the effects of reciprocal teaching on the science literacy of intermediate3572... · ·...
TRANSCRIPT
The Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on the Science Literacy of Intermediate
Elementary Students in Inclusive Science Classes
by
Kim E. DiLorenzo
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of
The College of Education
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
Florida Atlantic University
Boca Raton, FL
December 2010
iv
Acknowledgements
It takes a village to complete a dissertation. I would like to thank the following
villagers for their support throughout this process. I would like to thank my
committee: Dr. Lydia Smiley, Dr. Peggy Goldstein, Dr. Dan Morris, and Dr. Ron
Taylor for their valuable feedback and guidance. I would also like to thank Dr. Mike
Brady for his frequent and much appreciated public service. I am extremely grateful to
Janice Funicelli for her assistance in all things science. I would not have been able to
complete my program without the cooperation of Mary Churchill-Jones or the advice
and encouragement from Dr. Ana Arce-Gonzalez. Finally, I would like to thank my
family and friends for their patience throughout my program and for forgiving me for
missing countless family and social events.
v
Abstract
Author: Kim E. DiLorenzo
Title: The Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on the Science
Literacy of Intermediate Elementary Students in
Inclusive Science Classes
Institution: Florida Atlantic Universtiy
Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Lydia R. Smiley
Degree: Doctorate in Education
Year: 2010
Intermediate elementary students (grades 4 and 5) frequently struggle to
become scientifically literate in their general education classrooms. Scientific literacy
includes knowing how to access and use information found in science texts.
Unfortunately, many students struggle to read and understand science texts
(Michalsky, Mevarech, & Haibi, 2009, p. 363). Fortunately, elementary students have
shown improvement in reading comprehension when explicitly instructed in cognitive
and metacognitive strategies to comprehend expository text in settings that support
collaboration and flexible application of comprehension strategies, and have
meaningful opportunities for reading and writing (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2004;
Palincsar & Klenk, 1992). A method that includes these components is reciprocal
teaching (RT; National Reading Panel, 2000). RT has been used during content area
vi
instruction to increase reading comprehension skills of intermediate elementary
students without disabilities in general education classrooms (King & Johnson, 1999;
Lederer, 2000; Lubliner, 2004). These reading comprehension gains have been
maintained by students on follow-up tests after the RT intervention has been
withdrawn (Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Westera & Moore, 1995).
This study examined the effects of RT on the science literacy of intermediate
elementary students (grades 4-5) participating in inclusive science classes. Students
with learning disabilities (SWLD), students at-risk (AR), and students in general
education (GE) participated in this study. General education teachers used RT with
science texts to improve science literacy. Pre/post science quizzes were used to assess
the effects of the RT intervention, and post/follow-up tests assessed potential
maintenance of the RT. Analyses of the data showed that the RT intervention resulted
in improved science comprehension overall, and for each student group. In addition,
the results showed that the gains were maintained for the individual student groupings
after the RT intervention was removed, although these gains were not found overall .
The study demonstrated that the use of RT during science instruction in
inclusive, intermediate elementary classes assisted students who are AR, SWLD, and
students in GE to attain science knowledge using standard science texts and materials.
These results extend the experimental literature on science literacy and reciprocal
teaching, particularly among intermediate elementary students.
Dedication
This manuscript is dedicated to my parents, Yvonne and Richard Jahrmarkt, Jr.
I also dedicate this work in loving memory to Sandra Lynn Swentek. The
encouragement, support, and occasional redirection from these individuals made this
manuscript possible.
viii
The Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on the Science Literacy of Intermediate
Elementary Students in Inclusive Science Classes
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................xiii
List of Figures................................................................................................................... xiv
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Science Literacy ...................................................................................................... 3
Reading comprehension and Science Literacy ..................................................... 4
Reading Instruction................................................................................................. 5
Reciprocal Teaching ............................................................................................. 10
Research Questions............................................................................................... 12
Literature Review .............................................................................................................. 14
Achievement Gap ................................................................................................. 14
Science Achievement ........................................................................................... 17
Science content ......................................................................................... 21
Expository text ......................................................................................... 22
Reading comprehension deficits ............................................................. 23
Reading Comprehension in Science .................................................................... 25
Reciprocal Teaching ............................................................................................. 30
Summary ............................................................................................................... 37
Method ............................................................................................................................... 40
ix
Setting .................................................................................................................... 40
Participants ............................................................................................................ 42
Teachers .................................................................................................... 42
Students ..................................................................................................... 43
Materials ................................................................................................................ 44
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................... 45
Procedures ............................................................................................................. 46
Teacher training ........................................................................................ 46
Instructional Procedures .......................................................................... 47
Research Design and Analysis ............................................................................. 60
Results ................................................................................................................................ 62
Effect of Reciprocal Teaching (H1) ..................................................................... 63
Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on Student Groups (H2) ................................... 63
Students at-risk ......................................................................................... 63
Students with learning disabilities .......................................................... 64
Students in general education .................................................................. 64
Posttest-Follow-up Results (H3) .......................................................................... 64
Posttest-Follow-up Results (H4) .......................................................................... 65
Students at-risk ......................................................................................... 65
Students with learning disabilities .......................................................... 66
Students in general education .................................................................. 66
Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 68
Educational Implications ...................................................................................... 71
x
Limitations of the Study ....................................................................................... 73
Suggestions for Future Research ......................................................................... 75
Summary ............................................................................................................... 80
Appendixes
Appendix A Grading Florida’s Public Schools
Grading Florida’s Public Schools ........................................................... 83
Appendix B Consent and Assent Forms
Student Assent (English) ......................................................................... 86
Parent Letter (English) ............................................................................. 87
Parental Consent (English) ...................................................................... 88
Student Assent (Spanish) ......................................................................... 89
Parent Letter (Spanish) ............................................................................ 90
Parental Consent (Spanish) ...................................................................... 91
Student Assent (Creole) ........................................................................... 92
Parent Letter (Creole)............................................................................... 93
Parental Consent (Creole) ........................................................................ 94
Teacher Consent ....................................................................................... 95
Appendix C Student Tests
Fourth-grade Pretest ................................................................................. 97
Fourth-grade Posttest ............................................................................... 99
Fourth-grade Follow-up ......................................................................... 101
Fifth-grade Pretest .................................................................................. 103
Fifth-grade Posttest ................................................................................ 105
xi
Fifth-grade Follow-up ............................................................................ 107
Appendix D Teacher Training Materials
Reciprocal Teaching of Science (presentation) .................................... 110
Fourth-grade Lesson Plan ...................................................................... 113
Fourth-grade Script ................................................................................ 114
Fifth-grade Lesson Plan ......................................................................... 120
Fifth-grade Script ................................................................................... 121
Appendix E Classroom Posters
Fantastic Four ......................................................................................... 127
Fix-up Strategies .................................................................................... 128
Question Words ...................................................................................... 129
Appendix F Forming Teams
Forming Teams....................................................................................... 131
Appendix G Summary of Daily Instructional Procedures
Summary of Daily Instructional Procedures ........................................ 133
Appendix H Overhead Transparencies
Character Descriptions ........................................................................... 141
Retelling vs. Summarizing..................................................................... 146
Group Directions .................................................................................... 147
Appendix I Student Bookmarks
Student Bookmarks ................................................................................ 149
Appendix J Teacher Materials
Teacher Tracking of Student Roles ....................................................... 155
xii
Coaching Prompts .................................................................................. 158
Group Performance Checklist ............................................................... 159
Appendix K Fidelity Protocol
Fidelity Protocol ..................................................................................... 161
References........................................................................................................................ 162
xiii
Tables
Table 1. Reading Scores: Florida Students ...................................................................... 25
xiv
Figures
Figure 1. effect of Reciprocal Teaching .......................................................................... 65
Figure 2. Students At-Risk ............................................................................................... 66
Figure 3. Students with Learning Disabilities ................................................................. 66
Figure 4. Students in General Education ......................................................................... 67
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Many national laws, including The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), have
been developed to address the academic needs of American children. Since its
inception, NCLB’s primary focus has been on student achievement in reading and
mathematics. The law also calls for increased accountability, the hiring of highly
qualified teachers, and the use of scientifically-based research in an effort to address
the many problems in public schools throughout the country (U.S. Department of
Education, 2002).
As part of NCLB, each state was required to develop a plan that included an
accountability system to measure student progress toward mastering state academic
standards. The plan was to include performance goals that increased in increments
each year toward the aim of 100% proficiency in reading and mathematics by the
spring of 2014. This measurement is called adequate yearly progress (AYP; Christy,
n.d.a). Accountability for reading and mathematics achievement is documented
differently in each state (Paige, 2002). For example, Florida has been using the results
of a standardized test called the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) to
determine if the state, school districts, and schools have made AYP in the areas of
reading and mathematics (Florida Department of Education [FLDOE], 2009a).
However, “the pressure of NCLB accountability, in which all students in grades three-
eight are
2
assessed on language arts and mathematics annually, has led principals and teachers to
direct time and resources toward language arts and mathematics, and due to the
limited hours in the school year, to diminishing time for science” (Marx & Harris,
2006, p. 469). A survey completed by the Center on Education Policy found that 72%
of schools had added time for reading and math but made substantial cuts in the time
allocated for science (McMurrer, 2008). This is particularly true at low-performing
elementary schools (Marx & Harris, 2006), where many educators believe that
students “can catch up on science when they reach middle school” (Pratt, 2007, p. 26).
Schools that previously neglected the teaching of science have had to find a
way to work it back into their schedules. NCLB required science assessments
beginning in the 2007-2008 school year. States have to assess science one time within
grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12. Science scores are not yet part of determining AYP
nationally (Cavanagh, 2007); however, Florida already includes science scores as part
of calculations for school grades in the state’s A+ Plan: Grading Florida’s Schools
(FLDOE, 2009b; Johnson, 2005).
Nationally, elementary students are demonstrating huge deficits in science
achievement. In 2005, representative samples of fourth-grade students participated in
the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in science. The scale for the
test is from 0-300. The scores were presented as percentages of students performing
within 3 levels: Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. Students scoring in the Basic level
(138-169) demonstrate only partial mastery of prerequisite skills needed for proficient
performance on their grade level. Those in the Proficient range (170-204) demonstrate
knowledge and reasoning skills required to understand science concepts at their grade
3
level. Students scoring in the Advanced level of scores (205-300) demonstrate solid
understanding of the fourth-grade science concepts and the ability to apply their
knowledge to practical situations. There is another level of achievement. It is called
Below Basic. Students who score in this range (0-137) are only able to identify science
processes and simple comparisons. In 2005, 73% of fourth-grade students scored at or
below the Basic level. The average national score for fourth-grade students was 149.
The state average for Florida students in fourth-grade was 150, which falls within the
Basic level (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 2005). In an effort to
understand why so many students are consistently performing at a basic achievement
level in science, it is important to establish what it means to be science literate.
Science Literacy
Students who are science literate are knowledgeable about science and its role
in society. They are capable of making informed decisions as they read and write
about science concepts (Cavanagh, 2008; Stone, n.d.). Scientifically literate students
are able to independently develop an understanding of the big ideas of science by
engaging prior knowledge, forming hypotheses, establishing plans, making inferences,
comparing and contrasting ideas, and drawing conclusions based on text (Barton &
Jordan, 2001). These process skills are comparable to the process skills used by good
readers: engaging prior knowledge, making predictions, determining cause and effect,
comparing and contrasting, and drawing conclusions (Bowers, 2000). Therefore it is
reasonable to conclude that good readers should be able to use their skills to develop
scientific literacy through the use of science text (Palincsar, n.d.).
4
Reading Comprehension and Science Literacy
Unfortunately, many students may struggle to become science literate because
of reading comprehension problems. In 2009, representative samples of fourth-grade
students participated in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in
reading. Results were reported as average scores from 0-500. Reading scores, like
science scores, were presented as percentages of students performing within 3 levels:
Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. A percentage of students scoring Below Basic was
also included in the data. Students’ scores in the Basic range demonstrate partial
mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills. Those in the Proficient range reflect
solid academic performance and competency in the subject, while Advanced
represents superior performance (NCES, 2010).
Nationally, 68% of fourth-grade students scored at or below Basic level, while
only 24% scored Proficient, and seven percent scored in the Advanced range in
reading comprehension. Reading achievement in the Proficient range for fourth-grade
students who are typically at-risk for academic failure-those who are among specific
racial and ethnic groups (Hispanic and Black), English Language Learners (ELL),
students participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), as well students
with disabilities (SWD)-was low. Only 13% demonstrated skills in the Proficient
range (NCES, 2010).
State scores for reading comprehension were available in the same report.
Collectively, a higher percentage of Florida students scored Proficient (28%) than the
percentage of students nationally. Still, 64% of Florida fourth-grade students scored at
or below Basic level. As was seen in the national percentages, Florida fourth-grade
5
students who are among specific racial and ethnic groups, students who are ELL,
students participating in the NSLP, as well SWD scoring in the Proficient range was
only 21%, below that of the state average (NCES, 2010). Given that a large part of
science literacy is dependent upon the ability to “access scientific information from
texts” (Michalsky, Mevarech, & Haibi, 2009, p. 363), it is essential to understand why
so many students are not meeting grade level standards in the area of reading
comprehension to better understand how this area of weakness is affecting science
achievement.
Reading Instruction
Early reading instruction focuses on learning to read. Children are taught the
alphabetic principle and decoding skills to read words that are already known (Chall,
Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990; DiLorenzo, Rody, Bucholz, & Brady, 2011). This
instruction is usually completed using basal readers that include simple narratives with
beautiful pictures that help children draw meaning from the text. Teachers prefer these
packaged reading series because they provide detailed lesson plans and materials for
faster and slower students. Most series include non-narrative (expository) selections,
but they don’t take advantage of building word and domain knowledge (Walsh, 2003).
The topics of the readings are often about school, families, pets, and friends, topics
that children are already familiar with (Hirsch, 2003).
It is crucial that students are proficient in early reading skills so that they can
concentrate on deriving meaning from text (Chall et al., 1990; DiLorenzo et al., 2011).
Effective development of early reading skills includes the development of fluency
skills which allow students to read text accurately and quickly (Armbruster, Lehr, &
6
Osborn, 2003; Chall et al., 1990). “Efficient fluent word recognition frees up
processing resources to focus on comprehension” (Bashir & Hook, 2009, p. 198).
Fluent readers can focus their attention on drawing meaning from text because they do
not have to concentrate all of their energy on decoding words (Armbruster et al.,
2003). “If students’ word recognition, decoding, or fluency are weak, they will be
unable to meet the demands of reading at the higher stages, even if they have good
meaning vocabularies and can do higher order thinking” (Chall et al., 1990, p. 45).
“Reading comprehension is the construction of meaning of written text through
reciprocal interchange of ideas between the reader and the message in the particular
text” (National Reading Panel [NRP], 2000, p. 5). Instruction in comprehension, like
early reading instruction, frequently makes use of packaged basal reading series. The
process of teaching reading comprehension using these programs focuses largely on
teaching and practicing a formal set of skills such as sequencing, classifying, inferring,
or finding the main idea (Walsh, 2003). Instruction in strategies is also part of teaching
how to comprehend text. “Strategies are general sets of steps experts follow to solve
problems” (Simmons & Kame'enui, 1998, p. 7). “A comprehension strategy can be
defined as an activity a student might engage in to enhance comprehension or to repair
it when it breaks down” (Ehren, 2009, p. 193). Teachers often spend a great deal of
time during the language arts block teaching students formal comprehension strategies
(Hirsch, 2003).
Educators have done an excellent job teaching students how to read (Hirsch,
2003). Perhaps the reason for this is that word recognition, decoding, and fluency
involve a well-defined scope of knowledge that can be systematically taught and
7
accurately measured. Systematic instructional programs and interventions have been
developed to teach the skills needed for basic word recognition. There are even
intensive phonics programs that have been effective in improving these skills in
students with severe disabilities (Kamhi, 2009). Comprehension instruction is not as
straightforward as early reading skills. It is difficult to quantify because it is not a skill
with a well-defined scope of knowledge (Catts, 2009; Kamhi, 2009). Comprehension
requires the simultaneous operation of complex strategies to acquire new knowledge
from text which can take years to develop (Catts, 2009; Diehl, 2005; Sweet & Snow,
2003). The goal of comprehension instruction is to create readers who are independent
learners, capable of controlling their own learning from text (Bridge, 1987).
In order to become independent learners, readers must be purposeful and active
as they read (Armbuster, et al., 2003). They need to have developed a repertoire of
reading strategies which they use to employ elements of their knowledge of the world
to make meaning of and inferences about the text (Catts, 2009; Knuth & Jones, 1991;
NRP, 2000). Good readers normally acquire strategies informally and flexibly use
these strategies to guide thinking before, during, and after reading (Diehl, 2005; NRP,
2000). They have an awareness of their ongoing comprehension through the use of
metacognitive strategies (NRP, 2000). Metacognitive strategies allow students to self-
monitor their comprehension and to fill in the gaps in their understanding by using fix-
up strategies to repair their understanding (Best, Rowe, Ozuru, & McNamra, 2005;
Gajria, Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007; Mason, 2004). The final component that makes
a reader a good reader is self-confidence. Good readers see themselves as effective
learners who are capable of success through working hard and thinking efficiently
8
(Knuth & Jones, 1991). Sadly, not all students become independent, strategic learners
as is evidenced by scores on state and national tests of reading comprehension (NCES,
2010)
“Even the best readers will struggle with reading at some time, in some place,
with some text” (Vacca & Vacca, 2002, p. 352), but there is always a group of
students who are particularly challenged by reading comprehension. These students
are sometimes labeled students with learning disabilities or identified as students at
risk based on their poor performance in reading (Simmons & Kame'enui, 1998). Most
troubling for these students is expository text (Mason, 2004). Expository text is the
text of classroom textbooks, newspapers, directions, and procedures (Pagés, 2002). It
is described as text that delivers information. Expository text has been considered
more difficult to comprehend than narrative text because it frequently uses abstract
concepts, unfamiliar technical vocabulary, and a variety of formats: cause/effect,
compare/contrast, enumerative/listing, and sequence (Finty & Strout, 2005; Gersten,
Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001). Many children who easily read narrative texts may
struggle to independently comprehend expository texts such as those used in science
and social studies (Duke & Kays, 1998). Struggling readers often have trouble gaining
knowledge from expository text and struggle to distinguish between important and
unimportant details; they also have difficulty making inferences from what they have
read (Englert & Thomas, 1987; Reid & Lienemann, 2006). Research has established
that students with learning disabilities are less likely to use the (cognitive) strategies
that underlie effective comprehension of expository text nor do they recognize
breakdowns in their understanding (metacognitive strategies) and consequently do not
9
reread passages that are confusing (Gersten et al., 2001). Because struggling readers
often fail to respond to conventional education practices, they often require special
services or intensive interventions (Simmons & Kame'enui, 1998; Valencia & Buly,
2004).
Struggling readers, like all students, present with individual differences in
knowledge, skills, and abilities as well as motivation, goals, and purposes which affect
their ability to comprehend text (Vellutino, 2003). Comprehension instruction for
struggling readers should focus on development of vocabulary and background
knowledge. Direct instruction should be used for instruction in strategies such as
summarizing, predicting, and monitoring. Finally, students need to be provided with
opportunities to practice comprehension using authentic texts. This practice can be
completed independently, in pairs, or in groups (Duke, 2004; Snow, Burns, & Griffin,
1998).
Presently, there is little evidence that explicit instruction of comprehension
strategies with authentic (expository) text is being taught as part of the general
education curriculum (Best et al., 2005). Durkin (1979) found that teachers spent the
majority of their time asking students questions, but not teaching them how to answer
them. Further, there is strong empirical evidence that teachers are merely assessing the
presence or absence of comprehension without teaching students how to first
comprehend (Diehl, 2005).
“Educators need to expose children to those types of texts that they want them
to read and write” (Palincsar & Duke, 2004, p. 188). Furthermore, elementary
students, particularly those with learning disabilities, need explicit instruction in
10
cognitive and metacognitive strategies to comprehend expository text in a setting that
supports collaboration and flexible application of comprehension strategies, as well as
appropriate, meaningful opportunities for reading and writing (Mastropieri & Scruggs,
2004; Palincsar & Klenk, 1992). Science classes are a perfect context in which to
introduce students to expository text (Palincsar, n.d.).
Reciprocal Teaching
One approach to teaching students to use strategies to comprehend expository
text in collaborative, mixed-ability groups is reciprocal teaching. Palincsar and Brown
(1984) described reciprocal teaching as a procedure in which students and the
researcher (Palincsar) took turns leading dialogues about sections of expository text.
In that study, the researcher guided small groups of students through the use of four
reading strategies: summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting as they read
expository text. Using scaffolding techniques, the more knowledgeable researcher
guided students as they gained knowledge and skills (Westby & Torres-Velásquez,
2000) and then gradually relinquished control of the instructional session to the
students, who then took turns leading the discussion about a passage. After 25 days of
intervention, students’ comprehension scores significantly increased and this higher
level of comprehension was maintained over time. Skills also generalized to other
settings and texts. These results were replicated in a second study in which volunteer
teachers used the reciprocal teaching method in their reading groups (Palincsar &
Brown, 1984).
The strategies used in reciprocal teaching play a dual function-comprehension
fostering and comprehension monitoring (Diehl, 2005). Students take ownership of
11
their learning, actively interacting with the text by making predictions, seeking
clarification, asking questions, and summarizing. This increased involvement with the
text leads to better comprehension and ultimately improved achievement. Reciprocal
teaching can be used to enhance students’ independence comprehending any text
(Marks et al., 1993); however, it has been particularly useful with expository text
(Palincsar & Brown, 1987; Lysnchuck, Pressley, & Vye, 1990).
Reciprocal teaching has been found to be effective because it provides for
specific, guided practice using the four strategies-summarizing, questioning,
clarifying, and predicting-to enhance children’s ability to construct meaning of text
and self-monitor understanding of text (NRP, 2000; Snow, et al., 1998). It has been
successfully used during language arts instruction to improve reading comprehension
of basal readers and expository passages of intermediate elementary level students
without disabilities in the general education classroom (De Corte, Vershaffel, & Van
de Ven, 2001; Kelly, Moore, & Tuck, 1994). Researchers have also used reciprocal
teaching as part of language arts lessons to enhance reading comprehension skills
using science and social studies texts with intermediate elementary students without
disabilities in general education classrooms (Bottomley & Osborn, 1993; Hess, 2004).
Reciprocal teaching has been used during content area instruction, using social studies
materials to increase reading comprehension skills of intermediate elementary students
without disabilities in general education classrooms (Lubliner, 2004). Lederer (2000)
used reciprocal teaching during social studies content instruction while King and
Johnson (1999) used reciprocal teaching science content instruction to improve the
general literacy/reading comprehension skills of students with and without disabilities
12
in general education classrooms. Additionally, two studies completed follow-up
testing after the intervention period concluded. Palincsar and Brown (1984) and
Westera and Moore (1995) reported that students were able to maintain their
comprehension skills after a limited amount of exposure to RT.
However, there is a lack of research using RT during science instruction in
inclusive classes for the purpose of improving comprehension of science texts.
Further, other studies have not reported the use of individual student visual aids or
scripts for teachers to follow throughout the implementation of RT.
The purpose of this study was to add to the research base of previously
successful studies using reciprocal teaching. This study targeted science as a content
area with the intention of improving science literacy- specifically, science
comprehension as a student outcome. The study included fourth- and fifth-grade
students who have been identified as at-risk, students with learning disabilities, and
students in general education. General education teachers used researcher-created
scripts to facilitate instruction using reciprocal teaching in inclusive science classes.
After 20 school days, evaluation of changes in science literacy was made using
multiple-choice, curriculum-based measures. Follow-up testing was completed four
weeks after the intervention period ended to determine if students maintained the skills
needed to comprehend scientific texts after the intervention period ended.
Research Questions
1. Will the implementation of reciprocal teaching during science instruction in an
inclusive setting result in statistically significant improvements in the science
13
literacy scores from pretest to posttest of intermediate elementary students (grades
4 and 5)?
2. Will the implementation of reciprocal teaching during science instruction in an
inclusive setting result in statistically significant improvements in the science
literacy scores from pretest to posttest of intermediate elementary students (grades
4 and 5) among specific student learning categories: (a) students identified as at-
risk; (b) students with learning disabilities; and (c) students in general education?
3. Will there be statistically significant differences in the science literacy scores from
posttest to follow-up test of intermediate elementary students (grades 4 and 5) in
inclusive settings after the intervention period ends?
4. Will there be statistically significant differences in the science literacy scores from
posttest to follow-up among specific student learning categories after the
intervention period ends?
14
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Achievement Gap
The achievement gap between high- and low-performing students and their
schools has been a subject of public scrutiny for decades. Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 was created to help close that gap by
targeting children who were limited English proficient, migrant children, and minority
children and those with low levels of achievement in high poverty schools. The
program Head Start was established to provide early intervention for preschool
children while older students were provided with intense remedial instruction
(Schugurensky, 2002).
Unfortunately in 1983, an alarming report by the National Commission on
Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: the Imperative for Educational Reform
(NCEE, 1983), brought to light facts about the United States’ (U.S.) condition of
education. Other countries were surpassing the U.S. in the areas in which it was once
superior: technological innovation, science, commerce, and industry. The authors
stated that the U.S. had “squandered the gains in student achievement made in the
wake of the Sputnik challenge” (NCEE, 1983, para. 2) by taking away the support
systems that made those academic gains possible. To defend this statement, the
authors listed several examples of decline in academic achievement including (a) U.S.
students scored last on 19 academic tests when compared to equally competitive
15
countries; (b)Thirteen percent of 17 year-olds were considered functionally illiterate;
(c) SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores had fallen over 50 points in verbal and 40
points in mathematics; and (d) business and military leaders were required to spend
millions of dollars on remediation of reading, spelling, and computation skills due to
the poor preparation of graduating seniors. The report concluded with
recommendations to address these issues beginning with reevaluating academic
standards and renewing the commitment to provide educational opportunities to all
students.
