Beck, I., McKeown, M., Hamilton, R., & Kucan, L. (1998, January 1). Getting at the

meaning: How to help students unpack difficult text. American Educator, 22(1-2),

66.

This article was written in response to the frustrations many teachers face as

students have difficulty understanding what is read. Students are unable to fully

comprehend expository text for several reasons. It has been found that many expository

texts are not well written, fail to build on past learning, assume readers have prior

knowledge of the topic and can make connections between what is known and what is

being taught.

In earlier research, expository text was altered to present information in a manner

more appropriate for students. The change in presentation improved the reader’s ability to

comprehend text more accurately, but all information is not presented in a student-

friendly manner. Reading comprehension did improve, but many students continued to

have difficulty understanding expository text when reading. Readers continued to gather

only basic information from their reading, and did not spend time searching for deeper

meaning. Modified presentation of all expository text is not a practical or sufficient

solution for helping students learn to read for meaning.

Questioning the Author (QtA) is an approach designed to lead students in open

discussions of ideas and concepts presented by authors in text. When using the QtA

approach students learn to think deeply about and make sense of what is read while

reading. Meaning is discussed, evaluated and constructed while reading and new

knowledge is connected to prior knowledge. Readers are taught to understand text while

reading it through the first time. Teachers model how to evaluate, sort, and organize new

information while making sense of texts. They pose questions that direct student’s

thinking while reading. Through these group discussions of text, students are exposed to

alterative ideas and possible ways of thinking about what is read. They realize the

discussion is guided by information the author shares. The teacher is the facilitator rather

than the evaluator of the discussion. Students feel less threatened and more likely to share

their ideas with this approach. The teacher leads the discussion and determines where to

stop to discuss sections of the text and what major ideas and concepts need to be the

focus of the reading. The teacher “segments” text in appropriate sections and poses

“queries” (questions) that encourage discussions and lead students to construct meaning.

The major differences in the QtA approach and the traditional question-answer

technique are also discussed in this article. These authors compare the type of questioning

that occurs in QtA to that of traditional questioning. Queries promote thinking and

encourage understanding. Traditional questions evaluate and determine understanding.

They determine one’s ability to recall and understand what is read without discussion.

Queries focus on discussion of ideas presented and understanding of those ideas. This

type discussion encourages readers to question and think deeply about ideas presented.

Several different examples of question based query and evaluative based

questioning are discussed to compare the differences. During traditional question-answer

sessions lead by the teacher, students read an entire excerpt and answer questions using

their knowledge of the text. Student responses were directed to the teacher and there was

little or no student discussion. The teacher confirmed responses by repeating what was

said. This question-answer process continued with students sharing single word

responses. It was difficult to determine if the students had a clear understanding of what

the author was trying to say and why it was important. The same teacher also led

discussions using queries from the QtA approach. The text was segmented and open-

ended questions were asked to stimulate students’ thoughts about what was read and the

author’s purpose. As the students began thinking and discussing ideas, they also began to

have questions of their own. The teacher did not answer these questions herself, but

rather she turned them back over to the group for discussion. The students begin to think

deeply about the author’s main idea and purpose.

It was found that the QtA approach enabled teachers to guide students to make

connections between current knowledge and new learning while learning from the ideas

and discussions of other students.

QtA is not an easy approach to use, but with models to follow and continued

practice it can be done and is a beneficial approach to understanding difficult text.

Beck, I., & McKeown, M., Sandora C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996, March). Questioning the author: A yearlong classroom implementation to engage students with text. Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 385-414.

Research has shown that successful readers actively make sense of information

they read by putting ideas together while integrating their prior knowledge. However,

research has also shown that young and struggling readers take a less active role and do

not monitor their reading which makes it difficult to comprehend text. Educators have

conducted research on many strategies to encourage students to become actively involved

in their reading. One strategy that has had successful results and also encourages students

to collaborate with each is other is Questioning the Author. The goal of this study was to

implement Questioning the Author, to learn the extent in which teachers found this

strategy useful, how it changed the interactions between teachers and students, and to see

how the interactions between students and text were affected. Because Questioning the

Author is directed to encourage readers to take an active role and has focus on teaching,

modeling, and practicing strategies the authors believed this strategy would benefit both

teachers and students.

Beck, McKeown, Kucan, Sandora, and Worthy (1996) set out to implement

Questioning the Author in a classroom and test the idea that this strategy would help

students comprehend text better. They study was conducted at a small school in which

the population of at-risk students was high. Two teachers were selected who taught

reading/ language arts and social studies to fourth graders. The students involved were all

fourth graders, 15 girls and 8 boys; all but two of the students were African American.

To begin the year long study, researchers observed how the teachers conducted their

classes. They learned that the teachers taught in a traditional manner, teacher-led question

and answer session after reading a story. The remaining sessions with the teachers were

to get them acquainted with Questioning the Author and plan for implementation. The

teachers were then ready for the implementation of Questioning the Author to begin.

Materials for the study consisted of fourth-grade social studies and

reading/language arts whenever text was the focus of a lesson. In addition, researchers

had students respond to comprehension tasks that were administered as pretests and

posttests. They used two expository texts comparable in length (134 and 135 words)

when administering the pre and posttest. The pretest was given early September before

the implementation of Questioning the Author. The posttest was administered toward the

end of the school year in May. They also conducted interviews with students about how

they felt about Questioning the Author.

In Questioning the Author lessons, discussion began with an open-ended question

and students responded while the teacher commented. The comments and questions built

on each other, thus the discussion was cooperative and students’ responses contributed to

the building of ideas. The teachers’ questions had four general purposes for which

questions were asked; retrieve information, construct the meaning of text, extend

discussion, and check students’ knowledge of information. Some examples of questions

that the teachers used are as follows: What’s the author reminding of us here?, What does

Susie mean by (something another student had previously said)?, So how did the author

settle that for us?, and How did the author let you see something/ feel something/ smell

something? Over time the analysis showed that when using Questioning the Author,

students were encouraged to think about and construct meaning from what they were

reading.

Another aspect of Questioning the Author is students’ responsiveness to their

peers. Many responses showed that students were listening to each other and

collaborating even when they disagreed. An important part of interacting with narratives

is involvement with characters of the story. Students are able get in touch with a

characters perspective by collaborating with other students. Discussion of expository text

is making sense of information so that it can be understood. Students are more apt to

comprehend the text when able to talk through it with their peers. Each student can offer

different explanations of the information.

Results revealed that Questioning the Author is a valuable strategy to use with

students in the classroom. The pretest and posttest question, “What’s the author trying to

tell us?” responses varied greatly. Results showed that two thirds of students’ responses

demonstrated misunderstanding on the pretest. However on the posttest, more than half of

the responses demonstrated higher levels of understanding. The results of the monitoring

question were dramatic. Nearly three quarters of the students failed in monitoring their

comprehension on the pretest. However on the posttest, three quarters of the students

succeed in monitoring their comprehension. These results are extremely meaningful

because a reader cannot always make sense of a text, especially if they have little

background knowledge. These results show that the students were able to recognize the

problem and deal with it. The overall results reveal that students were moving towards

engagement with text and collaborative discussion with their peers. The results also

showed that students were able to construct meaning of text and monitor their

understanding. After interviewing the students about how they felt about Questioning the

Author, the researchers found that students seemed to be developing confidence to

disagree or agree with the author’s ideas and the ideas of others. They also found that the

students began to see themselves as capable thinkers who had ideas worth sharing.

