The Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on the Science Literacy of Intermediate3572... · · 2014-03-21The Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on the Science Literacy of Intermediate

The Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on the Science Literacy of Intermediate

Elementary Students in Inclusive Science Classes

by

Kim E. DiLorenzo

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of

The College of Education

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, FL

December 2010

ii

Copyright by Kim E. DiLorenzo 2010

iv

Acknowledgements

It takes a village to complete a dissertation. I would like to thank the following

villagers for their support throughout this process. I would like to thank my

committee: Dr. Lydia Smiley, Dr. Peggy Goldstein, Dr. Dan Morris, and Dr. Ron

Taylor for their valuable feedback and guidance. I would also like to thank Dr. Mike

Brady for his frequent and much appreciated public service. I am extremely grateful to

Janice Funicelli for her assistance in all things science. I would not have been able to

complete my program without the cooperation of Mary Churchill-Jones or the advice

and encouragement from Dr. Ana Arce-Gonzalez. Finally, I would like to thank my

family and friends for their patience throughout my program and for forgiving me for

missing countless family and social events.

v

Abstract

Author: Kim E. DiLorenzo

Title: The Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on the Science

Literacy of Intermediate Elementary Students in

Inclusive Science Classes

Institution: Florida Atlantic Universtiy

Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Lydia R. Smiley

Degree: Doctorate in Education

Year: 2010

Intermediate elementary students (grades 4 and 5) frequently struggle to

become scientifically literate in their general education classrooms. Scientific literacy

includes knowing how to access and use information found in science texts.

Unfortunately, many students struggle to read and understand science texts

(Michalsky, Mevarech, & Haibi, 2009, p. 363). Fortunately, elementary students have

shown improvement in reading comprehension when explicitly instructed in cognitive

and metacognitive strategies to comprehend expository text in settings that support

collaboration and flexible application of comprehension strategies, and have

meaningful opportunities for reading and writing (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2004;

Palincsar & Klenk, 1992). A method that includes these components is reciprocal

teaching (RT; National Reading Panel, 2000). RT has been used during content area

vi

instruction to increase reading comprehension skills of intermediate elementary

students without disabilities in general education classrooms (King & Johnson, 1999;

Lederer, 2000; Lubliner, 2004). These reading comprehension gains have been

maintained by students on follow-up tests after the RT intervention has been

withdrawn (Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Westera & Moore, 1995).

This study examined the effects of RT on the science literacy of intermediate

elementary students (grades 4-5) participating in inclusive science classes. Students

with learning disabilities (SWLD), students at-risk (AR), and students in general

education (GE) participated in this study. General education teachers used RT with

science texts to improve science literacy. Pre/post science quizzes were used to assess

the effects of the RT intervention, and post/follow-up tests assessed potential

maintenance of the RT. Analyses of the data showed that the RT intervention resulted

in improved science comprehension overall, and for each student group. In addition,

the results showed that the gains were maintained for the individual student groupings

after the RT intervention was removed, although these gains were not found overall .

The study demonstrated that the use of RT during science instruction in

inclusive, intermediate elementary classes assisted students who are AR, SWLD, and

students in GE to attain science knowledge using standard science texts and materials.

These results extend the experimental literature on science literacy and reciprocal

teaching, particularly among intermediate elementary students.

Dedication

This manuscript is dedicated to my parents, Yvonne and Richard Jahrmarkt, Jr.

I also dedicate this work in loving memory to Sandra Lynn Swentek. The

encouragement, support, and occasional redirection from these individuals made this

manuscript possible.

viii

The Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on the Science Literacy of Intermediate

Elementary Students in Inclusive Science Classes

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................xiii

List of Figures................................................................................................................... xiv

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

Science Literacy ...................................................................................................... 3

Reading comprehension and Science Literacy ..................................................... 4

Reading Instruction................................................................................................. 5

Reciprocal Teaching ............................................................................................. 10

Research Questions............................................................................................... 12

Literature Review .............................................................................................................. 14

Achievement Gap ................................................................................................. 14

Science Achievement ........................................................................................... 17

Science content ......................................................................................... 21

Expository text ......................................................................................... 22

Reading comprehension deficits ............................................................. 23

Reading Comprehension in Science .................................................................... 25

Reciprocal Teaching ............................................................................................. 30

Summary ............................................................................................................... 37

Method ............................................................................................................................... 40

ix

Setting .................................................................................................................... 40

Participants ............................................................................................................ 42

Teachers .................................................................................................... 42

Students ..................................................................................................... 43

Materials ................................................................................................................ 44

Instrumentation ..................................................................................................... 45

Procedures ............................................................................................................. 46

Teacher training ........................................................................................ 46

Instructional Procedures .......................................................................... 47

Research Design and Analysis ............................................................................. 60

Results ................................................................................................................................ 62

Effect of Reciprocal Teaching (H1) ..................................................................... 63

Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on Student Groups (H2) ................................... 63

Students at-risk ......................................................................................... 63

Students with learning disabilities .......................................................... 64

Students in general education .................................................................. 64

Posttest-Follow-up Results (H3) .......................................................................... 64

Posttest-Follow-up Results (H4) .......................................................................... 65

Students at-risk ......................................................................................... 65

Students with learning disabilities .......................................................... 66

Students in general education .................................................................. 66

Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 68

Educational Implications ...................................................................................... 71

x

Limitations of the Study ....................................................................................... 73

Suggestions for Future Research ......................................................................... 75

Summary ............................................................................................................... 80

Appendixes

Appendix A Grading Florida’s Public Schools

Grading Florida’s Public Schools ........................................................... 83

Appendix B Consent and Assent Forms

Student Assent (English) ......................................................................... 86

Parent Letter (English) ............................................................................. 87

Parental Consent (English) ...................................................................... 88

Student Assent (Spanish) ......................................................................... 89

Parent Letter (Spanish) ............................................................................ 90

Parental Consent (Spanish) ...................................................................... 91

Student Assent (Creole) ........................................................................... 92

Parent Letter (Creole)............................................................................... 93

Parental Consent (Creole) ........................................................................ 94

Teacher Consent ....................................................................................... 95

Appendix C Student Tests

Fourth-grade Pretest ................................................................................. 97

Fourth-grade Posttest ............................................................................... 99

Fourth-grade Follow-up ......................................................................... 101

Fifth-grade Pretest .................................................................................. 103

Fifth-grade Posttest ................................................................................ 105

xi

Fifth-grade Follow-up ............................................................................ 107

Appendix D Teacher Training Materials

Reciprocal Teaching of Science (presentation) .................................... 110

Fourth-grade Lesson Plan ...................................................................... 113

Fourth-grade Script ................................................................................ 114

Fifth-grade Lesson Plan ......................................................................... 120

Fifth-grade Script ................................................................................... 121

Appendix E Classroom Posters

Fantastic Four ......................................................................................... 127

Fix-up Strategies .................................................................................... 128

Question Words ...................................................................................... 129

Appendix F Forming Teams

Forming Teams....................................................................................... 131

Appendix G Summary of Daily Instructional Procedures

Summary of Daily Instructional Procedures ........................................ 133

Appendix H Overhead Transparencies

Character Descriptions ........................................................................... 141

Retelling vs. Summarizing..................................................................... 146

Group Directions .................................................................................... 147

Appendix I Student Bookmarks

Student Bookmarks ................................................................................ 149

Appendix J Teacher Materials

Teacher Tracking of Student Roles ....................................................... 155

xii

Coaching Prompts .................................................................................. 158

Group Performance Checklist ............................................................... 159

Appendix K Fidelity Protocol

Fidelity Protocol ..................................................................................... 161

References........................................................................................................................ 162

xiii

Tables

Table 1. Reading Scores: Florida Students ...................................................................... 25

xiv

Figures

Figure 1. effect of Reciprocal Teaching .......................................................................... 65

Figure 2. Students At-Risk ............................................................................................... 66

Figure 3. Students with Learning Disabilities ................................................................. 66

Figure 4. Students in General Education ......................................................................... 67

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Many national laws, including The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), have

been developed to address the academic needs of American children. Since its

inception, NCLB’s primary focus has been on student achievement in reading and

mathematics. The law also calls for increased accountability, the hiring of highly

qualified teachers, and the use of scientifically-based research in an effort to address

the many problems in public schools throughout the country (U.S. Department of

Education, 2002).

As part of NCLB, each state was required to develop a plan that included an

accountability system to measure student progress toward mastering state academic

standards. The plan was to include performance goals that increased in increments

each year toward the aim of 100% proficiency in reading and mathematics by the

spring of 2014. This measurement is called adequate yearly progress (AYP; Christy,

n.d.a). Accountability for reading and mathematics achievement is documented

differently in each state (Paige, 2002). For example, Florida has been using the results

of a standardized test called the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) to

determine if the state, school districts, and schools have made AYP in the areas of

reading and mathematics (Florida Department of Education [FLDOE], 2009a).

However, “the pressure of NCLB accountability, in which all students in grades three-

eight are

2

assessed on language arts and mathematics annually, has led principals and teachers to

direct time and resources toward language arts and mathematics, and due to the

limited hours in the school year, to diminishing time for science” (Marx & Harris,

2006, p. 469). A survey completed by the Center on Education Policy found that 72%

of schools had added time for reading and math but made substantial cuts in the time

allocated for science (McMurrer, 2008). This is particularly true at low-performing

elementary schools (Marx & Harris, 2006), where many educators believe that

students “can catch up on science when they reach middle school” (Pratt, 2007, p. 26).

Schools that previously neglected the teaching of science have had to find a

way to work it back into their schedules. NCLB required science assessments

beginning in the 2007-2008 school year. States have to assess science one time within

grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12. Science scores are not yet part of determining AYP

nationally (Cavanagh, 2007); however, Florida already includes science scores as part

of calculations for school grades in the state’s A+ Plan: Grading Florida’s Schools

(FLDOE, 2009b; Johnson, 2005).

Nationally, elementary students are demonstrating huge deficits in science

achievement. In 2005, representative samples of fourth-grade students participated in

the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in science. The scale for the

test is from 0-300. The scores were presented as percentages of students performing

within 3 levels: Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. Students scoring in the Basic level

(138-169) demonstrate only partial mastery of prerequisite skills needed for proficient

performance on their grade level. Those in the Proficient range (170-204) demonstrate

knowledge and reasoning skills required to understand science concepts at their grade

3

level. Students scoring in the Advanced level of scores (205-300) demonstrate solid

understanding of the fourth-grade science concepts and the ability to apply their

knowledge to practical situations. There is another level of achievement. It is called

Below Basic. Students who score in this range (0-137) are only able to identify science

processes and simple comparisons. In 2005, 73% of fourth-grade students scored at or

below the Basic level. The average national score for fourth-grade students was 149.

The state average for Florida students in fourth-grade was 150, which falls within the

Basic level (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 2005). In an effort to

understand why so many students are consistently performing at a basic achievement

level in science, it is important to establish what it means to be science literate.

Science Literacy

Students who are science literate are knowledgeable about science and its role

in society. They are capable of making informed decisions as they read and write

about science concepts (Cavanagh, 2008; Stone, n.d.). Scientifically literate students

are able to independently develop an understanding of the big ideas of science by

engaging prior knowledge, forming hypotheses, establishing plans, making inferences,

comparing and contrasting ideas, and drawing conclusions based on text (Barton &

Jordan, 2001). These process skills are comparable to the process skills used by good

readers: engaging prior knowledge, making predictions, determining cause and effect,

comparing and contrasting, and drawing conclusions (Bowers, 2000). Therefore it is

reasonable to conclude that good readers should be able to use their skills to develop

scientific literacy through the use of science text (Palincsar, n.d.).

4

Reading Comprehension and Science Literacy

Unfortunately, many students may struggle to become science literate because

of reading comprehension problems. In 2009, representative samples of fourth-grade

students participated in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in

reading. Results were reported as average scores from 0-500. Reading scores, like

science scores, were presented as percentages of students performing within 3 levels:

Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. A percentage of students scoring Below Basic was

also included in the data. Students’ scores in the Basic range demonstrate partial

mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills. Those in the Proficient range reflect

solid academic performance and competency in the subject, while Advanced

represents superior performance (NCES, 2010).

Nationally, 68% of fourth-grade students scored at or below Basic level, while

only 24% scored Proficient, and seven percent scored in the Advanced range in

reading comprehension. Reading achievement in the Proficient range for fourth-grade

students who are typically at-risk for academic failure-those who are among specific

racial and ethnic groups (Hispanic and Black), English Language Learners (ELL),

students participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), as well students

with disabilities (SWD)-was low. Only 13% demonstrated skills in the Proficient

range (NCES, 2010).

State scores for reading comprehension were available in the same report.

Collectively, a higher percentage of Florida students scored Proficient (28%) than the

percentage of students nationally. Still, 64% of Florida fourth-grade students scored at

or below Basic level. As was seen in the national percentages, Florida fourth-grade

5

students who are among specific racial and ethnic groups, students who are ELL,

students participating in the NSLP, as well SWD scoring in the Proficient range was

only 21%, below that of the state average (NCES, 2010). Given that a large part of

science literacy is dependent upon the ability to “access scientific information from

texts” (Michalsky, Mevarech, & Haibi, 2009, p. 363), it is essential to understand why

so many students are not meeting grade level standards in the area of reading

comprehension to better understand how this area of weakness is affecting science

achievement.

Reading Instruction

Early reading instruction focuses on learning to read. Children are taught the

alphabetic principle and decoding skills to read words that are already known (Chall,

Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990; DiLorenzo, Rody, Bucholz, & Brady, 2011). This

instruction is usually completed using basal readers that include simple narratives with

beautiful pictures that help children draw meaning from the text. Teachers prefer these

packaged reading series because they provide detailed lesson plans and materials for

faster and slower students. Most series include non-narrative (expository) selections,

but they don’t take advantage of building word and domain knowledge (Walsh, 2003).

The topics of the readings are often about school, families, pets, and friends, topics

that children are already familiar with (Hirsch, 2003).

It is crucial that students are proficient in early reading skills so that they can

concentrate on deriving meaning from text (Chall et al., 1990; DiLorenzo et al., 2011).

Effective development of early reading skills includes the development of fluency

skills which allow students to read text accurately and quickly (Armbruster, Lehr, &

6

Osborn, 2003; Chall et al., 1990). “Efficient fluent word recognition frees up

processing resources to focus on comprehension” (Bashir & Hook, 2009, p. 198).

Fluent readers can focus their attention on drawing meaning from text because they do

not have to concentrate all of their energy on decoding words (Armbruster et al.,

2003). “If students’ word recognition, decoding, or fluency are weak, they will be

unable to meet the demands of reading at the higher stages, even if they have good

meaning vocabularies and can do higher order thinking” (Chall et al., 1990, p. 45).

“Reading comprehension is the construction of meaning of written text through

reciprocal interchange of ideas between the reader and the message in the particular

text” (National Reading Panel [NRP], 2000, p. 5). Instruction in comprehension, like

early reading instruction, frequently makes use of packaged basal reading series. The

process of teaching reading comprehension using these programs focuses largely on

teaching and practicing a formal set of skills such as sequencing, classifying, inferring,

or finding the main idea (Walsh, 2003). Instruction in strategies is also part of teaching

how to comprehend text. “Strategies are general sets of steps experts follow to solve

problems” (Simmons & Kame'enui, 1998, p. 7). “A comprehension strategy can be

defined as an activity a student might engage in to enhance comprehension or to repair

it when it breaks down” (Ehren, 2009, p. 193). Teachers often spend a great deal of

time during the language arts block teaching students formal comprehension strategies

(Hirsch, 2003).

Educators have done an excellent job teaching students how to read (Hirsch,

2003). Perhaps the reason for this is that word recognition, decoding, and fluency

involve a well-defined scope of knowledge that can be systematically taught and

7

accurately measured. Systematic instructional programs and interventions have been

developed to teach the skills needed for basic word recognition. There are even

intensive phonics programs that have been effective in improving these skills in

students with severe disabilities (Kamhi, 2009). Comprehension instruction is not as

straightforward as early reading skills. It is difficult to quantify because it is not a skill

with a well-defined scope of knowledge (Catts, 2009; Kamhi, 2009). Comprehension

requires the simultaneous operation of complex strategies to acquire new knowledge

from text which can take years to develop (Catts, 2009; Diehl, 2005; Sweet & Snow,

2003). The goal of comprehension instruction is to create readers who are independent

learners, capable of controlling their own learning from text (Bridge, 1987).

In order to become independent learners, readers must be purposeful and active

as they read (Armbuster, et al., 2003). They need to have developed a repertoire of

reading strategies which they use to employ elements of their knowledge of the world

to make meaning of and inferences about the text (Catts, 2009; Knuth & Jones, 1991;

NRP, 2000). Good readers normally acquire strategies informally and flexibly use

these strategies to guide thinking before, during, and after reading (Diehl, 2005; NRP,

2000). They have an awareness of their ongoing comprehension through the use of

metacognitive strategies (NRP, 2000). Metacognitive strategies allow students to self-

monitor their comprehension and to fill in the gaps in their understanding by using fix-

up strategies to repair their understanding (Best, Rowe, Ozuru, & McNamra, 2005;

Gajria, Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007; Mason, 2004). The final component that makes

a reader a good reader is self-confidence. Good readers see themselves as effective

learners who are capable of success through working hard and thinking efficiently

8

(Knuth & Jones, 1991). Sadly, not all students become independent, strategic learners

as is evidenced by scores on state and national tests of reading comprehension (NCES,

2010)

“Even the best readers will struggle with reading at some time, in some place,

with some text” (Vacca & Vacca, 2002, p. 352), but there is always a group of

students who are particularly challenged by reading comprehension. These students

are sometimes labeled students with learning disabilities or identified as students at

risk based on their poor performance in reading (Simmons & Kame'enui, 1998). Most

troubling for these students is expository text (Mason, 2004). Expository text is the

text of classroom textbooks, newspapers, directions, and procedures (Pagés, 2002). It

is described as text that delivers information. Expository text has been considered

more difficult to comprehend than narrative text because it frequently uses abstract

concepts, unfamiliar technical vocabulary, and a variety of formats: cause/effect,

compare/contrast, enumerative/listing, and sequence (Finty & Strout, 2005; Gersten,

Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001). Many children who easily read narrative texts may

struggle to independently comprehend expository texts such as those used in science

and social studies (Duke & Kays, 1998). Struggling readers often have trouble gaining

knowledge from expository text and struggle to distinguish between important and

unimportant details; they also have difficulty making inferences from what they have

read (Englert & Thomas, 1987; Reid & Lienemann, 2006). Research has established

that students with learning disabilities are less likely to use the (cognitive) strategies

that underlie effective comprehension of expository text nor do they recognize

breakdowns in their understanding (metacognitive strategies) and consequently do not

9

reread passages that are confusing (Gersten et al., 2001). Because struggling readers

often fail to respond to conventional education practices, they often require special

services or intensive interventions (Simmons & Kame'enui, 1998; Valencia & Buly,

2004).

Struggling readers, like all students, present with individual differences in

knowledge, skills, and abilities as well as motivation, goals, and purposes which affect

their ability to comprehend text (Vellutino, 2003). Comprehension instruction for

struggling readers should focus on development of vocabulary and background

knowledge. Direct instruction should be used for instruction in strategies such as

summarizing, predicting, and monitoring. Finally, students need to be provided with

opportunities to practice comprehension using authentic texts. This practice can be

completed independently, in pairs, or in groups (Duke, 2004; Snow, Burns, & Griffin,

1998).

Presently, there is little evidence that explicit instruction of comprehension

strategies with authentic (expository) text is being taught as part of the general

education curriculum (Best et al., 2005). Durkin (1979) found that teachers spent the

majority of their time asking students questions, but not teaching them how to answer

them. Further, there is strong empirical evidence that teachers are merely assessing the

presence or absence of comprehension without teaching students how to first

comprehend (Diehl, 2005).

