Reading for Meaning: The Efficacy of Reciprocal Teaching in Fostering Reading

Comprehension in High School Students in Remedial Reading Classes

Author(s): Miriam Alfassi
Source: American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Summer, 1998), pp. 309-332
Published by: American Educational Research Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1163426
Accessed: 01-04-2017 20:23 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1163426?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to American Educational Research Journal

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 American Educational Research Journal
Summer 1998, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 309-332

Reading for Meaning: The Efficacy of

Reciprocal Teaching in Fostering Reading
Comprehension in High School Students in
Remedial Reading Classes
Miriam Alfassi
Bar-Ilan University, Israel

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of strategy instruction
on reading comprehension. The main objective of strategy instruction is to
foster comprehension monitoring. The study examined whether reciprocal
teaching methods (strategy instruction) were superior to traditional methods
of remedial reading (skill acquisition) in large intact high school remedial
classes. This setting was chosen because it is a more natural setting for the
implementation of reciprocal teaching than settings used in previous studies.
With a methodology similar to that used in the pioneering work of Palincsar
and Brown (1984), 53 students in five intact reading classes who received
strategy instruction were compared to 22 students in three control-group
classes. The results indicated that in this challenging setting strategy instruc-
tion was superior to traditional reading methods in fostering reading com-
prehension as measured by experimenter-designed reading tests. Consistent
with previous research, no differences were found between the groups on two
standardized measures of reading.

MIRIAM ALFASSI is a Lecturer and Chairperson of Special Education, School of

Education, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel. Her specializations are
learning, linking assessment to instruction, and peer-assisted learning strategies.

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Alfassi

The reading comprehension of students has been a topic of much interest

in the literature and has important and immediate policy consequences
within the school system. This article is an attempt to gauge the educational
benefits of instruction aimed at enhancing the ability of high school students
in remedial reading classes to monitor their own reading comprehension. A
distinction has been made between traditional methods of remedial reading
(skill acquisition) and more recently proposed methods (strategy instruc-
tion). The study examined whether reciprocal teaching methods (strategy
instruction) were superior to traditional methods of remedial reading (skill
acquisition) in large intact high school remedial classes. This setting presents
greater obstacles to, and provides a more stringent test of, successful
implementation of reciprocal teaching than settings used in previous studies.
Cognitive analysis of human performance in various domains is a major tool
in the development of instructional programs aimed at specified forms of
competence (Anderson, Farell, & Sauers, 1984; Lewis, Milson, & Anderson,
1987; White & Frederiksen, 1986). Many such programs focus on the
development of self-regulatory and performance control strategies as means
of knowledge acquisition. Cognitive control has long been considered
central to the process of growth and change: Any active learning process
involves continuous adjustments and fine tuning of action via self-regulating
processes (Brown, 1987). Studies of expertise show that the experience of
"experts," be they adults or children, enables them to develop executive
skills for monitoring performance; they continuously check their work,
accurately judge its difficulty, apportion their time, assess their progress, and
predict the outcomes of their activities (Brown, 1978; Chi, Glaser, & Rees,
1982; Larkin, McDermott, Simon, & Simon, 1980).
Work by developmental psychologists tends to support the view that
the acquisition of self-monitoring is a major component in the development
of cognitive skills (Flavell, Friedrichs, & Hoyt, 1970; Markman, 1985). School
children practice and regulate their cognition and thinking as they pass from
novice to semi-expert states in various domains (Flavell, 1987). Frequent
practice fosters their acquisition of self-monitoring skills and improves their
performance.
There are instructional programs in reading comprehension (Brown &
Palincsar, 1987, 1989; Palincsar & Brown, 1984), writing (Scardamalia,
Bereiter, & Steinbach, 1984), and mathematics (Schoenfeld, 1985) that are
designed to foster the development of self-regulatory skills. Reciprocal
teaching (Brown & Palincsar, 1987, 1989; Palincsar & Brown, 1984) has been
hailed as one of the most prominent strategy-instruction programs devel-
oped in the last decade (Dole, Duffy, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991; Glaser, 1990;
Pearson & Dole, 1987; Pressley, Snyder, & Carigilia-Bull, 1987; Siegler, 1991;
Stanovich & Cunningham, 1991). It is designed to improve reading compre-
hension in children who can decode but experience difficulty understanding
text. Students in this program acquire specific knowledge as well as learning
a set of monitoring strategies necessary for independent learning (Glaser,
1990).

310

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reading for Meaning

Reading and Self-Monitoring

As is well recognized, reading is a multilevel interactive process that involves

comprehension and has many similarities to problem solving (Spiro, Bruce,
& Brewer, 1980). In two classic articles published 50 years apart, E. L.
Thomdike (1917) and R. L. Thorndike (1973-1974) maintained that reading
is a form of reasoning. Stanovich and Cunningham (1991), who explored the
validity of this theoretical assertion, concurred, suggesting that reading is a
form of constrained reasoning. Reasoning has been described as an attempt
to extract meaning (comprehend) from a set of data as opposed to the mere
acquisition of information (Palincsar & Brown, 1988). Similarly, reading
comprehension is identified as a process of constructing meaning from text
(National Academy of Education Commission on Reading, 1985).
Theories of comprehension suggest that active learning from text must
involve a flexible repertoire of comprehension-fostering and monitoring
activities (Brown, 1980, 1997; Cross & Paris, 1988; Dole et al., 1991). Learning
from text demands a split mental focus (Brown, 1980; Locke, 1975). Learners
must simultaneously concentrate on the material and on themselves, check-
ing if their reading is resulting in learning and knowing how to handle
comprehension failures (Forrest & Waller, 1979; Garner & Reis, 1981; Paris
& Winograd, 1990; Raphael & Pearson, 1985). Lack of knowledge of the use
of strategies, inability to choose appropriate strategies, and ineffective
monitoring of strategies have been characterized as a strategic deficiency
commonly found in novice readers who are depicted as passive
comprehenders (Baker & Brown, 1984; Garner, 1987; Forrest-Pressley &
Gillies, 1983; Paris & Meyers, 1981; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1983; Wagner &
Sternberg, 1987). Explicit instruction in comprehension-enhancing activities
appears especially crucial for the novice reader and the academically
delayed student (Brown, Armbruster, & Baker, 1985; Brown & Palincsar,
1982).
The reading comprehension curriculum that exists in U.S. schools
today is based on behavioral and task analysis concepts developed in
learning theory at the early and middle parts of this century (Dole et al.,
1991). These view reading comprehension as a skill that can be broken
down into a set of subskills such as sequencing events, predicting outcomes,
drawing conclusions, and finding the main idea. More recent models of the
reading process are based on a cognitive view of reading comprehension.
This view assumes an active reader who constructs meaning through the
integration of existing and new knowledge and uses strategies to foster,
monitor, regulate, and maintain comprehension.
Until 2 decades ago, students were seldom taught cognitive strategies
to assist them in reading comprehension (Durkin, 1979; Duffy, Lanier, &
Roehler, 1980). A wealth of statistical evidence links strategies and monitor-
ing to reading comprehension (see Stanovich & Cunningham, 1991). This
linkage has also been indirectly confirmed by the positive effects of several
instructional interventions aimed at fostering cognitive monitoring strategies
311

