written reader responses: guiding students to higher

Written Reader Responses 1

Written Reader Responses:

Guiding students to higher cognitive levels

Julia Troiano

St. John Fisher College

Abstract


This short term study looked at the instructional practices that guide students to a higher

cognitive level within their written reader responses. This study took place in a suburban school

with four fourth graders all demonstrating different cognitive levels within their written reader

responses. Data was collected through artifact collections teacher observations. Findings

indicated that teacher directed questioning and small group discussions guided students to higher

cognitive levels within their written reader responses versus specific formatted reader responses.

By educators and parents using questioning and oral discussions, students are more likely to

respond to the text at a higher cognitive level within their written reader responses.

The higher level thinking of students in both their oral and written language is essential in

the academic growth of students. Through my teaching experience, it is evident that the written


reader responses to text that students produce are often at the lower cognitive levels which are

knowledge and understanding as seen in retellings and summaries as I look at student written

reader responses. There is therefore a need for educators to guide students to the higher cognitive

levels, which are application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation within their written reader

responses. Through my teaching experience, I have found that written reader responses tend to

consist of retellings and summaries of the text that is being read or was read. Retelling and

summarizing fall into the first two levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Knowledge and

Understanding.

Written language is not simply a transcribing of what is being said but rather begins at the

oral language and moves to a higher cognitive level (Kucer, 2005; Olson, 2006). However,

within the student’s written reader responses, I have observed in my teaching, their written

language is not building upon and extending from their oral language. This presents a problem

because students are to increase their cognitive levels in oral and written responses and in my

teaching experience it is not evident through student written responses that they applying the

literacy skills and strategies necessary to move to the higher cognitive levels of application,

analysis, synthesis and evaluation within their written responses. When comparing a student’s

written response to their oral response, one must be cognizant of the fact their written language is

based upon their oral response. “Olson’s central message is that learning to write is learning to

compensate what is ‘lost’ in transcribing “speech‘”. (Dyson, 2005). Therefore one must first

raise the cognitive level of the oral response to move students to a higher cognitive level in their

written responses. If this question is answered, students will benefit by being guided to higher

cognitive levels within their writing. They will in turn possess the skills and ability to think on a

higher cognitive level within their academic and social life.


If this question goes unanswered, then students’ cognitive level contained in their written

responses will remain low and will not extend from their oral language. They will also not have

exposure to and acquisition of the literacy skills on higher cognitive levels.

In order to address the issue of low cognitive levels within student written reader

responses, two things must occur. First, students’ oral language must be at a high cognitive level

to be able to then extend to a higher cognitive level within their written reader responses.

Teachers need to guide students to higher cognitive levels through teacher directed questioning

and oral discussions.

Theoretical Framework

Literacy has been defined in multiple ways. Barton and Hamilton as cited in Larson and

Marsh, 2005 define literacy as “primarily something people do; it is an activity, located in the

space between thought and text.” A person’s literacy practice is the manner in which they read,

write, listen, speak and use other means of communication depending on their social groups and

social identities. These literacy practices mature and deepen within students, as well as teacher

guidance to higher cognitive levels. Many of the daily literacy activities that students participate

in moving them need to be a pathway to higher cognitive levels.

Therefore students first need the higher cognitive level of thinking within their oral

language. Since written language extends from oral language, the basic knowledge and

understanding should occur within the oral language to allow for a place for the written language

to build upon. “Oral language is found in the here-and-now situations” and “is an immediate

linguistic interchange….with participants interacting person-to-person”. (Kucer, 2005). Oral

language begins developing within people at birth. Children are born into an environment

immersed with oral language. (Kucer, 2005). Their family members are talking to them and


talking among themselves in front of the child. The child is surrounded by the use of oral

language and experiences how it is used to communicate with others. Everyone is born with and

has a need to be social and to interact with others and to emotionally bond with others. (Kucer,

2005). These reasons are why people are motivated to acquire oral language and therefore do.

Written language is not speech written down but rather builds upon and extends the

spoken language”. (Kucer, 2005; Olson 2006). Written language differs from oral language in

that it is permanent and it builds upon and expands oral language. Since written language can be

permanent in nature, the unintended audience can misinterpret the writing due to not reading

what is written in the same context and situation is was written in. (Free body &Luke, 1990).