Results from this study indicate that students can benefit from Questioning the

Author. Students were able to deal with a variety of text and take control of their

learning. However, in order to implement this strategy, teachers need to break habits they

have developed in their teaching. They need to be open-minded and let the students take

control of the discussion. This can be a very powerful thing if the teachers can let go.

There are no scripts to tell educators what to do or say; it is just an approach to allow

students to interact with text.

Conrad, N., Gong, Y., Sipp, L., & Wright, L. (2004, March 1). Using Text Talk as a Gateway to Culturally Responsive Teaching. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(3), 187.

Text Talk, a strategy used during read-alouds, was developed by Beck and

McKeown (2001) to aid in improving students’ oral language and comprehension

abilities. Teachers plan stopping points throughout the book and “ask initiating questions

that focus on the book’s ideas” (Conrad, Gong, Sipp, Wright, 2004, p. 188) as well as

provide direct instruction of vocabulary words. Since many students provide short

answers to the questions, teachers must be prepared to ask follow-up questions which

“require students to elaborate on and extend their answers” (Conrad, et al., 2004, p. 188).

Based on their research, Beck and MeKeown (2001) recommend that students not be

shown the pictures of the story until after the text has been read. This allows students to

draw information and conclusions based on the text rather than the illustrations.

The research of Ladson-Billings (1994) and Delpit (1995) found that children

were better able to understand and comprehend complicated text when they were able to

link the material to their real-life experiences and backgrounds. “Culturally responsive

teaching attempts to increase the academic achievement of students by making learning

more relevant to their experiences and frames of references” (Conrad, et al., 2004, p.

188). According to Neuman (1999b), “culturally responsive instruction focuses on four

features: (a) recognizing and valuing children’s home cultures, (b) promoting

collaboration, (c) holding high standards for all children, and (d) appreciating the

continuity between children’s home life and their school literacy experiences” (Conrad, et

al., 2004, p. 188).

Conrad, et al. (2004) set out to combine the theory of culturally responsive

teaching with the Text Talk strategy to help readers build comprehension of a picture

book. Their study was conducted with three classes of second-grade students in three

different settings: an urban school, a rural school, and a university-affiliated laboratory

school. The picture book that was used was More than Anything Else (Bradby, 1995).

Each class of students completed a K-W-L chart (Ogle, 1986) one week before the book

was read to them to access prior knowledge of Booker T. Washington. The responses

from each class were recorded. Secondly, students were asked to respond to the question:

“How would you feel if you really wanted to go to school or learn to read and weren’t

permitted to do so?” (Conrad, et al., 2004, p. 189) Again, the student responses were

recorded. During the read-aloud, each teacher tape-recorded the discussion for evaluation

and did not allow students to see the illustrations until the entire text had been read aloud.

Teachers probed the students to extend their answers by asking open-ended questions.

Three vocabulary words were introduced at the conclusion of the read-aloud. Students

were provided with a sentence from the story that included the word and a definition of it.

They were required to repeat the word and answer questions. Their responses were

recorded.

Conrad, et al. (2004) found that as a result of teachers setting high expectations

for their students, the students produced “extended, in-depth responses and insightful

thinking” (p. 189). As stated before Beck and McKewon (2001) discourage the use of

illustrations during the read-aloud. Conrad, et al. (2004), however, suggest that teachers

select and utilize literature that includes illustrations. Quality illustrations are a valuable

resource students can use when making connections and understanding various cultures.

As a result of this study, Conrad, et al. (2004) “recommend using Text Talk as a gateway

to culturally responsive teaching” (191) as it allows students to celebrate their diversity

and make personal connections.

Fiene, J., & McMahon, S. (2007, February 1). Assessing Comprehension: A Classroom-Based Process. Reading Teacher, 60(5).

Recently, teachers and administrators have relied on standardized testing to

determine students’ achievement and growth in reading comprehension. Even though

standardized testing provides some important information, it is not the only assessment

educators should consider. The ultimate goal of a teacher is to be able to refine

instruction based on assessment results; standardized testing doesn’t allow this important

event to occur because they limit the amount of information given to the teacher. Fiene

and McMahon collaborated with a school district in Wisconsin to develop an approach to

classroom-based assessment. They discovered that teachers should look at a variety of

sources, such as ongoing, classroom assignments to understand students’ meanings of

text.

While Fiene was observing a fourth grade teacher, Kelly, she noticed three

patterns in her instruction. Kelly constantly modified instruction based on the

comprehension needs of her students; she modeled questioning as one part of

comprehension, and highlighted graphic organizers as another part of comprehension,

organizing information. Kelly was encouraged to examine students’ differences as

readers to plan instruction. Because she could examine students’ differences, it was easier

to identify students’ needs and provide them with differentiated instruction.

Kelly used sticky notes as a way to monitor her students’ comprehension process.

She would have her students write initial thoughts on a sticky note as they were reading,

this way they were verbalizing their thoughts. She then would look over the sticky notes

and plan her instruction to meet students’ immediate needs. For example, Kelly could tell

from the sticky notes that Melissa, a student of Kelly’s, was an active reader because she

questioned the author, made connections, and interpreted a picture. However, the sticky

notes revealed Melissa’s questions were not easily answered by the text. This led Kelly to

instruct Melissa on QAR (question answer relationships). Kelly also asked her students to

use these sticky notes as a basis for journal writing. Journal writing provided Kelly with

further insights on their meaning of different texts. Standardized testing cannot provide

this depth of information to help teachers plan instruction.

Questioning also played a major role in Kelly’s classroom to help students

monitor their comprehension. Teachers need to instruct students on more than how to

answer a test question, but how to question the author, text, and themselves during

reading. Because questioning is so important in comprehension, Kelly attended a staff

development that stressed QAR. She implemented it in her classroom and towards the

end of the year; students began incorporating good questions during Book Club

discussions. While many standardized tests include the same types of questions, they do

not engage readers because the students are not answering their own questions. In Kelly’s

classroom, students are engaged because they are seeking to answer their own questions,

which give students’ a purpose for reading.

In order to comprehend, students need to understand the organizational structure

of texts. They also need to be able to remember the information. In order to meet the

needs of her students in this comprehension area, Kelly used graphic organizers. Students

were encouraged to use graphic organizers to classify information and support

comprehension of texts. Kelly introduced the Content/ Process/ Craft organizer and book

they would be using. Kelly asked students to record information from the book as she

was reading. She stopped often asking students to share what they had listed in each

column. Kelly would record each response on chart paper and continue the process over

again until they finished the text. This helped Kelly model how to monitor

comprehension, question the author, and evaluate the quality of a book all while being

engaged. By using reading experiences like this one, students are able to reach a level of

understanding that standardized testing cannot compare too.