Fifteen years later A Nation Still at Risk: The Case for Federalism and School
Choice (Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 1998) reported that 30% of students
entering college required remedial reading, writing, and math. Employers were still
having difficulty finding qualified personnel who had the necessary skills for
technologically based positions. Instead of the gap decreasing between good and bad
schools, it was increasing. The brunt of the gap was still most evident in minority and
poor children.
In a continuing effort to improve U.S. Education, President Clinton signed the
Improving America’s Schools Act in 1994. These amendments to ESEA included
elements to bring about educational reform including the need for rigorous national
standards, quality teachers, accountability, and ensuring that students read
independently by the end of third grade (Austin, n.d.). President G.W. Bush continued
to push for education reform when he signed No Child Left Behind (NCLB) into law in
2002. This law continued many of the tenets President Clinton marked as important
including the need to have all third-grade students reading independently by the end of
16
the school year. This law also called for increased accountability as measured by
annual testing and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), state report cards, and the use of
proven methods of teaching. This update of ESEA was unique because for the first
time since 1965, the provisions of the amendments included education reform
affecting all students, not just disadvantaged students (Christy, n.d.b).
Parallel to legislative changes for students in general education have been
changes for students with disabilities. The original legislation know as The Education
for All Handicapped Children Act, PL 94-142 (1975) has evolved into the present day
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA 04). Throughout the past
three decades, students with disabilities have been receiving a free and appropriate
public education in the least restrictive environment that can meet their individual
needs. Along the way, PL 94-142 was amended to include full access to the general
education curriculum for all students with disabilities and participation in state-wide
testing. Meanwhile, NCLB allocated the responsibility of these students’ academic
growth to all teachers by increasing accountability for their successes or failures to the
individual teacher (Hardman & Dawson, 2008; U. S. Department of Education
[USDOE], 2004).
NCLB requires states to develop an accountability system to determine if the
state, school districts, and individual schools have made AYP toward state learning
goals in the areas of reading, mathematics, and writing. The report must include a
measure of progress on student bodies as a whole and must also provide disaggregated
results for the subgroups of major racial groups, economically disadvantaged students,
students with disabilities (SWD), and English Language Learners (ELL). State, school
17
districts, and individual schools must show continuous improvement from year to year
toward meeting the state’s standards for proficiency in language arts and math by the
year 2014. Meeting AYP goals annually is especially important to schools receiving
Title I funding because sanctions in the form of corrective actions are applied if they
don’t (Christy, n.d.a; Marx & Harris, 2006).
To do this, many schools focus on the subject areas linked to accountability
and funding at the expense of instruction in other subject areas (Marx & Harris, 2006).
A 2008 report from the Center for Education Policy (CEP) confirms this statement.
The CEP analysis found large shifts in the amount of time spent on math and reading
and reduced time for subjects such as science and social studies since the authorization
of NCLB. Seventy-two percent of school districts reported that they reduced time in
other subjects by at least 75 minutes per week in order to increase instructional time
for math and reading. Those districts reporting increased time for math and reading
also reported the average decrease in instructional time for science as 33% (McMurrer,
2008). Starnes (2006) stated dejectedly…“science has all but disappeared in most
elementary schools” (p. 634).
Science Achievement
Intense focus on math and reading has created an educational gap in science
achievement for all U.S. students. The national average score on the 2005 National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) science test for fourth-grade students
was 149. Results were reported as average scores from 0-300. Scores were presented
as percentages of students performing within 3 levels: Basic, Proficient, and
Advanced. The NAEP achievement level for a score of 149 is Basic, meaning the
18
student has only partial mastery of the knowledge and skills of science for this grade
level. More disturbing is the finding that 73% of U.S. fourth-grade students scored at
or below Basic while only 25% scored Proficient (National Center for Educational
Statistics [NCES], 2005). Fortunately for some states, NCLB did not require science
assessments until the 2007-2008 school year. States now have to assess science one
time within grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12, even though science scores are not presently
part of determining AYP nationally (Cavanagh, 2007; Marx & Harris, 2006; Patz,
2006).
Florida has been testing students in grades 5, 8, and 11 in science annually
since 2003 using the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test- Science (FCAT-
Science; Florida Department of Education [FLDOE], 2007). The FCAT-Science is
designed to assess the level of student achievement in the Sunshine State Standards
(SSS) in science. In fifth grade, the content areas of physical and chemical sciences,
Earth and space sciences, life and environmental sciences, and scientific thinking are
tested. In 2009, the fifth-grade FCAT-Science contained both multiple-choice and
performance tasks. Each multiple-choice question provided four possible answers and
was worth one point if correct. Performance tasks required students to answer
questions in their own words. These questions were graded using a rubric and were
worth 0-4 points each. Student scores for the FCAT-Science range from 100-500
points. These scores are presented as achievement levels from 1-5 which represent the
student’s success on the science standards tested. Achievement levels 3-5 are
considered at and above grade level, whereas achievement levels 1-2 indicate little to
limited success with the content (FLDOE, 2009e).
19
In 2009, 46% of Florida fifth-grade students earned an achievement level of 3-
5, while 53% scored an achievement level of 1-2. Fifth-grade students in Palm Beach
County (PBC), Florida had a higher percentage of students meeting or exceeding the
SSS in science and fewer students demonstrating little to limited success than the state
averages. Fifty-three percent of PBC students earned an achievement level of 3-5.
Forty-seven percent earned an achievement level of 1-2 (FLDOE, 2009c). Scores for
individual schools are also available including those for the school at which this study
took place. At the target school, 58% of fifth-grade students earned an achievement
level of 1-2, whereas only 41% earned an achievement level of 3-5 (FLDOE, 2009d).
Lack of science achievement has brought about a new urgency to give science
the attention it deserves (Pratt, 2007). Prominent business leaders, educators, and
scientists have called for more emphasis on science citing the risk of the U.S. losing its
economic edge if things do not change (Brady, 2008; Cavanaugh, 2007). Government
officials added, “Over the last decade, researchers have scientifically proven the best
ways to teach reading. We must do the same for science” (USDOE, n.d., para. 6).
Research on how to reform K-8 science and teaching has been completed by
the National Research Council Committee and compiled into a report: Taking Science
to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8 (Duschl, Schweingruber, &
Shouse, 2007). Duschl, Shouse, and Schweingruber (2008) later provided a summary
of the report, which included recommendations for reform as well as a definition for
science. Their definition included the need to see science as “a set of processes that
involve logical reasoning about evidence, theory change, and participation in the
culture of scientific practices” (p. 47). Science learning environments should guide
20
students in learning how to: “1) Know, use, and interpret scientific explanations of the
natural world; 2) Generate and evaluate scientific evidence and explanations; 3)
Understand the nature and development of scientific knowledge; and 4) Participate
productively in scientific practices and discourse” (p. 48). In other words, they need to
be science literate.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
defines scientific literacy as…“the capacity to use scientific knowledge, to identify
questions and to draw evidence-based conclusions in order to understand and help
make decisions about the natural world and the changes made to it through human
activity” (OECD, 2003, p. 21). This is not to say that everyone understands and uses
the vernacular of experts but “possess facts and vocabulary sufficient to comprehend
the context of the daily news” (Hazen, 2002, para. 3). Scientifically literate persons
possess “transferable skills including the ability to formulate and conduct experiments,
evaluate empirical evidence, appreciate quantitative arguments, carry out inductive
generalizations, and engage in critical thinking” (Turner & Peck, 2009, p. 56). The
development of science literacy should not be reserved for only the brightest students;
all students will need to become science literate “because functioning in the modern
world demands an understanding of science” (Westby & Torres-Velásquez, 2000, p.
102).
“Scientific literacy cannot be attained without fundamental literacy-the ability
to read and comprehend textual information and write competently about the subject
under study” (Miller, 2006, p. 30). Students need to know how to “access scientific
information from texts and evaluate and interpret the information they have acquired”
21
(Michalsky, Mevarech, & Haibi, 2009, p. 363). Unfortunately, “students face
considerable difficulties in reading scientific texts” (Michalsky et al., 2009, p. 363).
These difficulties could occur independently or in combination with the following
factors: lack of exposure to the (science) content (Best, Rowe, Ozuru, & McNamara,
2005; Kinniburgh & Shaw, 2009; Pratt, 2007; Yore, Bisanz, & Hand, 2003),
unfamiliarity with expository text (Barton, Heidema, & Jordan, 2002; Duke, 2000;
Kinninburgh & Shaw, 2009; Stone, n.d.; Williams, Hall, & Lauer, 2004), or reading
comprehension deficits (Biancarosa, 2005; Kroeger, Burton, & Preston, 2009;
Swanson & De La Paz, 1998).
Science content. Many elementary school educators justify allocating more
time to math and reading and less time for science instruction because they think that
children can catch-up on science when they reach middle school and high school.
Science educators find this assumption to be flawed because science learning, like
math and reading, is cumulative, in both process and content (Pratt, 2007). Students
who interact with text in elementary school have the opportunity to develop
background knowledge and learn about the tools of science (Palincsar, n.d.; Yore &
Treagust, 2006) They learn “new vocabulary for familiar objects and events; for
example, rain is a form of precipitation; water drying up in puddles is evaporation;
floating objects are buoyant” (Westby & Torres-Velásquez, 2000, p. 103). A serious
negative impact on science learning can result if students have not built up fluency in
the language of science before the reading difficulty and volume is increased in middle
and high school (Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, n.d.; Pratt, 2007).
22
Expository text. Early elementary students are typically provided fictional
stories during reading instruction through the use of basal readers and workbooks
(Caswell & Duke, 1988) and asked to identify the plot, setting, characters, and
problem. Narrative text is frequently viewed as easier for children to comprehend
because the content is often very similar to a child’s daily life (Caswell & Duke, 1998;
Sweet & Snow, 2003). The use of expository text has customarily been reserved for
content area instruction-science and social studies (Duke, 2000). Vacca and Vacca
(2002) describe the traditional instruction with expository text as assign and tell. The
instructor assigns pages from the text and follow-up questions to complete. Then the
instructor proceeds to tell the students what they should have gotten from the text
through explaining the ideas and information given through a series of question-and-
answer routines. This practice creates passive learners who are unable to interact with
text to extract meaning independently.
This lack of attention to reading instruction using expository text has been
cited by Chall, Jacobs, and Baldwin (1990) as a possible contributing factor to the
fourth-grade slump. The fourth-grade slump is used to describe students who
performed well when learning to read- learning the alphabetic principle, decoding and
fluency skills- but suddenly fall behind when the focus shifts from learning to read
text to reading to learn from text. Duke and Kays (1998) found that children who read
narratives with ease are often stumped by expository text and the format it uses. There
are no characters to relate to or problems/solutions to discuss. Expository text includes
organizational devices such as headings and subheadings, key words that are
highlighted, as well as graphics (pictures and graphs) that are presented not just for
23
pleasure, but for gaining information (Carnine, Silbert, Kame´enui, & Tarver, 2004).
The content of expository text is often filled with unfamiliar terms and concepts which
are far removed from children’s daily experiences (Sweet & Snow, 2003; Williams et
al., 2004). Students may be struggling to make the transition to reading to learn
because they have not received enough training with this type of print as they were
learning to read (Caswell & Duke, 1998).
Of all the content-area texts that students encounter, science text, with its
technical terms and conceptual density, is one of the most challenging to understand
(Barton et al., 2002; Kroeger et al., 2009; Wallach, Charlton, & Christie, 2009).
“Reading of scientific texts does not merely involve translating printed symbols into
meaning, but also requires interactions among readers’ prior knowledge, their beliefs,
and the text” (Michalsky et al., 2009, p. 364). “Students’ ability to understand
complex material presented in textbooks is indeed suffering” (Sweet & Snow, 2003, p.
82). Chall and Jacobs (2003) attributed lack of comprehension development in the
intermediate grades to difficulty with more abstract, academic words commonly used
in the texts. Further, they noted that students who experience difficulties with
increased literacy demands of expository text in the elementary grades will most likely
struggle for the rest of their academic careers in the content areas (science, social
studies, literature, history, and mathematics) which places heavy emphasis on the
ability to understand the text.
Reading comprehension deficits. Reading comprehension deficits may also
be the cause of the difficulty that students experience when reading science texts. In
2009, representative samples of fourth-grade students participated in the National
24
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading. Results were reported as
average scores from 0-500. Reading scores, like science scores, were presented as
percentages of students performing within 3 levels: Basic, Proficient, and Advanced.
A percentage of students scoring Below Basic was also included in the data. Students’
scores in the Basic range demonstrate partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and
skills. Those in the Proficient range reflect solid academic performance and
competency in the subject while Advanced represents superior performance.
Nationally, 68% of 4th
-grade students scored at or below Basic level, 24% scored
Proficient, and seven percent scored at the Advanced level in reading comprehension
(NCES, 2010).
Nationally, reading achievement at the Proficient level for students who are
among specific student groups is even lower. The average percentage of 4th
-grade
students who are among specific racial/ethnic groups (Hispanic and Black), English
Language Learners (ELL), students participating in the National School Lunch
Program (NSLP), as well students with disabilities (SWD) scoring in the Proficient
range in reading comprehension was 13% (NCES, 2010).
State scores for reading comprehension are available in the same report.
Results for 4th
- grade students in the state of Florida are summarized in Table 1.
Collectively, a higher percentage of Florida students scored Proficient (28%) than the
percentage of students nationally. However, sixty-four percent of Florida 4th
-grade
students scored at or below Basic level. As was seen in the national percentages,
Florida 4th
-grade students who are among specific racial/ethnic groups (Hispanic and
Black), English Language Learners (ELL), students participating in the National
25
School Lunch Program (NSLP), as well students with disabilities (SWD) scoring in
the Proficient range in reading comprehension (21%) was below that of the overall
state average (NCES, 2010).
Table 1
Reading Scores: Florida Students
Student
Learning
Group
Percentage
Scoring
Below Basic
(0-205 points)
Percentage
Scoring Basic
(208-234
points)
Percentage
Scoring
Proficient
(238-264
points)
Percentage
Scoring
Advanced
(268-500
points)
Fourth Grade
(average)
27 37 28 8
White
19 34 36 11
Hispanic
29 40 25 6
Black
44 38 16 2
English
Language
Learners (ELL)
48 39 12 1
National
School Lunch
Program
Participants
36 39 22 3
Students with
Disabilities
(SWD)
55 28 13 4
Reading Comprehension in Science
Teachers recognize that literacy problems can impede student progress and
create barriers to understanding science content (Education Development Center, n.d.)
thus preventing many students from becoming scientifically literate citizens
(Palincsar, n.d.). Yet teachers also realize that, “no single factor can account for the
26
range of challenges that are faced by struggling readers” (Kamhi, 2009, p. 177). To
successfully comprehend text, students need experience with the type of text to be
read (Duke, 2000; Palincsar, n.d.) and prior knowledge of the subject mater (Barton et
al., 2002; Ehren, 2009). They need to effectively and efficiently use metacognitive and
cognitive strategies in a meaningful context (Duke, 2004; Palincsar, n.d.). Finally, they
need the self-confidence and motivation to complete the task (Dickson, Collins,
Simmons, Kame´enui, 1998).
Struggling readers such as those considered at-risk for academic failure and
students with learning disabilities (SWLD) might benefit from infusing reading
comprehension instruction into content areas such as science to develop the skills
needed to comprehend text with the actual text that they need to comprehend
(Hapgood & Palincsar, 2007; Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Graetz, 2003; Vacca & Vacca,
2002). Romance and Vitale (2001) found significant improvement in both science and
reading scores occurred when the regular basal reading program was replaced with
reading in science that correlated with the science curriculum.
Content area teachers could provide reading comprehension instruction in their
classes to promote scientific literacy (Bianacarosa, 2005; Walker & Huber, n.d.;
Westby & Torres-Velásquez, 2000). To do this, teachers must, “simultaneously teach
scientific concepts and the linguistic and discourse structures that code these concepts”
(Westby and Torres-Velásquez, 2000, p. 105). Teaching reading comprehension using
science text can promote important literacy skills (Palincsar, nd) such as gaining the
necessary science knowledge (Miller, 2006) and allowing students to demonstrate
specific reading strategies in a meaningful context (Walker & Huber, nd).
27
“Instruction in reading strategies as they are applied to actual text has been
recommended by many reading experts” (Taylor & Frye, 1992, p. 39). Palincsar (n.d.)
noted that part of the National Science Education Standards includes learning how to
access scientific information from books as well as how to evaluate and interpret the
information acquired. “This standard reminds us that an important dimension to scientific
literacy is the capacity to read and evaluate written information” (Palincsar, nd, p. 2).
Science teachers often depend on covering material through lectures; however,
science understanding stems from sense-making rather than the information itself.
Kroeger et al. (2009) suggested that “peer-mediated instructional practices may
support a more holistic approach to science learning” (p. 6). Biancarosa (2005)
observed that reading instruction using cooperative learning that promotes engagement
and self-directed learning has been found to improve students’ motivation, sense of
competence, reading comprehension, and strategy use. Research has also established
that cooperative learning can improve reading comprehension and achievement across
the content areas for students in the upper-elementary through high school grades, as
well as for ELL students and SWLD in inclusive settings (Biancarosa, 2005).
Peer interaction cooperative learning has been defined as any activity in which
the students take on a teaching role in a school setting (Puchner, 2003). Effective
cooperative learning groups include heterogenous groupings of students thus
providing struggling readers with peer models and helpers (Biancarosa, 2005) and
allowing for higher-functioning students to gain a more in depth understanding of the
concepts because they are providing detailed and complex explanations to other
children (Puchner, 2003). Collaborative learning is often effective because it
28
encourages students in higher-order and elaborative thinking within their group as they
attempt to make sense of the text together. Students share ideas, provide feedback and
encouragement, and have time to grapple with their preconceived notions of concepts
using the text and alternative interpretations from their peers. A bonus of the peer
interaction approach is that the structure itself ensures that disengaged students
participate. Heterogeneous small groups allow for more students to play active roles in
the learning process. (Kroeger et al., 2009).
It should be noted that explicit instruction in group organization and strategies
are needed for effective collaborative learning to take place. Structured interactions,
specific metacognitive and cognitive strategy instruction as well as accountability
need to be modeled by the teacher before the students can implement this form of
interaction spontaneously (Puchner, 2003). For students to gain greater access to
science texts using metacognitive strategies, teachers should include explicit strategy
instruction and reflection in their instructions (Kroeger et al., 2009, p. 7). Additionally,
“Training children in skills of working together and tutoring increases the
effectiveness of peer teaching. Children placed in collaborative contexts do not
spontaneously use higher order thinking and ask good questions, nor do they
spontaneously use appropriate social skills” (Puchner, 2003, p. 6).
“Between the ages of 11 and 16, significant numbers of students pass from a
state of enthusiasm and engagement with the study of science to a state of indifference
or disdain for the subject” (Turner & Peck, 2009, p. 54). The problem of engaging
students in science classes, “is a larger phenomenon that lies beyond formal science
education itself” (Turner & Peck, 2009, p. 55). It seems that the more prosperous and
29
scientifically advanced the country, the less interested young people are in the study of
science. “Students complain about school science’s perceived irrelevance,
repetitiveness, fragmentation, and authoritarian presentation” (Turner & Peck, 2009, p.
55). Guided inquiry methods and experiments may challenge and hold students’
attention in class, but science is more than hands-on activities. Students need to know
“why science and science study are important to their lives, their society, and their
futures” (Turner & Peck, 2009, p. 56).
The change in the daily routine from lecture to interacting with peers in small
groups gets students’ attention, which may be why the benefits of using cooperative
learning are numerous. Peer support and peer norms promote increased participation
in the learning process. Students’ self-esteem, inter-group relations, achievement,
attitudes towards school, and acceptance of children with disabilities and development
of help-seeking skills have also improved. Students often become more autonomous
which enhances self-determination and intrinsic motivation. Cooperative learning has
been effective with students in grade two through twelve, from a variety of learning
categories, with higher and lower order tasks in all subject areas (Puchner, 2003).
In a time when the U.S. is striving to reform education with limited financial
resources, and NLCB has forced many educators to delete important subjects such as
science from their daily instruction (Marx & Harris, 2006; McMurrer, 2008), it’s time
to teach more efficiently. “One way to do this is to implement an integrated
curriculum where more than one subject is taught at the same time” (Bowers, 2000,
para. 2). Many educators support infusing literacy and science instruction (Bowers,
2000; Hapgood & Palincsar, 2007; Kinniburgh & Shaw, 2009; Marx and Harris, 2006;
30
Miller, 2006; Palincsar, n.d.; Yore & Treagust, 2006). “Literacy-based instruction can
support students’ interest in science content and extend their scientific knowledge
through integrating science process skills with literature and literacy process skills”
(Casteel & Isom, 1994, p. 538). Students who use metacognitive and cognitive
strategies effectively in a meaningful context may demonstrate a more in-depth
understanding of science (Casteel & Isom, 1994; Palincsar, n.d.). Peer-mediated
instruction is a cost-effective and evidence-based method, which may be used to
strengthen both science knowledge and literacy development (Casteel & Isom, 1994;
Kroeger et al., 2009). One approach to teaching students to use cognitive and
metacognitive strategies to comprehend science text in collaborative, mixed-ability
groups is reciprocal teaching (Palncsar & Brown, 1984).
Reciprocal Teaching
Reciprocal Teaching is an instructional procedure originally designed to
enhance students’ reading comprehension. The procedure is best characterized
as a dialogue between teacher and students. The term reciprocal describes the
nature of the interactions: each person acts in response to the other(s). The
dialogue is structured by the use of four strategies: predicting, questioning,
clarifying, and summarizing. (Palincsar, David, & Brown, 1989, p. 2)
Palincsar and Brown introduced reciprocal teaching (RT) to the education
community in a 1984 article which appeared in Cognition and Instruction. Here they
described the theoretical rationale behind RT as a combination of proleptic teaching,
Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, and expert scaffolding. Proleptic teaching
is used here to mean in anticipation of competence. The authors believed that with the
appropriate amount of support, a student could participate in this intervention at the
level he or she was comfortable and eventually be able to improve his or her
comprehension skills so as to no longer need to rely on the teacher.
31
Proleptic instruction was greatly influenced by socio-cultural theories of
learning and literacy, specifically those of Vygotsky (1978). Vygotsky believed that
children had two developmental levels. The first is the one that is the actual
developmental level, which could be measured and observed. The second is the zone
of proximal development, “the distance between the actual developmental level as
determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as
determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with
more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). Palincsar poised herself as the expert
comprehender for the children to learn from. She modeled how to use the strategies of
predicting, clarifying, questioning, and summarizing as she demonstrated how to make
meaning from the text she read. Palincsar encouraged the students to participate and
practice using the strategies during the lesson as they learned how to use the strategies.
The use of scaffolding is crucial to the success of RT.
A scaffold is a structure that supports an activity, mental or physical, while
development of skills is ongoing. Scaffolding takes the form of hints, cues,
questions and discussion that are designed to assist the learner to develop task
related skills. (Seymour & Osana, 2003, p. 328)
“Scaffolded instruction begins with the selection of the learning task. This task is
chosen for the purpose of teaching a skill that is emerging in the learner’s repertoire
but is not yet mature” (Palincsar, 1986, p. 74). Most of the scaffolded support in RT
comes in the form of dialogue (Palincsar, 1986). Teachers use these interactive
(reciprocal) dialogues to guide learning through modeling, feedback, and practice
(Palincsar & Brown, 1984).
Successful scaffolding is “dependent on an expert’s understanding of learner’s
ability and knowledge” (Seymour & Osana, 2003, p. 328). The expert (teacher)
32
frequently makes adjustments in the level of support by providing the learner with
information regarding his or her production and the correct production. The goals of
scaffolding are generalization to less structured contexts and students requiring less
help (Palincsar, 1986).
Palincsar and Brown (1984) found that in order for students to fully learn from
text, they must become strategic readers. RT teaches students to use comprehension-
fostering and comprehension-monitoring strategies as they collaboratively make sense
of the text. The concrete activities (strategies) of summarizing, questioning, clarifying,
and predicting were selected because they provided a dual function of comprehension-
fostering and comprehension-monitoring when used correctly. These strategies, used
together, enabled students to critically evaluate the text through interactive think-
alouds. This cognitive apprenticeship was complete when the students became
proficient in their strategy use. As the students became more competent and confident
using the strategies, the expert (teacher) faded out, allowing the students to become the
group leaders (Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Seymour & Osana, 2003).
In their 1984 article, Palincsar and Brown offered a detailed description of RT
as it was used in Palincsar’s pilot study as well as two subsequent studies. It should be
noted that participants included in these studies were proficient decoders but weak in
comprehension. Their comprehension scores were at least 2-2½ years below grade
level. They were not identified as having a learning or intellectual disability. The
average IQ was 83.
The first study involved Palincsar and 37 seventh-grade students (24 had
reading comprehension problems). The students were divided into four groups:
33
Locating Information, RT, and two comparison groups that received no intervention.
The first comparison group completed daily comprehension tests and took the
baseline, maintenance, and pre/post tests. The second comparison group was given
pre/post tests only. Generalization probes were given five times (baseline, two during
intervention, maintenance, and one follow-up 8 weeks after the study) to the RT, LI,
and first comparison group. The probes occurred in the regular science and social
studies classes and all students in those classes completed them (Palincsar & Brown,
1984).
The Locating Information group was given daily comprehension tests and took
the baseline, maintenance and pre/post tests. The students were taught how to find
answers to questions that were text-explicit and text-implicit (Palincsar & Brown,
1984).
The RT group was introduced to RT in pairs at four day intervals. Two
students were added to the group four days after the first until all six were included in
the group. Strategies were not instructed prior to reading activities, instead they were
introduced within dialogue with the teacher using authentic materials. Baseline data
was taken during the first four days of interaction with each student (Palincsar &
Brown, 1984).
Students in the RT group were given the goal of deriving meaning from text,
which set the purpose of reading the text as they used a combination of their
background knowledge and predictions about the content of the text. As a group, they
summarized portions of the text and asked questions that helped summarize and
clarify the content (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). The teacher assumed the principal role
34
which included prompts to use the strategies after each reading, explicitly modeling
how to use each strategy (as needed) , structuring the response by offering choices,
and building responses using the child’s contribution (Palincsar, 1986).