“Educators need to expose children to those types of texts that they want them

to read and write” (Palincsar & Duke, 2004, p. 188). Furthermore, elementary

students, particularly those with learning disabilities, need explicit instruction in

10

cognitive and metacognitive strategies to comprehend expository text in a setting that

supports collaboration and flexible application of comprehension strategies, as well as

appropriate, meaningful opportunities for reading and writing (Mastropieri & Scruggs,

2004; Palincsar & Klenk, 1992). Science classes are a perfect context in which to

introduce students to expository text (Palincsar, n.d.).

Reciprocal Teaching

One approach to teaching students to use strategies to comprehend expository

text in collaborative, mixed-ability groups is reciprocal teaching. Palincsar and Brown

(1984) described reciprocal teaching as a procedure in which students and the

researcher (Palincsar) took turns leading dialogues about sections of expository text.

In that study, the researcher guided small groups of students through the use of four

reading strategies: summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting as they read

expository text. Using scaffolding techniques, the more knowledgeable researcher

guided students as they gained knowledge and skills (Westby & Torres-Velásquez,

2000) and then gradually relinquished control of the instructional session to the

students, who then took turns leading the discussion about a passage. After 25 days of

intervention, students’ comprehension scores significantly increased and this higher

level of comprehension was maintained over time. Skills also generalized to other

settings and texts. These results were replicated in a second study in which volunteer

teachers used the reciprocal teaching method in their reading groups (Palincsar &

Brown, 1984).

The strategies used in reciprocal teaching play a dual function-comprehension

fostering and comprehension monitoring (Diehl, 2005). Students take ownership of

11

their learning, actively interacting with the text by making predictions, seeking

clarification, asking questions, and summarizing. This increased involvement with the

text leads to better comprehension and ultimately improved achievement. Reciprocal

teaching can be used to enhance students’ independence comprehending any text

(Marks et al., 1993); however, it has been particularly useful with expository text

(Palincsar & Brown, 1987; Lysnchuck, Pressley, & Vye, 1990).

Reciprocal teaching has been found to be effective because it provides for

specific, guided practice using the four strategies-summarizing, questioning,

clarifying, and predicting-to enhance children’s ability to construct meaning of text

and self-monitor understanding of text (NRP, 2000; Snow, et al., 1998). It has been

successfully used during language arts instruction to improve reading comprehension

of basal readers and expository passages of intermediate elementary level students

without disabilities in the general education classroom (De Corte, Vershaffel, & Van

de Ven, 2001; Kelly, Moore, & Tuck, 1994). Researchers have also used reciprocal

teaching as part of language arts lessons to enhance reading comprehension skills

using science and social studies texts with intermediate elementary students without

disabilities in general education classrooms (Bottomley & Osborn, 1993; Hess, 2004).

Reciprocal teaching has been used during content area instruction, using social studies

materials to increase reading comprehension skills of intermediate elementary students

without disabilities in general education classrooms (Lubliner, 2004). Lederer (2000)

used reciprocal teaching during social studies content instruction while King and

Johnson (1999) used reciprocal teaching science content instruction to improve the

general literacy/reading comprehension skills of students with and without disabilities

12

in general education classrooms. Additionally, two studies completed follow-up

testing after the intervention period concluded. Palincsar and Brown (1984) and

Westera and Moore (1995) reported that students were able to maintain their

comprehension skills after a limited amount of exposure to RT.

However, there is a lack of research using RT during science instruction in

inclusive classes for the purpose of improving comprehension of science texts.

Further, other studies have not reported the use of individual student visual aids or

scripts for teachers to follow throughout the implementation of RT.

The purpose of this study was to add to the research base of previously

successful studies using reciprocal teaching. This study targeted science as a content

area with the intention of improving science literacy- specifically, science

comprehension as a student outcome. The study included fourth- and fifth-grade

students who have been identified as at-risk, students with learning disabilities, and

students in general education. General education teachers used researcher-created

scripts to facilitate instruction using reciprocal teaching in inclusive science classes.

After 20 school days, evaluation of changes in science literacy was made using

multiple-choice, curriculum-based measures. Follow-up testing was completed four

weeks after the intervention period ended to determine if students maintained the skills

needed to comprehend scientific texts after the intervention period ended.

Research Questions

1. Will the implementation of reciprocal teaching during science instruction in an

inclusive setting result in statistically significant improvements in the science

13

literacy scores from pretest to posttest of intermediate elementary students (grades

4 and 5)?

2. Will the implementation of reciprocal teaching during science instruction in an

inclusive setting result in statistically significant improvements in the science

literacy scores from pretest to posttest of intermediate elementary students (grades

4 and 5) among specific student learning categories: (a) students identified as at-

risk; (b) students with learning disabilities; and (c) students in general education?

3. Will there be statistically significant differences in the science literacy scores from

posttest to follow-up test of intermediate elementary students (grades 4 and 5) in

inclusive settings after the intervention period ends?

4. Will there be statistically significant differences in the science literacy scores from

posttest to follow-up among specific student learning categories after the

intervention period ends?

14

Chapter 2

Literature Review

Achievement Gap

The achievement gap between high- and low-performing students and their

schools has been a subject of public scrutiny for decades. Title I of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 was created to help close that gap by

targeting children who were limited English proficient, migrant children, and minority

children and those with low levels of achievement in high poverty schools. The

program Head Start was established to provide early intervention for preschool

children while older students were provided with intense remedial instruction

(Schugurensky, 2002).

Unfortunately in 1983, an alarming report by the National Commission on

Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: the Imperative for Educational Reform

(NCEE, 1983), brought to light facts about the United States’ (U.S.) condition of

education. Other countries were surpassing the U.S. in the areas in which it was once

superior: technological innovation, science, commerce, and industry. The authors

stated that the U.S. had “squandered the gains in student achievement made in the

wake of the Sputnik challenge” (NCEE, 1983, para. 2) by taking away the support

systems that made those academic gains possible. To defend this statement, the

authors listed several examples of decline in academic achievement including (a) U.S.

students scored last on 19 academic tests when compared to equally competitive

15

countries; (b)Thirteen percent of 17 year-olds were considered functionally illiterate;

(c) SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores had fallen over 50 points in verbal and 40

points in mathematics; and (d) business and military leaders were required to spend

millions of dollars on remediation of reading, spelling, and computation skills due to

the poor preparation of graduating seniors. The report concluded with

recommendations to address these issues beginning with reevaluating academic

standards and renewing the commitment to provide educational opportunities to all

students.

Fifteen years later A Nation Still at Risk: The Case for Federalism and School

Choice (Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 1998) reported that 30% of students

entering college required remedial reading, writing, and math. Employers were still

having difficulty finding qualified personnel who had the necessary skills for

technologically based positions. Instead of the gap decreasing between good and bad

schools, it was increasing. The brunt of the gap was still most evident in minority and

poor children.

In a continuing effort to improve U.S. Education, President Clinton signed the

Improving America’s Schools Act in 1994. These amendments to ESEA included

elements to bring about educational reform including the need for rigorous national

standards, quality teachers, accountability, and ensuring that students read

independently by the end of third grade (Austin, n.d.). President G.W. Bush continued

to push for education reform when he signed No Child Left Behind (NCLB) into law in

2002. This law continued many of the tenets President Clinton marked as important

including the need to have all third-grade students reading independently by the end of

16

the school year. This law also called for increased accountability as measured by

annual testing and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), state report cards, and the use of

proven methods of teaching. This update of ESEA was unique because for the first

time since 1965, the provisions of the amendments included education reform

affecting all students, not just disadvantaged students (Christy, n.d.b).

Parallel to legislative changes for students in general education have been

changes for students with disabilities. The original legislation know as The Education

for All Handicapped Children Act, PL 94-142 (1975) has evolved into the present day

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA 04). Throughout the past

three decades, students with disabilities have been receiving a free and appropriate

public education in the least restrictive environment that can meet their individual

needs. Along the way, PL 94-142 was amended to include full access to the general

education curriculum for all students with disabilities and participation in state-wide

testing. Meanwhile, NCLB allocated the responsibility of these students’ academic

growth to all teachers by increasing accountability for their successes or failures to the

individual teacher (Hardman & Dawson, 2008; U. S. Department of Education

[USDOE], 2004).

NCLB requires states to develop an accountability system to determine if the

state, school districts, and individual schools have made AYP toward state learning

goals in the areas of reading, mathematics, and writing. The report must include a

measure of progress on student bodies as a whole and must also provide disaggregated

results for the subgroups of major racial groups, economically disadvantaged students,

students with disabilities (SWD), and English Language Learners (ELL). State, school

17

districts, and individual schools must show continuous improvement from year to year

toward meeting the state’s standards for proficiency in language arts and math by the

year 2014. Meeting AYP goals annually is especially important to schools receiving

Title I funding because sanctions in the form of corrective actions are applied if they

don’t (Christy, n.d.a; Marx & Harris, 2006).

To do this, many schools focus on the subject areas linked to accountability

and funding at the expense of instruction in other subject areas (Marx & Harris, 2006).

A 2008 report from the Center for Education Policy (CEP) confirms this statement.

The CEP analysis found large shifts in the amount of time spent on math and reading

and reduced time for subjects such as science and social studies since the authorization

of NCLB. Seventy-two percent of school districts reported that they reduced time in

other subjects by at least 75 minutes per week in order to increase instructional time

for math and reading. Those districts reporting increased time for math and reading

also reported the average decrease in instructional time for science as 33% (McMurrer,

2008). Starnes (2006) stated dejectedly…“science has all but disappeared in most

elementary schools” (p. 634).

Science Achievement

Intense focus on math and reading has created an educational gap in science

achievement for all U.S. students. The national average score on the 2005 National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) science test for fourth-grade students

was 149. Results were reported as average scores from 0-300. Scores were presented

as percentages of students performing within 3 levels: Basic, Proficient, and

Advanced. The NAEP achievement level for a score of 149 is Basic, meaning the

18

student has only partial mastery of the knowledge and skills of science for this grade

level. More disturbing is the finding that 73% of U.S. fourth-grade students scored at

or below Basic while only 25% scored Proficient (National Center for Educational

Statistics [NCES], 2005). Fortunately for some states, NCLB did not require science

assessments until the 2007-2008 school year. States now have to assess science one

time within grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12, even though science scores are not presently

part of determining AYP nationally (Cavanagh, 2007; Marx & Harris, 2006; Patz,

2006).

Florida has been testing students in grades 5, 8, and 11 in science annually

since 2003 using the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test- Science (FCAT-

Science; Florida Department of Education [FLDOE], 2007). The FCAT-Science is

designed to assess the level of student achievement in the Sunshine State Standards

(SSS) in science. In fifth grade, the content areas of physical and chemical sciences,

Earth and space sciences, life and environmental sciences, and scientific thinking are

tested. In 2009, the fifth-grade FCAT-Science contained both multiple-choice and

performance tasks. Each multiple-choice question provided four possible answers and

was worth one point if correct. Performance tasks required students to answer

questions in their own words. These questions were graded using a rubric and were

worth 0-4 points each. Student scores for the FCAT-Science range from 100-500

points. These scores are presented as achievement levels from 1-5 which represent the

student’s success on the science standards tested. Achievement levels 3-5 are

considered at and above grade level, whereas achievement levels 1-2 indicate little to

limited success with the content (FLDOE, 2009e).

19

In 2009, 46% of Florida fifth-grade students earned an achievement level of 3-

5, while 53% scored an achievement level of 1-2. Fifth-grade students in Palm Beach

County (PBC), Florida had a higher percentage of students meeting or exceeding the

SSS in science and fewer students demonstrating little to limited success than the state

averages. Fifty-three percent of PBC students earned an achievement level of 3-5.

Forty-seven percent earned an achievement level of 1-2 (FLDOE, 2009c). Scores for

individual schools are also available including those for the school at which this study

took place. At the target school, 58% of fifth-grade students earned an achievement

level of 1-2, whereas only 41% earned an achievement level of 3-5 (FLDOE, 2009d).

Lack of science achievement has brought about a new urgency to give science

the attention it deserves (Pratt, 2007). Prominent business leaders, educators, and

scientists have called for more emphasis on science citing the risk of the U.S. losing its

economic edge if things do not change (Brady, 2008; Cavanaugh, 2007). Government

officials added, “Over the last decade, researchers have scientifically proven the best

ways to teach reading. We must do the same for science” (USDOE, n.d., para. 6).

Research on how to reform K-8 science and teaching has been completed by

the National Research Council Committee and compiled into a report: Taking Science

to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8 (Duschl, Schweingruber, &

Shouse, 2007). Duschl, Shouse, and Schweingruber (2008) later provided a summary

of the report, which included recommendations for reform as well as a definition for

science. Their definition included the need to see science as “a set of processes that

involve logical reasoning about evidence, theory change, and participation in the

culture of scientific practices” (p. 47). Science learning environments should guide

20

students in learning how to: “1) Know, use, and interpret scientific explanations of the

natural world; 2) Generate and evaluate scientific evidence and explanations; 3)

Understand the nature and development of scientific knowledge; and 4) Participate

productively in scientific practices and discourse” (p. 48). In other words, they need to

be science literate.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

defines scientific literacy as…“the capacity to use scientific knowledge, to identify

questions and to draw evidence-based conclusions in order to understand and help

make decisions about the natural world and the changes made to it through human

activity” (OECD, 2003, p. 21). This is not to say that everyone understands and uses

the vernacular of experts but “possess facts and vocabulary sufficient to comprehend

the context of the daily news” (Hazen, 2002, para. 3). Scientifically literate persons

possess “transferable skills including the ability to formulate and conduct experiments,

evaluate empirical evidence, appreciate quantitative arguments, carry out inductive

generalizations, and engage in critical thinking” (Turner & Peck, 2009, p. 56). The

development of science literacy should not be reserved for only the brightest students;

all students will need to become science literate “because functioning in the modern

world demands an understanding of science” (Westby & Torres-Velásquez, 2000, p.

102).

“Scientific literacy cannot be attained without fundamental literacy-the ability

to read and comprehend textual information and write competently about the subject

under study” (Miller, 2006, p. 30). Students need to know how to “access scientific

information from texts and evaluate and interpret the information they have acquired”

21

(Michalsky, Mevarech, & Haibi, 2009, p. 363). Unfortunately, “students face

considerable difficulties in reading scientific texts” (Michalsky et al., 2009, p. 363).

These difficulties could occur independently or in combination with the following

factors: lack of exposure to the (science) content (Best, Rowe, Ozuru, & McNamara,

2005; Kinniburgh & Shaw, 2009; Pratt, 2007; Yore, Bisanz, & Hand, 2003),

unfamiliarity with expository text (Barton, Heidema, & Jordan, 2002; Duke, 2000;

Kinninburgh & Shaw, 2009; Stone, n.d.; Williams, Hall, & Lauer, 2004), or reading

comprehension deficits (Biancarosa, 2005; Kroeger, Burton, & Preston, 2009;

Swanson & De La Paz, 1998).

Science content. Many elementary school educators justify allocating more

time to math and reading and less time for science instruction because they think that

children can catch-up on science when they reach middle school and high school.

Science educators find this assumption to be flawed because science learning, like

math and reading, is cumulative, in both process and content (Pratt, 2007). Students

who interact with text in elementary school have the opportunity to develop

background knowledge and learn about the tools of science (Palincsar, n.d.; Yore &

Treagust, 2006) They learn “new vocabulary for familiar objects and events; for

example, rain is a form of precipitation; water drying up in puddles is evaporation;

floating objects are buoyant” (Westby & Torres-Velásquez, 2000, p. 103). A serious

negative impact on science learning can result if students have not built up fluency in

the language of science before the reading difficulty and volume is increased in middle

and high school (Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, n.d.; Pratt, 2007).

22

Expository text. Early elementary students are typically provided fictional

stories during reading instruction through the use of basal readers and workbooks

(Caswell & Duke, 1988) and asked to identify the plot, setting, characters, and

problem. Narrative text is frequently viewed as easier for children to comprehend

because the content is often very similar to a child’s daily life (Caswell & Duke, 1998;

Sweet & Snow, 2003). The use of expository text has customarily been reserved for

content area instruction-science and social studies (Duke, 2000). Vacca and Vacca

(2002) describe the traditional instruction with expository text as assign and tell. The

instructor assigns pages from the text and follow-up questions to complete. Then the

instructor proceeds to tell the students what they should have gotten from the text

through explaining the ideas and information given through a series of question-and-

answer routines. This practice creates passive learners who are unable to interact with

text to extract meaning independently.

This lack of attention to reading instruction using expository text has been

cited by Chall, Jacobs, and Baldwin (1990) as a possible contributing factor to the

fourth-grade slump. The fourth-grade slump is used to describe students who

performed well when learning to read- learning the alphabetic principle, decoding and

fluency skills- but suddenly fall behind when the focus shifts from learning to read

text to reading to learn from text. Duke and Kays (1998) found that children who read

narratives with ease are often stumped by expository text and the format it uses. There

are no characters to relate to or problems/solutions to discuss. Expository text includes

organizational devices such as headings and subheadings, key words that are

highlighted, as well as graphics (pictures and graphs) that are presented not just for

23

pleasure, but for gaining information (Carnine, Silbert, Kameénui, & Tarver, 2004).

The content of expository text is often filled with unfamiliar terms and concepts which

are far removed from children’s daily experiences (Sweet & Snow, 2003; Williams et

al., 2004). Students may be struggling to make the transition to reading to learn

because they have not received enough training with this type of print as they were

learning to read (Caswell & Duke, 1998).

Of all the content-area texts that students encounter, science text, with its

technical terms and conceptual density, is one of the most challenging to understand

(Barton et al., 2002; Kroeger et al., 2009; Wallach, Charlton, & Christie, 2009).

“Reading of scientific texts does not merely involve translating printed symbols into

meaning, but also requires interactions among readers’ prior knowledge, their beliefs,

and the text” (Michalsky et al., 2009, p. 364). “Students’ ability to understand

complex material presented in textbooks is indeed suffering” (Sweet & Snow, 2003, p.

82). Chall and Jacobs (2003) attributed lack of comprehension development in the

intermediate grades to difficulty with more abstract, academic words commonly used

in the texts. Further, they noted that students who experience difficulties with

increased literacy demands of expository text in the elementary grades will most likely

struggle for the rest of their academic careers in the content areas (science, social

studies, literature, history, and mathematics) which places heavy emphasis on the

ability to understand the text.

Reading comprehension deficits. Reading comprehension deficits may also

be the cause of the difficulty that students experience when reading science texts. In

2009, representative samples of fourth-grade students participated in the National

24

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading. Results were reported as

average scores from 0-500. Reading scores, like science scores, were presented as

percentages of students performing within 3 levels: Basic, Proficient, and Advanced.

A percentage of students scoring Below Basic was also included in the data. Students’

scores in the Basic range demonstrate partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and

skills. Those in the Proficient range reflect solid academic performance and

competency in the subject while Advanced represents superior performance.

Nationally, 68% of 4th

-grade students scored at or below Basic level, 24% scored

Proficient, and seven percent scored at the Advanced level in reading comprehension

(NCES, 2010).

Nationally, reading achievement at the Proficient level for students who are

among specific student groups is even lower. The average percentage of 4th

-grade

students who are among specific racial/ethnic groups (Hispanic and Black), English

Language Learners (ELL), students participating in the National School Lunch

Program (NSLP), as well students with disabilities (SWD) scoring in the Proficient

range in reading comprehension was 13% (NCES, 2010).

State scores for reading comprehension are available in the same report.