Overall, teachers need to engage in ongoing, classroom-based assessments to

inform them of individual needs of students. Standardized testing provides indications of

students’ comprehension while reading but assessing comprehension needs to consist

more than checking questions. Classroom based assessments are powerful because they

show growth and regression over time. This is an important tool for teachers so they can

plan instruction for individual needs.

Maloch, B. (2002, January). Scaffolding student talk: One teacher's role in literature discussion groups. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(1), 94.

This research article focuses on the relationship between the teacher’s role and

student participation in literature discussion groups. They look closely at how a third

grade teacher supports student understanding of the discussion format and how this

information demonstrates how teachers influence growth and change in literature

discussion groups over time.

This study is supported by the theory that children’s understanding is shaped by

interactions and relationships with others. Vygotsky’s social learning theory, current

changes in teacher roles and teacher student interactions between teacher and learner are

crucial to understanding current teaching and learning processes and justify this study of

teacher-student interaction. Prior research shows a need for teachers to assist student

learning and act as a guide when beginning these discussion groups. Previous research

brings us to this study of the role of teachers and need for guidance during the transition

to literature discussion groups.

This qualitative study was conducted over 5-months in a third-grade classroom.

Many language arts activities were offered during the day. Each group met daily to

discuss literature read. Students read a select section and recorded thoughts and questions

in reading response journals before meeting with the group. At the group meeting, they

would discuss their notes from their previous reading.

Data was collected from field notes, video, and audio recordings taken by the

researcher of this study. Interactions with students were kept to a minimum. The focus

was on the student teacher relationships and interactions during the literature discussion

times. Thirty groups were videotaped. Three formal interviews were conducted, one prior

to beginning discussion groups, one during the groups, and one at the end of the year.

Many other informal interviews were given throughout the study. Data was collected in

four phases. Phase I was spent becoming familiar with the class in general. Phase 2 was

spent observing the literary activities of the classroom. Phase 3 was spent observing the

daily literature discussion groups and phase 4 was spent analyzing the data collected.

Data analysis was ongoing during this study. Notes and video tapes were

reviewed. Interactions between teacher and students were analyzed. Notes were also

taken as videos and field notes were shared with colleagues.

Two reoccurring themes dominated this study. The first issue of concern was the

difficulty students experienced as the responsibility of leading the literature discussion

shifted from the teacher to the students. The students were used to teacher-led

discussions. They continued to raise their hand to speak and look to the teacher for

leadership and solutions during the discussions. They had difficulty getting started and

were not understanding and responding to what others were saying. Some groups sat

silent and what they did share was more of a retelling rather than a discussion about what

was read. The teacher realized she needed to spend more time teaching the students their

roles in literature discussions and reminding them during discussion that they are

responsible for their group’s discussion.

The second area of concern was how the teacher handled the students’ struggle

with the shift from teacher-led to student-led discussions. The teacher used strategies that

related to her expectations for the groups. The groups were expected to include all

members in the discussions, keep the discussion organized and focused, select their own

topics of discussion, and support their ideas with literature. As the students continued to

practice literature discussions, the teacher began guiding the groups to be student led. For

example, one word answers were given by individuals, so follow-up questioning was

introduced and modeled. When groups began giving single word responses again, gentle

reminders were given to redirect the group. Facial expressions, hand gestures, comments,

models and discussion recaps were used. As the groups became more comfortable with

leading their own literature discussions, fewer reminders were needed. These techniques

mentioned demonstrate the varying level of strategies used to teach conversation needed

for student led discussion groups.

Two rounds of literature discussions were conducted during the study. The first

set of discussions required more teacher interventions. Conversational skills improved

and strategies taught were being used in group discussions. The focus shifted to

interventions of strategies needed to improve the discussion groups during the second

round. The number of interventions needed during the second round did not decrease, but

the teacher shifted from a guide or teacher to a participant role that helped teach the

discussion process.

A variety of intervention techniques were used to assist students in developing an

understanding of the discussion process. The amount and intensity of interventions was

based on student responses. Modeling was even used after less specific interventions

were unsuccessful. These interventions changed as students began to understand the

intent and process of literature discussions.

This study demonstrates a teacher’s role in implementing the literature discussion

process. It demonstrates how teachers must make adjustments to approaches for meeting

students’ needs. This transitioning process to student led discussion requires teacher

support as they learn to participate in a new discussion format. Students face many

difficulties as they make this transition from teacher to student-led discussions. Teachers

need to consider and plan for problems that will arise and provide gradual transitions.

Massey, D. (2007, April). "The Discovery Channel said so" and other barriers to comprehension. Reading Teacher, 60(7), 656-66.

With emphasis on phonics in the primary grades, many students are excellent

word callers, but lack in comprehension skills. This is a problem educators are faced with

daily while trying to prep students for the end of grade test. In this study, Massey (2007),

followed a labeled “struggling reader”, Cameron, for two years during his reading

journey. Massey (2007) set out to find the reason behind Cameron’s lack of

comprehension skills and tutor him in the areas of his specific needs.

When Massey (2007) first began tutoring Cameron the summer following his

second grade year, his report card showed little signs of difficulty. Although his report

card was average, his parents and teachers were concerned. The teachers warned his

parents that he was at risk of failing the end of grade test in third grade. A psychologist

evaluated Cameron and recommended Cameron’s parents seek additional help for

Cameron in reading. It was also noted that a reading specialist, to complete assignments,

pulled Cameron out during reading.

Massey (2007) conducted her own assessments on Cameron, including word lists

and comprehension passages from QRI (Qualitative Reading Inventory). She found that

Cameron’s word identification and comprehension scores were not far from grade level.

However, he was starting to show signs of weakness in the comprehension area. His

fluency scores were significantly lower for a rising third grader. Although Cameron was

lacking in some reading skills, he had a very positive attitude toward reading. Even

though he enjoyed reading books, he viewed reading as being able to call words. Massey

(2007) concluded that there would be three areas of focus during his tutoring sessions:

fluency, word identification, and comprehension. Fluency work included repeated

readings and Reader’s Theater, word identification work included word walls and word

sorting, and comprehension work concentrated on eight cognitive acts. In spite of

planning a carefully designed instruction plan, Massey (2007) concluded that Cameron

was not progressing. There were three barriers keeping Cameron from comprehending

text: prior knowledge, distraction technique, and word identification.

Prior knowledge proved to be a significant barrier to Cameron’s comprehension.

Cameron valued what he already knew about a topic over what the text stated. Sometimes

Cameron was correct, but other times his prior knowledge led him to incorrect answers.

Massey’s (2007) intervention to this barrier was introducing Cameron to reading guides.

These guides asked Cameron to identify what he thinks he knows about certain questions.

Once Cameron was able to identify where the knowledge came from, he could evaluate

whether the information was reliable. They also spent a great amount of time discussing

why texts and sources varied in information. Toward the end of the two years, Cameron

was more willing to look in the text for answers.

