379

DOI: 10.1037/13275-015APA Educational Psychology Handbook: Vol. 3. Application to Learning and Teaching, K. R. Harris, S. Graham, and T. Urdan (Editors-in-Chief)Copyright © 2012 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

C H A P T E R 1 6

STRATEGIES INSTRUCTION Charles A. MacArthur

The central idea behind cognitive strategies instruc-

tion is that it is possible to understand the conscious

cognitive processes used by profi cient learners for

challenging tasks and to teach those processes

explicitly in some form to less profi cient learners.

Over the past 30 years, an extensive body of

research has demonstrated the value of strategies

instruction, developed specifi c strategies, and

explored the design of instruction needed to pro-

mote independent, self-regulated use of strategies.

Early research on memory strategies demonstrated

the power of strategy instruction and developed

many principles of effective instruction, such as the

importance of metacognition and motivation for

maintenance and generalization ( Pressley & Harris,

2006 ). The largest amount of research on strategies

has focused on reading comprehension, where sev-

eral reviews have found positive effects (e.g., Gajria,

Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007 ; Gersten, Fuchs, Wil-

liams, & Baker, 2001 ; National Reading Panel,

2000 ). In writing, two recent meta-analyses, one of

writing instruction for adolescents ( Graham &

Perin, 2007 ) and one of strategy instruction itself

( Graham, 2006 ), have both reported large effects for

strategy instruction. Substantial research has also

examined strategy instruction in mathematics, and

work is beginning in other academic areas.

A cognitive strategy is a form of procedural

knowledge, in particular, knowledge about how to

accomplish some goal—recall a phone number,

solve a math problem, plan an essay, or win a foot-

ball game. In addition, strategies are goal directed,

intentional, and effortful. They are used consciously

to solve problems or achieve particular purposes. In

contrast, skills are well-learned procedures that are

used relatively automatically. As individuals develop

competence, procedures that were initially con-

scious strategies often become so thoroughly learned

that they operate subconsciously and habitually as

skills ( Alexander, Graham, & Harris, 1998 ; Pressley &

Harris, 2006 ). For example, beginning readers use

strategies to sound out words, whereas later they

read most words automatically, using decoding

strategies only when unfamiliar words are encoun-

tered. As lower level procedures become more auto-

matic, strategic attention can shift to higher level

goals, such as comprehension.

Strategies vary widely in generality. Early

research ( Newell & Simon, 1972 ) identifi ed general

problem-solving strategies, such as trial-and-error

and means–ends analysis, that are transferable

across a wide range of problems. General strategies,

such as rehearsal, summarization, and categoriza-

tion, are useful across many content areas and tasks.

At the other end of the continuum, there are strate-

gies for particular domains, or content areas, such as

playing chess, solving mathematical word problems,

or planning a persuasive essay. Such domain-specifi c

strategies have a relatively direct impact on perfor-

mance on particular tasks, but they are not easily

transferred across content areas and tasks ( Perkins &

Salomon, 1989 ). Academic success requires a mix

of general and domain-specifi c strategies ( Alexander

et al., 1998 ).

The development of strategic behavior begins in

the fi rst years of life as children interact with their

Charles A. MacArthur

380

physical and social worlds and experiment to see

what works to attain their goals. Strategic behavior

is tightly bound with developing competence and

knowledge. As individuals become more competent

in a domain, such as reading or math, the strategies

that they use and how they use them change. Alex-

ander et al. (1998) outlined some of these develop-

mental changes. First, learners ’ use of strategies

becomes more effi cient as a result of practice, with

some strategies becoming automatic skills as noted

before. Second, as knowledge in a domain expands,

learners are able to use more sophisticated strate-

gies. For example, as children learn to read, their

decoding strategies may switch from sounding out

words letter by letter to using syllable patterns. Plan-

ning strategies for writing may incorporate knowl-

edge about the organization of particular genres

rather than simple brainstorming. Third, with prac-

tice, learners become more fl exible in how they use

strategies, selecting from a repertoire of strategies to

fi t the demands of the task. For example, in reading,

they might make inferences about the characters,

think about the author ’ s purpose, stop to clarify

their understanding, and so forth, all in response to

the demands of the text they are reading. Overall,

there are qualitative and quantitative shifts in strate-

gic behavior depending on learners ’ knowledge of

strategies and knowledge of the content domain.

Beginners in a domain need different strategies than

intermediate learners and experts. In addition, there

are also individual differences in motivation and

cognitive capacity that affect what strategies are

most useful for a given task. This variation is one

factor that makes strategies instruction complex.

This chapter provides a review of theory and

research on strategies instruction. It is important to

understand that strategy development occurs to some

degree with or without instruction in strategies. In

addition, nearly all approaches to instruction aim at

least implicitly to develop strategic knowledge and

behavior. Long before the term strategies instruction

was coined, teachers helped students learn to solve

mathematical problems, analyze literature, and write

coherent arguments. Indeed, strategies as defi ned

above are essential to success in any academic area.

Currently, there is a broad agreement in educational

psychology that learning is a constructive process, in

the sense that learning involves the construction of

complex representations of concepts that can be used

to solve meaningful problems in various areas

( Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000 ; see also Vol-

ume 1, Chapter 3, this handbook). There is much

less agreement on the most effective instructional

approaches for achieving this goal. To understand

what strategies instruction has to contribute, it is

necessary to defi ne its boundaries. Dole, Nokes, and

Drits (2008) proposed that it should include implicit

strategies instruction in which teachers design activi-

ties to encourage students to induce strategies with-

out teaching them directly. This defi nition obscures

the key features of strategies instruction as the term

is usually applied. Thus, this chapter is limited to

review of theory and research that is identifi ed as

focused on instruction in strategies.

The chapter begins with a review of basic princi-

ples of strategies instruction and their theoretical

and empirical foundations. Subsequent sections dis-

cuss research in reading comprehension, writing,

mathematical problem solving, and other academic

content areas. A fi nal section considers future direc-

tions for research on strategies instruction.

FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIES

INSTRUCTION

Cognitive strategy instruction draws on multiple

theoretical sources to address three key issues: what

strategies to teach, what is required for independent

strategy use, and how to support learning of strate-

gies. First, cognitive theories and models of profi -

cient and novice performance help us understand

what strategies might be useful to teach. Second,

theories of metacognition and self-regulation are

important in understanding the development of

independent performance. Finally, constructivist

theories that emphasize the active construction of

understanding in social contexts are important in

understanding how to support the development of

strategic cognitive processes. The next three sec-

tions address these foundations.

Cognitive Theories and Models Specifi c strategies are derived from cognitive theo-

ries and models of profi cient performance in a

Strategies Instruction

381

particular domain. Because cognitive strategies are

used consciously and intentionally, they have often

been studied using think-aloud methods, in which

research participants are asked to verbalize their

thoughts as they complete some task. For example,

Pressley and Affl erbach (1995) summarized the

results of research that used think-aloud protocols

to study the cognitive processes of profi cient read-

ers, and Pressley (2000) applied that review in dis-

cussing promising comprehension strategies to

teach students. The cognitive model of writing

developed by Hayes and Flower (1980) was simi-

larly based on think-aloud research and described

differences between expert and novice writers on

planning processes, including goal setting, content

generation, and organization, as well as on revising

processes. Strategy instruction has addressed all of

these aspects of writing ( Graham, 2006 ). Strategies

have also been developed based on theories about

learning rather than expert performance. For exam-

ple, expert readers rarely need to decode words pho-

netically, but this is a critical strategy for beginning

readers ( National Reading Panel, 2000 ). In mathe-

matics, research on the strategies used by children

for problem solving has led to the development of

teachable strategies ( Siegler, 1996 ).

Although strategies are cognitive procedures, they

are integrally connected to declarative knowledge, or

content knowledge, in the relevant domain. Except for

the most general problem-solving and self-regulation

strategies, strategies incorporate and cannot be taught

without requisite domain knowledge. For example,

when profi cient writers plan, they use their extensive

knowledge about genres and text structure as well as

knowledge about audience to generate and organize

their ideas. Thus, most instruction in writing strategies

involves teaching text structures (declarative knowl-

edge) and how to use that knowledge to generate and

organize ideas (procedural or strategic knowledge). In

reading comprehension, inferencing is taught along

with declarative knowledge about the types of infer-

ences that are important to make, such as inferences

about the causes of characters ’ actions and the idea

that authors deliberately reveal character motivations

indirectly. A strategy for decoding multisyllabic words

is taught together with linguistic knowledge about

affi xes and syllable types.

The development of profi ciency in a domain,

including broad domains such as reading or math as

well as narrower domains such as chess or history,

involves the development of integrated knowledge,

skills, and strategies that work together to support

comprehension and problem solving. Expertise, or

profi cient performance, involves a mix of domain-

specifi c knowledge and strategies and general prob-

lem-solving strategies ( Perkins & Salomon, 1989 ).

Experts differ from novices in that they have sub-

stantial knowledge, skills, and strategies within a

particular domain of tasks rather than better general

problem-solving skills. For example, mastery in

chess consists of extensive knowledge of the posi-

tions of pieces on the board along with strategies

associated with such positions rather than more

general chess strategies. Mastery in reading involves

a host of automatic skills, knowledge about text, and

strategies that must be tightly integrated. Kintsch

(2004) has argued that successful management of

the memory and processing demands of reading

comprehension can be explained only by hypothe-

sizing a long-term working memory capacity that

enables profi cient readers (viewed as experts analo-

gous to experts in more specialized domains) to effi -

ciently use long-term memory in processing. From

this perspective, strategies are procedures for effi -

ciently using domain knowledge to accomplish

goals. This view may explain how people develop

strategies without instruction. They fi gure out how

to use what they learn about domain concepts stra-

tegically in response to performance requirements.

Different cognitive theories can lead to different

recommendations about which strategies are most

important to learn, so it is important for researchers

to articulate the theoretical foundations for the par-

ticular strategies ( Graesser, 2007 ). For example, in

the model of reading comprehension developed by

Graesser, Singer, and Trabasso (1994) , explanations

play a critical role, so strategies instruction based on

this model focuses on asking why questions and

developing self-explanations ( McNamara, 2004 ). In

principle, cognitive strategies worth teaching might

be developed in any domain in which we have

knowledge of the cognitive processes used by

experts or theories about the cognitive processes

needed by learners.

Charles A. MacArthur

382

Metacognition and Self-Regulation The concept of metacognition has been an important

aspect of research on cognitive strategies from the

beginning of work on memory strategies. Flavell

(1971) originally proposed the concept of metamem-

ory and later expanded the concept to metacogni-

tion. Following Flavell (1979) , metacognition is

generally defi ned to include (a) knowledge about

cognition and (b) conscious regulation and control

of cognition (see Volume 1, Chapter 7, this hand-

book). For example, because I know that it is hard to

remember strings of numbers, if I have to remember

a telephone number, I will regulate my cognition by

using some strategy, perhaps rehearsing it mentally

or writing it down. Specifi c strategies are a form of

metacognitive knowledge in that they are knowledge

about how to approach various cognitive tasks. In

addition, strategic performance requires knowledge

about the utility of particular strategies (e.g., when

they are useful) and self-regulation procedures (e.g.,

setting goals, selecting strategies, and evaluating

performance).

