MAKING STUDENTS PARTNERS IN THE COMPREHENSION PROCESS: ORGANIZING THE READING “POSSE”

C arol S u e E nglert a n d Troy V. M an ag e

Abstract. This article reports on a com prehension procedure that m akes visible to students their prior knowledge about a topic and the structures in expository

text. The procedure used reciprocal-like teaching form ats for the design of group interactions during instruction, as well as sem antic m apping to make text struc­tures apparent to students. Results suggested that strategy instruction using this procedure significantly affected recall of expository ideas and knowledge of com­prehension strategies among students with learning disabilities. More im portantly, it was the extent to which teachers were able to transfer control of reading stra te ­gies to students that appeared to affect students’ developing strategy knowledge.

Students' background knowledge, knowledge of text structures and reading strategies, and self regulation of reading strategies provide an im portant basis for developing a comprehension curriculum. The number of successful training studies that concentrate on the combination of these factors Is relatively small, with the recipro­cal teaching procedure as a notable exception (Brown. Armbruster. & Baker. 1986)Reciprocal Teaching

Reciprocal teaching refers to the process whereby students take turns assuming the re­sponsibilities of the teacher for leading discussionabout short sections of the text by using four reading strategies: questioning, summarizing, clarifying, and predicting text information (Bos & Anders, 1990; Palmcsar & Brown. 1986), For example, the student leading the discussion poses a question about the main idea to the reading group for other students lo answer The student leader summarises the Information in the section by including the main idea and details in a summary statement The student leader and other students clarify their understanding of the text. resolving questions about unfamiliar words or unclear referents Students also make predic­tions about the content of the next section of text Three features of the process promote the

success of reciprocal teaching1. Reciprocal teaching is based upon devel

opmg students’ proficiency In a small set of reading strategies that are related to compre­hension (Palincsar & Brown. 1986). Research supports the effectiveness of activating back­ground knowledge through prediction activities (Bos & Anders, 1990; Wilson & Anderson. 1986); actively rehearsing the ideas in text through summarization (Armbruster. Anderson. & Ostertag. 1987. Winograd. 1984); asking questions about major ideas (Wong, 1979; Wong & Jones. 1982). and monitoring and reg­ulating comprehension by clarifying ambiguities and vague concepts (Baker &. Brown, 1986; Bos & Filip, 1984: Reis & Spekman. 1983)

2, Reciprocal teaching develops comprehen sion abilities by creating a social community where students collaborate in using strategies.

CAROL SU E ENGLERT. Ph D., ts Associate Professor, Department of Spectal Education. Michigan State UniversityTROY V MARIAGE. Ph D . Is a Research As sistant, Department of Special Education. Michigan State University.

AH members of the rt* dir>g group actively parlk1 ipate in the comprehension process by answer­ing The discussion leaders' questions, leading the comprehension diKUS$k>n, and contributing to the discussion to support if*; group In arriving at i butler uryJeisijndirkg of the text's meaning. Students assume the roie of discussion leaders, responsibility for implementing anti monitoring strategy me is handed over from teacher;; ro stu­dents. Thus, the reciprocal teaching format pro­vides <i built in mechanism for transferring control for Srategy use and regulation. Teachers gradually cede responsibility to students for the selt-talk. and inner dialogue related to the com­prehension process, as students directly empkw.'. direct, and monitor strategy use while reading.

3 Students actively collaborate in sensp- meJdrcg ocfluiil« to construct new iiK\jnJrhg,.s Tn reciprocal teaching, meaning is conceived of as a social process In which students negotiate and reach consensus about the text's meaning 1see Aivermann. 19S5). as opposed to tech­niques whereby meaning is conceited of as a form of objecliue realny that resides In the words of the text For example., in remprocal reaching siuderils buikl U[X>n each other s ideas. : non ¡tor answers, and contribute new understandings as they Jointly work to frame an answer to a ques t>on or to comprehend ideas. Comprehension, therefore, is based upon mutual collaboration, with Lexl serving as the medium for creating meaning and arriving at shared understandings Jn this way, the existence of meaning is believed to be fundamen rally social rather than residingwithin an individual, an author, or a teacher (Bruffee, 1986) Moreover, the students social and cognitive histories are considered an impor tant facet of comprehension, which Is brought to bear upon the comprehension process ¿is stu­dents draw upon their rich background of knowl­edge and experiences to understand and explain text concepts Text Structure

The success of the reciprocal teaching proce­dure has been demonstrated witfi low-achieving and at-risk students; however, strategies that make comprehension processes visible to stu­dents with learning disabilities need to be explored In addition to reciprocal teaching, instruction in expository text structures holds promise for students with mild handicaps Although the terms may vary, common exposi­

tory text structures include description, problem­solution, and compare/contras: (Armbruster, 1984, Armbmster et al. 1987; Meyer, 1975}, With naturally occurring expository te rs, text structure Is more likely to be vjrldble jnd repie- sented by categories of superordinate and subor­dinate details related to a topic. For example, an expository text about an animat is likely to con­tain information pertaining to iuch categories of information as. “Where does it liue Wh«ii does it Look like? What does it eat? What are its habits?"

Knowledge ol these text structures not only ¡.Gems to be related to overall reading compre­hension (Hnglert Sc Hiebert. 1934). but format instruction in test structures can improve stu­dents' comprehension of expository texts (Arm­bruster et al,, 1987; Taylor & B<jach, 19S4). Specifically, by using graphic representations of these structuies and by mapping ideas onto text struclure maps, teachers can make text strUC lures and relationships vUible to students iBos (¡i Anders. 1990). However, text structure instruc­tion rind mapping need to be incorporated into (he reading lesson sc that students understand their use within an entire reading process involv­ing: before, during, and after reading strategies. Furthermore. Instruction needs to promote stu­dents' abilities to internalize text structures so that thev can independently ijoritrol and itguJuiK the Jitrategy even w,hen the teacher is unavail­able to guide them in making graphic repri en taiinns thrcujgh mapping.POSSE