Results for 4th

- grade students in the state of Florida are summarized in Table 1.

Collectively, a higher percentage of Florida students scored Proficient (28%) than the

percentage of students nationally. However, sixty-four percent of Florida 4th

-grade

students scored at or below Basic level. As was seen in the national percentages,

Florida 4th

-grade students who are among specific racial/ethnic groups (Hispanic and

Black), English Language Learners (ELL), students participating in the National

25

School Lunch Program (NSLP), as well students with disabilities (SWD) scoring in

the Proficient range in reading comprehension (21%) was below that of the overall

state average (NCES, 2010).

Table 1

Reading Scores: Florida Students

Student

Learning

Group

Percentage

Scoring

Below Basic

(0-205 points)

Percentage

Scoring Basic

(208-234

points)

Percentage

Scoring

Proficient

(238-264

points)

Percentage

Scoring

Advanced

(268-500

points)

Fourth Grade

(average)

27 37 28 8

White

19 34 36 11

Hispanic

29 40 25 6

Black

44 38 16 2

English

Language

Learners (ELL)

48 39 12 1

National

School Lunch

Program

Participants

36 39 22 3

Students with

Disabilities

(SWD)

55 28 13 4

Reading Comprehension in Science

Teachers recognize that literacy problems can impede student progress and

create barriers to understanding science content (Education Development Center, n.d.)

thus preventing many students from becoming scientifically literate citizens

(Palincsar, n.d.). Yet teachers also realize that, “no single factor can account for the

26

range of challenges that are faced by struggling readers” (Kamhi, 2009, p. 177). To

successfully comprehend text, students need experience with the type of text to be

read (Duke, 2000; Palincsar, n.d.) and prior knowledge of the subject mater (Barton et

al., 2002; Ehren, 2009). They need to effectively and efficiently use metacognitive and

cognitive strategies in a meaningful context (Duke, 2004; Palincsar, n.d.). Finally, they

need the self-confidence and motivation to complete the task (Dickson, Collins,

Simmons, Kameénui, 1998).

Struggling readers such as those considered at-risk for academic failure and

students with learning disabilities (SWLD) might benefit from infusing reading

comprehension instruction into content areas such as science to develop the skills

needed to comprehend text with the actual text that they need to comprehend

(Hapgood & Palincsar, 2007; Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Graetz, 2003; Vacca & Vacca,

2002). Romance and Vitale (2001) found significant improvement in both science and

reading scores occurred when the regular basal reading program was replaced with

reading in science that correlated with the science curriculum.

Content area teachers could provide reading comprehension instruction in their

classes to promote scientific literacy (Bianacarosa, 2005; Walker & Huber, n.d.;

Westby & Torres-Velásquez, 2000). To do this, teachers must, “simultaneously teach

scientific concepts and the linguistic and discourse structures that code these concepts”

(Westby and Torres-Velásquez, 2000, p. 105). Teaching reading comprehension using

science text can promote important literacy skills (Palincsar, nd) such as gaining the

necessary science knowledge (Miller, 2006) and allowing students to demonstrate

specific reading strategies in a meaningful context (Walker & Huber, nd).

27

“Instruction in reading strategies as they are applied to actual text has been

recommended by many reading experts” (Taylor & Frye, 1992, p. 39). Palincsar (n.d.)

noted that part of the National Science Education Standards includes learning how to

access scientific information from books as well as how to evaluate and interpret the

information acquired. “This standard reminds us that an important dimension to scientific

literacy is the capacity to read and evaluate written information” (Palincsar, nd, p. 2).

Science teachers often depend on covering material through lectures; however,

science understanding stems from sense-making rather than the information itself.

Kroeger et al. (2009) suggested that “peer-mediated instructional practices may

support a more holistic approach to science learning” (p. 6). Biancarosa (2005)

observed that reading instruction using cooperative learning that promotes engagement

and self-directed learning has been found to improve students’ motivation, sense of

competence, reading comprehension, and strategy use. Research has also established

that cooperative learning can improve reading comprehension and achievement across

the content areas for students in the upper-elementary through high school grades, as

well as for ELL students and SWLD in inclusive settings (Biancarosa, 2005).

Peer interaction cooperative learning has been defined as any activity in which

the students take on a teaching role in a school setting (Puchner, 2003). Effective

cooperative learning groups include heterogenous groupings of students thus

providing struggling readers with peer models and helpers (Biancarosa, 2005) and

allowing for higher-functioning students to gain a more in depth understanding of the

concepts because they are providing detailed and complex explanations to other

children (Puchner, 2003). Collaborative learning is often effective because it

28

encourages students in higher-order and elaborative thinking within their group as they

attempt to make sense of the text together. Students share ideas, provide feedback and

encouragement, and have time to grapple with their preconceived notions of concepts

using the text and alternative interpretations from their peers. A bonus of the peer

interaction approach is that the structure itself ensures that disengaged students

participate. Heterogeneous small groups allow for more students to play active roles in

the learning process. (Kroeger et al., 2009).

It should be noted that explicit instruction in group organization and strategies

are needed for effective collaborative learning to take place. Structured interactions,

specific metacognitive and cognitive strategy instruction as well as accountability

need to be modeled by the teacher before the students can implement this form of

interaction spontaneously (Puchner, 2003). For students to gain greater access to

science texts using metacognitive strategies, teachers should include explicit strategy

instruction and reflection in their instructions (Kroeger et al., 2009, p. 7). Additionally,

“Training children in skills of working together and tutoring increases the

effectiveness of peer teaching. Children placed in collaborative contexts do not

spontaneously use higher order thinking and ask good questions, nor do they

spontaneously use appropriate social skills” (Puchner, 2003, p. 6).

“Between the ages of 11 and 16, significant numbers of students pass from a

state of enthusiasm and engagement with the study of science to a state of indifference

or disdain for the subject” (Turner & Peck, 2009, p. 54). The problem of engaging

students in science classes, “is a larger phenomenon that lies beyond formal science

education itself” (Turner & Peck, 2009, p. 55). It seems that the more prosperous and

29

scientifically advanced the country, the less interested young people are in the study of

science. “Students complain about school science’s perceived irrelevance,

repetitiveness, fragmentation, and authoritarian presentation” (Turner & Peck, 2009, p.

55). Guided inquiry methods and experiments may challenge and hold students’

attention in class, but science is more than hands-on activities. Students need to know

“why science and science study are important to their lives, their society, and their

futures” (Turner & Peck, 2009, p. 56).

The change in the daily routine from lecture to interacting with peers in small

groups gets students’ attention, which may be why the benefits of using cooperative

learning are numerous. Peer support and peer norms promote increased participation

in the learning process. Students’ self-esteem, inter-group relations, achievement,

attitudes towards school, and acceptance of children with disabilities and development

of help-seeking skills have also improved. Students often become more autonomous

which enhances self-determination and intrinsic motivation. Cooperative learning has

been effective with students in grade two through twelve, from a variety of learning

categories, with higher and lower order tasks in all subject areas (Puchner, 2003).

In a time when the U.S. is striving to reform education with limited financial

resources, and NLCB has forced many educators to delete important subjects such as

science from their daily instruction (Marx & Harris, 2006; McMurrer, 2008), it’s time

to teach more efficiently. “One way to do this is to implement an integrated

curriculum where more than one subject is taught at the same time” (Bowers, 2000,

para. 2). Many educators support infusing literacy and science instruction (Bowers,

2000; Hapgood & Palincsar, 2007; Kinniburgh & Shaw, 2009; Marx and Harris, 2006;

30

Miller, 2006; Palincsar, n.d.; Yore & Treagust, 2006). “Literacy-based instruction can

support students’ interest in science content and extend their scientific knowledge

through integrating science process skills with literature and literacy process skills”

(Casteel & Isom, 1994, p. 538). Students who use metacognitive and cognitive

strategies effectively in a meaningful context may demonstrate a more in-depth

understanding of science (Casteel & Isom, 1994; Palincsar, n.d.). Peer-mediated

instruction is a cost-effective and evidence-based method, which may be used to

strengthen both science knowledge and literacy development (Casteel & Isom, 1994;

Kroeger et al., 2009). One approach to teaching students to use cognitive and

metacognitive strategies to comprehend science text in collaborative, mixed-ability

groups is reciprocal teaching (Palncsar & Brown, 1984).

Reciprocal Teaching

Reciprocal Teaching is an instructional procedure originally designed to

enhance students’ reading comprehension. The procedure is best characterized

as a dialogue between teacher and students. The term reciprocal describes the

nature of the interactions: each person acts in response to the other(s). The

dialogue is structured by the use of four strategies: predicting, questioning,

clarifying, and summarizing. (Palincsar, David, & Brown, 1989, p. 2)

Palincsar and Brown introduced reciprocal teaching (RT) to the education

community in a 1984 article which appeared in Cognition and Instruction. Here they

described the theoretical rationale behind RT as a combination of proleptic teaching,

Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, and expert scaffolding. Proleptic teaching

is used here to mean in anticipation of competence. The authors believed that with the

appropriate amount of support, a student could participate in this intervention at the

level he or she was comfortable and eventually be able to improve his or her

comprehension skills so as to no longer need to rely on the teacher.

31

Proleptic instruction was greatly influenced by socio-cultural theories of

learning and literacy, specifically those of Vygotsky (1978). Vygotsky believed that

children had two developmental levels. The first is the one that is the actual

developmental level, which could be measured and observed. The second is the zone

of proximal development, “the distance between the actual developmental level as

determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as

determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with

more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). Palincsar poised herself as the expert

comprehender for the children to learn from. She modeled how to use the strategies of

predicting, clarifying, questioning, and summarizing as she demonstrated how to make

meaning from the text she read. Palincsar encouraged the students to participate and

practice using the strategies during the lesson as they learned how to use the strategies.

The use of scaffolding is crucial to the success of RT.

A scaffold is a structure that supports an activity, mental or physical, while

development of skills is ongoing. Scaffolding takes the form of hints, cues,

questions and discussion that are designed to assist the learner to develop task

related skills. (Seymour & Osana, 2003, p. 328)

“Scaffolded instruction begins with the selection of the learning task. This task is

chosen for the purpose of teaching a skill that is emerging in the learner’s repertoire

but is not yet mature” (Palincsar, 1986, p. 74). Most of the scaffolded support in RT

comes in the form of dialogue (Palincsar, 1986). Teachers use these interactive

(reciprocal) dialogues to guide learning through modeling, feedback, and practice

(Palincsar & Brown, 1984).

Successful scaffolding is “dependent on an expert’s understanding of learner’s

ability and knowledge” (Seymour & Osana, 2003, p. 328). The expert (teacher)

32

frequently makes adjustments in the level of support by providing the learner with

information regarding his or her production and the correct production. The goals of

scaffolding are generalization to less structured contexts and students requiring less

help (Palincsar, 1986).

Palincsar and Brown (1984) found that in order for students to fully learn from

text, they must become strategic readers. RT teaches students to use comprehension-

fostering and comprehension-monitoring strategies as they collaboratively make sense

of the text. The concrete activities (strategies) of summarizing, questioning, clarifying,

and predicting were selected because they provided a dual function of comprehension-

fostering and comprehension-monitoring when used correctly. These strategies, used

together, enabled students to critically evaluate the text through interactive think-

alouds. This cognitive apprenticeship was complete when the students became

proficient in their strategy use. As the students became more competent and confident

using the strategies, the expert (teacher) faded out, allowing the students to become the

group leaders (Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Seymour & Osana, 2003).

In their 1984 article, Palincsar and Brown offered a detailed description of RT

as it was used in Palincsar’s pilot study as well as two subsequent studies. It should be

noted that participants included in these studies were proficient decoders but weak in

comprehension. Their comprehension scores were at least 2-2½ years below grade

level. They were not identified as having a learning or intellectual disability. The

average IQ was 83.

The first study involved Palincsar and 37 seventh-grade students (24 had

reading comprehension problems). The students were divided into four groups:

33

Locating Information, RT, and two comparison groups that received no intervention.

The first comparison group completed daily comprehension tests and took the

baseline, maintenance, and pre/post tests. The second comparison group was given

pre/post tests only. Generalization probes were given five times (baseline, two during

intervention, maintenance, and one follow-up 8 weeks after the study) to the RT, LI,

and first comparison group. The probes occurred in the regular science and social

studies classes and all students in those classes completed them (Palincsar & Brown,

1984).

The Locating Information group was given daily comprehension tests and took

the baseline, maintenance and pre/post tests. The students were taught how to find

answers to questions that were text-explicit and text-implicit (Palincsar & Brown,

1984).

The RT group was introduced to RT in pairs at four day intervals. Two

students were added to the group four days after the first until all six were included in

the group. Strategies were not instructed prior to reading activities, instead they were

introduced within dialogue with the teacher using authentic materials. Baseline data

was taken during the first four days of interaction with each student (Palincsar &

Brown, 1984).

Students in the RT group were given the goal of deriving meaning from text,

which set the purpose of reading the text as they used a combination of their

background knowledge and predictions about the content of the text. As a group, they

summarized portions of the text and asked questions that helped summarize and

clarify the content (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). The teacher assumed the principal role

34

which included prompts to use the strategies after each reading, explicitly modeling

how to use each strategy (as needed) , structuring the response by offering choices,

and building responses using the child’s contribution (Palincsar, 1986).

“Throughout the interventions, the students were explicitly told that these

activities were general strategies to help them understand better what they read and

that they should try to do something like this when they read silently” (Palincsar &

Brown, 1984, p. 121). As students became more proficient with their strategy use, the

expectations of the teacher increased as the students who were able were expected to

take on the expert’s role in the group (Palincsar & Brown, 1984).

The second study’s methods were the same. The difference in the second study

was that instead of Palincsar serving as the expert (teacher), trained teacher volunteers

used their previously established reading groups for this study. At the conclusion of

both studies, not only did comprehension scores improve but so did the quality of the

dialogues among the student groups. All students in RT groups made gains and

maintained their improved performance through maintenance and follow-up sessions

as well as generalization probes. This is evidence that students were able to transfer

(generalize) their skills from the lab to the classroom and vice versa. Three months

after intervention, a standardized reading text was given which did not show any

progress in vocabulary, but did show an average increase of 15 months for

comprehension.

In 1994, Rosenshine and Meister analyzed available studies of RT. They

looked at experimental and comparison groups, assessed student comprehension,

student learning of the strategies, and the quality of the instruction. The authors

35

identified two forms of RT: RT only (RTO) and explicit teaching of the strategies

before reciprocal teaching (ET-RT). Palincsar and Bown’s 1984 description of RT

included teaching of the strategies within the dialogues between teacher and

student(s). However, in 1987 Palincsar began introducing the four strategies prior to

the beginning of dialogues. Students were introduced to each strategy through

worksheet activities. No explanation for the change in method was provided.

The results of Rosenshine and Meister’s meta-analysis (1994) of reciprocal

teaching found that students made greater gains on experimenter-developed tests than

on standardized tests regardless of the type of student or the instructional approach.

They found that the most common method of RT used in these studies was ET-RT. No

relationship was found between the number of sessions and the significance of the

results. Group sizes ranged from 2-23 and the studies were equally effective using the

experimenter or a trained teacher to provide the intervention.

The strength of RT lies in the large amount of modeling and guided practice

provided. Students are able to participate gradually at their comfort levels. The use of

authentic materials and the four concrete strategies develops an independent strategy

user capable of understanding novel text. This cognitive-behavioral model teaches

generalization while teaching the strategy. However, the strategies are effective only

when the student knows how and when to use them. The contributions of Palincsar

and Brown through RT are that they coined the terms comprehension-fostering and

comprehension-monitoring. They identified strategies that, when used in combination,

lead to comprehension. They used authentic texts rather than worksheets and they

36

refined and popularized the instructional concept of scaffolding (Rosenshine &

Meister, 1994).

Since Meister and Rosenshine’s analysis of studies of RT, many more

researchers have successfully used RT in a variety of formats, with a variety of student

types and materials. For example, in 1996, Klingner and Vaughn used RT with ELL

and SWLD in high-school. They also used cross-aged peer tutoring in which older

students taught the RT strategies to younger students completely independent of the

teacher/researcher. In 1998, Alfassi used RT with remedial high school students and

found that RT was still a viable instructional technique that can be used in already

established, large classes. Finally, King and Johnson (1999) examined the extent to

which the dialogue helps readers construct meaning. They found that students

mirrored the guided feedback and praise used by the teachers while interacting with

their peers.

More recently, Lederer (2000) used RT with students in grades 4-6 during their

social studies instruction. Lederer himself acted as teacher researcher for the study and

found that SWLD in general education classes were successful developing questions

about the assigned text. Diehl (2005) found that students take ownership of their

learning, actively interacting with the text by making predictions, seeking clarification,

asking questions, and summarizing. This increased involvement with the text leads to

better comprehension and ultimately improved achievement.

The effects of RT have also been found to continue past the intervention

period. Palincsar and Brown (1984) and Westera and Moore (1995) reported that

students were able to maintain their comprehension skills after a limited amount of

37

exposure to RT. Palincsar and Brown exposed small groups of middle-school students

to RT in a resource room for 20 days. Students did not receive instruction using RT for

three months, yet improvements in reading comprehension were still evident on a

follow-up test. Westera and Moore (1995) used RT with eight small groups of eighth-

grade students during their reading classes. The pretest and intervention period took

place early in the school year. Within a five-week time period, three of the eight

groups received the intervention for 12-16 days, while five of the groups received only

6-8 days of instruction using RT. The posttest was given mid-year. The students who

received 12-16 days of RT made significant gains in reading comprehension, but the

students who received only 6-8 days of RT did not. At the end of the school year, a

follow-up test was given to the students who received 12-16 days of RT during a five-

week period at the beginning of the school year. Results of the follow-up test indicated

that students maintained their improved reading comprehension scores without further

exposure to RT.

Summary

A review of literature found that intermediate elementary students (grades 4

and 5), including students among the specific student categories of: (a) students

identified as at-risk (AR); (b) students with learning disabilities (SWLD); and (c)

students in general education (GE) are struggling to become scientifically literate in

their general education classrooms.

One of the reasons that these students are struggling to become scientifically

literate is an inability to acquire science knowledge from science books. Part of

science literacy involves “reading, comprehending, and evaluating media reports and

38

diverse forms of scientific writing” (Yore et al., 2003, p. 706). Unfortunately, many

elementary students are not exposed to science texts daily or even regularly because of

the pressure to prepare students to perform well on high stakes math and reading tests

(Ehren, 2009; Manzo, 2008; Marx & Harris, 2006: Pratt, 2007). Lack of experience

with science texts can result in limited development of background knowledge needed

to understand science content (Hapgood & Palincsar, 2007; Kroeger, et al., 2009).

Further, time taken away from reading science text can lead to a lack of development

of comprehension skills needed for expository text. Even though many students are

successful at comprehension of narrative text, it does not necessarily translate to

success with expository text (Kinniburgh & Shaw, 2009; Pagés, 2002; Palincsar &

Duke, 2004). Lack of exposure to science and science texts and the science knowledge

and training in the skills needed to comprehend these texts may be the cause of the

struggle to attain scientific literacy.

Teachers recognize that literacy problems can impede student progress and

create barriers to understanding science content (Education Development Center, n.d.)

thus preventing many students from becoming scientifically literate citizens

(Palincsar, n.d.). To successfully comprehend text, students need experience with the

type of text to be read (Duke, 2000; Palincsar, n.d.) and prior knowledge of the subject

matter (Barton et al., 2002; Ehren, 2009). They need to effectively and efficiently use

metacognitive and cognitive strategies in a meaningful context (Duke, 2004; Palincsar,

n.d.). Finally, they need the self-confidence and motivation to complete the task

(Dickson et al., 1998).