Cameron was not without reading strategies; however, his first comprehension

strategy was to read familiar texts. He was very resistant to trying new fictional texts and

when asked questions about a story he was not familiar with, he would start talking about

other books that he had read. In order to help Cameron, Massey (2007) focused on

teaching him when and how to use comprehension strategies. She provided choices from

many genres and allowed him to pick a book. She also provided him with a

comprehension checklist, which was used to build pre-, during-, and post-reading

strategies to use. Massey (2007) spent a great amount of time modeling strategies that

Cameron was not using, such as make a picture or movie in your mind. Massey (2007)

also made sure she did not introduce a new strategy until Cameron mastered the old

strategy. By the end of the tutoring sessions, Cameron began asking questions and

monitoring his own reading instead of using his distracting techniques.

Cameron’s third barrier was word identification, which hindered his

comprehension. In the beginning Cameron did not have strategies for reading new words.

Massey’s (2007) intervention included chunking words on a white board and word study.

She also modeled strategies like recognizing words by vowel patterns. Before having

Cameron use these strategies, Massey (2007) had Cameron look through the story and

find words he did not recognize. Then she had Cameron pick a strategy to use. It took

about nine months, but Cameron finally started using these strategies to help him identify

new words.

Cameron’s reading improved over the two years that Massey (2007) tutored him.

His report cards showed improving grades and he was moved to the highest reading

group in fourth grade. Even after the tutoring ending, Cameron continued to grow and

improve. Massey (2007) concluded that there are three things teachers can do in their

classroom to help struggling readers with comprehension skills: 1) Time 2) Talk 3)

Questions. By doing these three things in a classroom, struggling readers could become

successful and enjoy reading.

Migyanka, J., Policastro, C., & Lui, G. (2005, December 1). Using a Think-Aloud with Diverse Students: Three Primary Grade Students Experience Chrysanthemum. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(3), 171.

Good readers incorporate the use of seven keys to comprehension while they are

reading. According to Zimmermann & Hutchins (2003), these keys are “(1) create mental

images, (2) use background knowledge, (3) ask questions, (4) make inferences, (5)

determine the most important ideas or themes, (6) synthesize information, and (7) use

‘fix-up’ strategies” (Migyanka, Policastro, Lui, 2005, p. 172). Wilhelm (2001) states that

a think aloud strategy gives students the chance to hear what a good reader is thinking

and how he monitors his comprehension while he reads. Migyanka, et al. (2005) set out

to test the idea that “if differentiated, readers of varying ability levels can and do benefit

from the think-aloud strategy” (p. 172).

The steps involved in the think aloud process, according to Wilhelm (2001), are

as follows:

(1) Choose a short section of text

(2) Select a few strategies (activating prior knowledge, predicting, visualizing,

monitor comprehension, and use fix-up strategies to address confusion and

repair comprehension)

(3) State your purpose for reading (informational and enjoyment) and to focus

attention on strategies used

(4) Read the text aloud to students and model the chosen strategy as you read

(5) Have students annotate the text

(6) Brainstorm cues and strategies used

(7) Teach students to generalize the strategies

(8) Reinforce the think-aloud with follow-up lessons. (Migyanka, et al. p. 173).

Migyanka, et al. (2005) state that teachers can differentiate think-aloud instruction based

on the various needs of their individual students.

Chrysanthemum, written by Kevin Henkes, was the book Migyanka, et al. (2005)

chose to use for the study based on the diverse needs of the three students. Research was

conducted using three primary grade students in different classrooms. Yubo, a second-

grade English as a Second Language (ESL) student, needed a focus on vocabulary and

cultural connections, Courtney, a first-grade student with a learning disability, needed

assistance in fluency, decoding skills and making meaning of the text, and Callie, a

second-grade struggling reader, had “difficulty with retaining prior instruction, [was]

afraid of failure, [made] literal interpretations, and [read] word by word” (Migyanka, et

al. p. 172).

For this study, Migyanka et al. (2005) chose to use the think-aloud process of the

teacher doing the think-aloud and the students helping. The teacher began by introducing

the book and giving the purpose for reading as well as pointing out the think-aloud

strategies that would be used while reading the story. The teacher then used the cover of

the book to activate prior knowledge. While reading, the teacher provided opportunities

for the students to make predictions then continued reading to affirm or negate the

predictions. Key vocabulary was highlighted and defined using context clues. The teacher

modeled for the students how to make connections to “other books, ideas, characters and

life experiences” (Migyanka, et al. p. 174). Also during the think-aloud, the teacher drew

the students’ attention to the structure and genre of the story as well as the author’s word

choices, use of characters, and style.

Farr (2004) points out that the ability of the teacher to model and facilitate the

think-aloud procedure is vital to the process. Migyanka, et al. (2005) conclude that a

think-aloud is an effective strategy for use with struggling readers when it is adapted

according to their needs. Its success is dependent upon the engagement of the students

and the selection of quality literature “that is developmentally appropriate and rich with

vocabulary and meaning” (p. 177).

Morrow, L. (1985, January 1). Retelling Stories: A Strategy for Improving Young Children's Comprehension, Concept of Story Structure, and Oral Language Complexity. Elementary School Journal, 85(5), 647.

This research study was conducted to determine whether practice in story retelling

improves kindergartner’s comprehension of stories. The complexity of grammar used in

oral language and use of story elements were also reviewed during children’s retellings.

Supporting research shows young children have a concept of well developed story

structure. The number of story elements included in retellings is influenced by the age of

the child. Retelling stories can increase student’s knowledge of story elements such as

setting, theme, plot events, and resolution. Other studies show that language growth is

facilitated by various forms of story telling and one study even showed retelling can help

develop a sense of story structure.

This research consisted of two studies. Both contained a control and an

experimental group. The first study was conducted to determine if retelling a story

improves comprehension and story recall, and the second study was conducted in

response to the first study to determine if practice and guidance during retelling improves

comprehension and retelling abilities using syntactically improved oral language.

Both studies consisted of kindergartners with various ability and socioeconomic

levels. The first study was conducted using four kindergarten classes with an average of

15 students. Twenty-nine students were assigned to the experimental group and 30 were

in the control group. Using the same three storybooks with well developed story

structures, the classrooms were asked five comprehension questions addressing different

story elements. These questions each addressed different cognitive objectives. Three

additional questions addressed information stated in the story and two required higher

level thinking. The same story books and comprehension questions were used in study

two.

The first study was conducted during regular story time. A story was read aloud to

the class. Pictures were shown and favorite parts were discussed. The same format was

followed before and after reading. Ten minutes were given to both groups. The control

group drew a picture about the story and the treatment group retold the story to a

researcher. No prompts were used. A comprehension test was given orally individually

before reading and an hour after reading. The same book was used for the pretest and two

different books were used for the posttest. The same format was followed before and

after reading. Questions consisted of half structural and half traditional questions. Two

research assistants scored the tests using a guide sheet. Open ended questions were used

first and if answered incorrectly, the same question was asked using a multiple choice

format. Fewer points were given for multiple choice questions answered correctly.

