the general statement or topic?3. I—What examples illustrate the topic or restriction?


A third type of summary technique,the Definition Frame (Figure 3.6), is illus-trated by students in a life sciences class inthe following example.

Students in Mrs. Miller’s 3rd grade life sci-ence class are studying about monotremes.This particular day she is showing a film.Toguide their viewing of the film, Mrs. Millerpresents students with the following framequestions with some answers filled in:

1. What is being defined? A monotreme.2. To which general category do mono-

tremes belong? Mammals.

3. What characteristics separate mono-tremes from other things in the general category?

4. What are some different types ofmonotremes?

Mrs. Miller explains to her students that all ofthe answers to the frame questions can befound in the film, but they will have to iden-tify which information answers a specificquestion and which information does not.Students watch the film with an eye towardanswering the questions. When the film isover, Mrs. Miller organizes students intogroups where they compare their answersand construct a summary statement aboutmonotremes as a group.

FIGURE 3.6

The Definition Frame

The purpose of a definition frame is to describe a particular concept and identify subordinate concepts.Definition patterns contain the following elements:

1. Term—the subject to be defined.2. Set—the general category to which the term belongs.3. Gross characteristics—those characteristics that separate the term from other elements in the

set.4. Minute differences—those different classes of objects that fall directly beneath the term.

Frame Questions

1. What is being defined?2. To which general category does the item belong?3. What characteristics separate the item from other things in the general

category?4. What are some different types or classes of the item being defined?


In a fourth type of summarizing tech-nique, the Argumentation Frame (Figure3.7), students in a literature class answerquestions that clarify an article the teacherasks them to read.

Mrs. Van Den Wildenberg uses the argu-mentation frame as a way to help studentssummarize an article they are assigned toread about Mark Twain in her sophomoreliterature class. She first presents the argu-mentation questions and then asks studentsto answer them in writing as she reads thearticle. One student, Maurie, answers the ar-gumentation frame questions in the follow-ing way:

1. What information is presented thatleads to a claim? The author says that a true

American author should exhibit the keycharacteristics of the American culture.These include: pioneering, rebelliousness,humor, and casualness.

2. What is the basic claim or focus of theinformation? Greg chose Mark Twain as the“quintessential American” author.

3. What examples or explanations arepresented to support this claim? Mark Twain’svarious works along with literary criticismsof his works are presented.

4. What concessions are made about theclaim? Other authors’ works are also men-tioned as exemplifying key American charac-teristics.

When all students have answered theframe questions, Mrs. Van Den Wildenbergorganizes students into groups where theycompare their answers and construct agroup summary.

FIGURE 3.7

The Argumentation Frame

Argumentation frames contain information designed to support a claim. They contain the followingelements:

1. Evidence: information that leads to a claim.2. Claim: the assertion that something is true—the claim that is the focal point of the argument.3. Support: examples of or explanations for the claim.4. Qualifier: a restriction on the claim or evidence for the claim.

Frame Questions

1. What information is presented that leads to a claim?2. What is the basic statement or claim that is the focus of the information?3. What examples or explanations are presented to support this claim?4. What concessions are made about the claim?


The fifth type of summary frameworkis the Problem/Solution Frame (Figure3.8); its use is shown in the following 6thgrade example.

Mr. Farrington is teaching a unit to his 6th graders called, “Monterrey—The BigCleanup.” After a short introductory lectureabout the biggest manufacturing center ofMexico, he shows some slides and videotapedepicting the problems that have been

caused by mining. Because tailings from themining process have caused land and waterpollution, the government seeks solutions totheir waste material problems. Mr. Farringtonsets up various demonstration informationcenters for the students. Each center exem-plifies a way to separate waste materialsfrom earth or water. After visiting all of thecenters, students answer the problem/solu-tion frame questions.To summarize, the stu-dents use a graphic representation to showthe best ways to extract waste material.

FIGURE 3.8

The Problem/Solution Frame

Problem/solution frames introduce a problem and then identify one or more solutions to the problem.

Problem: A statement of something that has happened or might happen that is problematic.Solution: A description of one possible solution.Solution: A statement of another possible solution.Solution: A statement of another possible solution.Solution: Identification of the solution with the greatest chance of success.

Frame Questions

1. What is the problem?2. What is a possible solution?3. What is another possible solution?4. Which solution has the best chance of succeeding?


Sometimes information comes in theform of a conversation, or dialogue, in astory. The following language arts exampleshows students using the ConversationFrame (Figure 3.9) as a summarizationtool.

Mrs. Washington believes that teaching stu-dents how to summarize conversations willhelp them understand both character andplot as revealed in conversations.To prepareher 2nd grade students, she teaches themthe conversation frame and helps them topractice with simple text from “The Billy

FIGURE 3.9

The Conversation Frame

A conversation is a verbal interchange between two or more people. Commonly, a conversation has thefollowing components:

1. Greeting: some acknowledgment that the parties have not seen each other for a while.2. Inquiry: a question about some general or specific topic.3. Discussion: an elaboration or analysis of the topic. Commonly included in the discussion are one or

more of the following:

Assertions: statements of facts by the speaker.Requests: statements that solicit actions from the listener.Promises: statements that assert that the speaker will perform certain actions.Demands: statements that identify specific actions to be taken by the listener.Threats: statements that specify consequences to the listener if commands are not followed.Congratulations: statements that indicate the value the speaker puts on something done by thelistener.

4. Conclusion: the conversation ends in some way.

Frame Questions

1. How did the members of the conversation greet each other?2. What question or topic was insinuated, revealed, or referred to?3. How did their discussion progress?

Did either person state facts?Did either person make a request of the other?Did either person demand a specific action of the other?Did either person threaten specific consequences if a demand was

not met?Did either person indicate that he/she valued something that the other

had done?4. How did the conversation conclude?


Goats Gruff.” Mrs.Washington leads the dis-cussion and calls on students to respond.She records the answers as follows:

1. How did the members of the conver-sation greet each other?

The mean troll grunted at Little Billy GoatGruff. The little goat just gave his name.

2. What questions or topic was insinu-ated, revealed or referred to?

The topic of the conversation was aboutwhether the goat could cross the bridge.

3. How did their discussion progress?The troll threatened to eat the goat if thegoat crossed his bridge.

4. What was the conclusion?The goat talked the troll into waiting forhis bigger brother.

Using the group answers to the conversa-tion frame questions, the whole class thensummarizes the story.

Gradually, Mrs. Washington increases thecomplexity of the conversations the stu-dents summarize until they are ready to tryan example from Sherlock Holmes. Shewarns the students that the conversations inthe text are long, but that summarizing themis the key to understanding the story. Theclass works together on the first Holmesexample, a conversation in “A Study in Scar-let,” during which Dr. Watson and SherlockHolmes meet each other for the first time.To their surprise, students are able to sum-marize the conversation quite well using theframe questions.

Reciprocal Teaching

Reciprocal teaching, developed byPalincsar and Brown (1984, 1985), is oneof the best researched strategies available toteachers (see Rosenshine & Meister, 1994).

The strategy involves four components:summarizing, questioning, clarifying, andpredicting. Figure 3.10 briefly describesthese phases.

Although reciprocal teaching beginswith the generation of a summary state-ment, it might be considered a “first draft”of a summary. The questioning, clarifying,and predicting phases of reciprocal teach-ing helps students engage in the analysis ac-tivities described in Generalization 2 above.Reciprocal teaching, then, can be consid-ered a strategy that provides for a deeplevel of understanding necessary for an ef-fective summary. The following exampleshows how a teacher might use reciprocalteaching in a music class.

Collin was selected to be the leader in hisreciprocal teaching group. After the studentsin Collin’s group read the first few paragraphsin the passage the teacher had taken fromthe Internet,“Sound Is Energy” (http:// tqjunior.advanced.org/5116/), Collin explained theterms tone and harmonics. He also did a nicejob summarizing the information aboutsound waves. The questions he asked theclass about frequency and hertz indicated thatmost students understood that part of thepassage. The “clarifying” part of recipro-cal teaching was easy for him because hecouldn’t understand the statement that “evenif pitch and volume change, the shape of thesound wave stays the same.” Other studentsagreed that the information about pitch andvolume was particularly difficult to under-stand, but some of them tried to help clarifyit. Collin began to understand the concept alittle better, but he admitted it was still fuzzyin his mind. Finally, Collin examined the list oftopics along the side of the page from the


Web site, and predicted that they were nowgoing to learn about tone, harmonics, soundwaves, and frequencies as they are applied tothe brass, string, percussion, and woodwindinstruments.

R e s e a rc h a n d T h e o r y o n N o t e Ta k i n gNote taking is closely related to summariz-ing. To take effective notes, a student mustmake a determination as to what is mostimportant, and then state that informationin a parsimonious form. As we have seen,this is at the heart of summarizing. Re-searchers have conducted many studies on the effects of note taking on studentachievement. Figure 3.11 shows the results of some of these studies.

A useful source for a review of many ofthese studies is the monograph entitledNote-Taking: What Do We Know About theBenefits? (Beecher, 1988). We have foundseveral generalizations drawn from the re-search that can be used to guide instructionon note taking.

1. Verbatim note taking is, perhaps,the least effective way to take notes. A fairamount of research supports the intuitiveperception that verbatim note taking is notan effective strategy (see Bretzing & Kul-hary, 1979). It is probably true that whenstudents are trying to record everythingthey hear or read, they are not engaged inthe act of synthesizing information. Tryingto record all of what is heard or read takesup so much of a student’s working memory

FIGURE 3.10

Reciprocal Teaching

Summarizing—After students have silently ororally read a short section of a passage, a singlestudent acting as teacher (i.e., the student leader)summarizes what has been read. Other students,with guidance from the teacher, may add to thesummary. If students have difficulty summarizing,the teacher might point out clues (e.g., importantitems or obvious topic sentences) that aid in theconstruction of good summaries.

Questioning—The student leader asks somequestions to which the class responds. The ques-tions are designed to help students identify im-portant information in the passage. For example,the student leader might look back over the selec-tion and ask questions about specific pieces of in-formation. The other students then try to answer

these questions, based on their recollection of theinformation.

Clarifying—Next, the student leader tries to clar-ify confusing points in the passage. He might pointthese out or ask other students to point them out.For example, the student leader might say, “The partabout why the dog ran into the car was confusing tome. Can anyone explain this?” Or, the student leadermight ask students to ask clarification questions. Thegroup then attempts to clear up the confusing parts.This might involve rereading parts of the passage.

Predicting—The student leader asks for predic-tions about what will happen in the next segmentof the text. The leader can write the predictions onthe blackboard or on an overhead, or all studentscan write them down in their notebooks.


that she does not have “room” to analyzethe incoming information.

2. Notes should be considered a workin progress. Once students initially takenotes, teachers should encourage them tocontinually add to the notes and revisethem as their understanding of contentdeepens and sharpens (for discussions, seeAnderson, T. H., & Armbruster, 1986; Den-ner, 1986; Einstein, Morris, & Smith, 1985).This implies that teachers should systemat-ically provide time for students to go backover their notes—reviewing and revisingthem. The review-and-revision process canbe a particularly powerful activity if en-couraged and directed by the teacher.Specifically, a teacher might help studentsidentify and correct misconceptions innotes they have previously taken.

3. Notes should be used as studyguides for tests. One of the more practicaluses of notes is as test preparation tools. If

notes have been well designed and studentshave systematically elaborated on them,they can provide a powerful form of reviewfor students (for discussions, see Carrier &Titus, 1981; Carter & Van Matre, 1975; VanMatre & Carter, 1975). Interestingly, fewerstudents than might be expected take ad-vantage of notes to this end. This might bebecause they are simply unaware of thispotentially powerful use of notes, or theydo not know how to structure their time toadequately prepare for tests using theirnotes.

4. The more notes that are taken, thebetter. One of the common misconceptionsabout note taking is that “less is more.” Thatis, sometimes students are advised to keeptheir notes very short. Indeed, researchersNye, Crooks, Powlie, and Tripp (1984) ex-plain that in their examination of studyguides prepared by universities to teachstudents how to take notes, “Five out of ten

FIGURE 3.11

Research Results for Note Taking


Henk & Stahl, 1985a 25 .34 1311 1.56 44

Marzano, Gnadt, & Jesse, 1990 3 1.26 40

Hattie et al., 1996 3 1.05 35

Ganske, 1981 24 .52 20

a Two categories of effect sizes are listed for the Henk and Stahl study because of the manner in which the effect sizes werereported. Readers should consult that study for more details.

FIGURE 3.12

Teacher-Prepared Notes: The Bill of Rights

I. What It IsThe Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. It protects fundamentalindividual rights and liberties.

II. The History of the Bill of RightsA. James Madison, congressman from Virginia, proposed a series of amendments to the Con-

stitution. Madison introduced these amendments in the House of Representatives in May, 1789.B. Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate rewrote the amendments.C. The House and Senate approved 12 amendments in September, 1789.D. Ten of the 12 proposed amendments were ratified on December 14, 1791.

1. “Ratification” is the name of the process by which constitutional amendments are ap-proved. To be adopted, an amendment must be passed by two-thirds of each house ofCongress and then by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

2. The state legislatures voted on each of the 12 amendments separately. The first 2 proposedamendments were not ratified by three-quarters of the states.

III. Rights Protected by the Bill of RightsA. More than 30 liberties and rights are protected by the 10 amendments that make up the Bill

of Rights.B. Each amendment protects specific rights:

1. Protects freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religious belief; prohibits the governmentfrom creating a state religion or giving support to any or all religions.

2. Protects the right to bear arms.3. Prohibits the government, even the military, from invading our homes.4. Prohibits unreasonable searches and arrests; declares that there must be probable cause for

a search or arrest warrant to be issued.5. Prohibits double jeopardy; protects right to remain silent; prohibits government from

taking away anyone’s life, liberty, or property without due process of law.6. Protects right to a fair trial, including right to be represented by counsel in a speedy trial

before an impartial jury.7. Protects right to trial by jury; prohibits courts from reexamining facts tried by a jury.8. Prohibits excessive bail or fines, or the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment.9. Preserves any individual rights or liberties not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

10. Preserves the power of the states


guides examined emphasized the impor-tance of keeping notes ‘brief’ and notputting too much material in notes” (p. 95).Yet, in their study of the effects of notetaking, Nye et al. found that there was astrong relationship between the amount ofinformation taken in notes and students’achievement on examinations.

C l a ss r o o m P r a c t i c e i n N o t e Ta k i n g

Teacher-Prepared Notes

Teacher-prepared notes (Figure 3.12)are one of the most straightforward uses of


notes. First, these notes provide studentswith a clear picture of what the teacherconsiders important. Second, they providestudents with a model of how notes mightbe taken. The example in Figure 3.12shows a few notes a teacher might give stu-dents for the topic of the Bill of Rights.

Formats for Notes

There is no one correct way to takenotes. In fact, different students might preferdifferent note-taking formats. Consequently,

it is advisable to present students with a va-riety of formats. One common format is theinformal outline. The informal outline usesindentation to indicate major ideas and theirrelated details. Figure 3.13 depicts notesgenerated by a student on the topic ofblood. The student has simply indentedideas that are more subordinate in nature.

Webbing is a note-taking strategy thatuses the relative size of circles to indicatethe importance of ideas and lines to indi-cate relationships. The more importantideas have larger circles than the less impor-

FIGURE 3.13

Student Notes: Informal Outline

The Circulatory System

One of the transport systems of the body3 functions:

carries food and oxygen to cellscarries away wastes from cellsprotects the body from disease

3 parts:heartblood vesselsblood

One of the parts of the circulatory system is blood 4 parts:

plasmared blood cellswhite blood cellsplatelets

The liquid part of the blood—plasmayellowish in color and mostly watercontains food and wastesmakes up over half of the blood

One of the solid parts of the blood is the redblood cells

pick up oxygen in the lungs and carry it to cells

pick up carbon dioxide from the cells and carryit to the lungs

shaped like a doughnut without the hole—isvery small.

contains hemoglobin to help it do its jobabout 5 million red blood cells in one drop of

blood

Second solid part of the blood is white blood cellshelp the body fight infectionhave no color and change shape as they move fight infection by surrounding bacteria and di-

gesting it

Third solid part of the blood is platelets stop bleeding by causing blood to thicken and

clotnot whole cells, but parts of cellshave no color and are smaller than red blood

cells

Hemoglobin is a chemical in red blood cells contains ironmakes the color of red blood cells helps the red blood cells transport materials to

and from cells


tant ideas. Lines from one circle to anotherindicate that the concepts in the connectedcircles are related in some way. One advan-tage of the webbing format is that it pro-vides a visual representation of the informa-tion. One disadvantage of the webbingstrategy is that it somewhat limits theamount of information a student can recordsimply because the circles themselves canhold only so much verbiage. Figure 3.14portrays webbed notes for the topic of theOlympic games.

Combination Notes

One flexible note-taking strategy em-ploys both the informal outline and theweb formats. It might be referred to as acombination technique. With this strategy,each page of notes is divided into threeparts by a line running down the middle ofthe page and a horizontal line near the bot-tom of the page. The left-hand side of thepage is reserved for notes taken using infor-mal outlining or a variation of it. The right-

FIGURE 3.14

Student Notes: Webbing

Olympicgames

Symbol:transmitting ideas

from AncientGreece ➞ modern

world

InitiatingCeremoniesand Symbols

Begins inOlympia,Greece

Flag

Greece

SummerOlympics

First heldin 1896

in Athens,Greece

OpeningCeremonies

Athletesfrom Greeceenter stadium

firstAfrica Americas Asia EuropeAustralia

Paradeof

Nations

WinterOlympics

5 ringsrepresent unity

among 5continents

Lighting ofFlame

TorchRelay

FIGURE 3.15

Student Notes: Combination Technique

Inflation

Increases . . .when the money supply is greater than value ofnation’s output of goods and services (G&S)

OR

When expenditures for food, goods, investment,government spending, and net exports are greaterthan the value of nation’s output of G&S

Decreases . . .When money supply is smaller than value of na-tion’s output of G&S

OR

When expenditures are less than value ofnation’s output

Inflation results from the relationship between the money supply and the value of a nation’s output ofgoods and services.

Outputof

Goods &Services

$1.10

$1.00

$1.00

$.90

$$$$$$MoneySupply

G&S

Money

>

<


hand side of the page is reserved for notestaken using webbing or some variation ofit. Finally, the strip across the bottom of thepage is reserved for summary statements.Figure 3.15 shows combination notes a stu-dent might take for the topic of inflation.

The important aspect of the right-handside of the page is that students portray theinformation in some visual way.To employthis note-taking strategy, students must stopperiodically and make a graphic representa-tion of their notes on the right side of thepage.This note-taking method takes extratime but forces students to consider the in-

formation a second time.At the end of theirnote taking, or periodically throughout theprocess, students record summary statementsof what they have learned in the space at thebottom of the page.This forces them toprocess the information a third time.

♦ ♦ ♦

Although we sometimes refer to summarizingand note taking as mere “study skills,” they aretwo of the most powerful skills students cancultivate.They provide students with tools foridentifying and understanding the most im-portant aspects of what they are learning.










Ian MacIntosh was a new student at Prairie Elementary School. It did nottake him long to discover that even though the teachers and studentsseemed nice enough, the school was considered to be what they called a“low-performing school.” They had low scores on the state tests, and every-one knew it because the results were published in the local newspaper. Thetest was given soon after Ian arrived and, like other students, he just wantedto get through it.

The next year, the school got a new principal, Ms. Heichman. Thingsbegan to change. Ian’s teachers started telling stories of famous people whoachieved their goals because they believed that if they tried hard enough,they could do anything. Even students were asked to give examples, and Iantold the story of his grandfather’s belief that he could make his farm suc-cessful. Ian’s teachers started giving students “E for Effort” certificates. Ianearned two in one week. It made him feel more confident and made himwant to do better. His classmates all seemed a bit more confident, too, es-pecially when the whole class received the principal’s “E for Effort” awardbecause the class beat their own previous class average on math quizzes,twice in one month. He was proud when the banner went up over thedoor—and he enjoyed the ice cream the room mothers had promisedthem if they hit their goal.

The best news came when the state test scores returned. The school wasin the headlines as the school that had improved the most. Ian knew he andhis schoolmates still had a long way to go, but he believed they could do it.

The approach used by Ian’s principal exemplifies the third categoryof general instructional strategies. Unlike the others, it does not dealdirectly with enhancing or engaging the cognitive skills of students.Rather, this set of instructional techniques addresses students’ atti-

4R E I N F O R C I N G E F F O R T A N D

P R O V I D I N G R E C O G N I T I O N

49


tudes and beliefs. This category has beensubdivided into two parts: reinforcing effortand providing recognition.

R e s e a rc h a n d T h e o r y o nR e i n f o rc i n g E f f o r tIt was probably psychologist BernardWeiner (1972, 1983) who popularized thenotion that a belief in effort ultimately pays off in terms of enhanced achievement.Research by Covington (1983) and Harter(1980) has also shown the effect of be-lieving in the importance of effort. Morespecifically, this body of research demon-strates that people generally attribute suc-cess at any given task to one of four causes:

◆ Ability◆ Effort◆ Other people◆ Luck

Three of these four beliefs ultimately in-hibit achievement. On the surface, a beliefin ability seems relatively useful—if youbelieve you have ability, you can tackleanything. Regardless of how much abilityyou think you have, however, there will in-evitably be tasks for which you do not be-lieve you have the requisite skill. In fact,Covington’s research (1983, 1985) indi-cates that a belief on the part of studentsthat they do not possess the necessary abil-ity to succeed at a task might cause themto sabotage their own success. Belief that

other people are the primary cause of suc-cess also has drawbacks, particularly whenan individual finds himself or herself alone.Belief in luck has obvious disadvantages—what if your luck runs out? Belief in effortis clearly the most useful attribution. If youbelieve that effort is the most importantfactor in achievement, you have a motiva-tional tool that can apply to any situation.

Several researchers have attempted tosynthesize the studies on the effects onstudent achievement of reinforcing effort.Figure 4.1 shows the results from some ofthose syntheses.

We have drawn two generalizationsfrom the research on effort:

1. Not all students realize the impor-tance of believing in effort. Although itmight seem obvious to adults—particularlysuccessful ones—that effort pays off interms of enhanced achievement, not allstudents are aware of this. In fact, studieshave demonstrated that some students arenot aware of the fact that the effort theyput into a task has a direct effect on theirsuccess relative to the task (see Seligman,1990, 1994; Urdan, Midgley, & Anderman,1998). The implication here is that teach-ers should explain and exemplify the “ef-fort belief” to students.

2. Students can learn to change theirbeliefs to an emphasis on effort. Probably,one of the most promising aspects of theresearch on effort is that students can learnto operate from a belief that effort pays offeven if they do not initially have this belief.

R E I N F O R C I N G E F F O R T A N D P R O V I D I N G R E C O G N I T I O N 51

An interesting set of studies has shown thatsimply demonstrating that added effort willpay off in terms of enhanced achievementactually increases student achievement (seeCraske, 1985; Wilson & Linville, 1982). Infact, one study (Van Overwalle & De Met-senaere, 1990) found that students whowere taught about the relationship be-tween effort and achievement increasedtheir achievement more than students whowere taught techniques for time manage-ment and comprehension of new material.

C l a ss r o o m P r a c t i c e i nR e i n f o rc i n g E f f o r t

Teaching About Effort

The preceding generalizations, takentogether, assert that students might not beaware of the importance of believing in

effort, but they can be taught. The remedyfor this is for teachers to make sure thatthey explicitly teach and exemplify theconnection between effort and achieve-ment. For example, teachers might sharepersonal examples of times that they suc-ceeded by continuing to try even whensuccess did not appear imminent. Teachersmight also seek out and share examples ofwell-known athletes, educators, and politi-cal or social leaders who succeeded in largepart simply because they didn’t give up(e.g., Daniel “Rudy” Ruettiger, the NotreDame student whose unwavering commit-ment to play on the university’s footballteam was the subject of the inspiring movieRudy). Examples might also be shared fromstories that are familiar to students (e.g.,The Little Engine That Could). Still anotherway to help students understand the valueof effort is to ask them to recall personalexamples of times that they succeeded pri-

FIGURE 4.1

Research Results for Reinforcing Effort


Schunk & Cox, 1986 3 .93 32

Stipek & Weisz, 1981a 98 .52 20

Hattie, Biggs, & Purdie, 1996b 8 1.42 422 .57 222 2.14 48

Kumar, 1991 5 1.76 46

a These studies also dealt with students’ sense of control.b Multiple categories of effect sizes are listed for the Hattie et al. study because of the manner in which effect size was reported.

Readers should consult that study for more details.


marily because they didn’t give up. The fol-lowing example shows how a teacher rein-forced the effort attribution in the contextof the Olympic games.

For an entire week, the students in a highschool general math class were given nomath homework. Rather, their assignmenteach night was to watch the WinterOlympics, paying particular attention to the“up close and personal” stories about spe-cific athletes.The students were to look forexamples of ordinary people who achievedextraordinary things because they believedthat sustained effort would lead to achieve-ment of their goals.The first five minutes ofeach class period that week were used to letstudents discuss, in small groups and as awhole class, the stories they had heard andthe different strategies that the athletes usedto keep believing in themselves. By Mondayof the next week, each student was to come

up with a way to remind themselves to keeptrying when things got difficult in class.

Keeping Track of Effort and Achievement

The generalizations in this categorysuggest how important it is for students tounderstand the relationship between effortand achievement. Teaching about effort, assuggested previously, might work for somestudents, but others will need to see theconnection between effort and achieve-ment for themselves. A powerful way tohelp them make this connection is to askstudents to periodically keep track of theireffort and its relationship to achievement.This can be accomplished by presentingthem with rubrics like those shown inFigure 4.2 (A and B).

FIGURE 4.2

Effort and Achievement Rubrics

Scale: 4 = excellent; 3 = good; 2 = needs improvement; 1 = unacceptable

A: Effort Rubric

4 I worked on the task until it was completed.I pushed myself to continue working on thetask even when difficulties arose or a solutionwas not immediately evident. I viewed diffi-culties that arose as opportunities tostrengthen my understanding.

3 I worked on the task until it was completed.I pushed myself to continue working on thetask even when difficulties arose or a solutionwas not immediately evident.

2 I put some effort into the task, but I stoppedworking when difficulties arose.

1 I put very little effort into the task.

B: Achievement Rubric

4 I exceeded the objectives of the task or lesson.3 I met the objectives of the task or lesson.2 I met a few of the objectives of the task or

lesson, but did not meet others.1 I did not meet the objectives of the task or

lesson.


Students might use these rubrics tokeep track of their effort and achievementon a daily basis for a week. To do this, ateacher would have students record the re-lationship between their effort and achieve-ment in a table like that in Figure 4.3.

In addition to charting the relationshipbetween the two variables, students mightbe asked to identify what they learnedfrom the experience. Reflecting on theirexperiences and then verbalizing what theylearned can help students heighten theirawareness of the power of effort. The fol-lowing example describes how this tech-nique was used in a particular class:

Jane Whitby was accustomed to being askedto keep a learning log in the back of her note-book. She dutifully compiled notes in her logbook when asked to write about what shewas learning and how well she had learned it.One day in March, a time when it was almostalways difficult for her to be enthusiasticabout school, her teacher gave the learninglog a different spin. Students were each givena piece of graph paper and were shown howto create a line graph to chart their learningand their effort.The horizontal axis was to belabeled with the days of the week, spanning

two full weeks.The vertical axis was to rep-resent percentages from 1 to 100. For twoweeks, each day, students plotted the rela-tionship between their level of effort (1–100percent) and how they rated their level oflearning (percent of what they could havelearned). At the end of the two weeks, Janeand her classmates noticed that this graph ac-tually motivated them; many admitted thatwhen they felt like just “coasting,” the pictureof the graph popped into their heads.

R e s e a rc h a n d T h e o r y o nP r o v i d i n g R e c o g n i t i o n“Providing Recognition,” as a category ofinstructional strategies, might be the mostmisunderstood of all those presented in thisbook. Another name for this categorymight have been “praise”—although thatwould be technically inaccurate. Still, an-other name for this category might havebeen “reward”—although that, too, wouldbe technically inaccurate. For reasons ex-plained subsequently, we prefer to use theterm recognition. Figure 4.4 shows resultsfrom studies that have attempted to syn-thesize the research on recognition.

FIGURE 4.3

Effort and Achievement Chart

Student

Assignment Effort Rubric Achievement Rubric

Fri., Oct. 22 Homework—5-paragraph essay re: Animal Farm 4 4

Wed., Oct. 27 In-class essay re: allegory 4 3

Thurs., Oct. 28 Pop quiz 3 3


Figure 4.4 doesn’t paint a very flatteringpicture of the effectiveness of this activity,especially the finding in the Walberg (1999)and Wilkinson (1981) studies. But the stud-ies summarized in the figure primarily ad-dressed the use of praise as recognition. It isprobably because of results like these thatmany educators believe that any form ofrecognition not only doesn’t enhance stu-dent achievement, but decreases intrinsicmotivation. Given the misunderstandingsurrounding this area, we should brieflyconsider the history of the research onpraise and reward as forms of recognition.

The first laboratory investigations ofthe effects of reward on intrinsic motiva-tion were conducted by researcher Deci(1971). In the first experiment, 24 collegestudents were randomly assigned to one oftwo groups. Both groups were assignedproblems to solve. The experimental groupwas paid $1 for each correctly answeredproblem. Students’ “intrinsic” motivationfor the task was measured by counting thenumber of times they engaged in thepuzzle-solving task during their free time.Deci found that students in the group that

were paid, spent significantly less time onthe puzzles during free time than did theexperimental group. Deci commented:

If a person is engaged in some activity forreasons of intrinsic motivation and if he be-gins to receive the external reward, money,for performing the activity, the degree towhich he is intrinsically motivated to performthe activity decreases (Deci, 1971, p. 108).

This finding was taken by some as evidencethat rewards, in general, decrease intrinsicmotivation (see Kohn, 1993). Another studycommonly cited as evidence that rewards ofall types diminish intrinsic motivation, isthat conducted by researchers Lepper,Greene, and Nisbett (1973). Their study ex-amined the effect of rewards on the intrin-sic motivation of young children to draw.The reward for the experimental group wasto be given a “good player” award if theydrew pictures. Again, it was concluded thatexternal reward decreased motivation.

Much of the research on teacher praisehas also contributed to the perception thatrecognition decreases intrinsic motivation(for reviews see Brophy, 1981; Lepper,

FIGURE 4.4

Research Results for Providing Recognition


Bloom, 1976 18 .78 28

Walberg, 1999 14 .16 6

Wilkinson, 1981 791 .16 7


1983; Morine-Dershimer, 1982). For exam-ple, it appears that praise given for accom-plishing easy tasks can undermine achieve-ment. Students commonly perceived it asundeserved; further, praise for accomplishingeasy tasks might actually lower their percep-tion of their ability (Morine-Dershimer).

It also seems that praise is commonlyhanded out unsystematically and unevenlyby teachers. One study found that first-grade teachers praised only about 11 per-cent of students’ correct responses (seeAnderson, L., Evertson, & Brophy, 1979).Another study found that junior highschool teachers praised only about 10 per-cent of students’ correct responses (seeEvertson, Anderson, Anderson, & Brophy,1980). Researcher Jere Brophy (1981)summarized the guidelines for effectivepraise (see Figure 4.5).

If we were to take the preceding discus-sion at face value, it would be fairly easy toconclude that providing praise or rewardsin any form not only doesn’t enhanceachievement, but it also is detrimental tomotivation. However, a thorough review ofthe research provides a very different pic-ture. There are three generalizations thatcan be extracted from the research.

1. Rewards do not necessarily have anegative effect on intrinsic motivation.Those who have carefully analyzed all theresearch on rewards, commonly came tothe conclusion that they do not necessarilydecrease intrinsic motivation. For example,

in his review of the research on rewards,Mark Morgan (1984) concluded: “The cen-tral finding emerging from the present re-view is that rewards can have either under-mining or enhancing effects depending oncircumstance” (p. 25). Major meta-analysesconducted by Wiersma (1992) and byCameron and Pierce (1994) have provideda strong research base for this conclusion.To illustrate, consider the findings reportedin Figure 4.6 (see p. 57).

Figure 4.6 rather dramatically illustratesthe fact that depending on how researchersmeasure intrinsic motivation, they cancome up with different conclusions. Specif-ically, when intrinsic motivation is mea-sured using students’ free-time activity—whether they engage in the activity duringtime when they are not asked to—the re-sults of 44 studies show a slightly negativeeffect on intrinsic motivation of –.04.When intrinsic motivation is measured byexamining student attitudes toward the ac-tivity, however, 39 studies indicate that re-wards positively affect intrinsic motivation,and have an effect size of .14. Finally, whenstudents’ ability to perform the “rewarded”activity is examined, 11 studies indicatethat rewards have a positive effect of .34.In short, the research indicates that rewardshave a negative effect on intrinsic motiva-tion “only when intrinsic motivation is op-erationalized as task behavior during a freetime measure” (Wiersma, 1992, p. 101).

2. Reward is most effective when it iscontingent on the attainment of some stan-


dard of performance. The meta-analyses byWiersma (1992) and by Cameron andPierce (1994) both provide strong supportfor the generalization that reward worksfairly well when it is based on the attain-ment of some performance standards. Infact, nine separate studies in the Wiersmameta-analyses, considered as a group, indi-cate that the average effect size for reward

used in this way is .38. Findings similar tothese led Cameron and Pierce to note:

Rewards can have a negative impact on in-trinsic motivation when they are offered topeople for engaging in a task without con-sidering any standard of performance. In aclassroom, this might occur if a teacherpromised students tangible rewards simplyfor doing an activity. [However], this wouldnot occur if the teacher used the same re-

FIGURE 4.5

Guidelines for Effective Praise

Effective Praise . . . Ineffective Praise . . .

1. Is delivered contingently.2. Specifies the particulars of the accomplishment.3. Shows spontaneity, variety, and other signs of

credibility; suggests clear attention to the students’accomplishments.

4. Rewards attainment of specified performance crite-ria (which can include effort criteria).

5. Provides information to students about their com-petence or the value of their accomplishments.

6. Orients students toward better appreciation oftheir own task-related behavior and thinking aboutproblem solving.

7. Uses students’ own prior accomplishments as thecontext for describing present accomplishments.

8. Is given in recognition of noteworthy effort or suc-cess at difficult (for this student) tasks.

9. Attributes success to effort and ability, implying thatsimilar successes can be expected in the future.

10. Fosters endogenous attributions (students believethat they expend effort on the task because theyenjoy the task and/or want to develop task-relevantskills).

11. Focuses students’ attention on their own task-relevant behavior.

12. Fosters appreciation of, and desirable attributionsabout, task-relevant behavior after the process iscompleted.

1. Is delivered randomly or unsystematically.2. Is restricted to global positive reactions.3. Shows a bland uniformity that suggests a conditional

response made with minimal attention.