Therefore oral language is necessary to provide an explanation of what is written due to the fact

that written language often explains what is not explain in spoken language. (Kucer, 2005;

Olson, 2006). The bible for example is an old text and was written in a different context and time

period. For us to understand it now, people have discussions about it during services, small

groups, and/or daily devotionals. Using both oral and written language together can help in

explanations and deeper understanding of the material being covered. Although oral language

and written language are different in their form of communication that is used in certain

conditions, they share the commonalties of being rule governed systems and dually structured

(Kucer, 2005).

Oral and written language compliments each other through the ways in which students

acquire knowledge of the oral and written languages by certain developmental patterns and

principles. The learner as a Scientist is a principle that as a child acquires language, they collect

data, develop rule generation, rule testing and rule modification in which they build and

construct their language on (Kucer, 2005). They then form hypotheses and use them in their


language and adjust or keep it the same depending on the feedback they receive from others.

“The child discovers the abstract regularities of the language based on past communicative

experiences.” (Kucer, 2005). This quote is explaining that through this developmental pattern,

children are learning the parts of written language through their oral language experiences.

Another way written and oral language work together is through the recursive process

principle of learning language. It refers to the child’s attempt at using language and improving

over time. Through more and more experiences with language, the child “begin to formulate

hypotheses for how the linguistic systems operates.” (Kucer, 2005, Goodman, 2001). As children

are learning new rules or applying their hypotheses, they are becoming more aware that the

sounds in their spoken language are represented in the letters of written language. They attempt

to use their evolving understanding of sound-letter relations in their spelling. (Kucer, 2005). The

oral language/sounds of speech are being used to acquire written language through spelling and

reading/word decoding. Oral language is essential in acquiring the skills of written language.

Although children are experiencing, formulating ideas and rules and applying them to

their speech, reading and writing skills in an effort to acquire literacy, adult also play an active

role in their acquisition of learning language (Kucer, 2005). Adults and/or mediators are not

“taking over” the process but rather are collaboratively working with the child. One way an adult

supports a child’s language development is by using the language themselves as an example for

the child to observe. One way adults can scaffold literacy is first the child observes, then the

child participated in a meaningful way and then, lastly, they do it independently. The child and

the adult and/or mediator collaboratively work together in the process of the child’s acquisition

of language. Therefore the modeling and guidance high level written reader responses through

teachers, will aid in students doing the same.(Kucer, 2005).


Literacy is a social practice. “Knowledge about literacy is socially constructed” (Larson

and Marsh, 2005) shows that the particular way a person communicates with others is formed by

their specific social context in which the communication is taking place. Within the classroom,

students are participating in literacy events in many social contexts and therefore it depends on

oral as well as written interactions.

As a person reads, they are taking on one or several roles as a reader. The roles are code

breaker, text participant, text user and text analyst. The role of code breaker is the reader

understanding the relationship between spoken sounds and written letters. The role of text

participant is that the reader makes inferences connecting text evidence and background

knowledge to comprehend text. The role of text user is to understand and uses text for the

purpose they were designed for. The role of text analyst is to analyze the text in the position or

place it comes from and is written in. These roles correlate with the cognitive levels of Bloom’s

taxonomy as shown in the chart below. “All of these roles (code breaker, text participant, text

user and text analyst) form part of successful reading and writing as our culture currently

demands them.” (Free body &Luke, 1990).

Cognitive levels are the levels at which one thinks at. Bloom’s taxonomy is a hierarchal

system of questioning that guides thinking to a higher level. The cognitive levels in the

hierarchal system of Bloom’s taxonomy begin at Knowledge and move up to Comprehension,

Application, Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation.

Reading Roles Cognitive Level

Code Breaker Knowledge

Text Participant Analysis

Text User Synthesis


Text Analyst Metacognition

The question that remains is how can teachers guide their students to the higher cognitive

levels within their written reader responses? As students learn how to discuss their thinking

about the text with each other, these students are asking open ended questions without easy

answers, making connections and applying their knowledge to the world as well as evaluating

and judging the text’s messages. When students are able to do

so, they participate in a literacy activity of a written reader response of the text and their

discussion of the text. The higher cognitive levels that were being used during oral discussion do

not appear in their written responses as they consist of the written retellings and summaries of

the text.

Literature Review

Throughout literature it is found that there is a connectedness among the oral and written

language. Theory has stated that written language builds upon the oral language. The literature

has also stated that oral language can build upon the written language as well which creates the

connectedness between oral and written language. It has also been found through the literature

that the use of journal responses helps to increase the cognitive level contained within the student

written responses and that certain reader responses elicit certain cognitive levels.