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Alfassi

for reading (Dewitz, Carf, & Patberg, 1987; Duffy et al., 1987; Haller, Child,
& Walberg, 1988; Paris, Wasik, & Van der Westhuizen, 1988; Raphael &
Pearson, 1982, 1985). Such intervention appears to be particularly effective
with poor readers, although it does not, by itself, appear to be helpful or
sufficient in providing readers with strategies of control and/or self-manage-
ment (Stanovich & Cunningham, 1991). Executive-control processes, such as
monitoring, appear to be generalized only when taught in combination with
task analysis of the reading act itself (Brown & Day, 1983; Day, 1980; Kurtz
& Borkowski, 1984).

Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-

Monitoring Activity

Reciprocal teaching is an instructional technique in which listening and

reading comprehension are viewed as problem-solving activities that aim to
promote thinking while reading (Brown, 1985). The technique is a group-
problem activity in which students read a passage of expository text,
paragraph by paragraph. During the reading, they acquire and practice four
reading comprehension strategies: generating questions, summarizing, at-
tempting to clarify word meanings or confusing text, and predicting what
might appear in the next paragraph. The articulation of these four strategies
promotes understanding and monitoring of comprehension. For example,
clarification fosters monitoring of comprehension breakdowns and use of
fix-it strategies like selective search for relevant content and rereading
(Baker, 1985).
A second major component of reciprocal teaching is the provision of
guided practice. During the early stages of reciprocal teaching, the instructor
assumes the major responsibility for instruction by explicitly modeling the
four strategies on a selection of text. The student is an observer at this initial
phase and does little cognitive work. After the teacher has modeled the
process, each student takes a turn in leading the group dialogue and
practicing the strategies on the next section of text. The teacher uses the
information provided by students as a form of informal assessment and, on
the basis of this assessment, creates instructional scaffolding (e.g., cuing,
prompting, questioning, and remodeling) to provide students with informa-
tion that will allow them to reassess the meaning construed from text (Duffy
& Roehler, 1987). At this stage, the teacher becomes a mediator who
provides guidance and feedback tailored to the needs of the current
dialogue leader and his or her respondents (Brown & Palincsar, 1989). The
teacher gradually diminishes the scaffolding as students move from what
Vygotsky (1978) called the other directed to the self-directed stages of
understanding. Eventually, the student assumes most of the thinking respon-
sibilities, and the teacher becomes a supportive and sympathetic audience.
Guided practice within a group setting provides interactive learning expe-
riences. These experiences enable the learner to acquire strategies for
comprehending text. They also facilitate the internalization of self-monitor-
312

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reading for Meaning

ing and self-regulatory skills that are essential to any problem-solving

activity.
The third major component of reciprocal teaching is provision of a
social setting that enables individuals to negotiate for understanding (Glaser,
1990). The practice of the four strategies and provision of mediation is a
group-learning activity in which students share responsibility for thinking.
Sharing the responsibility for determining the meaning of a text makes the
task more manageable without simplifying the task. The group's efforts are
externalized in the form of a discussion. This allows novices to contribute
and learn from the contributions of more capable peers. It also exposes the
learner to alternative points of view that challenge and clarify his or her
initial understanding and lead to more powerful rules and generalizations.
Through the process of internalization, learners gradually adopt the inter-
rogative regulatory role of the supportive other. They are able to assume this
role through self-regulation and self-interrogation.

Research on Reciprocal Teaching

Since the introduction of the reciprocal teaching method (Brown & Palincsar,
1982), numerous studies have been conducted to examine the efficacy of
this method in different settings. Several features are common to many of
the studies: (a) students are selected from elementary and junior high
schools on the basis of their low scores in reading comprehension; (b) the
intervention usually consists of approximately 20 days; (c) progress is
measured by observable changes in the students' participation in the
discussions and by daily independent tests of their reading and retention of
novel passages; (d) long-term maintenance, transfer, and generalization are
also measured using standardized tests.
In addition to developing reciprocal teaching, Brown and Palincsar
(1989) also provided its most extensive evaluation. Collapsing findings from
across several replications of the intervention, Brown and Palincsar found
that average seventh-grade students scored 75% correct on their reading
retention of novel passages. Remedial students who participated in recipro-
cal teaching group discussions began, in general, by scoring with a
300/%-40% accuracy and reached a stable level of 70%/-80% accuracy within
4 to 15 days. Ninety-eight percent of the students reached the criterion of
75% accuracy. Most of the students maintained their improved level of
performance in the maintenance sessions and in the follow-up sessions that
took place 8 weeks after the intervention had ceased. Findings also indicate
that the reciprocal teaching method is superior when compared to alterna-
tive teaching methods (Brown, Palincsar, Samsel, & Dunn, 1989).
Rosenshine and Meister (1994) reviewed quantitative studies on recip-
rocal teaching by other researchers in addition to the studies by Brown and
Palincsar. All studies included in the review had comparable experimental
and control groups and assessed student comprehension by asking students
to read new passages that had not been used during training. Standardized
tests as a type of outcome measure were used in more than half the studies
313