Research on self-regulation has drawn on multiple

theoretical sources, including social cognitive theory

( B. J. Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989 ; see also Volume 1,

Chapter 5, this handbook), sociocultural theory

( Vygotsky, 1934/1978 ), and cognitive behavioral

theory ( Meichenbaum, 1977 ; for further discussion,

see Volume 1, Chapter 14, this handbook). Self-

regulation includes a range of processes for setting

goals, selecting strategies, monitoring strategy use,

evaluating effects on performance, managing motiva-

tion and effort, and managing time and the environ-

ment. B. J. Zimmerman (1994) conceptualized

academic self-regulation as including four dimen-

sions: self-regulation of motivation, which is infl u-

enced by self-effi cacy, attributions, and other factors

and involves strategies for setting goals and maintain-

ing motivation; self-regulation of method, which

involves selection of strategies based on knowledge of

their value as well as monitoring their effectiveness

for future decisions; self-regulation based on out-

comes, which involves self-monitoring of perfor-

mance and feedback; and self-regulation of the

environment, including management of time and the

physical environment. B. J. Zimmerman (1989) also

proposed that an important element of self-regulation

is monitoring the success of strategies to develop fur-

ther knowledge about when and how to use them.

The importance of metacognitive knowledge and

self-regulation to strategies instruction has long

been recognized. A. L. Brown and Palincsar (1982)

discussed the need for informed self-control training

in strategies, emphasizing the importance of inform-

ing learners about the value of strategies and devel-

oping self-regulatory skills. Without such

self-regulation, learners are not equipped to use

strategies independently and fl exibly across settings

and tasks. Pressley ’ s (1986) infl uential model of

good strategy users included several components: a

repertoire of strategies; metacognitive knowledge

about when and where various strategies are valu-

able and metacognitive strategies for self-regulation;

knowledge and skills needed to make use of strate-

gies, including content knowledge and task knowl-

edge; and motivational beliefs that support effortful

use of strategies, particularly self-effi cacy.

Approaches to strategies instruction vary in how

explicitly they address the development of self-

regulation strategies. The self-regulated strategy

development (SRSD; Graham & Harris, 2005 )

model, as the name suggests, emphasizes explicit

instruction in self-regulation strategies integrated

with task-specifi c strategies. Teachers explain and

model strategies for setting goals, monitoring strat-

egy use, evaluating performance, and so forth, along

with task-specifi c strategies, such as planning an

essay. Research on the SRSD model is discussed later

in this chapter in the section on writing (see also

Chapter 9, this volume). Butler ’ s (1998) strategic

content learning approach focuses primarily on self-

regulation strategies. It is a tutoring model for sec-

ondary students with learning disabilities (LD)

designed around a general metacognitive strategy

that includes task-analysis of assignments, goal set-

ting, strategy selection, self-monitoring of strategy

use and task completion, and evaluation of the pro-

cess. Task-specifi c strategies are included as students

recruit strategies they have already learned or tutors

introduce strategies for particular assignments. But-

ler (1998) found consistent improvements across

time in students ’ metacognitive knowledge about key

self-regulated processes, perceptions of task-specifi c

effi cacy, attributional patterns, task performance,

Strategies Instruction

383

and strategic approaches to tasks. Students were also

found to transfer strategic approaches across con-

texts and tasks. B. J. Zimmerman and Risemberg

(1997) developed a model of writing that empha-

sizes self-regulation processes. In their model, 10 self-

regulatory strategies are categorized into three

fundamental processes—environmental, behavioral,

and covert or personal.

Even approaches that do not include specifi c self-

regulation strategies emphasize the importance of

developing metacognitive knowledge about when and

where to use strategies and of fostering independent

self-regulated use of strategies ( Duffy, 2003 ; Duke &

Pearson, 2002 ). Independent use is promoted

through extensive guided practice with gradual

release of responsibility to the students. Reciprocal

teaching ( Palincsar & Brown, 1984 ) teaches strate-

gies that are designed to promote both improved

comprehension and improved metacognitive compre-

hension monitoring. Comprehension monitoring is

included in many approaches to reading strategies

instruction ( Gajria et al., 2007 ; National Reading

Panel, 2000 ). Strategies for math problem solving

typically include procedures for checking solution

paths and answers ( Xin & Jitendra, 1999 ).

Learning and Instruction Constructivist learning theories that emphasize the

active construction of understanding in social con-

texts are important in understanding learning and

instruction in cognitive strategies ( Englert, 1992 ;

Harris & Pressley, 1991 ; Kucan & Beck, 1997 ; Press-

ley, Harris, & Marks, 1992 ). The term constructivist

has been used with multiple meanings, often to refer

to discovery-based instructional approaches, which is

decidedly not what is meant here ( Kintsch, 2009 ; see

also Volume 1, Chapter 3, this handbook). Strategies

instruction involves explicit explanations and model-

ing of strategies and guided practice directed at help-

ing students learn to use the strategies effectively.

Teachers explain strategies as clearly as possible

rather than leaving students to discover them on

their own. Using the term constructivist means that

students must construct their own understanding of

strategies and when they are useful based on this

instruction and their own experience of using them.

Such active construction of knowledge is necessary

to meet the goal of strategies instruction, which is

independent, self-regulated, engaged use of multiple

strategies in a fl exible way to achieve cognitive goals.

Using the term social constructivist or sociocul-

tural implies two additional assumptions about

learning ( Englert, Mariage, & Dunsmore, 2006 ;

Vygotsky, 1934/1978 ). First, cognitive activities are

situated in social settings that give them meaning.

To understand the reasons for using a strategy and

when and where to use it, learners need experience

using it in social contexts. For example, consider a

strategy for writing a persuasive essay that asks stu-

dents to generate reasons and then evaluate whether

those reasons would be persuasive to the audience.

Understanding such a strategy requires understand-

ing the social context for persuasion, that is, it

involves controversial issues and readers who poten-

tially have different perspectives. The importance of

teaching strategies in the context of other learning is

recognized by most contemporary approaches to

strategies instruction, such as transactional strate-

gies instruction ( Pressley, El-Dinary, et al., 1992 ),

concept-oriented reading instruction ( Guthrie et al.,

2004 ), and progressive math instruction ( National

Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000 ).

Second, learning is based on a range of social

supports, including tools such as the strategies

themselves, the guidance provided by more knowl-

edgeable others such as the teacher, and interactions

with peers and others such as readers of one ’ s com-

positions. These interactions range from immediate

dialogue with teachers and peers to distant or even

simulated interactions, as for example in the Ques-

tioning the Author strategy ( Beck, McKeown, Wor-

thy, Sandora, & Kucan, 1996 ). Students need to

learn strategies in the context of meaningful tasks in

order to understand the overall value of strategies,

when and where particular strategies are useful, and

how to select and manage multiple strategies.

Teachers provide explicit explanations of strategies,

but much of the instructional and learning effort is

devoted to scaffolding students ’ attempts to use

strategies and helping them to understand the value

and purpose of strategies for worthwhile tasks.

Most approaches to strategies instruction include

the following components. First, teachers plan to

teach strategies using meaningful tasks. Without

Charles A. MacArthur

384

this meaningful context, strategies may fail to make

sense to students and are unlikely to generalize to

other tasks and settings. Second, teachers provide

explicit explanation of strategies along with meta-

cognitive knowledge about the purpose and value of

the strategies ( Duffy, 2003 ; Duke & Pearson, 2002 ;

Pressley & Harris, 2006 ). Third, teachers use think-

aloud modeling to demonstrate how to carry out the

strategies ( Kucan & Beck, 1997 ). Think-aloud mod-

eling is necessary to illustrate cognitive processes

that are otherwise invisible. If specifi c self-regulation

strategies are included, they are modeled as part of

the process and discussed. Fourth, teachers scaffold

student use of the strategies, gradually transferring

responsibility for use of the strategies to the stu-

dents. In this process, teachers evaluate student

understanding and provide feedback to students on

how they are using the strategy and on their perfor-

mance. Guided practice involves collaborative use of

the strategies. Fifth, teachers build motivation by

helping students to see how the strategy improves

their performance and stressing that students can be

successful by using strategies. Finally, teachers sup-

port maintenance and generalization in a number of

ways. They frequently discuss with students when

and where they might use the strategy. They provide

ample opportunities for students to use the strategy,

and may plan with other teachers to remind stu-

dents about the strategy when appropriate.

Other approaches to scaffolded instruction, such

as teacher and peer conferences in reading and writ-

ing workshops, provide social support as students

construct understandings and develop profi ciency.

Strategies instruction differs in its emphasis on

explicit explanation of cognitive processes that have

been shown to be effective. However, strategies

instruction is compatible with social approaches to

writing such as writing workshop. Englert (1992)

has fully integrated strategy instruction as one com-

ponent in a sociocultural approach to writing

instruction. MacArthur, Graham, Schwartz, and

Schafer (1995) evaluated a model for writing

instruction for students with LD that integrated a

process approach, strategy instruction, and word

processing. A subsequent qualitative case study

( MacArthur, Schwartz, Graham, Molloy, & Harris,

1996 ) of writing workshop teachers found that the

strategy instruction was consistent with the teach-

ers ’ focus on writing processes and independent

performance. Duffy (1993) , based on a qualitative

study of teachers in a 4-year professional develop-

ment program, found that teachers needed consider-

able time to fi gure out how to thoroughly integrate

strategies as tools in the completion of authentic

reading tasks.

We now turn our attention to research on strate-

gies instruction in academic areas.

READING COMPREHENSION STRATEGIES

The largest amount of research on strategies instruc-

tion has focused on reading comprehension. Research

in this area continues at a high level, and numerous

recent review chapters and edited books have dis-

cussed contemporary work (e.g., Israel & Duffy,

2009 ; McNamara, 2007 ).

Current theoretical understandings of reading

describe reading comprehension as an active, goal-

directed process of constructing meaning based on

the text, readers ’ prior knowledge, the specifi c activ-

ities surrounding reading, and the broader sociocul-

tural context (see Chapter 8, this volume; Kintsch,

2004 ; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002 ; Ruddell &

Unrau, 2004 ). Readers actively use cognitive and

metacognitive strategies as they make sense of writ-

ten texts for varied purposes. Research using think-

aloud protocols to understand the cognitive

processes of skilled readers reveals that profi cient

reading is highly strategic ( Pressley & Affl erbach,

1995 ). Skilled readers are aware of their purposes

and adjust their strategies and behaviors accord-

ingly, for example, overviewing a text to see if it

meets their purposes, reading selectively, and paying

more attention to relevant parts. They actively make

inferences about the text and update their under-

standing as new information is encountered. They

make connections to their prior knowledge to build

understanding that goes beyond the text. They mon-

itor their comprehension and attempt to repair

understanding as needed. They interpret and evalu-

ate the text considering the author ’ s perspective and

purposes. After reading, they may review or decide

how to use the information in the text based on

their purposes.

Strategies Instruction

385

Research has established that students, especially

weaker readers, can learn more effective strategies

for monitoring their comprehension and construct-

ing meaning from texts and that instruction in strat-

egies increases comprehension. Early research

focused on establishing the effectiveness of instruc-

tion in single strategies. Pressley, Johnson, Symons,

McGoldrick, and Kurita (1989) reviewed that

research and concluded that there was suffi cient sci-

entifi c evidence to recommend instruction in strate-

gies for summarization, imagery, mnemonics, story

grammar (using story elements such as character,

problem, and solution), question generation, ques-

tion answering, and prior knowledge activation.