Connectedness of Oral and Written Language

Research indicates that written language builds upon oral language and that if one is to

construct a written response at a high cognitive level, one must first read at that high cognitive

level. (Frew, 1996; Gunther (2000); Rief(2003); and Wollman-Bonilla and Wercadlo (1995).

Frew (1996) reported that as the level of reading difficulty increased, the cognitive level within


the written responses decreased. Frew goes on to state that the higher cognitive level written

responses contained statements that began with “what if…..” which elicited higher cognitive

levels within the analysis and synthesis levels. As students are questioning the text they read,

they thinking on a higher cognitive level which then transfer into their written responses to the

text. Gunther (2000) like Frew (1996) reports the connectedness of oral and written language is

when students personally connect to what they read and then transfer it into their writing. “Once

I am able to make connections between what I read and what I think, I can successfully explore

my thinking through the written world (Gunther, 2000). Gunther also states that students need to

have opportunities to express themselves and their thinking through writing once they have

connected and thought about the text that they have read.

On the other hand, Rief (2003) states that writing is a powerful tool for teaching reading

as students’ comprehension of the text broadens and deepens as they write back and forth to each

other. “Reading what someone else thinks stimulates their [students] thinking in way they might

not have managed on their own. It forces them to think more deeply about their understandings

as a result not just of the reading, but of other students’ writing toward understanding which

results in deeper thinking as well.” Rief (2003) goes on to state that student reading

comprehension increases as they write to and from each other. Spiegel (1998) indicates that

many researchers have found that students who respond in journals or participate in peer

discussions move to higher levels of thinking in their responses due to having the time to reflect

and think about the reading. The students begin to think about what they have read, instead of

retelling. Wollman-Bonilla and Wercadlo (1995) states that there is an interdependence among

reading, writing, discussion and thinking as students respond to texts and helps them to learn

how to interact with text on a higher level.


Types of Reading Responses and Cognitive Levels

Ollman (1996) reports that in her attempt to get students to a higher cognitive level

within their reader responses she focused on seven different types of reading responses. These

reading responses produced personal connections, textual analysis and/or metacogition. The

reading response that was found to produce the highest cognitive level was the hexagonal essay

in which the students were responding from six different perspectives that correspond to the six

levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. This moves students from retelling the plot which is a lower

cognitive level of knowledge to analyzing the text which is at a higher cognitive level of

analysis. Another reader response that was found to produce a higher cognitive level was where

the students record quotes from the text and then personally responding to the quotes. The higher

cognitive level that was contained in this response was due to the format leading the students to

analyze the quotes.

Kovarik (2006) found that using a similar response, that she titled double-entry journal,

also produced a higher cognitive level. All of these responses led students to an analysis level of

thinking about the text they read and were specific and formatted to lead students to this higher

cognitive level of analysis. Frew (1996) did not structure reading responses at specific cognitive

levels but rather designed a structure of cognitive hierarchy to identifying students’ cognitive

levels through reading responses. As Frew (1996) used this cognitive structure, he was able to be

aware of his students’ strengths, weaknesses and then teach lessons that he knew would reach his

students’ specific needs. Therefore no matter which cognitive level the students were at, whether

it is high or low, they could still be moved to a higher level. Similarly, Werderich (2006) reports

that the use of dialogue journals can be used to design the next steps of a student’s literacy

growth based upon their individual needs. “Each journal correspondence was another step in the


student’s growth toward independent learning and understanding of literature. Frew (1996) does

not offer how to move students’ to a higher cognitive level. Ollman (1996) addresses this

missing piece as she identifies seven types of reading response formats for students to respond at

in certain cognitive levels and to lead them to progress into higher cognitive levels within their

written responses to text.

As previously stated by Rief (2003), as students write back and forth to each other, their

comprehension deepens and makes for another type of response that elicits higher cognitive

thinking. Wollman-Bonilla and Wercadlo (1995) found that when students were to respond

freely, although their responses differed in type, length, and quality of thought, almost all of the

entries indicated whether or not the student understood what they were reading hence no need to

ask comprehension questions to determine a level of cognition.

Reader Response Journals and Cognitive Levels

Spiegel (1998) reports that children who are involved in reader response journals do

become better responder and better readers. Spiegel (1998) found that through reader response

journals, students have the choice to respond in a way that is meaningful to them, they become

engaged in their writing becomes meaningful. The students who participated in reader response

journals grew in many ways as a thinker. They were able to respond to literature in complex and

sophisticated ways due to dependent authorship. The dependent authorship allowed for the

students to respond to what another has written in which they have to understand what the author

has said and then in their own responses they take on the role of an additional author of the text

and discover and explore elements of their response.