The results of the first study showed there was no significant difference between

the performance on the traditional and story structure questions, but the experimental

group out performed the control group in comprehension. This study led the researchers

to believe repeated practice in retelling may affect comprehension. Many children had

difficulty with the retelling concept. It was evident that the students needed practice in

retelling.

The second study consisted of thirty-eight students randomly selected for the

experimental group and forty-four for the control group. Students were asked to listen to

a story and then retell it to a researcher. Pre- and post retellings were recorded and

analyzed for the important elements of story structure and language complexity. Again no

prompts were given. The comprehension test given was the same as that used in the first

study.

The experimental group out performed the control group in comprehension,

retelling and language complexity during the second study. The practice and guidance

provided during the retellings of the second study improved the scores of the

experimental group. Retelling facilitated comprehension while guidance and practice

emphasized story structure. The experimental group’s ability to sequence stories

improved after interventions. Children who improved in retelling also improved in the

area of comprehension. This supports previous research that retelling leads to a greater

understanding of story structure which in turn improves comprehension and retelling.

In conclusion, it was found that story retelling can be a beneficial instructional

strategy for improving knowledge of story structure, complexity of oral language,

comprehension and retelling itself.

Raphael, T., & Au, K. (2005, November). QAR: Enhancing comprehension and test taking across grades and content areas. Reading Teacher, 59(3), 206-221.

Teachers have used a variety of techniques and programs over the years to close

the literacy achievement gap. Whether or not it is deserved, teachers are judged on how

well their students perform on standardized testing. It is a common goal among educators

to find a strategy that will enable all students to read a wide range of text, interpret and

evaluate materials read, and draw conclusions based on prior knowledge. In this article,

Raphael and Au (2005) describe how question answer relationships (QAR) can provide a

framework for comprehension instruction. According to the authors, QAR provides a

framework that teachers can use as a tool for teaching reading comprehension. Raphael

and Au (2005) also believe that QAR addresses four problems that stand in the way of

students’ growth; shared language, organizing questioning activities and comprehension

instruction across grades, whole-school reform for literacy instruction, and the need to

prepare students for high-stakes testing.

The vocabulary of many programs is not shared among students and teachers.

Teachers find it frustrating when trying to model and convey ideas without having a

common language. QAR’s vocabulary includes: in the book, in my head, right there,

think and search, author and me, and on my own. This vocabulary allows students and

teachers to have a common language to speak within the classroom and encourages

students to learn to use these strategies effectively. Students can communicate with each

other and the teacher about what they are doing and when they need help.

QAR instruction can be adjusted across grade levels because of the way the

categories progress in difficultly. This allows teachers to plan instruction to meet

individual needs because there is a wide range of high-level comprehension strategies. If

a student is struggling with think and search questions, the teacher can instruct the

student on those types of questions while also moving other students who are ready to the

next level. Teachers can introduce in the book and in my head questions in the early

primary grades but then introduce the next level once students understand these

categories well. Research shows that by second grade students learn to distinguish

between right there and think and search. Fourth graders understand the difference

between the four core components. Understanding the strategies helps readers engage in

literacy activities throughout the day and in assessments at all levels.

QAR can provide a whole school reform for literacy instruction. It helps organize

comprehension instruction across grade levels and can even close the gap between

language arts and other subjects. The authors used an elementary school in Hawaii as an

example of whole school reform through QAR. In this case, first grade teachers agreed to

teach in the book and in my head. The third grade teachers taught all four of the core

categories. Teachers in fourth through sixth grades emphasized think and search in which

students used non-fiction and fiction texts. Because the school had a common language

teachers could proceed when they want to improve comprehension instruction. For

example, the first grade teachers noticed their students having a hard time making

inferences. They discussed the problem and decided as a grade level to introduce author

and me questions to the students. The continuous QAR instruction across grade level and

school subjects provides a starting point for improving reading and listening

comprehension. Those students who have received consistent QAR instruction have

developed great strategies to analyze questions, which will help them on the high stake

test.

Educators are under a great amount of pressure to increase students’ reading

performance measure by scores on standardized tests. In an attempt to improve these

scores, school districts spend the majority of the end of the year using test preparation

packages to prepare for the test. These packages use little to no teacher instruction by the

teacher and students gain little or no information. By using QAR, teachers can prepare

their students by incorporating strategies when faced with difficult texts. End of the year

tests are moving away from recalling information and more towards higher levels of

literacy. By using QAR, teachers do not need to teach to a particular test but are able to

teach the different types of questions.

QAR addresses four main problems teachers and students are faced with in

reading comprehension; it can address the lack of shared language among teachers and

students, it brings literacy instruction across grade levels, provides a focal point for whole

school reform, and QAR prepares students for high-stakes testing. Using QAR will

benefit schools, teachers, and most importantly students. Students are able to gain skills

in reading comprehension and become better at answering higher level thinking questions

with all types of text.

Raphael, T., & McMahon, S. (1994, October). Book club: An alternative framework for reading instruction. Reading Teacher, 48(2), 102.

Theories about literacy development have evolved over the years. “For years,

reading instruction involved breaking the reading process into smaller, more manageable

units” (Raphael & McMahon, 1994, p. 102). With the concern about the amount of time

students spent reading and the view that reading was merely an accumulation of skills

(Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985; Durkin, 1978-1979, 1981) literacy

instruction was “called into question in the 1970s and 80s” (Raphael & McMahon, 1994,

p. 102). Views of reading instruction are currently based in social constructivist theory

(Gavelek, 1986; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Wertsch, 1985). The goals of reading

instruction have also changed. It was once believed that if a text was decoded it would

automatically be understood which resulted in an emphasis on instruction of decoding

strategies. Anderson & Pearson (1984) later pointed out that comprehension did not

naturally follow decoding. This led to an emphasis on teaching comprehension strategies

(Brown, Armbruster, & Baker, 1986; Duffy, 1993). Recent research has also shown that

while decoding and comprehension are both important, it is also necessary to provide

students an opportunity to respond personally to the text (Harker, 1987; Rosenblatt,

1978). Views about curriculum material have shifted from traditional reading programs

which use teachers’ guides that direct teachers on how and when to teach strategies to a

literature-based reading instruction which views curriculum materials as tools and allows

teachers the opportunity to instruct their students according to their individual needs and

interests. Raphael & McMahon (1994) assisted in developing the Book Club program,

with the collaboration of university- and school-based researchers (McMahon, 1992;

Raphael et al., 1992), based on this information.

To begin, Raphael & McMahon (1994) “identified good literature around an

identifiable theme, talked with students about the differences between conversations

about books and answering questions, introduced reading logs instead of workbooks, and

discussed characteristics of good speakers and listeners in small groups” (p. 104).

Quality, relevance, difficulty, interest and variety were among the criteria used in

selecting literature. Raphael & McMahon set a goal of assisting students in learning the

difference between “their preconceptions about book discussion and authentic discussion

that arises when readers are engaged with their texts” (p. 105). They observed students

who were more concerned about whose turn it was to speak than who had something

important and relevant to contribute. They also observed a need for students to consider

the deeper meanings in the texts they were reading. Raphael & McMahon (1994) noted

that “focusing on themes and issues in a mature way may not occur without support” (p.