39

Elementary students, including those students who are AR, SWLD, as well as

GE, have shown improvement in reading comprehension when explicitly instructed in

cognitive and metacognitive strategies to comprehend expository text in a setting that

supports collaboration and flexible application of comprehension strategies and

provides appropriate, meaningful opportunities for reading and writing (Mastropieri &

Scruggs, 2004; Palincsar & Klenk, 1992). RT can be used to enhance students’

independence in comprehending any text (Marks et al., 1993); however, it has been

particularly useful with expository text (Palincsar & Brown, 1987; Lysynchuk,

Pressley, & Vye, 1990). RT has been found to be effective because it provides for

specific, guided practice using the four strategies- summarizing, questioning,

clarifying, and predicting-to enhance children’s ability to construct meaning of text

and self-monitor understanding of text (NRP, 2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).

RT has been used during content area instruction, using social studies materials to

increase reading comprehension skills of intermediate elementary students without

disabilities in general education classrooms (Lubliner, 2004). Lederer (2000) used RT

during social studies content instruction, while King and Johnson (1999) used RT

science content instruction to improve the general literacy/reading comprehension

skills of students with and without disabilities in general education classrooms. The

effects of RT on reading comprehension have been maintained by students as

demonstrated by scores on follow-up tests completed after the intervention period.

However, no study has focused on determining if RT improves science literacy and if

students are able to maintain higher levels of science literacy after the intervention

period.

40

Chapter 3

Method

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of reciprocal teaching

(RT) on the science literacy of intermediate elementary students (grades 4-5) in

inclusive classes during science instruction. Students in the categories of learning

disabilities (SWLD), at-risk (AR), and general education (GE) were targeted for this

study. General education teachers trained in RT facilitated instruction using the district

approved fourth- and fifth-grade science texts in inclusive classes. After 20 days, an

evaluation of changes in science literacy was made using ten-question, multiple-

choice, curriculum-based science measures. Four weeks after the intervention period,

follow-up tests were given to determine if the students maintained the science literacy

scores from the posttest.

Setting

This study took place at an elementary school in West Palm Beach, Florida.

The staff included 32 general education teachers. Eight of these teachers instructed

dual language (English and Spanish) classes. There were six resource teachers: one

Reading Coach, one Science Coach, one Math Coach, one SAI (Supplemental

Academic Instruction) teacher, one RtI (Response to Intervention) Specialist, and a

Learning Team Facilitator (LTF). The school had seven fine arts teachers. There were

two ESOL teachers, three Community Language Facilitators (CLF; two Spanish and

one Haitian-Creole), and an ESOL coordinator. There were eight special education

41

teachers, four speech-language pathologists, an ESE Coordinator, and ten ESE

paraprofessionals. Other staff members included a principal, an assistant principal, and

a school nurse.

The total population of students was 769. The racial and ethnic make-up of the

school was 17 % White (n = 130), 17% Black (n =130), 60% Hispanic (n = 460), and

six percent other (n = 49). Eighteen percent of the population (n = 136) received

services from ESE. Twenty-nine percent of the students (n = 221) received services

from ESOL. Seventy-eight percent of the students (n = 602) received free or reduced

price meals (School District of Palm Beach County [SDPBC], 2010). This school was

identified as a Title I school because of its percentage of students eligible for free or

reduced price meals. The required percentage for eligibility is 40% (SDPBC, 2009).

This school earned a school grade of “A” as determined by Florida’s A+ Plan

For Education (“Florida’s A+ Plan”, n.d.) for the 2008-2009 school year. Despite

meeting the criteria to earn a school grade of “A” (see Appendix A), the school did not

make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in the area of reading for the subgroups of

Black students and Students with Disabilities (SWD) as determined by scores on the

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (Florida Department of Education [FLDOE],

2009e). AYP is the measurement used to evaluate student progress toward mastering

state academic content standards (Christy, n.d.a). Florida uses these results to

determine if districts and schools made AYP in reading and mathematics (FLDOE,

2009a).

42

Participants

Teachers. Teachers of kindergarten through fifth-grade team-taught during the

2009-2010 school year. One teacher provided instruction in language arts for two

classes of students in the same grade, the other teacher taught math and science to both

classes.

By law, students with disabilities should be educated in the least restrictive

environment, giving them full access to the general education curriculum in a general

education setting “while simultaneously meeting the unique special needs”

(Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2004, p. 16) of each student with a disability. To do this,

many school districts provide a continuum of services identified as levels from least to

most restrictive. A student is placed in a particular setting based on his or her

individual needs as per his or her Individual Education Program (IEP). Students with

disabilities on the campus of the target school received special education services

along the continuum reflecting Level I (consultative services) through Level IV (full-

time special class). Five teachers taught full-time special classes for students with

severe disabilities whose academic and/or emotional needs could not be met in a

general education classroom. Many students with disabilities receive their special

education services in inclusive general education classrooms (Mastropieri & Scruggs,

2004; Taylor, Smiley, & Richards, 2009). The general education teachers who taught

these inclusive classes co-taught math and reading with special education teachers.

Three special education teachers provided consultative and direct services to the

students in these classes. One class in each grade (n=5), except kindergarten, was

43

designated as the inclusive class. The intact fourth and fifth grade classes were

selected to receive science instruction using RT.

Science teachers (n=2) assigned to the inclusive fourth- and fifth-grade classes

participated in this study. The teacher of the fifth-grade class was in his fourth year of

teaching. He has taught fifth-grade all four years. The teacher of the fourth-grade class

was also in her fourth year of teaching fourth-grade. She has a degree in social work

but has alternative certification to teach.

Students. Students identified as AR for academic failure, SWLD, and students

who are GE-those who do not receive special academic services-were targeted for this

study. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA ’04) does not

provide a concrete definition for school-age students at-risk for academic failure

(Taylor et al., 2009), but researchers have identified several indicators that

characterize students as at-risk including: (a) low academic achievement, (b) living in

poverty, (c) living in a violent neighborhood, (d) having parents with little or no

education, (e) family dysfunction, (f) experiencing high levels of mobility, (g) being a

minority student, (h) being a non-native English speaker, and (i) being a male student

(Beken, Williams, Combs, & Slate, 2009; Donnelly, 1987; Karoly, Kilburn, &

Cannon, 2005; Riley, 2006; Taylor et al., 2009). For the purpose of this study, students

were identified as AR if they met four of the following characteristics selected by the

researcher: (a) low academic achievement as demonstrated by below grade level

scores on the FY’09 FCAT Reading, predicted levels from the Fall Diagnostic

Reading Assessment, and the Fall SRI (Scholastic Reading Inventory) score, (b) living

in poverty based on eligibility for free or reduced price meals, (c) being a minority

44

student as documented on student registration forms, (d) being a non-native English

speaker based on ESOL status, and (e) being a male student. Students were identified

as having learning disabilities based on their previously established eligibility to

receive services from ESE. Students were identified as general education (GE) if they

were not categorized as a student who is AR or SWLD.

Students enrolled in the fourth- and fifth-grade inclusion classes (n=40)

participated in this study. Data collection and analysis included only students who

agreed to participate in the study as stated on the student assent forms and returned

signed parental consent forms indicating permission to participate in the study (see

Appendix B). Of the combined classes, 34 students’ data were used in the study. Of

those students, 19 students were enrolled in fifth-grade and 15 in fourth-grade, 14

were identified as SWLD, 10 were identified as AR. The remaining 10 were identified

as GE students (n=34).

Materials

The district-approved fourth- and fifth-grade science texts, Science: Florida

Edition (Bell et al., 2007a; 2007b), were used. The content of the texts is aligned with

the Sunshine State Standards. The text for each grade-level is broken down into seven

strands- Matter, Energy, Force and Motion, Processes That Shape the Earth, Earth

and Space, Processes of Life, and How Living Things Interact with Their

Environment- which include 2-3 chapters each. Each chapter is then divided into 2-4

lessons. Each lesson begins with a hands-on activity followed by 3-4 pages of text.

Text pages include photographs, graphs, and vocabulary highlighted in yellow.

Comprehension skills such as main idea and details, compare and contrast, cause and

45

effect, and sequencing are embedded in the text in the form of questions and graphic

organizers. Focus (comprehension) skills are also included in chapter relevant to the

text content. The content of each lesson can be covered in one class session.

Instrumentation

The lessons for the tests were chosen from sections of the text scheduled to be

covered later in each grade’s scope and sequence to ensure that the students had not

read the lessons prior to completing the tests. Six, multiple-choice, curriculum-based

science measures were developed based on targeted lessons in the science texts. One

pretest, one posttest, and one follow-up test for both fourth- and fifth-grades (n=6)

were developed by the researcher with assistance from the school’s Science Coach.

Each 10-question test was developed using three question types to increase internal

validity of the tests. Each question type was based on the relationship between the

question and the answer as well as the types of cognitive processes required to answer

the questions. Raphael and Pearson (1985) described three question-answer

relationships: (a) text explicit, (b) text implicit, and (c) script implicit. Text explicit

questions were literal questions whose answers were found in one sentence of text.

Text implicit questions could also be found in the text, but the student would have to

integrate information from more than one section of the text. Script implicit questions

required the student to apply background knowledge because the answer to the

question was not found in the text. In an attempt to create tests which were equally

demanding cognitively, each test contained five text explicit questions, four text

implicit questions, and one script implicit question. Scores from these tests were used

46

to determine changes in science literacy. Copies of each test can be found in Appendix

C.

Procedures

Teacher training. Teachers assigned to the inclusive fourth- and fifth-grade

classes agreed to participate in the study and signed consent forms (see Appendix B).

The consent forms included a confidentiality agreement as well as permission for the

researcher and another person of her choosing to complete periodic unscheduled

fidelity checks in their classrooms.

Each teacher was given a copy of the video Reciprocal Teaching Strategies at

Work: Improving Reading Comprehension, Grades 2-6 (Oczkus, 2003b) to watch

prior to meeting with the researcher to complete training for the study. Teacher

training was completed with each teacher individually. During the training session, the

researcher explained reciprocal teaching including the theoretical background,

components of the model, and past research. The goals for the study and the materials

to be used were also described and presented. This information was conveyed through

the use of a power point presentation as well as display and discussion of the materials

used in the study by the teachers and students and presented in a binder (see Appendix

D). Teachers were directed to review daily lesson plans and materials as well as daily

scripts prior to presenting to their classes.

Teachers were also provided with posters of The Fantastic Four Strategies,

targeted Fix-up Strategies, and Question Words to display in their classrooms (see

Appendix E). The posters are pointed out to students in the teacher scripts as students

47

are reminded to refer to the information on the posters as they work in their small

groups.

Instructional procedures. Student assent forms, parent letters describing the

study, and parent consent forms were available in English, Spanish, and Haitian-

Creole. All translated forms were double-sided. The English translation of each form

(student assent, parent letter, and parent consent) was on the back of each form

presented in Spanish and Haitian-Creole in case the individual reading the form was

more literate in the other language (see Appendix B). All students participating in the

ESOL program as well as students whose school registration indicated Hispanic or

Haitian-Creole heritage were provided with double-sided parent letters and consent

forms. Additionally, if a student requested a translated form it was provided.

Students were asked to sign the student assent forms indicating their agreement

or refusal to participate in the study. The CLFs (Spanish and Haitian-Creole) were

available to answer questions and make sure each student understood what he or she

was signing.

A letter describing the study as well as parent consent forms were sent home

with each student in his/her native language. Students were asked to return the signed

forms to the researcher by a predetermined date in exchange for the opportunity to

choose a trinket (e.g., glow-in-the-dark slinky, super ball, brain-shaped erasers) from

the Treasure Box. All students who returned a signed parental consent form-in

agreement or refusal-selected a trinket. However, only the data of the students who

agreed to participate in the study and whose parent agreed to allow them to participate

in the study were used to determine the effectiveness of RT on science literacy.

48

After the consent forms were received by the researcher, pre-intervention data

were gathered. Students completed the pretest according to the grade level in which

they were enrolled. Students independently read the lesson from their science text

from which the questions on the pretest were created. All students in the class

completed the pretest, but only the scores from the students who individually agreed to

participate in the study as indicated on assent forms and who had returned their signed

parent consent indicating permission to participate in the study were used in statistical

analyses.

Students’ present level of reading performance were established using scores

from the FY’09 FCAT Reading, predicted levels from the Fall Diagnostic Reading

Assessment, and the Fall SRI score. The researcher used this information in

conjunction with a method described by Kagan and Kagan (2006) as Forming Teams

(see Appendix F) to create mixed ability groups of four-five students. In Forming

Teams, student information is written on individual index cards. Each card should

include student name, reading scores, and gender. Each card also includes a color code

indicating reading levels at, above, minimally below, and below grade level. The

teacher would then sort students into heterogeneous groups. This process was

particularly difficult to complete for this study because all classes were

homogeneously grouped. Therefore, most students in both classes were struggling

readers. To adjust for this type of grouping, the following changes were made.

Individual index cards were created; however, gender was replaced by specific

categories (AR, SWLD, and GE). Groups were created based on reading scores and

reading levels. Student learning categories were also considered as equally capable

49

learning teams were created. The fourth-grade class had five groups of students, four

groups of four students and one group of five students. The fifth-grade class had four

groups of students, three groups of five students and two groups of four students.

Students remained in these groups for the duration of the study.

Implementation of the treatment condition, reciprocal teaching (RT), began

after completion of the pretests and continued for a total of 20 school days. A brief

overview of the objectives, teacher roles, student roles, and materials used on each day

of the intervention period is provided in Appendix G. All 20 lessons for implementing

RT were completed, but they were not implemented for 20 consecutive school days

due to grade level field trips, mandatory diagnostic testing and review, completion of

required labs, school wide professional development days, and teacher absence.

Substitute teachers were not permitted to implement the lesson plans from the study.

Teachers were instructed to provide alternate plans for substitutes.

Each day during the intervention (RT) phase of the study, teachers followed

the lesson plans and used the scripts provided by the researcher. The lesson plans

followed Palm Beach County’s Curriculum Frameworks and covered the pages of the

textbooks these plans dictated. The scripts included teacher directions and dialogue for

introducing and practicing The Fantastic Four Strategies while reading grade level

science text. The strategies were introduced and practiced systematically to familiarize

the students with the language of reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1987;

Palincsar et al., 1989). Explicit explanation of each strategy and its purpose was

followed by guided and/or independent practice using the strategy while reading the

science text. A review was provided at the end of each lesson as well as plans for the

50

next day. The following paragraphs provide a detailed account of the introduction and

practice of the strategies using the grade-level science text.

The first four days of the study consisted of explicit training of each of The

Fantastic Four Strategies: the Superheroes of Reading Comprehension. The Fantastic

Four Strategies, predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing, were

introduced to each class as a group. Students practiced using each strategy by applying

it to the day’s assigned text in small groups after the teacher defined the strategy and

modeled its use to the whole class. This allowed the teacher to provide guided practice

with the targeted strategy after the strategy was introduced.

The strategies of RT, The Fantastic Four Strategies, were presented to students

as characters to help them assimilate to the roles they played in their cooperative

groups. This idea was also put in place to encourage the students to think aloud as they

participated in the group allowing for others to benefit from their thinking patterns and

allowing the teacher to correct any misconceptions about the content or the strategy

use. An additional character, group leader, was created to accommodate groups that

had five members instead of four. Teacher scripts included descriptions of each

character’s role and responsibilities in the group. The teacher binder included

overhead transparencies to be used as visual aids while the roles and responsibilities of

the characters were discussed (see Appendix H). Also included in the binder were

student bookmarks created to remind students of their roles and responsibilities as they

participated in their groups. Each bookmark was double-sided, displaying the female

character on one side and the male character on the other side (See Appendix I).

51

Even though the strategies were introduced separately, they were used

cumulatively every day. Each day the script began with a review of the strategies

practiced the previous day(s). For example, on Day 2, the strategy of questioning was

introduced to the whole group. The script included introduction and modeling of the

new strategy (questioning) and included using the strategy taught on Day 1

(predicting). Strategy use continued to build on Day 3 when the strategy for clarifying

was the focus. The strategies of predicting and questioning were used to show the

spiraling effect of the strategies and how they intertwine with one another. This

pattern continued on Day 4 when the strategy of summarizing was introduced. A mini-

lesson in how to form a good summary was provided by using an expanded retell of

the story of The Three Bears and contrasting the retell with a precise summary of the

main points. The teacher reviewed the contrast of retelling vs. summarizing using an

overhead (see Appendix H). The strategies of predicting, questioning, and clarifying

were again used at the appropriate times in the lesson to show the spiraling effect of

the strategies and how they intertwine with one another. The teacher reminded

students that good readers use more than one strategy at a time while they read

(Oczkus, 2003a). Each session concluded with the teacher reviewing the content of the

text by calling on individual students who did an excellent job playing their roles to

demonstrate how they used the strategy and explain how it helped him or her

understand a part of the text. Then the teacher provided an interactive review of the

strategies and their purposes. Last, the teacher informed the students what to expect

the next day.

52

Systematic and explicit instruction using The Fantastic Four Strategies

continued on Day 5. After a review of the strategies, their purposes and use, the

teacher modeled using The Fantastic Four Strategies as a think-aloud as he or she

interacted with a page of the day’s assignment. Students practiced using the four

strategies in their groups for the rest of the pages of the day’s assignment after teacher

modeling. On Day 6, students practiced using the strategies as characters in their

groups, one group at a time, while the other groups watched. The first step to

completing this day’s activity was to assign students in each group a role to play. The

characters developed to represent each strategy were adapted from Ozkus’ (2003a) and

Myers’ (2005) examples. One student from each group was assigned the role of Peggy

or Peter Predictor, Quinn or Quincy Questioner, Clara or Clarence Clarifier, or Sue

or Sammy Summarizer. The role of Lydia or Larry Leader was assigned to students

who were in groups of five. Roles were rotated among group members every day.

After roles were assigned to each student, the teacher handed out correlating

bookmarks for each character then documented role assignments using the researcher

created Teacher Tracking of Student Roles in Cooperative Groups form (see Appendix

J). The purpose of this documentation was to assist the teacher in making sure that

each student, in each group, had the opportunity to lead the group using each strategy

as designated by character roles.

Palincsar et al. (1989) suggested having the groups discuss one paragraph of

the text at a time allowing for all the members to contribute their parts (predicting,

questioning, summering, and clarifying). This lesson was set up so that one group

demonstrated using The Fantastic Four while the other groups observed. The teacher

53

provided the sequence for the groups by labeling groups as Group 1, Group 2, etc. The

teacher explained the procedures used in the groups, Group Directions, using an

overhead of the procedures as a visual aid (see Appendix H). When called on, the

group demonstrated using The Fantastic Four as they cooperatively worked through

one paragraph under the guidance of the teacher. First, all students in each group

previewed the text together. The Predictor from each group was called on to make

predictions before reading began. As each group read the text out loud, the Predictor

of that group confirmed or corrected predictions that were made by the Predictor of

the group. While reading, each student read one line of text until the group reached the

end of the paragraph. The second reader was the Questioner, third was the Clarifier,

and fourth (last) was the Summarizer, unless the group had a Leader then the Leader

read fifth (last). The rotation continued throughout the pages of the lesson carrying

over from paragraph to paragraph. As the students read the text, the Clarifier of the

group provided assistance as needed by recommending fix-up strategies. At the end of

each paragraph, the Predictor of the group confirmed or corrected the predictions, the

Questioner created at least one good question, and the Summarizer pointed out key

words, definitions, and details. When the group came to the end of the section, the

teacher guided the Summarizers in forming concise summaries of the section, which

included the key words, definitions, and details pointed out earlier. The teacher guided

the student observers by encouraging them to ask questions of the targeted group and

make comments and suggestions. The teacher reminded students to use information

from posters and bookmarks to help them use the strategies.