The purpose of this article is to report on the effectiveness of an instructional procedure known as POSSE, which was developed I vised upon previous research on reciprocal teaching with at-nsk students (Palincsar & Brown, 1986). and on teaching expository text structures to stu­dents with learning disabilities (Bos & Anders. 1990; Englert. Raphael, Anderson. Anthony, Fear. & Gregg 1988; Englert. Raphael, Ander­son, Anthony, & Stevens. In press). In POSSE, students employ a variety of reading strategies, such as predicting ideas based upon background knowledge. Qrganizing predicted textual ideas and background knowledge based upon text structure. Searching/Summarizing by searching for the text structure in the expository passage and summarizing the main ideas, and Evaluating their comprehension As students apply the stra

224 l~*amine (Xu trV

tegies. the teacher simultaneously constructs a semantic man of students1 ideas to visually repre­sent rhe lext structure ar*d organization of idea*;. According to several authors (Bos & Anders. 1990: Graham & Johnson 1989) these are es­sential prere.xting. during reading. ¿nd po t reading aebvitte» for special education students,

PO SSE also draws heavily upon Paiincsar s wjork in reciprocal teaching for (he selection of reading strat gie^ and for the design of the group interactions during reading to promote in­ternalization of strategy knowledge. Specifically, similar to the reciprocal teaching format. POSSE students take turns leading the comprehension dialogue by asking questions, summarizing, and clarifying. Liktr reciprocal teaching, POSSE re­lies upon the lesson dialogue and interactions among group members to promote internaliza tion of strategies development of self-regulation, and transfer of strategy control from teachers to students.

The POSSE procedure was implemented in this study to evatusle a strategy that combined text St met ure mapping and reciprocal teaching within the reading process. Furthermore, the

complexity of the strategies represented in POS5F. provided an occasion for examining the effectiveness t>f a procedure that immersed slu- dents with learning disabilities in a holistic and integrated reading process That it. rather tlian reducing the complexity ul the reading process by introducing a few strategies at a rime or pre­senting them in isolation from other strategies unilt they are well learned |cf, Pressley, Good child, Fleet. Zajthowik], & Fwms. 1989; Press­ley, Symons. Snyder, & Carlglla-Bull, 1989

Swanson. 1989}, the strategies were combined in the PO SSt procedure to evaluate the effec­tive ue of Jrie-: simultaneous and integrated pft?- SenlatLon of a com- plex set of comprehension strategies to students with learning difficulties This oombinaiion would permit an examination of the relative effectiveness of an integrated, multicomponent comprehension procedure

The effect Iwtiuss of the procedure wafi evalu aied using experimental and control groups of Students with le^rniny disabilities ILDJ, given prior research evident Itiul [fxTse students have difficulty activating background knowledge (Wong, 1979; Wong & Jones. 1982): reoognir1 ing and employing expository text structures (Fnglert & Thomas. 19JJ7: Wong & Jones

1982; Wong St Wilson, 1984}; and monitoring and regulating their comprehension flios it Filip, 1984). Experimental and control students wsrte contrasted on two tasks involving their ability to (a) recall ideas from an expository passage and (I)) apply comprehension strategies (e,g., identify the main idea, ask questions, make predations) to short, one-paragraph segments uf text. It was predicted thaï students in the POS5F. condition uyomJd make significantly greater gains m reading comprehension and strategy implementation than control students

METHODSubjects

I lAienly-tsight iuurth-, fifth’, and sixth -grade stu­dents with learning dtsahiliiies partir i pa red in the study Student* were drawn from five class­rooms: two participated in the experimental condition and three in the control condition.

Subject* had met slate and local guidelines for LD placement, requiring that they had shown (a) intelïectuaJ ability in the average or above avE r- age range, (bl significant discrepancies between expectancies based on intellectual functioning and actual academic achievement: (cl no evi­dence of mental retardation, emotional distur­bance, or cultural or economic disadvantage; <ind Idf reteplive or expressive language abilities below mental age expectations. Eleven students A'ere assigned to the POSSE intervention; their approximate redding grade level was 3 2 and mean 10. 95.4; the remaining 17 students were in the control conduit in: their approximate read­ing grade level was 2.4 and mean JQ 93.6, In the POSSE group, 6 of (he students were em

rolled In the fourth grade, and 5 in the fifth grade. In the control group, 3 students were in the lourth grade. 9 in the fifth gmde. and 3 in the sixth grade.

To determine the comparability of students in the two groups, i-tests were performed on their pretest scores. The results revealed no signifi­cant differences, p > 05. for any of the depen­dent measures, including the ability t<j read! ideas from expository passages or to app!y com­prehension strategies to short segments of expository text. Thus, both groups were similar :n their comprehension performance sod itriit - gy knowledge prior to participation in the in struct!on. The pretest performances of both groups on the targeted dependent variables a™

shown Jn TabEe 1 The variable5 are described in more detail in the following sections.

Material*/U «sntiem Materials

To ,is>ess their ability to comprehend, students were asked to produce a written recoil alter reading an expository texl. The umt t?f this lash has heen supported by previous research, whitfi /tijggesis that successful comprehension perfor­mance is associated with free-recali and summi- rization abilities (Englcrt et si , 3989 Meyer. Brandt. & Rluth. 198Ü} However. lo eliminate problems associated with decoding ability, all passages were re fid aloud lo students. For the free recall task, students read a passage of approximately 385 words. Haif of the students reitd a passage about ramek The other half read a passage about dolphin*. Th* administration or­der W3! balanced within the experimental and control conditions, and from pretest to posttest Average passage readability was 4 4 bawd upon (he Spache readability formula {Spache, 19->3) tjich sludenl s written renaJ was assigned three score*, a total recall score hota! number of ideas recalled írom the onginal passaqes), number ot main ideas recalled from the passage, and a holistic score that refief ted the degree to which the studeni s written recall matched the primary trails and structure of the stimulus passage.

In addnlon to the recall measure, students took a test that measured their strategy knowl­edge and application ol strategies to short para graphs. The measure, adapted from a strategy

measure used by Pa:mcsar fPaimcsar & Brown, 19R4), consisted of three parts In the first parr Students u^re asked lo predict the kinds of Infor­mat ion they would find in a story about a wild animal (e.g., leopard) Next, students were given two posit Ory paragr^phi for which they were asked to generate a iiidi.ii Idea, ask a question about the paragraph, and make a prediction shout UlK.ïî V.w in:Ny;r ~.i\ ripjlt Finallystudents were asked I d kicntify appropriât** Trad­ing strategies to use before, during, and after Teading Students scores on the test were summed to yield a single score that reflecled their strategy knowledge.POSSE Strategy Sheet and Curriculum M aterials

The POSSE curriculum contained a strategy iheet that was designed to make visible to stu­dents both the strategies and the te*t structures for performing the reading process. The strate gies uuere aied by (he acronym POSSE," which stood for Predict, Organize, Search, Summarize, and Evaluate. The strategy sheet served as a form o( procedural facilitation, a term applied to specific types of instructional supports thal he]p students organize, structure, and sequence their cogniriw activities until the c< gnitlw pro­cesses have been internalized (sec ScardamaEia & Berciter. 19861. A strategy sheet developed for this purpose Is shown in figure 1.