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Alfassi

reviewed. The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test was the most frequently cited.
In most of the studies reviewed, reciprocal teaching was significantly more
effective than the control treatment when experimenter-developed compre-
hension tests were used (median effect size = .88). However, the effects of
reciprocal teaching were seldom significantly greater than the control
treatment when standardized tests were used (median effect size = .32).
The main purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the
reciprocal teaching method (strategy instruction) with traditional methods of
remedial reading (skill acquisition). Although based on the experimental
design of Brown and Palincsar (1987, 1989), this study took place in a
context where reciprocal teaching had not been previously tested and where
the challenges faced by educators and the obstacles that reciprocal teaching
must overcome are significantly greater.
First, this study focused on comparing the efficacy of two different
interventions within remedial reading classes (Chapter I) in a high school
setting. Previous work has focused on elementary and junior high school
students. Other than very specialized studies focusing on technical/voca-
tional students or on ESL students, an ERIC search to the end of 1996 yielded
no comparative work on high schools. Moreover, in these postsecondary
studies, reciprocal teaching was not superior to traditional intervention.
Remedial high school students usually have a long history of reading
difficulties. This study therefore consisted of students whose reading diffi-
culties had proved to be intractable and who therefore posed a greater
challenge to intervention than elementary or junior high students. Also, in
response to their past difficulties, these students tended to lack motivation
and academic self-confidence (LeCompte, 1987; Phelan, Yu, & Davidson,
1994). These factors imply that self-monitoring instruction, which requires
active participation, may be particularly difficult to effect for such students.
This study therefore provides a more difficult setting to test the efficacy of
the reciprocal teaching method than previous work, either demonstrating
the robustness and applicability of Brown and Palincsar's (1987, 1989)
findings or suggesting that the value of self-monitoring instruction may be
limited with older students in intact remedial classes.
Second, the difficulties emanating from the high school setting of the
study were compounded because the experiment was carried out in the
context of intact remedial reading classes, which is a more natural setting
than used in previous studies. Such classes represent a heterogeneity of
needs and are less likely to be conducive to successful intervention than
classes that have been formed for the purpose of the experiment (Boruch,
1991; Evertson, Sanford, & Emmer, 1981). To the extent that the results show
that reciprocal teaching is effective in this context, they would strengthen
and widen its applicability. Self-monitoring programs would be shown to be
effective in a remedial classroom setting, a result that would have curriculum
policy implications.
Third, the groups of students participating in the experiment reported
here were much larger than the groups in Palincsar and Brown's (1984)
314

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reading for Meaning

original experiment (five groups consisting of 8-15 students as opposed to

four groups of 2 students). Because the increase in group size dilutes the
average amount of guided instruction per student, it provides a more
stringent test of the efficacy of the reciprocal teaching method. Also, to the
extent that self-monitoring is found to be effective in these larger groups,
reciprocal teaching would be shown to be an economically efficient form of
intervention.

The control group used in this study was a traditional remedial reading
class emphasizing skill acquisition, a contrast that goes beyond previous
work because it compares traditional remedial reading methods with a new
model of comprehension instruction. This study aimed at examining and
comparing the efficacy of a typical reciprocal teaching intervention (taken
as a package) with a typical traditional intervention. This required that the
reciprocal teaching group be given daily reading assessment passages with
feedback, facilitating the self-monitoring central to this method. In their
various studies, Brown and Palincsar (1982, 1987, 1989) found that the
greater efficacy of the reciprocal teaching method was due to the nature of
the intervention as a whole rather than to the greater amount of practice
provided by the daily reading assessments built into a typical reciprocal
teaching intervention. In their pioneering work, the reciprocal teaching
method was compared with two different control groups. In the first control
group, students read and answered questions on daily comprehension
assessments administered during the intervention in addition to those
administered before and after the intervention. The second control group
took only the reading comprehension tests administered before and after the
intervention. No significant differences were recorded between the two
groups. On the basis of these findings, Brown and Palincsar (1989) con-
cluded that the reciprocal teaching method is more than the sum of its parts
and its effects are best demonstrated when all components of the interven-
tion are present. In the interests of cost efficiency, therefore, I used a single
type of control group, consisting of students who were exposed solely to a
traditional intervention. In conformity with this type of intervention, students
in the control classes were not given daily reading assessment feedback.
These students completed reading assessments only before and after the
intervention.

Method

Participants

The participants of this study were 75 freshman high school students

enrolled in Chapter I remedial reading classes selected from two high
schools in a suburban school district composed largely of middle-class
families. The students enrolled in these Chapter I reading classes were part
of the mainstream of regular education and were regarded as students with
average intellectual ability. With respect to their reading skills, these students
were considered to be poor comprehenders but adequate decoders. All
315

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Alfassi

participating students performed at least 2 years below grade level in reading

comprehension, as determined by standardized test scores and/or recom-
mendations by a reading specialist who individually evaluated each student.
The experimental group (strategy instruction, reciprocal teaching-
Group 1) consisted of 53 students who were divided into five reading
classes. The control group (skill acquisition--Group 2) included the remain-
ing 22 students from a neighboring high school located in the same school
district as the experimental group. Students in the control group were
divided into three reading classes. The schools' administration assigned
students to the reading classes prior to the beginning of the academic school
year. The composition of the classes with respect to race and sex was similar
across groups, even though the reading classes were pre-existing groups. At
the beginning of the study, participants in the reciprocally taught and control
conditions were comparable in standardized and nonstandardized compre-
hension performance.
Materials and Measures

Preparation of the materials for the intervention and the daily assessm
passages followed the procedural guidelines of previous studies.
Daily comprehension assessments--Passages with questions. A total
31 expository reading passages of approximately 350 to 500 words wa
selected from different books in the reading lab: Essential Skills, Book
(Pauk, 1982); Timed Readings, Book Six (Spargo & Williston, 1980);
Reading Drills for Speed and Comprehension (Fry, 1975). The passa
included a wide range of topics--for example, snow rangers, flying squ
rels, sharks, starfish, alcoholism, Polynesian culture, survival skills,
history of books, and hot air balloons. The passages conformed to a nin
grade reading level according to the Fry Readability Formula (Fry, 197
Ten comprehension questions per passage were constructed using
Pearson and Johnson (1978) classification of question type:

1. four text explicit questions-answer was explicitly mentioned in te

2. four text implicit questions-answer was inferred by integrating infor-
mation presented in text;
3. two script implicit questions-answer was inferred by relating text
prior knowledge concerning the topic.