Later research emphasized the importance of learn-

ing multiple strategies and developing the metacog-

nitive knowledge and self-regulation to use them

fl exibly as needed. Reciprocal teaching ( Palincsar &

Brown, 1984 ) included four strategies—predicting,

clarifying, questioning, and summarizing—intended

to support comprehension and comprehension

monitoring in the context of small-group discus-

sions focused on making sense of texts. A meta-

analytic review of 16 studies of reciprocal teaching

( Rosenshine & Meister, 1994 ) found large effects on

experimenter measures and modest effects on stan-

dardized reading tests. A meta-analysis of reading

comprehension studies completed by the National

Reading Panel (2000) concluded that there was sub-

stantial research support for individual reading

strategies, including question answering and ques-

tion generating, summarizing, story structure,

graphic and semantic organizers, and comprehen-

sion monitoring. The panel also concluded that

instruction was more effective when multiple strate-

gies were taught together.

Strategies instruction may be especially benefi cial

for struggling readers. Two recent reviews ( Gajria

et al., 2007 ; Gersten et al., 2001 ) have analyzed the

research on comprehension strategies instruction

with students with LD. For narrative text, Gersten

et al. (2001) found strong evidence to support the

effects of story grammar strategies. For expository

text, the general effects of both single-strategy and

multiple-strategies instruction was positive on

immediate posttest measures, but there was little

evidence of generalization and maintenance. Gajria

et al. (2007) focused on strategies for expository

text comprehension and used meta-analytic meth-

ods. They reviewed 10 studies of single-strategy

instruction and eight of multiple-strategies instruc-

tion; strong effects were found in both analyses.

Among the concerns currently driving research

are questions about how to support self-regulated

use of strategies, how to teach multiple strategies in

classroom settings in a way that promotes such self-

regulation, and how to design teacher education and

professional development. Although it is relatively

easy to teach students a strategy that will improve

performance when they use it, it has proven diffi cult

to help students become self-regulated learners who

use multiple strategies independently when and

where they would be useful. Garner ’ s (1990) analy-

sis of why people don ’ t use strategies that they know

is still relevant. One of the explanations she dis-

cussed is poor comprehension monitoring. Poor

monitoring can happen at many levels, from stu-

dents who skip over words they don ’ t understand, to

those who fail to realize that they are missing the

main ideas, to some relatively competent readers

who do not read critically because they are satisfi ed

with superfi cial understanding ( Baker, 1985 ;

Graesser, 2007 ). Garner also discussed the impor-

tance of developing mastery learning goals and posi-

tive attributions by showing students that strategy

use will improve performance. Finally, she empha-

sized the value of teaching for transfer by providing

varied practice and promoting mindful thinking

about transfer ( Perkins & Salomon, 1989 ).

A number of models of classroom strategies

instruction have been developed that attempt to

develop such self-regulated use of multiple strate-

gies for reading comprehension. Pressley ( 2000 ;

Pressley, El-Dinary, et al., 1992 ) chose the term

transactional strategies instruction (TSI) to refer to an

approach that fl exibly teaches multiple strategies in

a highly interactive format with attention focused on

interpreting texts. It is transactional because of the

focus on collaborative interpretation of texts. TSI

includes explicit explanation of strategies with mod-

eling by the teacher and guided practice with grad-

ual transfer of responsibility to students. TSI has

been evaluated in 3-year-long classroom studies

( Anderson, 1992 ; R. Brown, Pressley, Van Meter, &

Charles A. MacArthur

386

Schuder, 1996 ; Collins, 1991 ) and found to have

positive effects on both experimenter measures and

standardized tests.

Concept-oriented reading instruction (CORI;

Guthrie et al., 2004 ; Wigfi eld et al., 2008 ) is based

on the principle that enhanced student engagement

with reading is essential to improved comprehen-

sion. Strategies require substantial effort so that

independent use depends on adequate motivation.

CORI integrates specifi c engagement practices with

multiple comprehension strategies. One of the main

engagement practices is focusing reading on learn-

ing about a theme so that students develop knowl-

edge that transfers across texts and motivates further

learning. Evaluations ( Guthrie et al., 2004 ; Wigfi eld

et al., 2008 ) have demonstrated gains in comprehen-

sion, strategy use, and engagement in comparison to

traditional instruction and strategy instruction with-

out the engagement components.

One way to support implementation in class-

room settings is to use cooperative learning meth-

ods. The peer-assisted learning strategies (PALS;

Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997 ; Saenz,

Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005 ) method provides peer-sup-

ported practice in reading fl uency and comprehen-

sion strategies. Students are assigned to

mixed-ability pairs for 35 min of instruction three

times a week. In a carefully structured system, stu-

dents engage in oral reading practice and practice

prediction and summarization strategies previously

explained and modeled by the teacher. A study of

PALS with elementary students (Grades 2–6) found

signifi cant gains in comprehension for students with

LD, low-achieving students, and average-achieving

students. PALS has also been evaluated with English

language learners ( Saenz et al., 2005 ). Effects were

signifi cant and large across all achievement levels

from LD to high-achieving students.

Three models have been discussed here as exam-

ples, but other models have also been developed and

evaluated, including Questioning the Author ( Beck

et al., 1996 ), collaborative strategic reasoning

( Klingner, Vaughn, & Schumm, 1998 ), and scaf-

folded reading experience ( Graves & Graves, 2003 ).

Despite the knowledge base about effective strat-

egies instruction and the availability of models of

classroom instruction, comprehension strategies are

not commonly taught well in the schools. A qualita-

tive study ( Pressley, Wharton-McDonald, Mistretta, &

Echevarria, 1998 ) of fourth- and fi fth-grade teachers

found minimal instruction in comprehension strate-

gies or self-regulation. An observational study of 88

elementary teachers ( Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, &

Rodriguez, 2003 ) found that comprehension

strategies were taught infrequently. An analysis

of the most common core reading programs ( Dew-

itz, Jones, & Leahy, 2009 ) found that programs

included many comprehension strategies but did not

meet research guidelines for amount of practice or

development of self-regulation of strategies.

Comprehension strategies instruction is complex

and diffi cult for teachers. It entails new ways of

thinking about reading for teachers as well as stu-

dents. Teachers must learn to model and explain

strategies, lead discussions, evaluate students ’

understandings of strategies to provide appropriate

scaffolding, promote self-regulation, and integrate

strategies with authentic reading activities. Duffy

(1993) presented case studies of teachers ’ growth

during a 4-year professional development program.

They learned to teach individual strategies relatively

quickly, but it took multiple years for them to learn

to integrate strategies with reading instruction in

ways that promoted deep understanding and inde-

pendent use by students. Hilden and Pressley (2007)

reported case studies from a year of staff develop-

ment and found diffi culties related to selection of

texts, classroom management, and decisions about

instruction and assessment. Further research on

teacher education and professional development is

needed ( Mohan, Lundeberg, & Reffi tt, 2008 ).

WRITING STRATEGIES

Cognitive theories portray writing as a complex pro-

cess driven by ill-defi ned goals ( Hayes & Nash,

1996 ). Given general tasks determined by the social

context, writers analyze the task to defi ne subgoals;

draw on their knowledge- and information-gathering

processes to generate content; organize their ideas

based on the content structure and their knowledge

of rhetorical frameworks; generate language to

express their ideas; and continuously reread, evalu-

ate, and revise their plans and writing in light of

Strategies Instruction

387

their goals. The early cognitive model of Hayes and

Flower (1980) , based on think-aloud studies of

expert and novice writers, continues to be infl uential

in research and in the design of strategies for instruc-

tion. The model includes components for planning,

which incorporates setting goals, generating content,

and organizing; translating, which is minimally spec-

ifi ed in the model because it is largely automatic for

expert writers; and reviewing or revising. Additional

models described planning ( Hayes & Nash, 1996 )

and revising ( Flower, Hayes, Carey, Schriver, &

Stratman, 1986 ) processes in more detail. Hayes

(1996) revised the model extensively to incorporate

evidence from further cognitive research on constructs

such as working memory. Another infl uential theory

has been the work of Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987)

on knowledge-telling and knowledge-transforming

models of writing. The knowledge-telling model is a

relatively uncomplicated process of writing what one

knows on a topic, more or less infl uenced by stan-

dard genre requirements. In the more complex

knowledge-transforming model, writers simultane-

ously consider the structure of the content and the

demands of the rhetorical situation. The coordina-

tion can lead to new understandings of both content

and the rhetorical context.

Because of the complexity of writing and the

effort required for skilled writing, self-regulation is

particularly important, and cognitive models of writ-

ing have generally included self-regulation compo-

nents. Hayes and Flower (1980) described writing as

a goal-directed problem-solving process requiring

writers fl exibly to shift attention among planning,

translating, and reviewing processes. They posited

the existence of a monitor to manage and regulate

the other processes. Bereiter and Scardamalia ’ s

model (1987) included an executive control compo-

nent with similar functions, and they conducted a

number of experimental studies showing the impor-

tance of this control function to profi cient writing.

Based on these cognitive models, Scardamalia

and Bereiter (1986) identifi ed fi ve differences

between the composing processes of experts and

novices: (a) generating content, (b) organizing

based on knowledge of text structure, (c) formulat-

ing subgoals and overall plans, (d) fl uent transcrip-

tion, and (e) evaluating and revising text. With the

exception of transcription, research on cognitive

strategies instruction has addressed all of these pro-

cesses, though more research has focused on plan-

ning than on revising. Most of the research on

strategies instruction in writing has been done by

researchers interested in students with LD or other

struggling writers (e.g., Englert, Raphael, Anderson,

Anthony, & Stevens, 1991 ; Graham & Harris, 1993 ;

Wong, Butler, Ficzere, & Kuperis, 1997 ), although

the research has demonstrated positive effects for

students of all ability levels ( Graham, 2006 ).

Englert and her colleagues ( Englert et al., 1991 )

developed the Cognitive Strategies Instruction in

Writing program and evaluated it in fourth- and

fi fth-grade general and special education classes.

The program taught strategies for planning and

revising expository essays, including explanation

and compare-contrast text structures. Planning pro-

cesses included considering audience and purpose,

brainstorming, and using graphic organizers to gen-

erate and organize content. Revising was guided by

evaluation questions tied to the selected text struc-

ture. Thinksheets were used to scaffold use of the

strategies, and teachers explained, modeled, and

guided practice through interactive dialogues. In a

yearlong study, students with LD as well as low-

and high-achieving students improved, compared

with controls, in quality of writing for the two text

structures that were taught and on transfer to an

untaught genre. In addition, students of all ability

levels made gains in metacognitive knowledge. In

subsequent writing, Englert ( 1992 ; Englert et al.,

2006 ) has emphasized the critical role of interactive

dialogue, peer support, and meaningful writing

tasks in the development of students ’ strategies and

writing achievement.