4. Rewards mere participation, without considerationof performance, processes, or outcomes.

5. Provides no information at all or gives students noinformation about their status.

6. Orients students toward comparing themselveswith others and thinking about competing.

7. Uses the accomplishments of peers as the contextfor describing students’ present accomplishments.

8. Is given without regard to the effort expended orthe meaning of the accomplishment.

9. Attributes success to ability alone or to externalfactors such as luck or low task difficulty.

10. Fosters exogenous attributions (students believethat they expend effort on the task for externalreasons — to please the teacher, win a competitionor reward, etc.).

11. Focuses students’ attention on the teacher as an ex-ternal authority who is manipulating them.

12. Intrudes into the ongoing process, distractingattention from task-relevant behavior.

Source: Brophy, J. (1981).Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51, 5–32. Adapted by permission.


wards but made this contingent on success-ful completion of the problems. (p. 397)

Stated differently, rewarding students forsimply performing a task does not enhanceintrinsic motivation and might even de-crease it. This is probably so because it con-veys the message that students must be“paid off” to engage in the activity. Provid-ing rewards for the successful attainment ofspecific performance goals, however, en-hances intrinsic motivation.

3. Abstract symbolic recognition ismore effective than tangible rewards. Thefinal generalization about recognition isthat, abstract, symbolic recognition is moreeffective than tangible rewards. This is animportant distinction. Many of the studiesthat produced negative results for the use ofrewards, used tangible rewards such asmoney and candy. We should first note thateven these tangible rewards can have a posi-tive effect on intrinsic motivation whenthey are used in accordance with General-ization 2—as contingent on the completionof some performance standard. The research

indicates, however, that the more abstractand symbolic forms of reward are, the morepowerful they are. To illustrate, consider thefindings in Figure 4.7, which are taken fromthe study by Cameron and Pierce (1994).

Notice that the use of verbal rewardshas effect sizes of .42 and .45 on intrinsicmotivation when motivation is measuredby attitude and free time, respectively—verbal reward seems to work no matterhow one measures intrinsic motivation.Tangible rewards, on the other hand, do notseem to work well as motivators, regardlessof how motivation is measured. Thesepowerful findings for verbal recognition ledresearchers Cameron and Pierce to note:

When praise and other forms of positivefeedback are given and later removed, peo-ple continued to show interest in their work.In contrast to recent claims made by Kohn(1993, p. 55), verbal praise is an extrinsicmotivator that positively alters attitude andbehaviors (1994, p. 397).

Given the validity of the three generaliza-tions above, it appears obvious that abstract

FIGURE 4.6

Meta-analytic Results Supporting Rewards

Measure Used to No. of Study Assess Intrinsic Motivation Effect Sizes (ESs) Average ES Percentile Gain

Cameron & Pierce, 1994 Free time 44 –.04 –2

Attitude 39 .14 6

Wiersma, 1992 Performance 11 .34 13


rewards—particularly praise—when givenfor accomplishing specific performancegoals, can be a powerful motivator for stu-dents. Given the lack of understanding ofthe effects of these types of rewards andthe negative opinion some educators haveadopted toward them, we believe that thebest way to think of abstract contingency-based rewards is as “recognition”—recogni-tion for specific accomplishments. This iswhy we have entitled this section “recogni-tion” as opposed to “reward” or “praise.”

C l a ss r o o m P r a c t i c e i nP r o v i d i n g R e c o g n i t i o n

Personalizing Recognition

When recognizing the accomplishmentof a performance standard as articulated inGeneralization 2, it is best to make thisrecognition as personal to the students aspossible. The following example describesthe efforts of a group of teachers to estab-

lish school routines that result in personal-izing recognition for students.

At a high school faculty meeting, teacherswere engaged in a lively conversation aboutgrading practices. Some teachers made thecase that a significant number of studentswere making major improvements in theiracademic work, but might never make thehonor role. Although some teachers arguedthat “that’s the way real life is,” others coun-tered by reiterating the mission of theschool—“to help all students reach their po-tential.” As a result of this conversation, andbecause of the work of a designated taskforce, the school developed a program wherestudents—at all achievement levels—werehelped to set ambitious personal achieve-ment goals. Anyone who achieved his or hergoal was recognized publicly by making the“Personal Best”Honor Role. This evolved intoan honor as coveted as much as, if not morethan, making the traditional honor role.

Pause, Prompt, and Praise

One strategy that makes effective useof praise is an adaptation of what is com-monly referred to as “Pause, Prompt, and

FIGURE 4.7

Influence of Abstract Versus Tangible Rewards

Type of Reward No. of Effect Sizes (ESs) Ave. ES Percentile Gain

Verbal on attitude 15 .42 16

Verbal on free time 15 .45 17

Tangible on attitude 37 .04 2

Tangible on free time 51 –.20 –8

*Computed from data in Cameron and Pierce, 1994.


Praise” (see Merrett & Thorpe, 1996). Thisstrategy is best used while students are en-gaged in a particularly demanding task withwhich they are having difficulty. Duringthe “pause” phase of the strategy, theteacher asks the students to stop workingon the task for a moment. During thattime, teacher and student have a brief dis-cussion as to why the student is experienc-ing difficulty. As a “prompt,” the teacherprovides the student with some specificsuggestion for improving his or her perfor-mance. If the student’s performance im-proves as a result of implementing this sug-gestion, then “praise” is given. The followingexample depicts the potential positive in-fluence of this strategy in a math class.

Jake was struggling with long division and wasbecoming discouraged. His frustration musthave been obvious because the teacherstopped at his desk and asked him to putdown his pencil.When she saw that he wasmaking mistakes mainly because his columnswere sloppy, she gave him a piece of graphpaper and showed him how to use it tomake sure his numbers were lined up prop-erly. He was surprised how well it workedand was thrilled when the next time theteacher stopped at his desk, it was to con-gratulate him on having completed fourproblems with no mistakes.

Concrete Symbols of Recognition

Many teachers, who consistently giveappropriate verbal recognition for their stu-dents’ accomplishments, would agree thatit is also appropriate to offer their studentsconcrete, symbolic tokens of recognition.

Stickers, awards, coupons, and treats are ex-amples of the types of tokens that are com-monly used. As stated in the first general-ization in this chapter, these tokens do notnecessarily diminish the intrinsic motiva-tion if the tokens are given for accomplish-ing specific performance goals. The follow-ing example illustrates the use of concretetokens in an informal but effective way.

Darryl had been in the International Bac-calaureate program for two years. He lovedto learn and was generally successful, but, forsome reason, he was feeling burned out thissemester. His grades had slipped a little, andhis mind was wandering in class. His teachernoticed this. She saw similar symptoms inother students. Fortunately for Darryl, shedecided that her “serious” students, like Dar-ryl, needed to lighten up. During the twoweeks leading up to a particularly importantexam, she systematically gave short practicequizzes. Every time a student scored be-tween 90 and 100 percent, or scored 10points higher than the previous day, he orshe received a prize.The prizes? Smiley facestickers, McDonald’s toys, cracker jacks,paper party hats. Darryl and his classmatesgot into it. Cheers and laughter accompa-nied every awards ceremony. More impor-tant, when the teacher announced thescores for the big examination, academicperformance had never been better.

♦ ♦ ♦

Reinforcing effort can help teach studentsone of the most valuable lessons they canlearn—the harder you try, the more suc-cessful you are. In addition, providingrecognition for attainment of specific goalsnot only enhances achievement, but itstimulates motivation.

“I hate homework.Why can’t we just learn at school and be done with it?I know how to do these problems, and I’ve shown that I understand them.So, why do I have to do 25?” Jeff had expressed this point of view manytimes before, but this time his mother had an answer.

“At Back-to-School night, your teachers explained some things abouthomework to us and went over what they see as the parent’s job. Let mesee if I get this right. If they asked you to do 25 problems, you are probablysupposed to practice in order to increase your accuracy and speed. So it’sprobably not a good idea to sit there in front of the TV while you do theproblems.”

Jeff ’s mother also remembered some of the tips the parents were givenfor helping students with their homework. “OK. Here is the kitchen timer.When I say ‘Go,’ do the first five problems and yell ‘Stop’ when you finish.”For the next 30 minutes, Jeff charted and tried to beat his time as he dideach set of 5 problems, making sure that he also attended to being accu-rate. He had to admit that the time flew by and that it was kind of fun.

“Your teacher will love it if you hand in your chart with the completedproblems,” Jeff ’s mom suggested. In fact, Jeff ’s teacher liked it so much thatthe students’ speed and accuracy charts became the focus of the teacher’sfeedback whenever the goal was to practice a skill.

Homework and practice are instructional techniques that are wellknown to teachers. Both provide students with opportunities todeepen their understanding and skills relative to content that hasbeen initially presented to them.

5H O M E W O R K

A N D P R A C T I C E










60

FIGURE 5.1

Research Results for Homework

Synthesis Study Focus No. of Effect Sizes (ESs) Ave. ES Percentile Gain

Paschal,Weinstein, General effects & Walberg, 1984 of homework 81 .36 14

Graue,Weinstein, General effects & Walberg, 1983 of homework 29 .49 19

Hattie, 1992 General effects of homework 110 .43 1

Ross, 1988 General effects of homework 53 .65 24

H O M E W O R K A N D P R A C T I C E 61

R e s e a rc h a n d T h e o r yo n H o m e w o r kIt is no exaggeration to say that homeworkis a staple of U.S. education. By the timestudents reach the middle grades, home-work has become a part of their lives. Thereason commonly cited for homeworkmakes good sense: It extends learning op-portunities beyond the confines of theschool day. This might be necessary because“schooling occupies only about 13 percentof the waking hours of the first 18 years oflife,” which is less than the amount of timestudents spend watching television (Fraser,Walberg, Welch, & Hattie, 1987, p. 234).Figure 5.1 shows some of the research find-ings on homework.

We have found four generalizations thatcan guide teachers in the use of homework.

1. The amount of homework assignedto students should be different from ele-

mentary to middle school to high school.One of the controversies surroundinghomework is whether it is an effectivelearning tool for students at the elementarylevel. This first became an issue as a resultof the findings of a meta-analysis con-ducted by researcher Harris Cooper (1989a, b). After a review of the research up to1988, Cooper reported the following effectsizes:

Grades 4–6: ES = .15Grades 7–9: ES = .31Grades 10–12: ES = .64

Whereas homework in high school pro-duces a gain of about 24 percentile points,homework in the middle grades produces again of only 12 percentile points. What wasmost striking in Cooper’s finding is thathomework had a relatively small effect—apercentile gain of 6 points—on studentachievement at grades 4–6. This finding hasled some to conclude that elementary stu-dents should not be assigned any home-

takes work at home as well as at school(1989b, p. 90).

Given the findings in recent years thathomework does positively influence theachievement of elementary students andthe 1989 (a and b) endorsement byCooper, even though his synthesis of theresearch at that time did not show a rela-tionship between elementary school home-work and achievement, it is safe to con-clude that students in grades from, at least2nd and beyond, should be asked to dosome homework.

This said, it is also important to realizethat students at lower grade levels shouldbe given far less homework than students athigher grade levels. The critical question ishow much homework is the right amount ofhomework. Unfortunately, there is no clearanswer on this point. Figure 5.2 presentsrecommendations from various studies.


work. It is important to note that sinceCooper’s meta-analysis, there have been anumber of studies (some of them con-ducted by Cooper) indicating that home-work does produce beneficial results forstudents in grades as low as 2nd grade (seeCooper, Lindsay, Nye, & Greathouse, 1998;Cooper, Valentine, Nye, & Lindsay, 1999;Good, Grouws, & Ebmeier, 1983; Gorges &Elliott, 1995; Rosenberg, 1989). In fact,even though Cooper found little effect forhomework for students at the elementarylevel in his 1989 (a and b) report, he stillrecommended homework for elementarystudents:

First, I recommend that elementary studentsbe given homework even though it shouldnot be expected to improve test scores. In-stead, homework for young children shouldhelp them develop good study habits, fosterpositive attitudes toward school, and com-municate to students the idea that learning

FIGURE 5.2

Recommended Total Minutes Per Day for Homework

Pennsylvania Leone & Tymms &Dept. of Education, Richard, Bond & Smith, Strang, Keith, Fitz-Gibbs,

Grade Level 1973 1989 1966 1975 1982 1992

Primary 30 20–29 10

Upper Elementary 45–90 30–40 40*

Middle School /Jr. High School 90–120 50 50 60*

High School 120–180 120 60* 60

* These numbers are estimates, based on the author’s comments.


Finally, even though there is certainly apractical (and ethical) limit to the amountof homework that should be assigned tostudents at the high school level, the morehomework students do, the better theirachievement. Specifically, Keith’s data indi-cate that for about every 30 minutes of“additional” homework a student does pernight, his or her overall grade point average(GPA) increases about half a point. Thismeans that if a student with a GPA of 2.00increases the amount of homework shedoes by 30 minutes per night, her GPA willrise to 2.50.

2. Parent involvement in homeworkshould be kept to a minimum. It is proba-bly safe to say that many parents assumethat they should help their children withhomework. In fact, some districts havewritten homework policies articulat-ing how parents should be involved(Roderique, Pulloway, Cumblad, & Epstein,1994). While it is certainly legitimate to in-form parents of the homework assigned totheir children, it does not seem advisable tohave parents help their children withhomework. Specifically, many studies showminimal and even somewhat negative ef-fects when parents are asked to help stu-dents with homework (see Balli, 1998;Balli, Demo, & Wedman, 1998; Balli, Wed-man, & Demo, 1997; Perkins & Milgram,1996). This does not mean that parentsshould not help “facilitate” homework, asdemonstrated by Jeff’s mother in the vi-gnette introducing this chapter. Parents

should be careful, however, not to solvecontent problems for students.

3. The purpose of homework shouldbe identified and articulated. Not allhomework is the same. That is, homeworkcan be assigned for different purposes, anddepending on the purpose, the form ofhomework and the feedback provided stu-dents will differ. Two common purposes forhomework are (1) practice and (2) prepa-ration or elaboration (see Foyle, 1985; Foyle& Bailey, 1988; Foyle, Lyman, Tompkins,Perne, & Foyle, 1990). When homework isassigned for the purpose of practice, itshould be structured around content withwhich students have a high degree of famil-iarity. For example, if students are asked topractice a new skill they have learned inclass via homework, they should be fairlyfamiliar with that skill. Practicing a skillwith which a student is unfamiliar is notonly inefficient, but might also serve to ha-bituate errors or misconceptions.

A second general purpose for home-work is to prepare students for new con-tent or have them elaborate on contentthat has been introduced. For example, ateacher might assign homework to havestudents begin thinking about the conceptof the cell prior to systematically studyingit in class. Similarly, after that concept ofthe cell has been introduced, the teachermight assign homework that asks studentsto elaborate on what they have learned. Inboth of these situations, it is not necessarythat students have an in-depth understand-


ing of the content (as is the case whenhomework is used for practice).

4. If homework is assigned, it should be commented on. One set of studies (seeWalberg, 1999) found that the effects ofhomework vary greatly, depending on thefeedback a teacher provides. Figure 5.3 re-ports these findings.

Figure 5.3 illustrates that homework as-signed but not commented on generates aneffect size of only .28. When homework isgraded, however, the effect size increases to .78. Finally, homework on which theteacher provides written comments for stu-dents has an effect size of .83, representinga percentile gain of 30 points.

C l a ss r o o m P r a c t i c e i nA ss i g n i n g H o m e w o r k

1. Establish and communicate a home-work policy. Students and their parents needto understand the purposes of homework,the amount of homework that will be as-signed, consequences for not completing the

homework, and a description of the types ofparental involvement that are acceptable.Each of the generalizations in this chaptershould be considered when establishing apolicy that will be feasible and defensible.Whether districts, schools, or individualteachers establish these guidelines, commu-nicating clearly with students and parentscan decrease potential homework-relatedtensions that can grow between teachers andstudents, between parents and teachers, andbetween parents and their children. Estab-lishing, communicating, and then adheringto clear policies also will increase the likeli-hood that homework will enhance studentachievement.The following example illus-trates what a homework policy might in-clude and how teachers might communicateit to parents and students.

One evening during the first week of school,Sharmine asked her parents to set aside 30minutes to sit with her. Her teacher hadgiven her a two-page homework policy, andthey were to read it together. Further, bothshe and her parents had to sign it, andSharmine had to return it the next day whenall students would place the policy in front of

FIGURE 5.3

Research Results for Graded Homework

No. of Use of Homework Effect Sizes (ESs) Ave. ES Percentile Gain

Homework with teachers’ comments as feedback 2 .83 30

Graded homework 3 .78 28

Assigned homework but not graded or commented on 47 .28 11


their notebooks. Her parents were surprisedwhen they saw the level of detail in the pol-icy. Their older children had simply been toldabout the consequences for missing home-work (usually points were deducted), butthis policy explained much more.They wereparticularly pleased to see the following:

◆ Help set up a consistent organized placefor homework to be done.

◆ Help your child establish either a con-sistent schedule for completing home-work or help him create a schedule eachSunday night that reflects that particularweek’s activities.

◆ Encourage, motivate, and prompt yourchild, but do not sit with her and do thehomework with her. The purpose of thehomework is for your child to practiceand use what she has learned. If your child is consistently not able to do thehomework by herself, please contact theteacher.

◆ If your child is practicing a skill, ask him totell you which steps are easy for him,which are difficult, or how he is going toimprove. If your child is doing a project, askhim what knowledge he is applying in theproject. If, your child is consistently unableto talk about the knowledge he is practic-ing or using, please call the teacher.

◆ Although there might be exceptions, theminutes your child should spend on home-work should equal approximately 10 timesher grade level (a 2nd grader wouldspend 20 minutes, a 3rd grader, 30, andso on).

◆ When bedtime comes, please stop yourchild, even if he is not done.

2. Design homework assignments that

clearly articulate the purpose and outcome.

The third generalization, discussed earlier

in this chapter, explained that one purposefor homework is to provide time for stu-dents to practice what they have learned inclass. A second is to prepare for new infor-mation or elaborate on information thathas been introduced. Sometimes studentsdo not distinguish between these two pur-poses. Some might even think that whattheir teachers really care about is that theysimply complete the homework. Conse-quently, it is important to clearly identifythe purpose of a given homework assign-ment and communicate that purpose. Thefollowing example describes how thismight be done.

Carly opened her assignment notebook torecord the homework for the evening. Thepages for the assignment notebook hadbeen copied for students at the beginning ofthe year so each page was organized thesame, much like the templates provided inbusiness daily calendars. For each day of theweek, there were several squares organizedas follows:

Subject: ________________________Due Date: ______________________What I have to do tonight: _________Purpose of assignment: ____________What I have to already know or be able to do in order to complete theassignment: _____________________

At the beginning of the year, the teacher hadreviewed how to fill out these squares. Al-though many students were a little over-whelmed when they first saw these pages,they soon became quite good at filling outeach section quickly and concisely.One of thethings they liked best about the “assignment


squares” was that it gave them clear direc-tions regarding what they were supposed todo and why they were being asked to do it.

3. Vary the approaches to providingfeedback. Providing feedback on home-work serves to enhance student achieve-ment. Although the goal is to provide asmuch high-quality, specific feedback aspossible, the reality is that not all home-work will receive the same level of teacherattention. Many teachers try to grade andcomment on each assignment, but whenthat is infeasible, they employ strategiesthat help them manage the workload andmaximize the effectiveness of the feedback.The following example depicts one of thesestrategies.

If the homework for several nights in a row ison a single topic, the 5th grade students inMs. Braun’s class grade or discuss their ownwork in class the next morning and thenplace it in a portfolio kept in the classroom.

As frequently as possible, Ms. Braun reviewsthe work and makes specific comments on it. When Ms. Braun assigns homework to help students practice a skill to improve theirspeed and accuracy, she commonly explainsto students that she would like them to pro-vide some of their own feedback. Specifically,students are asked to keep track of their ownspeed and accuracy. If any students desirespecific feedback from Ms. Braun, she sched-ules a time to discuss their progress with her.

R e s e a rc h a n d T h e o r yR e l a t e d t o P r a c t i c eIt is intuitively obvious that practice is nec-essary for learning knowledge of any type.In fact, the section on homework specifi-cally mentioned the importance of practice.Here, we consider the specifics of practicein a little more depth. Figure 5.4 reportssome of the results of studies that have at-tempted to synthesize the research onpractice.

FIGURE 5.4

Research Results for Practice

Synthesis Study Focus No. of Effect Sizes (ESs) Ave. ES Percentile Gain

Ross, 1988 General effects of practice 9 1.29 40

Bloom, 1976a General effects of practice 7 .54 2134 .93 3210 1.43 42

Kumar, 1991 General effects of practice 5 1.58 44

a Multiple effect sizes are listed for the Bloom study because of the manner in which effect sizes were reported. Readers shouldconsult that study for more details.


We have drawn two generalizationsfrom the research on practice.

1. Mastering a skill requires a fairamount of focused practice. Research incognitive psychology has demonstrated thatskill learning commonly takes on a specificform (see Anderson, J. R., 1995; Newell &Rosenbloom, 1981). Figure 5.5 shows thisform, the “learning line.”

The vertical axis in Figure 5.5 repre-sents improvement in learning. It is basedon a 100-point scale, where a score of 100represents complete mastery of the skilland a score of zero indicates no knowledge

of the skill. The horizontal axis representsthe number of practice sessions in which astudent has engaged. There are a few im-portant things to note about Figure 5.5.First, notice how much practice it takes forstudents to reach a fair level of competencein a skill. It’s not until students have prac-ticed upwards of about 24 times that theyreach 80-percent competency. Second, no-tice how the increase in competence is lessand less after each practice. This is depictedrather dramatically in Figure 5.6.

Figure 5.6 indicates that the first fourpractice sessions result in a level of compe-tence that is 47.9 percent of complete mas-

FIGURE 5.5

Learning Line

200

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 ... 1,000

FIGURE 5.6

Increase in Learning Between Practice Sessions

Practice Session # Increase in Learning (%) Cumulative Increase (%)

1 22.918 22.918

2 11.741 34.659

3 7.659 42.318

4 5.593 47.911

5 4.349 52.26

6 3.534 55.798

7 2.960 58.754

8 2.535 61.289

9 2.205 63.494

10 1.945 65.439

11 1.740 67.179

12 1.562 68.741

13 1.426 70.167

14 1.305 71.472

15 1.198 72.670

16 1.108 73.778

17 1.034 74.812

18 .963 75.775

19 .897 76.672

20 .849 77.521

21 .802 78.323

22 .761 79.084

23 .721 79.805

24 .618 80.423


tery. The next four practice sessions, how-ever, account for about a 14-percent in-crease only. Learning new content, then,does not happen quickly. It requires prac-

tice spread out over time. The results ofsuch practice will be increments in learningthat start out rather large but gradually getsmaller and smaller as students fine tune


their knowledge and skill. It is only after agreat deal of practice that students can per-form a skill with speed and accuracy.

2. While practicing, students shouldadapt and shape what they have learned.One finding from the research on practicethat has strong classroom implications isthat students must adapt or “shape” skills asthey are learning them. In fact, one canthink of skill learning as involving a “shap-ing phase.” It is during this shaping phasethat learners attend to their conceptual un-derstanding of a skill. When students lackconceptual understanding of skills, they areliable to use procedures in shallow and in-effective ways (see Clement, Lockhead, &Mink, 1979; Davis, R. B., 1984; Mathemati-cal Science Education Board, 1990;Romberg & Carpenter, 1986).

Apparently, it is important to deal withonly a few examples during the shapingphase of learning a new skill or process.The shaping phase is not the time to pressstudents to perform a skill with significantspeed. Unfortunately, Healy (1990) reportsthat educators in the United States tend toprematurely engage students in a heavypractice schedule and rush them throughmultiple examples. In contrast, as Healy re-ports, Japanese educators attend to theneeds of the shaping process by slowlywalking through only a few examples:

Whereas American second graders mayspend thirty minutes on two or three pagesof addition and subtraction equations, theJapanese are reported to be more likely at

this level to use the same amount of time inexamining two or three problems in depth,focusing on the reasoning process necessaryto solve them (p. 281).

C l a ss r o o m P r a c t i c eR e g a rd i n g P r a c t i c i n gS k i l l sCharting Accuracy and Speed

The first generalization regarding “prac-tice” notes that skills should be learned tothe level that students can perform themquickly and accurately. To facilitate skill de-velopment, students should be encouragedto keep track of their speed and accuracy.This might be best accomplished if theychart both. The following example showshow charting worked for one class in thecontext of analogy problems.

Mrs. Cummings was helping her students ex-pand their vocabulary, in part to prepare forthe analogy section of the upcoming statetest. She designed a series of homework as-signments, in-class exercises, and tests thatpresented students with a wide variety ofanalogy problems. Students had 30 minutesto complete each test. For homework, stu-dents timed themselves as they took thesetests, stopping at 30 minutes. At the end ofeach exercise or test, Mrs. Cummings re-viewed the correct answers. Students kepttrack of the number of problems they com-pleted in each 30-minute time period, as wellas the number of problems they answeredcorrectly. They then charted their speed andaccuracy to see if their accuracy suffered as


their speed increased or if they were able toachieve increased accuracy and speed.

Designing Practice Assignments ThatFocus on Specific Elements of a ComplexSkill or Process

The idea of “focused practice” is partic-ularly important when students are practic-ing a complex, multistep skill or process,such as the research process, scientific in-quiry, or the writing process. If, for exam-ple, there is some aspect of the process thatis particularly troublesome for students,they might need to be given assignmentsthat help them focus their practice on thatone aspect. This type of practice is referredto as focused because the learner still en-gages in the overall skill or process, but tar-gets one particular aspect to attend to. Thefollowing example shows how focusedpractice worked for one student in improv-ing his writing skills.

Jackson had been writing essays and storiesall year in his 8th grade language arts classbut felt that he wasn’t really getting thatmuch better. Several of his friends felt thesame. His teacher, always probing for feed-back from his students, heard their frustra-tion. In a class discussion, they decided to es-tablish more of a focus when they werewriting. Jackson suggested they work onwriting better conclusions to paragraphs be-cause so many of his conclusions were be-ginning to sound the same. For example, hebegan most of his final sentences with “Inconclusion,” or “As you can see.” Even hewas sick of this approach.

For the next two weeks, the teacherfocused every writing assignment on con-structing better conclusions. He sometimesused the students’ own work and some-times used sample paragraphs from whichhe removed the last sentence and thenasked students to create a conclusion. As aresult, Jackson began to see real progress inthis one aspect of writing.

Planning Time for Students to IncreaseTheir Conceptual Understanding of Skills or Processes

While planning curriculum, manyteachers identify the skills and processesstudents must learn and then try to decidehow much instructional and homeworktime will be dedicated to each skill orprocess. Teachers typically set time asidefor modeling the skill or process, for pro-viding guided practice with the steps of theskill or process, and then for assigning inde-pendent practice sessions. It is also impor-tant, however, that students understandhow a skill or process works. It is duringcurriculum planning that a teacher mustmake a commitment to increasing students’understanding of skills and processes andthen identifying activities to accomplishthis instructional goal. The following exam-ple shows how planning for understandingmight play out in a physical educationclass:

Maria, a second-year high school physical ed-ucation teacher, could see that her studentswere anxious to get on the tennis courts


and start practicing the serve that she hadjust demonstrated. “Hold on. You are notready to practice. I want you to become agood server, but I also want you to under-stand what makes a good serve and to fig-ure out what works best for you.”

While the rest of the class worked on askill she had taught earlier that semester,Maria worked with small groups of studentson serving. She asked each student to per-form their serve in slow motion and then hadthem “freeze” at various points in the serve.She then provided several variations of thatparticular part of the serve and explained theadvantages and disadvantages of each. Stu-

dents then tried the serve several times, againin slow motion, using the different variations.For homework, students were asked to de-scribe which variations worked best for themand why they thought it worked.

♦ ♦ ♦

Homework and practice are ways of ex-tending the school day and providing stu-dents with opportunities to refine and ex-tend their knowledge. Teachers can useboth of these practices as powerful instruc-tional tools.










Mrs. Maly asked her 5th graders to put their heads down on their desks andclose their eyes. She started reading aloud from the book, A Street ThroughTime, by Anne Millard.The book describes an old street that becomes in-habited by nomadic hunter-gatherers.Throughout the book, the period inwhich the story takes place keeps changing, as do the demands placed onthe people living in the “street through time.” As she read the first coupleof pages, she described what she saw “in her mind.” She asked her studentsto “see in their mind” what they were hearing her say. She also told studentsthat they could interrupt her reading to ask questions (e.g.,What does theroof on the hut look like? Did the people hurt when they got the plague?)When she finished reading the story, Mrs. Maly asked students to work in-dependently drawing pictures of their “favorite scenes” from the imagesthey had created in their minds.

The next day, students shared and explained their pictures in smallgroups.When they finished, each group drew a semantic web to depict theinformation from the story they thought was the most important. Mrs. Malyinstructed students to use the first layer of the web to choose generalterms that were common to all time periods described in the story (e.g.,transportation, food, shelter, and work).The next layer of the web was de-voted to examples and illustrations of the common terms during specificeras depicted in the book.

Mrs. Maly has made good use of a powerful aspect of learning—generating mental pictures to go along with information, as well ascreating graphic representations for that information.

6N O N L I N G U I S T I C

R E P R E S E N T A T I O N S

72

N O N L I N G U I S T I C R E P R E S E N T A T I O N S 73

R e s e a rc h a n d T h e o r y o n N o n l i n g u i s t i cR e p r e s e n t a t i o n sMany psychologists adhere to what hasbeen called the “dual-coding” theory of in-formation storage (see Paivio, 1969, 1971,1990). This theory postulates that knowl-edge is stored in two forms—a linguisticform and an imagery form. The linguisticmode is semantic in nature. As a metaphor,one might think of the linguistic mode ascontaining actual statements in long-termmemory. The imagery mode, in contrast, isexpressed as mental pictures or even physi-cal sensations, such as smell, taste, touch,kinesthetic association, and sound(Richardson, 1983).

In this book, the imagery mode of rep-resentation is referred to as a nonlinguisticrepresentation. The more we use both sys-tems of representation—linguistic and non-linguistic—the better we are able to thinkabout and recall knowledge. This is particu-larly relevant to the classroom, becausestudies have consistently shown that theprimary way we present new knowledge tostudents is linguistic. We either talk tothem about the new content or have themread about the new content (see Flanders,1970). This means that students are com-monly left to their own devices to generatenonlinguistic representations. When teach-ers help students in this kind of work, how-

ever, the effects on achievement are strong.It has even been shown that explicitly en-gaging students in the creation of nonlin-guistic representations stimulates and in-creases activity in the brain (see Gerlic &Jausovec, 1999). Figure 6.1 summarizesfindings from a variety of studies that haveattempted to synthesize the research onnonlinguistic representation.

We have found two generalizations thatcan guide teachers in the use of nonlinguis-tic representations in the classroom.

1. A variety of activities produce non-

linguistic representations. Though we needto remember that the goal of instructionalstrategies in this section is to produce non-linguistic representations of knowledge inthe minds of students, it is also true that thiscan be accomplished in many ways. Re-search indicates that each of the followingactivities enhances the development ofnonlinguistic representations in studentsand, therefore, enhances their understand-ing of that content:

◆ Creating graphic representations(Alvermann & Boothby, 1986; Armbruster,Anderson, & Meyer, 1992; Darch, Carnine,& Kameenui, 1986; Griffin, Simmons, &Kameenui, 1992; Horton, Lovitt, &Bergerud, 1990; McLaughlin, 1991; Robin-son & Kiewra, 1996).

◆ Making physical models (Welch,1997).


◆ Generating mental pictures (Muehlherr& Siermann, 1996; Willoughby, Desmarias,Wood, Sims, & Kalra, 1997).

◆ Drawing pictures and pictographs(Macklin, 1997; Newton, 1995; Pruitt,1993).

◆ Engaging in kinesthetic activity (Aubus-son, Foswill, Barr, & Perkovic, 1997;Druyan, 1997).

2. Nonlinguistic representationsshould elaborate on knowledge. In simpleterms, elaboration involves “adding to”knowledge. For example, a student elabo-rates on his knowledge of fractions when

he constructs a mental model of how afraction might appear in concrete form.When students elaborate on knowledge,they not only understand it in greaterdepth, but they can recall it much moreeasily (Pressley, Symons, McDaniel, Snyder,& Turnure, 1988; Woloshyn, Willoughby,Wood, & Pressley, 1990). Fortunately, theprocess of generating nonlinguistic repre-sentations engages students in elaborativethinking (see Anderson, J. R., 1990). Thatis, when a student generates a nonlinguisticrepresentation of knowledge, by definition,she has elaborated on it. Finally, the powerof elaboration can be enhanced by asking

FIGURE 6.1

Research Results for Nonlinguistic Representation

No. of Synthesis Study Focus Effect Sizes (ESs) Ave. ES Percentile Gain

Mayer, 1989a General Nonlinguistic Techniques 10 1.02 3416 1.31 40

Athappilly,Smidchens,& Kofel, 1980 General Nonlinguistic Techniques 39 .510 19

Powell, 1980 a General Nonlinguistic Techniques 13 1.01 346 1.16 384 .56 21

Hattie et al., 1996 General Nonlinguistic Techniques 9 .91 32

Walberg, 1999 a General Nonlinguistic Techniques 24 .56 2164 1.04 35

Guzzetti, Snyder,& Glass, 1993 General Nonlinguistic Techniques 3 .51 20

Fletcher, 1990 General Nonlinguistic Techniques 47 .50 20

a Multiple effect sizes are listed because of the manner in which the effect sizes were reported. Readers should consult those studiesfor more details.


students to explain and justify their elabo-rations (Willoughby et al., 1997).

C l a ss r o o m P r a c t i c e i nN o n l i n g u i s t i cR e p r e s e n t a t i o n

Creating Graphic Organizers

Graphic organizers are perhaps themost common way to help students gener-ate nonlinguistic representations. One ofthe most comprehensive treatments of theuse of graphic organizers can be found inthe book Visual Tools for ConstructingKnowledge by David Hyerle (1996). Actu-

ally, graphic organizers combine the linguis-tic mode in that they use words and phrases,and the nonlinguistic mode in that they usesymbols and arrows to represent relation-ships. The following six graphic organizershave great utility in the classroom becausethey correspond to six common patternsinto which most information can be orga-nized: descriptive patterns, time-sequencepatterns, process/cause-effect patterns,episode patterns, generalization/principlepatterns, and concept patterns.

Descriptive Patterns. Descriptive pat-terns can be used to represent facts aboutspecific persons, places, things, and events.The information organized into a descrip-tive pattern does not need to be in any par-ticular order. Figure 6.2 shows how teach-

FIGURE 6.2

Descriptive Pattern Organizer

TOPIC

FACT

FACT

FACT

FACT

FACT


ers and students can graphically represent adescriptive pattern.

Time-Sequence Patterns. Time-sequence patterns organize events in aspecific chronological order. For example,information about the development of theApollo space program can be organized asa sequence pattern. Figure 6.3 shows howyou might represent a time-sequencepattern graphically.