In all cases, two independent raters (qualified reading specialists) agreed

the classification and the appropriateness of the questions. (See Appen
A for one passage and its 10 comprehension questions.)
The two script questions were excluded from the statistical analysis
the results because their reliability coefficients were low. These questi
were included in the study because connecting prior knowledge to a lear
topic enhances comprehension (McNamara, Kintsch, Songer, & Kintsch
1996; Palincsar & Brown, 1984) and is an integral part of the reciproc
teaching method. However, these questions were not considered to ass
change over time because previous knowledge is based on past experien
316

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reading for Meaning

and differs for each individual. The internal consistency of the questions
presented to the students at the different phases of the study, as measured
by Cronbach's alpha, ranged from .68 to .85.
Standardized assessment--Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (MacGinitie
& MacGinitie, 1989). The test consists of two subtests: vocabulary and
comprehension. The subtests consist of 45 and 48 items, respectively. The
comprehension subtest includes 14 short passages of narrative and exposi-
tory text, 60 to 130 words long, followed by several multiple-choice
questions. The questions tap understanding of details as well as whether
students can integrate information in the passages. At least half the questions
cover understanding of inferences and implications suggested by the text.
The content of the passages represents the content found in most public
schools (e.g., social sciences, natural sciences, and the arts). The vocabulary
subtest consists of a list of individual words. Students are required to select
synonyms from multiple choices. The vocabulary subtest samples the
student's word knowledge rather than his or her decoding skills. Reading
specialists administered the reading tests twice (immediately before and
weeks after the intervention) to all ninth-grade students as part of testing
done by the school district. This procedure follows the collection of
standardized reading comprehension data reported in Brown and Palincsar's
original studies. Normal curve equivalents (NCEs) were used in all calcula-
tions. The NCEs are percentile ranks of raw scores that have been trans-
formed statistically into a scale of equal units of reading achievement and
are suitable for computing averages and making comparisons between
scores.

The tests were standardized on approximately 5,500

from a stratified sample based on U. S. Census data. Al
Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 reliability coefficients
each test level. The Kuder-Richardson coefficient for
from .90 to .95, and the range for comprehension was
Procedure

This study consisted of four different phases:

Phase 1-Pretesting. Prior to the initiation of the study, the Gates-
MacGinitie Reading Tests and four reading assessed passages were admin
istered to all experimental- and control-group students.
Phase 2-Intervention. All experimental group members participated i
the reciprocal teaching intervention. The instruction was conducted on
daily basis for five consecutive school days. The daily teaching sessions
lasted for 45 minutes. An explanation of the reciprocal teaching method
general and its use within the context of this study was presented. Each day,
one of the four reciprocal teaching strategies (summary, questioning, pre
diction, and clarification) was introduced accompanied with work sheets.
The five experimental group classes received an additional 15 days o
instruction using the method of reciprocal teaching. Each day a new passa
was systematically introduced. A segment of text was assigned to a studen
317

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Alfassi

who read it out aloud. After reading the text, the student asked questions
that a teacher might ask on the segment, summarized the content for other
students, discussed and clarified any remaining difficulties, and finally made
a prediction about future content. All of these activities were embedded
within a natural context with the students in each group giving feedback to
one another. Initially, the adult teacher modeled the activities, but gradually
the students became capable of assuming their role as "the expert." Through-
out the intervention, the teacher continued to provide guidance and neces-
sary feedback to the student experts.
During the intervention, the students were explicitly told that these
activities were general strategies designed to help them better understand
how to read and that they should try to do something similar when they read
silently in other subjects. It was pointed out that being able to say in one's
own words what one has just read and being able to guess the questions
that will be on a test are sure ways of testing oneself to see if one has
understood. Each day after approximately 35 minutes of training, the
students took an unassisted assessment where they read a novel passage and
answered from memory 10 comprehension questions related to it. The
answers to the questions were evaluated by two reading teachers. The
number of correct answers was recorded on a chart that was handed back
to the students the next day together with their answers on the passage. This
procedure allowed the students to keep track of and to monitor their daily
progress. See Appendix B for an example of a summary chart.
The three control-group classes continued their regular curriculum of
skill acquisition remedial reading. The instruction was done on a daily basis
for 20 consecutive school days. The daily teaching sessions lasted for 45
minutes. Control-group students were exposed to traditional reading instruc-
tion in basic skills such as identifying main ideas, summarizing, making
inferences, organizing sequential details, and recognizing structural word
components. Many vocabulary building activities were provided in addition
to completing workbook pages and repeated exercises. Opportunities were
given to write summaries, respond to teacher-generated questions, and
organize written work, but no strategy instruction was provided to foster
comprehension monitoring. Students received teacher feedback as all writ-
ten work was graded and evaluated.
Phase 3-Maintenance postintervention. At the completion of the 20
days of intervention, all students entered a maintenance phase lasting 2 days
in which they read and answered the questions related to five Reading
Assessment Passages.
Phase 4--Follow-Up. Eight weeks later, all students read two Reading
Assessment Passages and answered questions related to the readings. After
several weeks, school officials administered the Gates-MacGinitie Reading
Tests to all students.

Results

The main objective of the present study was to investigate the efficacy of the
318

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reading for Meaning

reciprocal teaching method (strategy instruction) when it was compared to

traditional methods of remedial reading (skill acquisition). The study was
situated in intact remedial classes in two high schools to provide a more
natural setting for the implementation of the reciprocal teaching method.
Data on two dependent variables were collected. Reading assessments
were taken prior to training, after training, and after a period of maintenance;
the two standardized reading measures were taken both before training and
weeks after training. Possible scores for the reading assessments ranged
from 1 to 3. The means and standard deviations of both variables are
presented in Table 1.
As can be seen in Table 1, scores of the reading assessments obtained
prior to treatment are very similar to the scores of the control students, who
scored higher on average. A one-way ANOVA using class means as the unit
of analysis confirmed that the differences between the groups on the reading
assessments obtained prior to treatment were not statistically significant, F
(1,6) = 2.08, p > .05. (A t test using students' scores as the unit of analysis
also indicated a nonsignificant difference between the groups, t (73) = 1.25,
p > .05.) Control students also had higher mean scores on the standardized
reading comprehension and vocabulary tests prior to treatment. A one-way
ANOVA with class means as the unit of analysis did not reveal significant
differences between the groups on the standardized reading comprehension
test, F (1,6) = .76, p > .05, or on the standardized vocabulary test, F (1,6) =

Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations of Reading Measures for
Strategy Instruction and Skill Acquisition Groups

Strategy instruction
(Reciprocal teaching) Skill acquisition

Phase M SD M SD

Reading a
Pretesting 64.98 (13.68) 68.25 (12.80)
Postintervention 78.98 (10.31) 68.03 (12.66)
Follow-Up 79.24 (8.49) 72.19 (10.62)

Standardized reading test

Vocabulary
Pretesting 39.20 (11.93) 42.90 (14.32)
Posttesting 42.25 (11.54) 44.23 (11.54)
Comprehension
Pretesting 34.83 (10.45) 40.19 (14.23)
Posttesting 42.29 (13.60) 45.33 (11.37)

Note. The values on the reading assessment repres

319

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Alfassi

2.64, p > .05, obtained prior to treatment. (Comparisons using students'

scores as the unit of analysis were also nonsignificant for reading compre-
hension, t (75) = -1.15, p > .05, and vocabulary, t (73) = -1.81, p > .05.)