107). It was with these obstacles in mind that Raphael & McMahon (1994) developed the

Book Club components.

Reading, writing, community share, and instruction were among the original

components of the Book Club. The reading component involved instruction in fluency,

vocabulary, comprehension strategies, genres, and aesthetic and personal response.

Students kept think sheets on which they wrote unknown and interesting words. They

were taught to develop sequence charts, generate questions that provoked discussion, ask

for clarification when needed, and analyze literary elements of the literature (Raphael &

McMahon, 1994, p. 108). Writing involved students focusing on issues for discussion,

adopting relevant stances toward literary understanding (Langer, 1990), and linking

ideas. Students acquired ideas for writing by consulting a reading log map. Various

strategies were used to aid students in synthesizing ideas within as well as across texts

(Raphael & McMahon, 1994, p. 108). The community share component varied depending

on when it was conducted. Teachers helped students prepare for reading prior to book

clubs by “reviewing previous text, discussing interesting terms, and predicting upcoming

events” (Raphael & McMahon, 1994, p. 111). Following book clubs, community share

involved students sharing ideas, debating issues and discussing background information.

Teachers modeled different ways of responding to text and participating in the

discussions. Instruction involved indirect support as well as direct ways to enhance the

quality of the discussions. Some strategies included allowing students to listen to

audiotapes of conversations and identifying strengths and weaknesses, role playing, and

observing each other (Raphael & McMahon, 1994, p. 111, 113). Researchers found that

the components began to merge over time and the “distinction among the components

blurred as [they] implemented the program” (Raphael & McMahon, 1994, p. 107). This

information was used to adjust the focus of the instruction.

Raphael & McMahon (1994) found that “students developed their ability to

synthesize information (Goatley, Brock, & Raphael, 1993), weave conversations around

important themes (McMahon, 1992), use a range of ways to represent their ideas in

writing (Pardo, 1992), and take different perspectives (McMahon, 1994)” (p. 113). They

also determined that the instruction on the tools for successful reading, writing and

discussion helped students to discuss book content and personal responses.

Through their research, Raphael & McMahon (1994) learned that integrating

reading with language arts is important and alternative models of instruction do benefit

students’ literacy development. The researchers also noted that the students who had been

involved in Book Clubs were better able to remember and talk about books they had read

the previous year than those who were not in Book Clubs. Raphael & McMahon (1994)

analyzed group interactions and noticed that diverse learners were able to actively

participate and assume leadership in the discussions. Analyzing students’ reading logs

revealed an increase in quality and sophistication of writing over time. Raphael &

McMahon (1994) along with their collaborative team continue to address questions that

have arisen as a result of this study. Some of these include the optimal way of grouping

students, assessing students’ progress, and developing thematic units.

Roser, N., Strecker, S. & Martinez, M. (2000). Literature Circles, Book Clubs, and Literature Discussion Groups. Promoting Literacy in Grades 4-9: A Handbook for Teachers and Administrators.

This article discusses the popularity of “book talk” and gives four reasons why it

has become the topic of interest among educators. Literature discussions are a growing

trend due to increased interest in comprehension of text, reader reflection and shared

responses to what is read. The abundance of well written informative children’s literature

currently available in classrooms has also encouraged reading discussions. The idea of

meaning construction during reading discussions comes from Vygotsky’s theory that

learning is socially constructed and students construct meaning while reading and share

their thoughts through discussion with others.

As interest in “book talk” continues to grow, its importance is defined. These type

discussions encourage students to share their thoughts and feelings about text read. They

explore and discuss ideas presented by the author while learning about various genres and

language.

After establishing the importance of literature discussions and their growing

interests, suggestions are made to help teachers facilitate “book talks”. Book selection

should consist of text that engages students such as those containing suspenseful plots,

difficult decisions and moral predicaments. Teachers must also consider reading abilities,

student interests, topics being studied and the quality of literature.

Three types of book discussion groups are addressed. In Literature Circles,

students read independently and think together. Readers are encouraged to become

thoughtful and serious thinkers and readers. Book Clubs also consists of a group of

readers discussing a common reading. They share individual feelings about what is read

and work together to make sense of the text and understand the author’s purpose. The

Literature Discussion Groups are teacher lead and “rely on open-ended discussions”

based on the comprehension of text.

The primary goal of “book talk” is to create communities of readers. The teacher

and students work together to come up with additional goals, and the teacher guides the

discussion to ensure goals are met. All readers actively participate and no one person

dominates the discussion. The teacher can add to the conversations discussed and help to

keep the students ideas focused, and consider different views. The classroom seating

should also be conducive to group discussion and all students have a responsibility to

participate in the conversation.

Read aloud is an excellent time to model book discussions. Once a model has

been provided, a group discussion may be used. The group discussions can be led by the

students. They are willing to contribute more openly when leading their own discussion

groups. Students are given different roles in the discussion group. The leader checks with

each member to determine text has been read. The orator reads a selected passage aloud

to help set the mood of the group and begin discussion. Important ideas are recorded on

charts by the scribe and all members are expected to listen, share and help evaluate

usefulness of the discussion. The teacher’s role is to either guide the group on the side,

intervene when the group discussion weakens, or serve as an active participant. A simple

framework for keeping book discussions flowing was given. Several questions were

listed to help start group discussions. Students can share what they would like to talk

about, what they found in the text, were unsure of or confused about and/or how they

connected with the story.

Smith, L. (2006, May). Think-Aloud Mysteries: Using structured, sentence-by-sentence text passages to teach comprehension strategies. Reading Teacher, 59(8), 764-773.

Reading comprehension is a difficult process during which struggling readers

have a hard time finding appropriate strategies to use. Educators and researchers have

come up with a variety of techniques for teachers and students to use during reading;

however, it is very difficult to find a way to teach comprehension strategies that will fit

all students’ needs. When a classroom is filled with a wide range of reading ability it is

hard not to bore certain children. In this article, Lynn Smith (2006), a reading specialist

describes one method that has worked well with her students from Kindergarten through

eighth grade. Think-Aloud Mysteries are a form of scaffolding for teaching

comprehension skills to all readers. Think-Aloud Mysteries highlight only

comprehension strategies; whereas other strategies such as think aloud and QAR have

complex texts, which could frustrate struggling readers.

The Think-Aloud Mysteries involves a small group of four to six students

working together to solve the “mystery” subject. They read the passage from sentence

strips, which are presented to the students one at a time. As students guess the subject of

each sentence strip, the teacher guides the students through comprehension questions.

These comprehension questions are viewed as hints to help the students figure out the

solution or subject. The teacher is there to model and identify comprehension strategies

directly as students discuss the mystery topic. Teacher questions come from the basic

comprehension strategies; relating text to prior knowledge, predicting from prior

knowledge, rereading when there is confusion, and clarifying with outside sources facts

or topics.