Process/Cause-Effect Patterns.Process/cause-effect patterns organize in-formation into a causal network leading toa specific outcome or into a sequence of

steps leading to a specific product. Forexample, information about the factors that typically lead to the development of a healthy body might be organized as aprocess/cause-effect pattern. Figure 6.4shows a graphic representation of aprocess/cause-effect pattern.

Episode Patterns. Episode patterns or-ganize information about specific events,including (1) a setting (time and place),(2) specific people, (3) a specific duration,(4) a specific sequence of events, and (5) aparticular cause and effect. For example,students might organize information about the French Revolution into an episode pat-tern using a graphic like that shown inFigure 6.5.

Generalization/Principle Patterns.Generalization/principle patterns organizeinformation into general statements withsupporting examples. For instance, for thestatement, “A mathematics function is a re-

Even

t

Even

t

Even

t

Even

t

Even

t

Even

t

FIGURE 6.3

Time Sequence Pattern Organizer

FIGURE 6.4

Process/Cause-Effect Pattern Organizer

EFFECT


lationship where the value of one variabledepends on the value of another variable,”students can provide and represent exam-ples in a graphic like that shown in Figure 6.6.

Concept Patterns. Concept patterns,the most general of all patterns, organizeinformation around a word or phrase thatrepresents entire classes or categories ofpersons, places, things, and events. Thecharacteristics or attributes of the concept,along with examples of each, should be in-cluded in this pattern. For example, stu-dents could use a graphic like the one inFigure 6.7 to organize the concept of fables,along with examples and characteristics.

The following example shows how astudent might use more than one graphicorganizer with a single topic.

When Ty Crocker studied for his test onLaw and the Legal System, he found a goodway to remember the three commonmethods for solving disputes out of court.He matched each of the three methods, ar-

EPISODE

FIGURE 6.5

Episode Pattern Organizer

Cause

Duration

Place

Time

Effect

Person Person Person

FIGURE 6.6

Generalization/PrinciplePattern Organizer

Example

Example

Generalization Principle

Example


bitration, negotiation, and voluntary mediation,to a different kind of graphic organizer hehad learned in his English class. For thetopic of arbitration, he used a “time-sequence pattern.” For negotiation, he used a “process or cause-effect pattern.”He created a “concept pattern” for volun-tary mediation. Figures 6.8–6.10 (pp. 79–80)show these graphic representations.

Using Other NonlinguisticRepresentations

Making Physical Models. As the nameimplies, physical models are concrete repre-sentations of the knowledge that is beinglearned. Mathematics and science teacherscommonly refer to the use of concrete rep-resentations as “manipulatives.” The very

act of generating a concrete representationestablishes an “image” of the knowledge instudents’ minds. The following exampleillustrates this process in the context of ascience class.

Mrs. Allison helped her 4th grade class tounderstand why we see different phases ofthe moon by presenting a concrete repre-sentation of the moon’s monthly journeyaround the earth and its relationship to thesun. For the moon, Mrs. Allison gave eachstudent a white Styrofoam ball and hadthem stick it on the end of a pencil. For thesun, she used a lamp with the shade re-moved. She told her students each of themwould be the earth.

Mrs. Allison placed the lamp in the middleof the room, pulled down the windowshades, and turned off the lights. Then shehad each student place the ball at arm’s

FIGURE 6.7

Concept Pattern Organizer

Example

ExampleExample

Example

Example

Example

Characteristic

Concept

Characteristic

Characteristic

Example


Asettlement is

reached.

FIGURE 6.8

Time-Sequence Pattern in Arbitration

Ste

p 5:

The

arbi

trat

or m

akes

his

or h

er fi

nal

deci

sion,

and

the

part

ies

mus

t ab

ide

by it

.

Ste

p 4:

In a

set

ting

muc

h le

ss fo

rmal

tha

n a

tria

l,th

e ar

bitr

ator

list

ens

to b

oth

sides

.

Ste

p 3:

The

cour

t ap

poin

ts a

n ar

bitr

ator

.

Ste

p 2:

Both

par

ties

agre

e to

hav

e an

othe

rpe

rson

list

en t

o th

eir

argu

men

ts a

nd m

ake

ade

cisio

n fo

r th

em.

Ste

p 1:

A d

isput

e or

igin

ates

bet

wee

ntw

o pa

rtie

s.

FIGURE 6.9

Process/Cause-Effect Pattern for Negotiation

Party OneBehavior

A disputearises between

two parties.

Party TwoBehavior

Each side sharesimportant facts.

A third party(attorney) works outthe settlement terms.


Neutralthirdparty

Helpsreach an

agreement

FIGURE 6.10

Concept Pattern for Voluntary Mediation

Used by avariety of

communityprograms

PeerMediators

SocialServices

DistrictAttorney’s

Office

Courts

Localresourcenetworks

Led by avariety ofpeople

Ombudsperson

Investigatescomplaints

Suggestsalternatives

Voluntary Mediation

Schools

NeighborhoodJustice

Centers

BetterBusinessBureau

Consumersand

businessesLandlordsand

tenants

Husbandsand

wives Used to solve avariety ofdisputes


length between the bulb and their eyes, sim-ulating a total solar eclipse, which, she ex-plained, is quite rare. Because the moon usu-ally passes above or below the sun as viewedfrom Earth, Mrs. Allison then had her stu-dents move their moon up or down a bit sothat they were looking into the Sun. Fromthis position the students could observe thatall the sunlight was shining on the far side ofthe moon, opposite the side they were view-ing, simulating a new moon.

Mrs. Allison guided her students to movetheir moons in such a way that they ob-served first a crescent moon, then a halfmoon, a full moon, and a three-quartermoon. At each point, Mrs. Allison pointedout that the sun was always illuminating halfof the moon (except in the case of a lunareclipse) and that the appearance of thethese fractions of moon was due to themoon’s changing position in relationship tothe earth over the course of a month.

Generating Mental Pictures. The mostdirect way to generate nonlinguistic repre-sentations is to simply construct (i.e., imag-ine) a mental picture of knowledge beinglearned. For abstract content, these mentalpictures might be highly symbolic. To illus-trate, psychologist John Hayes (1981) pro-vides an example of how a student mightgenerate a mental picture for the followingequation from physics:

(M1 M2)GF =

r2

The equation states that force (F) is equalto the product of the masses of two objects(M1and M2) times a constant (G) divided

by the square of the distance betweenthem r 2. There are a number of ways thisinformation might be represented symboli-cally. Hayes suggests an image of two largeglobes in space with the learner in the mid-dle trying to hold them apart:

If either of the globes were very heavy, wewould expect that it would be harder to holdthem apart than if both were light.Since forceincreases as either of the masses (M1 and M2)increases, the masses must be in the numer-ator. As we push the globes further apart, theforce of attraction between them will de-crease as the force of attraction between twomagnets decreases as we pull them apart.Since force decreases as distance increases, rmust be in the denominator (p. 126).

The following example shows how ateacher might facilitate the construction ofmental pictures in the context of a socialstudies class.

Mr. Williams’s 5th grade class is beginning aunit on the history of Native American cul-tures in the southwest United States. Tobegin, Mr. Williams introduces his students tothe strategy of creating mental pictures of in-formation and ideas. He tells them to imag-ine that they are early European explorerswho have stumbled on the abandoned cliffpalace of Mesa Verde. He has them closetheir eyes and imagine they are traveling byhorseback through the canyon lands. He hasthem “feel” the hot desert sunlight,“see” thescrubby vegetation, and “smell” the junipersand piñon pines.

“Imagine,” Mr. Williams says, “that yousuddenly see something in the distance thatlooks like an apartment building carved into


a cliff. Would you be puzzled? Curious?Frightened? Now imagine that you gallopyour horse to the edge of the cliff and peeracross at the black and tan sandstone andyes, it is something like an apartment build-ing. There are ladders, black hole windows,and circular pits, but no people. It’s absolutelyquiet.There’s no sign of life.Would you won-der what happened to the people who livedthere? What would you think about thebuilders of this mysterious structure? Wouldyou be brave enough to go inside? What doyou think you would find?”

Drawing Pictures and Pictographs.Drawing pictures or pictographs (i.e., sym-bolic pictures) to represent knowledge is apowerful way to generate nonlinguistic rep-resentations in the mind. For example, moststudents have either drawn or colored thehuman skeletal system or have seen a pic-ture of one in the classroom. Similarly, moststudents have drawn or colored a represen-tation of the solar system. A variation of apicture is the pictograph, which is a draw-ing that uses symbols or symbolic picturesto represent information. The following ex-ample shows how a 1st grade teacher usessymbolic pictures in a geography lesson.

Allison Mason’s 1st graders always have ahard time understanding the abstract ideathat the northern hemisphere tilts towardand away from the sun, causing summer andwinter. She asks the students to draw a pic-ture of the earth’s movement as she de-

scribes each season. Zach draws the pictureshown in Figure 6.11. Based on the picture,Ms. Mason and Zach have a conversationabout the earth’s tilt. When Zach draws inthe equator, he finally begins to understandwhat she means about the earth “tilting.”

Engaging in Kinesthetic Activity.Kinesthetic activities are those that involvephysical movement. By definition, physicalmovement associated with specific knowl-edge generates a mental image of theknowledge in the mind of the learner. (Re-call from the previous discussion that men-tal images include physical sensations.)Most children find this both a natural andenjoyable way to express their knowledge.The following example below illustratesthis in the context of a math class.

Often, to take a brief pause in math class, Ms.Jenkins asks her 4th grade students to thinkof ways they can represent what they arelearning. For example, during the lesson onradius, diameter, and circumference of cir-cles, Barry uses his left arm outstretched toshow radius, both arms outstretched toshow diameter, and both arms forming a cir-cle to show circumference. During a differ-ent lesson on angles, Devon depicts obtuseand acute angles by making wide and not-so-wide “Vs” with her arms as the childrenyell out the degrees.They even have ways toshow fractions, mixed numbers, and turningfractions into their simplest forms.

Ms. Jenkins started the activity she calledBody Math just to give the students a break


from the routine of doing math drills, butthen realized that it was a powerful way forstudents to show whether or not they un-derstood the concept behind the problems.Once the word got around, other studentscould be seen peeking in the classroom tosee what they were doing that day withbody math.

♦ ♦ ♦

Probably the most underused instructionalstrategy of all those reviewed in thisbook—creating nonlinguistic representa-tions—helps students understand contentin a whole new way. As we have seen,teachers can take a variety of approaches,ranging from graphic organizers to physicalmodels.

FIGURE 6.11

Student Pictograph

Ms. Cimino’s middle school class was beginning a unit on the regions of theUnited States. One of her goals was for students to understand how di-verse the regions are. Ms. Cimino explained to students that they wouldbe working in small groups to create a class presentation about a particu-lar region. Each presentation, which would be made in class in two weeks,was to cover the geography, weather patterns, and economic/cultural ac-tivities of the region. Ms. Cimino told students that they could use the re-sources in the classroom, the library, or any of three Internet sites she hadidentified.

To facilitate the groupwork, Ms. Cimino began by dividing the class intogroups of three and assigning a region to each group. Within each group,students agreed who would be the overall leader or organizer, the recorderof the group’s discussions, and so on. Each group also decided how theywould divide up the work; because there were three students in eachgroup, most groups divided the research into the three areas of focus Ms.Cimino had specified for the presentations. Ms. Cimino encouraged eachgroup to take time every couple of days to evaluate each individual’sprogress, as well as the group’s overall progress; to solve any problems theywere encountering; and to fine-tune their work as needed. Ms. Cimino metwith each group periodically to monitor their progress, help them solveproblems, and help them work together more effectively.

Ms. Cimino used one of the most popular instructional strategies ineducation—cooperative learning.

7C O O P E R A T I V E

L E A R N I N G










84

C O O P E R A T I V E L E A R N I N G 85

R e s e a rc h a n d T h e o r y o nC o o p e r a t i v e L e a r n i n gThe specific topic of this chapter is cooper-ative learning. One might view this topic,however, as falling within the more generalone of “grouping” strategies. The practice ofgrouping can be traced back to at least1867 when educational reformer W. T.Harris initiated a plan in St. Louis, Mis-souri, that allowed for the rapid promotionof students through the elementary grades.According to Kulik and Kulik (1982), theHarris plan “represented a first step towardability grouped classrooms” (p. 415). Itwasn’t until the turn of the century, how-ever, that a version of grouping was imple-mented that mirrored current practice.Specifically, in the Santa Barbara Plan, eachgrade was divided into A, B, and C sections.Although each grade mastered the samebasic content, the A group addressed thecontent in more depth than the B group,who addressed the content in more depththan the C group.

In 1982, Kulik and Kulik noted: “Today,thousands of American schools follow thismodel of homogeneous grouping” (p. 416).It is probably safe to say that since Kulikand Kulik’s observations in 1982, the prac-tice of forming whole classes on the basisof ability has decreased dramatically. Onereason for this might be the relatively smalleffect size associated with this practice. For

example, in their analysis of 52 studies car-ried out in secondary schools, Kulik andKulik found an average effect size of only.10 for ability grouping by class. Anotherreason for the decline in this practice mightbe that many educators have made strongclaims that ability grouping promotesinequity—in other words, it does little tonarrow the gap between the “low abilitystudents and the middle and high abilitystudents” (see Oakes, 1985). Given that inthis book we focus only on those instruc-tional variables over which a teacher hascontrol, we are not including in this chap-ter a discussion of the various ways a schoolmight organize students into homogeneousclasses. Rather, the focus of this chapter isthe ways a teacher might organize her stu-dents within a heterogeneous class.

From the title of this chapter, it is obvi-ous that we recommend the use of “coop-erative” grouping strategies. According toDavid Johnson and Roger Johnson (1999),recognized leaders in the field of coopera-tive learning, there are five defining ele-ments of cooperative learning:

◆ Positive interdependence (a sense ofsink or swim together).

◆ Face-to-face promotive interaction(helping each other learn, applauding suc-cess and efforts).

◆ Individual and group accountability(each of us has to contribute to the groupachieving its goals).


◆ Interpersonal and small group skills(communication, trust, leadership, decisionmaking, and conflict resolution).

◆ Group processing (reflecting on howwell the team is functioning and how tofunction even better) [Compiled from theWeb site (http://www.clcrc.com/index.html#essays) of the Cooperative LearningCenter at the University of Minnesota,codirected by Johnson and Johnson].

Figure 7.1 summarizes results from someof the studies that have attempted to syn-thesize the research in cooperative learning.

Of the studies listed in Figure 7.1, theone most commonly cited is the 1981study by Johnson and others. Perhaps most

noteworthy about this research synthesis isthat it contrasted cooperative learning withseveral related techniques, three of whichare reported in Figure 7.1: intergroup com-petition, individual competition, and use ofindividual student tasks. Johnson and col-leagues found that cooperative learninggroups and groups that engage in inter-group competition produce the same effecton student learning; this is indicated by the .00 effect size when the two are com-pared—there were no differences inachievement between the experimentaland control groups. But cooperative learn-ing has an effect size of .78 when com-pared with strategies in which studentscompete with each other (individual com-

FIGURE 7.1

Research Results for Cooperative Learning


Walberg, 1999 Cooperative learning (general) 182 .78 28

Lipsey & Wilson, 1993 Cooperative learning (general) 414 .63 23

Scheerens & Bosker,1997 Cooperative learning (general) — .56 21

Hall, 1989 Cooperative learning (general) 37 .30 12

Johnson, D., Maruyama,Johnson, R., Nelson,& Skon, 1981 Cooperative learning (general) 122 .73 27

Cooperative vs. intergroupcompetition 9 .00 0

Cooperative vs. individualcompetition 70 .78 28

Cooperative vs. individual studenttasks 104 .78 28


petition). Finally, cooperative learning hasan effect size of .78 when compared withinstructional strategies in which studentswork on tasks individually without compet-ing with one another (individual studenttasks). In general, then, organizing studentsin cooperative learning groups has a power-ful effect on learning, regardless of whethergroups compete with one another.

Three generalizations can be used toguide the use of cooperative learning:

1. Organizing groups based on abilitylevels should be done sparingly. One of themore controversial aspects of organizingstudents in groups (whether they be coop-erative groups or otherwise) is whether thegroups should be homogeneous—organizedby ability levels. In general, homogenousgrouping seems to have a positive effect onstudent achievement when compared withno grouping. Figure 7.2 reports results fromsome of the synthesis studies.

Of great importance to this discussionare the Lou and others (1996) findings thatstudents of all ability levels benefit fromability grouping when compared with nogrouping at all. Equally important, how-ever, are the findings reported in Figure7.3, which shows the results from studiesthat compared homogeneous versus het-erogeneous grouping.

As shown in Figure 7.3, students of lowability actually perform worse when theyare placed in homogeneous groups withstudents of low ability—as opposed to stu-dents of low ability placed in heteroge-neous groups. This is evidenced by the neg-ative effect size of –.60. In addition, theeffect of homogeneous grouping on high-ability students is positive but small (.09).It is the medium-ability students who ben-efit the most from homogeneous grouping(ES = .51). Grouping students by ability,then, might have very different effects ondifferent students—the experience of stu-

FIGURE 7.2

Homogenous Grouping Versus No Grouping


Slavin, 1987 Ability grouping (general) 7 .32 12

Kulik & Kulik, 1987 Ability grouping (general) 15 .17 6

Kulik & Kulik, 1991 Ability grouping (general) 11 .25 10

Lou et al., 1996 Ability grouping (general) 103 .17 6

Low-ability students 24 .37 14

Medium-ability students 11 .19 7

High-ability students 18 .28 11


dents in the low-ability group might bequite different from that of the experienceof students in the middle- and high-abilitygroups (Webb, 1982).

2. Cooperative groups should be keptrather small in size. This generalizationmight appear obvious, but it is certainlyworth mentioning. Specifically, Lou andothers (1996) reported the effect sizesshown in Figure 7.4.

These findings led Lou and colleaguesto recommend: “Small teams of three tofour members seem more effective thanlarger groups” (1996, p. 451).

3. Cooperative learning should beapplied consistently and systematically, but

not overused. Cooperative learning is aninstructional strategy that works best whenapplied systematically. In fact, Lou and col-leagues (1996) report that grouping strate-gies are most effective when applied atleast once a week. Some psychologists,however, warn against the “overuse” of co-operative learning. Specifically, researchersJohn Anderson, Lynne Reder, and HerbertSimon (1997) warn that cooperative learn-ing can be misused and is frequentlyoverused in education: it is misused whenthe tasks given to cooperative groups arenot well structured; it is overused when it isimplemented to such an extent that stu-dents have an insufficient amount of time

FIGURE 7.3

Homogeneous Versus Heterogeneous Grouping

Ability Level of Students No. of Effect Sizes (ESs) Ave. ES Percentile Gaina

Low ability 4 –.60 –23

Medium ability 4 .51 19

High ability 5 .09 3

a Data from Lou et al., 1996.

FIGURE 7.4

Size of Groups

Group Size No. of Effect Sizes (ESs) Ave. ES Percentile Gain

Pairs 13 .15 6

3–4 38 .22 9

5–7 17 –.02 –1


to practice independently the skills andprocesses that they must master.

C l a ss r o o m P r a c t i c e i nC o o p e r a t i v e L e a r n i n g

Using a Variety of Criteria for Grouping Students

When considering how to group stu-dents, remember that Generalization 1 sug-gests that ability grouping should be usedsparingly. Indeed, students can be groupedaccording to interest, according to theirbirthday month, according to the colorsthey are wearing, alphabetically, or evenrandomly by picking names from a hat. Tomaximize students’ experience, it is proba-bly a good idea to use a variety of criteria,as well as to adhere to the tenets of cooper-ative learning, to make the experience suc-cessful. Kagan (1994) suggests a variety ofgroup structures. The following exampledescribes the perspective of a student whoexperienced different types of cooperativelearning groups.

Tommy had not been happy when he heardthat in 4th grade science the students wouldbe working in groups all year. Most of his ex-perience with groups was in math, where hewas always in what he called “the math fordummies” group. He hated it. But, as he lis-tened to the science teacher, he began to un-derstand how these groups would be formedand how often they would change. First, theteacher explained that they would be in

groups about half of the time only.Then sheexplained that for the first unit, they would beplaced in groups based on the type of petsthey had.This would give them some com-mon experiences on which to build discus-sions of animals and their habits. If too manystudents had the same pets, such as a dog anda cat, or if only one student had a pet, for ex-ample, an iguana, they would mix and matchuntil the groups were small but shared somecommon experiences with animals. Tommydecided groups might be okay, after all.

Informal, Formal, and Base Groups

One way to vary the grouping patternswithin a class is to use the three types ofcooperative learning groups identified byJohnson and Johnson (1999)—informal,formal, and base groups. Informal groups(e.g., pair-share, turn-to-your-neighbor) aread hoc groups that last from a few minutesto a class period. They can be used to clar-ify expectations for tasks, focus students’attention, allow students time to moredeeply process information, or to providetime for closure. The following example de-picts how a teacher might use informalgroups of two while reading to students.

Mr. Anderson likes to read aloud originalsource documents about slavery to his 5thgraders. After reading for 10 minutes, hegives the students a discussion task to com-plete in pairs for 3–4 minutes. The task re-quires students to answer a specific questionthat he provides. After each member of apair formulates a response and discusses itwith his partner,Mr. Anderson begins to readaloud again. After 10 minutes, Mr. Anderson


stops and asks students to complete a sec-ond paired discussion task. Occasionally, heasks two or three pairs to share a brief sum-mary of their discussions. At the end of theclass, Mr. Anderson asks the paired studentsto summarize what they have learned fromthe readings and discussions in written formand turn their summaries in to him.

Formal groups are designed to ensure thatthe students have enough time to thor-oughly complete an academic assignment;therefore, they may last for several days oreven weeks. When using formal groups, theteacher designs tasks to include the basiccooperative learning components:

◆ Positive interdependence.◆ Group processing.◆ Appropriate use of social skills.◆ Face-to-face promotive interaction.◆ Individual and group accountability

(Johnson & Johnson, 1999).

The following example shows the use offormal groups in the context of a complextask.

Ms. Randall begins her high school econom-ics lesson on trade and consumers by askingher 32 students to form eight groups of 4 bycounting off from 1 to 8. The group mem-bers are each assigned a role: recorder, sum-marizer, technical advisor, and researcher.Each group is given the task of creating aproduct, using specific guidelines she hasprovided them. Over the course of fourdays, the students will work together to de-cide on a product, design it, and create amarketing display. They will try to sell theirproducts to the other teams. Ms. Randall sys-

tematically monitors individuals and groupsfor social skills, problem-solving strategies,and group processing. She often asks stu-dents to self-assess on specific skills. In thefinal presentation of the product, studentsmust demonstrate their individual contribu-tions, as well as the accomplishments of thegroup as a whole.

Base groups are long-term groups (e.g., forthe semester or year) created to providestudents with support throughout a semes-ter or an academic year. The following ex-ample shows the use of base groups in a3rd grade class.

When Mrs. Ramos told Mr. Stalls that it wasthe fourth week of school and she noticedthat her 3rd graders still didn’t know eachother by name, he suggested that she createbase groups. She had heard of using basegroups before to accomplish routine tasksand provide support for students,but thoughtthey were useful for older students only.

After she organized students into basegroups, she asked them to take a few min-utes to exchange phone numbers and shareany schedule information that they shouldknow about each other (e.g., soccer prac-tices, piano lessons, and scouting). She ex-plained that each day they would meet intheir base groups for five minutes to greeteach other, check to make sure homeworkwas turned in, and sign up for lunch choices.At the end of the day, they would also meetto review homework assignments and helpeach other with classroom chores.

Over the course of the year, the studentsstayed in these base groups. In addition tocompleting routine tasks, the base groupsplanned activities, ran errands (e.g., collectingall of the class library books and taking themto the media center on a cart), and had fun(e.g., teams on the field day). As a result of


the base groups, Mrs. Ramos noticed a dif-ference in the students’ general sense of be-longing to the class.

Managing Group Size

As described in Generalization 2,cooperative groups should be kept small.Although a given task may appear suited toa large group, students may not have theskills to work competently in a large group.Many teachers suggest that the rule ofthumb is “the smaller the better.” However,sometimes resources may dictate the use ofbigger groups. One of the managementtasks for a teacher is to continually monitorthe size of the groups he is using, makingchanges when warranted.

Mr. Eden’s students were in the media cen-ter working on their Constitution projects.Steve asked if he could talk for a few minutesabout their group because it wasn’t workingvery well. “There is definitely enough to doand we understand the assignment, butthere are just too many of us,” he said. Mr.Eden watched the group for a while and re-alized that Steve was right. That afternoon,Mr. Eden reorganized the students into tri-ads, instead of groups of six. It took someextra time to rearrange the tasks and reas-sign the work, but in the long run, he realizedthat he had complicated the task for stu-dents by using groups that were too large.

Combining Cooperative Learning withOther Classroom Structures

Even teachers who are extremely com-mitted to using cooperative learning groups

would agree with Generalization 3, thatcooperative learning can be overused. Anystrategy, in fact, can be overused and loseits effectiveness. The following example de-scribes the experience of a teacher whohad to be reminded of this.

Ms. Mandrell was a cooperative learningzealot and a master at using it in her 8thgrade class. She, therefore, could not figureout why lately it seemed the groups in herclass were not getting along and were not asproductive as she had observed earlier in theyear. She had even tried allowing students toselect their own groups, a practice she rarelyused, but this did not seem to help.

Finally, during group processing, sheshared her observations with the students.One student helped identify the problem,“We need some alone time. I’m tired of in-teracting all the time. I need to have moretime to just think and work quietly.”

Other students chimed in, “We like towork with each other, but not so much. Ilearn some things better on my own.”

Ms. Mandrell heard the message. “You’reright. I get obsessive when I like somethingand I like cooperative learning. But keep re-minding me if I get carried away again. Ipromise I’ll listen.”

♦ ♦ ♦

Of all classroom grouping strategies, coop-erative learning may be the most flexibleand powerful. As the examples in thischapter illustrate, teachers can use coopera-tive learning in a variety of ways in manydifferent situations.










Every year Mr. Hall gave the same motivational speech to the students inhis Advanced Placement United States History course reminding them thatalthough they were the ones taking the AP test, their scores reflected histeaching. In the past, classes had performed reasonably well, but he alwaysfelt a pang of guilt; he wanted to do more to help students pass the testwith 4s and 5s. However, his previous attempts had not produced the re-sults he wanted.

One summer, he outlined all the units in the chapters in great detail,color-coded them, and gave the outline to his students as study guides.Thestudents found them useful, but became dependent on the guides.They alsoadmitted that they ignored any information that he had not included in hisoutlines.

Another year, he focused on improving their study skills by offering Sat-urday classes on how to take tests, but students didn’t seem to do betteron the AP test.This year, instead of constructing a detailed outline, Mr. Hallwrote generalizations for each era they would study in class. He used thegeneralizations that were provided in the national standards and bench-marks. For each era, he also provided a set of key vocabulary terms, high-lighting the ones that would recur throughout various units.

He explained to students that they should create a study journal forthemselves in which they identified their own learning goals based on thegeneralizations he provided. He modeled the process for the first unit,showing them how to use the generalizations as a springboard for identify-ing the specific things they wanted to learn. He referred to this wholeprocess as “goal setting for learning.” Most of the students were a bit con-fused at first because in the past they had set goals focused on “tasks,” noton their “understandings.” The unit on the Civil War included generaliza-tions on what led to the conflict.

8S E T T I N G O B J E C T I V E S A N D

P R O V I D I N G F E E D B A C K

92

S E T T I N G O B J E C T I V E S A N D P R O V I D I N G F E E D B A C K 93

One student, Paul, wrote the generaliza-tion at the top of the page.Then he wrote apersonal learning goal that read, “I plan tolearn if there is more than one theory aboutthe causes of the U.S. Civil War. I alwaysheard that it was started because of slavery.I’d like to know more about the beginnings ofthe war.” In his study journal, Paul wrote thephrase “causes of the Civil War” and put a bigcircle around it. He then drew four lines witharrows connecting it to different phrases:(1) north/south conflicting views of slavery,(2) westward expansion, (3) the theory thathistory happens, and (4) “because of indus-trialization.” During the week he added factsand cleared up misconceptions in each of thefour areas he had identified, and by the endof the week (using information from readingsand lectures) he had summarized the causesof the Civil War. Other students organizedtheir ideas differently.

Mr. Hall encouraged students to sharetheir personal learning goals and what theylearned as the unit progressed.At least oncea week, Mr. Hall would meet individually withall the students to see how they were pro-gressing with their goals, even if it was just

for a couple of minutes. Because he gavequizzes and tests along the way, he was ableto check each student’s progress by drawinga relationship between their grades and thegoals they had set for their learning.

Mr. Hall used goal setting and feedback in a precise and sophisticated manner toenhance his students’ learning. Both ofthese activities engage what many re-searchers and theorists refer to as themetacognitive system of thinking.

R e s e a rc h a n d T h e o r y o nG o a l S e t t i n gBroadly defined, goal setting is the processof establishing a direction for learning. It isa skill that successful people have masteredto help them realize both short-term andlong-term desires. Figure 8.1 reports find-ings from some of the studies that have at-

FIGURE 8.1

Research Results for Goal Setting


Wise & Okey, 1983a General effects of setting goals 3 1.37 41or objectives 25 .48 18

Walberg, 1999 General effects of setting goalsor objectives 21 .46 18

Lipsey & Wilson, 1993 General effects of setting goalsor objectives 204 .55 21

a Two effect sizes are listed because of the manner in which effect sizes were reported. Readers should consult that study for moredetails.


tempted to synthesize the research on goalsetting.

We have drawn three generalizationsfrom the research on goal setting:

1. Instructional goals narrow what stu-dents focus on. One of the more interest-ing findings in the research is the negativeeffect that setting goals or objectives has onoutcomes other than those specified in theobjectives. Specifically, in his analysis of 20studies involving instructional goals, Wal-berg (1999) reported that they have an ef-fect size of –.20 on “unintended outcomes.”This means that if a teacher establishes agoal, for example, that students understandhow a cell functions, students’ understand-ing of information incidental to this con-cept, but still addressed in class, might ac-tually be less than if a specific goal werenot set. In fact, an effect size of –.20 indi-cates that the average student in the classwhere specific goals about the cell wereset, would score 8 percentile points lowerthan a student in a class where these goalswere not set, in a test of information that didnot pertain to the cell. At first, this mightseem counter intuitive, but with a little re-flection, these findings actually make agreat deal of sense. This phenomenonmight occur because setting a goal focusesstudents’ attention to such a degree thatthey ignore information not specifically re-lated to the goal.

2. Instructional goals should not betoo specific. One fairly stable finding in theliterature on goal setting is that instruc-

tional goals stated in behavioral objectiveformat do not produce effect sizes as highas instructional goals stated in more generalformats. Specifically, in their analysis of 111 studies on behavioral objectives, Fraserand others (1987) found the average effectsize to be .12, which translates into a gainof only 5 percentile points. A plausible ex-planation is that behavioral objectives aresimply too specific.

Behavioral objectives gained promi-nence in 1962 when evaluation expertRobert Mager published the book PreparingInstructional Objectives. He explained thateffective instructional objectives containthree defining characteristics:

1. Performance. An objective alwayssays what a learner is expected to be able todo; the objective sometimes describes theproduct or result of the doing.

2. Conditions. An objective always de-scribes the important conditions (if any)under which the performance is to occur.

3. Criterion. Whenever possible, an ob-jective describes the criterion of acceptableperformance by describing how well thelearner must perform in order to be consid-ered acceptable (p. 21).

Instructional objectives generated usingMager’s criteria are obviously highlyspecific in nature. Perhaps they are simplytoo specific to accommodate the individualand constructivist nature of the learningprocess.

3. Students should be encouraged topersonalize the teacher’s goals. Once the


teacher has established classroom learninggoals, students should be encouraged toadapt them to their personal needs and de-sires. This is one of the reasons goals shouldnot be too specific. That is, if goals arestated in highly specific, behavioral objec-tive format, they are not amenable to beingadapted by students. Some studies havedemonstrated the positive effects of stu-dents’ setting goals in a “contractual” con-text. That is, students not only identify thegoals they will try to attain (within theframework of the larger goals establishedby the teacher), but they also contract forthe grade they will receive if they meetthose goals (see Kahle & Kelly, 1994; Miller& Kelley, 1994; Vollmer, 1995). Other stud-ies have demonstrated the positive effectsof students’ setting “subgoals” (Bandura &Schunk, 1981; Morgan, 1985).

C l a ss r o o m P r a c t i c e i n G o a l S e t t i n g

Specific but Flexible Goals

It is certainly important for a teacher toset goals for students, but it is also impor-tant for the goals to be general enough toprovide students with some flexibility. Thefollowing example shows how this mightoccur in a health unit.

The students in Ms. Gershwin’s 4th gradeclass have been setting their own personalgoals for each unit since the beginning of the

year. She always provides the general targets,but then students personalize the goals. Forthe unit on the Human Body, she explainsthat her goal is for them to understand howeach of the main organs works individually,as well as how the organs work together asa system. Based on those broad goals, Joshwrites his personal learning goals.

I want to know more about the kidneysand how they work. My grandpa is having akidney replaced soon.

I know that the heart pumps bloodthrough the body, but I want to know how aheart attack happens.

I want to know if the intestines are reallyfour miles long.

Ms. Gershwin found that if she provided thesentence stems (e.g., “I want to know . . .”and “I want to know more . . .”), the studentswere able to create more interesting specificgoals.

Contracts

One variation on goal setting is to con-tract with students for the attainment ofspecific goals. This provides students with agreat deal of control over their learning.The following example shows how a mid-dle school teacher used contracts in thecontext of a technology class.

Mrs. Rome was excited about teaching thethree-week unit on “Making Your Own WebSite” to the middle-school students, but warybecause the students would clearly vary intheir experiences with computers. To re-spond to these differences, she prepared apacket that students could work through attheir own pace. The packet identified whatthe students needed to understand about


Web sites and the skills they needed to prac-tice. She carefully prepared the packet sothat students would not just jump into the“hands-on” assignments without really devel-oping a sound, conceptual understanding.

To provide students with more involve-ment in their learning, Mrs. Rowe used con-tracts. One section of the contract ad-dressed the skills needed for creating a Website (e.g., choosing a Web site background,identifying the sounds, developing links).Theother section of the contract identified whatthe students needed to know or understand(e.g., What is html? Who needs a Web site?How do the links work?)

As the students worked on each sectionof their contracts, they would check period-ically with Mrs. Rome to discuss what theyhad learned or to modify the time lines intheir contract.

R e s e a rc h a n d T h e o r y o nP r o v i d i n g Fe e d b a c kOne of the most generalizable strategies ateacher can use is to provide students withfeedback relative to how well they are doing.In fact, feedback seems to work well in somany situations that it led researcher JohnHattie (1992) to make the following com-ment after analyzing almost 8,000 studies:

The most powerful single modification thatenhances achievement is feedback.The sim-plest prescription for improving educationmust be “dollops of feedback” (p. 9).

Figure 8.2 reports findings from some ofthe studies that have attempted to synthe-

size research in the general effects offeedback.