Reading Assessment Passages

To test the significance of group differences in achievement scores on

reading assessment passages over the phases of intervention, a 2 X 3
(Method of Instruction X Phases of Intervention) repeated measures ANOVA
with classes nested within groups was conducted.
The analysis of the results indicated that there was a significant inter-
action between experimental and control groups (method of instruction)
over time (Phases 1, 3, and 4), F (2,12) = 24.28, = 1.00, p < .0001. The results
further indicated that there was a significant difference in the mean scores
on measures of passage comprehension between the experimental and
control groups from the beginning of the investigation (Phase 1) to the
completion of the intervention (Phase 3) and after a maintenance period of
8 weeks (Phase 4), with the experimental group obtaining higher scores.
Two 2 X 2 ANOVA analyses were carried out in order to clarify the
interaction of Group X Time. Both analyses tested for differences between
methods of instruction; the first analysis related to differences between
groups from Phase 1 to Phase 3, and the second analysis related to
differences from Phase 3 to Phase 4. The analyses revealed a significant
interaction of Group X Time for Phases 1 to 3, F (1,6) = 17.95, p < .01, but
not for Phases 3 to 4, F (1,6) = .18, p > .05. The mean achievement scores
obtained at Phase 1, Phase 3, and Phase 4 for the experimental and control
groups are displayed in Figure 1. As can be seen, the strategy instruction
group (RT) improved its performance from the preteaching phase to the
postteaching phase, whereas the skill acquisition group barely improved its
performance. This difference is still apparent after 8 weeks of maintenance.
Further analyses were conducted to test for differences within the RT
group at each phase. Paired comparisons using Newman-Keuls analyses
indicated that the RT group improved its performance significantly from the
first phase to the third. However, no significant differences were found in
the RT group on scores of the comprehension passages from after interven-
tion to after a period of maintenance. These findings indicate that the
significant differences found between the groups on the reading assessment
passages as a result of instruction were maintained even after 8 weeks.

Standardized Reading Measures

A 2 X 2 (Method of Instruction X Phases of Intervention) repeated measures

ANOVA with classes nested within groups was conducted. This analysis was
conducted to test the significance of group differences in achievement scores
on the standardized reading measures of comprehension and vocabulary
over the phases of intervention. The analysis did not reveal a significant
interaction effect of Group X Time on the standardized comprehension test,
320

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reading for Meaning
2.75
2.70

2.65 -o- skill acquisition

2.60
2.55 -- strategy instruction
2.55

F 2.50
Z 2.45
W 2.40
2.35
2.30
w 2.25
2.20
U 2.15
S2.1 0
2.05
2.00
1.95
1.90
1.85
1.80
1.75

Pre-testing Post-testing Follow-up

PHASES

Figure 1. Interaction of achievement scores and pha

Instruction and skill acquisition groups

F (1,6) = 1.07, p > .05, or on the standardized vocabula

p > .05. These results are in line with most studies of
which have found no significant differences betwee
the dependent variable of standardized measures.
To test the relationship between the reading a
standardized reading measures, Pearson correlations w
be seen in Table 2, significant positive correlations w
reading assessment passages and the vocabulary and c
of the Gates-Macginitie tests administered before int
.01; r = .33, p < .01. The reading assessment passages a
intervention also correlated positively and significantly
and comprehension subtests of the Gates-MacGinitie
Discussion

This study examined the efficacy of self-monitoring skills in e

reading comprehension and tested for variation in achievement
across different methods of instruction. The main innovation of this
that it was carried out within the more challenging context of intact
high school classes. The principal hypothesis of this study is that
321

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Alfassi
Table 2
Correlation of Achievement Scores on the Gates-MacGinitle
Reading Tests With Achievement Scores on Reading
Assessment Passages by Phases of Intervention

Phase of intervention

Subscale Pretesting Postintervention Follow-Up

Before intervention

Vocabulary .36** .32** .35**

Comprehension .33** .23* .32**

After intervention

Vocabulary .30** .25* .19

Comprehension .24* .25* .39**

*p < .05. **p < .01.

exposed to reciprocal teaching (stra

their ability to monitor their own r
in reading comprehension than stud
remedial reading (skill acquisition).
An experimenter-developed readin
tered at the beginning of the inve
64.6% for the experimental group and
days of intervention, the mean sco
significant improvement, rising to 78
traditional intervention, the contro
changed, at 69.5%. These results de
strategy instruction provides signific
acquisition. The results therefore i
method yields significant improvem
contexts that are more challenging
& Palincsar, 1982; Palincsar & Brow
The significant improvement in
experimental group demonstrates th
teaching method in intact classrooms
finding suggests the efficacy of rec
Chapter I high school students. Furth
ing intervention was effective in l
teaching as a more economically effici
strated in previous studies.
Standardized reading tests reveale
for either group. This coincides wit
(Rosenshine & Meister, 1994; Rose
Similarly, studies of the efficacy of m
322

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reading for Meaning
experimenter-developed comprehension tests are more sensitive to inter-
vention than standardized measures (Slavin, 1987).
In search of an explanation for the discrepancies between the results of
experimenter-developed comprehension tests and the standardized tests,
additional analyses were conducted. The results indicate a significant rela-
tionship between the experimenter-developed comprehension tests and the
standardized reading tests. However, the relatively small correlation coeffi-
cient may suggest that the different measures do not give an equal weighting
to different cognitive operations.
Measures of reading comprehension are attempts to gauge a process in
the reader's mind, and different tests do this in different ways. Hence,
alternative tests may place different demands on a student's ability to
comprehend. This implies that tests differ in: whether the text is available
during the test, quantity of information (often indicated by passage length),
density of information, vocabulary, format of the comprehension check,
type of text (narrative or expository), and text's structure (Johnston, 1983;
Johnston & Pearson, 1983; Samuels, 1983).
A comparison of the two reading comprehension tests administered in
this study reveals their different emphases. As demonstrated in Table 3, all
the passages in the experimenter-developed comprehension tests are longer
and taken from expository material. The structure of all passages follows the
topic-sentence-and-supporting-detail format. This text structure is based on
a logical relationship among the paragraphs, which helps the reader to
organize information hierarchically and to facilitate recall. Typically, the tests
have four factual-explicit questions, four implicit questions that require
integrating parts of the text, and two script questions that examine the prior
knowledge of the student. The student hands in the text prior to receiving
the test that demands short written answers based on recall.
In contrast, most passages in the standardized reading comprehension
test are taken from narrative material and do not follow the topic-sentence-
and-supporting-detail format. This requires students to read first to infer and
identify a main topic and then to reread to pull details together. Half of the
questions require varying degrees of inference to answer. Twenty-nine
questions out of the 48 depend on vocabulary knowledge. The text is
available while checking the answer, which allows students to look back at
the material if they cannot remember the answer. Recognition, and not
recall, of the correct answer is required in this multiple-choice test format.
Theory suggests that narrative and expository texts place different
requirements on readers (Beach & Appleman, 1984). Narratives often
require the reader to supply main ideas and to fill in details from background
knowledge. Connotative meanings and figurative language, which include
words and phrases in which intended meanings differ from their literal
meanings, characterize narratives. On the other hand, expository text is
usually nonfictional prose in which the events and objects are readily
identifiable. Expository text structures usually employ special logical rela-
tionships to help readers organize information hierarchically. Denotative
323