54

Teachers are encouraging students to become more independent by taking

charge of their learning. To assist teachers with this, the researcher created a page of

Coaching Prompts (see Appendix J). These prompts were recommendations for the

teachers to use if students were having difficulty using the strategies independently.

Also provided to the teachers by the researcher was information from Ozckus’ book

(2003a), which lists suggestions for helping students overcome difficulties with the

strategies. The teacher’s role throughout the rest of the intervention period was two-

fold. He or she needed to be available to guide the students toward expert use of the

strategies while fading out his or her support. The less dependent the students are on

the teacher for guidance, the more they will turn to their peers and themselves to

figure out what to do. The intention of this process was to create independent strategy

users in a realistic (authentic) setting.

Peer modeling and teacher coaching were used again on Day 7. Roles were

assigned to each student as the teacher handed out correlating bookmarks for each

character then documented role assignments using the researcher created Teacher

Tracking of Student Roles in Cooperative Groups form (see Appendix J). The teachers

provided support and encouragement for both the students demonstrating use of the

strategies as well as the students watching their peers perform. They encouraged the

audience of peers to be interactive in the lesson by assisting them in making comments

and corrections about the group reading. He or she reminded students to use

information from posters and bookmarks to help them use the strategies. The teacher

used the Coaching Prompts and suggestions for helping students overcome difficulties

with the strategies (see Appendix J) as needed. This day’s lesson concluded with the

55

teacher reviewing the content of the text by reminding the class about individual

students who did an excellent job playing their roles and using the strategy and how it

helped them understand a part of the text.

Peer modeling and peer coaching were used on Day 8. Roles were assigned to

each student as the teacher handed out correlating bookmarks for each character then

documented role assignments using the researcher created Teacher Tracking of

Student Roles in Cooperative Groups form (see Appendix J). The students (peers)

watching the students (peers) working their way through a paragraph using The

Fantastic Four provided assistance as needed by offering suggestions for revisions of

questions and summaries. They provided reminders to confirm or correct predictions

as they came up and recommended the use of fix-up strategies. They also offered

compliments for a job well done. The teacher relinquished more control on this day as

his or her interactions were limited to calling on an observer (peer) to comment/correct

or to provide additional guidance/explanation as needed. The teacher referred to the

Coaching Prompts and suggestions for helping students overcome difficulties with the

strategies (see Appendix J) as needed. Concluding this day’s lesson was a review of

the content through highlighting excellent strategy use by the students as well as

appropriate comments and corrections from peers watching. The teacher reviewed the

strategies and their purposes and informed the students what they were going to do

during science time the next day.

Days 9 and 10 were set up for guided independent practice for all groups. The

teacher instructed the students to work through a (sub) section of the text before

bringing the class back together to review. After the roles were assigned and

56

documented, the students were instructed to get into character and read until they

reached the bolded heading. This was usually no more than 6 paragraphs on one page.

The teacher monitored strategy use as he or she circulated among the groups. The

teacher referred to the Coaching Prompts and suggestions for helping students

overcome difficulties with the strategies (see Appendix J) as needed. The teacher

allowed the groups 10 minutes to work through the section before bringing them back

together to review the content of the section of the lesson by highlighting excellent

strategy use by the students and appropriate and useful comments and corrections

within the group. This procedure of instructing the students to work through a (sub)

section of text then coming back together to review was repeated until the lesson was

completed.

On Days 9 and 10 the teacher also began monitoring each student’s

participation in the group using researcher-created Group Performance Checklist (see

Appendix J). These simple checklists included straightforward questions to guide the

teacher in monitoring student competency with the text and the strategies. The teacher

could use the information on these checklists to recognize which students were

moving into independent use of the strategies and understanding the text, as well as

who needed more help understanding the content and using the strategies. The

teachers were asked to use these checklists each day for the remainder of the study.

Beginning on Day 11 and continuing for the remainder of the days of the

study, the students worked independently in their groups to complete the assigned

lesson of text independently. Each day the teacher assigned roles to each student,

handed out correlating bookmarks for each character, and documented role

57

assignments using the researcher-created Teacher Tracking of Student Roles in

Cooperative Groups form (see Appendix J). The teacher wrote the pages of text to

read on the white board and put the Group Directions (see Appendix H) page on the

overhead then instructed the students to get started. The teacher circulated among the

groups providing limited feedback using the Coaching Prompts (see Appendix J) and

suggestions for helping students overcome difficulties with the strategies as needed.

The teacher also monitored each student’s participation in the group using a

researcher-created Group Performance Checklist (see Appendix J). The use of this

informal assessment provided valuable information on each student’s strategy use and

understanding of the content in the text. After 25-30 minutes, the teacher brought the

group back together. She or he did not review the text or highlight students who were

using their strategy especially well in the group. For the remainder of the study, the

teacher only asked if there were any questions about the text then concluded the

session.

The researcher had daily contact with the teachers throughout the intervention

period to answer questions and make minor adjustments to the lesson plans as needed.

Teachers required clarification regarding scaffolding techniques and the use of

coaching prompts. Lesson plans needed to be adjusted for the fourth-grade class on

two occasions because of time constraints and the length of the text to be covered. On

the days that the fourth-grade teacher introduced the strategies of questioning and

summarizing, the teacher used an extended amount of time to demonstrate the

strategies, not leaving enough time to complete all pages of text. The researcher

changed the lesson plans to include completion of reading of the previous day’s text.

58

The script for the day did not change in content presented (strategy use), but the pages

used to introduce and practice using the strategy changed to reflect the lesson plans.

After the 20th

day of RT, all students completed the posttest according to the

grade level in which they were enrolled. Students independently read the lesson from

their science text from which the questions on the posttest were created. The

researcher did not provide lesson plans or scripts after the 20th

day of RT, which

consequently led to the cessation of RT being used in both classes. Both teachers

returned to using lessons provided by the county. Four weeks after the completion of

the posttest, all students completed a follow-up test according to the grade level in

which they were enrolled. Students independently read the lesson from their science

texts from which the questions on the follow-up were created.

Treatment fidelity was monitored in both classes on four occasions via

unscheduled observations completed by the researcher and the school’s Science Coach

using a protocol developed by Hart and Speece (1998; see Appendix K). These

protocols were completed while observing both classes on four separate occasions:

pre-intervention (Observation 1), once during the first week of the intervention phase

(Observation 2), once during the final week of the intervention phase (Observation 3),

and one time after the cessation of the intervention (Observation 4). Before each

observation, the researcher reviewed with the Science Coach the two phases listed on

the protocol and provided a description of what each question on the protocol was

examining. The protocol divides the implementation of RT into two phases. Phase 1

is the introductory phase which focuses on the teacher. During this phase, teachers are

rated on a Likert scale for three points: (a) The instructor operationally defined the

59

independent variable, reciprocal teaching; (b) The instructor models each of the four

strategies using think-alouds; and (c) The instructor uses prompts to recall the

definition of each strategy during the lesson. The researcher and the school’s Science

Coach used Phase 1 of the protocol during the pre-intervention (Observation 1) and

again within the first five days of the intervention period (Observation 2). The

observers completed individual protocols for each teacher and did not talk to one

another until after the observation was scored. “The fidelity index was calculated by

adding the points awarded for each section, dividing the total number of possible

points, and converting this score to a percentage” (Hart & Speece, 1998; p 674). The

researcher calculated the fidelity index for individual observations completed by both

observers. Then she averaged the scores, which produced one score for Observation 1

and one score for Observation 2.

The fidelity index of Observation 1 for both the fourth- and fifth-grade classes

was 0% indicating no use of RT reciprocal teaching prior to the intervention. The

fidelity index for Observation 2 was 33% for the fourth-grade class and 11% for the

fifth-grade class. This indicates that the fourth-grade teacher was using more of the

reciprocal teaching strategies and procedures than the fifth-grade. Interrater reliability

for the two observations was calculated as a simple percentage of agreement (Mertens,

2005). Interrater reliability for Observations 1 and 2 was 100% indicating consistent

findings.

Phase 2 of the protocol examines both teacher and student performance.

Students have already been introduced to RT and the core strategies. At this point,

students should be participating in their small groups using the strategies and taking on

60

leadership roles as they interact with their peers applying the strategies while reading

the text. The teacher should continue to model use of the strategies (as needed) and

provide support to the students as they learn to use the strategies effectively in their

groups. If the teachers follow the prescribed lessons, the observations should reflect a

transfer of leadership to the students as they become more independent of the teacher,

thus requiring less modeling. During this phase, teachers and students are rated on a

Likert scale on four points: (a) The instructor models the four strategies in the

beginning of the group sessions; (b) The instructor uses the supports of feedback,

praise, modeling, and explanation; (c) Students participate in group discussions, d)

Students assume leadership role in the groups.

The fidelity index for Observation 3 was 55% for the 4th-grade class and 50%

for the 5th-grade class. The fidelity index for Observation 4 was 0% for both classes

indicating discontinued use of the RT. Interrater reliability for Observation 3 was 75%

indicating somewhat consistent findings. Interrater reliability for Observation 4 was

100% indicating consistent findings.

Research Design and Analysis

A quasi-experimental design with a pretest and posttest of science literacy

given at the beginning and end of the 20 day intervention period was used. A follow-

up test was given four weeks after the posttest for further analysis of the effect of

reciprocal teaching. The independent variables for this study were the implementation

of RT and the discontinuation of RT during science instruction. The dependent

variables were difference between the pretest and posttest scores and the difference

between the posttest and follow-up test scores.

61

Four dependent t-tests were used to test each hypothesis. The alpha level for

each analysis was set at 0.05. The first dependent t-test compared the means of the

pretest and posttest scores to determine if there was an improvement in science

literacy for all students after implementation of RT. A second dependent t-test

compared the means of the pretest scores with the means of the posttest scores for

students with learning disabilities, students identified as at-risk, and those in general

education. Another dependent t-test was completed for the complete student sample

comparing the means of the posttest and follow-up scores. This analysis determined if

there would be differences in science literacy four weeks after the intervention period.

The final dependent t-test compared the means of the posttest scores and follow-up

scores among groups to assess differences in science literacy four weeks after the

intervention period.

Effect size of each analysis was also computed to determine the distance

between group means in terms of their standard deviation (Mertens, 2005). The effect

size was computed using the difference between the means divided by the pooled

standard deviations of each group.

62

Chapter 4

Results

This study examined the effects of reciprocal teaching on the science literacy

of intermediate elementary students (grades 4-5) participating in inclusive classes

during science instruction. Students were given a pretest prior to the intervention

period and a posttest immediately after the intervention period ended. Four weeks after

the intervention period, students were given a follow up test. Each test included ten,

multiple-choice questions based on targeted lessons in the science texts. Additional

analyses were conducted to determine the effects among three specific student

categories: (a) students identified as at-risk (AR), (b) students with learning

disabilities (SWLD), and (c) students in general education (GE). All effects were

assessed by examining scores on the three curriculum-based science measures. Four

null hypotheses were examined:

1. There are no statistically significant differences in the science literacy scores from

pretest to posttest of intermediate elementary students (grades 4 and 5) in inclusive

settings after the implementation of reciprocal teaching during science instruction.


pretest to posttest among specific student categories: (a) AR; (b) SWLD; and (c)

GE after the implementation of reciprocal teaching during science instruction.

63


posttest to follow-up test of intermediate elementary students (grades 4 and 5) in

inclusive settings after the intervention period ends.


posttest to follow-up among specific student categories.

Each hypothesis was tested using a dependent t-test. The alpha level for each

analysis was set at 0.05. The independent variable for Hypotheses 1 and 2 was the

implementation of reciprocal teaching during science instruction in inclusive settings.

The dependent variable was the difference between the pretest and posttest scores. The

independent variable for Hypotheses 3 and 4 was the removal of reciprocal teaching

during science instruction in inclusive settings. The dependent variable was the

difference between the posttest and follow-up test scores.

Effect of Reciprocal Teaching (H1)

The mean of the posttest (M= 8.15; SD = 1.88) was greater than the mean for

the pretest (M = 4.88; SD = 1.70) for the group of 34 students. The dependent t-test

showed the difference between the two means was statistically significant t (33) =

8.05, p < .05. There was a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.83). Because there was a

statistically significant difference between the mean of the pretest and posttest, the null

hypothesis (H1) was rejected.

Effect of Reciprocal Teaching on Student Groups (H2)

Students at-risk. The mean of the posttest (M= 7.60; SD = 1.58) was greater

than the mean for the pretest (M = 4.50; SD = 1.08). The dependent t-test showed the

64

difference between the two means was statistically significant t (9) =4.50, p < .05.

There was a very large effect size (Cohen’s d =2.30).

Students with learning disabilities. The mean of the posttest (M= 8.50; SD =

1.65) was greater than the mean for the pretest (M = 5.00; SD = 2.08). The dependent

t-test showed the difference between the two means was statistically significant t (13)

= 5.40, p < .05. There was a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.87).

Students in general education. The mean of the posttest (M=8.20; SD = 2.44)

was greater than the mean for the pretest (M = 5.10; SD = 1.73). The dependent t-test

showed the difference between the two means was statistically significant t (9) = 3.71,

p < .05. There was a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.47).

Because there was a statistically significant difference among all three specific

student categories, the null hypothesis (H2) was rejected.

Posttest-Follow-up Results (H3)

The mean of the follow-up test (M= 6.97; SD = 1.87) was less than the mean

for the posttest (M = 8.15; SD = 1.88) for the group of students. The dependent t-test

showed the difference between the two means was statistically significant t (33) =

3.19, p < .05. There was a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = .63). Because there was a

significant difference in the posttest and follow-up scores, the null hypothesis (H3) was

rejected.

Analysis of the difference between the means for the posttest and the follow-up

scores revealed a mean decrease of 1.18 points. This indicates that when reciprocal

teaching was discontinued during science instruction, there was a slight, but

significant, decline in science scores. To establish whether the decline in these scores

65

was meaningful, an additional inquiry is provided. In this comparison, the difference

in the scores between pretest and posttest are contrasted with the previously obtained

difference in scores between the posttest and follow-up (see Figure 1). The mean for

the pretest scores

Effect of Reciprocal Teaching

4.88

8.15

6.97

0

2

4

6

8

10

Pretest Postttest Follow-up

Assessments

Mea

n S

core

s

Figure 1

was 49% while the mean of the posttest scores was 82%. This indicates an increase of

33 percentage points. However, the mean for the follow-up scores was 70%. This

indicates a decrease in the scores by 12 percentage points. Although students’ science

literacy decreased from posttest to follow-up, this difference was far less than the

increase in science literacy from the pretest to the posttest.

Posttest-Follow-up Results of Student Groups (H4)

Students at-risk. The mean of the follow-up test (M = 6.20; SD = 2.40) was

less than the mean for the posttest (M =7.60; SD = 1.58). The dependent t-test showed

the difference between the two means was not statistically significant t (9) = 2.04, p >

.05. There was a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = .69). Figure 2 shows the differences

in scores from the pretest, posttest, and follow-up test for students who are AR.

66

Students At-Risk

4.5

7.6

6.2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Pretest Posttest Follow-up

AssessmentsM

eans

Figure 2

Students with learning disabilities. The mean of the follow-up test (M =

7.14; SD = 1.83) was less than the mean for the posttest (M =8.50; SD = 1.65). The

dependent t-test showed the difference between the two means was not statistically

significant t (13) = 2.17, p > .05. There was a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = .78).

Figure 3 shows the differences in scores from the pretest, posttest, and follow-up test

for SWLD.

Students with Learning Disabilities

5

8.5

7.14

0

2

4

6

8

10


Assessments

Mea

ns

Figure 3

Students in general education. The mean of the follow-up test (M = 7.50; SD

= 1.10) was less than the mean for the posttest (M = 8.20; SD = 2.44). The dependent

t-test showed the difference between the two means was not statistically significant t

67

(9) = 1.11, p > .05. There was a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = .37). Figure 4 shows

the differences in scores from the pretest, posttest, and follow-up test for GE students.

Students in General Education

5.1

8.27.5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


Assessments

Mean

s

Figure 4

The difference between each set of scores comparing posttest to follow-up test

was not statistically significant; therefore the null hypothesis (H4) was not rejected.

68

Chapter 5

Discussion

This study investigated the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching (RT) during

science instruction in inclusive, intermediate elementary classes with students in the

specific student categories of: (a) students identified as at-risk (AR); (b) students with

learning disabilities (SWLD); and (c) students in general education (GE). The purpose

of this study was to determine if the use of (RT) methods during inclusive science

instruction would develop the skills needed to comprehend scientific texts and thus

enhance students’ ability to become scientifically literate citizens.

Previous studies have used RT with 4th

- and 5th

-grade students in general

education settings using expository texts such as those provided in basal readers,

historical nonfiction, and science and social studies texts. Additionally, general

education teachers have implemented RT in general education settings with the entire

class (Bottomley & Osborn, 1993; Hess, 2004). Hess (2004) also included students

who were AR in her study sample, whereas Bottomley and Osborn (1993) did not

indicate the inclusion of students with any special needs in their study. Bottomley and

Osborn (1993) used several assessments to determine the effect of RT on student

comprehension of expository text. First they provided an expository passage at the

student reading levels and had the students write out answers to comprehension

questions about the passage. A criterion-referenced test assessed students’ ability to

69

effectively use RT strategies. In this test, students were given an expository passage

then asked to write a brief summary, create questions, write about where they needed

clarification of the text, and predict what might happen next. Additionally in this test,

students were required to provide written responses to short answer questions about

the same passage. The researchers did not indicate if the assessments used the same

content (science or social studies). Hess (2004) used expository text from basal

readers, historical non-fiction, and science and social studies texts. However, the focus

of her study was not student comprehension of content area text. This study focused

on teacher implementation of RT during content area instruction as measured by

teacher surveys, interviews, and observation. Student progress using the strategies of

RT was also measured using surveys and observation. Student achievement in reading

comprehension was assessed using the Steck-Vaughn Reading Assessment as well as

school district criterion-referenced tests of reading comprehension.

The present study was different because it took place in inclusive science

classes, used authentic materials and measurements based on the content from the

authentic texts, with the intention of improving science literacy- specifically, science

comprehension. This study also included researcher-created materials (teacher scripts,

classroom posters, and individual student visual aids) to assist teachers’

implementation of RT.

Statistically significant improvements in the science literacy scores from the

pretest to the posttest were made by all students as well as by each of the specific

groups of students involved in the study. The combined fourth- and fifth-grade classes,

mean scores improved by 33%. Students who are AR as well as GE students’ mean

70

scores improved 31%. The greatest improvements in science literacy were among

SWLD. Their mean score from pretest to posttest improved by 35%.

Another purpose of this study was to determine if students maintained the

skills needed to comprehend scientific texts after the intervention period ended.

Palincsar and Brown (1984) and Westera and Moore (1995) reported that students

were able to maintain their comprehension skills after limited exposure to RT.

Palincsar and Brown exposed small groups of middle-school students to RT in a

resource room for 20 days, then administered a posttest which revealed gains in

reading comprehension. Students did not receive instruction using RT for three

months, yet improvements in reading comprehension were still evident on a follow-up

test. Westera and Moore (1995) used RT with eight small groups of eighth-grade

students during their reading classes. The pretest and intervention period took place

early in the school year. Within a five week time period, three of the eight groups

received the intervention for 12-16 days, while five of the groups received only 6-8

days of instruction using RT. The posttest was given mid-year. The students who

received 12-16 days of RT made significant gains in reading comprehension, but the

students who received only 6-8 days of RT did not. At the end of the school year, a

follow-up test was given to the students who received 12-16 days of RT during a five

week period at the beginning of the school year. Results of the follow-up test indicated

that students maintained their improved reading comprehension scores without further

exposure to RT.