We have drawn the following general-izations to guide the use of feedback.

1. Feedback should be “corrective” in

nature. Note that some of the effect sizesreported in Figure 8.2 are .90 and evenhigher. Generally, feedback that producesthese large effect sizes is “corrective” in na-ture. This means that it provides studentswith an explanation of what they are doingthat is correct and what they are doing thatis not correct. Perhaps one of the more in-teresting findings regarding feedback wasreported by Bangert-Downs, Kulik, Kulik,and Morgan (1991). The overall effect sizethey reported was only .26. Their study,however, focused on feedback that takesthe form of a test or, as they refer to it,“test-like events.” Figure 8.3 reports theirfindings.

The findings shown in Figure 8.3 havesome rather strong implications for educa-tion. Notice that simply telling studentsthat their answer on a test is right or wronghas a negative effect on achievement. Pro-viding students with the correct answer hasa moderate effect size (.22). The best feed-back appears to involve an explanation asto what is accurate and what is inaccuratein terms of student responses. In addition,asking students to keep working on a taskuntil they succeed appears to enhanceachievement.


2. Feedback should be timely. Thetiming of feedback appears to be critical toits effectiveness. To illustrate, consider Fig-ure 8.4, which is also derived from theBangert-Drowns study.

Feedback given immediately after a test-like situation is best. In general, the moredelay that occurs in giving feedback, the less

improvement there is in achievement. No-tice that feedback immediately after a testitem has a relatively low average effect sizeof .19, and providing students with feed-back immediately after a test has the largesteffect size (.72). Finally, consider the differ-ent effects for timing of test-like feedback.Giving tests immediately after a learning

FIGURE 8.2

Research Results for Providing Feedback


Lysakowski & Walberg, 1982a General effects of feedback 22 .92 327 .69 253 .83 309 .71 26

Lysakowski & Walberg, 1981a General effects of feedback 39 1.15 3719 .49 1949 .55 2111 .19 7

Walberg, 1999 General effects of feedback 20 .94 33

Tennebaum & Goldring, 1989a General effects of feedback 15 .66 257 .80 293 .52 203 .51 192 .67 25

Bloom, 1976 General effects of feedback 7 .54 21

Scheerens & Bosker, 1997 General effects of feedback — 1.09 36

Kumar, 1991 General effects of feedback 5 1.35 41

Haller, Child, & Walberg, 1988 General effects of feedback 20 .71 26

Bangert-Downs, Kulik, Kulik,& Morgan, 1991 General effects of feedback 58 .26 10

a Multiple effect sizes are listed because of the manner in which effect sizes were reported. Readers should consult those studies formore details.


situation has a very negligible effect onachievement. Giving a test one day after alearning situation seems to be optimal.

3. Feedback should be specific to a cri-terion. For feedback to be most useful, itshould reference a specific level of skill orknowledge. A different way of saying this is that feedback should be criterion-referenced, as opposed to norm-referenced.

When feedback is norm-referenced, it in-forms students about where they stand inrelationship to other students. This tellsstudents nothing about their learning.Criterion-referenced feedback tells studentswhere they stand relative to a specific tar-get of knowledge or skill. In fact, researchhas consistently indicated that criterion-referenced feedback has a more powerful

FIGURE 8.3

Research Results for Corrective Feedback


Right/wrong answer 6 –.08 –3

Correct answer 39 .22 9Type of Feedback

Repeat until correct 4 .53 20

Explanation 9 .53 20

FIGURE 8.4

Timing of Feedback


Timing of feedback

Immediately after item 49 .19 7

Immediately after test 2 .72 26

Delayed after test 8 .56 21

Timing of test

Immediately 37 .17 6

One day 2 .74 27

One week 12 .53 20

Longer 4 .26 10


effect on student learning than norm-referenced feedback (see Crooks, 1988;Wilburn & Felps, 1983).

4. Students can effectively providesome of their own feedback. We tend tothink that providing feedback is somethingdone exclusively by teachers. Research indi-cates, however, that students can effectivelymonitor their own progress (see Trammel,Schloss, & Alper, 1994). Commonly, thistakes the form of students’ simply keepingtrack of their performance as learning oc-curs (see Lindsley, 1972). For example, stu-dents might keep a chart of their accuracy,their speed, or both while learning a newskill. The use of student feedback in theform of self-evaluation has been stronglyadvocated by researcher Grant Wiggins(1993), and its utility in the classroomdemonstrated by classroom teachers (seeCountryman & Schroeder, 1996).

C l a ss r o o m P r a c t i c e i nP r o v i d i n g Fe e d b a c k

Criterion-Referenced Feedback

The manner in which students receivefeedback is important for student achieve-ment. As discussed previously, criterion-referenced feedback is superior to norm-referenced feedback. In nontechnical terms,this means that providing students withfeedback in terms of specific levels of

knowledge and skill is better than simplyproviding students with a percentage score.One powerful set of tools to this end isrubrics. Figure 8.5A provides a generalrubric for content that is more informa-tional in nature. Figure 8.5B is a rubric forcontent that is more process oriented.

Teachers can adapt these genericrubrics to specific content. Figure 8.6Ashows how a teacher has adapted thegeneric rubric for information to the topicof the Industrial Revolution. Figure 8.6Bshows how a teacher has adapted thegeneric rubric for processes and skills toreading a bar graph.

Feedback for Specific Types of Knowledge and Skill

In general, the more specific feedbackis, the better. When possible, teachersshould try to focus their feedback on spe-cific types of knowledge and skill. The fol-lowing example shows how a high schoolteacher came to realize the importance ofspecific feedback.

Mr. Cordova overheard some of his studentsin the hallway talking about the essays theyhad turned in for Mrs. McQueen’s class:“Mrs. McQueen takes about six weeks toget our papers back to us. I don’t even re-member what I wrote about by the time shegets it back to me. If she gave them back thenext day, I could actually learn somethingfrom her comments.This way, I just stuff it in


my folder. And the worst part is that whenshe does get it back to me, it’s got one gradeon it. A ‘B’ is supposed to mean what? Whycan’t she just give me a grade for how it waswritten and another grade for whether ornot the content was right?”

As he listened to the students, Mr. Cor-dova got to thinking about the stack of teststhat were sitting in his briefcase and his ownmethods of providing students with feed-back. He had promised himself to gradethem over the weekend, and now it was al-ready the next Thursday.

The students continued, “Also, I hate itwhen we have a bunch of questions to an-

swer and they just circle the one that iswrong and sometimes I don’t know whatwas wrong. How is that supposed to help?”

“I know. Sometimes it seems like they justwant to give us a grade for the paper, butthey don’t really care if we learn it.”

Mr. Cordova vowed to provide studentswith better feedback. He went back to hisclass and graded his papers by writing a fewcomments next to information that was in-correct.The next day when he returned thepapers, he shared with students his concernthat the feedback he provided was not reallyhelping them learn. He explained that fromnow on, he was going to give feedback

FIGURE 8.5

Rubrics for Providing Feedback

Scale: 4 = excellent; 3 = good; 2 = needs improvement; 1 = unacceptable; 0 = no judgment possible

A: General Rubric for Information

4 The student has a complete and detailed un-derstanding of the information important tothe topic.

3 The student has a complete understanding ofthe information important to the topic but notin great detail.

2 The student has an incomplete understandingof the topic and/or misconceptions about someof the information. However, the studentmaintains a basic understanding of the topic.

1 The student’s understanding of the topic is soincomplete or has so many misconceptionsthat the student cannot be said to understandthe topic.

0 No judgment can be made about the student’sunderstanding of the topic.

B: Generic Rubric for Processes and Skills

4 The student can perform the skill or processimportant to the topic with no significant er-rors and with fluency. Additionally, the studentunderstands the key features of the process.

3 The student can perform the skill or processimportant to the topic without makingsignificant errors.

2 The student makes some significant errorswhen performing the skill or process importantto the topic but still accomplishes a rough ap-proximation of the skill or process.

1 The student makes so many errors in perform-ing the skill or process important to the topicthat he or she cannot actually perform the skillor process.

0 No judgment can be made about the student’sability to perform the skill or process.


about the knowledge and skill they weredemonstrating. He then elicited from thestudents suggestions related to how hecould best communicate that feedback. Al-though a few students didn’t really seem tocare about anything but the letter grade, Mr.Cordova was impressed that most of themhad sincere, thoughtful suggestions for givingbetter feedback.

Student-Led Feedback

There is no reason why students shouldnot be part of the feedback process. In fact,

student-led feedback has many desirableeffects. The following example showsstudent-led feedback in the context of asocial studies class.

Mr. Hunter’s high school classes were doingwell with their biographies, and he waspleased with their response to his feedback.One day Judy, a very good student, made asuggestion that she thought might work. Sherecommended that the students trade theirdrafts when they felt they were ready sothat they could give feedback to one an-other. “It’s not that I don’t appreciate what

FIGURE 8.6

Rubric Adaptations

Scale: 4 = excellent; 3 = good; 2 = needs improvement; 1 = unacceptable; 0 = no judgment possible

A: Industrial Revolution Rubric—Information

4 The student has a complete and detailed un-derstanding of the information important tothe Industrial Revolution.

3 The student has a complete understanding ofthe information important to the IndustrialRevolution but not in great detail.

2 The student has an incomplete understandingof the Industrial Revolution and/or misconcep-tions about some of the information. However,the student maintains a basic understanding ofthe topic.

1 The student’s understanding of the IndustrialRevolution is so incomplete or has so manymisconceptions that the student cannot be saidto understand the Industrial Revolution.

0 No judgment can be made about the student’sunderstanding of the Industrial Revolution.

B: Reading Bar Graph Rubric—Processes and Skills

4 The student can perform the skills andprocesses important to reading a bar graphwith no significant errors and with fluency. Ad-ditionally, the student understands the key fea-ture of the process of reading a bar graph.

3 The student can perform the process ofreading a bar graph without making significant errors.

2 The student makes significant errors whenperforming the process of reading a bar graphbut still accomplishes a rough approximationof the process of reading a bar graph.

1 The student makes so many errors in theprocess of reading a bar graph that he or shecannot actually read a bar graph.

0 No judgment can be made about the student’sability to perform the process of reading a bargraph.


you are telling us, Mr. Hunter, it’s just thatmaybe by having a lot of different peopleread our drafts, we could benefit from thenew ideas.”

When he asked the class if they liked theidea, they agreed. Richelle also suggested thatshe wanted to be able to identify the placeswhere she needed some help so that whenshe did get feedback, it was specific to thearea where she felt she was having problems.“I think that it is a good idea to get some re-action to my biography in draft form,” shesaid,“but I’d like to be able to pinpoint whereI think the problems are. I just don’t want tobe bombarded with a lot of new ideas if Ican’t fix what I’m working on right now.”

Mr. Hunter agreed to schedule class timefor student-led feedback.

♦ ♦ ♦

Although common practice in most K–12classrooms, setting objectives and providingfeedback are frequently underused in termsof their flexibility and power. In this chap-ter, we have explored a number of optionswithin both of these categories of instruc-tional strategies.

Tisha, a 2nd grader, stared up at the sky for a long time and then announced,“I think we are going to have a bad storm. It was hot, but now feel how coldit is and look at those cumulus clouds.” Her grandma stared in amazement.“Aren’t you the weather girl today! Where did you learn all that?” Tisha ex-plained that her teacher had been discussing weather with them all year.

“Our teacher said that weather was there for us to study all year, so whystudy it all at once and then probably forget it? She said we weren’t justgoing to learn it, we were going to use what we learned. Besides, it meanswe get to go outside to learn.”

Tisha’s teacher periodically taught her students about specific weatherpatterns. Approximately once every two weeks, the class would look at aweather map on the Internet, discuss what had been happening during thelast 24 hours, then go outside and observe the sky, once in the morning andonce in the afternoon.The students would then predict what they thoughtwould happen between the end of the school day and the next morning.They would also explain the reasoning behind their predictions.

During the first few minutes of the following morning, students discussedtheir hypotheses and the extent to which they were correct. If their pre-dictions were accurate, they identified the observations that helped themthe most. If their predictions were inaccurate, students tried to figure outwhat they missed or misunderstood.

Tisha’s teacher has used the topic of weather to engage students inone of the most powerful and analytic of cognitive operations—generating and testing hypotheses.

9G E N E R A T I N G A N D

T E S T I N G H Y P O T H E S E S










103

FIGURE 9.1

Research Results for Generating and Testing Hypotheses


Hattie et al., 1996 General effects of generatingand testing hypotheses 2 .79 28

Lott, 1983 General effects of generatingand testing hypotheses 22 .04 2

Ross, 1988 General effects of generatingand testing hypotheses 104 .72 26


R e s e a rc h a n d T h e o r y o nG e n e r a t i n g a n d Te s t i n gH y p o t h e s e sBy definition, the process of generating andtesting hypotheses involves the applicationof knowledge. It is something we do quitenaturally in many situations (see Hansell,1988; Heller & Reif, 1984; Koedinger &Anderson, 1993; Koedinger & Tabachneck,1994). For example, a student is involvedin generating and testing hypotheses if,after watching a demonstration of how airflow travels over the wing of an airplane, heconcludes that changing the shape of thewing in a specific way will have a specificeffect on the flow of air. The student wouldthen actually design a wing with the de-sired shape and then test his conjecture.Figure 9.1 summarizes some of the re-search on this general category of instruc-tional strategy.

Two generalizations can guide the useof hypothesis generation and testing in theclassroom.

1. Hypothesis generation and testingcan be approached in a more inductive ordeductive manner. Deductive thinking isthe process of using a general rule to makea prediction about a future action or event(see Johnson-Laird, 1983). For example,while beginning to read a story about a par-ticular wolf, you will naturally access someof the generalizations you have aboutwolves from your permanent memory. Ifone of those generalizations is “Wolves runin packs and are highly social,” then youwill predict that the story will containepisodes about the interaction of the indi-vidual wolf with other wolves that aremembers of a pack.

Inductive thinking, on the other hand,is the process of drawing new conclusionsbased on information we know or are

G E N E R A T I N G A N D T E S T I N G H Y P O T H E S E S 105

presented with (see Holland, Holyoak,Nisbett, & Thagard, 1986). For example,if you are reading an account of how aparticular bear behaved when being ob-served by a scientist, you would inducethat the behaviors the scientist had fre-quently observed are behaviors the bearhabitually engages in, or even behaviorsthat all bears habitually engage in. It isworth noting that thinking in real life isprobably never purely inductive or deduc-tive. Rather, scholars assert that reasoningis often more “messy” and nonlinear thanearlier definitions suggest (Deely, 1982;Eco, 1976, 1979, 1984; Medawar, 1967;Percy, 1975).

Inductive instructional techniques re-quire students to first discover the princi-ples from which hypotheses are generated.In the air flow example, a teacher would beusing an inductive approach if she askedstudents first to discover principles aboutair flow and then to generate hypothesesbased on these discovered principles. Ateacher would be using a deductive ap-proach, however, if she first presented stu-dents with principles of air flow, such asthe Bernoulli theorem. With this knowl-edge as a basis, she would then ask studentsto generate and test hypotheses based onthe principles they have been taught. Al-though both inductive and deductive ap-proaches can work well, generally speaking,deductive approaches produce better re-sults. To illustrate, consider the researchfindings in Figure 9.2.

As reported in the last two rows of Fig-ure 9.2, the average effect size for deduc-tive techniques is much larger than that forinductive techniques (.60 versus .39). Thisis not to say that inductive approachescannot produce large effect sizes. Perhapsteachers find inductive approaches moredifficult to execute correctly. Inductivestrategies require a well-orchestrated set ofexperiences so that students might inferaccurate and appropriate principles fromwhich to generate hypotheses. In the ab-sence of experiences that allow students todo this, it is probably better to presentprinciples directly to students and then askthem to generate hypotheses.

2. Teachers should ask students toclearly explain their hypotheses and theirconclusions. A fair amount of research hasdemonstrated the power of asking studentsto carefully explain—preferably in writ-ing—the principles they are working from,the hypotheses they generate from theseprinciples, and why their hypotheses makesense (see Lavoie, 1999; Lavoie & Good,1988; Lawson, 1988). Apparently, theprocess of explaining their thinking helpsstudents deepen their understanding of theprinciples they are applying. If an inductiveapproach is being used, students might beasked to explain the logic underlying theirobservations, how their observations sup-port their hypotheses, how their experi-ment tests their hypotheses, and how their results confirm or disconfirm their hy-potheses. If a deductive technique is being

FIGURE 9.2

Inductive versus Deductive Approaches


Tamir, 1985 Deductive techniques 13 .27 11

Lott, 1983 Deductive techniques 18 .02 1

Inductive techniques 4 .10 4

El-Nemr, 1980 Inductive techniques 250 .38 15

Sweitzer & Anderson,1983 Inductive techniques 19 .43 17

Walberg, 1999 Inductive techniques 38 .41 16

Ross, 1988 Inductive techniques 39 .48 19

Deductive techniques 65 .83 30

Average ES for inductive techniques 380 .39 15

Average ES for deductive techniques 96 .60 23


used, students would not be engaged inthe observation phase of this process.

C l a ss r o o m P r a c t i c e i nG e n e r a t i n g a n d Te s t i n gH y p o t h e s e s

Using a Variety of Structured Tasks toGuide Students Through Generating and Testing Hypotheses

Although the process of generating andtesting hypotheses is commonly associatedwith the scientific method, teachers can usethe process in different tasks across all disci-

plines. The following six types of tasks allemploy hypotheses generation and testing.

Systems Analysis. Students at all gradelevels study many systems across the disci-plines, such as ecosystems, anatomical sys-tems, systems of government, and trans-portation systems. One way to enhance anduse students’ understanding of these sys-tems is to ask them to generate hypothesesthat predict what would happen if someaspect of a system were changed. The fol-lowing general framework for systemsanalysis might be useful in guiding stu-dents’ work.

1. Explain the purpose of the system,the parts of the system, and the function ofeach part.


2. Describe how the parts affect eachother.

3. Identify a part of the system, de-scribe a change in that part, and then hy-pothesize what would happen as a result of this change.

4. When possible, test your hypothesisby actually changing the part or by using asimulation to change the part.

Problem Solving. By definition,problems involve obstacles and constraints.While engaged in solving problems, stu-dents must generate and test hypothesesrelated to the various solutions they predictmight work. For example, a teacher mightpresent students with a task that requiresthem to build something (e.g., a model car,a bridge) under the constraint that they areallowed to use limited or specific materialsonly (e.g., balsa wood, a rubber band, amousetrap). Using their understanding ofconcepts related to the problem (e.g., iner-tia, gravity, energy, force, and motion) theymust consider different approaches to a so-lution and then generate and test their hy-potheses about those solutions. Studentsmight use the following general frameworkto guide their work.

1. Identify the goal you are trying toaccomplish.

2. Describe the barriers or constraintsthat are preventing you from achievingyour goal—that are creating the problem.

3. Identify different solutions for over-coming the barriers or constraints and hy-pothesize which solution is likely to work.

4. Try your solution—either in realityor through a simulation.

5. Explain whether your hypothesiswas correct. Determine if you want to test another hypothesis using a differentsolution.

Historical Investigation. Students areengaged in historical investigation whenthey construct plausible scenarios forevents from the past, about which there isno general agreement. For example, schol-ars have presented conflicting versions ofRoosevelt’s role in the events that led up tothe bombing of Pearl Harbor. To engage inhistorical investigation, students need touse their understanding of the situation togenerate a hypothetical scenario. To testthis hypothesis, each student must thenseek out and analyze as much informationas possible to determine if the hypothesis issupported by the evidence. Students mightuse the following general framework forhistorical investigation:

1. Clearly describe the historical eventto be examined.

2. Identify what is known or agreed onand what is not known or about whichthere is disagreement.

3. Based on what you understandabout the situation, offer a hypotheticalscenario.


4. Seek out and analyze evidence todetermine if your hypothetical scenario isplausible.

Invention. Another task that requiresstudents to generate and test hypotheses isthe process of invention. For example, stu-dents might use their understanding of theprinciples of the cardiovascular and muscu-lar system to invent a new form of exercise.To do this, they must hypothesize whatmight work, develop the idea, and thenconduct tests to determine if their ideadoes, in fact, work. Invention often de-mands generating and testing multiple hy-potheses, until one of them proves effec-tive. As students engage in invention, theymight use the following general frameworkas a guide:

1. Describe a situation you want toimprove or a need to which you want torespond.

2. Identify specific standards for the in-vention that would improve the situationor would meet the need.

3. Brainstorm ideas and hypothesizethe likelihood that they will work.

4. When your hypothesis suggests thata specific idea might work, begin to draft,sketch, or actually create the invention.

5. Develop your invention to the pointwhere you can test your hypothesis.

6. If necessary, revise your inventionuntil it reaches the standards you have set.

Experimental Inquiry. We most com-monly associate the process of experimen-tal inquiry with generating and testing hy-potheses in science. But teachers can useexperimental inquiry across the disciplinesto guide students in applying their under-standing of important content. For exam-ple, based on their understanding of howliterary devices in literature have influencedreaders, students might hypothesize the ef-fects of using specific literary devices intheir own writing. Teachers might use thefollowing general framework to help stu-dents engage in any experimental inquirytask:

1. Observe something of interest toyou and describe what you observe.

2. Apply specific theories or rules toexplain what you have observed.

3. Based on your explanation, generatea hypothesis to predict what would happenif you applied the theories or rules to whatyou observed or to a situation related towhat you observed.

4. Set up an experiment or engage inan activity to test your hypothesis.

5. Explain the results of your experi-ment or activity. Decide if your hypothesiswas correct and if you need to conduct ad-ditional experiments or activities or if youneed to generate and test an alternativehypothesis.

Decision Making. Although we mightnot associate decision with generating and


testing hypotheses, using a structureddecision-making framework can help stu-dents examine hypothetical situations,especially those requiring them to selectwhat has the most or least of something orwhat is the best or worst example of some-thing. For example, if students were askedto predict who is the most influential musi-cal group or visual artist of the last decade,many students would quickly offer a pre-diction. If they were then asked to test thishypothesis by using a structured decision-making framework, the result might be dif-ferent from what they predicted. Further,using a decision-making process to testtheir prediction requires them to reflect onand use a broad range of knowledge relatedto the topic. Students might use the follow-ing framework to guide them through suchdecision making tasks:

1. Describe the decision you are mak-ing and the alternatives you are considering.

2. Identify the criteria that will influ-ence the selection and indicate the relativeimportance of the criteria by assigning animportance score from a designated scale,for example, 1–4.

3. Rate each alternative on a desig-nated scale (e.g., 1–4) to indicate the ex-tent to which each alternative meets eachcriterion.

4. For each alternative, multiply theimportance score and the rating and thenadd the products to assign a score for thealternative.

5. Examine the scores to determinethe alternative with the highest score.

6. Based on your reaction to the se-lected alternative, determine if you need tochange any importance scores or add ordrop criteria.

The following example shows howteachers can use more than one of theseprocesses within a single topic.

Mr. Sanders wanted to present his 10thgrade students with a variety of ways to testand generate hypotheses in his unit onWorld War II. After teaching the studentssome basic facts and issues about the war, heasked them to select one of the followingprojects:

Decision Making. What is your hy-pothesis as to the best method of endingWorld War II other than the use of theatomic bomb? Use the decision-makingframework to test your hypothesis.

Problem Solving. If you were presi-dent of the United States during World WarII, how would you force the unconditionalsurrender of Japan without using the atomicbomb and yet provide for a secure, post-warworld?

Investigation. Why did Japan attackPearl Harbor? Some say President Rooseveltintentionally provoked the Japanese. Othersdisagree. What is your hypothesis? Collectevidence that confirms this hypothesis.

Making Sure Students Can Explain TheirHypotheses and Their Conclusions

The second generalization in this cate-gory of instructional strategies reminds us


to ask students to explain their thinking asthey generate and test hypotheses. Teacherscan design assignments so that studentsknow they must be able to describe howthey generated their hypotheses and to ex-plain what they learned as a result of test-ing them. For example, a teacher might

◆ Provide students with templates forreporting their work, highlighting the areasin which they will be expected to provideexplanations.

◆ Provide sentence stems for students,especially for young students, to help themarticulate their explanations.

◆ Ask students to turn in audiotapes onwhich they explain their hypotheses andconclusions.

◆ Provide, or develop with students,rubrics so that they know that the criteriaon which they will be evaluated are basedon the quality of their explanations.

◆ Set up events during which parentsor community members ask students toexplain their thinking.

The following example shows how anart teacher might design assignments thatrequire students to explain how they gen-erated and tested hypotheses.

The 5th grade art teacher had finally founda way for students to demonstrate and en-hance their understanding of how the ele-ments of a painting work together as a sys-tem (e.g., color influences the impact ofperspective and is influenced by texture,etc.). Through a projection system con-nected to her computer, she projected a fa-mous painting on the screen in front of theclassroom. She then told the students thatshe could change a single element (color,depth, contrast) with the computer. Beforeshe changed each element, the students,working in pairs, were asked to predict howthey thought changing one element wouldinfluence the impact of the other elements.She then made the suggested change and al-lowed students time to react. After eachchange, she selected students to explain tothe class what they predicted the effectwould be, why their prediction was logical,and the extent to which their prediction wasconfirmed or disconfirmed.

♦ ♦ ♦

We commonly think of generating and test-ing hypotheses as the purview of the sci-ence teacher only. As this chapter hasshown, this basic cognitive skill applies to avariety of tasks that are applicable to manysubject areas.










At the beginning of an introductory high school psychology course, Mrs.Crawford writes the word psychology on the board.Then she asks studentsto tell her everything they know about the term. As students answer, shewrites key words on the board. Mrs. Crawford selects a few words to con-sider in more depth—Freud, psychoanalysis, ego, id, bipolar, multiple personal-ities. For each selected item, students are asked what they know to be trueor believe to be true.When she asks students what they know about Sig-mund Freud, she is surprised at the depth of their knowledge about him.Asstudents address each term, Mrs. Crawford records ideas on the board. Bythe end of the discussion, Mrs. Crawford has a list of the basic knowledgestudents have about psychology. Throughout the course, Mrs. Crawforduses this information as the springboard for introducing new information.

The techniques in the final category of instructional strategies allhelp students retrieve what they already know about a topic. In non-technical terms, this is sometimes referred to as “activating priorknowledge.” Mrs. Crawford was activating the prior knowledge ofher students in an informal but effective way.

Educational researchers have shown that the activation of priorknowledge is critical to learning of all types. Indeed, our backgroundknowledge can even influence what we perceive. Brewer andTreyens (1981) demonstrated this effect. They brought 30 studentsindividually into a room and told them that it was the office of aprofessor who was conducting an experiment. Each student wasasked to wait for a short while. After 35 seconds, the students were

10C U E S , Q U E S T I O N S , A N D

A D V A N C E O R G A N I Z E R S

111


taken to another room and asked to writedown everything they could recall aboutthe office. Brewer and Tryens hypothesizedthat students would remember those itemsthey expected to see in a professor’s office,regardless of whether they were there ornot. In other words, the researchers hy-pothesized that students’ prior knowledgewould actually influence what they per-ceived. This is precisely what happened.Specifically, 29 of 30 students rememberedthat the office had a desk and a chair, butonly 8 recalled that it had a bulletin boardand a skull; and 9 students recalled that theoffice had books—which it did not. Thestudents remembered what they expectedto see, regardless of whether it was there ornot. Use of prior knowledge can be a pow-

erful learning tool. Cues and questions, aswell as advance organizers, are techniquesthat call on students’ prior knowledge.

R e s e a rc h a n d T h e o r y o nC u e s a n d Q u e s t i o n sCues and questions are ways that a class-room teacher helps students use what theyalready know about a topic. Figure 10.1summarizes findings from some of thestudies that have attempted to synthesizethe research on cues and questions.

Although Figure 10.1 distinguishes be-tween cues and questions, the two tech-niques are similar. Cues involve “hints”about what students are about to experi-

FIGURE 10.1

Research Results for Cues and Questions


Ross, 1988 Cues 6 .41 16

Walberg, 1999 Questions 14 .26 10

Redfield & Rousseau, 1981 Questions 7 .73 27

Wise & Okey, 1983 Questions 5 .37 14

Cues 38 .53 20

Stone, 1983 Cues 83 .75 27

Bloom, 1976 Cues 11 1.21 39

Crismore, 1985 Cues 231 .60 23

Hamaker, 1986 Questions 100 .75 27

Guzzetti, Snyder, & Glass, 1993 Cues and Questions 11 .80 29

C U E S , Q U E S T I O N S , A N D A D V A N C E O R G A N I Z E R S 113

ence. For example, a teacher is providingstudents with a cue when she explains thatthe film they are about to watch on thefunctioning of the cell will present someinformation they already know about thecell, but it will also provide some new in-formation. Because the teacher providedthe topic of the film for students, she al-lowed them to activate their prior knowl-edge. Also, the teacher has told them toexpect some new information, which es-tablishes expectations for students. Ques-tions perform about the same function. Forexample, before watching the film on thefunctioning of the cell, the teacher mightask students questions that elicit what theyalready know about the topic.

It is probably safe to say that cueingand questioning are at the heart of class-room practice. In fact, research in class-room behavior indicates that cueing andquestioning might account for as much as80 percent of what occurs in a given class-room on a given day (see Davis, O. L., &Tinsley, 1967; Fillippone, 1998). In addi-tion, teachers are largely unaware of the ex-tent to which they use cueing and ques-tioning. To illustrate, in a study published in1974, Nash and Shiman found that ele-mentary teachers who thought they wereasking 12 to 20 questions every half hourwere actually asking 45 to 150 questions.Fillippone (1998) has reported this sametrend in recent years.

The following generalizations can guideteachers in using cues and questions:

1. Cues and questions should focus onwhat is important as opposed to what isunusual. Several studies have demonstratedthat all too often teachers structure ques-tions around information that is unusual orthat they perceive as interesting, as op-posed to information that is critical to thetopic being studied (see Alexander & Judy,1988; Alexander, Kulikowich, & Schulze,1994; Risner, Nicholson, & Webb, 1994).Many teachers engage in this practiceunder the mistaken assumption that it willincrease students’ interest in the topic.What is ironic about this situation is thatresearch actually indicates that the morestudents know about a topic, the more theytend to be interested in it (Alexander et al.,1994). Consequently, questions designed tohelp students obtain a deeper understand-ing of content will eventually increase theirinterest in the topic.

2. “Higher level” questions producedeeper learning than “lower level” ques-tions. A fair amount of research indicatesthat questions that require students to ana-lyze information—frequently called higher-level questions—produce more learningthan questions that simply require stu-dents to recall or recognize information—frequently referred to as lower-order ques-tions (see Redfield & Rousseau, 1981).Unfortunately, most of the questionsteachers ask are lower order in nature(Davis, O. L., & Tinsley, 1967; Fillippone,1998; Guszak, 1967; Mueller, 1973). Al-though you can find many definitions of


higher-level questions, they all have thecommon feature of requiring students torestructure information or apply knowl-edge in some way.

3. “Waiting” briefly before acceptingresponses from students has the effect ofincreasing the depth of students’ answers.Closely related to questioning is the use of“wait time.” Expanding on Rowe’s (1974)original definition of wait time as pausingfor several seconds after asking a questionto give students time to think before beingcalled on to answer, Tobin (1987) identifieda number of different types of wait time(e.g., the pause following any teacher’sutterance and any student utterance, thepause following any student utterance andpreceding any teacher utterance). Given itssimplicity and ease of execution, wait timeappears to be a highly useful instructionaltechnique. Researchers have found it to beassociated with such noteworthy aspects oflearning as more student discourse (Swift & Gooding, 1983) and more student-to-student interaction (Fowler, 1975; Honea,1982).

4. Questions are effective learningtools even when asked before a learningexperience. We generally think of question-ing as something teachers do after studentshave been engaged in a learning experi-ence—watching a demonstration, reading,listening to a lecture. Teachers, however,can use questions before a learning experi-ence to establish a “mental set” with whichstudents process the learning experience.

Again, higher-level questions tend to produce deeper levels of learning(Hamaker, 1986; Osman & Hannafin,1994; Pressley et al., 1988; Pressley,Tenebaum, McDaniel, & Wood, 1990;Pressley et al., 1992).

C l a ss r o o m P r a c t i c e i n C u e s a n d Q u e s t i o n s

Explicit Cues

Cues are straightforward ways of acti-vating prior knowledge. Using cues, teach-ers can provide students with a preview ofwhat they are about to experience. The fol-lowing example shows the use of cues inan elementary school Spanish class.

Sra. Nina starts her 3rd grade class by askingif anyone has a friend who is known for bor-rowing things. Those people, she says, arecalled “pediguenos” in Spanish, or “leeches”in English. Sra. Nina then explains:

“We dedicate our lesson today to thepediguenos because we are going to learnhow to use possessive adjectives, or adjetivosposesivos. We will learn and practice the pos-sessive adjectives for you, tu, el, ella, Ud.,nosotros, vosotros, ellos, ellas, y Uds. For exam-ple, Peter doesn’t use his own car, he borrowshis friend’s car. Now let’s say it in Spanish.”

Questions That Elicit Inferences

Even the best-designed lesson will de-mand that students “fill in” a great deal of


missing information. Questions can greatlyaid students in this process. Teachers mightuse the following questions to help stu-dents make inferences about things, people,actions, events, and states of being theymight be studying.

Things/People:

What action does this thing or personusually perform?

What action is usually performed on thisthing?

How is this thing usually used?What is this thing part of? What is the process for making this

thing? Does this thing have a particular taste,

feel, smell, sound? What is it? Does this thing have a particular color,

number (or quantity), location, ordimensionality? What is it?

How is this thing usually sold? Does this thing have a particular emo-

tional state? What is it? Does this thing have a particular value? When this thing is used, does it present a

particular danger to other things orto people? What is it?

Actions:

What thing or person usually performsthis action?

What effect does this action have on thetaste, feel, sound, or look of thisthing?

How does this action typically changethe emotional state of a thing orperson?

How is the value of a thing changed bythis action?

How does this action change the size orshape of a thing?

How does this action change the state ofa thing?

Events:What people are usually involved in this

event? During what season or time of year does

this event usually take place? On what day of the week does this

event usually take place? At what time of day does this event

usually take place? Where does this event usually take

place? At what point in history did this event

take place? What equipment is typically used in this

event? How long does this event usually take?

States (of Being):What is the basic process involved in

reaching this state? What are the changes that occur when

something reaches this state?

To use these questions, a teacher wouldidentify things, people, actions, events, andstates in information the students were


learning and then ask questions, modeledon the preceding examples, about theseidentified elements. The following exampleshows how a teacher used such questionsin the context of a health class.

After her 6th grade students were finishedreading an article about different eating dis-orders, Mrs. Conzone presented them withsome inferential questions to help clarify is-sues in the article.Two questions were:

1. What actions do these individualsperform?

2.What actions are usually performed onthese individuals?

One of the students answered the questionsin the following way:

1. What actions do these individuals per-form? I thought people with eating disorderswere those people who did not eat, but isthe definition a broader one? In other words,is a person who overeats considered onewith an eating disorder?