The most extensive program of research on writ-

ing strategies has focused on the SRSD model of Gra-

ham and Harris ( 1993 , 2005 ; Harris, Santangelo, &

Graham, 2008 ). Like other strategies instruction, the

SRSD model includes instruction in domain knowl-

edge, explicit explanation and think-aloud modeling

of specifi c strategies, discussion of when and where

to use strategies, and extensive guided practice. In

addition, as the name suggests, SRSD includes

instruction in metacognitive self-regulation strategies

as well as in task-specifi c writing strategies. Students

Charles A. MacArthur

388

are taught procedures for self-monitoring their use of

strategies and self-evaluating their performance to

determine whether the strategies are working and

how to modify their use. They also learn to set goals

for performance to motivate their efforts. Finally,

SRSD instruction aims to help students develop an

internal dialogue for directing strategy use and

maintaining motivation; students learn to use self-

statements and self-questions that are individualized

to their needs.

More than 20 studies following the SRSD model

have been published (for reviews, see Graham,

2006 ; Graham & Harris, 2003 ). The studies have

investigated strategies for writing in multiple

genres, including personal narratives, stories, per-

suasive essays, and expository essays. Most have

focused on planning strategies based on text struc-

ture, but studies have also addressed revising or

combined planning and revising. The majority have

included students with LD or other struggling writ-

ers, but several have included general education stu-

dents as well. Most studies have worked with upper

elementary or middle school students, but recent

studies have extended the age range down to second

grade ( Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2006 ) and up to

adult basic education learners ( MacArthur &

Lembo, 2009 ).

Two recent meta-analyses have reported fi ndings

about strategies instruction in writing. First, a meta-

analysis of research on strategies instruction in writ-

ing ( Graham, 2006 ) found large effects for the

overall quality of writing across 20 group design

studies as well as strong results in 19 single-subject

design studies. This meta-analysis also reported

large effects for measures of text structure elements

and length. Strong effects were found across writing

tasks (persuasive, informative, and narrative), ages

of students (Grade 2 through high school), ability

level (LD, low achieving, and average), and instruc-

tor (research assistant or classroom teacher). Sec-

ond, a comprehensive meta-analysis of writing

instruction research in Grades 4 to 12 ( Graham &

Perin, 2007 ) found large effects for strategy instruc-

tion across 20 studies, with signifi cantly larger

effects for studies with struggling writers (students

with LD and other low-achieving writers) than for

studies in regular classrooms. In both meta-analyses,

studies that used the SRSD model ( Graham &

Harris, 1993 ) had larger effects than other studies.

Overall, although the knowledge base about

strategies in writing is not as extensive as in reading,

there is a substantial knowledge base about planning

and revising strategies that are worthwhile teaching

and about methods for supporting students ’ devel-

opment of strategies. As in reading, further research

is needed to study the development of self-regulated

strategies longitudinally in classroom settings.

Issues of teacher education and professional devel-

opment have not yet been addressed for writing

strategies, but the issues are likely to be the same as

for reading strategies.

Another issue that has begun to draw attention is

the integration of strategies for reading and writing.

Reading comprehension and composition are related

cognitive processes that draw on similar domain

knowledge, syntactic knowledge, and knowledge

about text organization ( Fitzgerald & Shanahan,

2000 ). They may also draw on related strategic

knowledge about constructing meaning. In addition,

from a rhetorical perspective, reading and writing

are reciprocal aspects of communication—writers

have readers and texts have authors. Finally, from a

pragmatic perspective, most writing activities

involve some reading, and many reading activities

involve some writing, such as taking notes while

reading, answering questions about texts, and writ-

ing reports and memos. Schools have traditionally

separated reading and writing instruction, but this

separation makes little sense.

A few studies have investigated teaching reading

and writing strategies in an integrated fashion. Mason

and colleagues ( Mason, Snyder, Sukhram, & Kedem,

2006 ) taught strategies for reading and writing expos-

itory texts to low-achieving fourth-grade students and

reported improvements in both areas. Collins (2009)

developed a program of strategies instruction in read-

ing and writing for fourth- and fi fth-grade students.

The instruction drew on Englert et al. ’ s (1991) idea of

thinksheets but designed them to support students in

thinking about literature and taking notes while read-

ing, organizing those notes afterward, and writing an

extended essay on the reading. Preliminary results

indicate that students made greater gains in both

reading and writing than controls.

Strategies Instruction

389

Olson and Land (2007) reported on a longitudi-

nal investigation of a program of intensive instruc-

tion in reading and writing strategies with secondary

students in a low-income urban district in California

where 93% of students spoke English as a second

language and 63% were designated as limited Eng-

lish profi cient. As part of the California Writing

Project, a group of about 55 teachers worked

together with researchers for several years to

develop and implement a program of rigorous strat-

egy-supported instruction that would prepare stu-

dents for success on the statewide examinations and

for postsecondary education. A quasi-experimental

evaluation across 13 schools in the district found

that students receiving the intensive strategies

instruction performed better than control students

on grade point average, standardized tests, and state

accountability assessments. According to the

authors, what distinguished the project

is its integrity with respect to its fi delity

to three core dimensions: Teachers and

students were exposed to an extensive

set of cognitive strategies and a wide

array of curricular approaches to strategy

use (comprehensiveness) in a manner

designed to cultivate deep knowledge and

application of those strategies in reading

and writing (density) over an extended

period of time (duration). (p. 269)

In addition to providing a model for integrated

reading and writing strategies instruction, the proj-

ect may provide a model worth thinking about for

professional development.

MATHEMATICS PROBLEM-SOLVING

STRATEGIES

Efforts over the past 20 years to improve mathemat-

ics education and achievement have made problem

solving a central theme (see Chapter 10, this vol-

ume; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,

2000 ). Reform efforts have placed special emphasis

on solving problems situated in real-world contexts

and more complex problems in general. Whether

problems are traditional story problems or real-

world problems or puzzles, they challenge learners

to understand the language and facts in the problem,

translate the information to form an adequate mental

representation of the problem, recognize similarities

to other problems, formulate a solution plan, carry

out the plan, and evaluate the solution ( Mayer &

Hegarty, 1996 ).

Efforts to devise strategies for solving mathemati-

cal problems have a long history, even predating the

cognitive revolution in psychology. The fi rst edition

of Polya ’ s book, How to Solve It (1945/1957), was

published in 1945. Polya explained four general

strategies: First, carefully read and understand the

problem, thinking about the facts and the relation-

ships among them. Second, plan a solution. To do

so, it is important to draw on prior knowledge and

consider whether the problem is similar to previous

problems. Third, carry out the plan. Fourth, check

the solution, perhaps by estimating whether it is rea-

sonable or trying another approach to solve it. This

fi nal step also involves refl ecting on key features of

the problem and solution for future use.

Researchers have devoted substantial effort to

understanding the development of problem-solving

strategies, the challenges created by different types

of problems, the types of strategies associated with

successful performance, and instruction in problem

solving. A large number of specifi c strategies have

been used to further elaborate each of these general

problem-solving steps. Hembree (1992) conducted

an extensive meta-analysis of 487 studies of math

problem solving that he divided into four categories:

characteristics of problem solvers, features of harder

and easier problems, effects of instructional meth-

ods, and effects of classroom-related factors. Heuris-

tic strategies based on Polya ’ s general strategies were

more effective than all other approaches and,

indeed, were the only approach found to be more

effective than no treatment. Effects were found

across standard word problems and more challeng-

ing real-world problems. However, the effects of

heuristic strategies varied by age; effects were non-

signifi cant in elementary grades, small in middle

school, large in high school, and moderate in col-

lege. Large effects were also found for two specifi c

strategies that were part of understanding and repre-

senting the problem—drawing diagrams and trans-

lating verbal information into equations. These two

Charles A. MacArthur

390

fi ndings, plus a fi nding that pictures made problems

substantially easier, emphasize the importance of

constructing a mental representation of a problem.

Research has continued to enhance our under-

standing of effective instruction in strategies for

problem solving and to explore their use with

struggling learners and younger students. Consid-

erable research has been done with students with

LD or problems in math. Problem solving is partic-

ularly challenging for students with learning prob-

lems for a number of reasons ( Woodward &

Baxter, 1997 ). Such students may have problems

with reading that interfere with understanding or

problems with fl uent calculation that overload cog-

nitive processes. They also often have problems

with self-regulation ( Graham & Harris, 1993 ). Xin

and Jitendra (1999) reviewed 25 experimental

studies of word problem-solving instruction with

students with learning problems. About half of the

group design studies and most of the single-subject

design studies tested strategies instruction. The

effects of strategy instruction were large at posttest

and maintenance.

Signifi cant programmatic research on math

problem-solving strategies has been conducted by

several research groups. Montague and colleagues

( Montague, 1992 ; Montague, Applegate, & Mar-

quard, 1993 ; Montague & Bos, 1986 ) developed a

seven-step strategy and demonstrated its effective-

ness with middle and high school students with LD

in three studies. Jitendra and Fuchs and their col-

leagues (Jitendra et al., 1998, 2007, 2009 ) began

with a focus on students with LD but expanded their

research to general education settings.

Jitendra and colleagues (Jitendra et al., 1998,

2007, 2009 ) argued that instruction in general

strategies for problem solving was insuffi ciently

powerful because it does not teach the conceptual

structure of math problems. Students need both

declarative knowledge about problem schemas

and procedural knowledge about problem solving.

They proposed a model of schema-based strategy

instruction (SBI) that teaches students about the

structure of various types of word problems (e.g.,

change, combine, and compare) and helps them

to identify the problem type when solving a new

problem. In addition, their strategy approach

included backward chaining strategies for multi-

step problems to identify intermediate goals. They

have conducted a series of studies demonstrating

the effectiveness of their schema-based strategies

with students with LD and in mixed-ability class-

rooms from third grade through middle school.

For example, an early study ( Jitendra et al., 1998 )

demonstrated the effectiveness of SBI with ele-

mentary students with LD for instruction in solv-

ing addition and subtraction word problems. In a

more recent study ( Jitendra et al., 2007 ), they

added a metacognitive self-monitoring component

and compared SBI to a program of general strategy

instruction (read and understand, plan, solve, and

check). A recent study ( Jitendra et al., 2009 )

extended the approach to middle school students

solving problems involving ratios and propor-

tions. Results of the studies have been consis-

tently positive for immediate posttests and

maintenance.

Fuchs, Fuchs, Prentice, Burch, Hamlett, Owen,

and Schroeter (2003) conceptualized the challenge

of problem solving as one of transfer of solution

methods from familiar problems to novel problems.

In order to enhance transfer, they developed a strat-

egies instruction approach called schema-based

transfer instruction (SBTI) that aimed to (a) broaden

the categories that students used to describe prob-

lem types, and (b) explicitly teach students to search

for connections to familiar problem types. As a foun-

dation, they provided explicit instruction in strategies

for solving particular types of problems with many

worked examples and structured peer support. In a

randomized fi eld experiment, they compared classes

that received instruction in the solution strategies

and classes that received instruction in solution strat-

egies plus transfer strategies (SBTI) to instruction-

as-usual classes. Both treatment groups performed

better than controls on problems similar to the

instructed problems. However, only the SBTI group

did better than the controls on real-world problems,

and they also did much better than the solution-

strategy-only group.