Spiegel (1998) emphasizes that students need a repertoire of responses to literature to be

able to use with the different types of texts they read. Similarly, Kovarik (2006) reports that


teachers should integrate a variety of responses to reading to increase reading skills, strategies

and comprehension. Journaling about what one has read, allows readers to express how the text

has touched their lives which causes students to process the text on a high cognitive level.

Kovarik (2006) also states that one way students use their response journals are to take the sticky

notes with their thinking on it from the text and place them in their response journal to think and

write about which found to increase their cognitive level. Kovarik (2006) also reports that a type

of journal response that produces high cognitive level written responses is as she titles it KNIT

(Key ideas, Next, Insights, Think about supporting examples or contrasting evidence). Students

are stating comprehension of what was read on a knowledge level of thinking then moving into

higher cognitive levels of analyzing and synthesizing the text.

Beger (1996) reports that reader response questions of what do you notice? What do you

questions? What do you feel? And what do you relate to? guide journal response away from

retelling as they read and then put it in their written responses. These questions were reported to

work well in moving students to a higher cognitive level no matter what level they are currently

at. Martinez and Roser 2008) stated that first graders relied on their writing responses to

negotiate their understanding of a difficult text.

Research revealed that literature journals have the potential to support s younger

children’s literary understandings as each student continued to be engaged in the story world and

in meaning construction as they responded in their journals. Martinez and Roser’s (2008)

findings suggested that literature journals may offer support when children first try to make sense

of chapter books. Gordon (2000) states that reading response journals are a flexible, enjoyable,

and worthwhile assignment that actively engages students in the reading/writing process.

Students learn the skills of active reading and learn to respond by beginning to formulate their


own perspective which is a skill critical to the development of high cognitive thinking.

Edwards (1991) indicated that as student comprehension improved, they were able to link

reading with their writing in the response journal. Edwards (1991) states a process of shifting the

responsibility within the types of responses to eventually move the students to a higher cognitive

level. Hancock ( 1993) reports that the literature response journal provides an effective means of

linking writing with the active reading process and that the written responses increased in length

and moved beyond literal retelling and summary as students gained experience with journal.

Methods

Context

This research was conducted at Kirk Road Elementary School. Kirk Road Elementary School is

part of the Greece Central School District in Rochester New York. Kirk Road has a student

population of 339 students in grades three through five. 87% of our students are Caucasian, 10%

are African American, 3% are Hispanic, and 4% are Asian/Pacific Islander, and .3% American

Indian. 48% of the students at Kirk Road are male and 52% are female. Ethnic diversity has

remained relatively constant with no great variations noted over the last 3-5 years. On average

over the past three years we have a ranged between 1-3 out of school suspensions. In addition,

the attendance rate is excellent staying between 94 and 97% over the last three years. The

socioeconomic status has been steadily declining in recent years similar to the rest of the district.

This is evidenced by approximately 15% economically disadvantaged rate in the 2003-04 school

year and a 26% economically disadvantaged rate in 2008-09. At Kirk Road there is currently one

homeless student .

As a Signature School of Health, Wellness, and Developing Minds, the staff at Kirk Road

strive to enhance each child’s physical, social/emotional, and cognitive development. At Kirk


Road there are 25 full time teachers and 7 part time teachers. 72% of the teachers are tenured and

59% have taught for more than five years. 94% are female and 6% are male.

Kirk Road is an open-floor plan school with no internal walls separating classrooms.

Instead, classrooms spaces are created with dividers, bookshelves, and cabinets. Teachers have

autonomy to create a classroom environment within their allotted space. Each year classroom

layouts change depending on student enrollment and instructional needs.

This school is known to have high parent involvement. A strong parent network exists in

the neighborhoods and in the Parent Teacher Association (PTA). This strong, supportive

community wants and expects their children’s school experiences to be positive. The PTA is

involved with planning special events that directly support our goals.

Furthermore, Kirk Road offers a wide variety of extracurricular activities and include

Student Council, Safety Patrol, Band, Orchestra, Chorus, Physical Education Club, Art History

Club, Chess Club, and Bulldog Basketball. Paddy Hill offers morning intramurals and an art

club.

Participants

The first participant is Tanya (all names are pseudonyms) who is a nine year old

Caucasian female in the fourth grade. Tanya reads at the end of a second grade level and writes

at a third grade level.