2. What actions are usually performed onthese individuals? It seems that each one ofthe disorders can stem from a different kindof problem, so the diagnosis and prescrip-tion has to be very individualized.

Analytic Questions

Some questions require students toanalyze and even critique the informationpresented to them. To facilitate this type of questioning, it is useful to have a list ofanalytic skills (see Figure 10.2).

Each type of analysis listed in Figure10.2 can be cued by one or more specificquestions like the following:

Analyzing Errors:What are the errors in reasoning in this

information?How is this information misleading?How could it be corrected or improved?

Constructing Support:What is an argument that would support

the following claim?What are some of the limitations of this

argument or the assumptions under-lying it?

Analyzing Perspectives:Why would someone consider this to be

good (or bad or neutral)?What is the reasoning behind his or her

perspective?What is an alternative perspective, and

what is the reasoning behind it?

The following example shows how oneteacher used these questions in the contextof a middle school science class.

During a unit on physical environments ofthe world, Ms. Egan asks students to design

FIGURE 10.2

Definition of Analytic Skills

Analyzing Errors: Identifying and articulatingerrors in the logic of information.

Constructing Support: Constructing a systemof support or proof for an assertion.

Analyzing Perspectives: Identifying andarticulating personal perspectives about issues.


an argument for or against the protection of “old growth” forests. Regardless of theposition they take, students are required topresent a sound argument and are judgedon the strength of their argument and thestrength of their evidence.

R e s e a rc h a n d T h e o r y o nA d va n c e O r g a n i z e r sAnother way that teachers can help stu-dents use their background knowledge tolearn new information is to present themwith advance organizers. The concept ofadvance organizers was first popularized bypsychologist David Ausubel (1968), whodefined them in the following way:

Appropriately relevant and inclusive intro-ductory materials . . . introduced in advance oflearning . . . and presented at a higher level ofabstraction, generality, and inclusiveness thanthe information presented after it.The orga-nizer serves to provide ideational scaffoldingfor the stable incorporation and retention ofthe more detailed and differentiated materi-als that follow. Thus, advance organizers arenot the same as summaries or overviews,which comprise text at the same level of ab-straction as the material to be learned, butrather are designed to bridge the gap be-tween what the learner already knows andwhat he needs to know before he can suc-cessfully learn the task at hand (p. 148).

Since Ausubel’s first writings on the topic,researchers have studied advance organizersin great depth. Figure 10.3 summarizes the

FIGURE 10.3

Research Results for Advance Organizers


Walberg, 1999 General effects of advance organizers 29 .45 1716 .24 9

Hattie, 1992 General effects of advance organizers 387 .37 14

Lott, 1983a General effects of advance organizers 17 .09 35 .77 28

Stone, 1983 Expository advance organizers 44 .80 29

Narrative advance organizers 12 .53 20

Skimming as an advance organizer 15 .71 26

Illustrated advance organizers 15 .52 20

a Two effect sizes are listed for the Lott study because of the manner in which effect sizes were reported. Readers should consultthat study for more details.


findings from some of the studies that haveattempted to synthesize the research onadvance organizers.

Advance organizers are closely relatedto cues and questions. Indeed, the fourthgeneralization pertaining to cues and ques-tions addresses questions as advance orga-nizers. Consequently, many of the general-izations that apply to cues and questionsalso apply to advance organizers. Specifi-cally, consider the following:

1. Advance organizers should focus onwhat is important as opposed to what isunusual.

2. “Higher level” advance organizersproduce deeper learning than the “lowerlevel” advance organizers.

Because we discussed these generalizationsin the previous section, we will not addressthem here. Research studies specific to ad-vance organizers, however, imply someother generalizations, as follows:

3. Advance organizers are most usefulwith information that is not well organized.Since advance organizers, by definition, pro-vide students with a way of organizing infor-mation implicit or explicit within a learningexperience, it is no wonder that they havemore powerful effects with information thatis organized poorly than with informationthat is well organized (see Martorella, 1991;Mayer, 1979;White & Tisher, 1986). For ex-ample, an advance organizer might work

better as a preparation for a field trip than itwould as a preparation for reading a chapterin a textbook that is well organized withclear headings and subheadings.

4. Different types of advance organiz-ers produce different results. As Figure10.3 shows, there are four general types ofadvance organizers—expository, narrative,skimming, and illustrated. All producefairly powerful results, but of the four, ex-pository has the largest effect size. Thesefour are not the only types of advance orga-nizers. These findings point out, however,that advance organizers come in many dif-ferent formats.

C l a ss r o o m P r a c t i c e i nA d va n c e O r g a n i z e r s

Expository Advance Organizers

Expository advance organizers simplydescribe the new content to which studentsare to be exposed. The following exampleshows its use in the context of a middleschool unit on careers.

Although the Career Day team had pre-pared a nice agenda, it lacked any informa-tion about how to learn best from the dif-ferent speakers that would visit throughoutthe day. In preparation, Mr. Matamoros cre-ated an advance organizer for his students.The organizer included a series of brief ex-planations about each career that would bepresented. Mr. Matamoros had students read


each description.Then, as a whole class, theybriefly discussed each career. Mr. Matamorostold students to consult the informationcontained in the advance organizers as theyheard about each career option.

After Career Day, many of the studentscommented that they felt that the orga-nizer was critical to their understanding ofthe information about the various careers.Some of the visitors who led the sessionsexpressed the fact that they were im-pressed with the quality and focus of stu-dents’ questions.

Narrative Advance Organizers

Narrative advance organizers presentinformation to students in story format.The following example shows how oneteacher used a narrative advance organizerwith the topic of tornadoes.

Before Ms. Neeley’s 4th grade class viewed afilm about tornadoes, she told them this per-sonal story about tornadoes:

“I was in a tornado once, but I didn’tknow it until after it was over! I had gone tovisit my sister. It was 3:00 in the afternoon,and we were in the living room drinking teaand talking. It became very dark, and it wasonly 3:00 in the afternoon! But we neverdreamed a tornado was coming. We justturned on the lights, opened the windowshades, and continued to drink tea and talk.A bit later the lights suddenly went out and,at the same time, sirens started wailing. Wekind of wondered what was going on, but itdidn’t occur to us to worry. A few minuteslater my husband called—the phones werestill working. He asked me if I was okay andI said, “Of course, why wouldn’t I be?” Hetold me that a tornado had just touched

down about four blocks from where I was.Suddenly it all made sense. My sister and Iraced down the street, and sure enough, thetornado had cut a path right through an in-tersection. The stop lights were upsidedown, cars were overturned, and huge treeshad been uprooted. The glass was blown out of the windows at a furniture store andacross the street at a fast food restaurant.The destruction was awesome.”

Skimming as a Form of Advance Organizer

Skimming information before readingcan be a powerful form of advance orga-nizer. The following example shows how a6th grade teacher used skimming in thecontext of a science class.

The students in the 6th grade were going to take a field trip to the Planetarium. Forhomework, Mr. Armstrong asked the stu-dents to skim two pages he reprinted fromthe Atlas. One was a diagram of the StarMaps of the Northern Hemisphere and thesecond was the Southern Hemisphere.Themaps also had a key and some facts.

“Just skim the maps,” he said. “Try to be-come familiar with some of the patterns sothat when we go to the planetarium, you’llhave some sense of what you might beseeing.”

Graphic Advance Organizers

Chapter 6 discussed graphic organizersas a type of nonlinguistic representation.They also can be effectively used as ad-vance organizers. The following exampleshows how a teacher used a graphic orga-


nizer as an advance organizer in an 11thgrade French class.

Ms. Hougham wanted to introduce herFrench students to the French Impressionistpainters. Prior to showing them a slide showcontaining a number of artist’s works, shepresented her students with a graphic or-ganizer identifying some of the painters towhom they were about to be introducedand some of their works (see Figure 10.4).

She encouraged her students to listen foradditional information to add to the graphic

organizer—key features of impressionism,perhaps other painters, paintings, or impor-tant details about either.

♦ ♦ ♦

Helping students think about new knowl-edge before experiencing it can go a longway toward enhancing student achieve-ment. Teachers can use cues, questions, andadvance organizers to facilitate this type ofthinking in a variety of ways and formats.

French Impressionism

Emphasis on light

Renoir

MonetDégas

Cézanne

Mont Saint-Victoire

Fruit Bowl

The Tub

Water Lillies

The River

A Girl with aWatering Can

Luncheon of theBoating Party

Prima Ballerina

FIGURE 10.4

Graphic Organizer: French Class

S P E C I F I C

A P P L I C A T I O N S

In general, the nine categories of instruc-tional strategies described in Chapters2–10 work well with all types of subject-

matter knowledge. If a teacher wishes,however, she can match specific instruc-tional strategies to specific types of knowl-edge. This notion that different types ofknowledge involve different types of learn-ing and, therefore, different types of teach-ing is not new. Noted educator Ralph Tylerprobably introduced it in the 1950s (seeEducational Evaluation: Classic Works ofRalph Tyler by Madaus & Stufflebeam,1989). Later, educational reformer HildaTaba (1962) expanded on this notion, iden-tifying specific instructional strategies forspecific types of knowledge.

One can organize subject-matterknowledge into five broad categories:(1) vocabulary terms and phrases, (2) de-tails, (3) organizing ideas, (4) skills and tac-tics, and (5) processes. The first three cate-

gories are informational in nature and aresometimes referred to as “declarativeknowledge.” The last two categories aremore process oriented and are sometimesreferred to as “procedural knowledge.”

R e s e a rc h a n d T h e o r y o n Vo c a b u l a r y Te r m s a n d P h r a s e sOne of the most generalizable findings inthe research is the strong relationship be-tween vocabulary and several importantfactors, such as

◆ Intelligence (Davis, F. B., 1944;Spearitt, 1972; Thorndike & Lorge, 1943).

◆ One’s ability to comprehend new infor-mation (Chall, 1958; Harrison, 1980).

◆ One’s level of income (Stitcht, Hofstet-ter, & Hofstetter, 1997).

11T E A C H I N G S P E C I F I C

T Y P E S O F K N O W L E D G E

123


Given the apparent importance of vocabu-lary development, one might assume thatsystematic vocabulary instruction is a criti-cal aspect of the instruction in virtuallyevery school. In fact, some researchers haveconcluded that systematic vocabulary in-struction is one of the most important in-structional interventions that teachers canuse, particularly with low-achieving stu-dents (see Becker, 1977).

It is safe to say, however, that system-atic vocabulary instruction is rare in U.S.schools (see McKeown & Curtis, 1987).Moreover, some writers have taken the po-sition that systematic vocabulary instruc-tion is a futile or, at best, a low-yield en-deavor in terms of student learning.

The primary argument for this negativeposition deals with the number of words inthe English language. Specifically, Nagy andhis colleagues (Nagy & Anderson, 1984;Nagy & Herman, 1984) estimate that thenumber of words in “printed school Eng-lish” (i.e., those words K–12 students willencounter in print) is about 85,000. Quiteobviously, it would be impossible to teachso many words one at a time. For Nagy andhis colleagues, these facts render systematicvocabulary instruction impractical. Stahland Fairbanks (1986) have summarizedNagy’s logic as follows:

Since a vocabulary teaching program typi-cally teaches 10 to 12 words a week orabout 400 words a year, of which perhaps75% or 300 are learned, vocabulary instruc-tion is not adequate to cope with the vol-

ume of new words that children need tolearn and do learn without instruction (Stahl& Fairbanks, 1986, p. 100).

Nagy and Herman (1987) offer an alterna-tive to direct vocabulary instruction. Theyargue:

If students were to spend 25 minutes a dayreading at a rate of 200 words per minutefor 200 days out of the year, they would reada million words of text annually. According to our estimates, with this amount of read-ing, children will encounter between 15,000and 30,000 unfamiliar words. If one in 20 ofthese words is learned, the yearly gain invocabulary will be between 750 and 1,500words (p. 20).

If one subscribes to their logic, then directvocabulary instruction is not only ill-advised, but downright foolish. The argu-ment, however, is not entirely accurate. Infact, an analysis of the research provides astrong case for systematic instruction in vo-cabulary at virtually every grade level.

The following generalizations can beused to guide instruction in vocabularyterms and phrases.

1. Students must encounter words incontext more than once to learn them. Inpart, the conclusion about the utility ofwide reading as the primary vehicle for vo-cabulary development relies on the as-sumption that students will learn thosewords they encounter. Wide reading, how-ever, might not add new words to students’vocabularies as easily as one might think.

T E A C H I N G S P E C I F I C T Y P E S O F K N O W L E D G E 125

To illustrate, a study by Jenkins, Stein, andWysocki (1984) demonstrates that to learna new word in context (without instruc-tion), students need to be exposed to theword at least six times before they haveenough experience with the word to ascer-tain and remember its meaning. Their re-search indicates that one or even two expo-sures to words in context do not producesignificant vocabulary learning. In fact, itisn’t until exposures reached six that stu-dents began to learn and recall new words.

Since the Jenkins and others study, twoother major studies have attempted to de-termine how likely it is for students tolearn new words while reading. WhereNagy and Herman (1987) estimated thatstudents have about a 5-percent chance oflearning a new word they encountered intheir reading, Swanborn and de Glopper(1999) estimated that students have about

a 15-percent chance of learning a newword encountered during reading. Boththese studies provide an optimistic view ofincidental word learning. But even this op-timistic view must be tempered. To illus-trate, consider the data in Figure 11.1.

As Figure 11.1 shows, many factors af-fect the chances that a student will learnnew words while reading. High-ability stu-dents have a 19-percent chance of learninga new word, whereas low-ability studentshave an 8-percent chance only. Older stu-dents (i.e., grade 11) have a 33-percentchance of learning new words, whereasyoung students (i.e., grade 4) have an 8-percent chance only. Finally, the nature oftext greatly influences the chance that stu-dents will learn new words. Low-densitytext (i.e., 1 new word per 150 words) pro-vides a 30-percent chance that studentswill learn new words, whereas high-density

FIGURE 11.1

Chances of Learning New Words in Context

Characteristic Factor Chances of Learning Word

Ability Low 8 percentMedium 12 percentHigh 19 percent

Grade Level Grade 4 8 percentGrade 11 33 percent

Text Density 1 new word for every 10 words 7 percent1 new word for every 74 words 14 percent1 new word for every 150 words 30 percent

Source: Data from Swanborn & de Glopper, 1999.


text (i.e., 1 new word in 10) provides onlya 7-percent chance.

These findings seriously undermine theargument that wide reading is sufficient toenhance the vocabulary development ofstudents, especially when one considers thefact that more than 90 percent of wordsstudents encounter in their reading occurless than once in a million words of text;about half occur less than once in a billionwords (Nagy & Anderson, 1984).

2. Instruction in new words enhanceslearning those words in context. Perhapsone of the most useful findings from theJenkins and others (1984) study is thateven superficial instruction on wordsgreatly enhances the probability that stu-dents will learn the words from contextwhen they encounter them in their read-ing. When students have such instructionon words, their ability to comprehend thesenew words increases by a factor of aboutone-third. Specifically, students in the Jenk-ins and others study who had prior instruc-tion on words were about 33 percent morelikely to understand new words encoun-tered during reading than did students whohad no prior instruction.

What is perhaps most significant aboutthese findings is that the prior instructionthe students had was minimal. In fact, in-struction amounted simply to providingstudents with a sheet of paper that con-tained definitions of the new words, alongwith an example of each word used in a

sentence. Students were allowed to readthe sheet, but they received no help fromthe teacher. In addition, students had onlyabout 40 seconds to study each word—cer-tainly not enough time to digest the infor-mation about these new words in anydepth. Yet, even this superficial instructionimproved students’ chances of understand-ing these words in context.

3. One of the best ways to learn a newword is to associate an image with it. Nu-merous studies support the powerful ef-fects of associating mental images or sym-bolic representations with words beinglearned. For example, in an analysis of 11controlled studies, Powell (1980) foundthat instructional techniques employing theuse of imagery produced achievement gainsin word knowledge that were 34 percentilepoints higher than techniques that did not.Figure 11.2 represents the effectiveness ofimagery-based techniques as comparedwith specific types of nonimagery-based in-structional methods.

As shown in Figure 11.2, imagery-based techniques produced achievementgains that were 37 percentile points higherthan those produced by techniques that fo-cused on having students continually re-view word definitions. Imagery-based tech-niques produced achievement gains thatwere 21 percentile points higher than tech-niques that focused on having studentsgenerate novel sentences that demonstratean understanding of new words.

FIGURE 11.2

Imagery-Based Instructional Techniques

Methods Compared to Percentile Gain forImagery-Based Elaboration Number of Studies Imagery-Based Elaboration

Students keep repeating or rehearsing the definition 6 37

Students generate their own examples of the newwords used in a sentence 4 21

Source: Powell, G. (1980, December). A meta-analysis of the effects of “imposed” and “induced” imagery upon word recall. Paper pre-sented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.Ed 199 644)


4. Direct vocabulary instruction works.Probably the most straightforward researchfinding relative to vocabulary is that directinstruction enhances achievement. In amajor review of the research on vocabulary,researchers Stahl and Fairbanks (1986)found that teaching general vocabulary di-rectly had an overall effect size of .32.While this is not a huge effect size, it haspractical significance. It means that teach-ing vocabulary directly increases studentcomprehension of new material by 12 per-centile points. To illustrate, assume that twostudents of equal ability are asked to readand understand new information. StudentA, however, is in a program where about10 to 12 new vocabulary words are taughteach week. According to Nagy and Herman(1984), this is the typical number of wordsprovided to students in vocabulary pro-grams. Student B does not receive this in-struction. Now assume that Students A andB take a test on the new content and that

Student B receives a score that places himat the 50th percentile relative to other stu-dents in the class. All else being equal, Stu-dent A will receive a score that places herat the 62nd percentile on that same testsimply because she received systematic vo-cabulary instruction.

5. Direct instruction on words that arecritical to new content produces the mostpowerful learning. The effects of vocabularyinstruction are even more powerful whenthe words selected are those that studentsmost likely will encounter when they learnnew content. Specifically, the research byStahl and Fairbanks (1986) indicates thatstudent achievement will increase by 33percentile points when vocabulary instruc-tion focuses on specific words that are im-portant to what students are learning. To il-lustrate, again consider Students A and B,who have been asked to read and under-stand new content. Student B, who has not


received systematic vocabulary instruction,receives a score on the test that puts her atthe 50th percentile. Student A, who has re-ceived systematic instruction on words thathave been specifically selected because they areimportant to the new content, will obtain ascore that puts him at the 83rd percentile.

C l a ss r o o m P r a c t i c e i nVo c a b u l a r y Te r m s a n dP h r a s e s

Identifying Critical Terms and Phrases

Given the effect of direct vocabularyinstruction on student achievement, oneobvious instructional activity is to identifyterms and phrases that are critical to atopic and provide direct instruction onthose terms and phrases. It is probably bestto limit the number of critical terms andphrases for any given topic. For example, ateacher presenting a three-week unit on aspecific topic might identify five key termsand phrases related to that topic. The fol-lowing example shows this selection in thecontext of teaching students a novel.

Mrs. Locke had always provided a list of vo-cabulary terms for each of the chapters inthe novels she was teaching in her highschool literature class. In the past, she gave20–25 words in advance of each chapter.She noticed that the students treated thewords almost like a spelling list—writing defi-nitions, but not trying to learn or use the

terms and phrases. She also found thatsometimes she had to “stretch” to find thatmany words in each chapter.

When Mrs. Locke changed her strategy,she gave students only about 5–7 words foreach chapter. Sometimes the words werenot taken directly from the chapter, but wereselected because they would help studentsunderstand the context of the novel. Forexample, when she taught Ray Bradbury’sFahrenheit 451, she gave the students wordslike censorship, dystopian fiction, dual im-agery, and nemesis. Learning these wordsprovided students with a basis for under-standing some of the more complex and ab-stract aspects of the novel.

A Process for Teaching New Terms and Phrases

Probably the most powerful way toteach new terms and phrases is to use aninstructional sequence that allows for mul-tiple exposures to students in multipleways. The following five-step process canbe a powerful tool for teaching new termsand phrases.

Step 1. Present students with a briefexplanation or description of thenew term or phrase.

Step 2. Present students with a nonlin-guistic representation of the newterm or phrase.

Step 3. Ask students to generate theirown explanations or descriptions ofthe term or phrase.

Step 4. Ask students to create their ownnonlinguistic representation of theterm or phrase.


Step 5. Periodically ask students to re-view the accuracy of their explana-tions and representations.

The following example shows the use ofthis process in a high school literature unit.

Step 1. Present students with a briefexplanation or description of the newterm or phrase. A few days after the classhad started reading the novel Fahrenheit 451,Mrs. Locke introduced a new word by tellingone student that he should not read the bookthat was sitting on his desk. Naturally, the stu-dent looked surprised. She went on to saythat he should read only those books ap-proved by her. She walked over to anotherstudent and remarked that she noticed thathe was keeping a journal and that it should beturned in at the end of the class to be“checked” in case the student had writtenanything incriminating. Finally, she told the stu-dents that they should always check with herbefore buying any new CDs so that she couldapprove their choices.The students looked atone another wondering what was going on.After a long silence,Mrs. Locke asked the stu-dents to describe what she was doing. Bensaid,“You were taking charge of our thinking.”Joanne thought that she was being unfair.One student stated that the teacher had noright to tell them what to read, write about,or listen to. Mrs. Locke explained to the stu-dents that they had just experienced adramatization of the word censorship.

Step 2. Present students with anonlinguistic representation of thenew term or phrase. Mrs. Locke thendrew a sketch on the board that depictedher dramatization of the word. The picture,she explained, shows a flame engulfing abook, a person speaking, a symbol of religion,and a newspaper.

Step 3. Ask students to generatetheir own explanations or descrip-tions of the term or phrase. Mrs. Lockeasked the students to work in pairs to gen-erate their own descriptions or explanationsfor the term censorship. Renatta wrote,“Cen-sorship is wrong. It is taking away a person’sright to think for himself.”

Step 4. Ask students to createtheir own nonlinguistic representa-tion of the term or phrase. The stu-dents also generated their own nonlinguisticrepresentations. Most students used web-bing techniques to represent the word, butsome used sketches. One student drew asketch of himself with bandannas around hiseyes, his mouth, his ears, and his wrists toshow that censorship was like a gag put onall of his senses.

Step 5. Periodically ask students toreview the accuracy of their explana-tions and representations. For the nexttwo weeks, as the students read the novel,they reviewed their definitions and sketchesfor the term censorship, adding new insights.

R e s e a rc h a n d T h e o r y o n D e t a i l sDetails, another specific type of knowledge,are highly specific pieces of information.They include facts, time sequences, cause/effect sequences, and episodes. Figure 11.3further explains these types of details.

We have found two generalizations that teachers can use to guide instruction indetails:

1. Students should have systematic,multiple exposures to details. Perhaps the


most striking findings in the research ondetails is that students must encounter de-tails rather frequently if they are to learnfacts, dates, and other details at a deepenough level to understand and recallthem. Specifically, research by Nuthall(1999; Nuthall & Alton-Lee, 1995) indi-cates that students should be exposed to

details at least three or four times beforeanyone can legitimately expect them to re-member those details or use them in anymeaningful way. In addition, researchershave found that, in general, the time be-tween exposures to details should not ex-ceed about two days. This interval, createdby the need for multiple exposures to de-

FIGURE 11.3

Details

FactsFacts are a specific type of informational content.Facts convey information about specific persons,places, living and nonliving things, and events.They commonly articulate information such asthe following:

◆ The characteristics of a specific person (e.g., Thomas Jefferson served as president of theUnited States from 1801 to 1809).

◆ The characteristics of a specific place (e.g., Paris is in the country of France).

◆ The characteristics of specific living andnonliving things (e.g., my dog, Tuffy, is a goldenretriever; the Empire State Building is more than100 stories high).

◆ The characteristics of a specific event (e.g., construction began on the Leaning Tower ofPisa in 1174).

Time SequencesTime sequences include important events thatoccurred between two points in time. For exam-ple, the events that occurred between PresidentKennedy’s assassination on November 22, 1963,and his burial on November 25, 1963, are orga-nized as a time sequence in most people’s memo-ries. First, one thing happened, then another, thenanother.

Cause/Effect SequencesCause/effect sequences involve events that pro-duce a product or an effect. A causal sequencecan be as simple as a single cause for a single ef-fect. For example, the fact that the game was lostbecause a certain player dropped the ball in theend zone can be organized as a causal sequence.More commonly, however, effects have complexnetworks of causes; one event affects another thatcombines with a third event to affect a fourththat then affects another, and so on. For example,the events leading up to the U.S. Civil War can beorganized as a casual sequence.

EpisodesEpisodes are specific events that have

◆ A setting (e.g., a particular time and place).◆ Specific participants.◆ A particular duration.◆ A specific sequence of events.◆ A particular cause and effect.

For example, the events of the Watergate burglaryand its effects on the Nixon presidency can be or-ganized as an episode: The episode occurred at aparticular time and place; it had specific partici-pants; it lasted for a specific duration of time; itinvolved a specific sequence of events; it wascaused by specific events; and it had a specific ef-fect on the United States.


tails and the need for those exposures to berelatively close in time, has been called the“time window” for learning (Rovee-Collier,1995).

To illustrate, assume that the topic ofthe Battle of Gettysburg has been intro-duced to students in a section of a text-book. The teacher and the students readthe section aloud and discuss it. Within twodays, this same topic must be revisited insome way. The teacher can simply engagestudents in a discussion of the content, orhe might present more information in theform of a brief presentation, have studentsread another section in the textbook, showa film, and so on. Within another two days,the information must be revisited again,and then again within two days after that.

2. Details are highly amenable to “dra-matic” instruction. Another interestingfinding regarding the teaching of details isthat different types of instruction producedifferent effects on student learning. Specif-ically, student understanding and recollec-

tion of detail is different depending onwhether instruction is verbal, visual, ordramatic. Figure 11.4 describes the differ-ing effects on learning of these types ofinstruction.

As its name implies, verbal instructioninvolves telling students about details orhaving them read about details. Althoughverbal instruction has fairly impressive ef-fects on students’ understanding and recallof details immediately after instruction anda year later, it has the weakest effect of thethree. Visual instruction emphasizes someform of nonlinguistic representation. Wesaw in Chapter 6 that this might involvegraphic representations, pictures and pic-tographs, or creating mental pictures orconcrete representations. The effects onlearning for this technique are better thanverbal instruction both immediately afterinstruction and one year later. Its effects arenot as strong, however, as the effect for thethird category of instruction—dramatiza-tion. When instruction emphasizes dramati-zation, students either observe a dramatic

FIGURE 11.4

Types of Instruction and Effect on Learning

Instruction Effect Size (ES) Immediately After Instruction ES After 12 Months

Verbal Instruction .74 .64

Visual Instruction .90 .74

Dramatic Instruction 1.12 .80

Source: Data computed from Nuthall, 1999, and Nuthall & Alton-Lee, 1995.


enactment of the details or are involved ina dramatic enactment of the details. As Fig-ure 11.4 illustrates, this type of instructionhas the strongest effects both immediatelyafter instruction and one year later.

C l a ss r o o m P r a c t i c e i n D e t a i l s Multiple Exposures

During a unit of instruction, teachersexpose students to many, many details:facts, time sequences, episodes, and so on.Certainly students cannot process all of thisinformation at a deep enough level to re-member and use it at a later date. Conse-quently, a sound instructional strategy is toplan a unit in such a way that key detailsare identified—details that students are ex-pected to know in depth. In addition,teachers should find ways to expose stu-dents to these details multiple times—atleast three—and that, ideally, these expo-sures are no more than two days apart. Thefollowing example shows how a middleschool teacher provided multiple exposuresduring a unit on mythology.

Ms. Sanders’ class at Dry Creek MiddleSchool is beginning a unit on Greek andRoman Mythology. Before starting, Ms.Sanders identifies the details that are criticalto the unit and then considers ways to ex-pose the class to these details several differ-ent times. She decides that she wants theclass to know about significant gods and

goddesses and what they represent. Alsoshe wants students to understand certainkey myths and the ways gods, goddesses,and humans interact in the myths.

On the first day of the unit, Ms. Sandersreads a myth aloud and engages the class ina discussion in which she introduces signifi-cant gods and goddesses by their Greek andRoman names, talks about their attributes,and shows the class a picture of each—fromclassical art.The next day the class watchesa film about early Greek architecture thatcontains numerous examples of gods andgoddesses and depictions of their lives onthe walls of early Greek buildings. For home-work, Ms. Sanders assigns readings about theTrojan War.

Later that week, Ms. Sanders divides theclass into small groups of two to three stu-dents. She assigns each group a particulargod or goddess and asks them to design ahat symbolizing that god or goddess’s attri-butes. Students present their hat to the classand explain its meaning.

Dramatic Representation of Key Details

Given that dramatic representation ofkey details has a significant effect on stu-dent learning, teachers should plan instruc-tion to ensure that it occurs. Elementaryschoolteachers probably use drama moreoften than do secondary teachers, but weneed to remember that all learners canbenefit from this technique. The followingexample describes a high school scienceclassroom in which students were involvedin a dramatic enactment:

Ms. Schlieman’s sophomores had just fin-ished reading about the circulatory system.


She knew that, for many students, this wasthe second or third time they had studiedthis system but was amazed at the limitedunderstanding and retention of informationher students exhibited. She decided to use a technique she knew would work—actingout the process. She asked the students toform several groups: One group was to bethe blood; each of the other groups was tobe an organ of the body. Each of the organgroups had to create a tunnel through whichthe blood group would flow. Students had toact out what happens to the organ and theblood as it moves through the organ. Someorgans take things from the blood, othersadd things to it; sometimes blood changes itscolor. When the groups were ready, theblood group “flowed” around the roomfrom organ to organ. Mrs. Schlieman period-ically stopped the action (especially whenthe giggling was out of control) and dis-cussed with all groups what was going on atthat point.The class, at the students’ request,repeated this enactment several times, add-ing more details each time.

R e s e a rc h a n d T h e o r y o nO r g a n i z i n g I d e a s Organizing ideas, such as generalizationsand principles, are the most general type ofdeclarative knowledge.1 The statement,“Specific battles sometimes disproportion-ately influence the outcome of a war,” is ageneralization. Although vocabulary termsand details are important, generalizations

help students develop a broad knowledgebase because they transfer more readily todifferent situations.

For instance, the preceding generaliza-tion about battles applies to wars gener-ally—across countries, situations, and ages,whereas a fact about the Battle of Gettys-burg is a specific event that does not di-rectly transfer to other situations. This isnot to say that details are unimportant. Onthe contrary, to truly understand generaliza-tions, students must be able to supportthem with exemplifying facts. For instance,to understand the generalization about theinfluences of specific battles, students needa rich set of illustrative facts, one of whichis probably that regarding the Battle ofGettysburg. Figure 11.5 explains general-izations and principles in more detail.

The following generalizations can serveto guide instruction in organizing ideas:

1. Initially, students commonly havemisconceptions about organizing ideas. Agreat deal of research has demonstrated thatstudents frequently have misconceptionsabout generalizations and principles whenthey are first introduced to them. In addi-tion, it is not easy to change these miscon-ceptions (Gilbert, Osborne, & Fensham,1982; Hewson & Hewson, 1983; Spiro,Coulson, Feltovich, & Anderson, 1994).One meta-analytic study conducted byGuzzetti and others (1993) compared theeffectiveness of various instructional tech-niques relative to correcting misconcep-

1 Note: We have not included concepts as orga-nizing ideas because, technically defined, they aresynonymous with generalizations (see Gagne, 1977).


FIGURE 11.5

Organizing Ideas

GeneralizationsGeneralizations are statements for which exam-ples can be provided. For example, the statement,“U.S. presidents often come from families thathave great wealth or influence,” is a generalizationfor which one can provide examples. It is easy toconfuse some generalizations with some facts.

Facts identify characteristics of specific per-sons, places, living and nonliving things, andevents, whereas generalizations identify character-istics about classes or categories of persons, places,living and nonliving things, and events. For exam-ple, the statement, “My dog, Tuffy, is a golden re-triever,” is a fact. The statement, “Golden retriev-ers are good hunters,” however, is a generalization.In addition, generalizations identify characteristicsabout abstractions. Specifically, information aboutabstractions is always stated in the form of gener-alizations. The following are examples of the vari-ous types of generalizations:

◆ Characteristics of classes of persons (e.g., Ittakes at least two years of training to become afireman).

◆ Characteristics of classes of places (e.g., Largecities have high crime rates).

◆ Characteristics of classes of living and nonliv-ing things (e.g., Golden retrievers are good huntingdogs; Firearms are the subject of great debate).

◆ Characteristics of classes of events (e.g., TheSuper Bowl is the premiere sporting event eachyear).

◆ Characteristics of abstractions (e.g., Love isone of the most powerful human emotions).

PrinciplesPrinciples are specific types of generalizations thatdeal with relationships. In general, there are twotypes of principles found in school-related declar-ative knowledge: cause/effect principles and correla-tional principles.

◆ Cause/effect principles—Cause/effect princi-ples articulate causal relationships. For example,the sentence, “Tuberculosis is caused by the tu-

bercle bacillus” is a cause/effect principle. Al-though not stated here, understanding a cause/effect principle includes knowledge of the spe-cific elements within the cause/effect system andthe exact relationships those elements have toone another. That is, to understand the cause/ effect principle regarding tuberculosis and thebacterium, one would have to understand the sequence of events that occur, the elements in-volved, and the type and strength of relationshipsbetween those elements. In short, understandinga cause/effect principle involves a great deal ofinformation.

◆ Correlational principles—Correlational princi-ples describe relationships that are not necessarilycausal in nature, but in which a change in onefactor is associated with a change in another fac-tor. For example, the following is a correlationalprinciple: “The increase in lung cancer amongwomen is directly proportional to the increase inthe number of women who smoke.” Again, to un-derstand this principle, a student would have toknow the specific details about this relationship.Specifically, a student would have to know thegeneral pattern of this relationship, that is, thenumber of women who have lung cancer changesat the same rate as the number of women whosmoke cigarettes.

These two types of principles are sometimesconfused with cause/effect sequences. A cause/effect sequence applies to a specific situation,whereas a principle applies to many situations.The causes of the Civil War taken together repre-sent a cause/effect sequence. They apply to theCivil War only. The cause/effect principle linkingtuberculosis and the tubercle bacillus, however,can be applied to many different situations andmany different people. Physicians use this princi-ple to make judgments about many situations andpeople. The key distinction between principlesand cause/effect sequences is that principles canbe exemplified in a number of situations, whereascause/effect sequences cannot—they apply to asingle situation only).


tions. Figure 11.6 lists these strategies andtheir effect sizes.

As Figure 11.6 shows, simply activatingprior knowledge—asking students to recallwhat they know about a specific organizingidea—produces very little conceptualchange. Having students discuss what theyknow about an organizing idea producessignificantly more conceptual change proba-bly because it facilitates the infusion of newperspectives and ideas generated by discus-sion. The biggest conceptual change comeswhen students must provide a sound de-fense or argument for their position, or arepresented with a sound argument or asound defense relative to an organizing idea.