Unfortunately, in this study, student scores for the total group of students from

posttest to follow-up test decreased significantly. The mean score declined from 82%

71

to 70% indicating a decrease in comprehension of science content. Science literacy

scores for students in the specific student categories also declined, but not

significantly. Mean scores from posttest to follow-up test for students who are AR,

GE, and SWLD dropped from 76% to 62%, 82% to 75%, and 85% to 71%

respectively.

The likely reason for this conflicting finding-the mean of scores for the total

group of students being significant, but the means of the scores for the subgroups not-

is a lack of power in the study due to the small (N = 34) sample size. Murphy and

Myors (2004) stated “with a small enough N, there might not be enough power to

reliably detect the effects of even the most substantial treatments” (p. 7). Further, this

study weighted all of the groups equally even though they did not have an equal

number of participants (N = 34; AR N = 10; SWLD N = 14; GE N = 10).

Overall, the results of this study support the belief that struggling readers, such

as those who are AR, SWLD as well as GE students, can demonstrate a more in depth

understanding of science after instruction using RT to develop metacognitive and

cognitive strategies effectively in a meaningful context as suggested by Casteel and

Isom (1994) and Palincsar (n.d.).

Educational Implications

This study has several positive educational implications for the use of RT. The

first is that RT can be used successfully to improve science literacy of students

grouped homogeneously, whose low academic performance occurs for diverse

reasons. The use of RT resulted in positive outcomes as demonstrated by increased

average scores from pretest to posttest of science literacy. The findings of this study

72

demonstrate that it is possible to improve the science literacy of struggling readers

using RT.

Struggling readers are inattentive, passive, and disorganized (Dickson, Collins,

Simmons, & Kameénui, 1998; Reid & Lienemann, 2006). Another positive

implication for future use of RT in science classes was the informally observed

increase in active participation and the taking on of leadership roles from unlikely

students. It was observed that previously timid students took on leadership roles

within small groups. Students were apparently very motivated to complete the tasks

accurately as they were heard using the text to support their answers during student

dialogues. Students were also observed functionally using the materials provided

(individual bookmarks and classroom posters) to emphasize how they came to their

conclusions.

Yet another positive informal observation was that students who previously

misbehaved in academic settings and/or tuned-out during class activities were

observed to be on task and actively involved in deriving meaning from the text with

their peers. Struggling readers often lack confidence or become unmotivated to

participate because of a pattern of previous failure. Students typically act out or give

up because they feel they have no control over their success (Dickson et al., 1998;

Johnston, 1985; Vacca & Vacca, 2002). However, these students appeared happy and

motivated to complete daily activities.

The final positive educational implications for the use of RT has to do with the

setting in which this study took place. These gains in science literacy were made at a

large and diverse Title I elementary school. This school has many students who are

73

difficult to teach. The teachers implementing the intervention had limited teaching

experience. Yet, these students made gains in science literacy despite interruptions to

complete practice sessions for high stakes tests, school code red lockdowns due to

dangerous circumstances near the school campus, teacher absences, and preplanned

field trips. Another factor that resulted in the disruption of daily implementation of RT

was the additional requirement for professional development of teachers as called for

in the corrective action plan for a school that is a SINI (School In Need of

Improvement). The target school has not made AYP for four consecutive years and is

now undergoing corrective action (Florida Department of Education, 2009d; School

District of Palm Beach County, n.d.). Despite the added stress, these teachers followed

researcher-created scripts using district mandated materials and the students’ science

literacy scores improved. In this time of accountability and high stakes tests, it is

important not to underestimate the students’ capabilities. Even though schools are

under significant pressure to make AYP, it is important not to deprive struggling

students of more challenging and interesting work that could be more motivating for

them to employ the reading skills that they are being inundated with (Johannessen,

2003).

Limitations of the Study

Although this study produced significant improvements in the scientific

literacy of the targeted group of students, there are several limitations to this study.

The first limitation is the research design used. Many studies in education use a quasi-

experimental design because it is difficult to employ random assignment as most

groups (classes) are already created (Mertens, 2005). It would be possible to influence

74

group assignments if the researcher had access to student lists before they were

created. Unfortunately, this was not the case for this study. The School District of

Palm Beach County decided that elementary classes would be homogeneously

grouped for the 2009-2010 school year. This meant that students who were struggling

readers in general education, SWLD, and those who are AR were placed in the same

class. Therefore, each grade level at the target school had only one inclusive class.

This eliminated the possibility of completing the study using a treatment and a

comparison group for both grade levels, so the decision to use a quasi-experimental,

one-group, pretest-posttest design was made. This design includes threats of history

and maturation that could be the true reason for the change in science literacy scores

(Mertens, 2005).

The School District’s decision to group students homogeneously also had an

effect on the sample size of the study. Because only one fifth-grade and one fourth-

grade class were used in the study, a total of 34 students participated. Fortunately, the

sample provided enough variability to provide statistically significant differences.

Another area of concern regarding the results of the study is that non-

standardized measurements were used for pretests, posttests, and follow-up tests. Each

test was based on a different section of the text; therefore, each test covered different

content. Regrettably, the reliability of these researcher-created instruments is

unknown.

The final limitation of the study involved program implementation. As noted

earlier, students in the studies completed by Palincsar and Brown (1984) and Westera

and Moore (1995) were able to maintain their increased comprehension scores despite

75

only 16-20 days of learning to use RT and without maintenance sessions using RT. It

is possible that the results of this study could have been more pronounced and/or that

more students would have been able to maintain the skills they learned if RT had been

implemented for 20 consecutive school days.

Suggestions for Future Research

This study demonstrated that fourth- and fifth-grade students among the

specific student categories- AR, SWLD, and GE- can improve their science literacy

when using RT during science instruction in inclusive, intermediate elementary

classes. The first recommendation for future research is in response to the limitations

of this study noted in the previous section. This study could be replicated using a

larger sample size and a more rigorous research design. Several school sites with

similar demographics should be recruited to participate in a future study. The larger

sample size would increase the generalizability of the results. Having a larger sample

size might allow for the use of use of a stronger experimental, pretest-posttest

comparison group design which would control for the effects of history and

maturation.

This study made several assumptions regarding student motivation and

attitudes regarding the use of RT in their science classes based on informal researcher

observations. Future studies could confirm perceived enthusiasm of students by

making use of published protocols such as The Elementary Reading Attitude Survey or

the MRP—Motivation to Read Profile. Both instruments use Likert scale responses to

assess students’ interests, attitudes, and/or motivation about reading (Meyerson &

76

Kulesza, n.d.). Use of these surveys would quantify student feelings while

corroborating or refuting a researcher’s assumptions based on informal observations.

Even though it wasn’t noted as a threat to validity because observations of

fidelity were positive, teachers selected to participate in future studies should have

more thorough training in RT. Observations of the implementation of RT led the

researcher to believe that teachers only partially understood how to use scaffolding

techniques to support student learning of both the strategies of RT and the science

content. Other studies indicated extensive teacher training in the background and

implementation of RT (Bottomley & Osborn, 1993; De Corte, Verschaffel, & Van De

Ven, 2001). Bottomley and Osborn (1993) provided teachers with two, half-day

inservices that included details about RT such as the theoretical background and

results of previous research. Teachers also had the opportunity to practice dialogues

with the researchers during the initial trainings as well as in follow-up sessions. De

Corte et al. (2001) included the teachers and the headmaster in decisions regarding the

implementation of RT as well as the reading materials to be used. The team also

worked collaboratively to develop a teacher’s guide for implementation of RT, lesson

plans, and materials for the students. Continuous support was available for the

teachers throughout the intervention period. Perhaps with more thorough training and

the opportunity to take an active role in the decisions regarding implementation and

materials used, the teachers in this study may have not only improved their scaffolding

skills, but would have been more inclined to continue to use RT after the intervention

period ended.

77

Future research should consider implementing a similar study at the beginning

of the school year rather than the middle. As the school year progresses, there are

many changes in the daily routine due to field trips, professional development days for

teachers, and intense preparation for high stakes testing. The final limitation to this

study was the fact that the students’ science literacy scores declined after just four

weeks without RT during science instruction. Perhaps students would be able to

maintain functional use of the cognitive and metacognitive strategies if the initial

presentation were completed in consecutive school days. It might also be beneficial to

complete a bi-weekly refresher lesson using RT with the content the class is presently

covering to remind students of the usefulness of the comprehension-fostering and

comprehension-monitoring strategies they learned. As the school year becomes more

hectic, teachers could easily present the current information using RT as the method of

instruction. This is feasible in districts such as Palm Beach County where the

Curriculum Frameworks dictate the content to be covered, not how it is to be

delivered.

The use of RT with much younger elementary students could also be a part of

future research. By the time students reach fourth-grade, they are already expected to

have developed skills to independently read to learn to be successful in the

intermediate grades (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Yet research has shown that most

students have not had the opportunity to read expository texts (Duke, 2004). Further,

science learning, like math and reading, is cumulative, in both process and content

(Pratt, 2007). If students aren’t given the occasion to interact with authentic science

texts in early elementary school, they won’t have the opportunity to develop

78

background knowledge and learn about the tools of science (Palincsar, n.d.; Yore &

Treagust, 2006). Lack of exposure to this knowledge-building type of text is likely the

reason for many students’ lack of background knowledge needed to comprehend

complex texts and their fall into the Fourth Grade Slump (Best, Rowe, & McNamara,

2005; Catts, 2009; Chall, Jacobs, Baldwin, 1990). Using reciprocal teaching in the

earlier grades could develop students’ ability to use reading strategies for

comprehension while they are learning strategies for decoding. Perhaps these students

will not fall into the Fourth Grade Slump because they will be more appropriately

prepared to read and comprehend the authentic texts that will be part of their future as

they progress through elementary school, before the reading difficulty and volume is

increased in middle and high school (Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, n.d.; Pratt, 2007).

Another possibility for future research would be to use RT with standards for

science (or social studies) blended with language arts standards. Teachers could

present one lesson but address benchmarks, or Big Ideas, of reading and science. The

suggestion of blending the curriculum has been made as schools “are dealing with the

realities of having to raise test scores and wanting kids to be exposed to other subject

areas” (Manzo, 2008, para. 11). There is a need to teach more efficiently. This can be

accomplished by teaching more in the same amount of time (Bowers, n.d.) mainly

because “we are not backing down from accountability” (Manzo, 2008, para. 11).

Reading and science have a natural connection. Scientists need to read and

comprehend to develop and report on science experiments that are filled with

specialized signs, codes, and graphics (Barton & Jordan, 2001; Kinniburgh, & Shaw,

2009: Miller, 2006). Science teachers have the ability to monitor and regulate

79

themselves when conducting and writing up results of experiments because they have

a core of processing strategies that allow them to observe, classify, compare, interpret,

and draw conclusions (Vacca & Vacca, 2002). These process skills are comparable to

the process skills used by good readers: engaging prior knowledge, making

predictions, determining cause and effect, comparing and contrasting, and drawing

conclusions (Bowers, 2000). Science teachers can demonstrate how reading and

science interface with text by demonstrating how these strategies can advance

students’ knowledge of science by pointing out what the text reveals about

experiments that the students conducted themselves or that they observed the teacher

completing (Glencoe, n.d.; Palincsar, n.d). Rather than treating reading instruction as a

separate activity, literacy activities “fully embedded into the science curriculum take

on an equally important role to those of hands-on inquiry” (Miller, 2006, para.11).

There are many programs available to develop beginning reading but few that

focus on comprehension, which has led to the suggestion of incorporating such

instruction into the content areas (Williams, Stafford, Lauer, Hall, & Pollini, 2009).

Some programs combining science and reading already exist. For example, Romance

and Vitale (2001) developed Science IDEAS, which is intended to replace the language

arts block. This program combines science, reading and writing for intermediate

elementary students. Teachers use the science text to teach reading comprehension and

writing skills, which encourage students to critically evaluate science topics. This

program has increased scores for science and reading on nationally-normed tests.

Hapgood and Palinscar (2007) developed GIsML: Guided Inquiry supporting Multiple

Literacies. This program is for students in kindergarten through sixth grade. It

80

combines discovery learning and reading. Research has revealed increased science

content knowledge and reasoning skills using this method.

School districts are quick to buy special programs and mandate the use of

specific interventions (Valencia & Buly, 2004). However, it is not always necessary.

For example, RT can be implemented using the already adopted school materials. It

would be interesting to conduct a study with dual dependent variables: that of science

literacy and of reading comprehension using a blended curriculum.

Summary

This study demonstrated that the use of RT during science instruction in

inclusive, intermediate elementary classes allows students among the specific student

categories- students who are AR, SWLD, and GE students- to attain science

knowledge through training in the skills needed to comprehend these texts. In addition

to improving science literacy, this study also appeared to improve students’ motivation

and self-determination as was noted in teacher and researcher observations.

Appendixes

Appendix A

Grading Florida’s Public Schools

Appendix B

Consent and Assent Forms

86

Reciprocal Teaching in Science

As many of you already know, I am Ms. DiLorenzo, one of the speech teachers here at Forest Hill Elementary. And, some of you know that I am also a student at Florida Atlantic

University. I am here today to ask for your help with a project that I am completing for my teachers. I would like to complete a study to find a better way to teach reading comprehension in science. Students in Mr. Stein’s and Ms. Cowan’s inclusive science classes have been chosen to be part of this study. For 20 school days, students in these classes will be working in small groups, learning to use specific reading strategies. I will determine if this method of teaching is better by having you complete a pretest before the study begins, a posttest after the study

ends, and a follow-up test at least three calendar weeks after the study is over, and comparing these results. If you decide to participate in this study, you will be learning the same information as all of your friends in your grade. The difference is that you will be working in small groups each day using specific reading strategies. Some of you may be uncomfortable working in small groups.

You do not have to be in this study if you don’t want to and you can quit at any time. If you don’t like a question, you don’t have to answer it. If you change your mind and decide you don’t want your answers used in the study just tell your science teacher. No one will be upset with you if you decide you don’t want to participate. Only you, your science teacher, and I will know how you did on the tests. However, if your

parents want to know, we will tell them. If you have any questions, ask me, Ms. DiLorenzo. This research study has been explained to me and I agree to be in this study. _________________________________ _____________

Subject’s Signature for Assent Date

Check which applies (to be completed by person conducting assent discussion):

□ The subject is capable of reading and understanding the assent form and has

signed above as documentation of assent to take part in this study.

□ The subject is not capable of reading the assent form, however, the information was

explained verbally to the subject who signed above to acknowledge the verbal explanation and his/her assent to take part in this study.

________________________________ Name of Person Obtaining Assent (Print)

________________________________ ___________

Signature of Person Obtaining Assent Date

87

Date:

Dear Parents,

My name is Kim DiLorenzo. I am one of the speech-language pathologists at Forest

Hill Elementary. I am also a doctoral student at Florida Atlantic University.

I would like to complete a study to find a better way to teach reading comprehension

in science. Students in Mr. Stein’s and Ms. Cowan’s inclusive science classes have

been chosen to be a part of this study. For 20 school days, students will be working in

small groups, learning to use specific strategies. I will determine if this method of

teaching is effective by having students complete a pretest before the study begins, a

posttest after the study ends, and a follow-up test at least three weeks after the study is

over, and comparing these results.

I am requesting permission to use your child’s scores from these tests in this research

study. The results will indicate if this way of teaching helps students understand the

science text better. Your child’s name and scores will be kept confidential at all times.

Only your child’s science teacher and I will have access to this information. If you do

not want your child to participate in this study, s/he will still receive the instruction

provided; however, your child’s test scores will not be used in the analysis of the

study.

If you allow your child to participate, please sign and return the enclosed consent form

to your child’s teacher by ( ). Each child who returns a signed consent form by

the due date will be allowed to select a prize from my treasure box even if you do not

give your permission to participate in the study.

If you have questions regarding the study, please contact me at (561) 969-5870 ext.

75926 or my supervising professor, Dr. Lydia R. Smiley at (561) 297-3287. For

questions regarding your child’s rights as a research subject you can contact the

Florida Atlantic University Division of Research at (561) 297-0777.

Thank you for considering allowing your child to participate in this study.

Sincerely,

Kim DiLorenzo

Forest Hill Elementary


88

CONSENT FORM

Parent/Guardian

1) Title of Research Study: Reciprocal Teaching of Science in Inclusive Elementary Classes

2) Investigator: Lydia R. Smiley, Ph. D. and Kim E. DiLorenzo, M. Ed. (graduate student)

3) Purpose: The purpose of this research study is to assess the effects of reciprocal teaching, a collection of strategies presented during conversations while reading text, which may improve reading comprehension in the

content area of science. Students were selected to receive instruction using reciprocal teaching as a result of

classroom assignment.

4) Procedures: Your child will be taught to use the strategies of predicting, questioning, clarifying, and

summarizing to assist in comprehension of science text. Teachers will participate in explicit training meetings prior

to the implementation of the reciprocal teaching procedure in their classrooms. Each session will be conducted by the classroom teacher, in the classroom, and will last for approximately 35 to 45 minutes per day for a period of 20

consecutive school-days. Sessions will include comprehension instruction using the science text used by all

students in Palm Beach County. Focus of sessions will be on developing reading comprehension strategies with

expository (science text). As part of your child’s general education program, s/he will be asked to independently read a section of the district approved science text then answer 10 multiple-choice questions on three separate

occasions. Scores from these assessments will serves as the pretest, posttest, and follow-up data. I am requesting

your permission to use your child’s data (scores) from these assessments in a research study.

If you do not want your child to participate in this study, s/he will still receive the instruction provided; however

your child’s assessment scores will not be used in the analysis of the study.

5) Risks: The risks involved with participation in this study are no more than one would experience in regular daily activities.

6) Benefits: The primary benefit is that the subjects will be exposed to an instructional method that is designed to

improve the independent use of comprehension enhancing strategies with expository text.

7) Data Collection & Storage: Any information collected about your child will be kept confidential and secure.

Student scores will be coded to ensure anonymity. Only those involved in the study will see your child’s data,

unless required by law. The data will be kept for five years and then destroyed.

8) Contact Information: For related problems or questions regarding your rights as a subject’s parent, the

Division of Research at Florida Atlantic University can be contacted at (561) 297-0777. For other questions about

the study, you should call the project investigators, Kim DiLorenzo at (561) 969-5870 ext. 75926 or Dr. Lydia Smiley at (561) 297-3287.

9) Consent Statement: I have read or had read to me the preceding information describing this study. All my

questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I allow my child to take part in this study. My child can stop participating at any time without giving any reason and without penalty. I can ask to have the information related to

my child returned to me, removed from the research records, or destroyed. I have received a copy of this consent

form.

Please check one of the boxes below indicating your decision regarding your child’s participation in this study.

Please return this completed form to our child’s teacher.

□ Yes, I give my permission for my child to participate in this study.

□ No, I DO NOT give my permission for my child to participate in this study.

Student Name: ________________________ Classroom Teacher: ___________________

Signature of Subject’s Parent or Guardian ________________________ Date: _________

Signature of Investigator: _____________________________________ Date: _________

89

Ensenanza Reciproca en la Ciencia

Como muchos de ustedes ya saben, yo soy Ms Di Lorenzo, una de las maestras del habla, aqui en Forest

Hill Elementary. Y algunos de ustedes también saben que soy una estudiante en la Universidad,

Atlantic University. Hoy estoy pidiendo por su ayuda, para un proyecto que tengo que completar para

mi maestra.