The second participant is Sonna who is a nine year old Caucasian female in the fourth

grade. Sonna reads at the beginning of a fifth grade level and writes at a fifth grade level.

The third participant is Jason who is a nine year old Caucasian male in the fourth grade.

Jason reads at the end of a fourth grade level and writes at a fourth grade level.

The fourth participant is Bobby a nine year old Caucasian male who is in the fourth


grade. Bobby reads at the end of a fourth grade level and writes at a fourth grade level.

Researchers Stance

Throughout the research, as the teacher, I will be working with four students, each within

a different reader response strategy group. These reading strategy groups that are set up within

my classroom are groups of students who are working on the same reading strategy. I will be

collecting data through observations, group work and guided practice during lessons on specific

written reader response strategies and student written work.

Method

Over the three weeks that the research took place, I used the district mandated practice of

using strategy groups for organizing writing instruction. the strategy groups were focused on

written reading responses. All of the written reading response strategies that I taught contain

elements that guided the students to the thinking skills of the next cognitive level. I observed the

students use of the written reading response strategy and the cognitive level that is used when

using the specific response strategy. I focused on whether or not the written reading response

guides the student a higher cognitive level written response. Each strategy group met three times

a week for twenty minutes each meeting for three weeks.

The written reading response strategy groups were constructed by the cognitive level of

the student’s written reader responses and to which cognitive level to move to. The first strategy

group that was formed, the students were responding at a concrete level of retelling and were

using a strategy to move to the higher level of concrete thinking of personally reacting to text.

The second strategy group that was formed, the students were responding at a concrete level of

personally reacting to text and were using a strategy to move to the analysis level of questioning

to elaborate on meaning. The third strategy group that was formed, the students were responding


at an analysis level of inferring and thinking using text evidence and were using a strategy to

move to the synthesis level of finding relationships within the text and predictions using text

evidence. The fourth group that was formed were at a level of finding relationships within the

text and predictions using text evidence and were using a strategy to move to the metacognition

level of questioning the author’s craft and evaluating the text.

Student Initial

Cognitive Level

Targeted Cognitive Level

Strategy #1 Strategy #2

Jason Concrete Analysis Reader Response Questions

Reader Response Questions and Teacher Directed Higher Level Thinking Questions

Bobby Concrete Analysis Two-Column Response

Two-Column Response and Teacher Directed Higher Level Thinking Questions

Sonna Analysis Synthesis Buddy Response Journal

Buddy Response Journal and Teacher Directed Higher Level Thinking Questions

Tanya Synthesis Metacognition Letter to an Author

Letter to an Author and Teacher Directed Higher Level Thinking Questions

The strategy that was used for the first strategy group was reader response

questions which is a sheet of three questions of What feelings did the text make you feel? Why?,

What seems to you the most important or difficult word in the text? and What memory does the

text make you think of? These three questions directed the students to A) record reactions B)


analyze the text C) consider the text in the light of other readers, text and personal experiences

(Appendix A). The students had this response sheet to guide and record their thinking during

their reading. This response sheet was then used to construct a written reading response. As the

student became familiar and efficient with the response sheet, the student then wrote a reading

response independent of the response sheet on their independent book. The reading response

questions graphic organizer was changed for the second written response. The second question

was changed from “what seemed to you the most important or difficult word in the text?” to

“what seemed to you the most important word in the text?”. This change was made to help focus

Jason on the important words to lead is thinking towards elaborating on the story’s message.

Jason was still having difficulties with using the questions to help elaborate on the story’s

message. Teacher directed questioning such as “How is this word important to the text?” and

“Why did you feel this way?” was used along with the reader response questions.

The strategy that was used for the second strategy group was a two-column response

chart (Appendix B) which in the left column the student records quotes/events that raise

questions, remind them of an experience, interpret or elicit and opinions. In the right column the

student records their personal responses to the quote/event. The student had this response sheet

to guide and record their thinking during their reading. This response sheet was then used to

construct a written reading response. As the student became familiar and efficient with the

response sheet, the student then wrote a reading response independent of the response sheet on

their independent book. Bobby was still having difficulties taking his wonderings and knowledge

about the text and putting it together to provide an explanation based on textual evidence.

Teacher directed questioning such as “Why is this event/quote important in the story?“ and

“Why did you pick this quote/event?” and “how did this event/quote help you to understand the


text?” and “what questions do you know have about the text?”, was used along with the two-

column response.