Another type of procedural ifrdfitaTk» corvsisl- ed of a set of cue cards thal teachers could dis­play during the reading lesson and that the

Both sides of the card contained a language stem or verbal cue lo prompt the self-talk and In ner language related to a particular reading strat­egy. such as predicting, organizing, searching, summarizing, and evaluating (These stems are shown in Figure 2.) Each card was constructed to stand upright on the table so that It was visible to all students The discussion leader either held the card in his or her hand or referred to It on the table to guide the group's discussion.

Procedure»Assessment

The reading measures were administered in separate sessions In late October arid in Febru­ary All students were tested in their resource rooms in small group«. When administering the free recal, teachers first gave the directions oral­ly and then read the entire passage aloud as stu­

dents followed along using their own copy of thepassage. They then were directed to reread the passage After students had read the free recall passage, it was collected and students wrote eve­rything they could remember. They were in­formed that the recall test was not a measure of their word recognition or spelling ability, and that they could receive help If they came to an unfamiliar word while reading, or if they did not know how to spell a particular word when they were writing However, for all tasks, students were told not to be concerned about writing me­chanics, such as spelling or punctuation If stu­dents' writing was not legible enough to allow accurate scoring, they were asked to “read what you have written so that I can make sure ! know what it says.' Teachers provided a written tran­scription immediately below the students' written productions.

[h administering thp itralegy knowledge test, teachers read aloud each question to students twice, Adequate time was given for students to complete the lest. Questions were repealed whenever students needed Additional assistance: [his was rarely requested, however. As with the free recall tneasuie, students were informed that writing mechanics were unimportant, and that the/ should just be concerned with recording their ideas without worrying about spelling or punctuation. Again, teachers reread «II written products Lo ensure thdt they were legible When the writing was not legibJe. teachers asked stu dents Lo die talc theii answers and recorded d written transcnpîion immediately above the stu­dents' written answer.

PO SSE InstructionAfter pretesting, the strategy instruction was

Instituted with the experimental group for two months. The POSSE mslruction consisted of several strategies, including predidmg. organis­ing. searching for the text structure. summariz­ing. and evaluating (see Engtert & Mariage. 1 WO). Two of these strategies were prereadinq strategies (e.g.. Predict. Organize background knowtatg?.); rhn-e ‘¡Irategirs wem during reeling strategies (e.g.. Search/Sum man ic. Evaluate) The former weite prestinted by the teacher, who guided the group in making predictions and or­ganizing the predictions for the expository pus sage. The duringrreading strategies were led by student leaders, who took turns as the group i

Predict

i [yeoct ühàt. . I'm rerntmíMíifig .

Qrganize

I thin* ore cfii ory mighl Gfl

£earch/£urnrr>arize

I ltiirJc lhtd main i4e4 is

My u jttSliO" dtiOul [Pu? rtiïifi idea '5 .

Evaluate■ I

I iNr* wrt did icfid not) preóici Itits fna.n idoa ¡Ccxftparel Are ihore any ddttie&tion*?I predict ttie -rex' part will zte abcuJl

Figure 2 Prompts on strategy cue cards

I¿S ¡l.rTiT~nmjj f~fi|¥irlhrPifg. QlMMTCrVl

leader to guide discussion of the artide (see Pal incsar & Brown. 1986. 1989). In the next sec Hon of this discussion, these strategies aredescribed in greater delail.

Predict. Activating background knowledge.The Inlrcduction to a reading article in POSSE began with activating backqround knowledge (see Englert Sr Manage, 1990) To Predirt, stu­dents used cues from a variety of sources, indud ing the title, headings, pictures, or initial pan graph* to predict what the article would be about. Using the-sc clues, students simply brainstormed relevant information based upon what they knew’ about the fMSiiign's topics, Teachers helped sti> denih become more aware of the xnetacogiiitKie processes related ro predicting by directing them to "Brainstorm ideas about this topic,“ and then asking such queslions as 1 Where did that idea come from?“ or ~Whai tlnei or strategies helped

you make that prediction9" (Anders & Bos. 1984. Langer. 1981) To help students internal­ize the self talk and activities related to predic­tion, teachers also directed students' attention to the verta] prompts on the strategy cards ('M y prediction is . . ." "I'm remembering that. . '}.

Since the relevance of one S background knowl­edge cannot be iicUy ascertained before marling, but mq$i be hcJd in teniative form until it is con­firmed or disconfirmed by the text, teachers tried to accepl alt predictions tliat seamed n lit ed to the passage topics (fcwsed upon clue* from the passage title and pictures), ti sludents gener­ated totally irrelevant predictions, teachers either guided them to self-evali te their comments m jqhr of the passage topics, or helped them make mon? relevant predictions hy prompting them to connect fheir predicted ideas to the anticipated set of passage topics

Whenever students made predictions, the timber acted as a scnb* in. recoidinq the group's brainstormed ideas and predictions on the stra­tegy sheet, which wa* shown either on an m.*C!r bead projector or on a Large shcei of paper dis- piduil in the classroom. This procedure minimuad the time that students «pent on Writing rather than on the more important activity of readcng. The top section of Figur e 3 shows an example of the predictions generated by one of the PQSSh groups for the topic "The Bermuda Triangle "

O rganizing background knowledge* The Organize step prepaid students for reading by prompting iliem to organize (heir brainstormed Ideas into a semantic map. To employ this strat­egy. students looked back at iheir brainstormed ideas and considered whether any of them v>venl togeiher and, if so. what those ideas might be called. The teacher facilitated this process by asking questions (e.g , "Do you see any ideas that go together?' “What can those ideas be called?'). The teacher again acted a* a scribe, recording the group's details and category labels in the Organize portion of ihe semanlit map iinti! a.J the brainstormed l eas iij*i been catego­rized and labeled (see Figure 3) When students had difficulty Identifying categories, leathers prompted them lo ihink of categories that might begin with Wlvquestions (Who, Where. What. Why, When). Finely, teachers and students re* viewed the semantic map by discussing what new. information tad been tamed (Lartger. 1991).