2. Students should be provided oppor-tunities to apply organizing ideas. Ross(1988) conducted an extensive review ofstudies relating to organizing ideas. Of themany findings in that review, one of themost useful to the classroom teacher is thatstudents learn the most when teachers askstudents to apply generalizations and prin-ciples once they understand them. This im-

plies that more instructional time and en-ergy should be focused on having studentsuse organizing ideas than initially under-standing them. Of course, it is important todesign instruction so that students first un-derstand generalizations and principles. Butonce students initially grasp these ideas,students should apply them frequently andin a variety of situations.

C l a ss r o o m P r a c t i c e i nO r g a n i z i n g I d e a sMaking Sure That Students Can Clearly Articulate Statements of Generalizations and Principles and Provide Numerous Examples

Generalizations and principals are com-plex enough that teachers should ensurethat students can state them clearly andthat they can offer a variety of examples,including those that the teachers presentedand those they have identified for them-selves. The following example shows how

FIGURE 11.6

Strategies for Correcting Misconceptions

Strategy No. of Effect Sizes (ESs) Ave. ES Percentile Gain

Activate prior knowledge 14 .08 3

Discussion 11 .51 19

Argumentation 3 .80 79


this process might play out in the contextof a high school history lesson.

Daniel stated, “A democratic people cannotstay in that governing state forever. At somepoint there has to be a change.”

“I’m not really following,” said Jewel. “Canyou state that in a different way?”

“OK, how about ‘Governments mustchange, because the governed will demandchange’?”

Mrs. Bamberry overheard the conversa-tion that the group was having as part oftheir study of the topic “ideal state of gov-ernment.” She heard Daniel trying to explainto the others that democracies would even-tually end up with tyrants as their leaders.Mrs. Bamberry was surprised at Daniel’sdepth of understanding. Daniel even quotedPlato whose ideas they had discussed theprevious day: “Plato stated that the governingsystem would change on account of the de-sire. Democracies treat all desires as equallygood, so that means that anything goes. Butthe desires of some inevitably get in the wayof the desires of others, so a democracy willbecome increasingly chaotic.”

“Daniel, can you back that up?” she asked.“Can you give us some examples of demo-cracies that have collapsed into tyrannies?”

Daniel’s reply was quick in coming: “Themost contemporary examples include whenMussolini came to power in Italy, or Hitler inGermany. In both cases, what Plato referredto as “desire” of a tyrant, led one person totake advantage of the chaos of the demo-cratic state (the desire of the many).”

“Plato,” explained Mrs. Bamberry, “de-scribed the various states, and among themthe ideal state. The ideal state was, by theway, not a democracy.”

“That’s right,” said Daniel, “but the ironyof Plato’s argument was that in Greek his-tory, the tyrannies tended to precede the

democracies; he was just making an argu-ment for the ideal state; that state, for Plato,was the aristocracy, by his own rules.”

Helping Students Increase TheirUnderstanding of Generalizations andPrinciples and Clear Up MisconceptionsAbout Them

If it becomes apparent that studentshave misconceptions about organizingideas, the teacher might present examplesthat expose the flaws in their thinking. Ifstudents’ understanding seems accurate, butat a surface level only, the teacher can pro-vide opportunities for the students to useand enhance their understanding by pre-senting a novel situation in which the gen-eralization or principle would apply. Thefollowing example shows how teachers canguide students in clearing up misconcep-tions and deepening their knowledge.

Michaela’s 5th grade classmates came toclass with many new examples of the gener-alization that people tend to buy things quicklywhen the supply is decreasing. Michaela raisedher hand and added to the conversation,“Whenever companies notice that peoplewant something, they make sure the supplyis low so they can raise the price. People paybecause they will think that there is a short-age. That’s what my dad says.” Other stu-dents nodded in agreement.

“Wait a minute, Michaela,” replied herteacher. “That might be true sometimes, butnot always.What if you were selling lemon-


ade on a hot day? Would you want peopleto think that you didn’t have very much orwould you want them to know that you hadplenty and they could buy two?”

The teacher explained that companies, ingeneral, increase the supply when the de-mand increases. She provided the studentswith numerous examples and went on aWeb site called “Econopolis” that providedeven more examples. She also described theeconomics principle that supported it. Mi-chaela, and the other students, began to un-derstand that supply, in most cases, needs tofollow demand.Their teacher was relieved.

R e s e a rc h a n d T h e o r yo n S k i l l sMental skills come in two different forms:tactics and algorithms (see Snowman & McCown, 1984).

◆ Tactics consist of general rules gov-erning an overall flow of execution, ratherthan a set of steps that must be performedin a specific order. For example, a tactic forreading a histogram might include rulesthat address (1) identifying the elementsdepicted in the legend, (2) determiningwhat is reported on each axis of the graph,and (3) determining the relationship be-tween the elements on the two axes. Al-though there is a general pattern to theserules, there is no rigid or set order.

◆ Algorithms are mental skills that havespecific outcomes and steps. Performing

multicolumn subtraction is an illustrationof an algorithm. Although the steps in atactic do not have to be performed in a setorder, the steps in an algorithm generallydo. Obviously, changing the order in whichyou perform the steps of multicolumn sub-traction will dramatically change the an-swer that you compute.

For the most part, all the generalizationsdescribed in Chapter 5 on “practice” applydirectly to skill learning. Consequently,when teaching students new skills, teachersshould recall the generalizations describedin that section. In addition, the followinggeneralizations may help guide instructionin skills.

1. The discovery approach is difficultto use effectively with skills. A commonmisconception in education is that “discov-ering” how to perform a skill or tactic is al-ways better than being directly taught theskill or process. This misconception proba-bly gained favor in reaction to a previouslyheld misconception that drill and practicein specific steps are always the best way toteach skills (Anderson, J. R., Reder, &Simon, 1997). Although the discovery ap-proach has captured the fancy of many ed-ucators, there is not much research to indi-cate its superiority to other methods.Indeed, some researchers have made strongassertions about the lack of effectiveness ofdiscovery learning, particularly as it relates


to skills. For example, researchers McDanieland Schlager (1990) note: “In our view, dis-covery learning does not produce betterskill” (p. 153).

Some skills are not amenable to discov-ery learning. For example, consider theskills of addition, subtraction, multiplica-tion, and division. To have students dis-cover the steps involved in these computa-tional procedures makes little sense.Although it is probably true that studentswould certainly understand these skills wellif they were required to discover theirsteps, it is also true that this would take aninordinate amount of time.

Although no magic list can be providedfor those algorithms and tactics that are bestsuited to a discovery approach, a useful ruleof thumb might be that the more variationthere is in the steps that can be used to ef-fectively execute a skill, the more amenablethe skill is to discovery learning. For exam-ple, if five specific steps must be followed ina specific order to properly use a piece ofequipment in a science laboratory, then it isquestionable whether the best approach isfor students to discover these five steps andtheir order of execution. It might be betterto demonstrate those steps and then provideopportunities for students to alter them tosuit their individual needs and styles. On theother hand, a tactic that can be executed ina number of ways, like that used when read-ing a bar graph, is probably a good candidatefor discovery learning.

2. When teachers use discovery learn-ing, they should organize examples intocategories that represent the different ap-proaches to the skill. One of the best ex-amples of an effective discovery approachwith skill-based knowledge is CognitivelyGuided Instruction (CGI; see Carpenter,T. P., Fennema, & Peterson, 1987; Carpenter,T. P., Fennema, Peterson, Chiang, & Loef,1989; Fennema, Carpenter, & Franke, 1992;Fennema, Carpenter, & Peterson, 1989; Pe-terson, Carpenter, & Fennema, 1989; Peter-son, Fennema, & Carpenter, 1989). Usingthis approach, teachers can encourage pri-mary students to “design” their own strate-gies for solving problems. Within CGI,

Children are not shown how to solve theproblems. Instead each child solves them inany way that s/he can, sometimes in morethan one way, and reports how the problemwas solved to peers and teacher. Theteacher and peers listen and question untilthey understand the problem solutions, andthen the entire process is repeated. Usinginformation from each child’s reporting ofproblem solutions, teachers make decisionsabout what each child knows and how in-struction should be structured to enablethat child to learn (Fennema, Carpenter, &Franke, 1992, p. 5).

Key to the success of this powerfuldiscovery-oriented approach is theteacher’s awareness of the types of prob-lems that form the basis for a more com-plex understanding of computational factsand problem-solving strategies. Figure 11.7shows these problem types.


Notice that we have organized the prob-lems in Figure 11.7 into specific categoriesbased on the strategies used to solve them.With this detailed system of problem types, ateacher can effectively guide student inquiry.As students practice a specific type of prob-lem, they devise and test out strategies forthat type. Categorizing problems into dis-

tinct types focuses the students’ inquiry. Inshort, for inquiry to be effective, teachersneed to place examples of the skill that is thetarget of the discovery approach into well-organized categories that represent differentways of executing the skill.As students workthrough the different categories, they de-velop different ways of performing the skill.

FIGURE 11.7

Types of Word Problems

Problem Type

Join

Separate

Part-Part-Whole

Compare

Source: Franke, M. L., Levi, L., & Empson, S. B. (1991). Children’s mathematics: Cognitively guided instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heine-mann. Adapted by permission.

(Result Unknown)Connie had 5 marbles. Juangave her 8 more marbles.How many marbles doesConnie have altogether?

(Result Unknown)Connie had 13 marbles.She gave 5 to Juan. Howmany marbles does Conniehave left?

(Difference Unknown)Connie has 13 marbles.Juan has 5 marbles. Howmany more marbles doesConnie have than Juan?

(Change Unknown)Connie has 5 marbles.How many more marblesdoes she need to have 13marbles altogether?

(Change Unknown)Connie had 13 marbles. Shegave some to Juan. Now shehas 5 marbles left. Howmany marbles did Conniegive to Juan?

(Compare Quantity Unknown)Juan has 5 marbles. Conniehas 8 more than Juan. Howmany marbles does Conniehave?

(Start Unknown)Connie had some marbles.Juan gave her 5 more mar-bles. Now she has 13 mar-bles. How many marbles didConnie have to start with?

(Start Unknown)Connie had some marbles.She gave 5 to Juan. Nowshe has 8 marbles left. Howmany marbles did Conniehave to start with?

(Reference Unknown)Connie has 13 marbles.She has 5 more marblesthan Juan. How manymarbles does Juan have?

(Whole Unknown)Connie has 5 red marbles and 8 blue mar-bles. How many marbles does she have?

(Part Unknown)Connie has 13 marbles. Five are red and therest are blue. How many blue marbles doesConnie have


3. Skills are most useful when learnedto the level of automaticity. One highlygeneralizable research finding relative toskill learning is that skills must be learnedat a level at which they require little or noconscious thought. Technically, this is re-ferred to as learning a skill to the level ofautomaticity (see Anderson, J. R., 1983;Fitts & Posner, 1967; LaBerge & Samuels,1974). To do this, students must engage inpractice that gradually becomes distributed,as opposed to massed. To illustrate, in thebeginning stages of learning a skill, practicesessions will be spaced very close to oneanother—preferably every day. These prac-tice sessions are massed. Over time, the in-terval between practice sessions becomeslonger and longer; thus practice sessions aredistributed over time.

C l a ss r o o m P r a c t i c e i n S k i l l sFacilitating the Discovery Approach to Skills

As we mentioned in the previous sec-tion, when teachers use a discovery ap-proach to teach a specific skill, they shouldorganize examples to represent differenttypes of strategies. As students progressthrough each category of examples, theyshould be asked to design strategies for thatparticular category of example. When stu-dents have worked through the examples,they should contrast the strategies devel-

oped for the different categories. The fol-lowing example illustrates this in the con-text of driver’s education.

The students in Mr. Prado’s drivers’ educa-tion class were skilled enough in their drivingthat he thought that they were ready tolearn to drive on different surfaces. To cap-ture their attention and interest, Mr. Pradodecided to have students discover differenttechniques for different driving surfacesrather than teach the techniques directly.With the help of a specially designed com-puter program in the driving simulator, hewas able to expose students to a variety ofdriving surfaces—dry pavement, wet pave-ment, oil-slicked pavement, snow-coveredpavement, gravel, and a rutted dirt surface.Using the simulator, he had students drive onall six surfaces. After all students had “driven”the simulator for a particular type of surface,he asked them to discuss the techniquesspecific to that surface. When all studentshad driven on all surfaces, the studentsworked in small groups to identify strategiesthat were common to all surfaces and strate-gies specific to each type of surface.

Planning for Distributed Practice andEmphasizing Its Importance

When teachers design lesson plans forteaching a skill, they typically decide howmuch class time and how many homeworkassignments will be dedicated to initiallypracticing the skill (i.e., providing time formassed practice). It is not as common,however, for teachers to plan for distributedpractice. One remedy for this commonoversight is to write into a planning calen-dar exactly when distributed practice is


going to occur. Further, when a skill istaught near the end of the year, the teachermight recommend to the students a spe-cific summer schedule for distributed prac-tice, explaining to them the importance ofachieving automaticity and the role of dis-tributed practice. Obviously, some studentswill not follow the schedule; but, at a mini-mum, students might increase their under-standing of the process of learning a skill.The following example shows how a highschool teacher became aware of the impor-tance of distributed practice.

Ms. Chimes was an English teacher but alsotaught piano lessons in the evenings and onweekends. One Saturday, she was explainingto a new piano student that the practiceschedule for each student was worked outfar in advance. She explained further thateven when a student became quite good ata skill, there was still a need to keep goingback and practicing it. As she talked to thestudent, something occurred to her. She ap-plied her understanding of practice meticu-lously to her piano teaching, but did not fol-low the same regimen in her English class.This might explain why she had to do somuch reteaching of the writing and researchskills she taught early in the year. She felt alittle foolish when she realized how long she had been using practice effectively withpiano, but had not transferred it to her Eng-lish classroom.

R e s e a rc h a n d T h e o r y o n P r o c e ss e sProcesses are similar to skills in some waysand different in other ways. They are similar

in that they produce some form of productor new understanding. For example, the tac-tic of reading a bar graph produces a newunderstanding of the relationship betweentwo variables. The process of writing pro-duces a new composition. Processes, how-ever, have a much higher tolerance for vari-ation relative to the steps involved than doskills. For example, there are not a greatmany ways to go about reading a bar graph,but many different ways to engage in theprocess of writing. We might say thatprocesses are more “robust” than skills interms of how they can be performed.

By definition, processes are notamenable to a “step-by-step” instructionalapproach. But most students could still dowith some guidance in the general aspectsof the process. For example, it is commonto provide a description of the variouscomponents involved in writing. Occasion-ally, teachers refer to this approach as“process writing.” Consider the followingphrases (or adaptations of them) that manyteachers use for the writing process:

1. Prewriting2. Writing3. Revising

Within each of these major components ofthe writing process, more specific subcom-ponents are identified, such as the following:

3. Revising:◆ Revising for the overall logic of

the composition◆ Revising for effective transitions


◆ Revising for word choice andphrasing

◆ Revising for subject-verbagreement

◆ Revising for spelling and punctuation

We have drawn two generalizationsthat teachers can use to guide instructionwith processes:

1. Students should practice the partsof a process in the context of the overallprocess. Obviously, teachers should presentstudents with the components and sub-components of a process and provide prac-tice in all of them. The research on writingoffers an insight into how this is best ac-complished. Specifically, Hillocks (1986)examined four approaches to teachingwriting, which can be described as follows:

1. Presentation: The teacher explainswhat good writing is and gives examples.

2. Natural process: The teacher has stu-dents engage in a great deal of free writing,individually and in groups.

3. Focused practice: The teacher struc-tures writing tasks to emphasize specific as-pects of writing.

4. Skills: The teacher breaks downwriting into its component parts and thenprovides practice, sometimes in isolation,on each part.

Figure 11.8 shows the effect sizes for eachof these approaches.

According to Figure 11.8, the approachthat produces the best learning is focusedpractice. In these situations, teachers pre-sent students with the components andsubcomponents of the process and thenstructure writing tasks to emphasize aspecific component or subcomponent. Forexample, a teacher might assign a composi-tion that emphasizes the subcomponent of revising for overall logic or revising fortransitions. Note that simply explaining to

FIGURE 11.8

Effect Sizes for Various Approaches to Writing

Approach No. of Effect Sizes (ESs) ES

Presentation 4 .02

Natural process 9 .19

Focused practice 10 .44

Skills 6 .17


students what good writing is (i.e., the“presentation” approach) resulted in thelowest effect size in the studies reviewedby Hillocks (1986). Note also how smallthe effect sizes were for simply having stu-dents write a great deal (i.e., the “naturalprocess” approach) or practicing the com-ponents and subcomponents in isolation(i.e., the “skills” approach).

2. Teachers should emphasize themetacognitive control of processes.Processes, by definition, involve complexinteractions of component skills. Conse-quently, a student must not only have mas-tery over the component skills, but must beable to control the interactions of these ele-ments. This is commonly referred to asmetacognitive control (see Scardamalia &Bereiter, 1985). In fact, in a major review ofresearch on instruction, Wang, Haertel, andWalberg (1993) found that strategies thatemphasized the metacognitive aspects oflearning a process had some of the largesteffect sizes of all categories considered.

The research of Michael Pressley andhis associates (see Pressley, Woloshyn, &Associates, 1995; Pressley, Goodchild, Fleet,Zajchowski, & Evans, 1989) has providedsome explicit guidelines for developingmetacognitive control in students:

◆ Provide plenty of guided practice by hav-ing students use the strategies for as manyappropriate tasks as possible, providing rein-forcement and feedback on how the stu-

dents can improve their execution of thestrategies.◆ Encourage students to monitor their per-formance when using the strategies.◆ Encourage generalization of the strategiesby having students use them with differenttypes of materials in the various contentareas, as well as their continued use (Press-ley,Woloshyn, & Associates, 1990, p. 18).

C l a ss r o o m P r a c t i c e i n P r o c e ss e s

Providing a General Model of the Overall Components and Subcomponentsof Processes

Students need a fair amount of guid-ance when first learning a complex process.One of the best ways to provide this guid-ance is to give them a model of the overallcomponents and subcomponents of theprocess. The following is an example ofusing a model in the context of reading in-struction in elementary school:

Students in every grade level at Buena VistaElementary are presented with the followingmajor components of the Reading Process.

ExperienceSelect TextIdentify What Is Known/Set PurposeConstruct MeaningUse/Reflect

At every grade level, the overall process isreviewed as students learn new subcompo-


nents for each phase. For example, to “con-struct meaning,” students work on their abil-ity to decode, to predict, to confirm and dis-confirm predictions, to make inferences, tocreate mental pictures, and to clear up con-fusions.Teachers at Buena Vista use the read-ing process consistently so that by the timestudents leave the 5th grade, they are famil-iar with the interactive components of read-ing and have developed fluency in the indi-vidual components.

Focusing on Specific SubcomponentsWithin the Context of the Entire Process

As stated in the first generalization in the previous section, students reallyshouldn’t practice the subcomponents of acomplex process in isolation. Instead, theyshould practice the subcomponents in thecontext of the overall process. For example,when engaged in the overall process ofreading, students might practice making andconfirming predictions, as opposed to mak-ing and confirming predictions in isolationof the overall process. This level of focus re-quires use of metacognitive skills (see thesecond generalization). The following activi-ties are useful in helping students focus onspecific subcomponents of a process.

◆ Help students to articulate clearly thespecific subcomponent (e.g., skill, strategy)that they are going to practice and to setcriteria for evaluating their own progress

◆ Provide a variety of assignments overtime that require students to use the tar-

geted skill or strategy within the context ofthe process.

◆ Encourage students to self-assess butalso provide feedback on the targeted skillor strategy. To help students focus, avoidgiving feedback on other aspects of theprocess.

The following example describes howteachers might help students engage in fo-cused practice within the context of theresearch process.

As the middle and high school teachers fin-ished their model of the research processthey would present to students, they werestruck with the sheer number of skills andstrategies students would be asked to use.In the ensuing discussion, the high schoolteachers admitted that they had often won-dered, aloud, if middle school teachers actu-ally taught the research process. It seemedthat every year, when students were askedto do research, they had to be guidedthrough the entire process as if they werehearing it for the first time. It was now moreobvious why this happened. Students werenever asked to focus on and master any spe-cific skill within the research process.

The teachers set a goal for their nextwork session. They decided to identify thespecific skills and strategies within the over-all research process that would be the focusfor each year. They also began to design afeedback sheet that teachers would useacross grade levels.The sheet contained thecomponents of the research process andthe extensive list of subcomponent skillsand strategies. For each grade level, thefeedback sheet highlighted the subcompo-


nents that would be the focus for that year.For example, a subcomponent for focus in7th grade was accessing information fromthe Internet and evaluating the quality ofthe source. For the 10th grade, it was de-veloping a thesis statement and narrowingthe topic. By designing this feedback sheet,the teachers hoped they would begin tosee real progress in students’ skills at the re-search process.

♦ ♦ ♦

In this chapter, we have considered specificstrategies for teaching five types of knowl-edge: vocabulary terms and phrases, details,organizing ideas, skills and tactics, andprocesses. Planning instruction at this levelof detail makes teaching more precise, andlearning more efficient.

If teachers are familiar with the researchand practice presented in Chapters 2through 11, this knowledge will likely

influence the way they plan for instruction.As a refresher, here’s a list of the nine cate-gories of strategies that have a strong effecton student achievement:

◆ Identifying similarities anddifferences.

◆ Summarizing and note taking.◆ Reinforcing effort and providing

recognition.◆ Homework and practice.◆ Nonlinguistic representations.◆ Cooperative learning.◆ Setting objectives and providing

feedback.◆ Generating and testing hypotheses.◆ Questions, cues, and advance

organizers.

To plan with the intent of systematicallyusing the strategies presented in this book,teachers might think about unit planning asinvolving the following three phases:

◆ At the beginning of a unit, includestrategies for setting learning goals.

◆ During a unit, include strategies – for monitoring progress toward

learning goals.– for introducing new knowledge.– for practicing, reviewing, and apply-

ing knowledge.◆ At the end of a unit, include strategies

for helping students determine how wellthey have achieved their goals.

In this chapter, we have provided an ex-tended example of unit planning followingthis model in the context of a hypotheticalunit on weather.

12U S I N G T H E N I N E C A T E G O R I E S

I N I N S T R U C T I O N A L P L A N N I N G

146

U S I N G T H E N I N E C A T E G O R I E S I N I N S T R U C T I O N A L P L A N N I N G 147

♦ ♦ ♦

A t t h e B e g i n n i n g o f a U n i to f I n s t r u c t i o n

Ms. Becker, a 6th grade teacher, was teach-ing a unit on weather. When she plannedthe unit, she first considered strategies fo-cused on identifying and communicatinggoals. Figure 12.1 shows the strategies sheconsidered.

Near the beginning of the unit, Ms.Becker clearly articulated the learning goalsfor students. She constructed these goals byconsulting her district’s curriculum, exam-ining her textbook, and considering whatshe knew about the interests of 6th grad-ers. Deciding to include interdisciplinarycontent, she identified four goals forscience, one for geography, and one forlanguage arts.

Ms. Becker gave a copy of the learninggoals to each student, using “I” statementsto help students relate at a more personallevel (see Figure 12.2). After students readthrough the goals, Ms. Becker provided abrief description of each.

Ms. Becker also asked students to iden-tify personal learning goals. Students firstexamined the learning goals she had pre-sented, but then identified more specificgoals that interested them. She also encour-aged students to set goals for becomingbetter learners. To illustrate these two types

of goals, Ms. Becker provided the followingexamples:

My personal learning goals:

1. Personal Learning Goal 1: I will try to under-stand what the deal is with El Niño. How it influencesweather where I live. Everyone talks about it, but Idon’t get it.

2. Personal Learning Goal 2: I will learn moreabout the kinds of destruction tornadoes create. Ithink it is different from what you see after a hurri-cane. I loved the movie Twister and I have been inter-ested in tornadoes ever since.

After providing time for the students towrite their personal goals in their “learningjournals,” Ms. Becker asked them to pair upand to do the following:

◆ Share their goals with one another.◆ Brainstorm ways to achieve their

goals.

When Ms. Becker began planning thisunit, she took the time to consider potential

FIGURE 12.1

Instructional Strategies for Use at the Beginning of a Unit

Setting Learning Goals

1. Identify clear learning goals. (See Chap-ter 8)

2. Allow students to identify and recordtheir own learning goals. (See Chapter 8)


student attitudes that might get in the wayof the students’ setting and achieving theirlearning goals. She knew that, in the past,6th graders had not been highly interested

in the subject of weather. In fact, she as-sumed that they considered the topic mun-dane. To make the unit more personallymeaningful to students, she decided to build

FIGURE 12.2

Example of Unit Goals: The Power of the Weather

As a result of this unit, I will

Unit Learning Goal 1: ScienceI will . . . Understand key weather terms, including:

air mass atmosphere hurricanefront (cold, warm, stationary) evaporation tornadoprecipitation El Nino cirrus, cumulus, stratusbarometer humidity air pressure

Unit Learning Goal 2: ScienceI will . . . Understand how interactions of air masses, as they move across the oceans and land, createfronts and how these fronts become thunderstorms, tornadoes, and hurricanes.

Unit Learning Goal 3: Science I will . . . Know the major types of clouds, how they are formed, and to what weather patterns they arerelated.

Unit Learning Goal 4: Science I will . . . Be able to use a barometer and a thermometer to gather, analyze, and interpret weather data.

Unit Learning Goal 5: GeographyI will . . . Understand how physical geographic factors—weather—influence human behavior and historicevents.

Unit Learning Goal 6: Language ArtsI will . . . Understand elements of literature, specifically how weather, as part of setting, influences plot.

Personal Learning Goals: During this unit, I will . . .


on the theme of how weather influencespeople’s lives—their own lives, historicalevents, and even people’s lives in fiction. Tolaunch the unit with this theme in the fore-front, she gave the following assignment:

1.Try to remember an event in your lifethat was influenced by weather. Make somenotes about what happened and how youand others were influenced. Be ready toshare your stories.

2. Interview several people—parents,grandparents, friends—and ask them to tellyou about a time they can remember whentheir lives were influenced by weather. Forexample, I had a friend once who met a manwhen she was stranded at an airport be-cause of a storm.That man later became herhusband. Be ready to share stories that illus-trate interesting, although not too personal,examples of how weather influenced thelives of people you know.

D u r i n g a U n i tDuring the unit, Ms. Becker employedtechniques that related to three areas: mon-itoring learning goals; introducing newknowledge; and practicing, reviewing, andapplying knowledge.

Monitoring Learning Goals

Figure 12.3 lists the strategies Ms.Becker considered to help students monitorprogress toward learning goals.

As the weather unit progressed, Ms.Becker helped students monitor their

progress. Further, she asked them to moni-tor the effort they were putting into theunit assignments. Her 6th grade team hadalways asked students to keep a spiral note-book entitled “My Learning”; but for thisunit, Ms. Becker had them set up the pagesusing a format that would help them tracktheir progress. Periodically throughout theunit, students were asked to focus on spe-cific unit learning goals and their personalgoals. Then, after reflecting on their experi-ences, they were to self-assess, on a four-point scale, how well they were achievingtheir goals and again, on a four-point scale,how much effort they were expending.Finally, they were to identify and brieflydescribe behaviors that had worked wellfor them, as well as those behaviors theyneeded to change to be more successful.

To help students self-assess each goaland to assess their effort, Ms. Becker re-

FIGURE 12.3

Instructional Strategies to Use During a Unit

Monitoring Learning Goals

1. Provide students feedback and helpthem self-assess their progress toward achiev-ing their goals. (See Chapter 8)

2. Ask students to keep track of theirachievement of the learning goals and of theeffort they are expending to achieve the goals.(See Chapter 4)

3. Periodically celebrate legitimate progresstoward learning goals. (See Chapter 4)


viewed with them some general rubricsthat would provide the consistent criteriafor their evaluation. When she handed outthe rubrics, she left space on the page aftereach rubric level for students to make theirown notes and personalize the rubrics. Thestudents knew that these rubrics, with theirpersonal notes added, would be handed inat the end of the unit along with theirlearning journals. Students were either pro-vided class time to write in their learningjournals or were asked to write in theirjournals as part of their homework. Ms.Becker regularly set aside a few minutes atthe beginning or end of class for students toshare some of their journal entries in small-group discussions. She encouraged studentsto use their groups to help each other clearup confusions, to make suggestions for im-proving performance, and to congratulateeach other when significant progress wasmade.

Introducing New Knowledge

In planning, Ms. Becker made a distinc-tion between those things she would do tointroduce knowledge to students and thosethings she would do to help students prac-tice, review, and apply knowledge. Figure12.4 shows some of the strategies she con-sidered to introduce knowledge.

Ms. Becker used activities that relied oncooperative learning groups, as well as indi-vidual activities. Before she introducedeach major topic, she gave the cooperativegroups a few minutes to talk about what

they already knew—or thought theyknew—about the topic and what theythought they would probably be learning.The recorder for the group jotted downideas from each group member and keptthe list in her notebook.

After the individual learning time foreach topic, groups reconvened and com-pared what they learned with what theythought they knew. Ms. Becker listened togroups before and after the lessons, both tomodify upcoming lessons based on whatstudents already knew and to evaluate whatstudents had learned.

As the teacher introduced each newtopic—whether by watching a film, readingthe text, or engaging in class discussion—she

FIGURE 12.4

Instructional Strategies for UseDuring a Unit

Introducing New Knowledge

1. Guide students in identifying and articu-lating what they already know about the top-ics (Chapter 10).

2. Provide students with ways of thinkingabout the topic in advance (Chapter 10).

3. Ask students to compare the new knowl-edge with what is known (Chapter 2).

4. Have students keep notes on the knowl-edge addressed in the unit (Chapter 3).

5. Help students represent the knowledge innonlinguistic ways, periodically sharing theserepresentations with others (Chapter 6).

6. Ask students to work sometimesindividually, but other times in cooperativegroups (Chapter 7).


asked students to open their notebooks andset up the pages as shown in Figure 12.5.

On the left-hand page, students tooknotes, using the note-taking format that Ms.Becker had taught them (see also Figure3.15 and the discussion of note-taking inChapter 3). This format included bothwritten notes and graphic representations.On the right-hand page, students describedor drew pictures of some possible effects of the weather phenomenon that was ex-plained on the left. This helped studentskeep focused on the theme of the unit—weather influencing people’s lives. Theycould make up possible effects (like “A pic-nic is ruined”) or could write or depict ac-tual and fictional events with which theywere familiar.

Practicing, Reviewing, and Applying Knowledge

Figure 12.6 lists instructional strategiesthat Ms. Becker considered to help studentspractice, review, and apply their knowledge.

As the unit progressed, Ms. Becker as-signed different types of homework, de-pending on the type of knowledge she wasintroducing. The following are two exam-ples of homework she designed for reviewand practice:

◆ After vocabulary terms were introduced,students’ homework was to add the term totheir unit vocabulary list by using what theylearned in class, their own experiences, andseveral Web sites Ms. Becker provided. Foreach term, students were to describe the

FIGURE 12.5

Sample Student Notebook


term in their own words, create a graphicrepresentation or draw a picture of theword, and list other words that are relatedto it. (Students typically used approximatelyhalf a page for each vocabulary term. Theykept these vocabulary pages together in asection of their notebooks.)

◆ After the skill of reading a barometer wasintroduced,Ms.Becker provided students withworksheets containing pictures of five typesof barometers that students were to read.During the evening, students read each set ofbarometers and recorded their readings.Thenext day, students paired up and shared theirreadings. Ms. Becker then presented themwith the correct readings. Students again dis-cussed the accuracy of their readings withparticular attention to problems they had.

The day after a homework assignment,Ms. Becker asked students to place theirhomework on their desks. She reviewed

each student’s homework as they workedindependently or in groups. On a remov-able sticky note, she simply wrote a num-ber 1–4 to indicate the degree of accuracyor depth of understanding the students haddemonstrated in their homework. She alsopointed out any major misconceptions theymight have. If she did not get to each stu-dent’s work during class, she collected thepages and handed them back the next day.

Ms. Becker wanted students to usewhat they learned about weather patternsand about how weather influences people’slives. She, therefore, considered several op-tions for long-term projects that studentscould complete. The following list showsher initial ideas:

1. Investigation of a hypothetical pastevent. What if the weather had been differ-ent on the day of a historical event—eithera famous event or an event from your orsomeone else’s past? Describe the sequenceof weather-related events that led up to theevent. Then describe a different sequenceand explain how history might have beendifferent if the weather had been different.Do the same for a fictional event.

2. Decision Making. We have read andheard accounts of some of the major stormsof the 20th century. If scientists had to selectwhich storm was the storm of the century,which do you think it would be? Set up a decision-making matrix to select whichstorm you think should win this distinction.Use criteria that reflect both your under-standing of the impact of weather on peo-ple’s lives and your understanding of weatherelements that characterize storms.

Once you have selected what you believeto be the “Storm of the Century,” we will

FIGURE 12.6

Instructional Strategies for UseDuring Unit

Practicing, Reviewing,and Applying Knowledge

1. Assign homework that requires studentsto practice, review, and apply what they havelearned; however, be sure to give students ex-plicit feedback on the accuracy of allhomework (Chapter 5).

2. Engage students in long-term projectsthat involve generating and testing hypotheses(Chapter 9).

3. Ask students to revise the linguistic andnonlinguistic representations of knowledge intheir notebooks as they refine their under-standing of the knowledge (Chapters 3 and 6).


visit a Web site that depicts what scientistsdecided and compare your decision with thestorm that actually was selected by scientists.

3. System Analysis. Select one majorweather event and describe how each ele-ment of the event influenced the other ele-ments (such as, the temperature influencedthe moisture in the air, which influenced,etc.) Then, change one element and describehow the other elements would be affected.Next, go back and change a different ele-ment, and describe what would happen tothe other elements.

After considering these three possibleprojects, Ms. Becker selected one and de-

veloped it into the project described in Figure 12.7.

A t t h e E n d o f a U n i tMs. Becker thought carefully about how tobring the unit to completion in a way thatenhanced the learning for every student inher class. Figure 12.8 lists some of thestrategies she considered.

Ms. Becker had always been committedto providing students with useful feedback.She was meticulous about providing stu-

FIGURE 12.7

Sample Long-Term Project

What if…

We are going to use your technical under-standing of weather and what you know about history to create a new job—a “histo-meteorologist.”

Select one of the examples—that you foundor that was presented in class—of a historicalevent that would have been different with dif-ferent weather. Compose a short oral or writtendescription of that event as if you were a historian and a meteorologist all in one (a “histo-meteorologist”). Describe the event as if youhave a special report each night on the nightlynews. Be sure to use technical terms accurately.

You might, for example, describe the day theTitanic sailed as “a beautiful clear day, high pres-sure dominated, and there wasn’t a cumulus, cir-rus, or stratus cloud in the sky. But then a fewcirrus clouds began to appear and a warm airmass moved in and met up with a cold front,forcing water vapor to. . . .” You might then endwith “The captain of the Titanic was heard to saythat if it hadn’t been for that low-lying stratus

cloud, we might have hit that iceberg. Thatwould have been a real tragedy.”