The strategy that was used for the third group was a Buddy Book Journal (Appendix C)

which is where students in partners read the same book. Each student initiates at least three

responses from each other. Students choose sentence starters from a list of “I predict……”, “I

notice………”, and “I considered….”. The students then constructed a written reading response

in their buddy journal to their partner and then responded to their partners’ response. Sonna was

still having difficulties taking her wonderings and knowledge about the text and putting it

together to provide an explanation based on textual evidence. Teacher directed questioning such

as “why did you predict that…..?” and “why do you conclude that….?” was used along with the

buddy response journal.

The strategy that was used for the fourth group was a Letter to an Author (Appendix D)

which requires students to write a letter to the author and ask questions about the author as a

person/writer, questions/comments about the author’s writing style and to evaluate the book

based on text evidence. The student had this response sheet to guide and record their thinking

during their reading. This response sheet was then used to construct a written reading response.

As the student became familiar and efficient with the response sheet, the student then wrote a

reading response. For the second written reader response teacher directed questioning such as “

why do you think the author used…..?” and “how did the author set the text up and why/ for

what purpose?” and “what do you think about the text?“, was used along with the Letter to an

Author response sheet.

Validity of Qualitative Research

By being the classroom teacher and teaching in the school for over a year, I have ensured


credibility to this research as I have participated at the study site for a prolonged amount of time.

I have also ensured credibility as I have practiced triangulation as I collected and analyzed data

through different sources and methods such as observations/anecdotal notes of the use of the

strategies through the lessons and guided practice sessions and student work samples of their

written reading responses and strategy guide sheets. The use of a critical colleague has also

ensured credibility to this research.

Transferability is ensured as well as the research was done in my classroom wit my

students with myself as the researcher. I am familiar with the students and their strengths and

needs and history as a learner and person. I have taught in the school for over a year and have an

understanding and experience with the school’s population, rules and expectations.

Dependability of the research is apparent in that the data that is collected and analyzed in

different forms and methods to ensure that the findings of the research and the data are accurate

and that all areas are covered. I have also achieved confirmability within the research as I

recorded field notes, observations of every meeting in a recording journal and have student

samples of written reading responses and strategy guide sheets.

I collected informed consent by sending a letter home with the students to their parents

explaining the procedures and purpose of the research and received their permission in written

form. In protecting the rights of the participants, I used anonymous names and identifying marks

were removed from the artifacts.

Data Collection

The tools I used to collect the data were active observations recorded by anecdotal notes,

field notes, and written reading responses. There are active observations and field notes for every

meeting and two written responses. I also conducted a pre-assessment which consisted of an


independent written response with no teacher modeling or guidance. The only directions were to

“write a response on what you are reading. Tell me what you are thinking about what you are

reading.”

Findings For all of the four students, the final written response demonstrated thinking at a higher

cognitive level. The teacher directed higher level thinking questions along with their strategy and

recording sheets, successfully lead Jason to write a written response that elaborated on the

story’s message and lead Bobby to write a written response at that provided elaboration on the

story and lead to questions about the story. They successfully lead Sonna to write a written

response at that provided explanations based on textual evidence and lead Tanya to write a

written response at that provided questioning and evaluation of the author, their writing style and

purpose.

Student Name/Strategy

Used

Initial Cognitive Level

Target Level Final Cognitive Level

Jason/ Reader Response Questions & Teacher Directed Higher Level Questioning

Concrete Analysis Analysis

Bobby/ Two-Column Response & Teacher Directed Higher Level Questioning

Concrete Analysis Analysis

Sonna/ Buddy Response Journal & Teacher Directed Higher Level Questioning

Analysis Synthesis Synthesis


Tanya/ Letter to an Author & Teacher Directed Higher Level Questioning

Synthesis Metacognitive Metacognitive

Questioning

Questioning was found to help guide students to a higher cognitive written response. As

the students were preparing for their written responses by completing their graphic organizers,

teacher directed questioning was used to enable the students to expand their thinking and

responses to a higher cognitive level. Jason for example was introduced and practiced using the

reading response questions graphic organizer. He wrote a response to a story titled The Littlest

Pumpkin by R.A. Herman. Within this response he elaborated the text information to advance the

story/message which is at higher cognitive level for him. As Jason was completing his graphic

organizer, teacher questioning was being used such as “what seems to you the most important

word in the text” and his answer was “littlest because the pumpkin was never picked and he felt

unwanted”. Jason’s answer to other questions of “what feelings did the text make you feel and

why?“ was “ the text made me feel sad because the littlest pumpkin never got picked even

though there was a bruised pumpkin and it was picked before the littlest pumpkin”. These answer

were used as he elaborated on them in his written response of the story’s message of patience

and good things coming out of bad things. By asking these questions, Jason went back into the

text and reread some parts to explore the question, which aided in Jason elaborating on the

story’s message.