In subsequent work, Fuchs, Fuchs, Prentice,

Burch, Hamlett, Owen, et al. (2003) extended

their fi ndings by demonstrating that self-regulation

strategies enhanced the effects of SBTI. Children

Strategies Instruction

391

self-assessed their problem solutions and graphed

them; they then set goals to increase their scores the

next day. The self-regulation enhanced gains on

problems similar to those in instruction and on

transfer to real-world problems. In another instruc-

tional study ( Fuchs et al., 2004 ), they measured

children ’ s schema development and found that

it predicted much of the variance in posttest

problem solving.

As noted, both Jitendra et al. (2007) and Fuchs,

Fuchs, Prentice, Burch, Hamlett, Owen, et al. (2003)

added specifi c self-regulation components to the

strategy instruction in their most recent studies.

Another study ( Ramdass & Zimmerman, 2008 ) by

an author known for his work on self-regulation

(see Volume 1, Chapter 14, this handbook) focused

on the added benefi ts of self-regulation strategies.

Fifth- and sixth-grade students learned a task-

specifi c strategy for long division with decimals.

The experimental group also received instruction

in a self-checking strategy, namely, checking

answers by multiplying. The self-checking strategy

led to improved math accuracy, self-effi cacy, and

accuracy of self-evaluations of their performance.

STRATEGIES INSTRUCTION IN OTHER

ACADEMIC AREAS

Most strategies instruction research has focused on

the general academic areas of reading, writing, and

mathematics. However, writing and reading tasks

vary substantially by domain, both across profes-

sional fi elds and across academic disciplines ( Bazer-

man & Rogers, 2008 ; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008 ).

In particular, growing bodies of literature describe

the reasoning processes of experts and novices in his-

tory ( Stearns, Seixas, & Wineburg, 2000 ; Wineburg,

1991 , 2001 ) and science ( Klein, 2004 ; Sodian &

Bullock, 2008 ; C. Zimmerman, 2000 ), and other

reports describe the rhetorical demands of writing in

literary studies (Fahnestock & Secor, 199). The aim

of this section of the chapter is to review recent work

that has attempted to apply understandings of

domain-specifi c reading and writing processes to

develop strategy instruction approaches in the disci-

plines. History is emphasized because more research

has been conducted in that discipline.

Historical Understanding and Reasoning Recent scholarship in history education has empha-

sized the importance and value of teaching history

as a discipline. For example, the national standards

for U.S. history ( National Center for the Study of

History in the Schools, 1996 ) promote a view of his-

tory as a discipline with standards related to the

development of historical reasoning as well as

knowledge of historical content viewed from multi-

ple perspectives. Efforts to teach history as a disci-

pline have been informed by investigations

comparing the cognitive processes used by expert

historians as they construct historical accounts with

those of novices, including college students ( Rouet,

Britt, Mason, & Perfetti, 1996 ), high school students

( Wineburg, 1991 , 2001 ; Young & Leinhardt, 1998 ),

and elementary school students ( Barton, 2001 ;

Lee & Ashby, 2000 ; VanSledright & Kelly, 1998 ).

Two aspects of historical thinking seem particu-

larly relevant for history education. First, historical

comprehension requires understanding people who

lived in very different times and cultures. This

understanding goes beyond learning a simple narra-

tive to an understanding of how their culture shaped

their perspectives and the decisions they made

( Ashby & Lee, 1987 ). The tendency to interpret the

past in terms of one ’ s own experiences and values

often leads to misconceptions ( Ferretti, MacArthur, &

Okolo, 2007 ). In addition, because much of history

involves confl icts among people, it is necessary to

understand the perspectives of multiple groups ( Bar-

ton, 2001 ). Second, historical reasoning involves

recognizing that historical accounts are representa-

tions of the past, constructed by people for various

purposes ( VanSledright & Kelly, 1998 ; Wineburg,

1991 , 2001 ). Historical accounts can be seen as

arguments for particular interpretations of historical

times and events. To develop accounts, historians

seek and interpret evidence using discipline-specifi c

methods. In evaluating evidence, they consider the

source of the evidence including possible bias in the

case of testimony evidence, seek corroborating evi-

dence, and use contextual knowledge of the situa-

tion to interpret the signifi cance of the evidence

( Wineburg, 1991 ).

Several research groups have developed domain-

specifi c strategies for history. Kinder and Bursuck

Charles A. MacArthur

392

(1993) taught a strategy for reading history text-

books as complex narratives. The narrative strategy

presented historical events as series of problems,

solutions, and effects. A group of people have a

problem that they attempt to solve by taking some

action, which leads to effects that often create new

problems for themselves or other groups of people.

Students also learned about typical types of prob-

lems (e.g., economic and political) and types of

solutions (e.g., move or fi ght).

Ferretti, MacArthur, and Okolo ( 2001 ; see also

MacArthur, Ferretti, & Okolo, 2002 ) conducted a series

of design studies on a curriculum model, strategy-

supported and project-based learning, designed to

help students with and without LD in fi fth- and sixth-

grade classrooms to develop historical understanding

and historical reasoning. Students engaged in project-

based inquiry on complex historical problems related

to the theme of migration. Cognitive strategies were

embedded in project activities. The units on migra-

tion were organized around two conceptual frame-

works that were taught as strategies to be used to

construct historical narratives. The ways of life frame-

work was used to analyze different groups of people

by examining categories of economy, technology,

daily life, religion, and political beliefs. The migration

and confl ict framework was used to interpret reasons

for migration and resulting confl icts. Students also

learned a compare–contrast strategy to guide their

investigations of similarities and differences between

groups of people with different ways of life. Students

used the compare–contrast strategy along with the

categories from the two conceptual frameworks in

collaborative inquiry projects to construct narratives

of particular groups of migrant peoples.

Students with and without LD made gains in his-

torical understanding and were able to apply the

conceptual frameworks to contemporary examples

of immigration, but they also developed some signif-

icant misconceptions about historical evidence and

reasoning. The strategies instruction approach was

challenging for teachers. The design studies did not

permit conclusions about the particular effects of

the strategies, which were only one component of

the instruction.

Two research studies have focused on instruction

in strategies for historical reasoning. De La Paz

(2005) taught middle school students strategies for

historical reasoning and writing historical accounts.

The historical-reasoning strategy focused on analyz-

ing primary sources using processes of sourcing and

corroboration ( Wineburg, 1991 ). An argumentative-

writing strategy guided students in using this analy-

sis in presenting evidence for a particular perspective

on a historical event. Both strategies were taught fol-

lowing the SRSD model ( Graham & Harris, 2005 ).

Students worked with sets of primary source docu-

ments that presented confl icting perspectives on

issues and events related to a unit of instruction on

westward expansion. The historical-reasoning strat-

egy included three steps. The fi rst step focused on

sourcing, or the process of considering a document ’ s

source to judge its rhetorical purpose and bias. The

second step focused on corroboration by comparing

details across sources and looking for confl icting

points of view or information. The fi nal step

prompted students to make notes on what seemed

believable from each source, using a specifi c format

for recording information. The argumentative strat-

egy asked students to use the evidence from the

source documents to generate reasons and evidence

on both sides of an issue and then write an essay that

presented a clear position, reasons and evidence for

the position, reasons on the other side with rebut-

tals, and a conclusion. Students wrote essays on top-

ics related to the historical events, for example, “Did

the United States have a reasonable argument for

going to war with Mexico?” A quasi-experimental

study with eighth-grade students found that essays

written by students in the treatment group included

more arguments and were rated higher in persuasive

quality and historical accuracy of content.

A study by Nokes, Dole, and Hacker (2007) pro-

vided instruction to 11th-grade students on three

related strategies for interpreting historical docu-

ments: sourcing, corroboration, and contextualiza-

tion. The strategies were taught in 10 one-hour

reading lessons embedded in a 3-week unit on life in

the 1920s and 1930s in an American history course.

For each strategy, the teacher provided an explicit

explanation of the strategy and why it was important

for historians, modeled using it to interpret a docu-

ment, and supervised small-group practice applying

the strategy to new documents. The study used a

Strategies Instruction

393

quasi-experimental design with eight history classes

randomly assigned to four conditions that varied on

two dimensions—strategies versus traditional read-

ing practice and single textbook versus multiple doc-

uments. Students who learned the strategies with

multiple documents performed better than other

groups on a measure of using the strategies for a writ-

ing task. Both groups that read multiple documents

scored better on a test of content knowledge. How-

ever, the strategies did not affect content knowledge.

Science Science educators have a long tradition of attempt-

ing to teach students to think like scientists. In

recent years, more focused investigation has been

conducted on the development of scientifi c-reasoning

processes (for a review, see C. Zimmerman, 2000 ).

Klein ( 2004 ; see also Klein, Boman, & Prince, 2007 )

has investigated the cognitive processes used by stu-

dents in constructing written explanations of sci-

ence and the effects of such writing on learning. To

date, little research has used the results of such

studies of cognitive processes in science to develop

domain-specifi c strategies instruction. However, in

one study ( Keys, Hand, Prain, & Collins, 1999 )

eighth-grade students learned a heuristic, or strat-

egy, intended to guide them in writing scientifi c

explanations based on investigations. The strategy

included seven steps represented as questions:

What are my questions? (beginning ideas) 1.

What did I do? (tests) 2.

What did I see? (observations) 3.

What claims can I make? (claims) 4.

How do I know? (evidence) 5.

How do my ideas compare with others? (reading) 6.

How have my ideas changed? (refl ection) 7.

The qualitative study investigated 19 students as

they worked on an 8-week unit on water pollution.

Keys et al. (1999) concluded that the strategy helped

students to generate meaning from data; make con-

nections among procedures, data, evidence, and

claims; and refl ect on their learning.

Literature Literary interpretation and analysis are important

goals of English instruction in secondary schools.

Students in secondary English classes read and dis-

cuss literature, but relatively little time is devoted to

the interpretative or analytic writing that might

enhance their understanding and prepare them for

further study in the fi eld ( Applebee & Langer, 2006 ;

Gamoran & Carbonaro, 2002 ). Literary studies, or

literary criticism, like all professional communities,

have standards for what knowledge counts, methods

of analysis and critical thinking, and forms for argu-

mentation. In a rhetorical analysis of publications in

major journals of literary studies, Fahnestock and

Secor (1991) found that literary scholars used a set

of shared topoi (e.g., appearance versus reality, ubiq-

uity, and paradox) that served as critical lenses for

interpretation of texts. Another characteristic of lit-

erary criticism is the importance of supporting argu-

ments with quotations and textual references.

Lewis and Ferretti ( 2009 ; see also Lewis, 2007 )

used these understandings about the characteristics

of literary analysis to develop a strategy for literary

analysis that they taught low-achieving high school

students. Students learned a process for interpreting

texts by using common topoi of literary criticism.

They also learned a domain-specifi c strategy for writ-

ing literary arguments that included a thesis, rea-

sons, textual evidence (quotes or paraphrases), and

explanations (warrants) that connect the evidence to

the reasons. Instruction followed the SRSD model

( Graham & Harris, 2005 ). The study (Lewis &

Ferretti, 2009) demonstrated that instruction led to

improved text structure, increased use of the topoi ,

and higher overall quality of essays. The research on

applying strategies instruction approaches in the dis-

ciplines of history, science, and literature is promis-

ing but quite limited. The few studies on strategies

for historical thinking have demonstrated positive

effects, but each of those studies had methodological

limitations. Even less research is available in other

content areas. However, the examples are instruc-

tive. In each case, knowledge about the cognitive

processes used by experts in the discipline- and

domain-specifi c constructs has been used to design

strategies that can be taught to students in those dis-

ciplines. The principles and methods that have been

developed in the fi eld of strategies instruction could

help teachers do a better job of teaching complex

cognitive processes in disciplinary fi elds.

Charles A. MacArthur

394

FUTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Research on cognitive strategies instruction over the

past 30 years has demonstrated that it is possible to

improve students ’ academic performance by teach-

ing them to use more effective strategies than they

develop without instruction. Over time, research on

strategies instruction has moved from basic research,

to instructional research on individual strategies, to

instruction in multiple strategies, and, fi nally, to

integration of strategies instruction with comprehen-

sive approaches to teaching and learning. As noted

above, most approaches to strategies instruction rec-

ognize that learning involves the construction of

complex representations of concepts that can be

used to solve meaningful problems ( Bransford et al.,

2000 ; see also Volume 1, Chapter 3, this handbook).

Strategies instruction has a great deal to contribute

to other constructivist approaches. First, it brings an

emphasis on explicit explanation and modeling of

strategies that are based on expert thinking and that

can be evaluated for their educational effectiveness.

For many, if not most, students, explicit instruction

in complex thought processes is benefi cial. Kuhn

(2009) asked in the title of a recent article, “Do Stu-

dents Need to Be Taught How to Reason?” She con-

cluded that they do. Strategy instruction is one way

to accomplish this end. Second, and perhaps most

essential, strategy instruction contributes an empha-

sis on self-regulation along with methods for devel-

oping self-regulation (Volume 1, Chapter 14, this

handbook). Self-regulation strategies can contribute

in important ways to the development of self-effi cacy

(i.e., confi dence in one ’ s ability to do particular

tasks) and motivation. Strategies for managing tasks,

monitoring strategy use, evaluating performance,

and coping with diffi culties all help students to be

more successful on tasks and to feel more in control

of their learning. For low-achieving students, as they

see success with the use of strategies, their attribu-

tions change to focus on strategies rather than per-

sonal limitations, and their self-effi cacy increases

( Butler, 1998 ; Graham, Harris, & Mason, 2005;

B. J. Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997 ). Third,

research on strategy instruction can inform us about

the instruction that is needed to guide or scaffold

students in mastering complex strategies. One such

lesson is that students need to practice strategies

repeatedly with sensitive guidance to attain mastery.

Teachers need to evaluate and provide feedback to

students on their understanding of the strategy as

well as their performance. Research is still needed on

many questions to integrate strategies instruction as

part of comprehensive approaches to teaching and

learning. Here I consider a few important items on a

research agenda, beginning with narrower and pro-

ceeding to larger issues.

First, as argued earlier, more research is needed

on strategy instruction in the disciplines of history,

science, and literature. Instruction in all of these dis-

ciplines aims to develop complex strategies for criti-

cal reasoning. Research has provided insight into the

strategies used by experts and profi cient learners in

these areas. The available studies on domain-specifi c

strategies in historical thinking, scientifi c reasoning,

and literary analysis suggest that the core principles

of strategies instruction have potential to improve

instruction in content area learning.

Second, there is a critical need to investigate the

role of technology from two perspectives. On one

hand, we need more research on the use of technol-

ogy to support learning of strategies in traditional

domains such as reading, writing, and science. For

example, McNamara, O ’ Reilly, Best, and Ozuru

(2006) reported promising results using an intelli-

gent tutor for reading comprehension strategies

called the Interactive Strategy Trainer for Active

Reading and Thinking (iSTART). Both students with

initially low- and high-strategy knowledge benefi ted

from training. Proctor, Dalton, and Grisham (2007)

developed software that embedded vocabulary and

comprehension strategy supports in hypertexts and

reported positive effects on reading strategies and

comprehension for struggling readers and English

language learners. Intelligent tutoring systems are

discussed further in this volume by Graesser (see

Chapter 19, this volume). Perhaps even more impor-

tantly, and more complex conceptually, there is a

need to investigate the strategies required for success-

ful comprehension and composition of online multi-

media texts. New interactive technologies are having

broad effects on the ways in which people communi-

cate with each other and construct their understand-

ing of the world ( MacArthur & Karchmer-Klein,

Strategies Instruction

395

2010 ). They change the social context for writing by

creating new forms for writing and increasing inter-

action between writer and audience. They provide

new ways to gather information and express ideas

and, consequently, create new cognitive demands

both for reading and writing. Such new literacies are

becoming increasingly critical for success in school,

work, and the community. Research has only begun

to study the strategies used by profi cient learners for

online information tasks and to develop teachable

strategies. Coiro and Dobler (2007) used think-aloud

techniques to investigate the reading comprehension

strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to

search for and locate information on the Internet,

fi nding similarities and differences compared with

print reading in strategies for using prior knowledge,

making inferences, and self-regulation. A design proj-

ect by Leu et al. (2008) has developed comprehen-

sion strategies for online reading based roughly on

reciprocal teaching. Their instruction emphasizes

strategies for posing questions and then locating, crit-

ically evaluating, synthesizing, and communicating

information related to those questions—strategies

derived from earlier studies of profi cient readers

comprehending online texts. Given the importance of

the Internet in all aspects of learning and communi-

cation, it is urgent that research focus on the strate-

gies needed for successful performance.

The remaining recommendations move toward

more general issues that are important to refi ne the

effectiveness and effi ciency of strategies instruction

and to make it feasible and effective over time in

classroom settings. The third recommendation is for

more research on which components of strategy

instruction are required for effectiveness, particularly

with different populations of students. For example,

only a handful of studies have investigated the value

of particular types of self-regulation instruction in

addition to specifi c strategies ( De La Paz, 2007 ). Few

studies have compared different combinations of

strategies. In addition, clearly the strategies needed

by more and less profi cient learners are different, but

little is known about interactions between learner

knowledge and existing strategies and the effects of

instruction. Such components analysis is needed to

make strategy instruction effi cient and to increase

the potential for maintenance and generalization.

Fourth, more research is needed on strategies

instruction in classroom settings over extended peri-

ods of time. A number of yearlong investigations of

reading comprehension strategies have been con-

ducted, but much more work is needed, especially

in areas other than reading comprehension. Class-

room instruction needs to take on complex ques-

tions about the integration of strategies instruction

with the rest of the curriculum. For example, we

need more research on integrated strategies for read-

ing and writing. In content areas, we need research

on how to integrate strategies instruction with the

development of conceptual knowledge.

Finally, one of the most critical needs is for

research on teacher education and staff develop-

ment. Strategy instruction is a challenging approach

for teachers ( Duffy, 1993 ; Hilden & Pressley, 2007 ),

and research indicates that strategies are not gener-

ally taught often enough or according to best prac-

tices. Teachers need to develop deep knowledge of

strategies themselves, which involves developing

conscious awareness of the strategies they use

implicitly as well as learning sophisticated strategies

that they might not use themselves. Effective

instruction also requires knowledge about the devel-

opment of strategies and strategic processing typical

of their students. Teachers must learn to assess stu-

dents ’ use of strategies through informal procedures

during the course of instruction and to provide

appropriate levels of support for students at various

stages of mastery. Once they know how to teach

individual strategies, they need to learn how to inte-

grate them with the rest of their instruction. The

development of expertise in strategies instruction

has been described as a multiyear process even with

expert support ( Duffy, 1993 ; Pressley, El-Dinary,

et al., 1992 ). Research on professional development

is diffi cult but essential to further progress in mak-

ing strategies instruction a reality in classrooms. In

short, we know a great deal about strategies instruc-

tion, but much more remains to be done.

References

Alexander , P. A. , Graham , S. , & Harris , K. R. (1998) . A perspective on strategy research: Progress and pros-pects . Educational Psychology Review , 10 , 129 – 154 . doi:10.1023/A:1022185502996

Charles A. MacArthur

396

Anderson , V. (1992) . A teacher development project in transactional strategy instruction for teachers of severely reading disabled adolescents . Teaching and Teacher Education , 8 , 391 – 403 . doi:10.1016/0742-051X(92)90064-A

Applebee , A. , & Langer , J. (2006) . The state of writing instruction: What existing data tell us . Albany , NY : Center on English Learning and Achievement .

Ashby , M. G. , & Lee , P. (1987) . Children ’ s concepts of empathy and understanding in history . In C. Portal (Ed.) , The history curriculum for teachers (pp. 62 – 88 ). London , England : Falmer Press .

Baker , L. (1985) . Differences in standards used by college students to evaluate their comprehension of exposi-tory prose . Reading Research Quarterly , 20 , 297 – 313 . doi:10.2307/748020

Barton , K. C. (2001) . A sociocultural perspective on children ’ s understanding of historical change: Comparative fi ndings from Northern Ireland and the United States . American Educational Research Journal , 38 , 881 – 913 . doi:10.3102/00028312038004881

Bazerman , C. , & Rogers , P. (2008) . Writing and secular knowledge within modern European institutions . In C. Bazerman (Ed.) , Handbook of research on writing (pp. 157 – 175 ). New York , NY : Erlbaum .

Beck , I. L. , McKeown , M. G. , Worthy , J. , Sandora , C. , & Kucan , L. (1996) . Questioning the author: A year-long classroom implementation to engage students with text . The Elementary School Journal , 96 , 385 – 414 . doi:10.1086/461835

Bereiter , C. , & Scardamalia , M. (1987) . The psychology of written composition . Hillsdale , NJ : Erlbaum .

Bransford , J. D. , Brown , A. L. , & Cocking , R. R. (Eds.). (2000) . How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school . Washington , DC : National Academies Press .

Brown , A. L. , & Palincsar , A. S. (1982) . Inducing stra-tegic learning from texts by means of informed, self-control training . Topics in Learning & Learning Disabilities , 2(1) , 1 – 17 .

Brown , R. , Pressley , M. , Van Meter , P. , & Schuder , T. (1996) . A quasi-experimental validation of transac-tional strategies instruction with low-achieving sec-ond grade readers . Journal of Educational Psychology , 88 , 18 – 37 . doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.18

Butler , D. L. (1998) . The strategic content learning approach to promoting self-regulated learning: A report of three studies . Journal of Educational Psychology , 90 , 682 – 697 . doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.4.682

Coiro , J. , & Dobler , E. (2007) . Exploring the online read-ing comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet . Reading Research Quarterly , 42 , 214 – 257 . doi:10.1598/RRQ.42.2.2

Collins , C. (1991) . Reading instruction that increases thinking abilities . Journal of Reading , 34 , 510 – 516 .

Collins , J. L. (2009, December) . Using thinksheets to scaf-fold reading, writing, and learning . Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Albuquerque, NM.

De La Paz , S. (2005) . Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms . Journal of Educational Psychology , 97 , 139 – 156 . doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.139

De La Paz , S. (2007) . Managing cognitive demands for writing: Comparing the effects of instructional com-ponents in strategy instruction . Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Diffi culties , 23 , 249 – 266 . doi:10.1080/10573560701277609

Dewitz , P. , Jones , J. , & Leahy , S. (2009) . Comprehension strategy instruction in core reading programs . Reading Research Quarterly , 44 , 102 – 126 . doi:10.1598/RRQ.44.2.1

Dole , J. , Nokes , J. , & Drits , D. (2008) . Cognitive strategy instruction: Past and future . In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.) , Handbook of research on read-ing comprehension (pp. 347 – 372 ). New York , NY : Routledge .

Duffy , G. G. (1993) . Teachers ’ progress toward becom-ing expert strategy teachers . The Elementary School Journal , 94 , 109 – 120 . doi:10.1086/461754

Duffy , G. G. (2003) . Explaining reading: A resource for teaching concepts, skills, and strategies . New York , NY : Guilford .

Duke , N. K. , & Pearson , P. D. (2002) . Effective practices for developing reading comprehension . In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.) , What research has to say about reading instruction ( 3rd ed. , pp. 205 – 242 ). Newark , DE : International Reading Association .

Englert , C. S. (1992) . Writing instruction from a socio-cultural perspective: The holistic, dialogic, and social enterprise of writing . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 25 , 153 – 172 . doi:10.1177/002221949202500303

Englert , C. S. , Mariage , T. V. , & Dunsmore , K. (2006) . Tenets of sociocultural theory in writing instruc-tion research . In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.) , Handbook of writing research (pp. 208 – 221 ). New York , NY : Guilford Press .

Englert , C. S. , Raphael , T. E. , Anderson , L. M. , Anthony , H. M. , & Stevens , D. D. (1991) . Making writing strategies and self-talk visible: Cognitive strategy instruction in writing in regular and special educa-tion classrooms . American Educational Research Journal , 28 , 337 – 372 .

Fahnestock , J. , & Secor , M. (1991) . The rhetoric of liter-ary criticism . In C. Bazerman & J. Paradis (Eds.) , Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and

Strategies Instruction

397

contemporary studies of writing in the professional communities . Madison : University of Wisconsin Press .

Ferretti , R. P. , MacArthur , C. A. , & Okolo , C. M. (2001) . Teaching for historical understanding in inclusive classrooms . Learning Disability Quarterly , 24 , 59 – 71 . doi:10.2307/1511296

Ferretti , R. P. , MacArthur , C. A. , & Okolo , C. M. (2007) . Students ’ misconceptions about U.S. westward migration . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 40 , 145 – 153 . doi:10.1177/00222194070400020501

Fitzgerald , J. , & Shanahan , T. (2000) . Reading and writing relations and their development . Educational Psychologist , 35 , 39 – 50 . doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3501_5

Flavell , J. H. (1971) . What is memory development the development of ? Human Development , 14 , 272 – 278 . doi:10.1159/000271221

Flavell , J. H. (1979) . Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry . American Psychologist , 34 , 906 – 911 . doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906

Flower , L. , Hayes , J. R. , Carey , L. , Schriver , J. , & Stratman , J. (1986) . Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision . College Composition and Communication , 37 , 16 – 55 . doi:10.2307/357381

Fuchs , D. , Fuchs , L. S. , Mathes , P. G. , & Simmons , D. C. (1997) . Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity . American Educational Research Journal , 34 , 174 – 206 .

Fuchs , L. S. , Fuchs , D. , Prentice , K. , Burch , M. , Hamlett , C. L. , Owen , R. , . . . Jancek , D. (2003) . Explicitly teaching for transfer: Effects on third-grade students ’ mathematical problem solving . Journal of Educational Psychology , 95 , 293 – 305 . doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.293

Fuchs , L. S. , Fuchs , D. , Prentice , K. , Burch , M. , Hamlett , C. L. , Owen , R. , & Schroeter , K. (2003) . Enhancing third-grade students ’ mathematical problem solving with self-regulated learning strategies . Journal of Educational Psychology , 95 , 306 – 315 . doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.306

Fuchs , L. S. , Fuchs , D. , Prentice , K. , Hamlett , C. , Finelli , R. , & Courey , S. (2004) . Enhancing mathematical prob-lem solving among third-grade students with schema-based instruction . Journal of Educational Psychology , 96 , 635 – 647 . doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.635

Gajria , M. , Jitendra , A. K. , Sood , S. , & Sacks , G. (2007) . Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 40 , 210 – 225 . doi:10.1177/00222194070400030301

Gamoran , A. , & Carbonaro , W. J. (2002) . High school English: A national portrait . High School Journal , 86 , 1 – 13 . doi:10.1353/hsj.2002.0021

Garner , R. (1990) . When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward a theory of settings . Review of Educational Research , 60 , 517 – 529 .

Gersten , R. , Fuchs , L. S. , Williams , J. , & Baker , S. (2001) . Teaching reading comprehension strategies to stu-dents with learning disabilities: A review of research . Review of Educational Research , 71 , 279 – 320 . doi:10.3102/00346543071002279

Graesser , A. C. (2007) . An introduction to strategic reading comprehension . In D. S. McNamara (Ed.) , Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interven-tions, and technologies (pp. 3 – 26 ). Mahwah , NJ : Erlbaum .

Graesser , A. C. , Singer , M. , & Trabasso , T. (1994) . Constructing inferences during narrative text com-prehension . Psychological Review , 101 , 371 – 395 . doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371

Graham , S. (2006) . Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis . In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.) , Handbook of writ-ing research (pp. 187 – 207 ). New York , NY : Guilford Press .

Graham , S. , & Harris , K. R. (1993) . Self-regulated strat-egy development: Helping students with learning problems develop as writers . The Elementary School Journal , 94 , 169 – 181 . doi:10.1086/461758

Graham , S. , & Harris , K. R. (2003) . Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies . In L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.) , Handbook of research on learning dis-abilities (pp. 323 – 344 ). New York , NY : Guilford Press .

Graham , S. , & Harris , K. R. (2005) . Writing better: Effective strategies for teaching students with learning diffi culties . New York , NY : Brooks .

Graham , S. , & Perin , D. (2007) . A meta-analysis of writ-ing instruction for adolescent students . Journal of Educational Psychology , 99 , 445 – 476 . doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445

Graves , M. F. , & Graves , B. (2003) . Scaffolding the read-ing experience: Designs for student success ( 2nd ed. ). Norwood , MA : Christopher Gordon .

Guthrie , J. T. , Wigfi eld , A. , Barbosa , P. , Perencevich , K. C. , Toboada , A. , Davis , M. H. , . . . Tonks , S. (2004) . Increasing reading comprehension and engage-ment through concept-oriented reading instruction . Journal of Educational Psychology , 96 , 403 – 423 . doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.403

Harris , K. J. , Graham , S. , & Mason , L. (2006) . Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of strug-gling young writers: Effects of self-regulated strat-egy development with and without peer support . American Educational Research Journal , 43 , 295 – 340 . doi:10.3102/00028312043002295

Harris , K. J. , Santangelo , T. , & Graham , S. (2008) . Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Going

Charles A. MacArthur

398

beyond NLEs to a more balanced approach . Instructional Science , 36 , 395 – 408 .

Harris , K. R. , & Pressley , M. (1991) . The nature of cogni-tive strategy instruction: Interactive strategy con-struction . Exceptional Children , 57 , 392 – 404 .

Hayes , J. R. (1996) . A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing . In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.) , The science of writing (pp. 1 – 27 ). Mahwah , NJ : Erlbaum .

Hayes , J. R. , & Flower , L. (1980) . Identifying the organi-zation of writing processes . In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.) , Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3 – 30 ). Hillsdale , NJ : Erlbaum .

Hayes , J. R. , & Nash , J. G. (1996) . On the nature of plan-ning in writing . In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.) , The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 29 – 55 ). Mahwah , NJ : Erlbaum .

Hembree , R. (1992) . Experiments and relational stud-ies in problem solving: A meta-analysis . Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 23 , 242 – 273 . doi:10.2307/749120

Hilden , K. R. , & Pressley , M. (2007) . Self-regulation through transactional strategies instruction . Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Diffi culties , 23 , 51 – 75 .

Israel , S. E. , & Duffy , G. G. (2009) . Handbook of research on reading comprehension . New York , NY : Routledge .

Jitendra , A. K. , Griffi n , C. C. , Haria , P. , Leh , J. , Adams , A. , & Kaduvettoor , A. (2007) . A comparison of sin-gle and multiple strategy instruction on third-grade students ’ mathematical problem solving . Journal of Educational Psychology , 99 , 115 – 127 . doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.115

Jitendra , A. K. , Griffi n , C. C. , McGoey , K. , Gardill , M. C. , Bhat , P. , & Riley , T. (1998) . Effects of mathemati-cal word problem solving by students at risk or with mild disabilities . The Journal of Educational Research , 91 , 345 – 355 . doi:10.1080/00220679809597564

Jitendra , A. K. , Star , J. R. , Starosta , K. , Leh , J. M. , Sood , S. , Caskie , G. , . . . Mack , T. R. (2009) . Improving sev-enth grade students ’ learning of ratio and proportion: The role of schema-based instruction . Contemporary Educational Psychology , 34 , 250 – 264 . doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.06.001

Keys , C. W. , Hand , B. , Prain , V. , & Collins , S. (1999) . Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in sec-ondary science . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 36 , 1065 – 1084 . doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I

Kinder , D. , & Bursuck , W. (1993) . History strategy instruction: Problem-solution-effect analysis, timeline, and vocabulary instruction . Exceptional Children , 59 , 324 – 335 .

Kintsch , W. (2004) . The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction . In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.) , Theoretical models and processes of reading ( 5th ed. , pp. 1270 – 1328 ). Newark , DE : International Reading Association .

Kintsch , W. (2009) . Learning and constructivism . In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.) , Constructivist instruc-tion: Success or failure? (pp. 223 – 241 ). New York , NY : Routledge .

Klein , P. D. (2004) . Constructing scientifi c explanations through writing . Instructional Science , 32 , 191 – 231 .

Klein , P. D. , Boman , J. , & Prince , M. (2007) . Developmental trends in a writing to learn task . In M. Torrance, L. Van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.) , Writing and cognition: Research and applications: Studies in writing (pp. 201 – 217 ). New York , NY : Elsevier Science .

Klingner , J. K. , Vaughn , S. , & Schumm , J. S. (1998) . Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade class-rooms . The Elementary School Journal , 99 , 3 – 22 . doi:10.1086/461914

Kucan , L. , & Beck , I. L. (1997) . Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruc-tion, and social interaction . Review of Educational Research , 67 , 271 – 299 .

Kuhn , D. (2009) . Do students need to be taught how to reason ? Educational Research Review , 4 , 1 – 6 . doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2008.11.001

Lee , P. , & Ashby , R. (2000) . Progression in historical understanding among students ages 7–14 . In P. N. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (Eds.) , Knowing, teaching, and learning history (pp. 199 – 222 ). New York , NY : New York University Press .

Leu , D. J. , Coiro , J. , Castek , J. , Hartman , D. K. , Henry , L. A. , & Reinking , D. (2008) . Research on instruc-tion and assessment in the new literacies of online reading comprehension . In C. C. Block & S. Parris (Eds.) , Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices ( 2nd ed. , pp. 321 – 346 ). New York , NY : Guilford Press .

Lewis , W. E. (2007) . The effects of genre-specifi c planning and topoi instruction on the analytical literary argu-ments of high school students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) . University of Delaware, Newark .

Lewis , W. E. , & Ferretti , R. P. (2009) . Defending inter-pretations of literary texts: The effects of topoi instruction on the literary arguments of high school students . Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25, 250–270.