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Alfassi
Table 3
Differences Between Experimenter-Developed and
Standardized Reading Comprehension Tests

Experimenter-
Differences Standardized test Developed tests

Number of words per passage 60-130 335-550

Average number of words per passage 88 400
Text available for consultation by student Yes No
Number of passages administered 14 2
Narrative passages 64% None
Expository passages 36% 100%
Passages with topic sentences 29% 91%
Types of question Multiple-choice Short answer
Number of questions per passage 2-9 10
(48 questions per test) (20 questi
Vocabulary dependent questions 40% None
Questions requiring inference 50% None

meanings and literal meanings characterize expo

inferencing is needed to obtain meaning from
narrative text.

Thus, it appears that standardized and experimenter-developed com-

prehension tests differ considerably in the demands they place on students.
Students are required to employ different reading strategies while complet-
ing the tasks of the different tests. The standardized reading comprehension
test requires careful reading and searching of the text; reading the question
first and then reading for the answer is a desirable procedure for successful
performance; many of the questions demand varying degrees of inference
(i.e., applying reasoning ability to understand ideas or relationships that are
not explicitly stated); vocabulary knowledge, including meanings of figura-
tive expressions, is imperative, because most of the texts are taken from
narrative literature and their short length does not allow one to deduce the
meanings contextually. Recognition of the correct answer is the major
strategy applied when the test employs a multiple-choice format.
In contrast, the major comprehension strategy involved in answering the
experimenter-developed comprehension test is recall. Students are required
to learn through reading (i.e., study the expository text in order to retrieve
from memory the information required by the test). One of the primary tasks
in studying is to focus attention on the important information and to ensure
that these ideas are well understood and likely to be remembered. Successful
324

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reading for Meaning

performance is determined by the extent that students attend to, interact

with, and elaborate on the underlying meaning of the text. This includes
activities such as use of text structure to predict subsequent developments
within a text that facilitate recall of the most pertinent information, activating
relevant prior knowledge, allocating attention to important information,
monitoring ongoing activities to determine how well comprehension is
occurring, and applying necessary fix-up strategies. It could be argued that
these activities are important for reading in general, but their role is central
and crucial when studying (Anderson & Ambruster, 1984; Beach & Appleman,
1984; Harris & Sipay, 1985; Tierney & Cunningham, 1984).
The close examination of the different comprehension tests shows that
the experimenter-developed comprehension tests relate directly to the
strategies taught within the reciprocal teaching strategy intervention. The
finding of no significant differences between the experimental and control
groups on the standardized test of reading comprehension might be because
this test does not sample the type of texts or strategies learned within the
reciprocal teaching strategy intervention. Students exposed to the reciprocal
teaching program acquire specific knowledge as well as learning a set of
monitoring strategies necessary for independent learning (Glaser, 1990).
These strategies are practiced in context, during studying-not as isolated
skill exercises to be mastered individually and then used whenever the
students see fit. The acknowledged goal of the reciprocal teaching interven-
tion is understanding and remembering the text. The experimenter-devel-
oped comprehension tests are geared toward gauging the students' ability
to read for meaning (i.e., study large segments of expository text). This study
suggests that such meaning is achieved once self-monitoring skills are
employed.
Furthermore, the results of this study lend additional support to cogni-
tive views of the reading comprehension process. As mentioned before,
traditional views conceptualized reading as a set of discrete skills to be
mastered. As a result, curriculum designers, instructional theorists, and
teachers have relied on a drill-and-practice model of instruction-that is,
repeatedly exposing students to tasks, such as answering teacher-generated
questions and completing skill exercises, until they achieve mastery (Duffy
& McIntyre, 1982; Durkin, 1979). This traditional model is currently imple-
mented in most schools. Recent research on the reading process and on
teaching suggests a new model of comprehension instruction that empha-
sizes guided practice and a set of reading strategies that adequate readers
use to monitor their comprehension. Teachers become mediators who help
students make sense of what they are reading; they make adjustments in
their instruction based on the degree of students' comprehension; the
greater the student expertise, the less teacher assistance is provided. Stu-
dents are active; they attempt to construct meaning from text by questioning
and elaborating on their own knowledge and the content of what is being
read; they gradually acquire strategies that enhance comprehension and
enable them to monitor their level of understanding. The findings of this
325

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Alfassi

study demonstrate the educational benefits of the cognitive model of reading

comprehension instruction. They add to recent research in cognitive instruc-
tion that supports the need to modify prevailing methods of reading
curriculum and suggests a reconceptualization of the reading comprehen-
sion process and its instruction.
It would be interesting to replicate this study while increasing the
number of students and lengthening the duration of the study. It would be
particularly interesting to see if a longer training session produces better and
more durable changes within the reciprocal teaching groups. It would also
be interesting to implement reciprocal teaching methods using narrative
literary texts rather than expository material. If reciprocal teaching were
shown to be successful with literacy texts, it would further broaden its
applicability in reading comprehension.
Most of the studies supporting the efficacy of the reciprocal teaching
technique are conducted in the realm of reading comprehension. Further
research might consider processes and skills required in other academic
disciplines. This would make the reciprocal teaching technique applicable
in additional areas. Also, it would be interesting to determine whether the
fostering of social skills, which is an implicit benefit of reciprocal teaching,
enhances achievement.
In sum, the results of this study support the implementation of strategy
instruction aimed at fostering self-monitoring skills within a reading compre-
hension curriculum. The results demonstrate that reciprocal teaching is a
viable instructional technique that can be implemented successfully within
large, intact, remedial reading high school classes as part of the curriculum.
These findings further support the practice of teaching strategies in a group
setting in addition to providing instruction adjusted to student difficulties
This study lends additional support to recent research on the reading process
that views the development of reading comprehension as a process of
emerging expertise, where readers develop strategies that help them to
construct meaning from text and teaching is viewed as an active, construc-
tive process in which teachers and students mediate and negotiate the
meaning of their reading.