Teachers also pointed out information about the topic that was still unknown by reviewing ca­tegories for which few details had been generat­ed, or about which students had raised ques lions, These questions were recorded on a sepa­rate sheet to represent the prereading questions that students wished to have answered by the author of the text. For example the teacher teaching the lesson about the Bermuda Tnangle recorded several student questions about the topic, including 'What does it look like9" “Why do people disappear [in the triangleP" “Who dis­covered the triangle?" and “What is rhe Dragon Triangle?" These questions were intended to help students distinguish information they al­ready knew about the topic from Information they wished to learn about the topic (see Figure 3).

Search/summarize. In the Search step, stu­dents began reading the passage as they searched for the author s text structure The Search step

represented a mental set or anticipation for reading, but did not result in a new entry on the POSSE strategy sheet.

In the Summarize1 step, however, stiidents ac­tually began to identify the text structure for shori segments of the article (i.e.T one paragraph m length or longer) by Identifying the main idea and by generating a question about the main idea. To summarize, the discussion leader litigan the dialogue by naming ihe main idea for the sec lion of the article being discussed ('] think the main idea is . ."). Oncc shidcnts discussed and agreed upon their reasoning lor selecting a par- ticulai main idea, the teacher recorded the main idea in one of the category circles in the Search/ Summarize stations of the semantic map.

Alter ihe discussion leader had identified the main idea he or she completed the summariza­tion process by asking the other group member a question about the mam idea, editing relevantdetails. To do thi$„ the leader simply transformed his or her summary of the main Idea into a ques­tion i My question about the main Idea Is . . ." Students' responses to this question were re­corded by the teacher as details in the semantic map correspond inq to a given category. At the conclusion of Search/Summarize, ihi- reading group had created a semantic map of the text information (see bottom portion of Figure 3).

Evaluate. The tvatuate slip included three leading strategies to furtheT guide ihe grcvp s> discussion and comprehension ol short sections of text: comrmre, clorifv. and eredrci.

In the compare step, the semantic maps gen­erated during the Organize and Search/Summa rize phases were compared As the two maps were compared, the group's leader directed a discussion regarding the new information that had been learned from the text and specific aspects of prior knowledge that had been con­firmed and disconfirmed (Englert & Manage, 1990). In this way, the reading group directly examined and summarized the relationship be­tween their predictions and text outcomes, while elaborating upon their knowledge by making relational statements linking textual ideas and prior knowledge This procedure was supported by prior research, which has shown the impor­tance of encouraging students to make semantic connections between new and old knowledge (Bos, Anders. Filip. & Jaffe, 1989).

To clarify, students asked questions about

I X i w u m ; D ita b i t’tv Q u a r u r t ,

unlamjliar vocabulary and unclear referents and posed any questions not answered by [he authors of the tent This discussion allowed the group to clarify ambiguities and stimulated a dis­cussion ol kicas that were I routed loo lighiJy by the* author. Thii step helped siudeni& realize that ji'any readers questions were left unanswered by the author, it also helped them recognize that there were differences between comprehension difficulties due to readers lack of understanding and I hose emanating from poorly UTitten texts

In the final Evaluation step, students prccficf- ed what I he next section of the lexi would be about. Thex* predictions could be based upon □ne of two sources of Information: |a| the mfor- tiv Tpoii provided in the text, or (b) the semantic map general ed during thf Organize step Stu­dents then read to confirm their predictions

Finally, after they finished reading the passage, student* summarized the entire selection by exam­ining their texi map and summarizing across the categories and details in their map, furthermore they compared their J'redtction and $eardi/5*im marize maps to draw relationships between their prioi knowledge and the inlormalion in the text, and to address any prior conceptions that were eillier confirmed or disconfirwed by the text, Control Classrooms

En tf*e control classrooms, teachers and stu­dents engaged In their regular reading routines As in the experimental classrooms, students re­ceived formal reading instruction and had op­portunities to read the same expository text as the experimental students. In all control class­rooms. teachers activated students' background knowledge by asking them to make predictions Teachers also checked students' understanding of passages by asking them to answer questions and participate in a discussion about the exposi­tory text s meaning. In fact, in one control class­room, students were asked to make predictions, ask teacher like questions, and summarize the text However, the differences between the ex­perimental and control classes lay in their em­phasis on text structure and the transfer of control from teachers to students for implemen­tation and monitoring oI comprehension strate­gies in the dialogue about comprehension.

SCORING PROCEDURES AND RELIABILITY Written Free Recall

To score the free recall measure, two coders

independently read the free recall measures and assigned three stores. First, students were as­signed a holistic rating from 03 that indicated the overall organisation of their recalls and the degree lo which their recalls reflected the pri­mary traits and structure of the s iIttiuIlj* passage. A score of "3" was assigned to recalls in which students recalled groups of maLn ide-ils arid de­tails Irorn Several p rts of the passage, and where their ideas were? consistenlfy Well Organized ¿nd ‘chunked" into groups of main ideas and subor­dinate details; a score of '2 ” was assigned to recalls in which students produced fairly well- organized, bul less complete recalls containing one or more organised chunks of information; a score of " I was assigned recalls in which stu dents had attempted (o recall one or more chunks of related details, but where the recall had deteriorated to a mere collection of random ideas. Finally, a score of "0H was assigned recalls in which students merely recalled random ideas, with no reflection of the passage s lext structure.

in addition to the holisLic ratings, students recalls were ¿signed two other scores. One Kure reflected llie i a t a l n u m b e r of id iiUS from The original pas-sage contajnt d in ihe recall, the other the number of main ideas from the pas­sageStrategy Knowledge Measure

In scoring the strategy knowledge measure, students were assigned a rating from 0-2 points based upon the accuracy of then’ responses. For the question about predicting the kinds of infor­mation found in a story about a wild animal, stu­dents received 2 points if they provided a superordinate idea or category (i e., 'where it lives’), a score of “ T for each relevant subordi­nate detail, and a score of “0" for ideas that were irrelevant or not expository.

For the second part of the questionnaire, m which students generated main ideas, questions, and predictions for short paragraphs, students again received ratings from 0-2 points General ty, a score of "2" was awarded for correct main ideas, questions, or predictions, a score of “1" for partially correct main ideas, questions, or predictions (i.e.. a prediction that was accept­able, but that focused on a less central idea relat­ed to the topic): and a score of “O’ for incorrect main ideas, questions, or predictions (I.e.. a pre­diction that was not acceptable because it focused on an irrelevant idea or topic)

For the third part of the questionnaire, stu­dents were asked to identify strategies for use before, during, and after reading, When stu­dents response* Included two or more accept­able strategies. thev were »signed 2 points: 1 point was assigned to response that included only one acceptable strategy, tvherees 0 pornts ivere as^gned when the response included no acceptable trategie*.Scoring H i liability

Reliability was calculated on 1 OSii of the free recall measure and the questionnaire responses, by dividing Ihfl number of agreements by the sum of agreements plus diSfayreements On all measures, reliability was above SO' j far each triable.

RESULTSWritten Free Recall

For the free recall, analyses urere conducted in rwo sieps. Flrrt, a Multivariate Analysis of Covanance (MANCOVA) was performed on Ihe three dependent measures. COWaryin for initial performances on th.e pretest. Second, if the MAhK.'OVA yielded significant findings for a fac­tor, fhi* wparate univariate ratios were examinedfor each dependenr variable to determine where significant results Lay {The pretest and posrtest means used In the free recall ai'ialytls are shown In Table 1.}

The MANCOVA results revealed a signifi­cant main effect for instructional condition, F13.18)=6 77. p< 01. When the univariate F- ratk>5 were examined, the results showed that effects seemed lo be attributable to the experi­mental students performance on all three de­pendent measures, including their total recall scores. F( 1.20)« 18.71. p<.001, and recall of main ideas. FU.20)*6.3l. p<.05. The experi­mental group recalled significantly more ideas than students in the control group and produced better organized written recalls In fact, control students recall performance declined from pretest to posttcst.Strategy Knowledge Measure

In addition to their writlen recalls, students' knowledge of strategies was evaluated. Again, the aggregated score was analyzed in a MAN­COVA. covarying for initial pretest performance.

The results revealed significant effects attribut­able to the instructional condition, Hl,18)=8 39, p-.OOl Comparison of scores indicated that

experimental students sigraficanth outperformed control students when pretest scores were en­tered as the cnuariate, In fact, whereas experi­mental students aw raged increases of 7 points from pretest 10 poshest, control Jitudents' scores decreased sJightly.

Teacher effect». Although students in the experimental condition surpassed control stu­dents on the measure of their strategy knowl­edge. the treatment effects for this writable were not distributed uniformly across the students of the two experimental teachers. Despite the power of the experimental treatment, teacher effect* emerged that warranted more careful consideration and discussion. In facl, in one experimental classroom, students made signifli- cant gains jp-i.01) on the queslionnaire from pretest to posttesl (average mean gam of 12 poinls) ]n comparison, students in Ihe other experimental classroom made only modest gains (P-,189) from prrtesi to posttest fawrage mean gain of 2 points), However, these differences did not distinguish the written recall performance of the two teachers' students insofar as Ixilh sets of experimental students made relatively similar preles! posttest gains

In explainlrvj the differences in studenls’ strat­egy knowledge. It is Important to note that ihe two teachers differed in their willingness lo transfer control for stra in use to sludents andto eliminate or fade students reliance on the POSSE strategy sheets as students became suc­cessful at implementing the strategies Since these differences seemed to be Important in understanding how teachers should implement strategy instruction, they are described in more detail below

To illustrate the trends in the teacher effects found in the qualitative analysis of teachers dia­logue. two transcribed segments from the video­taped lessons of the two teachers are reported. (These transciptions are taken from lessons con­ducted at relatively similar points of time.) In one experimental classroom, the teacher retained tight control of the strategies as she prompted the discussion leader when to use a particular strategy’, guided students more directly through Ihe use of the strategies, and monitored the accuracy of their responses. In contrast, the other experimental teacher was much more skilled in transferring conttol to her students for making decisions about when and how to use

132 Lecmtng D\uzhi'ity Quarter^*

|A il'.jtlfir:! named Sue Mart; to w i-interr. bu[ T halts hei a:id asks ii Pat if done iM wn he s a ^ yEH, ski? u ^ . “Good to drain his brain first be-fote uiv start on yours " Teacher then gives Sue permission lo p r « e « l . |

Sue. Mot»* thatt lOO Lihips/'pij.nes'h h iw di^ap-

T : I think another detail m tyiii tw "no one knowshappened "

T: Okay. h ir e iwe go {curt d lK ^M o n leader tocontinue)

Pat. I 1 hiiik uw? did pr-fidicl 1his idea T: I rlvnk w? did. loo. We talked <ibojt planes

and -ships What happens to Ihvrri? They dis (flips card, lo ctariftcation c-je card)

Pat- Ar-e th-’TP any clari fkratinns'5 P^ot for m*1 S ue (points touuw di “drtappeartid .'T You (too'i krKy* u+at that means? What doei

that rw an ?Sue-: “ Varnished . .T- Vcs, goneT- So we d o n 't really have any clarifications

hwciiiisj? von reaJli, d o know what thal means Pal- I predict the next p^rt m il bf3 ab m i 1 W hat is

making them dtsap'ie'ar.

strategies, It was in rh lalter eKpenmeniat class room that tine most iiqnificant gai:~-s were made in slurients control and use oi strategies as evalt- uated on the measure of strategy knowledge.

Video 1 — Tighter Teacher Control The transcript immediately following shows

how the more directed teacher maintains tight control of the readinq group and students' dia­log* about the topic, 'The Bermuda Triangle.' a ■= -yhii |aj indicates when students are to proceed to the next strategy (I.e., by flipping the cue cards). (Hi selects s-iudents to amwer questions rather than allowing the discussion leader to assume total control of the reading group, and (c) provides feedback to students on the accuracy of iheir responses rather than aibwmg the dis­cussion leader or read mg group to engage in col- lahnrative pmbiem soKing The segment dearly shows the teacher's dominance as she «tries out most of the cognitive work for her reading group, leaving students the task oF merely answering her questions or directives. The lesson talk also consistently moves In a unilateral direc­tion — from teacher to student, and then back to the teacher This pattern oilers few opportu­nities for students to faintly construct text mean­ing or «wn monitor each other's iinderslanding, as mJghl he evident in a lesson talk pattern involving more frequent occurrences of student to sludent interactions.

T We re going to Hart «he search (process) (Turn» over She card "I think the main idea is . . .") Okay. Pat. you are on(Students read the next segment ot texl about the Bermuda Triangle 1

Pat: I think the main idea is about ships and planes,

T: W hat about them 0Pat: That they disappearT- 1 think you are right (she records information)

I would say the sam e thing I m going to add information about people . they disappear

T Okav I prom pting the leader to continue)Pat: My question about the main idea is “How do

people and ships disappear?T Does that get answered? I think a better ques

tion word m ight be this (points to question word "Where * on board)

Pat: Where do ships and people disappear?T C an you answer that?Pat: In the Bermuda Triangle T Good! C an you give me a detail?Pat: I think one detail is ~ planes and ships and peo

pie have never been seen . . .*T Have never been found

As the transcript leveals. this experimental teacher did not allow her studenls to perform significant roles in shaping and contributing to the lesson dialogue about srraieijiis Thus, stu­dents were not allowed independence in leading the group making decisions, and collaborating with ihe discussion leader In consirucitng mean­ing. Further, throughout the lesson. (he teacher initiated and sustained the lesson dialogue, and prompted strategy use. She rigidly managed strategy use by retaining control of the strategy cards and by cueing the discussion leaders when to employ specific strategies. She also moni­tored the accuracy of students responses, and provided feedback rather than fostering a collab oratiue problem solving process where students rointly constructed meanings and monitored their own performance

Most telling was her directive to Pat, "Can you give me a detail7” Her language and actions sug­gested that she was testing students knowledge and that they were simply to provide her with one word answers or fil-in-the-blanks to give her the answer she sought In fact, when one stu­dent (Sue) tried to volunteer an idea, the teacher slopped her with a response that might discour­age other spontaneous student contributions. Later, when Sue suggested that the word “disap­peared" might need to be clarified, the teacher did not explore her thinking, but critically sug­

VfeJuw 24 S p r tM 1991 133

gested that Sue already knew wh r the word meant.

Unfortunately, when the tcachcr takes too much control as ihe manager who eisks ques lions and retains responsibility for critically evalu aling response;*. students begm lo carry out tasks wdlh little investment in ihu product or owner ship of ihe language or strategies ¡Uiichny & Watsion Gegeo. 1989). !n the segment above only two of the five students participated, and their talk was primarily prompted by (he teacher rather than other students ideas or th*? problems encountered in the text. Through her conirol ot the lesson taLk. the teacher minimized individual students' opportunities to engage iri decision making and exercise their problem-solving abili­ties The power and control of strategies and talk remained with the teacher.

Video 2 — More Student ResponsibilityIn contrast, the other leather in ihe experi­

mental condition encouraged siudents to fade theft rdLance on strategy cards. allowing the dis­cussion leader to make important decisions about when lo use strategies and encouraging students to monitor each other and even estati lish procedures for Their reading group

In the following videotape segment, tht fa th ­er de-empha ized the POSSE procedures and emphasized the responsibilities of leaders and group members for sustaining and monitoring the dialogue about lext meaning. At the time of this lesson, ihe leather had already guided stu denis to realize that they no longer needed Ihe strategy cue cards lo lead their reading dis­cussion In the portion of the lesson immediately preceding this segment, students had brain­stormed Ideas about the Loch Ness Monster that included details about the lake where it lived (Loch Ness Lake, rocky bottom, deep water. Scotland); what it looked like {long neck, possibly a plesiosaurus); where they got their information (stories, pictures, new accounts), and so forth. In the segment below, students are organizing their ideas into categories (Organize) and applying the reciprocal teaching process (Search/Summarize and Evaluate) as they begin to read the exposito­ry text about the Loch Ness Monster

T Oh we have to do one more thing before we summarize 1 almost forgot What do we do?

Ss: Organize.T; How can we group these brainstormed ideas

(into categories)? What are some categories9

Ann: Where it bwT: L:i reel I D circle all the ideas about "Where it

IveS.*

Joe: {What about) Ihe reporter’ Wrjrtfc? (Trying (o remind (etcher to put out reporter word* uw*1 to help student1» generate queitiiir.? such “whit, foow, when, why."!

T: We don't need them just yet. I think you mayknow them.

T for the Cdiugofy "Where it lines', we ll ay It Ikies . . - in Scotland (circles the ditail with a ■red m-irkd!.

Ann Oh. I have one" What it does"11T Oh, you have another category. Any more

ideas ¿bout where it li jes first?Joe: In L«h Ness LakeT Okay. Do you think we have them all Ideas

atxjut whtre it livespJoe Deep water, rocky al the bottom. [Teacher cir­

cles These ideas.)T; Okay - - in red, I'll write "Where it lines" so

you iuvsM: ihat th« ideas ejreisd ir: red aw all part of the category "Whtnr it liwrs OK. It’t's do another cal-egory in peilow.

Sue1 1 hiue another category.T Joe. you come up and put Sue's category in

yeJbu’ . . .Sue. Wwie people litjid it from.Joe (Greks two ideas misted to category, "Where

people heard it from.')Tom 1 have another caicc|ory. '"Wi’hai ■[ does?T. Ann. would you g& up and circle things that

have to do with "What it does?”Ann (thinks- ¿loud *<, Jie circles ihe ideas chf*t an1

related to thts categvry) TJi v «V the h**ad . . They haw pictures of it.

Sun; That's not what it does (Ann crosses through rhc iine she had begun to wiiic around the detail).

Ann I have one for Joe that is part of his category This idea (points to They haw pictures of its head”) belongs to his category (Joe sponta­neously comes up and cirdes that idea . . .). [Students begin reading the passage for the Search/Summarize and Evaluate strategies Peg Is the leader for this segment of text, which focuses upon the characteristics of the Loch Ness Lake J

T: What is our main topic that the text is talkingabout?

Peg The Loch Ness MonsterT: What was this section about? What was the

main idea9Peg Oh the lake I have two questions “What is a

lake.' and “What is in it?'T Do you mean this particular lake or any lake?Peg This lake Joe7Joe: It's fogc&>, It's deep, and it is long and narrow .Peg: Don?Don The land beside the lake, you don't know if it

is real soft and you could fail through it

I X Learning .'>uai>ii.l, Quarterly

T: So it could be soft and swampyAnn: I think the Loch Ne» Monger live* there.T. is Ann answenng your question. Peg?Peg: NoT: What was your question5Peg: There are two of them “What was the lake"

and What lives n the lake?"Joe But they never answered that . . . I have a

question about the mam idea. Aren't we sup posed to do a question about the main idea?

T: Just about what we readJoe Yes. but she asked us "What hwed in the lake?“

but it doesn t really mention it (what lived tn the lake) in the book

T: That s true. The major idea has to do with theLoch Ness Lake and what it looks like A mmor Idea that we really inferred rather than directly read in the article was that the Loch Ness Monster lived in the lake.

Peg. Are there any clarifications?Ss No responseT I have a clarification You had trouble reading

some of these words and I wondered if you knew what some of these words were? Ances­tors . ..

The segment above shows that group mem­bers actively monitored each other and con­tributed to the comprehension problem solving process The leader called upon otheT students to contribute to the dialogue about text, and the entire group worked together to make sense of the text For example, Ann monitored the accu­racy of Joe s categorization, and later, Joe inter­ceded when he disagreed with the discussion leader s main idea. Ann also problem-solved in deciding where a detail was to be categorized when Sue provided her feedback suggesting that her initial placement decision was incorrect. Only when the group faltered in the problem­solving process did the teacher step in to model a clarification (e g,. "ancestors"), or provide feed­back (e.g . asking Peg if she meant any lake or this particular lake) In fact, the teacher carefully scaffolded students thinking by asking prompts or questions that required them to pause to eval­uate their thinking or others' success in using a particular strategy (e.g., ’ Is Ann answenng your question?").

The teacher also encouraged students to inter­nalize strategics by eliminating problem-solving crutches as they gained proficiency in the use of strategies (e.g . use of reporter words, strategy cue cards). Furthermore, the teacher actively sought to transfer control to students for the cognitive work that she initially performed For

example, after the teacher modeled how to cir­cle related details within a category, she invited students to identify categories and circle related details This scaffolded assistance has been well documented in the reciprocal teaching literature (Palincsar. 1986; Palincsar & Brown, 1989)

As the second teacher's lesson continued in the Search/Summarize phases, she continued to cede responsibility to students for carrying on the lesson dialogue. Students were mutually involved in making sense of text Also, students responded to other students and asked questions of each other as they worked as a group to frame answers or ask questions about the text's meaning Their involvement in the lesson dia­logue was evident in the fact that five of the six students offered comments about the meaning of the paragraph in contrast to two students in the other expenmental teacher s room Most of these occasions were not directly solicited by the teacher, but were prompted by the discussion leader or by other students comments. Even though they had not internalized the strategies and required additional teacher support, students in the second teacher s classroom showed more ownership and control of strategies than the first teacher's students The degree of ownership and control of strategies seemed to be reflected in the relative changes of the two groups on a measure of their strategy knowledge.

DISCUSSIONThe POSSE intervention provided students a

vehicle for guiding them during reading and for using text structure as a basis for organizing their prediction and summaries The question addressed in this study was whether an integrat­ed comprehension program would be effective in a relatively short-term study. More specifical­ly. whether such an integrated curriculum would be effective when implemented with a small number of students with learning disabilities — a population for whom many authors recommend teaching a few strategies sequentially and thor­oughly, rather than simultaneously in a multipk' component package such as POSSE (see Press­ley, Goodchild et al , 1989; Pressley. Symons etal., 1989, Swanson. 1989).

In this study, students who were trained tn the POSSE strategies made significant gains in their ability to recall textual ideas Since comprehen sk>n recall is associated with successful compre­

kfolumr 14. S p n n g 1991 115

hension performance {Meyer el a l, 1980l Spl* vey, 1984), ihese result a suggest the powerful effect* of the treatment on (he reading compre­hension oi students with learning disabilities The finding is particularly striking given the short-1 erm nature of the study (2 months) and (he small number oi subjects (Kirk, 1968). In fact, the participation of only 11 experimental students significantly increased the variance and reduced the likelihood of treatment effects.

In addition, the recall measure provided a slhn- geni evaluation of changes in comprehension performance, because students in the POSSE mstnictional condition were never directly taught how to summarise texts or to use i he compre­hension strategies as a basis for recalling diS' courseUwel Jtts without tin1 benefit of the supported lesson dialogue and mapping proce­dures Yet, the tr*)aimen1 ffcet* suggested ihat an integrated set of comprehension strategies enn be effectively taught 1o iudents with learn­ing disabilities when a combination of instruc- lional factors are present, such as (a) incorpor­ating reciprocal teaching formats in instruction, ib) presenting a set of effective comprehension strategies, including instruction in I he use ol texi structures. and fc> including several forms of pro­cedural facilitation that make visible the compre­hension process and that guide students through their dialogue about texts, including the use of strategy sheets and semamiL mapping icf. Bos St Anders. 1990),

Similar results were obtained when students' performance on the measure of strategy knowl­edge was examined TJie ability to use and iden­tify strategies increased significantly for ex* perimental students, whereat ¡1 decreased for control students Thus, students who received instruction in (he POSSE strategies made ‘¡Kjriifi cant gains in their understanding of the compre' hension strategies they could use before, during, and after reading.

The teacher effect* for strittegy knowledge suggested that instruction in which teachers retain control of strategies may not he as suc­cessful as when students are assigned significant idles in shaping and contributing to the lesson dialogue about strategies. In POSSE, students are exp^cied to assume significant roles in lead­ing the group and collaborating with die leader to construct meaning. This meaning is shared and negotiated among group members. That Is,

members of the group work together to use the strategies and provide feedback to each other to ensure ihat the goals of reading for meaning and moniioring comprehension are accomplished In doing so. students are challenged to jointly con­sider strategies for resolving com prehension breakdowns, and to employ fix-up strategies (e.g., lookbacks) when breakdowns occur. The evidence from this initial study suggests that when teachers fail to transfer control to students for strategy use. instead retaitiing control of the problem-solving process, the success of the Strategy instruction is diminished isee Palii sar, 1986). This effcct was evident on the strategy knowledge measure, whereas effects on the recall measure were lalriy consistent across the two experiment! teachers

This latter result raises an interesting question about ihe differential effects of the two teachers on students' slrategy knowledge, but not on their comprehension retell Two explanations may be offered for this unexpected result. First, the lesson dialogue showed that neither group of students had fully internalized the strategies in the 2 months of instniition, as the teachers still had to guide them m the use of the strategies, Over a longer instructional period, performance differences may emerge that arc more reflective of the degree to which students have internal­ized tin? strategies, find the:r teachers’ abilities to empower them with their use. An alternative expl.-ination i& that the ability to talk about strate­gy knowfedge is not necessarily reflected in stu­dents’ abilities to employ the strategies in the service of comprehension and recall In other words, students declarative or statable knowl edge about strategies may not be related to their actual comprehension performance. At ihis point, both of these explanation* are only con­jectures that need to be addressed in a longer term study Invoking more subjects, and permit­ting a closer examination of the relationship between instructional practices students star- able knowledge about reading strategies, and comprehension.

On Ute basis; uf ih^se findings, it sterns unnec­essary to decompose or reduce the reading pro­cess to a .«iquenllfll set of strategies that are learned and practiced in isolation. Instead, inslructkm in the reading process and expository text structures can be effective when these are embedded in an instructional framework that

emphasizes reciprocal teaching, scaffolded assis­tance, procedural facilitation, and peer collabora­tion. Nevertheless, the results also suggest that the lesson dialogue and students' control and contribution to the dialogue about the compre­hension process seemed to promote students strategy awareness

Teachers play an important role in teaching students to make use of background knowledge, text structures, and comprehension strategies In expository reading. POSSE provides one type of structure for making these processes visible to students, and offers one example of how such a dialogue can be conducted within the curriculum to further students' reading comprehension. Ad­ditional research needs to be conducted to exam­ine the effects of such instruction with a larger group of students with learning disabilities and over a longer instructional period. Also, exami­nation of teacher effects would be helpful in pin­pointing the specific instructional facets of scaf­folded instruction that promote comprehension success

REFERENCES Alvermann. D.E (1989). Teacher student mediation o(

content area lexts. Theory into Practice, 28[2), 142-147

Anders, P.L.. & Bos. C.S (1984} In the beginning Vocabulary Instruction In content classrooms. Top ics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 3. 53-65.

Armbruster. B B, (1984) The problem of inconsider­ate text In G G Duffy. L R Roehler, & J M Mason (Eds ). Comprehension instruction. Per spectives and suggestions (pp. 202-217). New York Longman

Armbruster. B B., Anderson. T.H., & Ostertag, J, (1987). Does text structiire/summarization instate tion facilitate learning from expository text? Read my Research Quarterly. 22{3). 331 346

Baker L . lit Brown. A L (1986). Meiacognltive skills and reading In P.D Pearson (Ed ). Handbook of reading research (pp 353 394) New York: l-oog- rrvan

Bos. C S . & Filip. D. (1984). Comprehension moni tonng in learning disabled and average students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17. 229-233

Bos. C S . & Anders, PL (19901 Interactive practices for teaching content and strategic knowledge In T.E. Scruggs & B Y L Wong (Eds ). Intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 116-185). New. York: Spnnger-\A?riag

Bos, C.S.. Anders, PL-. Filip. D , St Jafte, L E- (1989) The effects of an Interactive instructional strategy for enhancing reading comprehension and content area learning fo» students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22. 384-390

Brown. A L . Armbruster B B . & Baker, L (1986) The rote of metacognition in reading and studying. In J Orasanu (Ed,), Reading comprehension From research to practice (pp 49-75) Hillsdale. NJ; Erlbaum

Bmffce, K A. (1986) Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge A bibltographkr essay College English. 48. 773 790.

Englert. C.S., & Hiebert. E.H. (1984). Children's developing awareness of text structure in expository materials Journal of Educational Psychology. 76. 65-74

Engtert. C S.. 8t Mariage. T. (1990). Send for the POSSE Structuring the comprehension dialogue Acodemic Therapy. 25, 473-487.

Englert. C.S . Raphael, T.E.. Anderson. L M , Fear, K . & Gregg. S L (1988) A case for wnting inter­vention Strategies for wnting informational text Learning Disabilities Focus, 8. 98 113

Engtert. C.S , Raphael. TE., Anderson. LM., Antho ny. H M , & Stevens, D D (in press) Making ant ing strategies and seif-talk visible: Cognitive strategy instruction in wnting in regular and special educa­tion classrooms American Educational Research Journal

Englert. C.S . Raphael. T.E.. Anderson. L M , Gregg, S.L . & Anthony. H M (1989) Exposition Read­ing. wnting. and the metacognltlve knowledge of learning disabled students Learning Disabilities Research, 5. 5-24

Englert. C.S., & Thomas C.C (1987) Sensitivity to text structure in reading and anting A comparison between learning disabled and non-learning dis­abled students Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 93 105.

Graham. S.. & Johnson, L.A. (1989). Teaching read­ing to learning disabled students: A review of research supported procedures. Focus on Excep­tional Children, 2116), 112.

Kirk. R E. (1968). Experimental design Procedures for the behavioral sciences- Belmont. CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Langer. J A. (1981) From theory to practice: A pre reading plan Journal of Reading. 25, 152-156.

Meyer B JF (19751 The organization of prose and its effects on memory Amsterdam: North-Holland

Meyer, B J F., Brandt. DH.. & Bkrth. G J (1980). Use of author s textual s«chema Key for ninth- graders comprehension. Reading Research Quar terly. 16. 72-103

Palincsar, A S. (1986) The role ol dialogue in scaf­folded instruction Educational Psychologist. 21, 7398.

Pal»ncsar, A S., & Brown. A L. (1984) Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and compre­hension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction. 1, 117-175.

Palincsar, A.S . & Brown, A L. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote independent learning from text The Reading Teacher. 711-777

Palincsar. A S., & Brown. A.L. (1989). Classroom

Ui/tmv /■4 Spn/iy 1991 137