Me gustaria completar un estudio para encontrar una mejor manera de ensenar en la comprension de

lectura de Ciencias. Estudiantes de señor Stein y del Senor Cowan también han sido seleccionados para ser parte de este estudio. Durante 20 dias escolares, los estudiantes de estas clases estarán trabajando en

pequenos grupos, aprendiendo a usar las estrategias especificas de lectura. Voy a determinar si este

método de enseñanza es mejor, realizando una prueba previa antes de que el estudio se inicie, una

prueba después del estudio y una prueba de seguimiento por lo menos tres semanas a partir que el

estudio ha concluido, y comparar los resultados

Si usted decide participar en el estudio. Estara aprendiendo la misma informacion que todos sus amigos

en la clase. La diferencia es que estara trabajando en pequenos grupos cada dia usando estrategia

especificas de lectura. Algunos de ustedes talvez se sientan incomodos trabajando en pequenos grupos.

Usted no tiene que participar de este estudio si usted no quiere y puede retirarse del estudio en cualquier

momento. Si no le gusta la pregunta, no tiene que contestarla. Si cambia de pensar y decide que no

quiere contestar la pregunta del estudio, solamente dígale a su maestra de Ciencias. Ninguno se

molestara si decide que no quiere participar.

Solamente su maestra de Ciencias y usted sabran sus respuestas. Mas si sus padres quisieran saber las

respuestas se les informara. Si tiene alguna pregunta acerca de este proyecto, usted puede preguntar a Ms DiLorenzo.

Este studio de investigacion se me ha explicado y estoy de acuerdo en participar.

_________________________________ ___________________

Firma del alumno Autorizado Fecha

Marque si le aplica (complete la persona que esta autorizada en conduciendo la discusión)

La persona esta capacitada para leer y entender lo escrito arriba y firmar el documento y ser parte del

estudio

La persona no es capaz de leer la hoja de autorizacion, por lo tanto la información se le explicara

verbalmente a la persona que firme arriba, para conocer verbalmente la explicación y el/ella autorizan

participar del estudio

___________________________________________

Nombre de la persona participante (letra de molde)

Firma de la persona participante Fecha

90

Fecha Estimados Padres:

Mi nombre es Kim DiLorenzo, soy una Patologa del habla del lenguaje en la Escuela Elemental de Forest Hill. Tambien soy una estudiante para Doctora en la Universidad, Atlantic University Quiero completar un estudio para encontrar una manera mejor de ensenar a leer y comprende Ciencias. Los estudiantes en las clases de Ciencias de Mr. Stein y Ms. Cowan han sido seleccionados para ser parte de este estudio. Durante 20 dias escolares, los estudiantes estarán trabajando en pequenos grupos, aprendiendo a usar especificas estrategias para leer. Voy a

determinar si el método de enseñanza es efectivo, haciendo unos exámenes a los estudiantes antes que el estudio comiense, otro examen después que terminen y un seguimiento de exámenes al menos cada tres semanas después que el estudio finalizo y comparar los resultados. Estoy pidiendo permiso de usted para usar los resultados de su niño(a) de los examenes en los estudios de investigación. El resultado nos indicara si esta forma de enseñanza ayudara a los

estudiantes a entender mejor los libros de Ciencias. El nombre de su hijo(a) y los resultados serán confidenciales todo el tiempo. Solamente el niño(a) y el maestro de Ciencias tendrá acceso a esta información. Si usted no desea que su hijo(a) participe en este estudio, el/ella siempre recibirán las instrucciones y el resultado del examen no será usado en el análisis del estudio. Si usted permite que su nino(a) participe, por favor firme y regrese la hoja de autorizacion

adjunta, al maestro del alumno(a) para ( ). Cada alumno(a) que regrese la hoja de autorizacion en la fecha determinada, se le permitirá escoger un premio de mi caja de sorpresas, aunque usted no le halla autorizado participar en el estudio Si tiene alguna pregunta en relacion al estudio piloto, por favor comuniquese con migo al numero telefonico (561) 969-5870 ext. 75926 o a mi maestra supervisora Dr. Lydia R. Smiley al numero (561) 297-3287. Para preguntas con los derechos de su niño puede llamar a Florida Atlantic University Division of Research al numero (561) 297-0777.

Muchas gracias por permitir a su niño(a) participar en este estudio. Atentamente,

Kim E. DiLorenzo Forest Hill Elementary


91

FORMULARIO DE AUTORIZACION

PADRES/TUTOR

1. Titulo del Estudio de Investigacion: Ensenanza Reciproca de la Ciencia incluyendo clases de primaria intermedia.

2. Investigador: Lydia R Smiley Ph.D y Kim DiLorenzo M.Ed (estudiante de post grado)

3. Proposito: El propósito de la investigación del estudio es evaluar los efectos de la enseñanza reciproca, recolectar

estrategias que se presenten durante la conversación cuando estén leyendo el texto, como mejorar la comprencion de la

lectura en el contenido del area de la Ciencia. Los estudiantes que sean seleccionados recibirán instrucción usando

enseñanza reciproca como resultado a la clase asignada.

4. Procedimiento: Su niño(a) será ensenado a usar la estrategia determinada, preguntando, clarificando y resumiendo

para ayudarle en la comprensión del los libros de Ciencias. Los maestros participantes tendrán una reunión amplia

antes de implementar la enseñanza reciproca en la clase Cada sesión será conducida por el maestro de la clase y durara

aproximadamente de 35 a 45 minutos por dia por un periodo de 20 dias escolares. La secion incluye comprension e

instruccion para usar los libros de textos que se usan para los estudiantes en el Condado de West Palm. Enfocaremos

la sesión de cómo se desenvuelven en la comprensión de la lectura estrategias con exposición de textos (libro de

ciencias). Como parte del programa general de la educación de sus hijos(as), a el/ella se le asignara que

independientemente lea una sección que el distrito apruebe del libro de textos de Ciencias además 10 preguntas con

opción multiples, en tres distintas ocasiones. El resultado de estas asignaciones servirán para antes del examen y

después del examen y para el seguimiento posterior. Estoy requiriendo su permiso para usar el resultado de su niño(a)

(punteo) para la evaluación del estudio de investigación. Si usted no desea que su hijo(a) participe en este estudio,

el/ella siempre recibirán las instrucciones y el resultado del examen no será usado en el análisis del estudio.

5. Riesgos: Los riesgos del participante que se involucra en este estudio, no son mas que la experiencia durante las

actividades diarias regulares.

6. Beneficios: el beneficio primario es que el sujeto estará expuesto a un método de instrucción que se le asignara, para

mejorar el uso independiente de comprensión mejorando estrategias con exposición de texto.

7. Recoleccion de Información y Almacenage: Cualquier información que obtengamos de su niño(a) ser guardada

confidencialmente y segura. Los resultados del estudiante permanecerán seguros y anónimos. Solamente los que estén

involucrados en el estudio podrán ver el resultado de su hijo(a), o al menos que sea requerido por la ley. Los

resultados serán guardados por cinco anos y luego serán destruidos.

8. Informacion de Contacto: Para problemas relacionadas con los derechos de los padres del sujeto, usted puede

contactar la oficina que patrocina la investigación Florida Atlantic University al numero telefónico (561) 297-2310.

Para otras preguntas acerca del estudio usted puede llamar a la investigadora del proyecto, Kim DiLorenzo al (561)

969-5870 ext. 75926 o Dr. Lydia R. Smiley al (561) 297-3287.

9. Declaracion de Autorizacion: Yo lei o me leyeron la información del procedimiento que describe el estudio. Todas

mis preguntas han sido contestada satisfactoriamente. Yo autorizo a mi hijo(a) a tomar parte de este estudio. Mi hijo(a)

se podrá retirar en cualquier tiempo del estudio sin dar ninguna explicación y sin recibir ningún castigo Yo puedo

solicitar que la información relacionada a mi hijo(a) se me devuelva, eliminarla de los registros de investigación o

destruirla. Yo recibi una copia de este formulario.

Porfavor marke una de las cajas indicando la decision que tome hacerca de la participacion de su hijo/hija en el

estudio. Porfavor regrese esta forma completa a la maestra de su hijo/hija.

Si le doy perminso a mi hijo/hija que participe en el estudio.

No le doy permiso a mi hijo/hija que participe en el estudio.

Nombre del estudiante___________________________ Maestro de la Clase_________________________________

.

Firma del Padre o Custodio _____________________________ Fecha ________________________________

Firma del Investigador: ___________________________________Fecha: _______________________________

92

Enstwi lasyans an mwayen resipwók

Nou tout konnen non mwen deja, mwen se youn nan pwofesé de pawól nan lekól Forest Hill Elemanté a, non

mwen se Madame DiLorenzo. E mwen se yon etidyan nan inivésite de Florida Atlantic .Mwen vle mande ou pou

ede mwen nan yon pwojé ke mwen ap fé avék pwofesé nan lekól la.

Mwen vle fé yon etid ki ka ede mwen jwenn yon pi bon fason pou anseye lekti kopreyansyon nan lasyans. Nou te

chwazi elév nan klas Mr. Stein e Ms. Cowan yo pou yo patisipe nan etid sa. Elév yo ap travay nan yon piti gwoup e

yo ap aprann pou yo itilize espesifik estrateji pou fé lekti pou 20 jou de lekól la. Mwen ap detémine si estrateji pou

lekti sa ap pi bon lé ou pran yon egzamen anvan nou kómanse etid la e ou ap pran yon lót egzamen apre ou fini e ap genyen yon lót egzamen ankó nan 3 semenn apre etid la fini pou konpare rezilta yo.

Si ou deside pou patisipe nan etid sa, ou ap aprann menm enfómasyon tout lót elév nan klas ou yo ap aprann.

Diferans la ap sélman paske ou ap nan yon gwoup piti e ou ap aprann pou ou itilize espesifik estrateji pou lé ou ap fé lekti lasyans yo. E kék nan ou ka pa konfótab lé ou ap travay nan yon gwoup piti avék lót elév.

Ou pa bezwen fé pa nan etid sa si ou pa vle, e ou ka sispann fé etid la nenpót lé ou vle. Si ou pa renmen yon

keksyon, ou pa besyon reponn li. Si ou chanje ide ou e ou pa vle pou repons ou yo nan etid la, jis di pwofesé lasyans ou sa. Pésón moun pap fache avék ou si ou pa vle patisipe nan etid la.

Sél mwen menm avék pwofesé lasyans yo ki dwe konnen de repons ou ekri pou keksyon yo. Men nou ka kite paran

ou kennen si yo ta bezwen. Ou ka mande mwen, Ms. DiLoremzo si ou genyen okenn keksyon de etid la.

Yo te esplike mwen de Etid rechéch sa e mwen dakó pou mwen ladan li

________________________________________ ____________________

Siyati de moun ki ap fé etid la Dat

Tcheke younn ki aplike pou moun ki ap fé etid la:

□ Moun sa kapab li e konprann sa li siyen an pou li ka patisipe nan etid sa.

□ Moun sa pa kapab li pou kont li men nou te esplike sa fóm nan di e moun sa vle patisipe nan etid sa.

____________________________________________

Non moun ki ap pran fóm sa (ekri)

____________________________________________ __________________

Siyati moun ki ap pran fóm sa Dat

93

Dat:

Ché paran,

Non mwen se Kim DiLorenzo. Mwen se youn nan pwofesé de pawól nan lekól Forest Hill Elemanté a. Mwen se

yon etidyan dokté nan inivésite de Florida Atlantic.

Mwen vle fé yon etid ki ka ede mwen jwenn yon pi bon fason pou anseye lekti kopreyansyon nan lasyans. Nou te

chwazi elév nan klas Mr. Stein e Ms. Cowan yo pou yo patisipe nan etid sa. Elév yo ap travay nan yon piti gwoup e

yo ap aprann pou yo itilize espesifik estrateji pou fé lekti pou 20 jou de lekól la. Mwen ap detémine si estrateji pou lekti sa ap pi bon lé ou pran yon egzamen anvan nou kómanse etid la e ou ap pran yon lót egzamen apre ou fini e ap

genyen yon lót egzamen ankó nan 3 semenn apre etid la fini pou konpare rezilta yo.

Mwen vle mande ou pémisyon pou mwne kapab itilize Pwen egzamen pitit ou a nan etid rechéch la. Paske rezilta pitit ou a ka di nou si etid la te ede yo konprann Lasyan pi byen. tout enfómasyon de pitit ou ap nan yon plas ki

konfidansyél. Pwen egzamen pitit ou a ap anomin. Sél mwen menm avék pwofesé lasyans yo ki ka konnen de tout

detay de pitit ou e egzamen yo, amwenske lalwa di nou non. Nou ap konséve enfómasyon pitit ou a pou 5 ane epi

nou ap detwi enfómasyon yo apre sa. Si ou pa vle pou pitit ou patisipe nan etid rechéch sa pwofesé nan klas li a ap toujou anseye li de enfómasyon yo men nou pap itilize egzamen li pou etid la.

Si ou vle pou pitit ou a patisipe nan etid rechéch sa, siyen fóm sa a e retounen li a pwofesé pitit ou a ( ).

Chak elév ki retounen fóm sa e paran yo te siyen fóm nan ap genyen yon chans pou yo jwenn yon rekonpans nan yon bwat ke nou genyen ki gen anpil trezo la dan li. Tout elév yo ap jwenn yon pri menn si paran yo pa vle yo

patisipe nan etid la.

Si ou geyen okenn pwoblem oubyen keksyon de etid rechéch sa silvouple ou ka rele mwen nan (561) 969-5870 ext. 75926 oubyen ou ka rele sipévizé mwen ki se Dr. Lydia R. Smiley nan (561) 297-3287. ou ka rele biwo de Division

Research of Florida Atlantic University nan (561) 297-0777. si ou gen okenn keksyon de dwa oumenn ak pitit ou a

genyen de etid rechéch sa a.

Mési paske ou ap konsidere pou pitit ou payisipe nan etid rechéch sa a.

Senséman,

Kim DiLorenzo Forest Hill Elementé


94

Fóm de Konsantman

Paran/Responsab

1) Tit de Etid Rechéch sa a: Enstwi lasyans an mwayen resipwók pou klas elemanté yo.

2) Investigator (moun ki an chaj etid sa): Lydia R. Smiley, Ph.D. e Kim DiLorenzo, M.Ed. (graduate student) etidyan

3) Entansyon: Rezon pou etid rechéch sa a se pou nou ka devlope yon egzamen ki genyen efikas enstriman e ki

valab pou lót rechéch nan avni an. Nou ap kolekte diferan estrateji pou pwofesé yo ka itilize avék elév yo nan klas lasyan yo. Elév yo ap aprann pou yo itilize espesifik estrateji sa yo pou fé devwa lekti an mwayen resipwók.

4) Sistém nan: Pitit ou a ap aprann pou yo itilize espesifik estrateji lé yo ap fé prediksyon, lé yo ap mande kesyon,

lé yo ap klarifye devwa yo, e lé yo ap fé rezime pou yo ka konprann keksyon yo pi byen. Nou ap anseye tout pwofesé yo de etid la e kijan yo ka enstwi elév yo pi byen lé yo ap li lekti nan mwayen resipwók. Nou ap anseye

diferan estrateji pou pwofesé yo ka itilize avék elév yo nan klas yo.

Chak sesyon pou etid la ap pran 35 oubyen 45 minit pou 20 jou de lekól la. Nan tout sesyon yo Pwofesé nan klas lasyans yo ap itilize liv lasyans ke Palm Beach County distrik la te bay yo a pou anseye elév yo nan klas yo.

pwofesé yo ap anseye elév yo pou fé lekti kopreyansyon nan lasyans, pou yo ka konprann liv lasyan yo pi byen.

Pitit ou a ap patisipe nan 3 sesyon leson ki ap pran 30 minit nan etid la. nan chak sesyon, elév yo ap li nan liv

lasyans ke distrikk la ba yo a, epi yo ap reponn 10 keksyon pou chak leson yo. Pwen pou egzamen sa yo ap detémine ki keksyon ki gen pi plis rezilta ki genyen menm konsistans. Mwen ap itilize pwen egzamen sa yo pou ka

fé etid rechéch sa a .Mwen ap mande ou pémisyon pou mwen kapab itilise enfómasyon pitit ou pou etid rechéch sa

a.

Si ou pa vle pou pitit ou patisipe nan etid sa a, pwofesé a ap toujou ba li enfómasyon yo men mwen pa kapab itilize

pwen egzamen sa yo pou ka fé etid rechéch sa a.

5) Risk: Pa genyen okenn risk nan etid sa pou okenn elév. Yo ap aprann menm mwayen yo toujou aprann nan klas yo

6) Benefis: Patisipasyon pitit ou ap ede li aprann pou itilize espesifik estrateji pou lé li ap fé lekti lasyans.

7) Kote nou antre Enfómasyon yo: Nou mete tout enfómasyon de pitit ou a nan yon plas ki konfidansyél. Pwen

egzamen pitit ou a ap anomin. Sél mwen menm avék pwofesé lasyans yo ki ka konnen de tout detay de pitit ou e

egzamen yo, amwenske lalwa di nou non. Nou ap konséve enfómasyon pitit ou a pou 5 ane epi nou ap detwi

enfómasyon yo apre sa.

8) Enfómasyon pou ou ka kontakte nou: Si ou geyen okenn pwoblem oubyen keksyon de etid rechéch sa ou ka

rele biwo de Sponsored Research of Florida Atlantic University nan (561) 297-2310.ou ka rele mwen Kim

DiLorenzo nan (561) 969-5870 ext. 75926 oubyen Dr. Lydia R. Smiley at (561) 297-3287 si ou paran ta genyen okenn pwoblem obyen keksyon de etid rechéch sa a.

9) Rapó Fóm de konsantman: Mwen te li tout enfómasyon sa e li esplike etid rechéch la. tout keksyon mwen

genyen yo te reponn e mwen satisfé. Mwen vle ke pitit mewn pran pa nan etid rechéch sa a. pitit mwen ka sispann fé etid la nenpót lé nou vle san pwoblém. Mwen ka mande pou yo ban mwen tout enfómasyon pitit mwen fé nan

etid rechéch la, oubyen mwen ka mande pou yo dtwi enfómasyon nou apre sa. Mwen te jwenn yon kopi de

konsantman fóm sa a.

Non Elév la: ______________________________________ Non Pwofesé a: __________________________

Siyati de paran/responsab ______________________________________ Dat: _______________________

Siyati de moun ki an chaj la: _____________________________________ Dat: _______________________

95

CONSENT FORM

Teacher

1) Title of Research Study: Reciprocal Teaching of Science in Inclusive Elementary Classes

2) Investigator: Lydia R. Smiley, Ph. D. and Kim E. DiLorenzo, M. Ed. (graduate student)

3) Purpose: The purpose of this research study is to assess the effects of reciprocal teaching, a

collection of strategies presented during conversations while reading text, which may improve reading comprehension in the content area of science. Students were selected to receive instruction using

reciprocal teaching as a result of classroom assignment.

4) Procedures: Teachers of the inclusive science classes in grades four and five will be asked to

participate in this study. Each teacher will be trained by the study investigator as to the specific methods

to use to teach and facilitate the use of the instructional strategies used in reciprocal teaching.

Training will be completed in one (1) session to take place after school hours. The session will include

an introduction to the theoretical background as well as past research completed using reciprocal

teaching. Teachers will be exposed to the strategies and process of reciprocal teaching via videos and

written material.

Teachers will be requested to implement the reciprocal teaching procedures using the science text for a

period of 20 consecutive school days. Students will be asked to complete three (3) researcher tests.

Teachers agree to allow weekly, unscheduled observations to be completed for the purpose of treatment

fidelity.

5) Risks: The risks involved with participation in this study are no more than one would experience in

regular daily activities.