APPENDIX A

A Comprehension Assessment Which Includes an Expository Reading

Passage With 10 Comprehension Questions

THE GILA MONSTER

The Gila monster is not actually a monster, but it is also not an

ordinary lizard. It is one of the largest lizards in North America,
sometimes reaching two feet (about 60 centimeters) long, and it is the
only poisonous lizard in the United States. It and a relative in Mexico
are the only two varieties of poisonous lizards in the world.

326

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reading for Meaning
The Gila monster is a slow-moving, clumsy animal. Its tail is so
heavy that it is difficult for it to lift when it walks. But it manages
somehow to waddle about carrying its thick body on those four
stubby legs. Occasionally, it simply allows its tail to drag in the sand.
Because the Gila monster is not able to chase any prey, it is limited
mainly to eating what it comes upon, such as the eggs of snakes and
birds that nest on the ground. Sometimes it snatches up a smaller
lizard that comes close. It likes insects, and it is especially fond of
black ants.
These ants usually travel in an extended line, one behind the
other. A Gila monster will straddle the procession, and as the ants
continue marching, they will pass directly under its body, for they will
not alter their direction. The Gila monster simply stretches out its
tongue and flicks one ant after another into its mouth.
Often, during the hottest part of the summer, Gila monsters slink
away to find a cool place. They doze and go without eating until the
hottest weather is over.
Though Gila monsters are poisonous, they do not strike with
fangs the way poisonous snakes do. A Gila monster has venom which
pours from a gland in the creature's throat into the cuts its teeth make,
a rather slow process. But its jaws are very strong, and, once it grabs
hold, it is very hard to pull off.
Because this "monster" was feared by so many people who came
to the desert, it was killed on sight. So many Gila monsters were killed
in Arizona that they almost disappeared. Other people who believe
that all species of wildlife have a right to exist on this earth have
protested the killings. A law protecting all Gila monsters was passed
in Arizona. Heavy fines were imposed on those who disobeyed.
Now these beaded lizards are allowed to live in their natural
habitat in the desert country, find shelter from the intense heat in the
summer and the cold in the winter, and drag their clumsy bodies
about on the sand, finding such food as they are able to obtain in the
desert. There may be monsters somewhere, but they are not Gila
monsters. (Pauk, 1982, p. 30)

Questions to the Gila Monster

1. How would you describe the Gila monster?

2. What two characteristics distinguish the Gila monster from other lizards in
North America?

3. What is the Gila's natural habitat?

4. Why would it be true to say that the black ants "march straight" to their
deaths?

5. Why does the Gila mainly eat eggs of snakes and birds that nest on the
ground?

6. How does the Gila monster poison its prey?

327

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Alfassi

7. Why aren't Gila monsters killed today?

8. What basic principle do the people who protested the killing of the Gila
believe in?

9. Why was the Gila considered to be a monster?

10. In what way is a Gila monster similar to a camel?

APPENDIX B

Reciprocal Teaching Progress Report

100

90- -

80

S 60-
50-- 5

F--

40-

30 -

20-

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Text Number

References

Anderson, J. R., Farrell, R., & Sauers, R. (1984). Learning to program in LISP. Co
Science, 8, 87-129.
Anderson, T., & Ambruster, B. (1984). Studying. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook
of reading research (pp. 657-679). New York: Longman.
Baker, L. (1985). How do we know when we do not understand? Standards for

328

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reading for Meaning
evaluating text comprehension. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon, & T.
G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance: Vol 1.
Theoretical perspectives (pp. 155-205). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson,
R. Barr, M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research
(pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.
Beach, R., & Appleman, D. (1984). Reading strategies for expository and literal text
types. In A. Purves & O. Niles (Eds.), Becoming readers in a complex society.
83rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I
(pp. 115-143). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Boruch, R. F. (1991). The president's mandate: Discovering what works and what
works better. In M. W. McLaughlin & D. C. Phillips (Eds.), Evaluation and
education: At quarter century. 90th Yearbook of the National Society for the
Study of Education (pp. 147-167). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of
metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1,
pp. 77-165). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development in reading. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce,
& W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453-481).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L. (1985). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension strategies: A natural
history of one program for enhancing learning (Tech. Rep. No. 334). Urbana-
Champaign: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other
more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition,
motivation and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning
about serious matters. American Psychologist, 52, 399-413.
Brown, A. L., Armbruster, B., & Baker, L. (1985). The role of metacognition in reading
and studying. In J. Orasanu (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to
practice (pp. 49-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macro rules for summarizing texts: The develop-
ment of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. (1982). Inducing strategic learning from texts by means
of informed, self-control training. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities,
2(1), 1-17.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. (1987). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension strategies:
A natural history of one program for enhancing learning. In J. Day & J. Borkowski
(Eds.), Intelligence and exceptionality: New directions for theory, assessment,
and instructional practices (pp 81-131). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual
knowledge acquisition. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction:
Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393-451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L., Palincsar, A., Samsel, M., & Dunn, D. (1989). Bringing meaning to text:
Early lessons for high risk first graders. Manuscript in preparation.
Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J.
Steinberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 1,
pp. 7-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. J. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of
children's metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80, 131-142.
Day, J. (1980). Training summarization skills: A comparison of teaching methods.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana.
329