“Throughout the interventions, the students were explicitly told that these
activities were general strategies to help them understand better what they read and
that they should try to do something like this when they read silently” (Palincsar &
Brown, 1984, p. 121). As students became more proficient with their strategy use, the
expectations of the teacher increased as the students who were able were expected to
take on the expert’s role in the group (Palincsar & Brown, 1984).
The second study’s methods were the same. The difference in the second study
was that instead of Palincsar serving as the expert (teacher), trained teacher volunteers
used their previously established reading groups for this study. At the conclusion of
both studies, not only did comprehension scores improve but so did the quality of the
dialogues among the student groups. All students in RT groups made gains and
maintained their improved performance through maintenance and follow-up sessions
as well as generalization probes. This is evidence that students were able to transfer
(generalize) their skills from the lab to the classroom and vice versa. Three months
after intervention, a standardized reading text was given which did not show any
progress in vocabulary, but did show an average increase of 15 months for
comprehension.
In 1994, Rosenshine and Meister analyzed available studies of RT. They
looked at experimental and comparison groups, assessed student comprehension,
student learning of the strategies, and the quality of the instruction. The authors
35
identified two forms of RT: RT only (RTO) and explicit teaching of the strategies
before reciprocal teaching (ET-RT). Palincsar and Bown’s 1984 description of RT
included teaching of the strategies within the dialogues between teacher and
student(s). However, in 1987 Palincsar began introducing the four strategies prior to
the beginning of dialogues. Students were introduced to each strategy through
worksheet activities. No explanation for the change in method was provided.
The results of Rosenshine and Meister’s meta-analysis (1994) of reciprocal
teaching found that students made greater gains on experimenter-developed tests than
on standardized tests regardless of the type of student or the instructional approach.
They found that the most common method of RT used in these studies was ET-RT. No
relationship was found between the number of sessions and the significance of the
results. Group sizes ranged from 2-23 and the studies were equally effective using the
experimenter or a trained teacher to provide the intervention.
The strength of RT lies in the large amount of modeling and guided practice
provided. Students are able to participate gradually at their comfort levels. The use of
authentic materials and the four concrete strategies develops an independent strategy
user capable of understanding novel text. This cognitive-behavioral model teaches
generalization while teaching the strategy. However, the strategies are effective only
when the student knows how and when to use them. The contributions of Palincsar
and Brown through RT are that they coined the terms comprehension-fostering and
comprehension-monitoring. They identified strategies that, when used in combination,
lead to comprehension. They used authentic texts rather than worksheets and they
36
refined and popularized the instructional concept of scaffolding (Rosenshine &
Meister, 1994).
Since Meister and Rosenshine’s analysis of studies of RT, many more
researchers have successfully used RT in a variety of formats, with a variety of student
types and materials. For example, in 1996, Klingner and Vaughn used RT with ELL
and SWLD in high-school. They also used cross-aged peer tutoring in which older
students taught the RT strategies to younger students completely independent of the
teacher/researcher. In 1998, Alfassi used RT with remedial high school students and
found that RT was still a viable instructional technique that can be used in already
established, large classes. Finally, King and Johnson (1999) examined the extent to
which the dialogue helps readers construct meaning. They found that students
mirrored the guided feedback and praise used by the teachers while interacting with
their peers.
More recently, Lederer (2000) used RT with students in grades 4-6 during their
social studies instruction. Lederer himself acted as teacher researcher for the study and
found that SWLD in general education classes were successful developing questions
about the assigned text. Diehl (2005) found that students take ownership of their
learning, actively interacting with the text by making predictions, seeking clarification,
asking questions, and summarizing. This increased involvement with the text leads to
better comprehension and ultimately improved achievement.
The effects of RT have also been found to continue past the intervention
period. Palincsar and Brown (1984) and Westera and Moore (1995) reported that
students were able to maintain their comprehension skills after a limited amount of
37
exposure to RT. Palincsar and Brown exposed small groups of middle-school students
to RT in a resource room for 20 days. Students did not receive instruction using RT for
three months, yet improvements in reading comprehension were still evident on a
follow-up test. Westera and Moore (1995) used RT with eight small groups of eighth-
grade students during their reading classes. The pretest and intervention period took
place early in the school year. Within a five-week time period, three of the eight
groups received the intervention for 12-16 days, while five of the groups received only
6-8 days of instruction using RT. The posttest was given mid-year. The students who
received 12-16 days of RT made significant gains in reading comprehension, but the
students who received only 6-8 days of RT did not. At the end of the school year, a
follow-up test was given to the students who received 12-16 days of RT during a five-
week period at the beginning of the school year. Results of the follow-up test indicated
that students maintained their improved reading comprehension scores without further
exposure to RT.
Summary
A review of literature found that intermediate elementary students (grades 4
and 5), including students among the specific student categories of: (a) students
identified as at-risk (AR); (b) students with learning disabilities (SWLD); and (c)
students in general education (GE) are struggling to become scientifically literate in
their general education classrooms.
One of the reasons that these students are struggling to become scientifically
literate is an inability to acquire science knowledge from science books. Part of
science literacy involves “reading, comprehending, and evaluating media reports and
38
diverse forms of scientific writing” (Yore et al., 2003, p. 706). Unfortunately, many
elementary students are not exposed to science texts daily or even regularly because of
the pressure to prepare students to perform well on high stakes math and reading tests
(Ehren, 2009; Manzo, 2008; Marx & Harris, 2006: Pratt, 2007). Lack of experience
with science texts can result in limited development of background knowledge needed
to understand science content (Hapgood & Palincsar, 2007; Kroeger, et al., 2009).
Further, time taken away from reading science text can lead to a lack of development
of comprehension skills needed for expository text. Even though many students are
successful at comprehension of narrative text, it does not necessarily translate to
success with expository text (Kinniburgh & Shaw, 2009; Pagés, 2002; Palincsar &
Duke, 2004). Lack of exposure to science and science texts and the science knowledge
and training in the skills needed to comprehend these texts may be the cause of the
struggle to attain scientific literacy.
Teachers recognize that literacy problems can impede student progress and
create barriers to understanding science content (Education Development Center, n.d.)
thus preventing many students from becoming scientifically literate citizens
(Palincsar, n.d.). To successfully comprehend text, students need experience with the
type of text to be read (Duke, 2000; Palincsar, n.d.) and prior knowledge of the subject
matter (Barton et al., 2002; Ehren, 2009). They need to effectively and efficiently use
metacognitive and cognitive strategies in a meaningful context (Duke, 2004; Palincsar,
n.d.). Finally, they need the self-confidence and motivation to complete the task
(Dickson et al., 1998).
39
Elementary students, including those students who are AR, SWLD, as well as
GE, have shown improvement in reading comprehension when explicitly instructed in
cognitive and metacognitive strategies to comprehend expository text in a setting that
supports collaboration and flexible application of comprehension strategies and
provides appropriate, meaningful opportunities for reading and writing (Mastropieri &
Scruggs, 2004; Palincsar & Klenk, 1992). RT can be used to enhance students’
independence in comprehending any text (Marks et al., 1993); however, it has been
particularly useful with expository text (Palincsar & Brown, 1987; Lysynchuk,
Pressley, & Vye, 1990). RT has been found to be effective because it provides for
specific, guided practice using the four strategies- summarizing, questioning,
clarifying, and predicting-to enhance children’s ability to construct meaning of text
and self-monitor understanding of text (NRP, 2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).
RT has been used during content area instruction, using social studies materials to
increase reading comprehension skills of intermediate elementary students without
disabilities in general education classrooms (Lubliner, 2004). Lederer (2000) used RT
during social studies content instruction, while King and Johnson (1999) used RT
science content instruction to improve the general literacy/reading comprehension
skills of students with and without disabilities in general education classrooms. The
effects of RT on reading comprehension have been maintained by students as
demonstrated by scores on follow-up tests completed after the intervention period.
However, no study has focused on determining if RT improves science literacy and if
students are able to maintain higher levels of science literacy after the intervention
period.
40
Chapter 3
Method
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of reciprocal teaching
(RT) on the science literacy of intermediate elementary students (grades 4-5) in
inclusive classes during science instruction. Students in the categories of learning
disabilities (SWLD), at-risk (AR), and general education (GE) were targeted for this
study. General education teachers trained in RT facilitated instruction using the district
approved fourth- and fifth-grade science texts in inclusive classes. After 20 days, an
evaluation of changes in science literacy was made using ten-question, multiple-
choice, curriculum-based science measures. Four weeks after the intervention period,
follow-up tests were given to determine if the students maintained the science literacy
scores from the posttest.
Setting
This study took place at an elementary school in West Palm Beach, Florida.
The staff included 32 general education teachers. Eight of these teachers instructed
dual language (English and Spanish) classes. There were six resource teachers: one
Reading Coach, one Science Coach, one Math Coach, one SAI (Supplemental
Academic Instruction) teacher, one RtI (Response to Intervention) Specialist, and a
Learning Team Facilitator (LTF). The school had seven fine arts teachers. There were
two ESOL teachers, three Community Language Facilitators (CLF; two Spanish and
one Haitian-Creole), and an ESOL coordinator. There were eight special education
41
teachers, four speech-language pathologists, an ESE Coordinator, and ten ESE
paraprofessionals. Other staff members included a principal, an assistant principal, and
a school nurse.
The total population of students was 769. The racial and ethnic make-up of the
school was 17 % White (n = 130), 17% Black (n =130), 60% Hispanic (n = 460), and
six percent other (n = 49). Eighteen percent of the population (n = 136) received
services from ESE. Twenty-nine percent of the students (n = 221) received services
from ESOL. Seventy-eight percent of the students (n = 602) received free or reduced
price meals (School District of Palm Beach County [SDPBC], 2010). This school was
identified as a Title I school because of its percentage of students eligible for free or
reduced price meals. The required percentage for eligibility is 40% (SDPBC, 2009).
This school earned a school grade of “A” as determined by Florida’s A+ Plan
For Education (“Florida’s A+ Plan”, n.d.) for the 2008-2009 school year. Despite
meeting the criteria to earn a school grade of “A” (see Appendix A), the school did not
make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in the area of reading for the subgroups of
Black students and Students with Disabilities (SWD) as determined by scores on the
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (Florida Department of Education [FLDOE],
2009e). AYP is the measurement used to evaluate student progress toward mastering
state academic content standards (Christy, n.d.a). Florida uses these results to
determine if districts and schools made AYP in reading and mathematics (FLDOE,
2009a).
42
Participants
Teachers. Teachers of kindergarten through fifth-grade team-taught during the
2009-2010 school year. One teacher provided instruction in language arts for two
classes of students in the same grade, the other teacher taught math and science to both
classes.
By law, students with disabilities should be educated in the least restrictive
environment, giving them full access to the general education curriculum in a general
education setting “while simultaneously meeting the unique special needs”
(Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2004, p. 16) of each student with a disability. To do this,
many school districts provide a continuum of services identified as levels from least to
most restrictive. A student is placed in a particular setting based on his or her
individual needs as per his or her Individual Education Program (IEP). Students with
disabilities on the campus of the target school received special education services
along the continuum reflecting Level I (consultative services) through Level IV (full-
time special class). Five teachers taught full-time special classes for students with
severe disabilities whose academic and/or emotional needs could not be met in a
general education classroom. Many students with disabilities receive their special
education services in inclusive general education classrooms (Mastropieri & Scruggs,
2004; Taylor, Smiley, & Richards, 2009). The general education teachers who taught
these inclusive classes co-taught math and reading with special education teachers.
Three special education teachers provided consultative and direct services to the
students in these classes. One class in each grade (n=5), except kindergarten, was
43
designated as the inclusive class. The intact fourth and fifth grade classes were
selected to receive science instruction using RT.
Science teachers (n=2) assigned to the inclusive fourth- and fifth-grade classes
participated in this study. The teacher of the fifth-grade class was in his fourth year of
teaching. He has taught fifth-grade all four years. The teacher of the fourth-grade class
was also in her fourth year of teaching fourth-grade. She has a degree in social work
but has alternative certification to teach.
Students. Students identified as AR for academic failure, SWLD, and students
who are GE-those who do not receive special academic services-were targeted for this
study. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA ’04) does not
provide a concrete definition for school-age students at-risk for academic failure
(Taylor et al., 2009), but researchers have identified several indicators that
characterize students as at-risk including: (a) low academic achievement, (b) living in
poverty, (c) living in a violent neighborhood, (d) having parents with little or no
education, (e) family dysfunction, (f) experiencing high levels of mobility, (g) being a
minority student, (h) being a non-native English speaker, and (i) being a male student
(Beken, Williams, Combs, & Slate, 2009; Donnelly, 1987; Karoly, Kilburn, &
Cannon, 2005; Riley, 2006; Taylor et al., 2009). For the purpose of this study, students
were identified as AR if they met four of the following characteristics selected by the
researcher: (a) low academic achievement as demonstrated by below grade level
scores on the FY’09 FCAT Reading, predicted levels from the Fall Diagnostic
Reading Assessment, and the Fall SRI (Scholastic Reading Inventory) score, (b) living
in poverty based on eligibility for free or reduced price meals, (c) being a minority
44
student as documented on student registration forms, (d) being a non-native English
speaker based on ESOL status, and (e) being a male student. Students were identified
as having learning disabilities based on their previously established eligibility to
receive services from ESE. Students were identified as general education (GE) if they
were not categorized as a student who is AR or SWLD.
Students enrolled in the fourth- and fifth-grade inclusion classes (n=40)
participated in this study. Data collection and analysis included only students who
agreed to participate in the study as stated on the student assent forms and returned
signed parental consent forms indicating permission to participate in the study (see
Appendix B). Of the combined classes, 34 students’ data were used in the study. Of
those students, 19 students were enrolled in fifth-grade and 15 in fourth-grade, 14
were identified as SWLD, 10 were identified as AR. The remaining 10 were identified
as GE students (n=34).
Materials
The district-approved fourth- and fifth-grade science texts, Science: Florida
Edition (Bell et al., 2007a; 2007b), were used. The content of the texts is aligned with
the Sunshine State Standards. The text for each grade-level is broken down into seven
strands- Matter, Energy, Force and Motion, Processes That Shape the Earth, Earth
and Space, Processes of Life, and How Living Things Interact with Their
Environment- which include 2-3 chapters each. Each chapter is then divided into 2-4
lessons. Each lesson begins with a hands-on activity followed by 3-4 pages of text.
Text pages include photographs, graphs, and vocabulary highlighted in yellow.
Comprehension skills such as main idea and details, compare and contrast, cause and
45
effect, and sequencing are embedded in the text in the form of questions and graphic
organizers. Focus (comprehension) skills are also included in chapter relevant to the
text content. The content of each lesson can be covered in one class session.
Instrumentation
The lessons for the tests were chosen from sections of the text scheduled to be
covered later in each grade’s scope and sequence to ensure that the students had not
read the lessons prior to completing the tests. Six, multiple-choice, curriculum-based
science measures were developed based on targeted lessons in the science texts. One
pretest, one posttest, and one follow-up test for both fourth- and fifth-grades (n=6)
were developed by the researcher with assistance from the school’s Science Coach.
Each 10-question test was developed using three question types to increase internal
validity of the tests. Each question type was based on the relationship between the
question and the answer as well as the types of cognitive processes required to answer
the questions. Raphael and Pearson (1985) described three question-answer
relationships: (a) text explicit, (b) text implicit, and (c) script implicit. Text explicit
questions were literal questions whose answers were found in one sentence of text.
Text implicit questions could also be found in the text, but the student would have to
integrate information from more than one section of the text. Script implicit questions
required the student to apply background knowledge because the answer to the
question was not found in the text. In an attempt to create tests which were equally
demanding cognitively, each test contained five text explicit questions, four text
implicit questions, and one script implicit question. Scores from these tests were used
46
to determine changes in science literacy. Copies of each test can be found in Appendix
C.
Procedures
Teacher training. Teachers assigned to the inclusive fourth- and fifth-grade
classes agreed to participate in the study and signed consent forms (see Appendix B).
The consent forms included a confidentiality agreement as well as permission for the
researcher and another person of her choosing to complete periodic unscheduled
fidelity checks in their classrooms.
Each teacher was given a copy of the video Reciprocal Teaching Strategies at
Work: Improving Reading Comprehension, Grades 2-6 (Oczkus, 2003b) to watch
prior to meeting with the researcher to complete training for the study. Teacher
training was completed with each teacher individually. During the training session, the
researcher explained reciprocal teaching including the theoretical background,
components of the model, and past research. The goals for the study and the materials
to be used were also described and presented. This information was conveyed through
the use of a power point presentation as well as display and discussion of the materials
used in the study by the teachers and students and presented in a binder (see Appendix
D). Teachers were directed to review daily lesson plans and materials as well as daily
scripts prior to presenting to their classes.
Teachers were also provided with posters of The Fantastic Four Strategies,
targeted Fix-up Strategies, and Question Words to display in their classrooms (see
Appendix E). The posters are pointed out to students in the teacher scripts as students
47
are reminded to refer to the information on the posters as they work in their small
groups.
Instructional procedures. Student assent forms, parent letters describing the
study, and parent consent forms were available in English, Spanish, and Haitian-
Creole. All translated forms were double-sided. The English translation of each form
(student assent, parent letter, and parent consent) was on the back of each form
presented in Spanish and Haitian-Creole in case the individual reading the form was
more literate in the other language (see Appendix B). All students participating in the
ESOL program as well as students whose school registration indicated Hispanic or
Haitian-Creole heritage were provided with double-sided parent letters and consent
forms. Additionally, if a student requested a translated form it was provided.
Students were asked to sign the student assent forms indicating their agreement
or refusal to participate in the study. The CLFs (Spanish and Haitian-Creole) were
available to answer questions and make sure each student understood what he or she
was signing.
A letter describing the study as well as parent consent forms were sent home
with each student in his/her native language. Students were asked to return the signed
forms to the researcher by a predetermined date in exchange for the opportunity to
choose a trinket (e.g., glow-in-the-dark slinky, super ball, brain-shaped erasers) from
the Treasure Box. All students who returned a signed parental consent form-in
agreement or refusal-selected a trinket. However, only the data of the students who
agreed to participate in the study and whose parent agreed to allow them to participate
in the study were used to determine the effectiveness of RT on science literacy.
48
After the consent forms were received by the researcher, pre-intervention data
were gathered. Students completed the pretest according to the grade level in which
they were enrolled. Students independently read the lesson from their science text
from which the questions on the pretest were created. All students in the class
completed the pretest, but only the scores from the students who individually agreed to
participate in the study as indicated on assent forms and who had returned their signed
parent consent indicating permission to participate in the study were used in statistical
analyses.
Students’ present level of reading performance were established using scores
from the FY’09 FCAT Reading, predicted levels from the Fall Diagnostic Reading
Assessment, and the Fall SRI score. The researcher used this information in
conjunction with a method described by Kagan and Kagan (2006) as Forming Teams
(see Appendix F) to create mixed ability groups of four-five students. In Forming
Teams, student information is written on individual index cards. Each card should
include student name, reading scores, and gender. Each card also includes a color code
indicating reading levels at, above, minimally below, and below grade level. The
teacher would then sort students into heterogeneous groups. This process was
particularly difficult to complete for this study because all classes were
homogeneously grouped. Therefore, most students in both classes were struggling
readers. To adjust for this type of grouping, the following changes were made.
Individual index cards were created; however, gender was replaced by specific
categories (AR, SWLD, and GE). Groups were created based on reading scores and
reading levels. Student learning categories were also considered as equally capable
49
learning teams were created. The fourth-grade class had five groups of students, four
groups of four students and one group of five students. The fifth-grade class had four
groups of students, three groups of five students and two groups of four students.
Students remained in these groups for the duration of the study.
Implementation of the treatment condition, reciprocal teaching (RT), began
after completion of the pretests and continued for a total of 20 school days. A brief
overview of the objectives, teacher roles, student roles, and materials used on each day
of the intervention period is provided in Appendix G. All 20 lessons for implementing
RT were completed, but they were not implemented for 20 consecutive school days
due to grade level field trips, mandatory diagnostic testing and review, completion of
required labs, school wide professional development days, and teacher absence.
Substitute teachers were not permitted to implement the lesson plans from the study.
Teachers were instructed to provide alternate plans for substitutes.
Each day during the intervention (RT) phase of the study, teachers followed
the lesson plans and used the scripts provided by the researcher. The lesson plans
followed Palm Beach County’s Curriculum Frameworks and covered the pages of the
textbooks these plans dictated. The scripts included teacher directions and dialogue for
introducing and practicing The Fantastic Four Strategies while reading grade level
science text. The strategies were introduced and practiced systematically to familiarize
the students with the language of reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1987;
Palincsar et al., 1989). Explicit explanation of each strategy and its purpose was
followed by guided and/or independent practice using the strategy while reading the
science text. A review was provided at the end of each lesson as well as plans for the
50
next day. The following paragraphs provide a detailed account of the introduction and
practice of the strategies using the grade-level science text.
The first four days of the study consisted of explicit training of each of The
Fantastic Four Strategies: the Superheroes of Reading Comprehension. The Fantastic
Four Strategies, predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing, were
introduced to each class as a group. Students practiced using each strategy by applying
it to the day’s assigned text in small groups after the teacher defined the strategy and
modeled its use to the whole class. This allowed the teacher to provide guided practice
with the targeted strategy after the strategy was introduced.
The strategies of RT, The Fantastic Four Strategies, were presented to students
as characters to help them assimilate to the roles they played in their cooperative
groups. This idea was also put in place to encourage the students to think aloud as they
participated in the group allowing for others to benefit from their thinking patterns and
allowing the teacher to correct any misconceptions about the content or the strategy
use. An additional character, group leader, was created to accommodate groups that
had five members instead of four. Teacher scripts included descriptions of each
character’s role and responsibilities in the group. The teacher binder included
overhead transparencies to be used as visual aids while the roles and responsibilities of
the characters were discussed (see Appendix H). Also included in the binder were
student bookmarks created to remind students of their roles and responsibilities as they
participated in their groups. Each bookmark was double-sided, displaying the female
character on one side and the male character on the other side (See Appendix I).
51
Even though the strategies were introduced separately, they were used
cumulatively every day. Each day the script began with a review of the strategies
practiced the previous day(s). For example, on Day 2, the strategy of questioning was
introduced to the whole group. The script included introduction and modeling of the
new strategy (questioning) and included using the strategy taught on Day 1
(predicting). Strategy use continued to build on Day 3 when the strategy for clarifying
was the focus. The strategies of predicting and questioning were used to show the
spiraling effect of the strategies and how they intertwine with one another. This
pattern continued on Day 4 when the strategy of summarizing was introduced. A mini-
lesson in how to form a good summary was provided by using an expanded retell of
the story of The Three Bears and contrasting the retell with a precise summary of the
main points. The teacher reviewed the contrast of retelling vs. summarizing using an
overhead (see Appendix H). The strategies of predicting, questioning, and clarifying
were again used at the appropriate times in the lesson to show the spiraling effect of
the strategies and how they intertwine with one another. The teacher reminded
students that good readers use more than one strategy at a time while they read
(Oczkus, 2003a). Each session concluded with the teacher reviewing the content of the
text by calling on individual students who did an excellent job playing their roles to
demonstrate how they used the strategy and explain how it helped him or her
understand a part of the text. Then the teacher provided an interactive review of the
strategies and their purposes. Last, the teacher informed the students what to expect
the next day.
52
Systematic and explicit instruction using The Fantastic Four Strategies
continued on Day 5. After a review of the strategies, their purposes and use, the
teacher modeled using The Fantastic Four Strategies as a think-aloud as he or she
interacted with a page of the day’s assignment. Students practiced using the four
strategies in their groups for the rest of the pages of the day’s assignment after teacher
modeling. On Day 6, students practiced using the strategies as characters in their
groups, one group at a time, while the other groups watched. The first step to
completing this day’s activity was to assign students in each group a role to play. The
characters developed to represent each strategy were adapted from Ozkus’ (2003a) and
Myers’ (2005) examples. One student from each group was assigned the role of Peggy
or Peter Predictor, Quinn or Quincy Questioner, Clara or Clarence Clarifier, or Sue
or Sammy Summarizer. The role of Lydia or Larry Leader was assigned to students
who were in groups of five. Roles were rotated among group members every day.
After roles were assigned to each student, the teacher handed out correlating
bookmarks for each character then documented role assignments using the researcher
created Teacher Tracking of Student Roles in Cooperative Groups form (see Appendix
J). The purpose of this documentation was to assist the teacher in making sure that
each student, in each group, had the opportunity to lead the group using each strategy
as designated by character roles.
Palincsar et al. (1989) suggested having the groups discuss one paragraph of
the text at a time allowing for all the members to contribute their parts (predicting,
questioning, summering, and clarifying). This lesson was set up so that one group
demonstrated using The Fantastic Four while the other groups observed. The teacher
53
provided the sequence for the groups by labeling groups as Group 1, Group 2, etc. The
teacher explained the procedures used in the groups, Group Directions, using an
overhead of the procedures as a visual aid (see Appendix H). When called on, the
group demonstrated using The Fantastic Four as they cooperatively worked through
one paragraph under the guidance of the teacher. First, all students in each group
previewed the text together. The Predictor from each group was called on to make
predictions before reading began. As each group read the text out loud, the Predictor
of that group confirmed or corrected predictions that were made by the Predictor of
the group. While reading, each student read one line of text until the group reached the
end of the paragraph. The second reader was the Questioner, third was the Clarifier,
and fourth (last) was the Summarizer, unless the group had a Leader then the Leader
read fifth (last). The rotation continued throughout the pages of the lesson carrying
over from paragraph to paragraph. As the students read the text, the Clarifier of the
group provided assistance as needed by recommending fix-up strategies. At the end of
each paragraph, the Predictor of the group confirmed or corrected the predictions, the
Questioner created at least one good question, and the Summarizer pointed out key
words, definitions, and details. When the group came to the end of the section, the
teacher guided the Summarizers in forming concise summaries of the section, which
included the key words, definitions, and details pointed out earlier. The teacher guided
the student observers by encouraging them to ask questions of the targeted group and
make comments and suggestions. The teacher reminded students to use information
from posters and bookmarks to help them use the strategies.
54
Teachers are encouraging students to become more independent by taking
charge of their learning. To assist teachers with this, the researcher created a page of
Coaching Prompts (see Appendix J). These prompts were recommendations for the
teachers to use if students were having difficulty using the strategies independently.
Also provided to the teachers by the researcher was information from Ozckus’ book
(2003a), which lists suggestions for helping students overcome difficulties with the
strategies. The teacher’s role throughout the rest of the intervention period was two-
fold. He or she needed to be available to guide the students toward expert use of the
strategies while fading out his or her support. The less dependent the students are on
the teacher for guidance, the more they will turn to their peers and themselves to
figure out what to do. The intention of this process was to create independent strategy
users in a realistic (authentic) setting.
Peer modeling and teacher coaching were used again on Day 7. Roles were
assigned to each student as the teacher handed out correlating bookmarks for each
character then documented role assignments using the researcher created Teacher
Tracking of Student Roles in Cooperative Groups form (see Appendix J). The teachers
provided support and encouragement for both the students demonstrating use of the
strategies as well as the students watching their peers perform. They encouraged the
audience of peers to be interactive in the lesson by assisting them in making comments
and corrections about the group reading. He or she reminded students to use
information from posters and bookmarks to help them use the strategies. The teacher
used the Coaching Prompts and suggestions for helping students overcome difficulties
with the strategies (see Appendix J) as needed. This day’s lesson concluded with the
55
teacher reviewing the content of the text by reminding the class about individual
students who did an excellent job playing their roles and using the strategy and how it
helped them understand a part of the text.
Peer modeling and peer coaching were used on Day 8. Roles were assigned to
each student as the teacher handed out correlating bookmarks for each character then
documented role assignments using the researcher created Teacher Tracking of
Student Roles in Cooperative Groups form (see Appendix J). The students (peers)
watching the students (peers) working their way through a paragraph using The
Fantastic Four provided assistance as needed by offering suggestions for revisions of
questions and summaries. They provided reminders to confirm or correct predictions
as they came up and recommended the use of fix-up strategies. They also offered
compliments for a job well done. The teacher relinquished more control on this day as
his or her interactions were limited to calling on an observer (peer) to comment/correct
or to provide additional guidance/explanation as needed. The teacher referred to the
Coaching Prompts and suggestions for helping students overcome difficulties with the
strategies (see Appendix J) as needed. Concluding this day’s lesson was a review of
the content through highlighting excellent strategy use by the students as well as
appropriate comments and corrections from peers watching. The teacher reviewed the
strategies and their purposes and informed the students what they were going to do
during science time the next day.
Days 9 and 10 were set up for guided independent practice for all groups. The
teacher instructed the students to work through a (sub) section of the text before
bringing the class back together to review. After the roles were assigned and
56
documented, the students were instructed to get into character and read until they
reached the bolded heading. This was usually no more than 6 paragraphs on one page.
The teacher monitored strategy use as he or she circulated among the groups. The
teacher referred to the Coaching Prompts and suggestions for helping students
overcome difficulties with the strategies (see Appendix J) as needed. The teacher
allowed the groups 10 minutes to work through the section before bringing them back
together to review the content of the section of the lesson by highlighting excellent
strategy use by the students and appropriate and useful comments and corrections
within the group. This procedure of instructing the students to work through a (sub)
section of text then coming back together to review was repeated until the lesson was
completed.
On Days 9 and 10 the teacher also began monitoring each student’s
participation in the group using researcher-created Group Performance Checklist (see
Appendix J). These simple checklists included straightforward questions to guide the
teacher in monitoring student competency with the text and the strategies. The teacher
could use the information on these checklists to recognize which students were
moving into independent use of the strategies and understanding the text, as well as
who needed more help understanding the content and using the strategies. The
teachers were asked to use these checklists each day for the remainder of the study.
Beginning on Day 11 and continuing for the remainder of the days of the
study, the students worked independently in their groups to complete the assigned
lesson of text independently. Each day the teacher assigned roles to each student,
handed out correlating bookmarks for each character, and documented role
57
assignments using the researcher-created Teacher Tracking of Student Roles in
Cooperative Groups form (see Appendix J). The teacher wrote the pages of text to
read on the white board and put the Group Directions (see Appendix H) page on the
overhead then instructed the students to get started. The teacher circulated among the
groups providing limited feedback using the Coaching Prompts (see Appendix J) and
suggestions for helping students overcome difficulties with the strategies as needed.
The teacher also monitored each student’s participation in the group using a
researcher-created Group Performance Checklist (see Appendix J). The use of this
informal assessment provided valuable information on each student’s strategy use and
understanding of the content in the text. After 25-30 minutes, the teacher brought the
group back together. She or he did not review the text or highlight students who were
using their strategy especially well in the group. For the remainder of the study, the
teacher only asked if there were any questions about the text then concluded the
session.
The researcher had daily contact with the teachers throughout the intervention
period to answer questions and make minor adjustments to the lesson plans as needed.
Teachers required clarification regarding scaffolding techniques and the use of
coaching prompts. Lesson plans needed to be adjusted for the fourth-grade class on
two occasions because of time constraints and the length of the text to be covered. On
the days that the fourth-grade teacher introduced the strategies of questioning and
summarizing, the teacher used an extended amount of time to demonstrate the
strategies, not leaving enough time to complete all pages of text. The researcher
changed the lesson plans to include completion of reading of the previous day’s text.
58
The script for the day did not change in content presented (strategy use), but the pages
used to introduce and practice using the strategy changed to reflect the lesson plans.
After the 20th
day of RT, all students completed the posttest according to the
grade level in which they were enrolled. Students independently read the lesson from
their science text from which the questions on the posttest were created. The
researcher did not provide lesson plans or scripts after the 20th
day of RT, which
consequently led to the cessation of RT being used in both classes. Both teachers
returned to using lessons provided by the county. Four weeks after the completion of
the posttest, all students completed a follow-up test according to the grade level in
which they were enrolled. Students independently read the lesson from their science
texts from which the questions on the follow-up were created.
Treatment fidelity was monitored in both classes on four occasions via
unscheduled observations completed by the researcher and the school’s Science Coach
using a protocol developed by Hart and Speece (1998; see Appendix K). These
protocols were completed while observing both classes on four separate occasions:
pre-intervention (Observation 1), once during the first week of the intervention phase
(Observation 2), once during the final week of the intervention phase (Observation 3),
and one time after the cessation of the intervention (Observation 4). Before each
observation, the researcher reviewed with the Science Coach the two phases listed on
the protocol and provided a description of what each question on the protocol was
examining. The protocol divides the implementation of RT into two phases. Phase 1
is the introductory phase which focuses on the teacher. During this phase, teachers are
rated on a Likert scale for three points: (a) The instructor operationally defined the
59
independent variable, reciprocal teaching; (b) The instructor models each of the four
strategies using think-alouds; and (c) The instructor uses prompts to recall the
definition of each strategy during the lesson. The researcher and the school’s Science
Coach used Phase 1 of the protocol during the pre-intervention (Observation 1) and
again within the first five days of the intervention period (Observation 2). The
observers completed individual protocols for each teacher and did not talk to one
another until after the observation was scored. “The fidelity index was calculated by
adding the points awarded for each section, dividing the total number of possible
points, and converting this score to a percentage” (Hart & Speece, 1998; p 674). The
researcher calculated the fidelity index for individual observations completed by both
observers. Then she averaged the scores, which produced one score for Observation 1
and one score for Observation 2.
The fidelity index of Observation 1 for both the fourth- and fifth-grade classes
was 0% indicating no use of RT reciprocal teaching prior to the intervention. The
fidelity index for Observation 2 was 33% for the fourth-grade class and 11% for the
fifth-grade class. This indicates that the fourth-grade teacher was using more of the
reciprocal teaching strategies and procedures than the fifth-grade. Interrater reliability
for the two observations was calculated as a simple percentage of agreement (Mertens,
2005). Interrater reliability for Observations 1 and 2 was 100% indicating consistent
findings.
Phase 2 of the protocol examines both teacher and student performance.
Students have already been introduced to RT and the core strategies. At this point,
students should be participating in their small groups using the strategies and taking on
60
leadership roles as they interact with their peers applying the strategies while reading
the text. The teacher should continue to model use of the strategies (as needed) and
provide support to the students as they learn to use the strategies effectively in their
groups. If the teachers follow the prescribed lessons, the observations should reflect a
transfer of leadership to the students as they become more independent of the teacher,
thus requiring less modeling. During this phase, teachers and students are rated on a
Likert scale on four points: (a) The instructor models the four strategies in the
beginning of the group sessions; (b) The instructor uses the supports of feedback,
praise, modeling, and explanation; (c) Students participate in group discussions, d)
Students assume leadership role in the groups.
The fidelity index for Observation 3 was 55% for the 4th-grade class and 50%
for the 5th-grade class. The fidelity index for Observation 4 was 0% for both classes
indicating discontinued use of the RT. Interrater reliability for Observation 3 was 75%
indicating somewhat consistent findings. Interrater reliability for Observation 4 was
100% indicating consistent findings.
Research Design and Analysis
A quasi-experimental design with a pretest and posttest of science literacy
given at the beginning and end of the 20 day intervention period was used. A follow-
up test was given four weeks after the posttest for further analysis of the effect of
reciprocal teaching. The independent variables for this study were the implementation
of RT and the discontinuation of RT during science instruction. The dependent
variables were difference between the pretest and posttest scores and the difference
between the posttest and follow-up test scores.
61
Four dependent t-tests were used to test each hypothesis. The alpha level for
each analysis was set at 0.05. The first dependent t-test compared the means of the
pretest and posttest scores to determine if there was an improvement in science
literacy for all students after implementation of RT. A second dependent t-test
compared the means of the pretest scores with the means of the posttest scores for
students with learning disabilities, students identified as at-risk, and those in general
education. Another dependent t-test was completed for the complete student sample
comparing the means of the posttest and follow-up scores. This analysis determined if
there would be differences in science literacy four weeks after the intervention period.
The final dependent t-test compared the means of the posttest scores and follow-up
scores among groups to assess differences in science literacy four weeks after the
intervention period.
Effect size of each analysis was also computed to determine the distance
between group means in terms of their standard deviation (Mertens, 2005). The effect
size was computed using the difference between the means divided by the pooled
standard deviations of each group.
62
Chapter 4
Results
This study examined the effects of reciprocal teaching on the science literacy
of intermediate elementary students (grades 4-5) participating in inclusive classes
during science instruction. Students were given a pretest prior to the intervention
period and a posttest immediately after the intervention period ended. Four weeks after
the intervention period, students were given a follow up test. Each test included ten,
multiple-choice questions based on targeted lessons in the science texts. Additional
analyses were conducted to determine the effects among three specific student
categories: (a) students identified as at-risk (AR), (b) students with learning
disabilities (SWLD), and (c) students in general education (GE). All effects were
assessed by examining scores on the three curriculum-based science measures. Four
null hypotheses were examined:
1. There are no statistically significant differences in the science literacy scores from
pretest to posttest of intermediate elementary students (grades 4 and 5) in inclusive
settings after the implementation of reciprocal teaching during science instruction.
2. There are no statistically significant differences in the science literacy scores from
pretest to posttest among specific student categories: (a) AR; (b) SWLD; and (c)
GE after the implementation of reciprocal teaching during science instruction.
63
3. There are no statistically significant differences in the science literacy scores from
posttest to follow-up test of intermediate elementary students (grades 4 and 5) in
inclusive settings after the intervention period ends.
4. There are no statistically significant differences in the science literacy scores from
posttest to follow-up among specific student categories.
Each hypothesis was tested using a dependent t-test. The alpha level for each
analysis was set at 0.05. The independent variable for Hypotheses 1 and 2 was the
implementation of reciprocal teaching during science instruction in inclusive settings.
The dependent variable was the difference between the pretest and posttest scores. The
independent variable for Hypotheses 3 and 4 was the removal of reciprocal teaching
during science instruction in inclusive settings. The dependent variable was the
difference between the posttest and follow-up test scores.
Effect of Reciprocal Teaching (H1)
The mean of the posttest (M= 8.15; SD = 1.88) was greater than the mean for
the pretest (M = 4.88; SD = 1.70) for the group of 34 students. The dependent t-test
showed the difference between the two means was statistically significant t (33) =
8.05, p < .05. There was a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.83). Because there was a
statistically significant difference between the mean of the pretest and posttest, the null
hypothesis (H1) was rejected.
Effect of Reciprocal Teaching on Student Groups (H2)
Students at-risk. The mean of the posttest (M= 7.60; SD = 1.58) was greater
than the mean for the pretest (M = 4.50; SD = 1.08). The dependent t-test showed the
64
difference between the two means was statistically significant t (9) =4.50, p < .05.
There was a very large effect size (Cohen’s d =2.30).
Students with learning disabilities. The mean of the posttest (M= 8.50; SD =
1.65) was greater than the mean for the pretest (M = 5.00; SD = 2.08). The dependent
t-test showed the difference between the two means was statistically significant t (13)
= 5.40, p < .05. There was a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.87).
Students in general education. The mean of the posttest (M=8.20; SD = 2.44)
was greater than the mean for the pretest (M = 5.10; SD = 1.73). The dependent t-test
showed the difference between the two means was statistically significant t (9) = 3.71,
p < .05. There was a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.47).
Because there was a statistically significant difference among all three specific
student categories, the null hypothesis (H2) was rejected.
Posttest-Follow-up Results (H3)
The mean of the follow-up test (M= 6.97; SD = 1.87) was less than the mean
for the posttest (M = 8.15; SD = 1.88) for the group of students. The dependent t-test
showed the difference between the two means was statistically significant t (33) =
3.19, p < .05. There was a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = .63). Because there was a
significant difference in the posttest and follow-up scores, the null hypothesis (H3) was
rejected.
Analysis of the difference between the means for the posttest and the follow-up
scores revealed a mean decrease of 1.18 points. This indicates that when reciprocal
teaching was discontinued during science instruction, there was a slight, but
significant, decline in science scores. To establish whether the decline in these scores
65
was meaningful, an additional inquiry is provided. In this comparison, the difference
in the scores between pretest and posttest are contrasted with the previously obtained
difference in scores between the posttest and follow-up (see Figure 1). The mean for
the pretest scores
Effect of Reciprocal Teaching
4.88
8.15
6.97
0
2
4
6
8
10
Pretest Postttest Follow-up
Assessments
Mea
n S
core
s
Figure 1
was 49% while the mean of the posttest scores was 82%. This indicates an increase of
33 percentage points. However, the mean for the follow-up scores was 70%. This
indicates a decrease in the scores by 12 percentage points. Although students’ science
literacy decreased from posttest to follow-up, this difference was far less than the
increase in science literacy from the pretest to the posttest.
Posttest-Follow-up Results of Student Groups (H4)
Students at-risk. The mean of the follow-up test (M = 6.20; SD = 2.40) was
less than the mean for the posttest (M =7.60; SD = 1.58). The dependent t-test showed
the difference between the two means was not statistically significant t (9) = 2.04, p >
.05. There was a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = .69). Figure 2 shows the differences
in scores from the pretest, posttest, and follow-up test for students who are AR.
66
Students At-Risk
4.5
7.6
6.2
0
2
4
6
8
10
Pretest Posttest Follow-up
AssessmentsM
eans
Figure 2
Students with learning disabilities. The mean of the follow-up test (M =
7.14; SD = 1.83) was less than the mean for the posttest (M =8.50; SD = 1.65). The
dependent t-test showed the difference between the two means was not statistically
significant t (13) = 2.17, p > .05. There was a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = .78).
Figure 3 shows the differences in scores from the pretest, posttest, and follow-up test
for SWLD.
Students with Learning Disabilities
5
8.5
7.14
0
2
4
6
8
10
Pretest Posttest Follow-up
Assessments
Mea
ns
Figure 3
Students in general education. The mean of the follow-up test (M = 7.50; SD
= 1.10) was less than the mean for the posttest (M = 8.20; SD = 2.44). The dependent
t-test showed the difference between the two means was not statistically significant t
67
(9) = 1.11, p > .05. There was a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = .37). Figure 4 shows
the differences in scores from the pretest, posttest, and follow-up test for GE students.
Students in General Education
5.1
8.27.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Pretest Posttest Follow-up
Assessments
Mean
s
Figure 4
The difference between each set of scores comparing posttest to follow-up test
was not statistically significant; therefore the null hypothesis (H4) was not rejected.
68
Chapter 5
Discussion
This study investigated the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching (RT) during
science instruction in inclusive, intermediate elementary classes with students in the
specific student categories of: (a) students identified as at-risk (AR); (b) students with
learning disabilities (SWLD); and (c) students in general education (GE). The purpose
of this study was to determine if the use of (RT) methods during inclusive science
instruction would develop the skills needed to comprehend scientific texts and thus
enhance students’ ability to become scientifically literate citizens.
Previous studies have used RT with 4th
- and 5th
-grade students in general
education settings using expository texts such as those provided in basal readers,
historical nonfiction, and science and social studies texts. Additionally, general
education teachers have implemented RT in general education settings with the entire
class (Bottomley & Osborn, 1993; Hess, 2004). Hess (2004) also included students
who were AR in her study sample, whereas Bottomley and Osborn (1993) did not
indicate the inclusion of students with any special needs in their study. Bottomley and
Osborn (1993) used several assessments to determine the effect of RT on student
comprehension of expository text. First they provided an expository passage at the
student reading levels and had the students write out answers to comprehension
questions about the passage. A criterion-referenced test assessed students’ ability to
69
effectively use RT strategies. In this test, students were given an expository passage
then asked to write a brief summary, create questions, write about where they needed
clarification of the text, and predict what might happen next. Additionally in this test,
students were required to provide written responses to short answer questions about
the same passage. The researchers did not indicate if the assessments used the same
content (science or social studies). Hess (2004) used expository text from basal
readers, historical non-fiction, and science and social studies texts. However, the focus
of her study was not student comprehension of content area text. This study focused
on teacher implementation of RT during content area instruction as measured by
teacher surveys, interviews, and observation. Student progress using the strategies of
RT was also measured using surveys and observation. Student achievement in reading
comprehension was assessed using the Steck-Vaughn Reading Assessment as well as
school district criterion-referenced tests of reading comprehension.
The present study was different because it took place in inclusive science
classes, used authentic materials and measurements based on the content from the
authentic texts, with the intention of improving science literacy- specifically, science
comprehension. This study also included researcher-created materials (teacher scripts,
classroom posters, and individual student visual aids) to assist teachers’
implementation of RT.
Statistically significant improvements in the science literacy scores from the
pretest to the posttest were made by all students as well as by each of the specific
groups of students involved in the study. The combined fourth- and fifth-grade classes,
mean scores improved by 33%. Students who are AR as well as GE students’ mean
70
scores improved 31%. The greatest improvements in science literacy were among
SWLD. Their mean score from pretest to posttest improved by 35%.
Another purpose of this study was to determine if students maintained the
skills needed to comprehend scientific texts after the intervention period ended.
Palincsar and Brown (1984) and Westera and Moore (1995) reported that students
were able to maintain their comprehension skills after limited exposure to RT.
Palincsar and Brown exposed small groups of middle-school students to RT in a
resource room for 20 days, then administered a posttest which revealed gains in
reading comprehension. Students did not receive instruction using RT for three
months, yet improvements in reading comprehension were still evident on a follow-up
test. Westera and Moore (1995) used RT with eight small groups of eighth-grade
students during their reading classes. The pretest and intervention period took place
early in the school year. Within a five week time period, three of the eight groups
received the intervention for 12-16 days, while five of the groups received only 6-8
days of instruction using RT. The posttest was given mid-year. The students who
received 12-16 days of RT made significant gains in reading comprehension, but the
students who received only 6-8 days of RT did not. At the end of the school year, a
follow-up test was given to the students who received 12-16 days of RT during a five
week period at the beginning of the school year. Results of the follow-up test indicated
that students maintained their improved reading comprehension scores without further
exposure to RT.
Unfortunately, in this study, student scores for the total group of students from
posttest to follow-up test decreased significantly. The mean score declined from 82%
71
to 70% indicating a decrease in comprehension of science content. Science literacy
scores for students in the specific student categories also declined, but not
significantly. Mean scores from posttest to follow-up test for students who are AR,
GE, and SWLD dropped from 76% to 62%, 82% to 75%, and 85% to 71%
respectively.
The likely reason for this conflicting finding-the mean of scores for the total
group of students being significant, but the means of the scores for the subgroups not-
is a lack of power in the study due to the small (N = 34) sample size. Murphy and
Myors (2004) stated “with a small enough N, there might not be enough power to
reliably detect the effects of even the most substantial treatments” (p. 7). Further, this
study weighted all of the groups equally even though they did not have an equal
number of participants (N = 34; AR N = 10; SWLD N = 14; GE N = 10).
Overall, the results of this study support the belief that struggling readers, such
as those who are AR, SWLD as well as GE students, can demonstrate a more in depth
understanding of science after instruction using RT to develop metacognitive and
cognitive strategies effectively in a meaningful context as suggested by Casteel and
Isom (1994) and Palincsar (n.d.).
Educational Implications
This study has several positive educational implications for the use of RT. The
first is that RT can be used successfully to improve science literacy of students
grouped homogeneously, whose low academic performance occurs for diverse
reasons. The use of RT resulted in positive outcomes as demonstrated by increased
average scores from pretest to posttest of science literacy. The findings of this study
72
demonstrate that it is possible to improve the science literacy of struggling readers
using RT.
Struggling readers are inattentive, passive, and disorganized (Dickson, Collins,
Simmons, & Kame´enui, 1998; Reid & Lienemann, 2006). Another positive
implication for future use of RT in science classes was the informally observed
increase in active participation and the taking on of leadership roles from unlikely
students. It was observed that previously timid students took on leadership roles
within small groups. Students were apparently very motivated to complete the tasks
accurately as they were heard using the text to support their answers during student
dialogues. Students were also observed functionally using the materials provided
(individual bookmarks and classroom posters) to emphasize how they came to their
conclusions.
Yet another positive informal observation was that students who previously
misbehaved in academic settings and/or tuned-out during class activities were
observed to be on task and actively involved in deriving meaning from the text with
their peers. Struggling readers often lack confidence or become unmotivated to
participate because of a pattern of previous failure. Students typically act out or give
up because they feel they have no control over their success (Dickson et al., 1998;
Johnston, 1985; Vacca & Vacca, 2002). However, these students appeared happy and
motivated to complete daily activities.
The final positive educational implications for the use of RT has to do with the
setting in which this study took place. These gains in science literacy were made at a
large and diverse Title I elementary school. This school has many students who are
73
difficult to teach. The teachers implementing the intervention had limited teaching
experience. Yet, these students made gains in science literacy despite interruptions to
complete practice sessions for high stakes tests, school code red lockdowns due to
dangerous circumstances near the school campus, teacher absences, and preplanned
field trips. Another factor that resulted in the disruption of daily implementation of RT
was the additional requirement for professional development of teachers as called for
in the corrective action plan for a school that is a SINI (School In Need of
Improvement). The target school has not made AYP for four consecutive years and is
now undergoing corrective action (Florida Department of Education, 2009d; School
District of Palm Beach County, n.d.). Despite the added stress, these teachers followed
researcher-created scripts using district mandated materials and the students’ science
literacy scores improved. In this time of accountability and high stakes tests, it is
important not to underestimate the students’ capabilities. Even though schools are
under significant pressure to make AYP, it is important not to deprive struggling
students of more challenging and interesting work that could be more motivating for
them to employ the reading skills that they are being inundated with (Johannessen,
2003).
Limitations of the Study
Although this study produced significant improvements in the scientific
literacy of the targeted group of students, there are several limitations to this study.
The first limitation is the research design used. Many studies in education use a quasi-
experimental design because it is difficult to employ random assignment as most
groups (classes) are already created (Mertens, 2005). It would be possible to influence
74
group assignments if the researcher had access to student lists before they were
created. Unfortunately, this was not the case for this study. The School District of
Palm Beach County decided that elementary classes would be homogeneously
grouped for the 2009-2010 school year. This meant that students who were struggling
readers in general education, SWLD, and those who are AR were placed in the same
class. Therefore, each grade level at the target school had only one inclusive class.
This eliminated the possibility of completing the study using a treatment and a
comparison group for both grade levels, so the decision to use a quasi-experimental,
one-group, pretest-posttest design was made. This design includes threats of history
and maturation that could be the true reason for the change in science literacy scores
(Mertens, 2005).
The School District’s decision to group students homogeneously also had an
effect on the sample size of the study. Because only one fifth-grade and one fourth-
grade class were used in the study, a total of 34 students participated. Fortunately, the
sample provided enough variability to provide statistically significant differences.
Another area of concern regarding the results of the study is that non-
standardized measurements were used for pretests, posttests, and follow-up tests. Each
test was based on a different section of the text; therefore, each test covered different
content. Regrettably, the reliability of these researcher-created instruments is
unknown.
The final limitation of the study involved program implementation. As noted
earlier, students in the studies completed by Palincsar and Brown (1984) and Westera
and Moore (1995) were able to maintain their increased comprehension scores despite
75
only 16-20 days of learning to use RT and without maintenance sessions using RT. It
is possible that the results of this study could have been more pronounced and/or that
more students would have been able to maintain the skills they learned if RT had been
implemented for 20 consecutive school days.
Suggestions for Future Research
This study demonstrated that fourth- and fifth-grade students among the
specific student categories- AR, SWLD, and GE- can improve their science literacy
when using RT during science instruction in inclusive, intermediate elementary
classes. The first recommendation for future research is in response to the limitations
of this study noted in the previous section. This study could be replicated using a
larger sample size and a more rigorous research design. Several school sites with
similar demographics should be recruited to participate in a future study. The larger
sample size would increase the generalizability of the results. Having a larger sample
size might allow for the use of use of a stronger experimental, pretest-posttest
comparison group design which would control for the effects of history and
maturation.
This study made several assumptions regarding student motivation and
attitudes regarding the use of RT in their science classes based on informal researcher
observations. Future studies could confirm perceived enthusiasm of students by
making use of published protocols such as The Elementary Reading Attitude Survey or
the MRP—Motivation to Read Profile. Both instruments use Likert scale responses to
assess students’ interests, attitudes, and/or motivation about reading (Meyerson &
76
Kulesza, n.d.). Use of these surveys would quantify student feelings while
corroborating or refuting a researcher’s assumptions based on informal observations.
Even though it wasn’t noted as a threat to validity because observations of
fidelity were positive, teachers selected to participate in future studies should have
more thorough training in RT. Observations of the implementation of RT led the
researcher to believe that teachers only partially understood how to use scaffolding
techniques to support student learning of both the strategies of RT and the science
content. Other studies indicated extensive teacher training in the background and
implementation of RT (Bottomley & Osborn, 1993; De Corte, Verschaffel, & Van De
Ven, 2001). Bottomley and Osborn (1993) provided teachers with two, half-day
inservices that included details about RT such as the theoretical background and
results of previous research. Teachers also had the opportunity to practice dialogues
with the researchers during the initial trainings as well as in follow-up sessions. De
Corte et al. (2001) included the teachers and the headmaster in decisions regarding the
implementation of RT as well as the reading materials to be used. The team also
worked collaboratively to develop a teacher’s guide for implementation of RT, lesson
plans, and materials for the students. Continuous support was available for the
teachers throughout the intervention period. Perhaps with more thorough training and
the opportunity to take an active role in the decisions regarding implementation and
materials used, the teachers in this study may have not only improved their scaffolding
skills, but would have been more inclined to continue to use RT after the intervention
period ended.
77
Future research should consider implementing a similar study at the beginning
of the school year rather than the middle. As the school year progresses, there are
many changes in the daily routine due to field trips, professional development days for
teachers, and intense preparation for high stakes testing. The final limitation to this
study was the fact that the students’ science literacy scores declined after just four
weeks without RT during science instruction. Perhaps students would be able to
maintain functional use of the cognitive and metacognitive strategies if the initial
presentation were completed in consecutive school days. It might also be beneficial to
complete a bi-weekly refresher lesson using RT with the content the class is presently
covering to remind students of the usefulness of the comprehension-fostering and
comprehension-monitoring strategies they learned. As the school year becomes more
hectic, teachers could easily present the current information using RT as the method of
instruction. This is feasible in districts such as Palm Beach County where the
Curriculum Frameworks dictate the content to be covered, not how it is to be
delivered.
The use of RT with much younger elementary students could also be a part of
future research. By the time students reach fourth-grade, they are already expected to
have developed skills to independently read to learn to be successful in the
intermediate grades (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Yet research has shown that most
students have not had the opportunity to read expository texts (Duke, 2004). Further,
science learning, like math and reading, is cumulative, in both process and content
(Pratt, 2007). If students aren’t given the occasion to interact with authentic science
texts in early elementary school, they won’t have the opportunity to develop
78
background knowledge and learn about the tools of science (Palincsar, n.d.; Yore &
Treagust, 2006). Lack of exposure to this knowledge-building type of text is likely the
reason for many students’ lack of background knowledge needed to comprehend
complex texts and their fall into the Fourth Grade Slump (Best, Rowe, & McNamara,
2005; Catts, 2009; Chall, Jacobs, Baldwin, 1990). Using reciprocal teaching in the
earlier grades could develop students’ ability to use reading strategies for
comprehension while they are learning strategies for decoding. Perhaps these students
will not fall into the Fourth Grade Slump because they will be more appropriately
prepared to read and comprehend the authentic texts that will be part of their future as
they progress through elementary school, before the reading difficulty and volume is
increased in middle and high school (Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, n.d.; Pratt, 2007).
Another possibility for future research would be to use RT with standards for
science (or social studies) blended with language arts standards. Teachers could
present one lesson but address benchmarks, or Big Ideas, of reading and science. The
suggestion of blending the curriculum has been made as schools “are dealing with the
realities of having to raise test scores and wanting kids to be exposed to other subject
areas” (Manzo, 2008, para. 11). There is a need to teach more efficiently. This can be
accomplished by teaching more in the same amount of time (Bowers, n.d.) mainly
because “we are not backing down from accountability” (Manzo, 2008, para. 11).
Reading and science have a natural connection. Scientists need to read and
comprehend to develop and report on science experiments that are filled with
specialized signs, codes, and graphics (Barton & Jordan, 2001; Kinniburgh, & Shaw,
2009: Miller, 2006). Science teachers have the ability to monitor and regulate
79
themselves when conducting and writing up results of experiments because they have
a core of processing strategies that allow them to observe, classify, compare, interpret,
and draw conclusions (Vacca & Vacca, 2002). These process skills are comparable to
the process skills used by good readers: engaging prior knowledge, making
predictions, determining cause and effect, comparing and contrasting, and drawing
conclusions (Bowers, 2000). Science teachers can demonstrate how reading and
science interface with text by demonstrating how these strategies can advance
students’ knowledge of science by pointing out what the text reveals about
experiments that the students conducted themselves or that they observed the teacher
completing (Glencoe, n.d.; Palincsar, n.d). Rather than treating reading instruction as a
separate activity, literacy activities “fully embedded into the science curriculum take
on an equally important role to those of hands-on inquiry” (Miller, 2006, para.11).
There are many programs available to develop beginning reading but few that
focus on comprehension, which has led to the suggestion of incorporating such
instruction into the content areas (Williams, Stafford, Lauer, Hall, & Pollini, 2009).
Some programs combining science and reading already exist. For example, Romance
and Vitale (2001) developed Science IDEAS, which is intended to replace the language
arts block. This program combines science, reading and writing for intermediate
elementary students. Teachers use the science text to teach reading comprehension and
writing skills, which encourage students to critically evaluate science topics. This
program has increased scores for science and reading on nationally-normed tests.
Hapgood and Palinscar (2007) developed GIsML: Guided Inquiry supporting Multiple
Literacies. This program is for students in kindergarten through sixth grade. It
80
combines discovery learning and reading. Research has revealed increased science
content knowledge and reasoning skills using this method.
School districts are quick to buy special programs and mandate the use of
specific interventions (Valencia & Buly, 2004). However, it is not always necessary.
For example, RT can be implemented using the already adopted school materials. It
would be interesting to conduct a study with dual dependent variables: that of science
literacy and of reading comprehension using a blended curriculum.
Summary
This study demonstrated that the use of RT during science instruction in
inclusive, intermediate elementary classes allows students among the specific student
categories- students who are AR, SWLD, and GE students- to attain science
knowledge through training in the skills needed to comprehend these texts. In addition
to improving science literacy, this study also appeared to improve students’ motivation
and self-determination as was noted in teacher and researcher observations.
86
Reciprocal Teaching in Science
As many of you already know, I am Ms. DiLorenzo, one of the speech teachers here at Forest Hill Elementary. And, some of you know that I am also a student at Florida Atlantic
University. I am here today to ask for your help with a project that I am completing for my teachers. I would like to complete a study to find a better way to teach reading comprehension in science. Students in Mr. Stein’s and Ms. Cowan’s inclusive science classes have been chosen to be part of this study. For 20 school days, students in these classes will be working in small groups, learning to use specific reading strategies. I will determine if this method of teaching is better by having you complete a pretest before the study begins, a posttest after the study
ends, and a follow-up test at least three calendar weeks after the study is over, and comparing these results. If you decide to participate in this study, you will be learning the same information as all of your friends in your grade. The difference is that you will be working in small groups each day using specific reading strategies. Some of you may be uncomfortable working in small groups.
You do not have to be in this study if you don’t want to and you can quit at any time. If you don’t like a question, you don’t have to answer it. If you change your mind and decide you don’t want your answers used in the study just tell your science teacher. No one will be upset with you if you decide you don’t want to participate. Only you, your science teacher, and I will know how you did on the tests. However, if your
parents want to know, we will tell them. If you have any questions, ask me, Ms. DiLorenzo. This research study has been explained to me and I agree to be in this study. _________________________________ _____________
Subject’s Signature for Assent Date
Check which applies (to be completed by person conducting assent discussion):
□ The subject is capable of reading and understanding the assent form and has
signed above as documentation of assent to take part in this study.
□ The subject is not capable of reading the assent form, however, the information was
explained verbally to the subject who signed above to acknowledge the verbal explanation and his/her assent to take part in this study.
________________________________ Name of Person Obtaining Assent (Print)
________________________________ ___________
Signature of Person Obtaining Assent Date
87
Date:
Dear Parents,
My name is Kim DiLorenzo. I am one of the speech-language pathologists at Forest
Hill Elementary. I am also a doctoral student at Florida Atlantic University.
I would like to complete a study to find a better way to teach reading comprehension
in science. Students in Mr. Stein’s and Ms. Cowan’s inclusive science classes have
been chosen to be a part of this study. For 20 school days, students will be working in
small groups, learning to use specific strategies. I will determine if this method of
teaching is effective by having students complete a pretest before the study begins, a
posttest after the study ends, and a follow-up test at least three weeks after the study is
over, and comparing these results.
I am requesting permission to use your child’s scores from these tests in this research
study. The results will indicate if this way of teaching helps students understand the
science text better. Your child’s name and scores will be kept confidential at all times.
Only your child’s science teacher and I will have access to this information. If you do
not want your child to participate in this study, s/he will still receive the instruction
provided; however, your child’s test scores will not be used in the analysis of the
study.
If you allow your child to participate, please sign and return the enclosed consent form
to your child’s teacher by ( ). Each child who returns a signed consent form by
the due date will be allowed to select a prize from my treasure box even if you do not
give your permission to participate in the study.
If you have questions regarding the study, please contact me at (561) 969-5870 ext.
75926 or my supervising professor, Dr. Lydia R. Smiley at (561) 297-3287. For
questions regarding your child’s rights as a research subject you can contact the
Florida Atlantic University Division of Research at (561) 297-0777.
Thank you for considering allowing your child to participate in this study.
Sincerely,
Kim DiLorenzo
Forest Hill Elementary
Florida Atlantic University
88
CONSENT FORM
Parent/Guardian
1) Title of Research Study: Reciprocal Teaching of Science in Inclusive Elementary Classes
2) Investigator: Lydia R. Smiley, Ph. D. and Kim E. DiLorenzo, M. Ed. (graduate student)
3) Purpose: The purpose of this research study is to assess the effects of reciprocal teaching, a collection of strategies presented during conversations while reading text, which may improve reading comprehension in the
content area of science. Students were selected to receive instruction using reciprocal teaching as a result of
classroom assignment.
4) Procedures: Your child will be taught to use the strategies of predicting, questioning, clarifying, and
summarizing to assist in comprehension of science text. Teachers will participate in explicit training meetings prior
to the implementation of the reciprocal teaching procedure in their classrooms. Each session will be conducted by the classroom teacher, in the classroom, and will last for approximately 35 to 45 minutes per day for a period of 20
consecutive school-days. Sessions will include comprehension instruction using the science text used by all
students in Palm Beach County. Focus of sessions will be on developing reading comprehension strategies with
expository (science text). As part of your child’s general education program, s/he will be asked to independently read a section of the district approved science text then answer 10 multiple-choice questions on three separate
occasions. Scores from these assessments will serves as the pretest, posttest, and follow-up data. I am requesting
your permission to use your child’s data (scores) from these assessments in a research study.
If you do not want your child to participate in this study, s/he will still receive the instruction provided; however
your child’s assessment scores will not be used in the analysis of the study.
5) Risks: The risks involved with participation in this study are no more than one would experience in regular daily activities.
6) Benefits: The primary benefit is that the subjects will be exposed to an instructional method that is designed to
improve the independent use of comprehension enhancing strategies with expository text.
7) Data Collection & Storage: Any information collected about your child will be kept confidential and secure.
Student scores will be coded to ensure anonymity. Only those involved in the study will see your child’s data,
unless required by law. The data will be kept for five years and then destroyed.
8) Contact Information: For related problems or questions regarding your rights as a subject’s parent, the
Division of Research at Florida Atlantic University can be contacted at (561) 297-0777. For other questions about
the study, you should call the project investigators, Kim DiLorenzo at (561) 969-5870 ext. 75926 or Dr. Lydia Smiley at (561) 297-3287.
9) Consent Statement: I have read or had read to me the preceding information describing this study. All my
questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I allow my child to take part in this study. My child can stop participating at any time without giving any reason and without penalty. I can ask to have the information related to
my child returned to me, removed from the research records, or destroyed. I have received a copy of this consent
form.
Please check one of the boxes below indicating your decision regarding your child’s participation in this study.
Please return this completed form to our child’s teacher.
□ Yes, I give my permission for my child to participate in this study.
□ No, I DO NOT give my permission for my child to participate in this study.
Student Name: ________________________ Classroom Teacher: ___________________
Signature of Subject’s Parent or Guardian ________________________ Date: _________
Signature of Investigator: _____________________________________ Date: _________
89
Ensenanza Reciproca en la Ciencia
Como muchos de ustedes ya saben, yo soy Ms Di Lorenzo, una de las maestras del habla, aqui en Forest
Hill Elementary. Y algunos de ustedes también saben que soy una estudiante en la Universidad,
Atlantic University. Hoy estoy pidiendo por su ayuda, para un proyecto que tengo que completar para
mi maestra.
Me gustaria completar un estudio para encontrar una mejor manera de ensenar en la comprension de
lectura de Ciencias. Estudiantes de señor Stein y del Senor Cowan también han sido seleccionados para ser parte de este estudio. Durante 20 dias escolares, los estudiantes de estas clases estarán trabajando en
pequenos grupos, aprendiendo a usar las estrategias especificas de lectura. Voy a determinar si este
método de enseñanza es mejor, realizando una prueba previa antes de que el estudio se inicie, una
prueba después del estudio y una prueba de seguimiento por lo menos tres semanas a partir que el
estudio ha concluido, y comparar los resultados
Si usted decide participar en el estudio. Estara aprendiendo la misma informacion que todos sus amigos
en la clase. La diferencia es que estara trabajando en pequenos grupos cada dia usando estrategia
especificas de lectura. Algunos de ustedes talvez se sientan incomodos trabajando en pequenos grupos.
Usted no tiene que participar de este estudio si usted no quiere y puede retirarse del estudio en cualquier
momento. Si no le gusta la pregunta, no tiene que contestarla. Si cambia de pensar y decide que no
quiere contestar la pregunta del estudio, solamente dígale a su maestra de Ciencias. Ninguno se
molestara si decide que no quiere participar.
Solamente su maestra de Ciencias y usted sabran sus respuestas. Mas si sus padres quisieran saber las
respuestas se les informara. Si tiene alguna pregunta acerca de este proyecto, usted puede preguntar a Ms DiLorenzo.
Este studio de investigacion se me ha explicado y estoy de acuerdo en participar.
_________________________________ ___________________
Firma del alumno Autorizado Fecha
Marque si le aplica (complete la persona que esta autorizada en conduciendo la discusión)
La persona esta capacitada para leer y entender lo escrito arriba y firmar el documento y ser parte del
estudio
La persona no es capaz de leer la hoja de autorizacion, por lo tanto la información se le explicara
verbalmente a la persona que firme arriba, para conocer verbalmente la explicación y el/ella autorizan
participar del estudio
___________________________________________
Nombre de la persona participante (letra de molde)
Firma de la persona participante Fecha
90
Fecha Estimados Padres:
Mi nombre es Kim DiLorenzo, soy una Patologa del habla del lenguaje en la Escuela Elemental de Forest Hill. Tambien soy una estudiante para Doctora en la Universidad, Atlantic University Quiero completar un estudio para encontrar una manera mejor de ensenar a leer y comprende Ciencias. Los estudiantes en las clases de Ciencias de Mr. Stein y Ms. Cowan han sido seleccionados para ser parte de este estudio. Durante 20 dias escolares, los estudiantes estarán trabajando en pequenos grupos, aprendiendo a usar especificas estrategias para leer. Voy a
determinar si el método de enseñanza es efectivo, haciendo unos exámenes a los estudiantes antes que el estudio comiense, otro examen después que terminen y un seguimiento de exámenes al menos cada tres semanas después que el estudio finalizo y comparar los resultados. Estoy pidiendo permiso de usted para usar los resultados de su niño(a) de los examenes en los estudios de investigación. El resultado nos indicara si esta forma de enseñanza ayudara a los
estudiantes a entender mejor los libros de Ciencias. El nombre de su hijo(a) y los resultados serán confidenciales todo el tiempo. Solamente el niño(a) y el maestro de Ciencias tendrá acceso a esta información. Si usted no desea que su hijo(a) participe en este estudio, el/ella siempre recibirán las instrucciones y el resultado del examen no será usado en el análisis del estudio. Si usted permite que su nino(a) participe, por favor firme y regrese la hoja de autorizacion
adjunta, al maestro del alumno(a) para ( ). Cada alumno(a) que regrese la hoja de autorizacion en la fecha determinada, se le permitirá escoger un premio de mi caja de sorpresas, aunque usted no le halla autorizado participar en el estudio Si tiene alguna pregunta en relacion al estudio piloto, por favor comuniquese con migo al numero telefonico (561) 969-5870 ext. 75926 o a mi maestra supervisora Dr. Lydia R. Smiley al numero (561) 297-3287. Para preguntas con los derechos de su niño puede llamar a Florida Atlantic University Division of Research al numero (561) 297-0777.
Muchas gracias por permitir a su niño(a) participar en este estudio. Atentamente,
Kim E. DiLorenzo Forest Hill Elementary
Florida Atlantic University
91
FORMULARIO DE AUTORIZACION
PADRES/TUTOR
1. Titulo del Estudio de Investigacion: Ensenanza Reciproca de la Ciencia incluyendo clases de primaria intermedia.
2. Investigador: Lydia R Smiley Ph.D y Kim DiLorenzo M.Ed (estudiante de post grado)
3. Proposito: El propósito de la investigación del estudio es evaluar los efectos de la enseñanza reciproca, recolectar
estrategias que se presenten durante la conversación cuando estén leyendo el texto, como mejorar la comprencion de la
lectura en el contenido del area de la Ciencia. Los estudiantes que sean seleccionados recibirán instrucción usando
enseñanza reciproca como resultado a la clase asignada.
4. Procedimiento: Su niño(a) será ensenado a usar la estrategia determinada, preguntando, clarificando y resumiendo
para ayudarle en la comprensión del los libros de Ciencias. Los maestros participantes tendrán una reunión amplia
antes de implementar la enseñanza reciproca en la clase Cada sesión será conducida por el maestro de la clase y durara
aproximadamente de 35 a 45 minutos por dia por un periodo de 20 dias escolares. La secion incluye comprension e
instruccion para usar los libros de textos que se usan para los estudiantes en el Condado de West Palm. Enfocaremos
la sesión de cómo se desenvuelven en la comprensión de la lectura estrategias con exposición de textos (libro de
ciencias). Como parte del programa general de la educación de sus hijos(as), a el/ella se le asignara que
independientemente lea una sección que el distrito apruebe del libro de textos de Ciencias además 10 preguntas con
opción multiples, en tres distintas ocasiones. El resultado de estas asignaciones servirán para antes del examen y
después del examen y para el seguimiento posterior. Estoy requiriendo su permiso para usar el resultado de su niño(a)
(punteo) para la evaluación del estudio de investigación. Si usted no desea que su hijo(a) participe en este estudio,
el/ella siempre recibirán las instrucciones y el resultado del examen no será usado en el análisis del estudio.
5. Riesgos: Los riesgos del participante que se involucra en este estudio, no son mas que la experiencia durante las
actividades diarias regulares.
6. Beneficios: el beneficio primario es que el sujeto estará expuesto a un método de instrucción que se le asignara, para
mejorar el uso independiente de comprensión mejorando estrategias con exposición de texto.
7. Recoleccion de Información y Almacenage: Cualquier información que obtengamos de su niño(a) ser guardada
confidencialmente y segura. Los resultados del estudiante permanecerán seguros y anónimos. Solamente los que estén
involucrados en el estudio podrán ver el resultado de su hijo(a), o al menos que sea requerido por la ley. Los
resultados serán guardados por cinco anos y luego serán destruidos.
8. Informacion de Contacto: Para problemas relacionadas con los derechos de los padres del sujeto, usted puede
contactar la oficina que patrocina la investigación Florida Atlantic University al numero telefónico (561) 297-2310.
Para otras preguntas acerca del estudio usted puede llamar a la investigadora del proyecto, Kim DiLorenzo al (561)
969-5870 ext. 75926 o Dr. Lydia R. Smiley al (561) 297-3287.
9. Declaracion de Autorizacion: Yo lei o me leyeron la información del procedimiento que describe el estudio. Todas
mis preguntas han sido contestada satisfactoriamente. Yo autorizo a mi hijo(a) a tomar parte de este estudio. Mi hijo(a)
se podrá retirar en cualquier tiempo del estudio sin dar ninguna explicación y sin recibir ningún castigo Yo puedo
solicitar que la información relacionada a mi hijo(a) se me devuelva, eliminarla de los registros de investigación o
destruirla. Yo recibi una copia de este formulario.
Porfavor marke una de las cajas indicando la decision que tome hacerca de la participacion de su hijo/hija en el
estudio. Porfavor regrese esta forma completa a la maestra de su hijo/hija.
Si le doy perminso a mi hijo/hija que participe en el estudio.
No le doy permiso a mi hijo/hija que participe en el estudio.
Nombre del estudiante___________________________ Maestro de la Clase_________________________________
.
Firma del Padre o Custodio _____________________________ Fecha ________________________________
Firma del Investigador: ___________________________________Fecha: _______________________________
92
Enstwi lasyans an mwayen resipwók
Nou tout konnen non mwen deja, mwen se youn nan pwofesé de pawól nan lekól Forest Hill Elemanté a, non
mwen se Madame DiLorenzo. E mwen se yon etidyan nan inivésite de Florida Atlantic .Mwen vle mande ou pou
ede mwen nan yon pwojé ke mwen ap fé avék pwofesé nan lekól la.
Mwen vle fé yon etid ki ka ede mwen jwenn yon pi bon fason pou anseye lekti kopreyansyon nan lasyans. Nou te
chwazi elév nan klas Mr. Stein e Ms. Cowan yo pou yo patisipe nan etid sa. Elév yo ap travay nan yon piti gwoup e
yo ap aprann pou yo itilize espesifik estrateji pou fé lekti pou 20 jou de lekól la. Mwen ap detémine si estrateji pou
lekti sa ap pi bon lé ou pran yon egzamen anvan nou kómanse etid la e ou ap pran yon lót egzamen apre ou fini e ap genyen yon lót egzamen ankó nan 3 semenn apre etid la fini pou konpare rezilta yo.
Si ou deside pou patisipe nan etid sa, ou ap aprann menm enfómasyon tout lót elév nan klas ou yo ap aprann.
Diferans la ap sélman paske ou ap nan yon gwoup piti e ou ap aprann pou ou itilize espesifik estrateji pou lé ou ap fé lekti lasyans yo. E kék nan ou ka pa konfótab lé ou ap travay nan yon gwoup piti avék lót elév.
Ou pa bezwen fé pa nan etid sa si ou pa vle, e ou ka sispann fé etid la nenpót lé ou vle. Si ou pa renmen yon
keksyon, ou pa besyon reponn li. Si ou chanje ide ou e ou pa vle pou repons ou yo nan etid la, jis di pwofesé lasyans ou sa. Pésón moun pap fache avék ou si ou pa vle patisipe nan etid la.
Sél mwen menm avék pwofesé lasyans yo ki dwe konnen de repons ou ekri pou keksyon yo. Men nou ka kite paran
ou kennen si yo ta bezwen. Ou ka mande mwen, Ms. DiLoremzo si ou genyen okenn keksyon de etid la.
Yo te esplike mwen de Etid rechéch sa e mwen dakó pou mwen ladan li
________________________________________ ____________________
Siyati de moun ki ap fé etid la Dat
Tcheke younn ki aplike pou moun ki ap fé etid la:
□ Moun sa kapab li e konprann sa li siyen an pou li ka patisipe nan etid sa.
□ Moun sa pa kapab li pou kont li men nou te esplike sa fóm nan di e moun sa vle patisipe nan etid sa.
____________________________________________
Non moun ki ap pran fóm sa (ekri)
____________________________________________ __________________
Siyati moun ki ap pran fóm sa Dat
93
Dat:
Ché paran,
Non mwen se Kim DiLorenzo. Mwen se youn nan pwofesé de pawól nan lekól Forest Hill Elemanté a. Mwen se
yon etidyan dokté nan inivésite de Florida Atlantic.
Mwen vle fé yon etid ki ka ede mwen jwenn yon pi bon fason pou anseye lekti kopreyansyon nan lasyans. Nou te
chwazi elév nan klas Mr. Stein e Ms. Cowan yo pou yo patisipe nan etid sa. Elév yo ap travay nan yon piti gwoup e
yo ap aprann pou yo itilize espesifik estrateji pou fé lekti pou 20 jou de lekól la. Mwen ap detémine si estrateji pou lekti sa ap pi bon lé ou pran yon egzamen anvan nou kómanse etid la e ou ap pran yon lót egzamen apre ou fini e ap
genyen yon lót egzamen ankó nan 3 semenn apre etid la fini pou konpare rezilta yo.
Mwen vle mande ou pémisyon pou mwne kapab itilize Pwen egzamen pitit ou a nan etid rechéch la. Paske rezilta pitit ou a ka di nou si etid la te ede yo konprann Lasyan pi byen. tout enfómasyon de pitit ou ap nan yon plas ki
konfidansyél. Pwen egzamen pitit ou a ap anomin. Sél mwen menm avék pwofesé lasyans yo ki ka konnen de tout
detay de pitit ou e egzamen yo, amwenske lalwa di nou non. Nou ap konséve enfómasyon pitit ou a pou 5 ane epi
nou ap detwi enfómasyon yo apre sa. Si ou pa vle pou pitit ou patisipe nan etid rechéch sa pwofesé nan klas li a ap toujou anseye li de enfómasyon yo men nou pap itilize egzamen li pou etid la.
Si ou vle pou pitit ou a patisipe nan etid rechéch sa, siyen fóm sa a e retounen li a pwofesé pitit ou a ( ).
Chak elév ki retounen fóm sa e paran yo te siyen fóm nan ap genyen yon chans pou yo jwenn yon rekonpans nan yon bwat ke nou genyen ki gen anpil trezo la dan li. Tout elév yo ap jwenn yon pri menn si paran yo pa vle yo
patisipe nan etid la.
Si ou geyen okenn pwoblem oubyen keksyon de etid rechéch sa silvouple ou ka rele mwen nan (561) 969-5870 ext. 75926 oubyen ou ka rele sipévizé mwen ki se Dr. Lydia R. Smiley nan (561) 297-3287. ou ka rele biwo de Division
Research of Florida Atlantic University nan (561) 297-0777. si ou gen okenn keksyon de dwa oumenn ak pitit ou a
genyen de etid rechéch sa a.
Mési paske ou ap konsidere pou pitit ou payisipe nan etid rechéch sa a.
Senséman,
Kim DiLorenzo Forest Hill Elementé
Florida Atlantic University
94
Fóm de Konsantman
Paran/Responsab
1) Tit de Etid Rechéch sa a: Enstwi lasyans an mwayen resipwók pou klas elemanté yo.
2) Investigator (moun ki an chaj etid sa): Lydia R. Smiley, Ph.D. e Kim DiLorenzo, M.Ed. (graduate student) etidyan
3) Entansyon: Rezon pou etid rechéch sa a se pou nou ka devlope yon egzamen ki genyen efikas enstriman e ki
valab pou lót rechéch nan avni an. Nou ap kolekte diferan estrateji pou pwofesé yo ka itilize avék elév yo nan klas lasyan yo. Elév yo ap aprann pou yo itilize espesifik estrateji sa yo pou fé devwa lekti an mwayen resipwók.
4) Sistém nan: Pitit ou a ap aprann pou yo itilize espesifik estrateji lé yo ap fé prediksyon, lé yo ap mande kesyon,
lé yo ap klarifye devwa yo, e lé yo ap fé rezime pou yo ka konprann keksyon yo pi byen. Nou ap anseye tout pwofesé yo de etid la e kijan yo ka enstwi elév yo pi byen lé yo ap li lekti nan mwayen resipwók. Nou ap anseye
diferan estrateji pou pwofesé yo ka itilize avék elév yo nan klas yo.
Chak sesyon pou etid la ap pran 35 oubyen 45 minit pou 20 jou de lekól la. Nan tout sesyon yo Pwofesé nan klas lasyans yo ap itilize liv lasyans ke Palm Beach County distrik la te bay yo a pou anseye elév yo nan klas yo.
pwofesé yo ap anseye elév yo pou fé lekti kopreyansyon nan lasyans, pou yo ka konprann liv lasyan yo pi byen.
Pitit ou a ap patisipe nan 3 sesyon leson ki ap pran 30 minit nan etid la. nan chak sesyon, elév yo ap li nan liv
lasyans ke distrikk la ba yo a, epi yo ap reponn 10 keksyon pou chak leson yo. Pwen pou egzamen sa yo ap detémine ki keksyon ki gen pi plis rezilta ki genyen menm konsistans. Mwen ap itilize pwen egzamen sa yo pou ka
fé etid rechéch sa a .Mwen ap mande ou pémisyon pou mwen kapab itilise enfómasyon pitit ou pou etid rechéch sa
a.
Si ou pa vle pou pitit ou patisipe nan etid sa a, pwofesé a ap toujou ba li enfómasyon yo men mwen pa kapab itilize
pwen egzamen sa yo pou ka fé etid rechéch sa a.
5) Risk: Pa genyen okenn risk nan etid sa pou okenn elév. Yo ap aprann menm mwayen yo toujou aprann nan klas yo
6) Benefis: Patisipasyon pitit ou ap ede li aprann pou itilize espesifik estrateji pou lé li ap fé lekti lasyans.
7) Kote nou antre Enfómasyon yo: Nou mete tout enfómasyon de pitit ou a nan yon plas ki konfidansyél. Pwen
egzamen pitit ou a ap anomin. Sél mwen menm avék pwofesé lasyans yo ki ka konnen de tout detay de pitit ou e
egzamen yo, amwenske lalwa di nou non. Nou ap konséve enfómasyon pitit ou a pou 5 ane epi nou ap detwi
enfómasyon yo apre sa.
8) Enfómasyon pou ou ka kontakte nou: Si ou geyen okenn pwoblem oubyen keksyon de etid rechéch sa ou ka
rele biwo de Sponsored Research of Florida Atlantic University nan (561) 297-2310.ou ka rele mwen Kim
DiLorenzo nan (561) 969-5870 ext. 75926 oubyen Dr. Lydia R. Smiley at (561) 297-3287 si ou paran ta genyen okenn pwoblem obyen keksyon de etid rechéch sa a.
9) Rapó Fóm de konsantman: Mwen te li tout enfómasyon sa e li esplike etid rechéch la. tout keksyon mwen
genyen yo te reponn e mwen satisfé. Mwen vle ke pitit mewn pran pa nan etid rechéch sa a. pitit mwen ka sispann fé etid la nenpót lé nou vle san pwoblém. Mwen ka mande pou yo ban mwen tout enfómasyon pitit mwen fé nan
etid rechéch la, oubyen mwen ka mande pou yo dtwi enfómasyon nou apre sa. Mwen te jwenn yon kopi de
konsantman fóm sa a.
Non Elév la: ______________________________________ Non Pwofesé a: __________________________
Siyati de paran/responsab ______________________________________ Dat: _______________________
Siyati de moun ki an chaj la: _____________________________________ Dat: _______________________
95
CONSENT FORM
Teacher
1) Title of Research Study: Reciprocal Teaching of Science in Inclusive Elementary Classes
2) Investigator: Lydia R. Smiley, Ph. D. and Kim E. DiLorenzo, M. Ed. (graduate student)
3) Purpose: The purpose of this research study is to assess the effects of reciprocal teaching, a
collection of strategies presented during conversations while reading text, which may improve reading comprehension in the content area of science. Students were selected to receive instruction using
reciprocal teaching as a result of classroom assignment.
4) Procedures: Teachers of the inclusive science classes in grades four and five will be asked to
participate in this study. Each teacher will be trained by the study investigator as to the specific methods
to use to teach and facilitate the use of the instructional strategies used in reciprocal teaching.
Training will be completed in one (1) session to take place after school hours. The session will include
an introduction to the theoretical background as well as past research completed using reciprocal
teaching. Teachers will be exposed to the strategies and process of reciprocal teaching via videos and
written material.
Teachers will be requested to implement the reciprocal teaching procedures using the science text for a
period of 20 consecutive school days. Students will be asked to complete three (3) researcher tests.
Teachers agree to allow weekly, unscheduled observations to be completed for the purpose of treatment
fidelity.
5) Risks: The risks involved with participation in this study are no more than one would experience in
regular daily activities.
6) Benefits: The primary benefit for the teachers will be professional development in instruction of
reading g comprehension in the content areas.
7) Data Collection & Storage: Student scores will be coded to ensure anonymity. Only those involved
in the study will see student data, unless required by law. Fidelity checklists will be coded to ensure
teacher anonymity. Teachers will be asked not to discuss the study with any individual involved in the
study. The data will be kept for five years and then destroyed.
8) Contact Information: For questions about the study call the project investigators Kim DiLorenzo at
(561) 969-5870 ext. 75926 or Dr. Lydia Smiley at (561) 297-3287.
9) Consent Statement: I have read or had read to me the preceding information describing this study.
All my questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I am 18 years of age or older and freely consent to my participation. I have received a copy of this consent form.
Student Name: ________________________ Classroom Teacher: ___________________
Signature of Subject’s Parent or Guardian ________________________ Date: _________
Signature of Investigator: _____________________________________ Date: _________
97
STUDENT NUMBER: ______________ 4th Grade Pretest
DIRECTIONS: Read each question carefully. Circle the letter of the best answer for
each question.
1. What are the two ways Earth moves? (Literal)
A. By rotating and revolving
B. By tilting and cycling
C. By circling and tilting
D. By rotating and tilting
2. What day marks the beginning of autumn? (Literal)
A. June 21
B. December 21
C. September 21
D. March 21
3. What is an axis? (Literal)
A. The path one object in space takes around another object
B. An imaginary line through both poles
C. Energy from the Sun
D. The day of the year that has the most hours of daylight
4. When is the summer solstice? (Literal)
A. December 21
B. June 21
C. September 21
D. March 21
5. What is the phase of the Moon called when none of the lit side can be seen from
Earth? (Literal)
A. New Moon
B. First Quarter
C. Full Moon
D. Third Quarter
6. What happens as the Northern Hemisphere is tilted away from the Sun causing
winter? (Interpretive)
A. The Northern Hemisphere tilts toward the Sun causing winter
B. The Southern Hemisphere tilts toward the Sun causing summer
C. The Northern Hemisphere tilts away from the Sun causing summer
D. The Southern Hemisphere tilts away from the Sun causing winter
98
7. When do the Sun’s rays shine the most directly on the Northern Hemisphere?
(Interpretive)
A. During December, January, and February
B. During June, July, and August
C. During September, October, and November
D. During March, April, May
8. How does Earth’s orbit affect the amount of heat different parts of Earth get from
the Sun? (Interpretive)
A. The part of Earth that is tilted toward the Sun takes in less heat energy
B. The part of Earth that is tilted away the Sun takes in more heat energy
C. The part of Earth that is tilted toward the Sun takes in more heat energy
D. The part of Earth that is tilted toward the Sun has more hours of darkness
9. What occurs after three years have 365 days each? (Interpretive)
A. A Full Moon
B. A summer solstice
C. A Leap Year
D. An Autumn Equinox
10. From the December 21 solstice to the March 21 equinox, would you expect the
days in North America to get shorter or longer? (Application)
A. Shorter because more of North America is tilted toward the Sun
B. Shorter because more of North America is tilted away from the Sun
C. Longer because more of North America is tilted toward the Sun
D. Longer because more of North America is tilted away from the Sun
99
STUDENT NUMBER: ______________ 4th Grade Posttest
DIRECTIONS: Read each question carefully. Circle the letter of the best answer for
each question.
1. Which planet has rings that you can see with a telescope? (Literal)
A. Mars
B. Mercury
C. Venus
D. Saturn
2. Compared to Earth, which of the following planets has the longest year? (Literal)
A. Mars
B. Jupiter
C. Saturn
D. Neptune
3. Which of the outer planets rotates on its side? (Literal)
A. Jupiter
B. Saturn
C. Uranus
D. Neptune
4. Which of the inner planets is the hottest? (Literal)
A. Mars
B. Earth
C. Venus
D. Mercury
5. What is the correct order of the inner planets from the Sun to the asteroid belt?
(Literal)
A. Venus, Earth, Mercury, Mars
B. Venus, Earth, Mars, Mercury
C. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars
D. Earth, Mars, Mercury, Venus
6. How are moons and planets similar? (Interpretive)
A. They are both objects that orbit other objects
B. They are both made of gases
C. They have similar lengths of years
D. They both orbit around the Sun
100
7. How are the gas giants different from Pluto? (Interpretive)
A. The gas giants are close to the Sun while Pluto is the furthest from the Sun
B. The gas giants are made of rock while Pluto is made of gases
C. The gas giants have no moons while Pluto has many
D. The gas giants are huge while Pluto is very small
8. Why do we call our system a solar system? (Interpretive)
A. Because everything orbits around the Moon
B. Because the Sun is the most powerful star
C. Because everything orbits around the Sun
D. Because the Sun is the largest object in our solar system
9. How did the inner planets get their name? (Interpretive)
A. They are farthest from the Sun
B. They are closest to the Sun
C. They are all made of rock
D. They are all made of gases
10. What would happen if Earth no longer had liquid water on its surface and oxygen
in the atmosphere? (Application)
A. Humans could no longer live on Earth
B. Humans would have to drink bottled water
C. Humans would have to live in caves
D. Humans would have to buy oxygen tanks
101
STUDENT NUMBER: ______________ 4th Grade Follow-up Test
DIRECTIONS: Read each question carefully. Circle the letter of the best answer for
each question.
1. Which system protects the organs inside your body?
A. Circulatory system
B. Skeletal system
C. Muscular system
D. Digestive system
2. What part of the bone makes red blood cells?
A. The joint
B. The outer part
C. The center
D. The hinges
3. Which muscle makes up the walls of your heart?
A. Cardiac muscle
B. Smooth muscle
C. Skeletal muscle
D. Joint muscle
4. What connects bones together at the joints?
A. ligaments
B. Tendons
C. Muscles
D. Marrow
5. What makes it possible for most bones to move at the places they meet?
A. Marrow
B. Tendons
C. Joints
D. Muscles
6. Look at the picture of the skeletal system on page 423. What bone protects your
brain?
A. Skull
B. Radius
C. Pelvis
D. Femur
7. Look at the picture of the skeletal system on page 423. What are the names of the
bones in the leg?
102
A. Radius, ulna, pelvis
B. Radius, ulna, humerus
C. Femur, tibia, fibia
D. Femur, tibia, pelvis
8. Muscles work together to move bones back and forth. At least how many muscles
work together to move a bone?
A. 1
B. 2
C. 3
D. 4
9. How are smooth muscles like cardiac muscles?
A. They both need to be told how to move
B. They both move on their own
C. They both help digest food
D. The both help pass waste through the body.
10. Anthony was tackled during a football game. He broke his humerus and had to be
rushed to the hospital. What part of his body did h hurt?
A. Head
B. Arm
C. Chest
D. Leg
103
STUDENT NUMBER: _________________________ 5TH
Grade Pretest
DIRECTIONS: Read each question carefully. Circle the letter of the best answer for
each question.
1. What season is it in the Southern Hemisphere when it is summer in the Northern
Hemisphere? (Literal)
A. Summer
B. Spring
C. Winter
D. Fall
2. Where was the highest temperature (58°) ever recorded? (Literal)
A. Antarctica
B. Arizona
C. Egypt
D. Libya
3. Which of the following causes seasonal changes on Earth? (Literal)
A. The tilt of Earth’s axis
B. The shape of the sun’s orbit
C. The changing shape of Earth’s orbit
D. Earth’s position relative to the moon
4. What is the name of the day which has the least hours of daylight called? (Literal)
A. Winter solstice
B. Autumn equinox
C. Summer solstice
D. Spring Equinox
5. On which day does the spring equinox usually occur in the Northern Hemisphere?
(Literal)
A. June 20
B. December 21
C. September 22
D. March 20
6. The South Pole has a summer of nonstop sunlight but it’s always cold. How is this
possible? (Interpretive)
A. The sun’s rays are at a low angle and too spread out to warm the area
B. Earth is tilted away from the direct sunlight
C. It is never warm during the summer solstice
D. The sun’s rays are blocked by clouds
104
7. If Earth were not tilted on its axis, how would life be different? (Interpretive)
A. It would be too hot for humans to survive
B. It would be too cold for humans to survive
C. There would be no seasons
D. The angle of the sun’s rays would be different each month
8. In North America, why is it warmer during the summer than during the winter?
(Interpretive)
A. Earth is closer to the sun
B. More warm fronts pass through
C. There are fewer clouds to reflect the sunlight
D. Sunlight strikes Earth’s surface more directly
9. Where would someone live if they experienced 12 hours of sunlight every day?
(Interpretive)
A. At the North Pole
B. At the South Pole
C. At the International Date Line
D. At the Equator
10. The Sun is at the center of the solar system. Which description best describes the
Sun’s effect on Earth (Application).
A. It shines on Earth only during the daytime
B. It shines on the Moon only once a month
C. It provides Earth with heat and light during the daytime
D. It provides Earth with heat and light all of the time
105
STUDENT NUMBER: ______________ 5th Grade Posttest
DIRECTIONS: Read each question carefully. Circle the letter of the best answer for
each question.
1. What are two ways scientists classify stars? (Literal)
A. color and brightness
B. energy and flares
C. size and distance
D. size and brightness
2. Which is not a type of galaxy? (Literal)
A. barred spiral
B. circular
C. elliptical
D. irregular
3. What are Saturn’s rings made of? (Literal)
A. Hydrogen, helium, moon, and asteroids
B. Stars, dust, gravity, and solar flares
C. Ice, dust, boulders, and frozen gas
D. Asteroids, stars, helium, and hydrogen
4. Where is the asteroid belt? (Literal)
A. In the nebula
B. In Saturn’s rings
C. Between Jupiter and Mars
D. Between Earth and Venus
5. What is a constellation? (Literal)
A. A group of stars that has a name
B. The force between any two objects
C. Asteroids
D. Gas giants made of hydrogen and helium
6. What is the sun’s position and movement in the Milky Way Galaxy? (Interpretive)
A. In a cluster called the Local Group
B. As a nebula clumped together as a prostostar
C. As a spiral arm which makes its way around the center of the galaxy every 200-250
million years
D. Within a black hole
106
7. Max wants to make a model of the solar system for his room at home. He knows the
asteroid belt should be included, but he isn’t sure why it is so important. What would
you tell him? (Interpretive)
A. It divides the inner planets from the outer planets.
B. It is the brightest object besides the moon in the night sky.
C. All the planets beyond the asteroid belt are gas giants.
D. The asteroids once held liquid water and, therefore, offer important clues to how
life began on Earth.
8. Susie is learning about the groups of stars that are called constellations. Using a star
map, she identifies the group of stars knows as The Little Dipper. This group of stars
is shown below.
What can Susie say is true about the Little Dipper by looking at it in the night sky?
(Interpretive)
A. The North Star is part of the Little Dipper.
B. The North Star is the star that is closest to Earth.
C. The Little Dipper can be seen only when looking though a telescope.
D. The Little Dipper is the only group of stars known as a constellation.
9. Why was the telescope an important invention? (Interpretive)
A. Because it prevents scientists from burning their eyes while looking at planets
B. Because stars are difficult to see at night
C. Because humans would be unable to see far into space without it
D. Because it helps robots when traveling in space
10. Using the information provided in the text box on page 340, determine which
planet has the strongest pull of gravity. (Application)
A. Mercury
B. Earth
C. Venus
D. Mars
107
STUDENT NAME: ______________ 5th Grade Follow-up
DIRECTIONS: DIRECTIONS: Read each question carefully. Circle the letter of the
best answer for each question.
1. How did cells get their name? (Literal)
A. Because they looked like onion skill
B. Because they looked like tiny rooms
C. Because they can be observed using a microscope
D. Because they are tiny organisms
2. What is an organism? (Literal)
A. A characteristic of a cell
B. Any living thing that is microscopic
C. Any living thing that maintains vital life processes
D. Anything (living or nonliving) that can only be seen using a microscope
3. What is a protest? (Literal)
A. A single-celled organism with a nucleus and organelles
B. A single-celled organism without a nucleus and organelles
C. An organelle that directs a cell’s activities
D. An organelle that stores food, water, or waste
4. Which organelle directs a cell’s activities? (Literal)
A. Cytoplasm
B. Mitochondrion
C. Nucleus
D. Vacuole
5. What is the jellylike material that contains chemicals that help keep a cell healthy
called? (Literal)
A. Cell membrane
B. Nucleus
C. Mitochondrion
D. Cytoplasm
6. How do cells keep organisms alive and healthy? (Interpretive)
A. They work together to carry out life processes
B. They are made of huge numbers
C. They work together to make water
D. They work together to form muscle groups
7. How are a salamander’s skin cells like a plant cell’s outer cells? (Interpretive)
108
A. They both feed the organism
B. They both help the organism move
C. They both keep the organism from losing too much water
D. They both help the organism break down food
8. Which of the following is an example of an organism? (Interpretive)
A. An amoeba
B. A salamander
C. A Flower
D. All of the above
9. Look at the comparison chart on page 363. How are plant cells different from
animal cells? (Interpretive)
A. Animal cells do NOT have a nucleus
B. Plant cells do NOT have a cell membrane
C. Plant cells have chloroplast
D. Animal cells have mitochondrion
10. While looking at a slide through a microscope, you notice cells with cell walls but
without chloroplast. What kind of cells are you looking at? (Application)
A. Plant cells
B. Animal cells
C. Bacteria cells
D. Protist cells
113
DAILY LESSON PAGE
GRADE 4
Date:
Day 9
Strand: D: Processes that Shape the Earth Standard/Benchmark: SC.D.1.2.4 Objectives: The student knows that the surface of the Earth is in a continuous state of change
as waves, weather, and shifts of the land constantly change and produce many new features.
Materials:
1. Bellringer- January 11 2. Student text pages 262 3. Reciprocal Teaching script (Day 9; Guided Practice Script) 4. Fantastic Four poster
5. Question word poster 6. Fix-up Strategies poster 7. Character bookmarks (overheads) 8. Character bookmarks (for individual students) 9. Teacher Tracking of Student Roles in Cooperative Groups 10. Coaching Prompts/ Overcoming the Difficulties That Students Experience with Reciprocal
Teaching Strategies
11. Groups Directions overhead 12. Group Performance Checklists 13. Brainpop: Erosion 14. Brainpop follow-up page: Categorize the Landforms (student copies and teacher key)
Activities:
1. Bell-ringer- a. Teacher displays daily bell-ringer on projector and allows students two minutes to
answer in their science journals b. Teacher reviews answer
2. Reciprocal Teaching- see script 3. Watch Brainpop: Erosion 4. Complete worksheet identifying how different types of landforms are created Assessment:
1. Response to bell-ringer 2. Reciprocal Teaching- Teacher will observe and document student participation using
Group Performance Checklist 3. Responses on Categorize the Landforms Teacher Comments/Concerns:
114
GUIDED PRACTICE SCRIPT (4th
Grade):
The teacher will need to gather materials from other sections of the binder for this
script. You will need:
The overheads of the bookmarks
Individual bookmarks for student use
The role assignment class chart
Group Performance Checklist
Coaching Prompts
Overcoming the Difficulties That Students Experience with Reciprocal
Teaching Strategies page
Group Directions page
The students will work in their groups independently. The teacher will monitor
strategy use as he or she circulates providing input (coaching prompts) and monitoring
each group’s performance using a checklist.
The students will work together for one subsection for a set amount of time and then
the teacher will bring them back together to review. The procedure of review (after the
students have completed the entire reading) will be similar to guided group practice.
The teacher will lead the through the paragraphs but the text will not be read aloud.
Instead, the teacher will call on groups to list one prediction and how they came up
with it, what needed clarifying, and what fix-up strategies were used, two questions,
and what important details they came up with. Students will also be invited to
comment on the predictions, clarifications, summaries and main idea points of other
students. This will be repeated for the remainder of the subsections until the end of the
lesson is reached.
(Teacher script is bold. Directions for the teacher are not.)
Today we are going to read about erosion.
I am going to pass out the strategy (character) bookmarks. Then we are going to
review the Fantastic Four Procedures.
Assign and document the roles for the day on the role assignment class chart. Give out
bookmarks.
Let’s review the Fantastic Four...the Superheroes of Reading Comprehension.
Who remembers what Peggy and Peter do?
Allow responses. Put overhead of Peter and Peggy on the projector.
Correct. Peggy and Peter think aloud as they make predication about the text.
115
Predictors, what do your bookmarks remind you to do as your group reads?
Allow responses.
That’s right! Your bookmark reminds you that your job is to lead the group
through the assigned pages and make predictions based on the pictures, graphs,
tables, and headings.
You will use phrases such as: I think, I’ll bet, I wonder if, and I predict as you
make predications.
OK. Who is next? How about Clara and Clarence? What is their job?
Allow responses. Put overhead of Clara and Clarence on the projector.
Clarifiers- look at your bookmark. What does it remind you to do?
Allow responses.
You are correct! It has pictures of the fix-up strategies. Your job is to
recommend one of these strategies to help your teammate decode or understand
what he or she is reading. Let’s review what each of these pictures represents.
Allow responses.
The poster of the fix-up strategies is here (point) for you to look at in care you
forget what one of the pictures represents.
But- are there any other fix-up strategies that are not one this bookmark?
Allow responses.
Yes, you could also use a dictionary or the glossary to help you understand the
meaning of the word.
You could skip the word and read around it to try to figure out the meaning from
the context.
And of course, you can always ask me.
Now let’s think about Quinn and Quincy. Who remembers what they do?
Allow responses. Put overhead of Quinn and Quincy on the projector.
Great remembering! Quinn and Quincy think aloud as they ask questions about
the text.
Questioners- look at your bookmark. What does it remind you to do?
Allow responses.
116
Yes! It lists special words that most questions start with. It reminds you that you
can ask questions before, during, and after you read. It also reminds you to be
thinking of questions that a teacher might ask.
How about Sammy and Sue? What is their job?
Allow responses. Put overhead of Sammy and Sue on the projector.
You’re right again! Sammy and Sue think aloud as they identify details in the
paragraphs and reword them into a simple summary.
Can someone tell me what their job is as the group reads the text?
Allow responses.
True! They will reread and think aloud in order to determine the most important
details of each paragraph.
He or she will point out key vocabulary, definitions, and supporting details about
a topic.
He or she will orally summarize the information for each paragraph.
After the group has reached the end of the section, he or she will orally provide a
complete summary of the section.
Let’s look at your bookmark. How does this bookmark help you to remember
what you are supposed to do?
Allow responses.
Correct! The pictures of Sammy and Sue putting together a puzzle are to help
you remember that you need to fit the important details together into a concise
summary like you would put together a puzzle.
Last are Larry and Lydia Leader. Who can tell me some of their responsibilities?
Allow responses.
That’s right. Larry and Lydia assist the other characters in working together to
understand what is read.
Good readers often need to use several strategies when reading. That is why
Larry and Lydia are important. They help coordinate everyone.
117
Today you are going to read an entire section of the text and use the Fantastic
Four in teams (groups) on your own. When you are finished, we will come back
together as a group and review each paragraph in the section and combine the
summaries of each paragraph to discover the main idea of the subsection. I will
be walking around listening and helping when you need it.
We’re just about ready but we need to review your roles in the group. Take a
look at the group directions.
Put overhead of Group Directions on the projector.
You will read all of page 262. Notice that there are three paragraphs. You will
work through one paragraph at a time, using your strategies. When you get to
the end of the page you have finished the subsection of this lesson. At this point,
Sammy and Sue will draw attention to the most important details of the
subsection and form a summary.
Here are the group directions: Place Group Directions page on projector.
At the beginning of each paragraph, Larry and Lydia will ask Peggy and Peter to
make predications. Then you will begin reading. Peggy/Peter will read first,
Quinn and Quincy read second, Clara and Clarence read third, Sammy and Sue
read last (or fourth if you have five people in your group), then Larry and Lydia
will read last.
Does anyone have any questions?
OK. Open your books to page 262. You will read all of page 262 and then we will
review. Make sure you are using your strategies while you are reading the text as
well as the charts, graphs, and picture captions!
I will leave the group directions on the projector for you to look at if you get
stuck.
Walk around among the groups and listen to the students’ interactions. Allow the
students to figure out their own problems as a group. Only intervene if the students are
way off the mark and no one in the group is able to clarify correctly, create a good
question, or details have been ignored.
Write notes as to how the students are using the strategies in each group using the
Group Performance Checklist.
After the students have finished reading the text, review what they just read. Don’t go
paragraph by paragraph- this will take too long. Call on students that you noted as
using the strategies correctly.
Alright. Now we are going to review what we just read. Remember, good readers
read to understand. We are going to see how well you all understood the text by
reviewing what you did in your groups. I am going to call on individuals to
demonstrate how they completed specific tasks in their groups.
118
Go through the section quickly. Ask one Leader to begin. Then ask one Predictor, one
Clarifier, one Questioner, and one Summarizer the following questions:
Larry/Lydia, did your group work well together? Did everyone think aloud as
they played their part (used their strategy)?
Allow response.
Excellent! Is there anything your group needs to work on?
Allow response. Reword response (if necessary) so all students to understand.
Peggy/Peter, tell us one of your predictions.
Predictor responds. Listen for key phrases such as: I think, I’ll bet, I wonder if, or I
predict.
How did you come up with that prediction?
Predictor’s answer may include: by looking at pictures, graphs, tables, and headings.
Was your prediction correct?
Predictor responds.
How do you know?
Predictor responds.
The group may not have completed the section that the answer is in before time was
called. Predictor should e encourages to acknowledge that fact and state that he or she
is unsure of the prediction.
Clara/Clarence, did anyone need clarifying?
Clarifier responds.
What did you do?
Clarifier responds.
Did it help?
Clarifier responds
Quinn/Quincy, tell us one of your questions.
119
Questioner responds.
If the question needs reworking, guide the student by saying...
Maybe you could word the question like this...
If the question to be a higher order question, say...
That’s a great question. You could make that even better by asking it like this...
If you reworded the question or if the question was acceptable in its original form
say...
Great job! Was anyone able to answer your question?
Questioner responds.
Was he or she correct?
Questioner responds.
Finally, I would like to hear from Sammy/Sue. Tell us what details you thought
were very important.
Summarizer responds.
Why do you think these details are important?
Summarizer responds.
Can you give a simple, concise summary of the section?
Summarizer responds.
Teacher may need to add/delete information from the summary. Remember to explain
why the changes were made. This is a summary, not a retelling.
Great job. You included the all of the most important details in your summary.
I agree that ____ and _____ are important details, however, I might have left out
____ because _____
Yes! Your summary included details about _____ but I think you should have
included _____ too because _____.
Great job using your strategies today.
120
DAILY LESSON PAGE
GRADE 5
Date:
Day 5
Strand: D: Processes that Shape the Earth Standard/Benchmark: SC.D.1.2.1 Objectives: The student knows that larger rocks can be broken down into smaller rocks,
which in turn can be broken down to combine with organic material to form soil.
Materials:
15. Bellringer- January 11 16. Student text pages 226-229 17. Reciprocal Teaching script (Day 5; Teacher Modeling of All Four Strategies) 18. Fantastic Four poster
19. Question word poster 20. Fix-up Strategies poster
Activities:
5. Bell-ringer- a. Teacher displays daily bell-ringer on projector and allows students two minutes to
answer in their science journals
b. Teacher reviews answer 6. Reciprocal Teaching- see script Assessment:
4. Response to bell-ringer 5. Reciprocal Teaching- Teacher will observe student attempts using targeted strategies Teacher Comments/Concerns:
121
SCRIPT FOR MOEDLING HOW ALL FOUR STRATEGIES ARE USED
TOGETHER (5th
Grade):
Over the past four days we have learned about the Fantastic Four: the
Superheroes of Reading Comprehension. Who can tell me the name of tone of the
four strategies?
Go through all four strategies the same way:
Yes, _____ is one of the Fantastic Four. What makes it fantastic?
Yes, it helps you _____
Can anyone give me an example of when or how you would use this strategy?
PREDICTING: A prediction can help you prepare for what you are about to learn. It
may also help you set a purpose for reading.
QUESTIONING: Questions can be asked before, during, and after you read. They can
help you understand what is read and deepen your understanding of a topic by making
connections to other topics.
CLARIFYING: Clarifying helps good readers recognize when he or she does not
understand a word or a paragraph and should use fix-up strategies to help decode or
understand the meaning.
SUMMARIZING: Summarizing helps you figure out the most important information
(details) in the text and put it in a logical order.
Does anyone have questions about the Fantastic Four?
After all strategies have been reviewed and questions have been answered, the teacher
will model how to use all four strategies together.
Now we are going to learn how to use the Fantastic Four together while reading about
_____ in our science book. The Fantastic Four are great by themselves, but they are
FANTASTIC when they are used together. Let’s see if we can figure out why.
I am going to show you how I use all Fantastic Four strategies while I read page
_____ in your science text. Please open your books to page _____ and follow
along.
First, I will pretend to be Peggy/Peter Predictor and think aloud as I make
predictions about the text.
122
I will go through the pages and look at the pictures and the graphs as well as the
headings and words that are highlighted in yellow. I will do this so I can form a
PREDICTION about what I will learn.
Go through the pages and make predictions.
Examples of predictions are:
I predict that this section will be about _____ because I see pictures of _____ on
this page.
I’ll bet I will learn about _____ because I see _____ (picture caption).
I think I will learn more about _____ because it’s the title of this section.
I think I will learn about _____ because the word is highlighted in yellow in the
text.
Walk around as you go through the process of analyzing the pages and point out what
you are talking about. This will also help keep students engaged in the lesson.
I am going to read now to see if my predictions are correct.
Begin reading.
The teacher reads the entire first section of the lesson, working slowly through each
paragraph. Don’t forget to read picture captions and information from tables and/or
graphs. The teacher will stop and demonstrate fix-up strategies that the students may
use as they read.
Examples of clarifying:
Wow! What does _____ mean? What am I supposed to do now? Oh yeah, I can
pretend to be Clara/Clarence Clarifier and look at my fix-up strategies. Hmmm.
Look at the picture. Maybe the picture will help. Oh! Now I get it (explain
connection).
Jeez! Look at this big word! How am I supposed to read this word- it’s huge!
Maybe a fix-up strategy can help. I’ll just look at the list of fix-up strategies...I
think I am going to try to look at the first part of the word. That didn’t help. Is
there a part of the word that I know? What if I try chunking the word? I think
the word is _____. Does that make sense? Let me reread the sentence to see if it
does (reread). Cool. It does make sense.
123
What???? That doesn’t make any sense. I am going to see if there is a fix-up
strategy to help me figure this out. Maybe rereading the sentence (reread). Nope.
That didn’t help. Maybe one of my group members can help me with this.
Whew!! Now what am I supposed to do? Check that I understood the meaning of
the paragraph. I can do this by asking questions.
The teacher will model questions that address all six levels within Bloom’s Taxonomy
(knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) at the
appropriate times in the text.
Now I need to figure out what the most important information is in the paragraph.
I kind of already did this because I asked questions about things that I thought
were important.
This paragraph is mostly about...hmmm.... Maybe I should use the summarizing
strategy here. It appears that when I summarize, I focus on the most important
details. Sometimes the heading of a section can give me a clue about an important
detail. Let me look at the heading. Words that are highlighted in yellow are
important vocabulary words for the section. The definition of the word is usually
right around the highlighted word. I bet this is important.
Continue to model using the strategies for the subsection of text. Make sure you stop
and confirm/correct predictions as you come to them.
When you have finished the section, ask the students what they thought about how
you worked through the section.
That’s it for the first section. Does anyone have any questions?
Allow students to ask. Respond to all questions. Remind students of purpose of using
these strategies (to understand the text).
Repeat the same procedure of thinking aloud using the text for the next section.
Review the same way.
Students will practice using the strategies together in their groups.
Alright, now it’s your turn. You will work with one (or two for groups of five)
person in your group to read the last section of the text. I will be walking around,
listening to hear you using your strategies while you read.
This is what I want you to do. Turn to page _____. One of you will read the
paragraph, the other will listen.
The reader will think aloud as he or she used the Fantastic Four strategies.
124
After the paragraph has been read, the reader will provide a summary about the
paragraph. While the reader reads and uses the strategies aloud, the listener will
help out when needed.
You may help by suggesting a fix-up strategy.
You might help reword a question.
You could point out the answer to a prediction.
You might need to help the reader create a summary.
It all depends on what happens as the reader reads.
Pause.
Then you will switch roles. The reader becomes the listener. The listener becomes
the reader.
For groups of three, students will be instructed to rotate reader role. The other
two in the group will both serve as listeners.
The reader will think aloud as he or she reads the entire paragraph. The listener
will help when he or she is needed.
Pause.
You are going to trade roles for the section. There are _____ paragraphs in this
section so each person will read _____ times and be the listener _____ times.
Any questions?
OK. I want you to read page(s) _____ now. After everyone has finished, I will call
on partners to guide me through the paragraphs that you read by demonstrating
how you used the Fantastic Four as you read.
The teacher will circulate among the groups and provide scaffolded support as needed.
After the lesson is completed the teacher will review.
Wow! You guys did a great job today.
You showed how you can confirm/correct predictions by _____.
You formed questions like _____.
You showed how you can monitor your understanding of the text by using fix-up
strategies to _____.
You were also able to find the most important details and provide summaries like
_____.
125
I am very proud of you and you should be proud of yourselves. You used the
Superheroes of Reading Comprehension to help you understand what you read.
127
Who? What? Where? When?
What comes next? Why? How?
What do you think you will learn? Ask questions BEFORE,
DURING,
Use these phrases... and AFTER you read
I think...
I’ll bet...
I wonder if...
I predict...
Look carefully at the
Text and use FIX-UP Put together the
STRATEGIES to help most important
understand a word or parts to form one
an idea. MAIN IDEA for the
section
129
QUESTION
WORD
WHAT IT ASKS
WHAT
Asks about people or things
WHERE
Asks about a place
WHO
Asks about a person or a
character
WHEN
Asks about time
WHY
Asks about a reason
or a cause
HOW
Asks about a procedure
or condition
131
FORMING TEAMS (Kagan & Kagan, 2006)
First the teacher wrote each student’s name on the upper left corner of a 3 x 5 index card. Scores from
the FY’09 FCAT Reading, predicted levels from the Fall Diagnostic Reading Assessment, and the Fall
SRI (Scholastic Reading Inventory) score were written in the lower left corner of the index card.
Indicators for students at-risk for academic failure such as: a) eligibility for free or reduced price meals,
b) minority status, c) being a non-native English speaker, and d) being a male student was written on
the lower right hand corner of the card. Each student was given a colored dot on the upper right corner
of the card indicating reading level.
Finally, the cards were randomly placed in rows to create heterogeneous groups. In classes with more
than 20 students, a student will be added to a group making up to three groups with five students, if
necessary.
Adapted from: Kagan , L. & Kagan, S. (2006). Structures for cooperative learning and active engagement workbook. San
Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing
Name
Scores Risk
Indicators
Reading Level Codes:
Above grade level (AGL) (blue)
Grade level (GL) (green)
Minimally below grade level (MBGL) (yellow)
Below grade level (BGL) (red)
1 2 3 4 5
AGL
GL
MBGL
BGL
133
Summary of Daily Instructional Procedures
Day Teacher Procedures/ Role Student Procedures/ Role Materials
1 Assign students to groups
Use Day 1 script to:
Define strategies used in RT
Define use of predicting
strategy using Peggy/Peter
Predictor overhead
Model using predicting
strategy use with science text
Provide guided practice
using predicting
Use scaffolding to shape
student responses
Review predicting strategy
Provide information
regarding the next day’s
lesson
Listen to instructions and
descriptions
Respond to teacher
questions
Practice using predicting
strategy as part of whole
group
Collaboratively practice
using predicting strategy
in small groups
Day 1 script
Fantastic Four poster
Peggy/Peter
Predictor
overhead
Curriculum
materials
2 Use Day 2 script to:
Review predicting strategy
Discuss question words and
forming good questions
Define use of questioning
strategy using Quinn and
Quincy overhead
Instruct students to use
predicting strategy
Model using questioning
strategy with science text
Provide guided practice
using questioning
Use scaffolding to shape
student responses
Review questioning and
predicting strategies
Provide information
regarding the next day’s
lesson
Listen to instructions and
descriptions
Respond to teacher
questions
Practice using predicting
strategy as part of whole
group
Collaboratively practice
using questioning strategy
in small groups
Day 2 script
Fantastic Four
poster
Question word poster
Quinn and
Quincy overhead
Curriculum
materials
Bloom’s
Taxonomy Flip
Chart
3 Use Day 3 script to:
Review predicting and questioning strategies
Define use of clarifying
strategy using Clara and
Clarence overhead
Instruct students to use
predicting and questioning
strategy
Model using fix-up strategies
with science text
Provide guided practice
using questioning
Use scaffolding to shape
student responses
Listen to instructions and
descriptions
Respond to teacher
questions
Practice using predicting
and questioning strategies
as part of whole group
Collaboratively practice
using clarifying strategy in
small groups
Day 3 script
Fantastic Four poster
Question word
poster
Fix-up strategies
poster
Clara and
Clarence
overhead
Curriculum
materials
Overhead of
poem:
Independent
134
Review clarifying,
predicting, and questioning
strategies
Provide information
regarding the next day’s
lesson
Strategies by Jill
Marie Warner
4 Use Day 4 script to:
Review predicting,
questioning, and clarifying
strategies
Differentiate between
summarizing and retelling
using Retelling vs.
Summarizing overhead and examples in script
Define use of summarizing
clarifying strategy using
Sammy and Sue overhead
Instruct students to use
predicting strategy
Model summarizing two
paragraphs of text; one at a
time
Review summarizing
strategy by asking students to
describe what they saw their
teacher do
Provide teacher lead
interactive practice using
summarizing as a group
Use scaffolding to shape student responses
Provide guided practice
using summarizing
Use scaffolding to shape
student responses
Review summarizing,
clarifying, predicting, and
questioning strategies
Provide information
regarding the next day’s
lesson
Listen to instructions and
descriptions
Respond to teacher
questions
Practice using the
predicting strategy as part
of whole group
Identify elements of retelling vs. summarizing
Collaboratively practice
using summarizing
strategy in small groups
Day 4 script
Fantastic Four
poster
Question word
poster
Fix-up strategies
poster
Retelling vs. Summarizing
overhead
Sammy and Sue
overhead
Curriculum
materials
5 Use Day 5 script to:
Review summarizing,
clarifying, predicting, and
questioning strategies
Model using all four
strategies with science text
Provide guided practice using all four strategies in
small groups
Use scaffolding to shape
student responses
Review clarifying,
Listen to instructions and
descriptions
Respond to teacher
questions
Collaboratively practice
using all four strategies in
small groups
Day 5 script
Fantastic Four
poster
Question word
poster
Fix-up strategies
poster
Curriculum
materials
135
predicting, and questioning
strategies by providing
examples of students who
used the strategies correctly
in their groups
Provide information
regarding the next day’s
lesson
6 Use Day 6 script to:
Review summarizing,
clarifying, predicting, and
questioning strategies and
associated characters
Introduce Larry and Lydia Leader using overhead and
Larry and Lydia Leader
bookmark overhead
Review four strategies and
their characters using
overheads that include
summaries of each
character’s role, posters, and
bookmark overheads
Assign roles to students in
each group. Only groups
with five students will have
someone play the role of
Larry or Lydia. Document
assignments on Teacher
Tracking of Student Roles in
Cooperative Groups page
Display Group Directions
page and describe procedure
Select one group to model
using strategies as they read
one paragraph of the text.
Teacher will provide
scaffolded support and
specific feedback regarding
individual strategy use using
Coaching Prompts
Select another group and
repeat procedure above.
Continue until all pages of
text for the day’s lesson have
been read
Review strategy use by citing
specific student examples of correct use of the strategies
Provide information
regarding the next day’s
lesson
Listen to instructions and
descriptions
Respond to teacher
questions
Collaboratively practice
using all four strategies as characters in small groups
Day 6 script
Larry and Lydia
Leader overhead
Larry and Lydia
Leader
Bookmarks overhead
Peter and Peggy
Predictor
overhead
Peter and Peggy
Predictor
Bookmarks
overhead
Quinn and
Quincy
Questioner
overhead
Quinn and
Quincy
Questioner
Bookmarks
overhead
Clara and
Clarence
Clarifier
overhead
Clara and
Clarence
Clarifier
Bookmarks
overhead
Sammy and Sue
Summarizier
overhead
Sammy and Sue
Summarizier
Bookmarks
overhead
Double-sided individual
bookmarks for
each student
Teacher Tracking
of Student Roles
in Cooperative
136
Groups
Group Directions
Coaching
Prompts
Fantastic Four
poster
Question word
poster
Fix-up strategies
poster
Curriculum
materials
7 Use Day 7 script to:
Review RT characters and
their purpose/roles using
overhead of each characters’
bookmark
Assign roles to students in
each group. Only groups
with five students will have
someone play the role of
Larry or Lydia. Document
assignments on Teacher
Tracking of Student Roles in
Cooperative Groups page
Display Group Directions
page and review procedure
Select one group to model
using strategies as they read
one paragraph of the text. Teacher will provide
scaffolded support and
specific feedback regarding
individual strategy use using
Coaching Prompts
Select another group and
repeat procedure above.
Continue until all pages of
text for the day’s lesson have
been read
Review strategy use by citing
specific student examples of
correct use of the strategies
Provide information
regarding the next day’s
lesson
Listen to instructions and descriptions
Respond to teacher
questions
Collaboratively practice
using all four strategies as
characters in small groups
Day 7 script
Larry and Lydia
Leader
Bookmarks
overhead
Peter and Peggy
Predictor
Bookmarks
overhead
Quinn and
Quincy
Questioner
Bookmarks
overhead
Clara and
Clarence
Clarifier
Bookmarks overhead
Sammy and Sue
Summarizier
Bookmarks
overhead
Double-sided
individual
bookmarks for
each student
Teacher Tracking
of Student Roles
in Cooperative
Groups
Group Directions
Coaching
Prompts
Fantastic Four
poster
Question word
poster
Fix-up strategies
poster
Curriculum
137
materials
8 Use Day 8 script to:
Display Group Directions
page and describe procedure
for the day. Students will be
modeling use of strategies as
they read text while peers
provide specific feedback
Review RT characters and
their purpose/roles using
overhead of each characters’
bookmark
Assign roles to students in
each group. Only groups with five students will have
someone play the role of
Larry or Lydia. Document
assignments on Teacher
Tracking of Student Roles in
Cooperative Groups page
Select one group to model
using strategies as they read
one paragraph of the text.
Teacher will call on peers to
provide specific feedback
regarding the groups use of
strategies while reading the
text. Teacher will use
Coaching Prompts to assist
peers in giving specific
feedback
Select another group to
demonstrate strategy use
while reading then repeat
procedure above. Continue
until all pages of text for the
day’s lesson have been read
Review strategy use by citing
specific student examples of
correct use of the strategies
Provide information
regarding the next day’s
lesson
Listen to instructions and
descriptions
Respond to teacher
questions
Collaboratively practice
using all four strategies as
characters in small groups
When called on, provide
specific feedback
regarding peers’ strategy
use
Day 8 script
Larry and Lydia
Leader
Bookmarks
overhead
Peter and Peggy
Predictor
Bookmarks
overhead
Quinn and
Quincy
Questioner
Bookmarks overhead
Clara and
Clarence
Clarifier
Bookmarks
overhead
Sammy and Sue
Summarizier
Bookmarks
overhead
Double-sided
individual
bookmarks for
each student
Teacher Tracking
of Student Roles
in Cooperative Groups
Group Directions
Coaching
Prompts
Fantastic Four
poster
Question word
poster
Fix-up strategies
poster
Curriculum
materials
9 &
10
Use Days 9 & 10 scripts to:
Display Group Directions
page and describe procedure
for the day. In cooperative
groups, students will
implement use of the strategies and provide
specific feedback to peers as
the teacher circulates and
monitors providing specific
feedback using Coaching
Listen to instructions and
descriptions
Respond to teacher
questions
Collaboratively practice
using all four strategies as characters in small groups
Provide specific feedback
to peers in collaborative
group
Demonstrate correct
Days 9 & 10
scripts
Double-sided
individual
bookmarks for
each student
Teacher Tracking
of Student Roles
in Cooperative
Groups
Group Directions
138
Prompts
Review RT characters and
their purpose/roles orally (no
visual prompts)
Assign roles to students in
each group. Only groups
with five students will have
someone play the role of
Larry or Lydia. Document
assignments on Teacher
Tracking of Student Roles in
Cooperative Groups page
Assign pages to read
Teacher will monitor
strategy use using Group
Performance Checklist
Review strategy use by
calling on students who were
observed using strategies
correctly to demonstrate
what they did
Further probe students who
were called on to
demonstrate correct strategy
use by asking students a
series of leading questions
Provide information
regarding the next day’s
lesson
strategy use and describe
personal success with
strategy by responding to
teacher questions
Coaching
Prompts
Group
Performance
Checklist
Fantastic Four
poster
Question word
poster
Fix-up strategies
poster
Curriculum
materials
11-
20
Use scripts for days 11-20 to:
Display Group Directions page and describe procedure
for the day. In cooperative
groups, students will
implement use of the
strategies and specific
feedback as the teacher
circulates and monitors
providing specific feedback
using Coaching Prompts
only when needed
Ask students if they have any
questions about the strategies
or group directions
Assign roles to students in
each group. Only groups
with five students will have
someone play the role of Larry or Lydia. Document
assignments on Teacher
Tracking of Student Roles in
Cooperative Groups page
Assign pages to read
Teacher will monitor
Listen to instructions and
descriptions
Respond to teacher
questions
Collaboratively practice
using all four strategies as
characters in small groups
Provide specific feedback
to peers in collaborative
group
Demonstrate correct
strategy use and describe
personal success with
strategy by responding to
teacher questions
Demonstrate correct use of
specific praise when called
on
Days 9 & 10
scripts
Double-sided
individual
bookmarks for
each student
Teacher Tracking
of Student Roles
in Cooperative
Groups
Group Directions
Coaching
Prompts
Group
Performance
Checklist
Fantastic Four
poster
Question word poster
Fix-up strategies
poster
Curriculum
materials
139
strategy use while circulating
among the groups using
Group Performance
Checklist
Review strategy use by
calling on students who were
observed using strategies
correctly to demonstrate
what they did
Further probe students who
were called on to
demonstrate correct strategy
use by asking students a series of leading questions
Point out good use of
specific feedback by retelling
how students were noted
providing feedback to their
peers
Provide information
regarding the next day’s
lesson
Note. Curriculum materials refers to science content materials needed to complete the day’s lesson.
Examples, included but were not limited to science textbook, items for experiments, video clips,
and workbook pages.
141
Clara and Clarence Clarifier
Their job is to assist group members
with confusing words of ideas by
using FIX-UP STRATEGIES.
Refer to the glossary or a dictionary
when needed to answer questions
about spelling
142
Peggy and Peter Predictor:
Their job is to lead the group through
the assigned pages and make
predications based on the pictures,
graphs, tables, and headings
They use phrases such as: I think, I’ll
bet, I wonder if, and I predict as they
make their predictions.
The predictor reminds the group of
the predictions while they are reading
and determines if the predications
were correct or incorrect
143
Quincy and Quinn Questioner
Their job is to ask Who? What? Where? When? Why? About the text.
They ask questions before, during, and after reading.
They think, “Would this be a good teacher question about this part?”
144
Sammy and Sue Summarizer:
Their job is to find the main
idea of each section that is read
by rewording details into a simple summary.
145
Larry and Lydia Leader:
Their job is to lead the group as they use the
Fantastic Four while reading their assignment.
1. Before Reading: ask the Predictor to make predictions
2. During Reading:
Ask if anyone if they need something clarified
Ask the Questioner to form questions
Remind the Predictor to confirm/correct predictions
3. After Reading: Ask summarizer to create a concise summary
146
RETELL
What did you notice?
Include:
- Details
- Dialogue
- Events in order
- Detailed
descriptions
SUMMARIZE
What did you notice?
Include:
- Words such as
first, next, then,
finally
- Most important
details: definitions,
concepts, ideas in
the correct order
147
GROUP DIRECTIONS:
1. Larry/Lydia asks Peggy/Peter to make predictions 2. Peggy/Peter makes predictions
3. Begin Reading: a. Peggy/Peter reads first b. Quinn/Quincy reads second c. Clara/Clarence reads third d. Sammy/Sue reads fourth/last e. Larry/Lydia reads (last) 4. Clara/Clarence recommends fix-up strategies
5. Peggy/Peter confirms or corrects predictions 6. Larry/Lydia reminds everyone to use their strategies 7. Stop after each paragraph! a. Quinn/Quincy asks questions b. Sammy/Sue points out key words, definitions, details 8. Stop at the end of each section!
a. Sammy/Sue states simple summary (main idea)
149
Assist group members with confusing
words or ideas by using
FIX-UP STRATEGIES:
cat
she
tree
won-der-ful
th-ink
str-ing
ring
start
fish
Assist group members with
confusing words or ideas by using
FIX-UP STRATEGIES:
cat
she
tree
won-der-ful
th-ink
str-ing ring
start
fish
150
Lead the group through the assigned
pages and make predictions.
Look at:
Headings
Pictures
Tables
Graphs
Use the phrases:
I think...
I’ll bet...
I wonder if...
I predict...
After reading:
Remind the group of the
predictions
Were they right or wrong?
Lead the group through the assigned
pages and make predictions.
Look at:
Headings
Pictures
Tables
Graphs
Use the phrases:
I think...
I’ll bet...
I wonder if...
I predict...
After reading:
Remind the group of the
predictions
Were they right or wrong?
151
Ask...
Who was it that...?
What would happen if...?
Where could you find...?
When would you...?
Why would you...?
How are ___ and ___ similar or
different?
...about the text.
Ask questions
BEFORE,
DURING, and
AFTER reading.
What would be a good teacher
question about this part?
Ask...
Who was it that...?
What would happen if...?
Where could you find...?
When would you...?
Why would you...?
How are ___ and ___ similar or
different?
...about the text.
Ask questions
BEFORE,
DURING, and
AFTER reading.
What would be a good teacher question
about this part?
152
Find the MAIN IDEA:
Detail 1
+
Detail 2
+
Detail 3
=
Put is all together:
SUMMARY
Find the MAIN IDEA:
Detail 1
+
Detail 2
+
Detail 3
=
Put is all together:
SUMMARY
153
1. Before reading:
Ask predictor to make a prediction
about what the group will learn
about.
2. During reading:
Make sure all members have a chance
to read using Group Directions
Ask if anyone needs a word or a
section clarified; call on Clarifier to
go through checklist to assist in
clarifying.
Remind the Questioner to create
questions from the text.
3. After reading:
Ask the summarizer to provide a
summary of the paragraph/section.
1. Before reading:
Ask predictor to make a prediction
about what the group will learn
about.
2. During reading:
Make sure all members have a chance
to read using Group Directions
Ask if anyone needs a word or a
section clarified; call on Clarifier to
go through checklist to assist in
clarifying.
Remind the Questioner to create
questions from the text.
3. After reading:
Ask the summarizer to provide a
summary of the paragraph/section.
155
TEACHER TRACKING OF STUDENT ROLES IN COOPERATIVE GROUPS
KEY: P- Predictor; Q- Questioner; C- Clarifier; L-Leader; R-Recorder GROUP 1
DAY 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
NAME
GROUP 2
DAY 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
NAME
156
TEACHER TRACKING OF STUDENT ROLES IN COOPERATIVE GROUPS
KEY: P- Predictor; Q- Questioner; C- Clarifier; L-Leader; R-Recorder GROUP 3
DAY 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
NAME
GROUP 4
DAY 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
NAME
157
TEACHER TRACKING OF STUDENT ROLES IN COOPERATIVE GROUPS
KEY: P- Predictor; Q- Questioner; C- Clarifier; L-Leader; R-Recorder GROUP 5
DAY 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
NAME
GROUP 6
DAY 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
NAME
158
DIFFICULTY SUMMARIZING:
Demonstrate reading around a highlighted word to find the
definition
Model referring to the heading to remind yourself of the topic
Model eliminating irrelevant information
Remind the student to use a logical sequence
Demonstrate forming concise summaries starting with, “This part is mostly about...”
DIFFICULTY PREDICTING:
Remind student to use phrase prompts on bookmark
Model how to look at the pictures and graphs
Model how to look at pictures and graphs
Remind student of prior knowledge that could help
Have the student provide a reason for the prediction, “I
think...because...
DIFFICULTY FORMING QUESTIONS:
Provide a copy of the question chart
Model rewording sentences to form questions
Have the student reread the text and decide what is most
important
DIFFICULTY CLARIFYING:
Review the fix-up strategies on the bookmark
Model using one of the fix-up strategies by choosing a different
section and think aloud as you work to find the solution
Remind the student to listen for phrases like, “This doesn’t
make sense”; “I’m confused about”, “I can’t figure out” as
times when they or their teammates may need to try a fix-up
strategy
159
DATE: _____________________________
DATE: _____________________________
Names: ____________________________________________________
Referring to the bookmarks YES NO
Referring to the posters YES NO
Predictions are supported by cues from the text YES NO
Rewording/providing a concise summary YES NO
Level of questions Basic (knowledge/ comprehension)
Higher Level (application/ analysis/ synthesis/ evaluation)
Do the students recognize/ use fix-up strategies YES NO
Comments:
Names: ____________________________________________________
Referring to the bookmarks YES NO
Referring to the posters YES NO
Predictions are supported by cues from the text YES NO
Rewording/providing a concise summary YES NO
Level of questions Basic (knowledge/ comprehension)
Higher Level (application/ analysis/ synthesis/ evaluation)
Do the students recognize/ use fix-up strategies YES NO
Comments:
162
References
Alfassi, M. (1998). Reading for meaning: The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in
fostering reading comprehension in high school students in remedial reading
classes. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 309-332. doi:
10.3102/00028312035002309
Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2003). Put reading first: The research
building blocks for teaching children to read (2nd
ed.). National Institute for
Literacy (Award Number R305R70004).
Austin, T. L. (n.d.). GOALS 2000: The Clinton administration education program.
Retrieved from University of Notre Dame website: http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger
/www7 /goals200.html
Barton, M. L., & Jordan, D. L. (2001). Teaching reading in science: A supplement to
teaching reading in the content areas teacher’s manual (2nd
ed.). Aurora, CO:
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Barton, M. L., Heidema, C., & Jordan, D. (2002). Teaching reading in mathematics and
science. Educational Leadership, 60, p. 24-28.
Bashir, A. S., & Hook, P. E. (2009). Fluency: A link between word identification and
comprehension. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 196-
200. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2008/08-0074)
163
Beken, J., Williams, J., Combs, J.P., & Slate, J. R. (2009, Winter). At-risk students at
traditional and academic alternative school settings: Differences in math and
English performance indicators. Florida Journal of Educational Administration
& Policy, 3, 49-61. Retrieved from College of Education, University of Florida
website: http://www.coe .ufl.edu/Leadership/FJEAP/index.html
Bell, M. J., DiSpezio, M. A., Frank, M., Krockover, G. H., McLeod, J. C., Brick, B.,
Valenta, C. J., & Van Deman, B. A. (2007a). Science grade 4: Florida edition.
Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
Bell, M. J., DiSpezio, M. A., Frank, M., Krockover, G. H., McLeod, J. C., Brick, B.,
Valenta, C. J., & Van Deman, B. A. (2007b). Science grade 5: Florida edition.
Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
Best, R. M., Rowe, M., & Ozuru, Y., McNamara, D. S. (2005). Deep-level
comprehension of science texts: The role of the reader and the text. Topics in
Language Disorders, 25, 65-83
Biancarosa, G. (2005). After third grade. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 16-22.
Bottomley, D., & Osborn, J. (1993). Implementing reciprocal teaching with fourth- and
fifth grade students in content area reading (Technical Report No. 586).
Retrieved from CSA Illumina search engine: http://www.csa.com.ezproxy
.fau.edu/
Bowers, P. (2000). Reading and writing in the science classroom. Retrieved from
Education Place website: http://www.eduplace.com/science/profdev/articles
/bowers.html
164
Brady, T. E. (2008). Science education: Cassandra‟s prophecy. Phi Delta Kappan, 89,
605-607.
Bridge, C. A. (1987). Strategies for promoting reader-text interactions. In R. J. Tierney,
P. L. Anders, & J. N. Mitchell (Eds.), Understanding readers’ understanding:
Theory and Practice (pp. 283-302). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame´enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2004). Direct instruction
in reading. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Casteel, C. P., & Isom, B. A. (1994). Reciprocal processes in science and literacy
learning. The Reading Teacher, 47, 538-545.
Caswell, L. J., & Duke, N. D. (1998). Non-narrative as a catalyst for literacy
development. Language Arts, 75, 108-117.
Catts, H. W. (2009). The narrow view of reading promotes a broad view of
comprehension. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 178-
183. doi: 10.1044//0161-1461(2008/08-0035).
Cavanagh, S. (2007, October). Federal rule yields hope for science: Testing mandate is
expected to increase time for subject. Education Week, 27(7), 1, 13. Retrieved
from http://www .edweek.org
Cavanagh, S. (2008, February). Frustrations give rise to new push for science literacy.
Education Week, 27(26), 12. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org
Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). The classis study on poor children‟s fourth grade
slump. American Educator, 27(1), 14-15. Retrieved from American Federation
165
of Teachers website: http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/spring2003
/index.cfm
Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V., & Baldwin, L. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children
fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Christy, J. W. (n.d.a). Making adequate yearly progress in student achievement.
Retrieved from Teaching Today website: http://www.glencoe.com/sec
/teachingtoday/nclb.phtml
Christy, J. W. (n.d.b). Understanding the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from
Teaching Today website: http://www.glencoe.com/sec/teachingtoday/nclb.phtml
De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Van De Ven, A. (2001). Improving text comprehension
strategies in upper elementary school children: A design experiment. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 531-559. doi: 10.1348
/000709901158668
Dickson, S.V., Collins, V. L., Simmons, D. C., & Kame´enui, E. J. (1998).
Metacognitive strategies: Research bases. In D. C. Simmons, & E. J. Kame´enui
(Eds.). What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning
needs: Bases and basics (295-360). Mawhaw, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Diehl, H. L. (2005). Snapshots of our journey to thoughtful literacy. The Reading
Teacher, 59(1), 56-69. doi: 10.1598/RT.59.1.6
DiLorenzo, K. E., Rody, C. A., Bucholz, J. L., & Brady, M.P. (2011). Teaching letter–
sound connections with picture mnemonics: Itchy‟s alphabet and early decoding.
Preventing School Failure, 55, 28-34. doi: 10.1080/10459880903286763
166
Donnelly, M. (1987). At-risk students. (ERIC Digest No. 21). Retrieved from:
http://www .ericdigests.org/pre-928/risk.htm
Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first
grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202-224. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.35.2.1
Duke, N. K. (2004). The case for informational text. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 40-
44.
Duke, N. K., & Kays, J. (1998). “Can I say „once upon a time‟?”: Kindergarten children
developing knowledge of information book language. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 13, 295-318. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(99)80041-6
Durkin, D. (1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension
instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481-533.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to
school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press.
Duschl, R. A., Shouse, A. W., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2008, April). What research
says about K-8 science learning and teaching. The Education Digest, 73(8), 46-
50. Retrieved from www.eddigest.com
Education Development Center. (n.d.). Science. Retrieved from:
http://www.literacymatters.org /content/science.htm
Ehren, B. (2009). Looking through an adolescent literacy lens at the narrow view of
reading. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 192-195. doi:
10.1044//0161-1461(2009/08-0036).
167
Englert, C. S., & Thomas, C. C. (1987). Sensitivity to text structure in reading and
writing: A comparison between learning disabled and non-learning disabled
students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 295-318. doi: 10.2307/1510216
Finty, N. S., & Strout, M. T. (2005). Determining importance: Using informational texts
to teach comprehension in the primary grades. The Florida Reading Quarterly,
42(2), 35-39. Retrieved from The Florida Reading Association website:
http://www.flreads.org /Publications/quarterl.htm
Florida Department of Education. (2007). Assessment and accountability briefing book.
Retrieved from Florida Department of Education website: http://fcat.fldoe.org
/pdf/BriefingBook07web.pdf
Florida Department of Education. (2009a). 2009 guide to calculating adequate yearly
progress (AYP): Technical assistance paper 2008-2009. Retrieved from Florida
Department of Education website: http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/pdf/0809
/2009AYPTAP.pdf
Florida Department of Education. (2009b). 2009 guide to calculating school grades:
Technical Assistance Paper. Retrieved from Florida Department of Education
website: http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/pdf/0809/2009SchoolGradesTAP.pdf
Florida Department of Education. (2009c). Florida comprehensive assessment test
(FCAT), Sunshine state standards, State report of district results, Grade 05,
Science. Retrieved from Florida Department of Education website:
http://fcat.fldoe.org /xls/2009/F09_Gr05_SDis.xls
168
Florida Department of Education. (2009d). School level report: Palm beach. Retrieved
from Florida Department of Education website: http://fcat.fldoe.org/results
/default.asp
Florida Department of Education. (2009e) Understanding FCAT reports 2009.
Retrieved from Florida Department of Education website: http://fcat.fldoe.org
/pdf/ufr_2009.pdf
Florida‟s A+ plan for education. (n.d.). Retrieved from Florida Governor Charlie Christ
website: http://www.flgov.com/a_plus_plan
Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of
expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 40, 210-225. doi: 10.1177/00222194070400030301
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading
comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of
research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279-320. doi: 10.3102
/00346543071002279
Glencoe/McGraw-Hill. (n.d.). Improving reading skills in the science classroom.
Retrieved from Teaching Today website: http://www.glencoe.com/sec
/teachingtoday/subject/reading_skills.phtml
Hapgood, S., & Palincsar, A. S. (2007). Where literacy and science intersect.
Educational Leadership, 64(4), p. 56-60.
Hardman, M. L., & Dawson, S. (2008). The impact of federal public policy on
curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities in the general
classroom. Preventing School Failure, 52, 5-11. doi: 10.3200/PSFL.52.2.5-11
169
Hart, E. R., & Speece, D. L. (1998). Reciprocal teaching goes to college: Effects for
postsecondary students at risk for academic failure. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, 670-681. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.90.4.670
Hazen, R. M. (2002). Why should you be scientifically literate? Retrieved from Action
Bioscience website: http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/hazen
.html#primer
Hess, P. M. (2004). A study of teachers’ selection and implementation of cognitive
reading strategies for fourth/fifth grade reading comprehension from a success
for all reading program perspective: Moving beyond the fundamentals (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest (3140930).
Hirsch, E. D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge of words and the
world. American Educator, 27(1), 10, 12-13, 16-22, 28-29, 44. Retrieved from
American Federation of Teachers website: http://www.aft.org/newspubs
/periodicals/ae /spring2003/index.cfm
Johannessen, L. R. (2003). Achieving success for the “resistant” student. The Clearing
House, 77, 6-13. doi: 10.1080/00098650309601221
Johnson, C. E. (2005). The A+ plan and student achievement in Florida (Policy Brief
3). Retrieved from Florida Institute of Education at the University of North
Florida website:
http://www.unf.edu/dept/fie/PDF%20Folder/Policy%20Brief%203-
The%20A+%20Plan%20and%20Student%20Achievement%20in%20FL.pdf
170
Johnston, P. H. (1985). Teaching students to apply strategies that improve reading
comprehension. The Elementary School Journal, 85, 635-645. doi:
10.1086/461426
Kagan, L., & Kagan, S. (2006). Structures for cooperative learning and active
engagement. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing.
Kamhi, A. G. (2009). The case for the narrow view of reading. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 174-177. doi: 10.1044//0161-1461(2009/08-
0068).
Karoly, L. A., Kilburn, R., & Cannon, J. S. (2005). Children at Risk: Consequences for
school readiness and beyond. Retrieved from RAND Corporation website:
http://www.rand.org /pubs /research_briefs/RB9144/index1.html
Kelly, M., Moore, D. W., & Tuck, B. F. (1994). Reciprocal teaching in a regular
primary school classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 53-61.
King, C. M., & Johnson, L. M. P. (1999). Constructing meaning via reciprocal teaching.
Reading Research and Instruction, 38, 169-186.
Kinniburgh, L. H., & Shaw, E. L. (2009). Using question-answer relationships to build
reading comprehension in science. Science Activities 45(4), 19-26.
Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension
strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second
language. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 275-293. doi: 10.1086/461828
Knuth, R. A., & Jones, B. F. (1991). What does research say about reading? Retrieved
from North Central Regional Education Laboratory website: http://www.ncrel
.org/sdrs/areas /li0cont.htm
171
Kroeger, S. D., Burton, C., & Preston, C. (2009). Integrating evidence-based practices
in middle school science reading. [Special issue]. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 41(3), 6-15.
Lederer, J. M. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive elementary
classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 91-106. doi: 10.1177
/002221940003300112
Lubliner, S. (2004). Help for struggling upper-grade elementary readers. The Reading
Teacher, 57, 430-438.
Lysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves
standardized reading-comprehension performance in poor comprehenders. The
Elementary School Journal, 90, 469-484. doi: 10.1086/461627
Manzo, K. K. (2008, February). Analysis finds time stolen form other subjects for math
and reading. Education Week, 27(5), p. 6. Retrieved from http://www.edweek
.org
Marks, M., Pressley, M., Coley, J. D., Craig, S. Gardner, R. DePinto, T., & Rose, W.
(1993). Three teachers‟ adaptations of reciprocal teaching in comparison to
traditional reciprocal teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 267-283.
doi: 10.1086/461766
Marx, R.W., & Harris, C.J. (2006). No child left behind and science education:
Opportunities, challenges, and risks. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 467-
477. doi: 10.1086/505441
Mason, L. H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus reciprocal
questioning effects on expository reading comprehension among struggling
172
readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 283-296. doi: 10.1037/0022-
0663.96.2.283
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2004). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for
effective instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Graetz, J. E. (2003). Reading comprehension
instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and
teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 103-166. doi: 10.2307/1593593
McMurrer, J. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes
for specific subject. Retrieved from Center on Education Policy website:
http://www.cep-dc.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/InstructionalTimeFeb2008
Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology:
Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Meyerson, M. J., & Kulesza, D. L. (n.d.). Assessing interest, attitude, and motivation.
Retrieved from Education.com: Bringing Learning to Life website:
http://www.education.com /reference/article/assessing-interest-attitude-
motivation/
Michalsky, T., Mevarech, Z. R., & Haibi, L. (2009). Elementary school children reading
scientific texts: Effects of metacognitive instruction. The Journal of Educational
Research, 102, 363-374.
Miller, R. G. (2006, September). Unlocking reading comprehension with key science
inquiry skills. Science Scope, 30(1), 30-33.
173
Murphy, K. R., & Myors, B. (2004). Statistical power analysis: A simple and general
model for traditional and modern hypothesis tests (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Myers, P. A. (2005). The Princess Storyteller, Clara Clarifier, Quincy Questioner, and
the Wizard: Reciprocal teaching adapted for kindergarten students. The Reading
Teacher, 59, 314-324. doi: 10.1598/RT.59.4.2
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2005). The Nation’s Report Card: Science
2005. Retrieved from Institute of Educational Sciences website:
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard /pdf/main2005/2006466.pdf
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2010). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading
2009 (NCES 2010-458). Retrieved from Institute of Educational Sciences
website: http://nces.ed.gov /nationsreportcard/pdf/main2009/2010458.pdf
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education website:
http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: Reports of the subgroups
(NIH Pub. No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). Literacy skills for
the world of tomorrow - further results from PISA 2000. Retrieved from OECD
website: http://www .oecd.org/dataoecd/43/9/33690591.pdf
174
Oczkus, L. D. (2003a). Reciprocal teaching at work: Strategies for improving reading
comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association
Oczkus, L. D. (2003b). Reciprocal teaching strategies at work: Improving reading
comprehension grades 2-6. Available from: http://www.reading.org/General
/Publications /Videos /v500.aspx?mode=redirect
Pagés, J. M. (2002). Expository text: The choice for some, a challenge for others.
Retrieved from The Big 6 website: http://www.big6.com/2002/09/17/expository-
text-the-choice-for-some-a-challenge-for-others/
Paige, R. (2002). Stronger accountability: Key policy letters signed by the education
secretary or deputy secretary. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education
website: http://www2.ed.gov/policy /elsec/guid/secletter/020724.html
Palincsar, A.S. (n.d.). Reading in science: Why, what, and how. Retrieved from
National Science Resources Center website:
http://www.nsrconline.org/curriculum_resources /science_readers.html
Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction.
Educational Psychologist, 21(1/2), 73-98. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2101&2_5
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown. A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-
fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2,
117-175.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, D. A. (1987). Enhancing instructional time through attention
to metacognition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 66-75. doi: 10.1177
/002221948702000201
175
Palincsar, A. S., David, Y., & Brown, A. L. (1989). Reciprocal teaching: A manual
prepared to assist with staff development for teachers interested in reciprocal
teaching. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Education, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor. MI.
Palincsar, A. S., & Duke, N. K. (2004). The role of text and text-reader interactions in
young children's reading development and achievement. The Elementary School
Journal, 105, 183-197. doi: 10.1086/428864
Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering literacy learning in supportive contexts.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 211-225, 229. doi:
10.1177/002221949202500402
Patz, R. J. (2006). Building NCLB science assessments: Psychometric and practical
considerations. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspective, 4,
199-239. Retrieved from: http://bearcenter.berkeley.edu/measurement/
Pratt, H. (2007, October). Science education‟s „overlooked ingredient‟: Why the path to
global competitiveness begins in elementary school. Education Week, 27(7), 26,
32. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org
Puchner, L. D. (2003, April). Children teaching for learning: What happens when
children teach others to learn? (ED 478 759). Paper prepared for the 2003
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago,
Illinois.
Raphael, T. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1985). Increasing students' awareness of sources of
information for answering questions. American Educational Research Journal,
22, 217-235. doi: 10.3102 /00028312022002217
176
Reid, R., & Lienemann, T. O. (2006). Strategy instruction for students with learning
disabilities. New York: The Guilford Press.
Riley, K. W. (2006). Resilient children in an imperfect world. Leadership, 35(4), 20-23;
37-38
Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2001). Implementing an in-depth expanded science
model in elementary schools: Multi-year findings, research issues, and policy
implications. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 373-404. doi:
10.1080/09500690116738
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of research.
Review of Educational Research, 64, 479-530. doi: 10.2307/1170585
School District of Palm Beach County. (n.d.). Title I and families. Retrieved from:
http://www .palmbeachschools.org/federalprograms/documents
/SINICombinedParentAnnualMeetingandAYPEnglish2011.ppt#32
School District of Palm Beach County. (2009). Title I handbook. Retrieved from The
School District of Palm Beach County website:
http://www.palmbeachschools.org/federalprograms /documents
/FY10TitleIHandbook.pdf
School District of Palm Beach County. (2010, September). The gold report: Forest Hill
Elementary. Retrieved from The School District of Palm Beach County website:
http://www .palmbeachschools.org/dre/Goldrpt/gold.asp
Schugurensky, D. (2002). Selected moments of the 2oth century. Unpublished
manuscript, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto,
Toronto, Canada. Retrieved from university website:
177
http://legacy.oise.utoronto.ca/research /edu20/moments/?cms_page=edu20
/moments/index.html
Seymour, J. R., & Osana, H. P. (2003). Reciprocal Teaching procedures and principles:
Two teachers' developing understanding. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19,
325-344. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00018-0
Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (Eds.). (1998). What reading research tells us
about children with diverse learning needs: Bases and Basics. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading failure in young
children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Starnes, B.A. (2006). On nerds, science education, and horror films. Phi Delta Kappan,
87, 634-635.
Stone, E. (n.d.) Science and literacy. Retrieved from Utah State Office of Education
website : http://www.schools.utah.gov/curr/Science/ReadScience
/NEF%20Sci%20and%20Lit.html
Swanson, P. N., & De La Paz, S. (1998). Teaching effective comprehension strategies
to students with learning disabilities and reading disabilities. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 33, 209-218. doi: 10.1177/105345129803300403
Sweet, A. P., & Snow, C. E. (Eds.). (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Taylor, B. M., & Frye, B. J. (1992). Comprehension strategy instruction in the
intermediate grades. Reading Research and Instruction, 32, 39-48.
178
Taylor, R. L., Smiley, L. R., & Richards, S.B. (2009). Exceptional students: Preparing
teachers for the 21st century. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. (1998). A nation still at risk: An education manifesto.
Document resulting from the proceedings of Nation Still At Risk Summit,
Washington, D.C. Retrieved from The Center for Education Reform website:
http://www.edreform.com/published_pdf
/Education_Manifesto_A_Nation_Still_At_Risk.pdf
Turner, S., & Peck, D. (2009, Spring). Can we do science better? Facing the problem of
student engagement. Education Canada, 49(2), 54-57.
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). The facts about science achievement. Retrieved
from U.S. Department of Education website: http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/methods
/science/science.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No child left behind: Executive summary.
Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education website: http://www2.ed.gov
/nclb/overview/intro /execsumm.html
U. S. Department of Education. (2004). Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of
2004. Public Law 108-446, 108th Congress. Retrieved from U.S. Department of
Education website: http://idea.ed.gov
Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. L. (2002). Content area reading: Literacy and learning
across the curriculum (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Valencia, S. W., & Buly, M. R. (2004). Behind test scores: What struggling readers
really need. The Reading Teacher, 57, 520-531.
179
Vellutino, F.R. (2003). Individual differences and sources of variability in reading
comprehension in elementary school children. In A. P. Sweet, & C. E. Snow
(Eds.) Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 51-81). New York: The Guilford
Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Wallach, G. P., Charlton, S., & Christie, J. (2009) Making a broader case for the narrow
view: Where to begin? Language, Speech, and Hearing in Schools, 40, 201-211.
doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0043)
Walker, B. L., & Huber, R. A. (n.d.). Helping students read science textbooks.
Retrieved from the University of North Carolina Wilmington website:
http://people.uncw.edu/huberr/Revised_Reading_Textbooks.doc
Walsh, K. (2003). The lost opportunity to build the knowledge that propels
comprehension. American Educator, 27(1), 24-27. Retrieved from American
Federation of Teachers website: http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals
/ae/spring2003/index.cfm
Westby, C., & Torres-Velásquez, D. (2000). Developing scientific literacy: A
sociocultural approach. Remedial and Special Education, 21(2), 101-110. doi:
10.1177/074193250002100205
Westera, J., & Moore, D. W. (1995). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension in a
New Zealand high school. Psychology in the Schools, 32, 225-32. doi:
10.1002/1520-6807(199507)32:3<225::AID-PITS2310320310>3.0.CO;2-F
180
Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., & Lauer, K. D. (2004). Teaching expository text structure
to young at-risk learners: Building the basics of comprehension instruction.
Exceptionality, 12(3), 129-144. doi: 10.1207/s15327035ex1203_2
Williams, J. P., Stafford, K. B., Lauer, K. D., Hall, K. M., & Pollini, S. (2009).
Embedding reading comprehension training in content-area instruction. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 101(1), p. 1-20. doi: 10.1037/a0013152
Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of
science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International
Journal of Science Education, 25, 689-725. doi: 10.1080/09500690305018
Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities:
Language and science literacy-empowering research and informing instruction.
[Special issue]. International Journal of Science Education, 28, (2/3), 291-314.
doi: 10.1080 /09500690500336973