Jason’s second response was a retell of the story and did not include his thinking of the

questions on the graphic organizer. Jason’s written response was a retell and did not continue


using his thinking from the questions. The difference between the first and second response. was

that there was less teacher guidance during the process as he answered the questions and I asked

him questions to deepen his thinking and the information he added did not elaborate his thinking

and then wrote his response. Jason lacked the teacher guidance in the specific form of

questioning which led him in the previous responses to elaborate on the story’s message.

Similarly with Bobby, as he was finding quotes and/or events to respond to, teacher

questioning was used to help Bobby elaborate on the significance of the quotes and/or events.

Questions like “why is that important?”, “how does that relate to the meaning of the text?” and

“what does that tells you about the text?” aided Bobby in elaborating his thinking of is text and

moving from a concrete level of thinking to a analysis level of thinking.

Although Tanya was working at a response at a higher level than Bobby and Jason, she

too benefited from teacher questioning. As she was too working through her graphic organizer in

preparation for her written response, teacher questioning was used which pushed Tanya to

elaborate and expand her thinking about the author’s craft and style. With this she produced

written response that was on a metacognitive level.

Sonna’s responses produced different results in that her thinking did not move to a higher

level thinking and rather it stayed at an analysis level never moving to a synthesis level. As

Sonna used the buddy journal type response, she independently wrote to her buddy about what

she noticed, what she thought and what she concluded. As she exchanged journals with her

buddy she responded as an evaluator of the previous response. During these buddy journal

responses there was no teacher questioning with Sonna and therefore no opportunity for the

teacher to help guide Sonna to elaborate on her thinking which in turn would elaborate her

thinking to a higher cognitive level.


All students benefited from teacher questioning, specifically higher level thinking

questions such as “why do you think that?“ and “how do you know that?“ and “what does that

mean to you?“. when teacher questioning was not used, the students were less likely to move

toward higher cognitive levels within their written reader responses.

Oral Discussion

Oral discussion naturally came as a result of the questions. The questions asked by the

teacher created thoughts and ideas that students were struggling with which led them to deeper

thinking. Students began discussing these struggling thoughts and ideas which helped them to

elaborate their thinking moving their thinking to a higher cognitive level.

As Bobby was asked questions like, “why is that important?”, “how does that relate to the

meaning of the text?” and “what does that tells you about the text?” , he began answering the

questions by having a discussion with the teacher and most times with other students in the small

group. Most of the time Bobby would end up changing his quote and/or event or eliminating it

because as he was discussing it he found that the quote/event was not important or meaningful to

the message and deep understanding of the text. Other times Bobby was able to elaborate on his

thinking as he used his explanation of the quote to start a discussion and then dig deeper into the

meaning of it.

Similarly, Jason also engaged in discussion once asked questions about his thinking as he

was completing his graphic organizers. Jason at times would answer right away and then stop

and say “ummm no that’s not right… I mean that….”. Through discussion with the teacher and

students in his small group, Jason was sorting through his thoughts and ideas and constructing

understanding from himself as well as other students’ thoughts and ideas that they shared. His

written response to The Littlest Pumpkin which was at a cognitive level of analysis, contained the


ideas and thoughts that he discussed with his small group and teacher. Tanya’s letter to an author

response to Ralph Fletcher contained elements of questioning and commenting on his craft and

style of a writer which came as a result of small group discussion from a teacher lead question of

“how does Ralph Fletcher make writing sound easy to do for students?”

As previously stated Sonna’s responses remained at the analysis level. Sonna’s buddy

journal responses did not allow for oral discussions as she communicated only writing to her

buddy. Without the questions and discussions, Sonna did not have the same opportunity as the

other student to think through and elaborate on her ideas and thoughts out loud with others.

Therefore, Sonna’s group continued to meet with teacher guidance and included teacher

directed questioning of higher level thinking. Now, Similarly to the other three students, Sonna

was able to move her thinking to the synthesis level as she provided explanations of the text

based on textual evidence. These questions also lead to a I discussion as Sonna was trying to

answer these questions. Once they got into their conversations, the group would stop talking and

say “oh! I know what to write now!” and begin writing.