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Alfassi

Dewitz, P., Carr, E. M., & Patberg, J. P. (1987). Effects of inference training on
comprehension and comprehension monitoring. Reading Research Quarterly,
22, 99-121.
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the
old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of
Educational Research, 61, 239-264.
Duffy, G. G., Lanier, J. E., & Roehler, L. R. (1980). On the need to consider
instructional practice when looking for instructional implications. Paper pre-
sented at the Conference on Reading Expository Materials, University of Wiscon-
sin-Madison, Wisconsin Research and Development Center.
Duffy, G. G., & McIntyre, L. (1982). A naturalistic study of instructional assistance in
primary grade reading. Elementary School Journal, 83, 15-23.
Duffy, G. G., & Roehler, L. R. (1987). Improving reading instruction through the use
of responsive elaboration. Reading Teacher, 40, 514-520.
Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., & Meloth, M. S. (1987).
Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies.
Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 347-368.
Durkin, D. (1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehen-
sion instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481-533.
Evertson, C., Sanford J., & Emmer, E. (1981). Effects of class heterogeneity in junior
high school. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 219-232.
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculation about the nature and development of metacognition.
In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and under-
standing (pp. 21-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H., Friedrichs, A. G., & Hoyt, J. D. (1970). Developmental changes in
memorization processes. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 324-340.
Forrest, D. L., & Waller, T. G. (1979, March). Cognitive and metacognitive aspects of
reading. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development, San Francisco, CA.
Forrest-Pressley, D. L., & Gillies, L. A. (1983). Children's flexible use of strategies
during reading. In M. Pressley & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research:
Educational applications (pp. 133-156). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Fry, E. (1975). Reading drillsforspeed and comprehension. Providence, RI: Jamestown.
Fry, E. (1977). Fry's readability graph: Clarification, validity, and extension to Level
17. Journal of Reading, 21, 242-252.
Garner, R. (1987). Strategies for reading and studying expository texts. Educational
Psychologist, 22, 299-312.
Garner, R., & Reis, R. (1981). Monitoring and resolving comprehension obstacles: An
investigation of spontaneous text lookbacks among upper grade good and poor
comprehenders. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 569-582.
Glaser, R. (1990). The reemergence of learning theory within instructional research.
American Psychologist, 45, 29-39.
Haller, E. P., Child, D. A., & Walberg, H. J. (1988). Can comprehension be taught?
A quantitative synthesis of "metacognitive" studies. Educational Researcher,
17(9), 5-8.
Harris, A., & Sipay, E. (1985). How to increase reading ability: A guide to developmen-
tal and remedial methods. New York: Longman.
Johnston, P. (1983). Prior knowledge and reading comprehension test bias (Tech.
Rep. No. 289). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Center for the Study
of Reading.
Johnston, P., & Pearson, D. (1983). Assessment: Responses to exposition. In A. Berger
& H. A. Robinson (Eds.), Secondary school reading: What research reveals for
classroom practice (pp. 127-141). Urbana: University of Illinois.
330

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reading for Meaning
Kurtz, B. E., & Borkowski, J. G. (1984). Children's metacognition: Exploring relations
among knowledge, process, and motivational variables.Journal ofExperimental
Child Psychology, 37, 335-354.
Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon H. A. (1980). Models of
competence in solving physics problems. Cognitive Science, 4, 317-345.
LeCompte, M. D. (1987). The cultural context of dropping out: Why remedial
programs fail to solve the problems. Education and Urban Society, 19, 232-249.
Lewis, M. W., Milson, R., & Anderson, J. R. (1987). Designing an intelligent authoring
system for high school mathematics. In G. Kearsley (Ed.), Artificial intelligence
and instruction: Applications and methods (pp. 269-301). Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Locke, E. (1975). A guide to effective study. New York: Springer.
MacGinitie, W., & MacGinitie, R. (1989). Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests: Technical
manual. Iowa City, IA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Markman, E. M. (1985). Comprehension monitoring: Developmental and educational
issues. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning
skills: Research and open questions (Vol. 2, pp. 275-291). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts
always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge and levels
of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1-43.
National Academy of Education Commission on Reading. (1985). Becoming a nation
of readers. Springfield, IL: Philips.
Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering
and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1988). Teaching and practicing thinking skills to promote
comprehension in the context of group problem solving. Remedial and Special
Education, 9, 53-59.
Paris, S. G., & Meyers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study
strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13, 5-22.
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Van der Westhuizen, G. (1988). Meta-metacognition: A
review of research on metacognition and reading. In J. E. Readence & R. Scott
Baldwin (Eds.), Dialogues in literacy research. Thirty-seventh yearbook of the
National Reading Conference (pp. 143-166). Chicago, IL: National Reading
Conference.
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic
learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking
and cognitive instruction (pp. 15-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pauk, W. (1982). Essential skills (No. 314, Book 14). Providence, RI: Jamestown.
Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of
research and a new conceptualization of instruction. Elementary SchoolJournal,
88, 151-166.
Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Phelan, P., Yu, H. C., & Davidson, A. L. (1994). Navigating the psychosocial pressures
of adolescence: The voices and experiences of high school youth. American
Educational Research Journal, 31, 415-447.
Pressley, M., Snyder, B. L., & Carigilia-Bull, T. (1987). How can good strategy use be
taught to children? Evaluation of six alternative approaches. In S. J. Cormier &
J. Hagman (Eds.), Transfer of learning: Contemporary research and applications
(pp. 81-120). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Raphael, T. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1982). The effect of metacognitive training on
children's question-answering behavior (Tech. Rep. No. 238). Urbana: University
of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.

331

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Alfassi
Raphael, T. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1985). Increasing students' awareness of sources
of information for answering questions. American Educational Research Jour-
nal, 22, 217-235.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research.
Review of Educational Research, 64, 479-530.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate
questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research,
66, 181-221.
Samuels, J. (1983). Diagnosing reading problems. Topics in Learning and Learning
Disabilities, 2(4), 1-11.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1983). Child as co-investigator: Helping children gain
insight into their own mental processes. In S. G. Paris, G. M. Olson, & H. W.
Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 61-82). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Steinbach, R. (1984). Teachability of reflective
processes in written composition. Cognitive Science, 8, 173-190.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic
Press.

Siegler, R. S. (1991). Children's thinking (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Mastery learning reconsidered. Review of Educational Research,
57, 175-215.
Spargo, E., & Williston, G. (1980). Timed readings (No. 806, Book 6). Providence,
RI: Jamestown.
Spiro R. J., Bruce, B., & Brewer, W. (1980). Theoretical issues in reading comprehen-
sion (pp. 1-5). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A. E. (1991). Reading as constrained reasoning: In
R. J. Sternberg & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Complex problem solving: Principles and
mechanisms (pp. 3-60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thorndike, E. L. (1917). Reading as reasoning: A study of mistakes in paragraph
reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8, 323-332.
Thorndike, R. L. (1974). Reading as reasoning. Reading Research Quarterly, 9,
135-147.
Tierney, R., & Cunningham, J. (1984). Research on teaching reading comprehension.
In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 609-655). New York:
Longman.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. and
Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Executive control in reading comprehension.
In B. K. Britton & S. M. Glynn (Eds.), Executive control processes in reading
(pp. 1-21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1986). Progressions of quantative models as a
foundation for intelligent learning environments (Tech. Rep. No. 6277). Cam-
bridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek, & Newman.

Manuscript received January 24, 1996

Revision received July 7, 1997
Accepted July 30, 1997

332

This content downloaded from 190.26.207.13 on Sat, 01 Apr 2017 20:23:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms