IMPROVING TEXTBOOK READING IN A MIDDLESCHOOL SCIENCE CLASSROOMRICH RADCLIFFE, DAVID CAVERLY, CYNTHIA PETERSON

Southwest Texas State University

MATT EMMONS

Prairie Lea Independent School District

Ineffective approaches for teaching with print may prevent text-book reading from being a useful learning resource in middleschool. University faculty mentored a middle school scienceteacher as he implemented a textbook study-reading approach,PLAN (Caverly, Mandeville & Nicholson, 1995), in 2 classes(n=33). PLAN orchestrates 4 strategies through student-createdmapping. After 3 months of strategy use, students gained in aself-report of strategic reading and in comprehension as reflect-ed by maps. Post-assessment interviews revealed that the teacherhad changed his instructional routine, moving through stages ofstrategy awareness, understanding, and adaptation. The teacherchanged his expectation that students would complete textbookreading and that it increased student learning. The studentschanged their expectation that they could read and learn from thetextbook.

Although educators have long debatedthe role of the textbook for learning, inmiddle school the science textbook appearsto be an important learning resource.According to the National Assessment ofEducational Progress (2000), 80% ofeighth grade science teachers reportedusing the textbook regularly. It may playa stronger instructional role in the class-room when student prior knowledge or theteacher's relative familiarity with the topicis low (Driscoll, Moallem, Dick, & Kirby,1994).

Weaknesses in textbook content andineffective approaches for teaching withprint may prevent textbook reading frombeing effective. The American Associa-tion for the Advancement of Science(2002) reported that science textbooks doa poor job of following standards-basedprinciples for concept learning, a reasonscience teachers might avoid assigning

textbook reading. In a case study of a mid-dle school science classroom (Driscoll, etal., 1994), the teacher presented textbookreading as the learning option for "bookpeople," a style claimed by few studentsaccording to the study results. In this class-room other sources of learning, such ashands-on activities, seemed more valued.The textbook was used for definitionallevel learning while hands-on activitieswere used for problem solving. The stu-dents' low average score (59%) on a unittest of facts and vocabulary suggested thatusing the textbook as a dictionary was noteffective.

To address some of these issues, Haury(2000) recommended that science teach-ers help students adopt a purposive stanceand a questioning attitude for textbookreading. This stance and attitude can beoperationalized in the classroom as strate-gies for content area reading.

145

146/Reading Improvement

The Effectiveness of Reading StrategyInstruction

A substantial body of research docu-ments the effectiveness of strategic readinginstruction for middle school students ontheir comprehension of text (Trabasso &Bouchard, 2002). Explicit strategiesprompt students to engage their priorknowledge and to monitor their compre-hension. Despite evidence of theeffectiveness of these strategies, a numberof studies (reviewed by Pressley, 2002)report that few teachers use them in theirinstruction. To change their instructionalroutines, teachers likely need added sup-port.

Teachers looking to follow Haury's(2000) recommendation for the scienceclassroom will find little research to rec-ommend the most popular strategy specificto study-reading with textbooks, SQ3R, asit has not shown advantages over tradi-tional studying or students' existingapproaches (Graham, 1982). A newer strat-egy for comprehending and studyingtextbooks called PLAN has been demon-strated to be effective with middle schoolstudents (Caverly, Mandeville, & Nichol-son, 1995). It orchestrates a repertoire ofstrategies that have been validated withupper elementary and middle school stu-dents: relating the text to prior knowledge,questioning, summarizing (Pressley, John-son, Symons, McGoldrick, & Kurikta,1989), and using imagery and setting apurpose for reading (Brown, 2002). Specif-ically, PLAN begins with an assessmentof the reading task demand, such as tak-ing a chapter test or writing a paper. Withthe task for reading in mind, students pre-dict (P) the content of the text and construct

a tentative map; locate (L) on the map whatis known by placing checkmarks and whatis not known by placing question marks;add (A) notes during the reading of thetextbook to confirm checkmarks and toaddress the question marks, and note (N)a re-formulated understanding by revisingthe map, writing a summary, or perform-ing any other task that might be alignedwith the purposes for reading. In utilizingmapping, PLAN improves upon otherstrategic approaches to textbook reading.The value of student construction of con-cept maps has been well documented forthe science classroom (Al-Kunified &Wandersee, 1990).

The purpose of this research was toexamine the effects of introducing thePLAN study-reading strategy into two mid-dle school science classrooms taught byone of the authors of this study [Caverly],a middle school science teacher subse-quently referred to as the teacher. First, weasked how this middle school scienceteacher would change his instruction overa school year as he was mentored in teach-ing with the PLAN strategy. Second, weasked whether his students were able tolearn using PLAN. Finally, we wanted toknow how students perceived their use ofthe strategy.

MethodsThe study followed a single-group

pretest-posttest design that included mul-tiple post assessments. This multiplepost-test approach was used to strengthenthe single-group design and because weexpected a time delay between imple-menting the strategic reading strategiesand generating benefits.

Improving Textbook Reading.../147

ParticipantsParticipants were the science teacher

from a small, rural middle school and thefifteen seventh-grade and eighteen eighth-grade students in his two science classes.The teacher held a master's degree in biol-ogy and had more than three years ofteaching experience. As the only scienceteacher for the school, he taught the samestudents for both fall and spring semesters.Students' scores on the district's recentlyadministered STAR test of reading ability(Advantage Learning Systems, 1998) indi-cated mixed ability classes. Four studentswho scored third grade or below on theSTAR test were eliminated from the dataanalyses, as they lacked basic decodingskills. The 29 students included in theanalyses were categorized in roughly equalgroups by gender and ethnicity (Anglo andHispanic, though a few students were Afro-American).

Data SourcesThree instruments were administered

before and after four weeks of PLANinstruction by the teacher: (a) reading com-prehension tests, (b) reading strategychecklists, (c) student-created conceptmaps. After nine months of strategy imple-mentation, semi-structured interviews ofthe teacher and students were conductedand transcribed.

Textbook Chapter Reading Compre-hension Tests. The teacher followed hisregular instructional routine for creatingchapter tests by selecting six questions fromthe textbook publisher's test bank. The testfor one chapter served as the pretest and atest for a different chapter was the posttest.Each test balanced multiple choice, true-

false, and matching questions. The pur-pose of the tests was to assess students'comprehension of the textbook chapters.

Concept Maps. The students createdconcept maps based upon the science chap-ters that they were reading. These pretestand posttest assessments provided a secondmeasure of reading comprehension andrevealed information about the students'reading processes. The rubric to score thesemaps (see Appendix) was adapted fromone developed by Stoddart, Abrams, Gas-par, and Canaday (2000).

Reading Strategy Checklist. We adapt-ed a checklist developed by a colleaguewho had used it for many semesters withdevelopmental college readers. Ten true-false questions asked students about whichstrategies they used for reading a textbookchapter and for monitoring comprehension(see Appendix).

Field Notes. A notebook documentedthe conversations with the teacher andobservations held throughout the ninemonths of the study.

Teacher and Student Interviews. Theteacher and four of the students were inter-viewed nine months after the teacherintroduced the PLAN strategy into theclassroom. Using parallel sets of 12 open-ended questions, one of us (who had notworked with the teacher during the ninemonths) conducted an hour-long interviewwith the teacher while another of us con-ducted shorter, individual interviews withthe students. The teacher selected thesestudents because their performance fell inthe middle of the range of student perfor-mance in the classes. These students werevery willing to be interviewed. Questionsto the teacher focused on his expectations

148/Reading Improvement

of students and his instructional routines.Questions to the students focused on theirexpectations of the textbook and their per-ceptions of learning from it. Thetranscriptions of the taped interviews wereanalyzed using a constant comparativemethod for identifying themes.

ProceduresThe study proceeded in three phases:

(a) a preparation phase during which theteacher gained strategy awareness; (b) animplementation phase during which theteacher gained contextual strategy knowl-edge, and (c) an adaptation phase duringwhich the teacher gained strategy control.

Preparation. The teacher had complet-ed a summer graduate course taught by oneof us (Peterson) that focused on integrat-ing reading strategies into content areateaching. The course included the model-ing of specific comprehension strategiesfor content learning and practice by classmembers in small groups. PLAN for study-reading was modeled during one classsession and practiced by students using achapter from the course textbook. Afterexpressing interest in trying out the PLANstrategy in his classroom, the teacher wasinvited to participate in this study.

Implementation. During three monthsof the fall semester, the teacher met week-ly, a total of over 15 hours, with two of us(Caverly and Radcliffe) subsequentlyreferred to as the mentors. During the meet-ings, the mentors and the teacher heldin-depth discussions of the processes ofstrategic textbook reading and the chal-lenges of implementing it in a middleschool classroom. Concurrently, the teachertaught the PLAN strategy in his seventh-

and eighth-grade science classes throughthe following major steps (a) PLAN wasintroduced as a new way for students "toread hard material in the science textbook",(b) the teacher illustrated how to createconcept maps on the board, (c) the studentscreated concept maps in groups and thenindividually, and (d) the students individ-ually completed the four steps in the PLANstrategy based on content in their sciencetextbook. The instruction followed Pearsonand Gallagher's (1983) steps of explicitinstruction, by modeling the strategy forstudents, providing scaffolding duringguided practice, and structuring time forindependent strategy use for students tointernalize the processes.

Adaptation. In the spring semester, theteacher did not meet with the mentors, butremained in email contact. At this point, theteacher focused on integrating PLAN intohis instructional routine and on promotingin students the idea of adapating it to be anindividual "plan" for strategic textbookreading.

Findings

Changes in the Teacher's Perception of theTextbook

The field notes recorded the teacher'sperceptions of textbook readings. Beforehis participation in the study, the teacherdoubted the effectiveness of textbooks forscience learning. His own experience hadnot been positive: "When I was in schoolthe word textbook was like a four letterword" and he did not know how to teachwell with the it: "I hadn't realized that Ihad no experience with someone teachingme how to read and understand a science

Improving Textbook Reading.../149

textbook." Compounding these doubtsabout the relative importance of the text-book was his preparation for teachingscience: "Doing experiments is what sci-ence is all about." This preparation wassupported by his teaching experience:"Before I taught here, I taught at a project-based learning school and textbooks werecompletely forbidden."

Changes in the Teacher's InstructionThree findings emerged from analysis

of the transcript of the interview conduct-ed at the end of the study. In comparing histeaching of a unit the previous spring withthe teaching of the same unit with PLANstrategy, these changes were evident at theadaptation phase.

1. The teacher had integrated the PLANstrategy into his instructional routine. "Iwill begin [the unit] with the PLAN strat-egy... Near half way in the first period.[I'll say] 'This is your assignment is toread the first section. I want you to do theP the L and at least get started on the A.'We kind of got in the routine." In class, heleads a discussion of what students alreadyknow. Students then have about 20 minutesto get started. They take their books hometo complete their PLAN maps and returnwith them the next day for a grade.

2. He modified the strategy in threeways. First, he used PLAN as a way for stu-dents to build background knowledge fromthe textbook: "The textbook now hasbecome a background knowledge thing."The background knowledge increased stu-dent preparation for unit activities: "Theycome to class ready to discuss and learnthings." His second modification was toallow students to choose a mapping format:

"Some of the seventh graders like Inspi-ration (2003), a mapping program with theconcept maps on the computer. So some ofthem have moved on to that while otherslike doing it by hand." His third modifi-cation was that in the "N" step he assignedstudents to answer the comprehensionquestions at the end of the section. "Partof the thing I did with the note thing wasto ask yourself, did you get out of the read-ing what the author wanted you to get?And the way to do that is to look at yourconcept map and look at the question and[ask] do you have the information theauthor is trying to get you to get."

3. His expectations of his students hadchanged. "The things that I teach are thesame and I use the same materials but myexpectations are different."

Effectiveness of strategy for student learningComprehension tests. Students' scores

on comprehension tests and reading strat-egy checklists were analyzed using a pairedt-test statistic (two-tailed). Differences inthe students' scores on the 10-point read-ing comprehension pretest (M - 4.9) andposttest (M = 3.9) were not statisticallysignificant, t(22) = 1.427, p = .167.Although the slight drop in scores was notstatistically significant and too small to bepractically significant, this result was unex-pected and inconsistent with other findingsin this study. The small number of testquestions and possible differences in stu-dent prior knowledge of the chapter topicsmay have confounded the results.

Concept maps. Beginning with the firstPLAN map, students were able to accu-rately represent the major headings andsubheadings of the chapter. Content accu-

150/Reading Improvement

racy remained stable from the first to thefinal PLAN maps, with an average of 98%propositions recorded correctly. What didincrease was the percentage of proposi-tions that reflected paraphrasing of contentand higher order thinking (a growth of 9%to 14%). There was also a decline in thepercentage of propositions that were sim-ply copied from the text (a decline from91% to 86%).

Reading checklists. Comparison of thestudents' performance on the 10-item read-ing strategy checklist revealed a statisticallysignificant difference, t(22) = -2.102, p =.047, between the pretest (M = 5.5) andposttest (M = 6.4) scores. This small gainin reading strategy scores was supported bythe teacher's and students' responses ininterviews that investigated the expandeduse of reading strategies.

Teacher Interview. Analysis of inter-view transcripts revealed four findingsfrom the teacher's perspective on the effec-tiveness of PLAN.

1. He saw improvement in his students'learning. "They were coming in with moreunderstanding of the material" He saw that"mean grades of the class increased"because students were better prepared forthe labs. At the same time he came tobelieve that the publisher-provided chap-ter tests were inadequate measures ofstudent learning: "By talking to them onwhat they learned, I know they havelearned more than what they can write ona test."

2. His students moved from needinggroup support with strategic reading tobeing independent in their strategy use andable to do the reading as homework. "First,I was teaching group concepts but by Feb-

ruary they could do them individually."3. He believed the benefits to students

in using PLAN developed over time: "Iuse 12 weeks [in the fall] teaching it. [Afterwinter break] we do a refresher PLANstrategy. That is actually where I really startseeing the benefits of it, after we came backand reviewed it again. They had some timeto absorb it and think about it and to see."

4. At the end of the Adaptation phase,he observed that students were more will-ing to complete the textbook reading. Indiscussing his teaching of the same unitduring the previous academic year he stat-ed: "I assigned but it wasn't getting done."In discussing his teaching this spring hesaid: "We stand outside the classrooms inbetween classes and students will run upto you and ask you if they need their text-books today. [It's] the way they askquestion, "do we have to have our text-books today?" versus "do we need ourtextbooks today?" I think that portrays thekind of attitude shift away from it is notyour enemy...[when they get an assign-ment] instead it's I can do that, I understandthat, I can answer those questions."

Student interviews. Analysis of inter-view transcripts revealed three findingsfrom the students' perspectives on the effec-tiveness of PLAN.

1. The students saw PLAN as part ofthe classroom routine. They said the teacherprompted them to use the PLAN strategywhen the took their science book home toread, and when they created concept maps.All students reported that they took theirbook home to read twice a week. Somedays they were assigned to read a wholechapter at home, other times to read a chap-ter that was started in class using PLAN.

Improving Textbook Reading.../151

One student said: "We have our PLANthing [to do]; [we] do the webs". In somecases the concept maps were completed inclass, other times the students preparedthem while reading at home. A studentexplained one of the steps: "I start out look-ing at the main titles in the chapter, andthen I break it off into sub-titles, and thenI will read each paragraph to put informa-tion in [into the concept map]".

2. The students emphatically reported anincrease in their reading since implement-ing the PLAN strategy: " I have read a lotmore this year." Consistently, the inter-viewed students explained that they hadbecome better readers. "I think I am a lotbetter, better reader." They elaborated, shar-ing that they understood more of what theyread and that they were using elements ofthe PLAN strategy. One student explained:"I can understand it a lot better becausedoing concept maps helped me." Inresponse to an inquiry about changes inreading, another student shared that sheused to be scared to read textbooks and didnot have any confidence, but now "I liketo read." She reported that in addition toreading more in her science book than ayear ago, she now reads more in socialstudies and other subjects.

3. Consistent with the teacher's descrip-tion, the four interviewed students reportedthat they were doing well in science; twostudents explained that their grades hadimproved during the academic year. Strate-gic reading appeared to be contributing totheir success. Three students explained thatthey liked to read and that it was helpful:"I like reading the chapters, I like under-standing where I got it", "it helps me learn",and " I feel like I get a lot from reading

my textbook".

DiscussionThis study reveals how a middle school

science teacher implemented strategic read-ing instruction through a collection ofstrategies for study-reading called PLAN.It reports the subsequent gains in his stu-dents' willingness and ability to learn fromtextbook reading. Consistent with the casestudy of Driscoll, et al. (1994), this teacherwas reluctant to rely on textbooks for learn-ing and did not expect his students to besuccessful in reading a science textbook.More than adding a teaching strategy tohis repertoire, he had to overcome his neg-ative perceptions and experiences relatedto using textbooks to teach science. Theshort chapter tests, only six-questions fromthe publisher test bank, may have reflect-ed his low expectation that students wouldread the text or that the test would be avaluable assessment.

Consistent with the research of Caver-ly, Mandeville, and Nicholson (1995), themiddle school students in the current studybenefited from their use of PLAN as doc-umented by the concept maps. Theirposttest scores on the reading strategychecklist indicate that they also engaged inadditional reading strategies, such as sum-marizing what they had read. The studentsinterviewed reported that reading their sci-ence textbook helped them to learn science.

A major finding in this study was thatadopting this strategic reading strategy ina middle school science classroominvolved substantial time and effort by theteacher to modify his instructional routine.He had to develop skills in strategic read-ing instruction and gain confidence that

152/Reading Improvement

students' would learn from his delivery ofit. Over a nine-month period, he progressedthrough three stages as he implementedPLAN: (a) awareness of the strategy, (b)a deeper knowledge and understanding ofboth why and how to teach it, and (c) con-trol of it to meet his students needs forlearning science content. Scaffolds in thisprocess included a summer graduate coursein reading strategies and 15 meetings withtwo mentors during the fall school term.Consistent with Pressley (2002), thisteacher developed in his ability to teachstudents effective study-reading strategiesfrom simply being aware of the need toteach them, to understanding how to teachthem, to the control of teaching them asdemonstrated by both his choice to con-tinue to teach them and his willingness toadapt them to fit his needs.

A second major finding in this studywas that the benefits of learning the strate-gies for textbook reading took time todevelop. After four weeks of strategyinstruction and implementation, the stu-dents did not gain on the textbook chaptertest, but did improve in their ability to rep-resent the details and to translate thecontent into their own words through con-cept maps. They also reported that theywere reading more strategically. Theteacher believed the students needed morethan four weeks to internalize the process-es. During the following semester (withthe same students in class), he observedthat they understood more than what wason the chapter test, as they were better pre-pared for lab work and better able to usescience vocabulary. At the end of the ninemonths, he saw increases in his students'science grades, which he attributed to their

better performance in the lab work.The students reported that they read

more often than in the previous school yearand they found reading more enjoyable.PLAN engages students in taking respon-sibility for reading skills by requiringconcrete evidence of their reading in theform of a map. In contrast, SQ3R promptsin-the-head operations that may be diffi-cult for the student and teacher to monitor.The teacher reported that students shiftedfrom initially relying on his instructionabout PLAN to relying on small group sup-port, and finally to independent use of thestrategy. This sequence follows Pearsonand Gallagher's (1983) steps of explicitinstruction.

Finally, this study documents the processof strategy control by the teacher. In thespring semester, after mentoring had ended,the teacher revised the "Note" step in PLAN.(Recall, the Note step is map revision orcontent reformulation.) Instead, the teacherassigned students to read and answer thecomprehension questions at the end of thechapter. Yet the teacher presented this tra-ditional assignment in a way that promptedstudents' metacognition: he asked them tocompare their maps to what the textbookauthor saw as most important, as expressedin the chapter questions. A second modifi-cation was his focus on using the strategy forbuilding background knowledge in prepa-ration for lab work. This modification showsthat the teacher re-defined his purpose forhaving students read the textbook based uponhis observations of what they were learningby using the strategy.

ConclusionsTextbook reading in this middle school

Improving Textbook Reading.../153

science classroom changed from being anassignment that students were not expect-ed to complete to one that studentscompleted and from which they learnedscience content. The teacher's expectationsof students moved from doubt to confi-dence that they would read the textbook.Over a period of nine months, the teacher'sclassroom routine changed to includestrategic reading instruction for the use oftextbooks through a study-reading strate-gy called PLAN. Students changed theirlearning strategies by completing conceptmaps at home on textbook chapters. Theteacher moved through three stages: (a)strategy awareness, (b) understanding, and(c) control, while the students progressedfrom observing the teacher model PLANto using it in small groups, to individualclassroom practice and homework.

After four weeks of strategy imple-mentation, an evaluation of the students'concept maps indicated an increase in theuse of higher order thinking . They gainedin their self-reported use of reading strate-gies. The teacher observed deeperimprovement after several months ofimplementation. At the end of the year,students reported that they were readingtheir textbooks more often and were under-standing more of what they read.Consistent with prior studies, such as Tra-basso and Bouchard (2002), we concludedthat strategic reading instruction helpedstudents learn from their textbooks.

In this study the teacher modified thestrategy to suit his instructional needs. Webelieve that this adaptation phase is impor-tant, specifically that strategic readinginstruction must be integrated into theteacher's instructional routine. For exam-

ple, using PLAN as a vehicle for studentsto develop general knowledge and con-cepts served to link textbook reading andthe hands-on activities that are often pre-ferred in teaching science.

Although these findings support andextend prior research about PLAN (Caver-ly, et al., 1995), they are limited by severalfactors. First, some of the findings arebased on the teacher's and students' per-ceptions of the implementation. The fourweek time span between pre- and posttestslikely was not enough time to show thefull benefit of the strategy adoption andadaptation. The study is also limitedbecause the approach was to compare thesame students' performance over time; theuse of a quasi-experimental research designis recommended for future investigation.

Implementation took considerable timeand effort; a year's commitment and a com-bination of graduate coursework andmentor support. Therefore, teacher-edu-cators need to evaluate whether readingworkshops or a single reading strategycourse are sufficient to enable participantsto implement complex new strategic read-ing routines, such as the PLAN strategy.

ReferencesAl-Kunified, A., & Wandersee, J.H. (1990). One

hundred references related to concept map-ping. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,27(10), 1069-1075.

American Association for the Advancement of Sci-ence (2002). AAAS Project 2061.Middlegrades science textbooks: A benchmarks-basedevaiuation. Retrieved May 19, 2003, fromhttp://www.project2061.Org/tools/textbook/mgsci/mgbooks.htm

Caverly, D., Mandeville, T., & Nicholson, S.(1995). PLAN; A study reading strategy forinformational text. Journal of Adolescent andAdult Literacy, 59(3), 190-99.

154/Reading Improvement

Driscoll, M.P., Moallem, M., Dick, W., & Kirby,E. (1994). How does the textbook contributeto learning in a middle school science class?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19,79-100.

Graham, S. (1982). Comparing the SQ3R methodwith other study techniques for readingimprovement. Reading Improvement, 79(1),45-47.

Haury, D.L. (2000). High school biology textbooksdo not meet national standards. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. ED 463949)

Inspiraton Software, Inc. (2003). Inspiration 7.0.Retrieved Jul 24, 2003, from http://www.inspi-ration.com

Pearson, P.D., & Gallagher, M. (1983). The instruc-tion of reading comprehension. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 8, 317-244.

Pressley, M., Johnson, C.J., Symons, S.,McGoldrick, J.A., & Kurikta, J.A. (1989). Strate-gies that improve children's memory andcomprehension of text. Elementary School Jour-nal, 90, 3-32.

Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension strategiesinstruction: A turn-of-the-century report. In C.C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.). Comprehensioninstruction: Research-based best practices (pp.11-27). NY: Guilford Press.

Stoddart, T., Abrams, R., Gasper, E., & Canaday, D.(2000). Concept maps as assessment in scienceinquiry learning - A report of methodology.International Journal of Science Education,22(12), 1221-1246.

Trabasso, T., & Bouchard, E. (2002). Teachingreaders how to comprehend text strategically.In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.). Compre-hension instruction: Research-based bestpractices (pp. 176-200). NY: Guilford Press.

U.S. Department of Education. Office of Educa-tional Research and Improvement. NationalCenter for Education Statistics. (2001) TheNation's Report Card: Science Highlights2000, NCES 2002-452, by National Center forEducation Statistics. Washington, DC.

Appendix

Concept Map Rubric

Accuracy Depth Complexity

Prop

osit

ion

#

1.

2.

3.

1

accu

rate

Com

mon

know

ledg

e

Inac

cura

te

Aff

ecti

ve

Que

stio

n

Ron't

Kno

was

ic

Rescr

ipti

onlg

her

Ord

er

Des

crip

tion

Sim

ple

Ela

bora

tion

Com

plex

elab

orat

ion

Each map was scored by categorizingmap nodes and links into proposition units,formed by two nodes (bubbles on the con-cept map) connected by a link. Each

proposition was numbered starting withfirst level links from the super-ordinatenode, then second level, and so on. If par-tially illegible, the text was rewritten. If

Improving Textbook Reading.../155

completely illegible, the proposition wasclassified as "Don't Know."

Each proposition was scored using thefollowing categories (adapted from Stod-dart, et al., 2000).

/. Content Accuracy1. Accurate: Correct statement confirmed

by text and expert• for example, - "acceleration equalsnet force divided by mass"

2. Partially accurate: Correct statementbut only partially correct• for example, - "Newton's lawstates a net force changes the veloc-ity of an object"

3. Common knowledge: Common or pop-ular knowledge not stated in the text• for example, - "Newton's Apple"(TV show)

4. Inaccurate: Misconception or confu-sion• for example, - "the lower the massthe greater the inertia"or, inappropriately linked• for example, - linked to superor-dinate when should be linked tocoordinate concept

5. Affective: Statements that express emo-tions, feelings, or personal thoughts• for example, - "boring!"

6. Question: Proposition in form of ques-tion that cannot be judged• for example, - "mass vs. acceler-ation?"(Also, don't classify in the Depth ofExplanation or Complexity cate-gories)

7. Don't know: Cannot be scored because

the meaning of the proposition isunclear or scorer has insufficient knowl-edge• for example, - "Newton developed"Cannot be scored because unintelli-gible due to handwriting or spelling• for example, - "dsjalf dasfa werter"(Also, don't classify Depth of Expla-nation or Complexity categories)

//. Depth of Explanation1. Basic descriptions: Statements copied

directly from the text• for example, - "a force that resistsmotion between two surfaces thatare in contact"

2. Higher order descriptions: Explanationsthat paraphrase the text or add functionor purpose, such as "how" or "why"• for example, - "the rougher thesurfaces the greater the friction"

///. Complexity1. Simple Elaboration: The proposition is

a single subject-object clause• for example, - "Newton's Laws ofMotion" are "First Law", "SecondLaw", "Third Law"

2. Compound Elaboration: contains oneor more dependent clauses as explana-tions• for example, - "An object will notchange its motion unless a force isacted upon it"

156/Reading Improvement

Reading Strategy Checklist

code date

Directions: Carefully read the following statements and honestly respond to themusing the scale below. Circle either A or B

A = Yes, I did this in preparation for this quiz

B = No, I did not do this in preparation for this quiz

A. B. 1. I made predictions about what the author would say next or whatwould happen next.

A. B. 2. I connected ideas from my own experience to what I read.

A. B. 3. I figured out new words by the ones around them.

A. B. 4. I created a map of the ideas from the reading.

A. B. 5. I created examples from my own experience to help my understanding.

A. B. 6. I memorized key terms.

A. B. 7. I reviewed the passage after reading to make sure I understood.

A. B. 8. I skipped parts I didn't understand.

A. B. 9. I tried to put the important ideas in my own words.

A. B. 10. I identified the purpose the author had for writing.