Think-Aloud Mysteries are easy to create and can be used with genre from poetry

to science texts. They are created with short passages that lend students to gather

evidence to discover the mystery subject. The first sentence strip the students read is

general information such as setting or seasonal clues and then detailed facts are added

until the readers can conclude what the subject is. It is important for teachers to create

texts that can keep the students pondering until nearly the end. This forces students to use

different comprehension strategies to make predictions. Because students are working in

a small group, they enjoy discussing possible outcomes and are more apt to keep and

open mind when reading in the future especially if they have predicted wrong before.

Smith (2006) provides a transcript from a Think-Aloud Mystery that had been

done on a struggling fifth grade student. The transcript demonstrates the teacher

prompting her prior knowledge, checking the facts, making comparisons to her life

experiences, encouraging the student to reread for clarification, and in the end

summarizing the process. The Think-Aloud Mystery is a true scaffolding approach that

encourages students to use a variety of comprehension strategies. After interpreting five

to eight Think-Aloud Mysteries, students are ready to apply the comprehension strategies

to other texts. They are able to identify the themes and details in stories and textbook

passages. The next step is to introduce students to use the outline of Think-Aloud

Mysteries to write their own reports, stories, and compositions.

There are however, some possible problems associated with the Think-Aloud

Mysteries. One such problem is students not be willing to pinpoint the strategy used for

their guesses. Modeling by the teacher and other students in the group often help them

get over their fear. Another drawback to this approach is that students want to continue to

do it over and over with new texts. It is the teachers’ responsibility to move the students

to the next step, which is writing their own mysteries. Children in the primary grades are

not cognitively ready to create their own mysteries, which make it more difficult for

students to transfer to other reading materials.

Think-Aloud Mysteries have been an effective strategy for teaching

comprehension to students of all ages, especially older struggling readers. Think-Aloud

Mysteries uses the technique of scaffolding and direct instruction which research has

supported for many years. They provide an efficient and effective teaching tool for

reading comprehension and writing activities in the classroom.

Smolkin, L., & Donovan, C. (2001, January 1). The Contexts of Comprehension: The Information Book Read Aloud, Comprehension Acquisition, and Comprehension Instruction in a First-Grade Classroom. Elementary School Journal, 102(2ov), 97.

Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998), identified “three potential stumbling blocks that

are known to throw children off course on the journey to skilled reading”. They are the

ability to understand and use the alphabetic principle, “failure to transfer the

comprehension skills of spoken language to reading and to acquire new strategies that

may be specifically needed for reading” and motivation to read (Snow et al., 1998). The

second of these is the focus of this article. In their research, Pressley & Afflerbach,

(1995), found that good readers update their understanding of text while they are reading

and Smolkin and Donovan (2001) point out that there is a vast supply of research

available on comprehension strategies (p. 98). However, Pearson (1996) indicates that

there has been a decrease in the direct teaching of reading comprehension strategies by

teachers.

Smolkin and Donovan (2001) focus their research for this article on a period in

children’s development called comprehension acquisition (p. 98). Adults play an

important part in the language acquisition of children. According to Cazden (1983),

scaffolding, modeling, and direct instruction are three forms of adult input that occur as

parents communicate with children.

Early research on comprehension strategy instruction produced eight strategies

that teachers encourage students to use. These included activating prior knowledge,

monitoring comprehension, generating questions, answering questions, drawing

inferences, creating pictorial mental images and mnemonic images, activating knowledge

of text structure, and creating summaries (Pressley, Johnson, Symons, McGoldrick, &

Kurita, 1989; Dole, Duffy, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991; Pearson & Fielding, 1991;

Pearson, Roehler, Dole, & Duffy, 1992). Recent Research in comprehension strategy

instruction focuses on what takes place during the reading of the text rather than on the

teaching of strategies. This research stresses the significance of drawing inferences and

connecting them to prior knowledge (McNamara, Kintsch, Songer, & Kintsch, 1996;

Trabasso & Magliano, 1996) as well as the importance of asking how and why questions

during reading (Trabasso, 1994; Trabasso & Magliano, 1996). Questioning the Author

(Beck, McKeown, Hamilton, & Kucan, 1997; Beck, McKeown, Worthy, Sandora, &

Kucan, 1996; McKeown, Beck, & Sandora, 1996) and Pressley and colleagues’

transactional strategies instruction (Brown & Coy-Ogan, 1993; Brown, Pressley, Van

Meter, & Schuder, 1996; Pressely et al., 1992) are other approaches to comprehension

instruction that have received attention in recent research.

As interest in the importance of information books in elementary school

curriculum has increased (Mallett, 1992; Moss, Leone, & Dipillo, 1007), Smolkin &

Donovan (1993, 2000, 2001) have noticed the difference this genre brings to the

conversation produced by children during read alouds (p. 103). Through their research

(Smolkin & Donovan, 2000; Smolkin and Donovan, 2001), they have developed seven

categories of comprehension-related discourse offered by children during read alouds.

These include interpreting, telling, personal associations, literary associations,

elaborations, predictions, and wondering (p. 103).

Smolkin and Donovan (2001) studied “the responses of a class of first graders

from a lower-middle-class school and their teacher, Carol, to six storybooks and six

information books” then “collected the same type of data in a subsequent year when

Carol moved to an upper-middle-class school” (p. 103). Both schools were located in the

same school district. The information books Carol chose to read to her students include

two life cycle books identified as narrative informational text, a descriptive book

identified as a nonnarrative information book and three nonfiction books in which the

authors combine text and structural patterns (Donovan & Smolkin, in press; Smolkin &

Donovan, 2001, p. 105). Carol tape-recorded the interaction that occurred between

herself and her students during the interactive read aloud sessions with no intent of

teaching comprehension strategies. Smolkin and Donovan (2001) analyzed the discourse

that occurred and placed examples within the following “three emphases of

comprehension instruction research:…establishing links between portions of text,

activating prior knowledge, and developing an awareness of authors’ decisions and

readers’ metacognitive thinking” (pp. 105-106).

Through the use of modeling, scaffolding, and informal direct instruction, Carol

guides the students in making “links between words in a sentence, between two

sentences, between ideas in the text, and between ideas and the text’s structure” (Smolkin

& Donovan, 2001, p. 106). She also encourages the students to activate prior knowledge

and supports them in creating mental images, clarifying incorrect prior knowledge and

generating hypotheses (pp. 108-109). Carol modeled for the students how to question the

author as well as the reader when something does not make sense (pp. 110-111).

Smolkin & Donovan (2001) point out that the effectiveness of Carol’s modeling,

scaffolding, and informal direct instruction is due to the fact that she incorporated them

into the information read alouds rather than providing instruction prior to reading the text

(p. 112). Krashen (1976) suggests that acquisition, which is basically subconscious, and

learned, which is formal instruction, are “two separate knowledge systems [that] underlie

children’s second-language performance” (Smolkin & Donovan, 2001, p. 112.)

Smolkin & Donovan (2001) state that comprehension acquisition could begin in

preschool and continue through first and part of second grade. Adults read a variety of

texts, including information books, to children in an “unplanned, interactive manner” (p.