MacArthur , C. A. , Ferretti , R. P. , & Okolo , C. M. (2002) . On defending controversial viewpoints: Debates of sixth-graders about the desirability of early

Strategies Instruction

399

20th century American immigration . Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17 , 160 – 172 .

MacArthur , C. A. , Graham , S. , Schwartz , S. S. , & Schafer , W. (1995) . Evaluation of a writing instruction model that integrated a process approach, strategy instruction, and word processing . Learning Disability Quarterly , 18 , 278 – 291 . doi:10.2307/1511234

MacArthur , C. A. , & Karchmer-Klein , R. (2010) . Web 2.0: New opportunities for writing . In G. Troia, R. K. Shankland, & A. E. Heintz (Eds.) , Writing research in classroom practice: Applications for teacher professional development (pp. 45 – 69 ). New York , NY : Guilford Press .

MacArthur , C. A. , & Lembo , L. (2009) . Strategy instruc-tion in writing for adult literacy learners . Reading and Writing , 22 , 1021 – 1039 . doi:10.1007/s11145-008-9142-x

MacArthur , C. A. , Schwartz , S. S. , Graham , S. , Molloy , D. , & Harris , K. R. (1996) . Integration of strategy instruction into a whole language classroom: A case study . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 11(3) , 168 – 176 .

Mason , L. , Snyder , K. H. , Sukhram , D. P. , & Kedem , Y. (2006) . TWA + PLANS strategies for expository read-ing and writing: Effects for nine fourth-grade stu-dents . Exceptional Children , 73 , 69 – 89 .

Mayer , R. E. , & Hegarty , M. (1996) . The process of understanding mathematics problems . In R. J. Sternberg & T. Ben-Zeev (Eds.) , The nature of mathe-matical thinking (pp. 29 – 53 ). Hillsdale , NJ : Erlbaum .

McNamara , D. S. (2004) . SERT: Self-explanation read-ing training . Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 38 , 1 – 30 .

McNamara , D. S. (Ed.). (2007) . Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies . Mahwah , NJ : Erlbaum .

McNamara , D. S. , O ’ Reilly , T. P. , Best , R. M. , & Ozuru , Y. (2006) . Improving adolescent students ’ reading comprehension with iSTART . Journal of Educational Computing Research , 34 , 147 – 171 . doi:10.2190/1RU5-HDTJ-A5C8-JVWE

Meichenbaum , D. (1977) . Cognitive behavior modifi ca-tion: An integrative approach . New York , NY : Plenum Press .

Mohan , L. , Lundeberg , M. A. , & Reffi tt , K. (2008) . Studying teachers and schools: Michael Pressley ’ s legacy and directions for future research . Educational Psychologist , 43 , 107 – 118 . doi:10.1080/00461520801942292

Montague , M. (1992) . The effects of cognitive and meta-cognitive strategy instruction on the mathematical problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 25 , 230 – 248 . doi:10.1177/002221949202500404

Montague , M. , Applegate , B. , & Marquard , K. (1993) . Cognitive strategy instruction and mathematical problem-solving performance of students with learn-ing disabilities . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 8 , 223 – 232 .

Montague , M. , & Bos , C. S. (1986) . The effect of cog-nitive strategy training on verbal math problem solving performance of learning disabled adoles-cents . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 19 , 26 – 33 . doi:10.1177/002221948601900107

National Center for Study of History in the Schools . (1996) . National standards for United States history . Los Angeles : University of California, Los Angeles .

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics . (2000) . Principles and NCTM standards for school mathemat-ics . Reston , VA : Author .

National Reading Panel . (2000) . Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: Reports of the subgroups . Washington , DC : National Institute of Child Health and Human Development .

Newell , A. , & Simon , H. (1972) . Human problem solving . Englewood Cliffs , NJ : Prentice Hall .

Nokes , J. D. , Dole , J. A. , & Hacker , D. J. (2007) . Teaching high school students to use heuristics while reading historical texts . Journal of Educational Psychology , 99 , 492 – 504 . doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.492

Olson , C. , & Land , R. (2007) . A cognitive strategies approach to reading and writing instruction for English language learners in secondary school . Research in the Teaching of English , 41 , 269 – 303 .

Palincsar , A. S. , & Brown , A. L. (1984) . Reciprocal teach-ing of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities . Cognition and Instruction , 1 , 117 – 175 . doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1

Perkins , D. N. , & Salomon , G. (1989) . Are cognitive skills context-bound ? Educational Researcher , 18 , 16 – 25 .

Polya , G. (1957) . How to solve it . New York , NY : Doubleday . (Original work published 1945)

Pressley , M. (1986) . The relevance of the good strat-egy user model to the teaching of mathematics . Educational Psychologist , 21 , 139 – 161 . doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2101&2_8

Pressley , M. (2000) . What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.) , Handbook of reading research ( Vol. 3 , pp. 545 – 561 ). Mahwah , NJ : Erlbaum .

Pressley , M. , & Affl erbach , P. (1995) . Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive read-ing . Hillsdale , NJ : Erlbaum .

Pressley , M. , El-Dinary , P. B. , Gaskins , I. , Schuder , T. , Bergman , J. L. , Almasi , J. , & Brown , R. (1992) .

Charles A. MacArthur

400

Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies . The Elementary School Journal , 92 , 513 – 555 . doi:10.1086/461705

Pressley , M. , & Harris , K. R. (2006) . Cognitive strate-gies instruction: From basic research to classroom instruction . In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.) , Handbook of educational psychology ( 2nd ed. , pp. 265 – 286 ). Mahwah , NJ : Erlbaum .

Pressley , M. , Harris , K. R. , & Marks , M. B. (1992) . But good strategy instructors are constructivists . Educational Psychology Review , 4 , 3 – 31 . doi:10.1007/BF01322393

Pressley , M. , Johnson , C. J. , Symons , S. , McGoldrick , J. A. , & Kurita , J. A. (1989) . Strategies that improve memory and comprehension of what is read . The Elementary School Journal , 90 , 3 – 32 . doi:10.1086/461599

Pressley , M. , Wharton-McDonald , R. , Mistretta , J. , & Echevarria , M. (1998) . The nature of literacy instruction in ten grade-4/5 classrooms in upstate New York . Scientifi c Studies of Reading , 2 , 159 – 194 . doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0202_4

Proctor , C. P. , Dalton , B. , & Grisham , D. L. (2007) . Scaffolding English language learners and struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary sup-port . Journal of Literacy Research , 39 , 71 – 93 .

Ramdass , D. , & Zimmerman , B. J. (2008) . Effects of self-correction strategy training on middle school stu-dents ’ self-effi cacy, self-evaluation, and mathematics division learning . Journal of Advanced Academics , 20 , 18 – 41 .

RAND Reading Study Group . (2002) . Reading for under-standing: Toward an R & D program for reading com-prehension . Santa Monica , CA : RAND .

Rosenshine , B. , & Meister , C. (1994) . Reciprocal teach-ing: A review of the research . Review of Educational Research , 64 , 479 – 530 .

Rouet , J-F. , Britt , M. A. , Mason , R. A. , & Perfetti , C. A. (1996) . Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about history . Journal of Educational Psychology , 88 , 478 – 493 . doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.478

Ruddell , R. B. , & Unrau , N. J. (2004) . Reading as a mean-ing-making construction process: The reader, the text, and the teacher . In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.) , Theoretical models and processes of reading ( 5th ed. , pp. 1461 – 1521 ). Newark , DE : International Reading Association .

Saenz , L. , Fuchs , L. S. , & Fuchs , D. (2005) . Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies on English language learners: A randomized controlled study . Exceptional Children , 71 , 231 – 247 .

Scardamalia , M. , & Bereiter , C. (1986) . Research on writ-ten composition . In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.) , Handbook

of research on teaching (pp. 778 – 803 ). New York , NY : Macmillan .

Shanahan , T. , & Shanahan , C. (2008) . Teaching disci-plinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy . Harvard Educational Review , 78 , 40 – 59 .

Siegler , R. S. (1996) . Emerging minds: The process of change in children ’ s thinking . New York , NY : Oxford University Press .

Sodian , B. , & Bullock , M. (2008) . Scientifi c reasoning—Where are we now ? Cognitive Development , 23 , 431 – 434 . doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.003

Stearns , P. N. , Seixas , P. , & Wineburg , S. (Eds.). (2000) . Knowing, teaching, and learning history . New York , NY : New York University Press .

Taylor , B. M. , Pearson , P. D. , Peterson , D. S. , & Rodriguez , M. C. (2003) . Reading growth in high-poverty classrooms: The infl uence of teacher practices that encourage cogni-tive engagement in literacy learning . The Elementary School Journal , 104 , 3 – 28 . doi:10.1086/499740

VanSledright , B. A. , & Kelly , C. (1998) . Reading American history: The infl uence of multiple sources on six fi fth graders . The Elementary School Journal , 98 , 239 – 265 . doi:10.1086/461893

Vygotsky , L. S. (1978) . Mind in society: The develop-ment of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.) . Cambridge , MA : Harvard University Press . (Original work published 1934)

Wigfi eld , A. , Guthrie , J. T. , Perencevich , K. C. , Taboada , A. , Klauda , S. L. , McRae , A. , & Barbosa , P. (2008) . Role of reading engagement in mediating effects of reading comprehension instruction on reading outcomes . Psychology in the Schools , 45 , 432 – 445 . doi:10.1002/pits.20307

Wineburg , S. S. (1991) . On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between the school and the academy . American Educational Research Journal , 28 , 495 – 519 .

Wineburg , S. S. (2001) . Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past . Philadelphia , PA : Temple University Press .

Wong , B. Y. L. , Butler , D. L. , Ficzere , S. A. , & Kuperis , S. (1997) . Teaching adolescents with learning dis-abilities and low achievers to plan, write, and revise compare-and-contrast essays . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 12 , 2 – 15 .

Woodward , J. , & Baxter , J. (1997) . The effects of an inno-vative approach to mathematics on academically low-achieving students in inclusive settings . Exceptional Children , 63(3) , 373 – 388 .

Xin , Y. P. , & Jitendra , A. K. (1999) . The effects of instruc-tion in solving mathematical word problems for students with learning problems: A meta-analysis .

Strategies Instruction

401

The Journal of Special Education , 32 , 207 – 225 . doi:10.1177/002246699903200402

Young , K. M. , & Leinhardt , G. (1998) . Writing from primary documents: A way of knowing in history . Written Communication , 15 , 25 – 68 . doi:10.1177/0741088398015001002

Zimmerman , B. J. (1989) . Models of self-regulated learn-ing and academic achievement . In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.) , Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 1 – 25 ). New York , NY : Springer-Verlag .

Zimmerman , B. J. (1994) . Dimensions of academic self-regulation: A conceptual framework for educa-tion . In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.) ,

Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 3 – 22 ). Hillsdale , NJ : Erlbaum .

Zimmerman , B. J. , & Risemberg , R. (1997) . Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective . Contemporary Educational Psychology , 22 , 73 – 101 . doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0919

Zimmerman , B. J. , & Schunk , D. H. (Eds.). (1989) . Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice . New York , NY : Springer-Verlag .

Zimmerman , C. (2000) . The development of scientifi c reasoning skills . Developmental Review , 20 , 99 – 149 . doi:10.1006/drev.1999.0497