You might instead be a literary-meteorolo-gist and do the same thing for an event in a story. Change the weather and describe it usingscientific terms. Then explain what would havehappened differently to the plot by changing the weather. (Idea: What if . . . Cinderella hadrun into a major thunderstorm and never made it to the ball?)

You get the idea.This task requires investigation of a hypo-

thetical past event. You must take what you un-derstand about weather cause-effect patterns andapply it to a specific situation that you get tomake up. You will be assessed on the followingelements:

◆ How well you use your skills of investiga-tion to describe a hypothetical past event.

◆ How well you use your understanding ofcauses of weather.


dents with immediate feedback on their as-signments, both in writing and orally duringclass. When a unit or long-term assignmentwas completed, she always tried to sched-ule one-on-one conferences with students,but it was difficult to do this very oftenand very well. Whenever she provided ex-tensive written feedback on long-term as-signments, she noticed that many of thestudents simply looked at the grade and didnot read her comments. Given her commit-ment to feedback, she had recently appliedfor and had just received a small grant topurchase class sets of audiotape recorders,each with a set of earphones. Now she hada new approach to giving feedback.

Learning Logs

First, Ms. Becker asked all the studentsto identify a final page in their learning log,

on which they were to evaluate the extentto which they had achieved each unit goaland each personal goal. The format theyused included a column for the student’sfinal assessment for each goal, and theteacher’s final assessment of each goal. Italso included space for students to com-ment on each goal and to make final com-ments about what they learned aboutweather and about themselves as learners.Students handed in this learning log as partof their portfolio from the unit.

Audiotape Assessments

As Ms. Becker reviewed each portfolioand evaluated the students on theirachievement of the goals, she communi-cated her feedback through brief writtenstatements and rubric scores and by record-ing more detailed feedback on audiotape. Be-cause she was doing less writing, she wasable to finish grading the unit more quicklythan usual and yet provide more extensivecomments.

On the day Ms. Becker returned theportfolios, she handed each student the au-diotape and a tape player with earphones.She gave them time to listen to her com-ments with the portfolio in front of them.Although every student did not listen withthe same level of concentration, she no-ticed that as they listened, many studentswere flipping through their portfolio andexamining parts of assignments as they lis-tened to her critique on the tape.

FIGURE 12.8

Instructional Strategies for Use atthe End of a Unit

Helping Students Determine How Well TheyHave Achieved Their Goals

1. Provide students with clear assessmentsof their progress on each learning goal (Chap-ters 4 and 8).

2. Have students assess themselves on eachlearning goal and compare these assessmentswith those of the teacher (Chapters 4 and 8).

3. Ask students to articulate what theyhave learned about the content and aboutthemselves as learners (Chapters 4 and 8).


♦ ♦ ♦

B e n e f i t s o f S t r a t e g i c P l a n n i n gThe research-based instructional strategiesconsidered before, during, and after theunit greatly influenced Ms. Becker’s plan-

ning. In some cases, planning with thestrategies in mind validated what she hadalways done. But it also helped her to re-think some of her classroom practices. Ex-plicitly planning a unit with an eye towardemploying specific strategies before, during,and after a unit, raised the quality of herplanning and teaching. More important, itenhanced student achievement.

In the first chapter of this book, we beganwith a “call to arms,” so to speak. We as-serted that the field of education is at a

turning point in its history—a point atwhich schooling and teaching are beginningto become more of a science than an art.Accomplishing this transformation will re-quire at least three major efforts.

First, the research on instruction andschooling must be synthesized and madereadily available to educators. This book isintended as a small but important step tomake research understandable and useful.No doubt other similar resources will soonbe available to educators.

Second, schools and school districtsmust provide high-quality staff develop-ment relative to effective practices identi-fied by the research. That is, simply present-ing teachers with instructional techniquesthat are backed by the research is insuffi-cient to effect change. Indeed, research has

consistently shown that changing the prac-tice of schooling requires far more thansimply presenting educators with newstrategies in an “inservice workshop” (seeFullan, 1993; Guskey, 2000; Joyce & Show-ers, 1980). Some of the elements we be-lieve are necessary for change to occur inday-to-day classroom practice are describedhere. It should come as no surprise thatthese elements are drawn directly from theresearch presented in this book:

◆ Adequate modeling and practice.Learning a complex skill mandates that aperson properly demonstrate the skill, withattention to the many variations in imple-mentation the skill may require. In addi-tion, acquiring a complex skill demandsextensive practice during which time onelearns the skill to a level at which it can beexecuted with little conscious thought. Wediscussed these facts in depth in Chapters 5

13A F T E R W O R D

156

A F T E R W O R D 157

and 12 of this book. Although many of thetechniques presented in this book are cer-tainly known to teachers, they are, nonethe-less, skills that teachers must master if theyare to use the skills and strategies effec-tively in the classroom. Schools and dis-tricts should provide teachers with trainingexperiences that include effective modelingof strategies, along with substantial time topractice those strategies.

◆ Feedback. One of the primarymessages in Chapter 8 of this book isthat students need accurate and timelyfeedback as they are learning newknowledge. So, too, must schools anddistricts provide teachers with accurateand timely feedback relative to their ac-quisition of the strategies in this book.An effective and efficient way to providefeedback is to ask teachers to work instudy groups as they try out new strate-gies gleaned from this text. Members ofa group might observe each other asthey implement a given strategy andthen “debrief ” one another on those ele-ments of the strategy that worked welland those that did not.

◆ Allowance for differences in imple-mentation. Chapter 5 of this text empha-sized the need for students to “shape” newskills to be compatible with their own indi-vidual needs and styles. Schools and dis-tricts must make the same allowances forteachers learning the strategies presented inthis book. There is no single way to imple-ment an instructional strategy. Although we

suggest that teachers first try out the rec-ommended format for a given strategy, wealso suggest that teachers adapt strategiesto their particular needs and the particularcontext in which they will use them.

◆ Celebration. Chapter 4 of this bookdiscussed the needs of students for recogni-tion. Again, teachers as learners have thesame needs. Therefore, we strongly suggestthat schools and districts organizing staffdevelopment around this book devote aformal and systematic part of the trainingto celebrating not only the success teachersare experiencing implementing strategies intheir classrooms, but also the sheer effortthey are putting into making substantivechange in their classrooms. In fact, wemight go so far as to say “When in doubt,celebrate!”

Third, and perhaps most important, educa-tors must have a desire and commitment tochange. There is growing sentiment thatschooling, in general, is resistant to changeand that classroom teachers, in particular,are almost impervious to change. There areeven those who maintain that the probabil-ity of changing classroom instructionalpractices through staff development effortsis so small that we should not even try (seeCarpenter, W. A., 2000). We believe thatthis is an overly pessimistic view not onlyof staff development, but of the professionof teaching in general.

We agree, however, that substantivechange is difficult. Busy teachers who have


been doing things the same way for a fairamount of time will have many valid rea-sons for not trying a new strategy. What isclearly required to alter the status quo is asincere desire to change and a firm com-mitment to weather the inevitable stormsas change occurs. We should note that weare not so naive as to think that all teachersin a school will have the requisite level ofdesire and commitment. But collectively, asauthors, we have had more than 50 years ofexperience in staff development and havecome to the conclusion that a small groupof educators within a school who are en-thusiastic about a particular innovation can

“infect” an entire staff with that enthusi-asm. Quite literally, on occasion, we haveseen a single individual in a school be theprimary catalyst for substantive change.

Consequently our call to arms is not foreveryone. In fact, it is intended for thoseonly who have been sitting and waiting forsuch an invitation. We believe that your de-sire and commitment is perhaps the mostpowerful resource for change that exists inpublic education. We encourage you tonurture that desire and commitment, andwe hope that this book will be a useful toolto you as you transform education from anart to a science.

The following table provides a quick refer-ence to percentile gains or losses associatedwith specific effect sizes. To illustrate how touse this table, assume that a research studyfound that the use of a specific strategy pro-duced an effect size of .20. You should firstlocate .20 in the column labeled “EffectSize.” In this case, it can be found in the first

column. To the immediate right of thisnumber is the percentile gain associatedwith the effect size. In this case, it is 8. Thismeans that the score of the average personin the group that used the instructional strat-egy would be 8 percentile points higher thanthe score of the average person in the groupthat did not use the instructional strategy.

A P P E N D I X

Conversion Table for Effect Size/Percentile Gain

Effect Size Percentile Gain Effect Size Percentile Loss

0.00 0 0.00 00.02 1 –0.02 –10.05 2 –0.05 –20.08 3 –0.08 –30.10 4 –0.10 –40.13 5 –0.13 –50.15 6 –0.15 –60.18 7 –0.18 –70.20 8 –0.20 –80.23 9 –0.23 –90.25 10 –0.25 –100.28 11 –0.28 –110.31 12 –0.31 –120.33 13 –0.33 –130.36 14 –0.36 –140.39 15 –0.39 –150.41 16 –0.41 –160.44 17 –0.44 –170.47 18 –0.47 –180.50 19 –0.50 –190.52 20 –0.52 –200.55 21 –0.55 –210.58 22 –0.58 –220.61 23 –0.61 –230.64 24 –0.64 –240.67 25 –0.67 –250.71 26 –0.71 –260.74 27 –0.74 –270.77 28 –0.77 –280.81 29 –0.81 –290.84 30 –0.84 –300.88 31 –0.88 –310.92 32 –0.92 –320.95 33 –0.95 –331.00 34 –1.00 –341.04 35 –1.04 –351.08 36 –1.08 –361.13 37 –1.13 –371.18 38 –1.18 –381.23 39 –1.23 –391.28 40 –1.28 –401.34 41 –1.34 –411.41 42 –1.41 –421.48 43 –1.48 –431.56 44 –1.56 –441.65 45 –1.65 –451.75 46 –1.75 –461.88 47 –1.88 –472.05 48 –2.05 –482.33 49 –2.33 –49


Alexander, P. A. (1984). Training analogical reason-ing skills in the gifted. Roeper Review, 6(4),191–193.

Alexander, P. A., & Judy, J. E. (1988). The interactionof domain-specific and strategic knowledge inacademic performance. Review of Educational Re-search, 58, 375–404.

Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Schulze, S. K.(1994). How subject-matter knowledge affectsrecall and interest. American Educational Re-search Journal, 31(2), 313–337.

Alvermann, D. E., & Boothby, P. R. (1986). Chil-dren’s transfer of graphic organizer instruction.Reading Psychology, 7(2), 87–100.

Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and itsimplications (3rd ed.). New York: Freeman.

Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and memory: Anintegrated approach. New York: Wiley.

Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A.(1997). Applications and misapplications of cogni-tive psychology to mathematics education. Unpub-lished manuscript, Carnegie Mellon University,Pittsburgh, PA.

Anderson, L., Evertson, C., & Brophy, J. (1979). Anexperimental study of effective teaching in first-

grade reading groups. Elementary School Journal,79, 193–223.

Anderson, T.H., & Armbruster, B.B. (1986). Thevalue of taking notes during lectures. (Tech. Rep.No. 374). Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek &Newman; and Urbana, IL: Center for the Studyof Reading. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 277 996)

Anderson, V., & Hidi, S. (1988/1989). Teaching stu-dents to summarize. Educational Leadership, 46,26–28.

Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Meyer, J. L.(1992). Improving content-area reading usinginstructional graphics. Reading Research Quar-terly, 26(4), 393–416.

Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J.(1987). Does text structure/summarizationinstruction facilitate learning from expositorytext? Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3),331–346.

Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J.(1987). Does text structure/summarization in-struction facilitate learning from expositorytext. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3),331–346.

Athappilly, K., Smidchens, V., & Kofel, J. W. (1983).A computer-based meta-analysis of the effectsof modern mathematics in comparison with tra-

R E F E R E N C E S

161


ditional mathematics. Educational Evaluationand Policy Analysis, 5(4), 485–493.

Aubusson, P., Foswill, S., Barr, R., & Perkovic, L.(1997). What happens when students dosimulation-role-play in science. Research inScience Education, 27(4), 565–579.

Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: Acognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.

Balli, S. J. (1998). When mom and dad help: Stu-dent reflections on parent involvement withhomework. Journal of Research and Developmentin Education, 31(3), 142–148.

Balli, S. J., Demo, D. H., & Wedman, J. F. (1998).Family involvement with children’s homework:An intervention in the middle grades. Family Re-lations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied FamilyStudies, 47(2), 149–157.

Balli, S. J., Wedman, J. F., & Demo, D. H. (1997).Family involvement with middle-grades home-work: Effects of differential prompting. Journalof Experimental Education, 66(1), 31–48.

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivatingcompetence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interestthrough proximal self-motivation. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 41, 568–578.

Bangert-Downs, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulick, J. A., &Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effects offeedback in test-like events. Review of Educa-tional Research, 61(2), 213–238.

Becker, W. C. (1977). Teaching reading and lan-guage to the disadvantaged—what we havelearned from field research. Harvard Educa-tional Review, 47, 518–543.

Beecher, J. (1988). Note-taking: What do we knowabout the benefits: ERIC Digest #37. Blooming-ton, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading,English, and Communications. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. EDO CS 8812)

Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics andschool learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bond, G. W., & Smith, G. J. (1966). Homework inthe elementary school. The National ElementarySchool Principal, 45(3), 46–50.

Bretzing, B. H., & Kulhary, R.W. (1979, April).Notetaking and depth of processing. Contempo-rary Educational Psychology, 4(2), 145–153.

Brewer, W. F., & Treyens, J. C. (1981). Role ofschemata in memory for places. Cognitive Psy-chology, 13, 207–230.

Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functionalanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 51,5–32.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior andstudent achievement. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 328–375).New York: Macmillan.

Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. (1981).Learning to learn: On training students to learnfrom texts. Educational Researcher, 10, 14–24.

Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforce-ment, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64(3),363–423.

Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., & Peterson, P. L.(1987). Cognitively guided instruction: The ap-plication of cognitive and instructional scienceto mathematics curriculum development. In I.Wirszup & R. Streit (Eds.), Developments inschool mathematics education around the world(pp. 397–417). Reston, VA: National Council ofTeachers of Mathematics.

Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chi-ang, C. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledgeof children’s mathematics thinking in classroomteaching: An experimental study. American Edu-cational Research Journal, 26(4), 499–531.

Carpenter, W. A. (2000). Ten years of silver bullets:Dissenting thoughts on educational reform. PhiDelta Kappan, 81(5), 383–389.

Carrier, C. A., & Titus, A. (1981, Winter). Effects ofnotetaking pretraining and test mode expecta-tions on learning from lectures. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 18(4), 385–397.

Carter, J. F., & Van Matre, N. H. (1975). Note takingversus note having. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 67(6), 900–904.

Chall, J. S. (1958). Readability: An appraisal of re-search and application. Columbus, OH: Bureauof Educational Research, Ohio State University.

R E F E R E N C E S 163

Chen, Z. (1996). Children’s analogical problemsolving: The effects of superficial, structural, andprocedural similarities. Journal of ExperimentalChild Psychology, 62(3), 410–431.

Chen, Z. (1999). Schema induction in children’sanalogical problem solving. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 91(4), 703–715.

Chen, Z., Yanowitz, K. L., & Daehler, M. W. (1996).Constraints on accessing abstract source infor-mation: Instantiation of principles facilitateschildren’s analogical transfer. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology 87(3), 445–454.

Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981).Categorization and representation of physicsproblems by experts and novices. CognitiveScience, 5, 121–152.

Clement, J., Lockhead, J., & Mink, G. (1979).Translation difficulties in learning mathematics.American Mathematical Monthly, 88, 3–7.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for thebehavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Cole, J. C., & McLeod, J. S. (1999). Children’s writ-ing ability. The impact of the pictorial stimulus.Psychology in the Schools, 36(4) 359–370.

Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E., Hobson, C.,McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., & York,R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity.Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

Cooper, H. (1989a). Homework. White Plains, NY:Longman.

Cooper, H. (1989b). Synthesis of research on home-work. Educational Leadership, 47(3), 85–91.

Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., Nye, B., & Greathouse, S.(1998). Relationships among attitudes abouthomework, amount of homework assigned andcompleted, and student achievement. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 90(1), 70–83.

Cooper, H., Valentine, J. C., Nye, B. & Lindsay, J. J.(1999). Relationship between five after-schoolactivities and academic achievement. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 91(2), 369–378.

Cooperative Learning Center. (2000). The Cooperative Learning Center at the Univer-

sity of Minnesota. [Online] Available:http://www.clcrc.com/index.html#essays.

Countryman, L. L., & Schroeder, M. (1996). Whenstudents lead parent-teacher conferences. Edu-cational Leadership, 53(7), 64–68.

Covington, M. V. (1983). Motivation cognitions. InS. G. Paris, G. M. Olson, & H. W. Stevenson(Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom(pp. 139–164). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Covington, M. V. (1985). Strategic thinking and thefear of failure. In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, &R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills:Vol. 1, Relating instruction to research (pp.389–416). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Craske, M. L. (1985). Improving persistencethrough observational learning and attributionretraining. British Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 55, 138–147.

Crismore, A. (Ed.). (1985). Landscapes: A state-of-the-art assessment of reading comprehension re-search: 1974–1984. Final report. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Education (ED261–350).

Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evalu-ation practices on students. Review of Educa-tional Research, 58(4), 438–481.

Dagher, Z. R. (1995). Does the use of analogiescontribute to conceptual change? Science andEducation, 78(6), 601–614.

Darch, C. B., Carnine, D. W., & Kameenui, E. J.(1986). The role of graphic organizers and socialstructure in content area instruction. Journal ofReading Behavior, 18(4), 275–295.

Davis, F. B. (1944). Fundamental factors of compre-hension in reading. Psychometrika, 9, 185–197.

Davis, O. L., & Tinsley, D. (1967). Cognitive objec-tives revealed by classroom questions asked bysocial studies teachers and their pupils. PeabodyJournal of Education, 44, 21–26.

Davis, R. B. (1984). Learning mathematics: The cogni-tive science approach to mathematics education.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediatedrewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of


Personality and Social Psychology, 22,113–120.

Deely, J. (1982). Semiotics: Its history and doctrine.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Denner, P. R. (1986). Comparison of the effects ofepisodic organizers and traditional notetaking onstory recall (Final Report). Boise: Idaho StateUniversity. (ERIC Document Reproduction No.ED 270 731)

Druyan, S. (1997). Effects of the kinesthetic con-flict on promoting scientific reasoning. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 34(10),1083–1099.

Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving (L. S.Lees, Trans.). Psychological Monographs, 58, 270.

Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.

Eco, U. (1979). The role of the reader. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.

Eco, U. (1984). Semiotics and the philosophy of lan-guage. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Einstein, G. O., Morris, J., & Smith, S. (1985, Octo-ber). Notetaking, individual differences, andmemory for lecture information. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 77(5), 522–532.

El-Nemr, M. A. (1980). Meta-analysis of outcomesof teaching biology as inquiry. DissertationAbstracts International, 40, 5813A.

English, L. D. (1997). Children’s reasoning in classi-fying and solving computational word problems.In L. D. English (Ed.), Mathematical reasoning:Analogies, metaphors and images (pp. 191–220).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Evertson, C., Anderson, C., Anderson, L., & Brophy,J. (1980). Relationships between classroom be-haviors and student outcomes in junior highmathematics and English classes. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 17, 43–60.

Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., & Franke, M. L.(1992, Spring). Cognitively guided instruction.NCRMSE Research Review, 1(2), 5–9, 12.

Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., & Peterson, P. L.(1989). Teachers’ decision making and cogni-tively guided instruction: A new paradigm for

curriculum development. In F. Ellerton & M. A.(Ken) Clements (Eds.), School mathematics: Thechallenge to change (pp. 174–187). Geelong, Vic-toria, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Fillippone, M. (1998). Questioning at the elementarylevel. Master’s thesis, Kean University. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 417431)

Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human perfor-mance. Belmont, CA: Brooks Cole.

Flanders, N. (1970). Analyzing teacher behavior.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fletcher, J. (1990). Effectiveness and cost of interactivevideo disc instruction in defense training and edu-cation. Alexandria, VA: Institute for DefenseAnalysis. (IDA paper No. P 2372)

Flick, L. (1992). Where concepts meet percepts.Stimulating analogical thought in children.Science and Education, 75(2), 215–230.

Fowler, T. W. (1975, March). An investigation of theteacher behavior of wait-time during an inquiryscience lesson. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the National Association for Re-search in Science Teaching, Los Angeles. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 108872)

Foyle, H. C. (1985). The effects of preparation andpractice homework on student achievement intenth-grade American history (Doctoral disser-tation, Kansas State University, 1984). Disserta-tion Abstracts International, 45, 2474A.

Foyle, H. C., & Bailey, G. D. (1988). Homework ex-periments in social studies: Implications forteaching. Social Education, 52(4), 292–298.

Foyle, H., Lyman, L., Tompkins, L., Perne, S., &Foyle, D. (1990). Homework and cooperativelearning: A classroom field experiment (Tech. Re-port). Emporia, KS: Emporia State University.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 350 285)

Franke, M. L., Levi, L., & Empson, S. B. (1991).Children’s mathematics: Cognitively guided in-struction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Fraser, B. J., Walberg, H. J., Welch, W. W., & Hattie,J. A. (1987). Synthesis of educational productiv-


ity research. Journal of Educational Research,11(2), 145–252.

Fullan, M. G. (1993). Change forces: Probing thedepths of educational reform. Bristol, PA: Falmer.

Gagne, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning (3rded.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Ganske, L. (1981). Note-taking: A significant andintegral part of learning environments. Educa-tion Communication and Technology Journal(ECTJ), 29(3), 155–175.

Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1994). Structuralalignment in comparison: No difference withoutsimilarity. Psychological Science, 5(3), 152–158.

Gerlic, I., & Jausovec, N. (1999). Multimedia:Differences in cognitive processes observedwith EEG. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 47(3), 5–14.

Gholson, B., Smither, D., Buhrman, A., & Duncan,M. K. (1997). The source of children’s reasoningerrors during analogical problem solving. Ap-plied Cognitive Psychology, 10 (Special Issue).

Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogicalproblem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12,306–355.

Gilbert, J. K., Osborne, R. J., & Fensham, P. J.(1982). Children’s science and its consequencesfor teaching. Science Education, 66, 623–633.

Glynn, S. M., & Takahashi, T. (1998). Learning from analogy—enhanced science text. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10),1129–1149.

Good, T. L., Grouws, D. A., & Ebmeier, H. (1983).Active mathematics teaching. New York:Longman.

Gorges, T. C., & Elliott, S. N. (1995). Homework:Parent and student involvement and theireffects on academic performance. CanadianJournal of School Psychology, 11(1), 18–31.

Gottfried, G. M. (1998). Using metaphors asmodifiers: Children’s production of metaphoriccompounds. Journal of Child Language, 24(3),567–601.

Graue, M. E., Weinstein, T., & Walberg, H. J.(1983). School-based home instruction and

learning: A quantitative synthesis. Journal ofEducational Research, 76, 351–360.

Griffin, C., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J.(1992). Investigating the effectiveness ofgraphic organizer instruction on the compre-hension and recall of science content by stu-dents with learning disabilities. Journal of Read-ing, Writing & Learning Disabilities International,7(4), 355–376.

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional develop-ment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Guszak, F. J. (1967). Teacher questioning and read-ing. The Reading Teacher, 21, 227–234.

Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., & Glass, G. V. (1993).Promoting conceptual change in science: Acomparative meta-analysis of instructional inter-ventions from reading education and science ed-ucation. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2),117–155.

Hall, L. E. (1989). The effects of cooperative learn-ing on achievement: A meta-analysis. Disserta-tion Abstracts International, 50, 343A.

Haller, E. P., Child, D. A., & Walberg, H. J. (1988).Can comprehension be taught? A quantitativesynthesis of “metacognitive studies.” EducationalResearcher, 17(9), 5–8.

Hamaker, C. (1986). The effects of adjunct ques-tions on prose learning. Review of EducationalResearch, 56, 212–242.

Hansell, T. S. (1988). One student’s learning cyclein an interpretive reading discussion. ReadingPsychology, 7(4), 297–304.

Harrison, C. (1980). Readability in the classroom.Cambridge, England: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Harter, S. (1980). The perceived competence scalefor children. Child Development, 51, 218–235.

Hattie, J. A. (1992). Measuring the effects ofschooling. Australian Journal of Education,36(1), 5–13.

Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects oflearning skills interventions on student learning:A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,66(2), 99–136.


Hayes, J. R. (1981). The complete problem solver.Philadelphia, PA: The Franklin Institute.

Healy, J. M. (1990). Endangered minds: Why ourchildren don’t think. New York: Simon &Schuster.

Hedges, L. V. (1987). How hard is hard science,how soft is soft science? The empirical cumula-tiveness of research. American Psychologist,42(2), 443–455.

Heller, J. I., & Reif, F. (1984). Prescribing effectivehuman problem solving processes: Problem de-scriptions in physics. Cognition and Instruction,1(2), 177–216.

Henk, W. A., & Stahl, N. A. (1985). A meta-analysisof the effect of notetaking on learning from lecture.Paper presented at the 34th Annual Meeting ofthe National Reading Conference. (ED 258 533)

Hewson, M. G., & Hewson, P. W. (1983). Effect ofinstruction using students’ prior knowledge andconceptual change strategies on science learn-ing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20,731–743. (Study I. D. #29)

Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1987). Providing writtensummaries: Task demands, cognitive operations,and implications for instruction. Reviewing Edu-cational Research, 56, 473–493.

Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition.Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Readingand Communication Skills and National Con-ference on Research in English.

Holland, J. H., Holyoak, K. F., Nisbett, R. E., &Thagard, P. R. (1986). Induction: Processes of in-ference, learning, and discovery. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Honea, J. M., Jr. (1982, December). Wait-time as aninstructional variable: An influence on teacherand student. Clearing House, 56(4), 167–170.

Horton, S. V., Lovitt, T. C., & Bergerud, D. (1990).The effectiveness of graphic organizers for threeclassifications of secondary students in contentarea classes. Journal of Learning Disabilities,23(1), 12–22.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods ofmeta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in re-search findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hyerle, D. (1996). Visual tools for constructing knowl-edge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervi-sion and Curriculum Development.

Jencks, C., Smith, M. S., Ackland, H., Bane, J. J.,Cohen, D., Grintlis, H., Heynes, B., & Michel-son, S. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of theeffects of family and schools in America. NewYork: Basic Books.

Jenkins, J. R., Stein, M. L., & Wysocki, K. (1984).Learning vocabulary through reading. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 21(4), 767–787.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learningtogether and alone: Cooperative, competitive, andindividualistic learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D.,and Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative,competitive, and individualistic goal structureson achievement: A meta-analysis. PsychologicalBulletin, 89(1), 47–62.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1980). Improving inservicetraining: The messages of research. EducationalLeadership, 37(5), 379–385.

Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. California:Author.

Kahle, A. L., & Kelly, M. L. (1994). Children’shomework problems: A comparison of goal set-ting and parent training. Behavior Therapy,25(2), 275–290.

Keith, T. Z. (1982). Time spent on homework andhigh school grades: A large-sample path analysis.Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2),248–253.

Kintsch, W. (1979). On modeling comprehension.Educational psychologist, 1, 3–14.

Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1993). Reifyingimplicit planning in geometry: Guidelines formodel-based intelligent tutoring systems. In S.Lajoie & S. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitivetools. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Koedinger, K. R., & Tabachneck, H. J. M. (1994,April). Two strategies are better than one: Multiplestrategies used in word problem solving. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the Ameri-


can Educational Research Association, NewOrleans.

Kohn, A. (1993). Why incentive plans cannot work.Harvard Business Review, 71(5), 54–63.

Kulik, C. L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1982). Effects ofability grouping on secondary school students:A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. Ameri-can Educational Research Journal, 19(3),415–428.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1987). Effects of abil-ity grouping on student achievement. Equityand Excellence, 23, 22–30.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1991). Research onability grouping: Historical and contemporary per-spectives. Storrs: University of Connecticut, Na-tional Research Center on the Gifted and Tal-ented. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED 350 777)

Kumar, D. D. (1991). A meta-analysis of the rela-tionship between science instruction and stu-dent engagement. Education Review, 43(1),49–66.

LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward atheory of automatic information processing inreading. In H. Singer & R. B. Riddell (Eds.), The-oretical models and processes of reading (pp.548–579). Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.

Lavoie, D. R. (1999). Effects of emphasizinghypothetico-predictive reasoning within the sci-ence learning cycle on high school students’process skills and conceptual understanding inbiology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,36(10), 1127–1147.

Lavoie, D. R., & Good, R. (1988). The nature anduse of prediction skills in biological computersimulation. Journal of Research in Science Teach-ing, 25, 334–360.

Lawson, A. E. (1988). A better way to teach biol-ogy. The American Biology Teacher, 50, 266–278.

Lee, A. Y. (n.d.). Analogical reasoning: A new look atan old problem. Boulder: University of Colorado,Institute of Cognitive Science.

Leone, C. M., & Richards, M. H. (1989). Classworkand homework in early adolescence: The ecol-

ogy of achievement. Journal of Youth and Adoles-cence, 18(6), 531–548.

Lepper, M. R. (1983). Extrinsic reward and intrinsicmotivation: Implications for the classroom. In J. M. Levine & M. C. Wang (Eds.), Teacher andstudent perceptions: Implications for learning(pp. 281–318). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973).Undermining children’s intrinsic interest withextrinsic reward: A test of the overjustificationhypothesis. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 28, 129–137.

Lin, H. (1996). The effectiveness of teaching sci-ence with pictorial analogies. Research in ScienceEducation, 26(4), 495–511.

Lindsley, O. R. (1972). From Skinner to precisionteaching. In J. B. Jordan & L. S. Robbins (Eds.),Let’s try doing something else kind of thing. Ar-lington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacyof psychological, educational, and behavioraltreatment. American Psychologist, 48(12),1181–1209.

Lott, G. W. (1983). The effect of inquiry teachingand advanced organizers upon student out-comes in science education. Journal of Researchin Science Teaching, 20(5), 437–451.

Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Paulsen, C.,Chambers, B., & d’Apollonio, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Edu-cational Research, 66(4), 423–458.

Lysakowski, R. S., & Walberg, H. J. (1981). Class-room reinforcement in relation to learning: Aquantitative analysis. Journal of Eductional Re-search, 75, 69–77.

Lysakowski, R. S., & Walberg, H. J. (1982). Instruc-tional effects of cues, participation, and correc-tive feedback: A quantitative synthesis. Ameri-can Educational Research Journal, 19(4),559–578.

Macklin, M. C. (1997). Preschoolers’ learning ofbrand names for visual cues. Journal of Con-sumer Research, 23(3), 251–261.

Madaus, G. F., & Stufflebeam, D. (Eds.). (1989).Educational evaluation: Classic works of RalphW. Tyler. Boston: Kluwer Academic Press.


Mager, R. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives.Palo Alto, CA: Fearon Publishers.

Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1993a). Splittingthe differences: A structural alignment view ofsimilarity. Journal of Memory and Learning, 32,517–535.

Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1993b). Structuralalignment during similarity comparisons. Cogni-tive Psychology, 25, 431–467.

Martorella, P. H. (1991). Knowledge and conceptdevelopment in social studies. In J. P. Shaver(Ed.), Handbook of research on social studiesteaching and learning (pp. 370–399). New York:McMillan.

Marzano, R. J. (1998). A theory-based meta-analysisof research on instruction. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 427 087)

Marzano, R. J., Gnadt, J., & Jesse, D. M. (1990). Theeffects of three types of linguistic encoding strategieson the processing of information presented in lec-ture format. Unpublished manuscript. Denver:University of Colorado at Denver.

Mason, L. (1994). Cognitive and metacognitiveaspects in conceptual change by analogy. Instruc-tional Science 22 (3), 157–187.

Mason, L. (1995). Analogy, meta-conceptual aware-ness and conceptual change: A classroom study.Educational Studies, 20(2), 267–291.

Mason, L., & Sorzio, P. (1996). Analogical reasoningin restructuring scientific knowledge. EuropeanJournal of Psychology of Education, 11(1), 3–23.

Mathematical Science Education Board. (1990).Reshaping School Mathematics. Washington DC:National Academy Press.

Mayer, R. E. (1979). Can advance organizers influ-ence meaningful learning? Review of EducationalResearch, 49, 371–383.

Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models of understanding.Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 43–64.

McDaniel, M. A., & Schlager, M. S. (1990). Discov-ery learning and transfer of problem-solvingskills. Cognition and Instruction, 7(2), 129–159.

McKeown, M. G., & Curtis, M. E. (Eds.). (1987).The nature of vocabulary acquisition. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McLaughlin, E. M. (1991, March). Effects ofgraphic organizers and levels of text difficultyon less-proficient fifth-grade reader’s compre-hension of expository text. Dissertation AbstractsInternational, Vol. 51 (9–A), 3028.

Medawar, P. B. (1967). Two conceptions of science.In J. P. Medawar (Ed.), The art of the soluble(pp. 114–160). London: Methuen.

Medin, D., Goldstone, R. L., & Markman, A. B.(1995). Comparison and choice: Relations be-tween similarity processes and decisionprocesses. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2(1),1–19.

Merrett, F., & Thorpe, S. (1996). How important isthe praise element in the pause, prompt, andpraise tutoring procedures for older, low-progress readers? Educational Psychology, 16(2),193–206.

Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland Press.

Meyer, B. J. F., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects ofdiscourse type on recall. Americans EducationalResearch Journal, 21(1), 121–143.

Miller, D. L., & Kelley, M. L. (1991). Interventionsfor improving homework performance: A criti-cal review. School Psychology Quarterly, 6(3),174–185.

Miller, D., & Kelley, M. L. (1994). The use of goalsetting and contingency contracting for improv-ing children’s homework performance. Journalof Applied Behavioral Analysis, 27(1), 73–84.

Morgan, M. (1984). Reward-induced decrementsand increments in intrinsic motivation. Reviewof Educational Research, 54(1), 5–30.

Morgan, M. (1985). Self-monitoring of attainedsubgoals in private study. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 77(6), 623–630.

Morine-Dershimer, G. (1982). Pupil perceptions ofteacher praise. Elementary School Journal, 82,421–434.


Nuthall, G. & Alton-Lee, A. (1995). Assessing class-room learning. How students use their knowl-edge and experience to answer classroomachievement test questions in science and socialstudies. American Educational Research Journal,32(1), 185–223.

Nye, P., Crooks, T. J., Powlie, M., & Tripp, G. (1984).Student note-taking related to university exami-nation performances. Higher Education, 13(1),85–97.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools struc-ture inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.

Osman, M., & Hannafin, M. J. (1994). Effects ofadvance organizing questioning and priorknowledge on science learning. Journal ofEducational Research, 88(1), 5–13.

Paivio, A. (1969). Mental imagery in associativelearning and memory. Psychological Review, 76,241–263.

Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processing.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual cod-ing approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocalteaching of comprehension fostering and com-prehension monitoring activities. Cognition andInstruction, 1(2), 117–175.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1985). Reciprocalteaching: Activities to promote reading withyour mind. In T. L. Harris & E. J. Cooper (Eds.),Reading, thinking and concept development:Strategies for the classroom. New York: TheCollege Board.

Paschal, R. A., Weinstein, T., & Walberg, H. J.(1984). The effects of homework on learning:A quantitative synthesis. Journal of EducationalResearch, 78, 97–104.

Pennsylvania Department of Education. (1973).Study on homework: Homework policies in thepublic schools of Pennsylvania and selected statesin the nation. Harrisburg, PA: Author.

Percy, W. (1975). The message in the bottle. NewYork: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux.

Muehlherr, A., & Siermann, M. (1996). Which trainmight pass the tunnel first? Testing a learningcontext suitable for children. Psychological Re-ports, 79(2), 627–633.

Mueller, D. D. (1973). Teacher questioning practicesin reading. Reading World, 12(2), 136–145.

Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. (1984). The number ofwords in printed school English. Reading Re-search Quarterly, 19, 304–330.

Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1984). Limitations ofvocabulary instruction (Tech. Rep. No. 326).Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Center for theStudy of Reading. (ERIC Document Reproduc-tion Service No. ED 248 498)

Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Breadth anddepth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications foracquisition and instruction. In M. C. McKeown& M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabularyinstruction (pp. 19–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Learningwords from context during normal reading.American Educational Research Journal, 24(2),2437–270.

Nash, R. J., & Shiman, D. A. (1974). The Englishteacher as questioner. English Journal, 63,42–45.

National Research Council (1996). National scienceeducation standards. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Newby, T. J., Ertmer, P. A., & Stepich, D. A. (1995).Instructional analogies and the learning of con-cepts. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 43(1), 5–18.

Newell, A. & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1981). Mechanismsof skill acquisition and the law of practice. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their ac-quisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Newton, D. P. (1995). Pictorial support for discoursecomprehension. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 64(2), 221–229.

Nuthall, G. (1999). The way students learn. Acquir-ing knowledge from an integrated science andsocial studies unit. Elementary School Journal,99(4), 303–341.


Perkins, P. G., & Milgram, R. B. (1996). Parental in-volvement in homework: A double-edge sword.International Journal of Adolescence and Youth,6(3), 195–203.

Peterson, P. L., Carpenter, T. P., & Fennema, E.(1989). Teachers’ knowledge of students’knowledge in mathematics problem solving:Correlational and case analyses. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 81(4), 558–569.

Peterson, P. L., Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T. P.(1989). Teachers’ knowledge of students’ math-ematics problem solving knowledge. In J. Bro-phy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching:Teachers subject matter knowledge (Vol. II,pp. 195–221). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Pflaum, S. W., Walberg, H. J., Karegianes, M. L., &Rasher, S. P. (1980). Reading instruction: Aquantitative analysis. Educational Researcher,9(7), 12–18.

Powell, G. (1980, December). A meta-analysis of theeffects of “imposed” and “induced” imagery uponword recall. Paper presented at the annual meet-ing of the National Reading Conference, SanDiego, CA. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. Ed 199 644)

Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., Zajchowski, R.,& Evans, E. D. (1989). The challenges of class-room strategy instruction. Elementary SchoolJournal, 89, 301–342.

Pressley, M., Symons, S., McDaniel, M., Snyder, B.L., & Turnure, J. E. (1988). Elaborative interro-gation facilitates acquisition of confusing facts.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 268–278.

Pressley, M., Tenenbaum, R., McDaniel, M., &Wood, E. (1990). What happens when univer-sity students try to answer prequestions thataccompany textbook material? ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 15, 27–35.

Pressley, M., Woloshyn, V., & Associates. (1995).Cognitive strategy instruction that really improveschildren’s academic performance. Cambridge,MA: Brookline Books.

Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V., Martin, V.,King, A., & Menke, D. (1992). Encouragingmindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to

construct explanatory answers facilitates learn-ing. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 91–109.

Pruitt, N. (1993). Using graphics in content area sub-jects. Master’s thesis, Kean College of New Jer-sey. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 355 483)

Raphael, T. E., & Kirschner, B. M. (April, 1985). Theeffects of instruction in compare/contrast text struc-ture on sixth grade students’ reading comprehen-sion and writing production. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Educa-tional Research Association, Chicago.

Rattermann, M. J., & Gentner, D. (1998). More evi-dence for a relational shift in the developmentof analogy: Children’s performance on a causal-mapping task. Cognitive Development, 13(4),453–478.

Redfield, D. L., & Rousseau, E. W. (1981). A meta-analysis of experimental research on teacherquestioning behavior. Review of EducationalResearch, 51(2), 237–245.

Reeves, L. M., & Weisberg, R. W. (1994). On theconcrete nature of human thinking: Contentand context in analogical transfer. EducationalPsychology, 13(3–4), 245–258.

Richardson, A. (1983). Imagery: Definitions andtypes. In A. A. Sheikh (Ed.), Imagery: Currenttheory, research, and application (pp. 3–42). NewYork: John Wiley & Sons.

Ripoll, T. (1999). Why this made me think of that.Thinking and Reasoning, 4(1), 15–43.

Risner, G. P., & Nicholson, J. I. (1996). The newbasal readers: What levels of comprehension dothey promote? (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 403 546)

Risner, G. P., Nicholson, J. I., & Webb, B. (1994).Levels of comprehension promoted by the Coopera-tive Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC)Program. Florence: University of North Al-abama. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED 381 751)

Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1996). Visualargument: Graphic organizers are superior tooutlines in improving learning from text. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 455–467.


Roderique, T. W., Pulloway, E. A., Cumblad, C. L.,Epstein, M. H. (1994). Homework: A survey ofpolicies in the United States. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 27(8), 481–487.

Romberg, T. A., & Carpenter, T. P. (1986). Researchon teaching and learning mathematics: Two dis-ciplines of scientific inquiry. In M. C. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rded.). New York: Macmillan.

Rosenberg, M. S. (1989). The effects of dailyhomework assignment in the acquisition ofbasic skills by students with learning disabili-ties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(5),314–323.

Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. C. (1994). Reciprocalteaching: A review of the research. Review ofEducational Research, 64(4), 479–530.

Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996).Teaching students to generate questions. A re-view of the intervention studies. Review of Edu-cational Research, 66(2), 181–221.

Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures forsocial research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ross, B. H. (1984). Rememberings and their effectson learning a cognitive skill. Cognitive Psychol-ogy, 16, 371–416.

Ross, B. H. (1987). This is like that: The use ofearlier problems and the separation of similarityeffects. Journal of Experimental Psychology,13(4), 629–639.

Ross, J. A. (1988). Controlling variables: A meta-analysis of training studies. Review of Educa-tional Research, 58(4), 405–437.

Rovee-Collier, C. (1995). Time windows in cogni-tive development. Developmental Psychology,31(2), 147–169.

Rowe, M. (1974). Wait-time and rewards as instruc-tional variables, their influence on language,logic and fate control. Part 1 wait-time. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 11, 81–94.

Sanders, W. L. &, Horn, S. P. (1994). The Tennesseevalue-added assessment system (TVAAS):Mixed-model methodology in educationalassessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation inEducation, 8, 299–311.

Scardamalia & Bereiter, C. (1985). Fostering thedevelopment of self-regulation in children’sknowledge processing. In S. F. Chipman, J. W.Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learningskills: Vol. 2. Research and open questions (pp. 563–577). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. (1997). The foundationsof educational effectiveness. New York: Pergamon.

Schunk, D. H. & Cox, P. D. (1986). Strategy train-ing and attributional feedback with learning dis-abled students. Journal of Educational Psychology.73 (3), 201–209.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1990). Learned optimism. NewYork: Pocket Books.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1994). What you can change andwhat you can’t. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping on studentachievement in elementary schools: A bestevidence synthesis. Research of EducationalResearch, 57, 293–336.

Snowman, J., & McCown, R. (1984, April). Cogni-tive processes in learning: A model for investigatingstrategies and tactics. Paper presented at the an-nual meeting of the American Educational Re-search Association, New Orleans, LA.

Solomon, I. (1995). Analogical transfer and “func-tional fixedness” in the science classroom. Jour-nal of Educational Research, 87(6), 371–377.

Spearitt, D. (1972). Identification of sub-skills ofreading comprehension by maximum likelihoodfactor analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 8,92–111.

Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1994). Cognitive flexibilitytheory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In R. B. Ruddell,M. R. Ruddell, & H Singer (Eds.), Theoreticalmodels and processes of reading (4th ed., pp.602–610). Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.

Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effectsof vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56(1),72–110.


Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Intelligence, information pro-cessing and analogical reasoning: The componen-tial analysis of human abilities. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Sternberg, R. J. (1978). Toward a unified componen-tial theory of human reasoning (Tech. Rep. No.4). New Haven, CT: Yale University, Depart-ment of Psychology. (ERIC Document Repro-duction Service No. ED 154 421)

Sternberg, R. J. (1979). The development of humanintelligence (Tech. Rep. No. 4, Cognitive Devel-opment Series). New Haven, CT: Yale Univer-sity, Department of Psychology. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. ED 174–658)

Sticht, T. G., Hofstetter, C. R., & Hofsetter, C. H.(1997). Knowledge, literacy, and power. SanDiego, CA: Consortium for Workforce Educa-tion and Lifelong Learning.

Stipek, D. J., & Weisz, J. R. (1981). Perceived per-sonal control and academic achievement. Re-view of Educational Research, 51(1), 101–137.

Stone, C. L. (1983). A meta-analysis of advancedorganizer studies. Journal of Experimental Educa-tion, 51(7), 194–199.

Strang, R. (1975). Homework: What research says toteachers (Series). Washington, DC: NationalEducation Association.

Swanborn, M. S. L., & de Glopper, K. (1999). Inci-dental word learning while reading: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(3),261–285.

Sweitzer, G. L., & Anderson, R. D. (1983). A meta-analysis of research in science teacher educationpractices associated with inquiry strategy. Jour-nal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 453–466.

Swift, J. N., & Gooding, C. T. (1983). Interaction ofwait time feedback and questioning instructionon middle school science teaching. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 20, 721–730.

Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theoryand practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace, andWorld.

Tamir, P. (1985). Meta-analysis of cognitive prefer-ences and learning. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 22(1), 1–17.

Tennebaum, G., & Goldring, E. (1989). A meta-analysis of the effect of enhanced instruction:Cues, participation, reinforcement, and feed-back and correctives on motor skill learning.Journal of Research and Development in Educa-tion, 22(3), 53–64.

Thorndike, R. L. & Lorge, I. (1943). The teacher’sword book of 30,000 words. New York: Teacher’sCollege Press.

Tobin, K. (1987). The role of wait time in highercognitive level learning. Review of EducationalResearch, 57, 69–95.

Trammel, D. L., Schloss, P. J., & Alper, S. (1994).Using self-recording and graphing to increasecompletion of homework assignments. Journalof Learning Disabilities, 27(2), 75–81.

Tymms, P. B., & Fitz-Gibbin, C. T. (1992). The rela-tionship of homework to A-level results. Educa-tional Research, 34(1), 3–10.

Urdan, T., Midgley, C., & Anderman, E. M. (1998).The role of classroom goal structure in students’use of self-handicapping strategies. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 35(1), 101–122.

van Dijk, T. A. (1980). Macrostructures. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Van Matre, N. H., & Carter, J. F. (1975, March30–April 4). The effects of notetaking review onretention of information presented by lecture. Paperpresented at the Annual Meeting of the Ameri-can Educational Research Association, Washing-ton, DC.

Van Overwalle, F., & De Metsenaere, M. (1990).The effects of attribution-based interventionand study strategy training on academicachievement in college freshmen. British Journalof Educational Psychology, 60, 299–311.

Van Secker, C. E., & Lissitz, R. W. (1999). Estimat-ing the impact of instructional practices on stu-dent achievement in science. Journal of Researchin Science Teaching 36(10), 1110–1126.

Vollmer, D. J. (1995). The effects of goal setting onhomework behavior, self-efficacy, and attribu-tional aspirations of high school students. Disser-tation Abstracts International, 54(4–A). (Octo-ber, 1993, 1298. ISSN 0419–4217)


Walberg, H. J. (1999). Productive teaching. In H. C.Waxman & H. J. Walberg (Eds.) New directionsfor teaching practice and research, 75–104. Berke-ley, CA: McCutchen Publishing Corporation.

Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J.(1993). Toward a knowledge base for schoollearning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3),249–294.

Webb, N. M. (1982). Group composition, group in-teraction, and achievement in cooperative smallgroups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,475–484.

Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement,motivation, and the educational process. Reviewof Educational Research, 42, 203–215.

Weiner, B. (1983). Speculations regarding the roleof affect in achievement-change programsguided by attributional principals. In J. M.Levine & M. C. Wang (Eds.), Teaching and stu-dent perceptions: Implications for learning (pp.57–73). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Welch, M. (1997, April). Students’ use of three-dimensional modeling while designing and makinga solution to a technical problem. Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the American Educa-tional Research Association, Chicago.

White, R. T., & Tisher, R. P. (1986). Research onnatural sciences. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Hand-book of research on teaching (pp. 874–905). NewYork: McMillan.

Wiersma, U. J. C. (1992). The effects of extrinsicreward on intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis.Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 65, 101–114.

Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing student performances:Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wilburn, K. T., & Felps, B. C. (1983). Do pupil grad-ing methods affect middle school students’ achieve-ment? A comparison of criterion-referenced versusnorm-referenced evaluation. Jacksonville, FL:Wofson Senior High School. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 229–451)

Wilkinson, S. S. (1981). The relationship of teacherpraise and student achievement: A meta-analysisof selected research. Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national, 41, 3998A.

Willoughby, T., Desmarias, S., Wood, E., Sims, S., &Kalra, M. (1997). Mechanisms that facilitate theeffectiveness of elaboration strategies. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 89(4), 682–685.

Wilson, T. D., & Linville, P. W. (1982). Improvingthe academic performance of college freshmen:Attribution theory revisited. Journal of Personaland Social Psychology, 42, 367–376.

Wise, K. C., & Okey, J. R. (1983). A meta-analysisof the effects of various science teaching strate-gies on achievement. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 20(5), 415–425.

Woloshyn, V. E., Willoughby, T., Wood, E., & Press-ley, M. (1990). Elaborative interrogation facili-tates adult learning of factual paragraphs. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 82, 513–524.

Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P. &, Sanders, W. L. (1997).Teacher & classroom context effects on studentachievement: Implications for teacher evalua-tion. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Educa-tion, 11, 57–67.

I N D E X

ability levels, organizing groups, 87–88accuracy, charting, 69–70achievement, 52–53

chart, 53fkeeping track, 52–53percentile gain, 2and planning, 155rubrics, 52f

advance organizersclassroom practice, 118–120expository, 118–119 focus, 118 graphic, 119–120, 120fhigher and lower level, 118 narrative, 119research and theory, 117–118research results, 117fskimming, 119 types, 118 usefulness, 118

algorithms, 137analogies, 13, 26

graphic organizers, 28fidentifying similarities and

differences, 16, 17fstudent-directed, 27–28 teacher-directed, 26–27

analytic skills, 116fAnderson, John, 88Anderson, Valerie, 30application, knowledge, 151–153,

152fargumentation frame, 39fassessments, audiotape, 154Ausubel, David, 117automaticity, 140

beliefs, 50–51bell curve, 5f, 6fBill of Rights, teacher-prepared notes,

45f

cause/effect principles, 134fsequences, 130f

celebration, 157. See also recognitionchange, commitment to, 157–158clarifying, reciprocal teaching, 43fclassifying

graphic organizers, 21–23, 21f, 22fidentifying similarities and

differences, 16, 17f, 20–23 student-directed tasks, 20 teacher-directed tasks, 20

classroom practiceadvance organizers, 118–120comparing, 17–20, 19fcooperative learning, 89–91cues and questions, 114–117 details, 132–133effort, reinforcing, 51–53 feedback, 99–102goal setting, 95–96homework, 64–66hypotheses, generating and testing,

106–110 ideas, organizing, 135–137nonlinguistic representations,

75–83note taking, 45–48practice, 69–71 processes, 143–145recognition, providing, 58–59

classroom practice (continued)similarities and differences, 17–28 skills, 140–141summarizing, 32–34, 33f

Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI),138

Cohen, Jacob, 6Coleman, James, 1–2Coleman report (Equality of

Educational Opportunity), 1–2combination technique, student notes,

48fcomparing

classroom practice, 17–20, 19fgraphic organizers, 18–20, 18fidentifying similarities and

differences, 16, 17fstudent-directed tasks, 18 teacher-directed tasks, 17

concept patterns, 77–78. See alsopattern organizers

organizer, 78fvoluntary mediation, 80f

context, vocabulary, 125–126, 125fcontracts, 95–96conversation frame, 41–42, 41fcooperative groups, 88cooperative learning, 7f, 84–91

application, 88–89classroom practice, 89–91combining with other classroom

structures, 91research and theory, 85–89research results, 86f

Cooperative Learning Center,University of Minnesota, 86

174

Note: Citations to figures are followed by f.

175I N D E X

correlational principles, 134fcues and questions. See also questions,

cues, and advance organizersclassroom practice, 114–117explicit, 114research and theory, 112–114research results, 112f

decision making, 108–109deductive versus inductive instruction,

104–106definition frame, 38fdescriptive patterns, 75–76, 75fdetails

classroom practice, 132–133discovery approach, 137–138facilitating, 140research and theory, 129–132, 130f

discovery approach to instruction,139–140

distributed practice, 140–141distribution, normal, 5–6, 5f, 6fdramatization, 131–133

Educational Evaluation: Classic Worksof Ralph Tyler (Madaus &Stufflebeam, 1989), 123

educational research, attitudes about,3–4

educational strategies, 9effective pedagogy, 9–10, 10feffect size, 4–6, 7f; conversion table,

159, 160feffort, reinforcing

chart, 53fclassroom practice, 51–53keeping track, 52–53research and theory, 50–51research results, 51frubrics, 52fteaching, 51–52

episodes, 130f; pattern, 76, 77fEquality of Educational Opportunity

(Coleman et al., 1966), 1–2errors, analyzing, 116, 116fexpository advance organizers,

118–119

facts, 130ffeedback, 153–154, 154f, 157

classroom practice, 99–102corrective, 96, 98f criterion-referenced, 99information, 100f, 101fprocesses and skills, 100f, 101fresearch and theory, 96–99research results, 97frubrics, 100f, 101fspecific types of knowledge and

skill, 99–101specificity, 98–99student-led, 99, 101–102timeliness, 97–98, 98f

frames. See summary framesgeneralizations, 134f

articulating, 135–136 increasing understanding, 136–137patterns, 76–77, 77f

goals, 147–149 example, 148fmonitoring, 149–150, 149f

goal settingclassroom practice, 95–96conditions, 94 contracts, 95–96criterion, 94flexibility, 95outcomes, 94performance, 94research and theory, 93–95research results, 93fspecificity, 94, 95

graphic forms, identifying similaritiesand differences, 16, 18–20, 18f

graphic organizersadvance, 119–120, 120fcreating, 75–78

graphic representations, creating, 73groups

base, 90–91criteria, 89formal, 90informal, 89–90managing size, 91size, 88f

guidance, explicit, identifyingsimilarities and differences, 15

hard science, 4Harris, W. T., 85Hattie, John, 96Hedges, Larry, 4Hidi, Suzanne, 30homework

amount, 61–63, 62fclassroom practice in assigning,

64–66design, 65–66feedback, 66grading, 64fparental involvement, 63policy, 64–65purpose, 63–64research and theory, 61–64research results, 61f

homework and practice, 7f, 60–71homogeneous grouping

vs heterogeneous grouping, 88fvs no grouping, 87f

“How Hard Is Hard Science: How SoftIs Soft Science?” (Hedges, 1987), 4

Hunter, John, 2Hyerle, David, 75hypotheses, generating and testing, 7f,

103–110classroom practice, 106–110

hypotheses, generating and testing(continued)

deductive thinking, 104, 105, 106fexplanation and conclusions,

109–110inductive thinking, 104–105, 106fresearch and theory, 104–106research results, 104f

ideasapplication, 135classroom practice, 135–137organizing, 134f research and theory, 133–135,

134fimagery-based instruction, vocabulary,

126, 127fimplementation, differences, 157independent identification, similarities

and differences, 15–16inductive versus deductive instruction,

104–106Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effects

of Family and Schools in America(Jencks et al., 1972), 2

information structure, 32inquiry, experimental, 108instruction

dramatic, 131–132, 132–133types, 131f

instructional strategies and techniques,4–6, 7f, 10f, 146–155

invention, 108investigation, 107–108, 109

Jencks, Christopher, 2Johnson, David and Roger, 85

kinesthetic activity, 82–83Kintsch, Walter, 30knowledge, introducing, 150–151, 150f

learning goals, 149–150learning line, 67flearning logs, 154

Mager, Roger, 94McREL study, 6–8, 10mental pictures, generating, 81–82meta-analysis, 4metaphors, creating

graphic organizers, 25–26, 25f, 26fidentifying similarities and

differences, 16, 17fstudent-directed tasks, 23, 25 teacher-directed, 23–24

Meyer, Bonnie, 32misconceptions, correcting, 133, 135,

135f, 136–137modeling, 156–157models, making, 73–74, 78–79, 81motivation, intrinsic, 55multiple exposure, 132


narrative advance organizers, 119narrative frame, 35–36, 35fNational Science Education Standard,

9nonlinguistic representations, 7f, 72–83

classroom practice, 75–83research and theory, 73–75research results, 74f

notebook, example, 151fnote taking

classroom practice, 45–48combination, 47–48, 48fformats, 46–47, 151fresearch and theory, 43–45research results, 44fstudent, 47f, 48f, 151fteacher-prepared, 45–46, 45f

Note-Taking: What Do We Know Aboutthe Benefits? (Beecher, 1988), 43

objectives, learning, and feedback, 7f,92–102. See also goal setting;feedback

pattern organizers, 75f–78f; examplesof use, 79f–80f

percentile gain, conversion table, 159,160f

performance standard, 55–57perspectives, analyzing, 116–117, 116fpictures and pictographs, 82, 83fplanning

beginning of a unit, 147–149, 147fbenefits, 155during a unit, 149–153end of a unit, 153–154nine categories, 146–158 phases, 146 strategies, 155

practice, 151–153, 152f, 156–157classroom practice, 69–71conceptual understanding, 70–71designing for special elements of a

complex skill or process, 70distributed, 140–141increase in learning between

sessions, 68fresearch and theory, 66–69research results, 66f

praise, guidelines for effective, 56fpredicting, reciprocal teaching, 43fPreparing Instructional Objectives

(Mager, 1962), 94Pressley, Michael, 143principles, as types of generalizations,

134farticulating, 135–136 increasing understanding,

136–137problem/solution frame, 40fproblem solving, 107, 109

process/cause-effect patterns, 76 organizer, 76fnegotiation, 79f

processesclassroom practice, 143–145 components and subcomponents,

143–145metacognitive control, 143 practice and, 142research and theory, 141–143

process writing, 141–142project, long-term, 153f

questionsanalytic, 116–117eliciting inferences, 114–116 focus, 113 higher and lower level questions,

113–114 learning tools, 114 reciprocal teaching, 43fwaiting, 114

questions, cues, and advance organizers,7f, 111–120. See also advanceorganizers; cues and questions

reciprocal teaching, 42–43frecognition

abstract symbolic, 57–58classroom practice, 58–59concrete symbols, 59pause, prompt, and praise, 58–59personalizing, 58 providing 7f, 8research and theory, 53–58research results, 54f

Reder, Lynne, 88review, 151–153, 152frevising, 141–142rewards, 55–58

abstract vs tangible, 58fmeta-analysis, 57f

Rosenshine, Borak, 31–32Rosenthal, Robert, 2rubrics, 52–53, 99, 100f, 101f

Sanders, William, 3Schmidt, Frank, 2school quality, 1–2setting objectives and providing

feedback, 7f, 92–102. See also goalsetting; feedback

similarities and differences, 13–28 identifying, 7fclassroom practice, 17–28research and theory, 14–16research results, 15f

Simon, Herbert, 88skills

classroom practice, 140–141research and theory, 137–140

skimming, as an advance organizer,119

social sciences, research, 4soft science, 4speed, charting, 69–70summarizing

classroom practice, 32–34, 33fexercise, 31fgeneralizations, 30–32note taking, 7f, 29–48reciprocal teaching, 43fresearch and theory, 30–32research results, 30fstrategy, 32–34, 33f

summary frames, 34–36, 35f, 37f, 38f,39f, 40f, 41f

support, constructing, 116, 116fsymbols

identifying similarities anddifferences, 16

recognition, concrete tokens, 59

Taba, Hilda, 123tactics, 137teachers, influence, 2–3time sequences, 130f

arbitration, 79forganizer, 76f patterns, 76

topic-restriction-illustration frame,37f

unanswered questions, 9unit planning, 146–155unknowns, 8–9

van Dijk, Teun, 30Venn diagrams, 18f

classification, 21fcomparisons, 18f

Visual Tools for Constructing Knowledge(Hyerle, 1996), 75

vocabularyclassroom practice, 128–129context, 125–126, 125fdirect instruction, 127–128identifying critical terms and

phrases, 128imagery-based instruction, 126,

127fresearch and theory, 123–128research results, 125freview and practice, 151–152teaching process, 128–129

webbing, 47fWeiner, Bernard, 50Wiggins, Grant, 99word problems, 139fwriting, 141; effect size for various

approaches, 142f

177

Robert J. Marzano is a Senior Fellow atMid-continent Research for Education andLearning (McREL) Institute in Aurora,Colorado. He is responsible for translatingresearch and theory into classroom prac-tice. He headed a team of authors who de-veloped Dimensions of Learning, publishedby the Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development (ASCD), and is also the senior author of Tactics forThinking (ASCD) and Literacy Plus: An Integrated Approach to Teaching Reading,Writing, Vocabulary, and Reasoning (Zaner-Bloser). His most recent efforts addressstandards as described in the two booksEssential Knowledge: The Debate Over WhatAmerican Students Should Know (Marzano,Kendall, & Gaddy/McREL, 1999) and A Comprehensive Guide to DesigningStandards-Based Districts, Schools, andClassrooms (Marzano & Kendall, ASCD/McREL, 1996). He has also recently com-pleted books entitled Transforming Class-room Grading (ASCD, 2000) and Designing

a New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives(Corwin Press, 2000). He has developedprograms and practices used in K–12 class-rooms that translate current research andtheory in cognition into instructionalmethods.

Marzano received his B.A. in Englishfrom Iona College in New York; an M.Ed.in Reading/Language Arts from SeattleUniversity, Seattle, Washington; and a Ph.D.in Curriculum and Instruction from theUniversity of Washington, Seattle. Prior tohis work with McREL, Marzano was atenured associate professor at the Univer-sity of Colorado at Denver, and a highschool English teacher and departmentchair.

An internationally known trainer andspeaker, Marzano has authored 18 booksand more than 150 articles and chapters inbooks on such topics as reading and writinginstruction, thinking skills, school effective-ness, restructuring, assessment, cognition,and standards implementation.

A B O U T T H E A U T H O R S

177


He may be contacted at McREL, 2550S. Parker Rd., Suite 500, Aurora, CO80014. Phone: 303-632-5534. Fax: 303-337-3005. E-mail: [email protected].

Debra J. Pickering is a private consultantand Director of Educational Content forTopTutors.com. During more than 25 yearsin education, she has gained practical expe-rience as a classroom teacher and districtstaff development coordinator and hasdone extensive consulting with administra-tors and teachers, K–12. Her work in re-search and development centers on thestudy of learning and the development ofcurriculum, instruction and assessment thataddresses clearly identified learning goals.With a combination of theoretical ground-ing and practical experience in the “realworld,” Pickering works with educatorsthroughout the world who are attemptingto translate theory into practice.

Pickering has coauthored a number ofarticles and programs, including Dimensionsof Learning Teacher’s Manual (2nd ed.) andother materials for ASCD’s Dimensions ofLearning series, a comprehensive model oflearning that provides a framework for de-veloping students who are independentlearners and complex thinkers.

She received a B.S. degree in English/Drama Education from the University ofMissouri, an M.A. in School Administrationfrom the University of Denver, and a Ph.D.in Curriculum and Instruction with an em-phasis on Cognitive Psychology from theUniversity of Denver.

Pickering can be contacted at 10098East Powers Ave., Englewood, CO 80111.

Phone: 303-694-9899. E-mail:[email protected].

Jane E. Pollock, a researcher and trainer inthe areas of standards, assessment, gradingand record keeping, curriculum and in-struction, and supervision, is a PrincipalConsultant for the McREL Institute inAurora, Colorado. She has worked as aclassroom teacher, district administrator,university professor, state department staffdevelopment coordinator, and K–12 cur-riculum coordinator.

In consultation with school districts andas part of state initiatives, Pollock designscurriculum based on state and nationalstandards, aligned with state and nationalassessments. In addition, Pollock worksside-by-side with teachers to develop class-room lessons and performance assessments.She organizes various national and interna-tional consortiums of schools to help im-prove student achievement using standards-based programs.

Pollock has conducted workshops inEnglish and in Spanish in the United States,Australia, Canada, and many Central andSouth American countries. She is coauthorof ASCD’s Dimensions of Learning Teacher’sManual and Trainer’s Manual and ResearchInto Practice Series on Classroom Instructionand Assessment, Grading, and Record Keeping.

A native of Caracas, Venezuela, Pollockearned a B.A. at Duke University and anM.A. and Ph.D. at the University of Col-orado at Boulder. She can be contacted atMcREL, 2550 S. Parker Road, Aurora, CO80014. Phone: 303-632-5508. E-mail:[email protected].

AudiotapesInstructional Approaches of Superior Teachers

(#299202) by Lloyd CampbellPlanning Units Around Essential Understanding

& Questions (#298294) by Lynn EricksonPutting Best Practices to Work on Behalf of

Improving Student Learning (#298132) byKathleen Fitzpatrick

Teaching for the 21st Century (#297247) byLinda Darling-Hammond

Using Dimensions of Learning as a Tool toIncrease Student Success (#200120) byJames Riedl and Lucinda Riedl

Online Professional DevelopmentGo to ASCD’s Home Page

(http://www.ascd.org) and click onTraining Opportunities:

ASCD Online Tutorials on Standards,Differentiating Instruction, and the Brain and Learning

ASCD Professional Development OnlineCourses in Differentiating Instruction,Leadership, and the Brain and Learning

Print ProductsBecoming a Better Teacher: Eight Innovations

That Work (#100043) by Giselle Martin-Kniep

The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to theNeeds of All Learners (#199040) by CarolAnn Tomlinson

Dimensions of Learning Teachers’ Manual, 2ndEdition (#197133) by Robert J. Marzano,Debra Pickering, and others

Educating Everybody’s Children: DiverseTeaching Strategies for Diverse Learners(#195024) edited by Robert Cole

Enhancing Professional Practice: A Frameworkfor Teaching (#196074) by CharlotteDanielson

A Field Guide to Using Visual Tools (#100023)by David Hyerle

A Different Kind of Classroom: Teaching withDimensions of Learning (#61192107) byRobert J. Marzano

Research You Can Use to Improve Results(#399238) by Kathleen Cotton

Tools for Learning: A Guide for Teaching StudySkills (#61190086) by M. D. Gall, Joyce P.Gall, Dennis R. Jacobsen, and Terry L.Bullock

Understanding by Design (#198199) by GrantWiggins and Jay McTighe

The Understanding by Design Handbook(#199030) by Jay McTighe and GrantWiggins

Visual Tools for Constructing Knowledge(#196072) by David Hyerle

VideotapesHelping Students Acquire and Integrate

Knowledge Series (5 videos) (#496065) byRobert Marzano

How to Improve Your Questioning Techniques(#499047), Tape 5 of the “How To” Series

How to Use Graphic Organizers to PromoteStudent Thinking (#499048), Tape 6 of the“How To” Series

Concept Definition Map (#499262), Tape 5 of The Lesson Collection Video Series:Reading Strategies

Library of Teaching Strategies Part I & II(#614178)

For additional resources, visit us on the WorldWide Web (http://www.ascd.org), send an e-mail message to [email protected], call theASCD Service Center (1-800-933-ASCD or703-578-9600, then press 2), send a fax to703-575-5400, or write to InformationServices, ASCD, 1703 N. Beauregard St.,Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 USA.

Related ASCD Resources: Instructional Strategies That Work

ASCD stock numbers are noted in parentheses.

Founded in 1943, the Association for Supervi-sion and Curriculum Development is a nonpar-tisan, nonprofit education association, with in-ternational headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia.ASCD’s mission statement: ASCD, a diverse,international community of educators, forgingcovenants in teaching and learning for the successof all learners.

Membership in ASCD includes a subscrip-tion to the award-winning journal EducationalLeadership; two newsletters, Education Updateand Curriculum Update; and other products andservices.ASCD sponsors affiliate organizations inmany states and international locations; partici-pates in collaborations and networks; holds con-ferences, institutes, and training programs; pro-duces publications in a variety of media; sponsorsrecognition and awards programs; and providesresearch information on education issues.

ASCD provides many services to educa-tors—prekindergarten through grade 12—aswell as to others in the education community,including parents, school board members, ad-ministrators, and university professors and stu-dents. For further information, contact ASCDvia telephone: 1-800-933-2723 or 703-578-9600; fax: 703-575-5400; or e-mail: [email protected]. Or write to ASCD, Information Ser-vices, 1703 N. Beauregard St., Alexandria, VA22311-1714 USA. You can find ASCD on theWorld Wide Web at http://www.ascd.org.

ASCD’s Executive Director and ChiefExecutive Officer is Gene R. Carter.

2000–01 ASCD Executive Council

LeRoy Hay (President), Kay A. Musgrove (Presi-dent-Elect), Joanna Choi Kalbus (Immediate PastPresident), Martha Bruckner, David Chen,

Richard L. Hanzelka, Douglas E. Harris,Mildred Huey, Sharon Lease, Leon Levesque,Francine Mayfield, Andrew Tolbert, Sandra K.Wegner, Peyton Williams Jr., Jill Dorler Wilson,Donald B. Young.

Belief Statements

Fundamental to ASCD is our concern forpeople, both individually and collectively.

• We believe that the individual has intrinsicworth.

• We believe that all people have the abilityand the need to learn.

• We believe that all children have a right tosafety, love, and learning.

• We believe that a high-quality, public systemof education open to all is imperative forsociety to flourish.

• We believe that diversity strengthens societyand should be honored and protected.

• We believe that broad, informed participa-tion committed to a common good is criticalto democracy.

• We believe that humanity prospers whenpeople work together.

ASCD also recognizes the potential and powerof a healthy organization.

• We believe that healthy organizationspurposefully provide for self-renewal.

• We believe that the culture of an organiza-tion is a major factor shaping individualattitudes and behaviors.

• We believe that shared values and commongoals shape and change the culture of healthyorganizations.

A b o u t A S C D

jane e. pollock debra j. pickering robert j. marzano...

Documents