113). They determined that a curriculum enriched with comprehension acquisition would

result in a balance of growth in concepts and vocabulary with growth in decoding. Based

on their findings, Smolkin & Donovan (2001) indicate that simple instruction of

comprehension strategies should begin in the second-grade year and continue across the

elementary grades (p. 114). They also found the development of comprehension of text to

be vital to elementary school students and feel it requires school wide attention.

Smolkin & Donovan (2001) noted some differences between informational text

and story read alouds. They found that the discourse that occurs during these two

different genres varies. They determined that this difference is a result of the two

functions they serve. They noticed that adults spend more time explaining and talking

about informational text than stories in part because they feel the text is more

complicated and difficult for the child to understand. Smolkin & Donovan also

recognized the value of informational text for children. Many children, especially boys,

choose informational text over stories when offered the opportunity. This genre also

provides children the opportunity to participate in discussion.

As a result of this study, Smolkin & Donovan (2001) devised some questions and

topics of interest for future research. These include an examination of the nature of

comprehension acquisition, developmental research with the eight cognitive acts, a

consideration of instructional approaches with a focus on how children best learn to

comprehend, and research on teacher training of comprehension acquisition and

instruction.

Stien, D., & Beed, P. (2004, March). Bridging the gap between fiction and nonfiction in the literature circle setting. Reading Teacher, 57(6), 510-518.

Research has shown that literature circles are an effective strategy for building

reading comprehension. Short (1997) states that literature circles provide students the

opportunity to become literate while Gambrell & Almasi (1996) found that literature

circle discussions aid students in becoming critical thinkers. Stein (Stein & Beed, 2004)

noticed that her students were not developing an interest in nonfiction text. She knew that

as they continued in school, informational text would be in abundance. Having used

literature circles effectively for five years, Stein knew the value of this strategy. She

turned to literature circles to aid her students in developing an appreciation for nonfiction

texts. Her study included observing student responses to see if the conversations that

occurred about nonfiction text were as dynamic as those about fiction text, monitoring

student roles to see if students transferred the roles from fiction to nonfiction or created

new ones, and determining if students would become motivated to read nonfiction text on

their own. The study included “students’ responses to nonfiction texts in and beyond

literature circles” (Stein & Beed, 2004, p. 511).

A third-grade class consisting of ten boys and twelve girls were the participants

for the study. Of these students, five were identified as talented and gifted, three were on

Individualized Educational Plans for reading and language arts, and four were reading

half a year below grade level. The teacher audiotaped the literature circle discussions and

videotaped the lessons she taught introducing the various features of literature circles.

She reviewed and listened to these tapes as well as the anecdotal notes she took while

monitoring conversations throughout the study and again at the end. The teacher

conducted a four-question interview before beginning literature circles and repeated this

interview with additional questions at the end of the year.

The students in the study were not familiar with literature circles. Therefore, the

teacher began by using fiction books to teach the strategy. She included modeling,

discussion, and guided practice frequently throughout the study and used “six different

roles adapted from Daniels’s (1994, 2002) work with literature circles: Artful Artist,

Word Wizard, Discussion Leader, Dramatic Reenactor, Story Elements Correspondent,

and Personal Connector” (Stein & Beed, 2004, p. 512). After two months of using fiction

texts with literature circles, the teacher introduced a nonfiction genre, biographies. The

connection was made by having students read a historical fiction story, discussing the

characters, then discussing biographies. Each student was invited to read a biography and

report two new facts they learned.

The teacher then turned the students’ attention to literature circles with nonfiction

texts by discussing how the roles would change. Together the class developed three new

roles for the nonfiction literature circle setting. These roles included a Fantastic Fact

Finder whose job is to find interesting and unusual facts, a Timeline Traveler whose job

is to record important dates about the person’s life, and Vital Statistics Collector whose

job is to report on the subjects’ personal information. In addition to these roles, the class

decided to incorporate the roles of Personal Connector, Word Wizard, and Discussion

Leader from their previous literature circles. While observing the conversations, the

teacher noticed that the students were applying the new roles well and were engaged and

participating. The students used prior knowledge to construct meaning, make logical

interpretations, and make connections to the fiction book they had read.

With the success of using biographies in the literature circle setting, the teacher

progressed into other nonfiction texts. She selected informational text that related to

fiction books the students were interested in. She also recommended that the students

“substitute ‘tabbing’ for role sheets when preparing” (Stein & Beed, 2004, p. 516). In this

process, the students “tab a page with a sticky note and write an interesting comment or

question on the note” (Stein & Beed, 2004, p. 516). This produced more natural

conversations which were more in-depth.

Stein (Stein & Beed, 2004) observed an increase in student appreciation for

nonfiction texts after using them in literature circles and noted that it gave the students a

new purpose for reading (p. 517). From her research, Stein (Stein & Beed, 2004) learned

that “literature circles are an appropriate instructional practice to help students learn

about and enjoy nonfiction” (pp. 517-518). The third-grade students in this study

demonstrated their ability to participate in “lively, in-depth, interesting, and engaging

conversations with nonfiction literature” (p. 518). The students also assumed ownership

in the selection and discussion of their books. They carried these benefits “over into other

aspects of their classroom life” (p. 518) as well.

Walker, B. (2005, April). Thinking aloud: Struggling readers often require more than a model. Reading Teacher, 58(7), 688-692.

This is an article discussing the think aloud strategy and it’s effectiveness in

modeling the active comprehension process that occurs while reading. Think aloud is an

oral representation of what mentally occurs while processing and making sense of what is

read. Although the think aloud strategy is an excellent method for modeling

comprehension and has been effectively used for years to improve comprehension, few

teachers actually model it due to their uncertainty and the complex mental processes

involved in comprehension.

It has been found that struggling readers recite words while reading without

making sense of what is read. They rarely reflect on what is read and make adjustments

to their predictions and the meaning of the text based on what is read. It is this type of

passive reading that led to the development of the active think aloud process. This

process grew from the theory that meaning is derived from text based on prior knowledge

and that learning is developed socially as students interact and discuss their thinking

processes.

Walker (2005) found modeling the think aloud strategy difficult. She began

modeling the prediction process with her students using self directed questions to teach

how to use prediction while reading for meaning. Many struggling readers remained

passive readers, so she developed a self-evaluation sheet to explain the active process

used during reading. The self-efficacy theory led her to believe that many struggling

readers were not confident in their ability to comprehend. They were not acknowledging

the strategies they were using or making adjustments to their thinking. The self

evaluation sheet helped struggling readers reflect on comprehension strategies used while

reading. Many of these students were simply giving up when comprehension was

difficult. These strategies were implemented in several different grade levels of various

reading abilities. It was found that students using these strategies out performed the read

only group of students.

The think aloud strategy is an excellent method for teaching students to

comprehend text, but it needs to be taught using more than just a model. Walker found

that the questioning strategy and self-evaluation sheet helped students take ownership of

thinking aloud to comprehend text.