Implications

Scaffolding students’ thinking to a higher cognitive level comes from teacher guidance in

the form of higher level questioning. This lays the foundation for the students and initiates their

thinking which then leads into an oral discussion among each other. This discussion is where

their thinking is pushed to and moves to a higher cognitive level.

As a teacher I know I need to guide student thinking through asking higher cognitive

level thinking questions and lead them into a discussion. Gradually releasing the responsibility to

the students and having them lead the conversation using higher level thinking questions.

Following these conversations then students would then respond in writing. Ensuring that the


questioning and discussion occur before the written reader response will help to ensure a higher

cognitive level within the written response.

Fellow educators and parents can benefit in this knowledge in that they too can elicit this

higher cognitive level response within their students/children by simply asking the higher level

thinking questions. See chart below for examples.

Targeted Level of Thinking Questions to ask

Knowledge who, what, when, where, how ...? describe

Analysis how is ... an example of ...? how is ... related to ...? why is ... significant? what are the parts or features of ...? classify ... according to ... outline/diagram ... how does ... compare/contrast with ...? what evidence can you list for ...?

Synthesis what would you predict/infer from ...? what ideas can you add to ...? how would you create/design a new ...? what might happen if you combined ...? what solutions would you suggest for ...?

Evaluation do you agree that ...? what do you think about ...? what is the most important ...? place the following in order of priority ... how would you decide about ...? what criteria would you use to assess ...?

Asking these questions can help lead students to a higher level thinking to the text they


read within their written responses. Once they have had the opportunity to think about and orally

discuss the answers to these questions, they are better prepared to respond in a higher cognitive

level. Given the results of this study, this leads into the wondering of how do educators guide

students into self-guided oral discussions and self-questioning of text.


Referencs

Berger, L. (1996). Reader response journal: You make the meaning…and how: Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy. Interaction Reading Association, 39(5), 380-385.

Cushman, E., Kintgen, E.R., Kroll, B.M., & Rose, M. (2001). Literacy: A critical source book.

In A.H. Dyson, Coach Bombay’s kids learn to write: Children’s appropriation of media

material for school literacy (pp. 325-357). New York: Bedfords/ St. Martins.

Cushman, E., Kintgen, E.R., Kroll, B.M., & Rose, M. (2001). Literacy: A critical source book. In

Y. Goodman, The development of initial literacy (pp. 316-324). New York: Bedfords/ St.

Martins.

Cushman, E., Kintgen, E.R., Kroll, B.M., & Rose, M. (2001). Literacy: A critical source

book. In D. Olson, Writing and the mind (pp.107-122). New York: Bedfords/ St.

Martins.

Edwards, P. (1991). Using dialectical journals to teach thinking skills. Journal of Reading,

35(4), 312- 316.

Free body, P. & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies’ programs: Debates and demands in cultural

context. Prospect: Australian Journal of TESOL, 5, 7-16.

Frew, A. (1996). Identifying student cognitive levels in reading responses. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39(8), 661-663.

Gordon, H. (2000). Using a reading response journal. Teaching English in the Two Year

College, 28(1), 41-43.

Gunther, M. (2000). Critical analysis of literature: Making the connection between

reading and writing. English Journal, 89(4), 85-88.


Hancock, M. (1992). Literature response journals: Insights beyond the printed page.

Language Arts, 69(1), 36- 42.

Kovarik, M. (2006). Meaningful responses to literature. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 178-182.

Kucer, S. (2005). Dimensions of literacy: A conceptual base for teaching reading and writing in

school settings. (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Larson, J. & Marsh, J. (2005). Making literacy real: Theories and practices for learning and

teaching. Thousand Oaks, Cal: SAGE Publications.

Martinez, M. & Roer, N. (2008). Writing to understand lengthy text: How first graders

response journals to support their understanding of a challenging chapter book. Literacy

Research and Instruction, 47(3), 195-210.

Ollman, H. (1996). Creating higher level thinking with reading responses. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39(7), 576-581.

Rief, L. (2003). Writing towards understanding. Voices From the Middle, 11(1), 54-55.

Spiegel, D. (1998). Reader response approaches and the growth of readers. Language Arts,

76(1), 41- 48.

Werderich, D. (2006). The teacher’s response process in dialogue journals. Reading

Horizons, 47(1), 47-78.

Wollman-Bonilla, Julie. & Werchadlo, B. (1995). Literature response journals in a first-grade

classroom. Language Arts, 72, 562-570.

written reader responses: guiding students to higher

Documents