6) Benefits: The primary benefit for the teachers will be professional development in instruction of

reading g comprehension in the content areas.

7) Data Collection & Storage: Student scores will be coded to ensure anonymity. Only those involved

in the study will see student data, unless required by law. Fidelity checklists will be coded to ensure

teacher anonymity. Teachers will be asked not to discuss the study with any individual involved in the

study. The data will be kept for five years and then destroyed.

8) Contact Information: For questions about the study call the project investigators Kim DiLorenzo at

(561) 969-5870 ext. 75926 or Dr. Lydia Smiley at (561) 297-3287.

9) Consent Statement: I have read or had read to me the preceding information describing this study.

All my questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I am 18 years of age or older and freely consent to my participation. I have received a copy of this consent form.

Student Name: ________________________ Classroom Teacher: ___________________

Signature of Subject’s Parent or Guardian ________________________ Date: _________

Signature of Investigator: _____________________________________ Date: _________

Appendix C

Student Tests

97

STUDENT NUMBER: ______________ 4th Grade Pretest

DIRECTIONS: Read each question carefully. Circle the letter of the best answer for

each question.

1. What are the two ways Earth moves? (Literal)

A. By rotating and revolving

B. By tilting and cycling

C. By circling and tilting

D. By rotating and tilting

2. What day marks the beginning of autumn? (Literal)

A. June 21

B. December 21

C. September 21

D. March 21

3. What is an axis? (Literal)

A. The path one object in space takes around another object

B. An imaginary line through both poles

C. Energy from the Sun

D. The day of the year that has the most hours of daylight

4. When is the summer solstice? (Literal)

A. December 21

B. June 21

C. September 21

D. March 21

5. What is the phase of the Moon called when none of the lit side can be seen from

Earth? (Literal)

A. New Moon

B. First Quarter

C. Full Moon

D. Third Quarter

6. What happens as the Northern Hemisphere is tilted away from the Sun causing

winter? (Interpretive)

A. The Northern Hemisphere tilts toward the Sun causing winter

B. The Southern Hemisphere tilts toward the Sun causing summer

C. The Northern Hemisphere tilts away from the Sun causing summer

D. The Southern Hemisphere tilts away from the Sun causing winter

98

7. When do the Sun’s rays shine the most directly on the Northern Hemisphere?

(Interpretive)

A. During December, January, and February

B. During June, July, and August

C. During September, October, and November

D. During March, April, May

8. How does Earth’s orbit affect the amount of heat different parts of Earth get from

the Sun? (Interpretive)

A. The part of Earth that is tilted toward the Sun takes in less heat energy

B. The part of Earth that is tilted away the Sun takes in more heat energy

C. The part of Earth that is tilted toward the Sun takes in more heat energy

D. The part of Earth that is tilted toward the Sun has more hours of darkness

9. What occurs after three years have 365 days each? (Interpretive)

A. A Full Moon

B. A summer solstice

C. A Leap Year

D. An Autumn Equinox

10. From the December 21 solstice to the March 21 equinox, would you expect the

days in North America to get shorter or longer? (Application)

A. Shorter because more of North America is tilted toward the Sun

B. Shorter because more of North America is tilted away from the Sun

C. Longer because more of North America is tilted toward the Sun

D. Longer because more of North America is tilted away from the Sun

99

STUDENT NUMBER: ______________ 4th Grade Posttest


each question.

1. Which planet has rings that you can see with a telescope? (Literal)

A. Mars

B. Mercury

C. Venus

D. Saturn

2. Compared to Earth, which of the following planets has the longest year? (Literal)

A. Mars

B. Jupiter

C. Saturn

D. Neptune

3. Which of the outer planets rotates on its side? (Literal)

A. Jupiter

B. Saturn

C. Uranus

D. Neptune

4. Which of the inner planets is the hottest? (Literal)

A. Mars

B. Earth

C. Venus

D. Mercury

5. What is the correct order of the inner planets from the Sun to the asteroid belt?

(Literal)

A. Venus, Earth, Mercury, Mars

B. Venus, Earth, Mars, Mercury

C. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars

D. Earth, Mars, Mercury, Venus

6. How are moons and planets similar? (Interpretive)

A. They are both objects that orbit other objects

B. They are both made of gases

C. They have similar lengths of years

D. They both orbit around the Sun

100

7. How are the gas giants different from Pluto? (Interpretive)

A. The gas giants are close to the Sun while Pluto is the furthest from the Sun

B. The gas giants are made of rock while Pluto is made of gases

C. The gas giants have no moons while Pluto has many

D. The gas giants are huge while Pluto is very small

8. Why do we call our system a solar system? (Interpretive)

A. Because everything orbits around the Moon

B. Because the Sun is the most powerful star

C. Because everything orbits around the Sun

D. Because the Sun is the largest object in our solar system

9. How did the inner planets get their name? (Interpretive)

A. They are farthest from the Sun

B. They are closest to the Sun

C. They are all made of rock

D. They are all made of gases

10. What would happen if Earth no longer had liquid water on its surface and oxygen

in the atmosphere? (Application)

A. Humans could no longer live on Earth

B. Humans would have to drink bottled water

C. Humans would have to live in caves

D. Humans would have to buy oxygen tanks

101

STUDENT NUMBER: ______________ 4th Grade Follow-up Test


each question.

1. Which system protects the organs inside your body?

A. Circulatory system

B. Skeletal system

C. Muscular system

D. Digestive system

2. What part of the bone makes red blood cells?

A. The joint

B. The outer part

C. The center

D. The hinges

3. Which muscle makes up the walls of your heart?

A. Cardiac muscle

B. Smooth muscle

C. Skeletal muscle

D. Joint muscle

4. What connects bones together at the joints?

A. ligaments

B. Tendons

C. Muscles

D. Marrow

5. What makes it possible for most bones to move at the places they meet?

A. Marrow

B. Tendons

C. Joints

D. Muscles

6. Look at the picture of the skeletal system on page 423. What bone protects your

brain?

A. Skull

B. Radius

C. Pelvis

D. Femur

7. Look at the picture of the skeletal system on page 423. What are the names of the

bones in the leg?

102

A. Radius, ulna, pelvis

B. Radius, ulna, humerus

C. Femur, tibia, fibia

D. Femur, tibia, pelvis

8. Muscles work together to move bones back and forth. At least how many muscles

work together to move a bone?

A. 1

B. 2

C. 3

D. 4

9. How are smooth muscles like cardiac muscles?

A. They both need to be told how to move

B. They both move on their own

C. They both help digest food

D. The both help pass waste through the body.

10. Anthony was tackled during a football game. He broke his humerus and had to be

rushed to the hospital. What part of his body did h hurt?

A. Head

B. Arm

C. Chest

D. Leg

103

STUDENT NUMBER: _________________________ 5TH

Grade Pretest


each question.

1. What season is it in the Southern Hemisphere when it is summer in the Northern

Hemisphere? (Literal)

A. Summer

B. Spring

C. Winter

D. Fall

2. Where was the highest temperature (58°) ever recorded? (Literal)

A. Antarctica

B. Arizona

C. Egypt

D. Libya

3. Which of the following causes seasonal changes on Earth? (Literal)

A. The tilt of Earth’s axis

B. The shape of the sun’s orbit

C. The changing shape of Earth’s orbit

D. Earth’s position relative to the moon

4. What is the name of the day which has the least hours of daylight called? (Literal)

A. Winter solstice

B. Autumn equinox

C. Summer solstice

D. Spring Equinox

5. On which day does the spring equinox usually occur in the Northern Hemisphere?

(Literal)

A. June 20

B. December 21

C. September 22

D. March 20

6. The South Pole has a summer of nonstop sunlight but it’s always cold. How is this

possible? (Interpretive)

A. The sun’s rays are at a low angle and too spread out to warm the area

B. Earth is tilted away from the direct sunlight

C. It is never warm during the summer solstice

D. The sun’s rays are blocked by clouds

104

7. If Earth were not tilted on its axis, how would life be different? (Interpretive)

A. It would be too hot for humans to survive

B. It would be too cold for humans to survive

C. There would be no seasons

D. The angle of the sun’s rays would be different each month

8. In North America, why is it warmer during the summer than during the winter?

(Interpretive)

A. Earth is closer to the sun

B. More warm fronts pass through

C. There are fewer clouds to reflect the sunlight

D. Sunlight strikes Earth’s surface more directly

9. Where would someone live if they experienced 12 hours of sunlight every day?

(Interpretive)

A. At the North Pole

B. At the South Pole

C. At the International Date Line

D. At the Equator

10. The Sun is at the center of the solar system. Which description best describes the

Sun’s effect on Earth (Application).

A. It shines on Earth only during the daytime

B. It shines on the Moon only once a month

C. It provides Earth with heat and light during the daytime

D. It provides Earth with heat and light all of the time

105

STUDENT NUMBER: ______________ 5th Grade Posttest


each question.

1. What are two ways scientists classify stars? (Literal)

A. color and brightness

B. energy and flares

C. size and distance

D. size and brightness

2. Which is not a type of galaxy? (Literal)

A. barred spiral

B. circular

C. elliptical

D. irregular

3. What are Saturn’s rings made of? (Literal)

A. Hydrogen, helium, moon, and asteroids

B. Stars, dust, gravity, and solar flares

C. Ice, dust, boulders, and frozen gas

D. Asteroids, stars, helium, and hydrogen

4. Where is the asteroid belt? (Literal)

A. In the nebula

B. In Saturn’s rings

C. Between Jupiter and Mars

D. Between Earth and Venus

5. What is a constellation? (Literal)

A. A group of stars that has a name

B. The force between any two objects

C. Asteroids

D. Gas giants made of hydrogen and helium

6. What is the sun’s position and movement in the Milky Way Galaxy? (Interpretive)

A. In a cluster called the Local Group

B. As a nebula clumped together as a prostostar

C. As a spiral arm which makes its way around the center of the galaxy every 200-250

million years

D. Within a black hole

106

7. Max wants to make a model of the solar system for his room at home. He knows the

asteroid belt should be included, but he isn’t sure why it is so important. What would

you tell him? (Interpretive)

A. It divides the inner planets from the outer planets.

B. It is the brightest object besides the moon in the night sky.

C. All the planets beyond the asteroid belt are gas giants.

D. The asteroids once held liquid water and, therefore, offer important clues to how

life began on Earth.

8. Susie is learning about the groups of stars that are called constellations. Using a star

map, she identifies the group of stars knows as The Little Dipper. This group of stars

is shown below.

What can Susie say is true about the Little Dipper by looking at it in the night sky?

(Interpretive)

A. The North Star is part of the Little Dipper.

B. The North Star is the star that is closest to Earth.

C. The Little Dipper can be seen only when looking though a telescope.

D. The Little Dipper is the only group of stars known as a constellation.

9. Why was the telescope an important invention? (Interpretive)

A. Because it prevents scientists from burning their eyes while looking at planets

B. Because stars are difficult to see at night

C. Because humans would be unable to see far into space without it

D. Because it helps robots when traveling in space

10. Using the information provided in the text box on page 340, determine which

planet has the strongest pull of gravity. (Application)

A. Mercury

B. Earth

C. Venus

D. Mars

107

STUDENT NAME: ______________ 5th Grade Follow-up

DIRECTIONS: DIRECTIONS: Read each question carefully. Circle the letter of the

best answer for each question.

1. How did cells get their name? (Literal)

A. Because they looked like onion skill

B. Because they looked like tiny rooms

C. Because they can be observed using a microscope

D. Because they are tiny organisms

2. What is an organism? (Literal)

A. A characteristic of a cell

B. Any living thing that is microscopic

C. Any living thing that maintains vital life processes

D. Anything (living or nonliving) that can only be seen using a microscope

3. What is a protest? (Literal)

A. A single-celled organism with a nucleus and organelles

B. A single-celled organism without a nucleus and organelles

C. An organelle that directs a cell’s activities

D. An organelle that stores food, water, or waste

4. Which organelle directs a cell’s activities? (Literal)

A. Cytoplasm

B. Mitochondrion

C. Nucleus

D. Vacuole

5. What is the jellylike material that contains chemicals that help keep a cell healthy

called? (Literal)

A. Cell membrane

B. Nucleus

C. Mitochondrion

D. Cytoplasm

6. How do cells keep organisms alive and healthy? (Interpretive)

A. They work together to carry out life processes

B. They are made of huge numbers

C. They work together to make water

D. They work together to form muscle groups

7. How are a salamander’s skin cells like a plant cell’s outer cells? (Interpretive)

108

A. They both feed the organism

B. They both help the organism move

C. They both keep the organism from losing too much water

D. They both help the organism break down food

8. Which of the following is an example of an organism? (Interpretive)

A. An amoeba

B. A salamander

C. A Flower

D. All of the above

9. Look at the comparison chart on page 363. How are plant cells different from

animal cells? (Interpretive)

A. Animal cells do NOT have a nucleus

B. Plant cells do NOT have a cell membrane

C. Plant cells have chloroplast

D. Animal cells have mitochondrion

10. While looking at a slide through a microscope, you notice cells with cell walls but

without chloroplast. What kind of cells are you looking at? (Application)

A. Plant cells

B. Animal cells

C. Bacteria cells

D. Protist cells

Appendix D

Teacher Training Materials

110

111

113

DAILY LESSON PAGE

GRADE 4

Date:

Day 9

Strand: D: Processes that Shape the Earth Standard/Benchmark: SC.D.1.2.4 Objectives: The student knows that the surface of the Earth is in a continuous state of change

as waves, weather, and shifts of the land constantly change and produce many new features.

Materials:

1. Bellringer- January 11 2. Student text pages 262 3. Reciprocal Teaching script (Day 9; Guided Practice Script) 4. Fantastic Four poster

5. Question word poster 6. Fix-up Strategies poster 7. Character bookmarks (overheads) 8. Character bookmarks (for individual students) 9. Teacher Tracking of Student Roles in Cooperative Groups 10. Coaching Prompts/ Overcoming the Difficulties That Students Experience with Reciprocal

Teaching Strategies

11. Groups Directions overhead 12. Group Performance Checklists 13. Brainpop: Erosion 14. Brainpop follow-up page: Categorize the Landforms (student copies and teacher key)

Activities:

1. Bell-ringer- a. Teacher displays daily bell-ringer on projector and allows students two minutes to

answer in their science journals b. Teacher reviews answer

2. Reciprocal Teaching- see script 3. Watch Brainpop: Erosion 4. Complete worksheet identifying how different types of landforms are created Assessment:

1. Response to bell-ringer 2. Reciprocal Teaching- Teacher will observe and document student participation using

Group Performance Checklist 3. Responses on Categorize the Landforms Teacher Comments/Concerns:

114

GUIDED PRACTICE SCRIPT (4th

Grade):

The teacher will need to gather materials from other sections of the binder for this

script. You will need:

The overheads of the bookmarks

Individual bookmarks for student use

The role assignment class chart

Group Performance Checklist

Coaching Prompts

Overcoming the Difficulties That Students Experience with Reciprocal

Teaching Strategies page

Group Directions page

The students will work in their groups independently. The teacher will monitor

strategy use as he or she circulates providing input (coaching prompts) and monitoring

each group’s performance using a checklist.

The students will work together for one subsection for a set amount of time and then

the teacher will bring them back together to review. The procedure of review (after the

students have completed the entire reading) will be similar to guided group practice.

The teacher will lead the through the paragraphs but the text will not be read aloud.

Instead, the teacher will call on groups to list one prediction and how they came up

with it, what needed clarifying, and what fix-up strategies were used, two questions,

and what important details they came up with. Students will also be invited to

comment on the predictions, clarifications, summaries and main idea points of other

students. This will be repeated for the remainder of the subsections until the end of the

lesson is reached.

(Teacher script is bold. Directions for the teacher are not.)

Today we are going to read about erosion.

I am going to pass out the strategy (character) bookmarks. Then we are going to

review the Fantastic Four Procedures.

Assign and document the roles for the day on the role assignment class chart. Give out

bookmarks.

Let’s review the Fantastic Four...the Superheroes of Reading Comprehension.

Who remembers what Peggy and Peter do?

Allow responses. Put overhead of Peter and Peggy on the projector.

Correct. Peggy and Peter think aloud as they make predication about the text.

115

Predictors, what do your bookmarks remind you to do as your group reads?

Allow responses.

That’s right! Your bookmark reminds you that your job is to lead the group

through the assigned pages and make predictions based on the pictures, graphs,

tables, and headings.

You will use phrases such as: I think, I’ll bet, I wonder if, and I predict as you

make predications.

OK. Who is next? How about Clara and Clarence? What is their job?

Allow responses. Put overhead of Clara and Clarence on the projector.

Clarifiers- look at your bookmark. What does it remind you to do?

Allow responses.

You are correct! It has pictures of the fix-up strategies. Your job is to

recommend one of these strategies to help your teammate decode or understand

what he or she is reading. Let’s review what each of these pictures represents.

Allow responses.

The poster of the fix-up strategies is here (point) for you to look at in care you

forget what one of the pictures represents.

But- are there any other fix-up strategies that are not one this bookmark?

Allow responses.

Yes, you could also use a dictionary or the glossary to help you understand the

meaning of the word.

You could skip the word and read around it to try to figure out the meaning from

the context.

And of course, you can always ask me.

Now let’s think about Quinn and Quincy. Who remembers what they do?

Allow responses. Put overhead of Quinn and Quincy on the projector.

Great remembering! Quinn and Quincy think aloud as they ask questions about

the text.

Questioners- look at your bookmark. What does it remind you to do?

Allow responses.

116

Yes! It lists special words that most questions start with. It reminds you that you

can ask questions before, during, and after you read. It also reminds you to be

thinking of questions that a teacher might ask.

How about Sammy and Sue? What is their job?

Allow responses. Put overhead of Sammy and Sue on the projector.

You’re right again! Sammy and Sue think aloud as they identify details in the

paragraphs and reword them into a simple summary.

Can someone tell me what their job is as the group reads the text?

Allow responses.

True! They will reread and think aloud in order to determine the most important

details of each paragraph.

He or she will point out key vocabulary, definitions, and supporting details about

a topic.

He or she will orally summarize the information for each paragraph.

After the group has reached the end of the section, he or she will orally provide a

complete summary of the section.

Let’s look at your bookmark. How does this bookmark help you to remember

what you are supposed to do?

Allow responses.

Correct! The pictures of Sammy and Sue putting together a puzzle are to help

you remember that you need to fit the important details together into a concise

summary like you would put together a puzzle.

Last are Larry and Lydia Leader. Who can tell me some of their responsibilities?

Allow responses.

That’s right. Larry and Lydia assist the other characters in working together to

understand what is read.

Good readers often need to use several strategies when reading. That is why

Larry and Lydia are important. They help coordinate everyone.

117

Today you are going to read an entire section of the text and use the Fantastic

Four in teams (groups) on your own. When you are finished, we will come back

together as a group and review each paragraph in the section and combine the

summaries of each paragraph to discover the main idea of the subsection. I will

be walking around listening and helping when you need it.

We’re just about ready but we need to review your roles in the group. Take a

look at the group directions.

Put overhead of Group Directions on the projector.

You will read all of page 262. Notice that there are three paragraphs. You will

work through one paragraph at a time, using your strategies. When you get to

the end of the page you have finished the subsection of this lesson. At this point,

Sammy and Sue will draw attention to the most important details of the

subsection and form a summary.

Here are the group directions: Place Group Directions page on projector.

At the beginning of each paragraph, Larry and Lydia will ask Peggy and Peter to

make predications. Then you will begin reading. Peggy/Peter will read first,

Quinn and Quincy read second, Clara and Clarence read third, Sammy and Sue

read last (or fourth if you have five people in your group), then Larry and Lydia

will read last.

Does anyone have any questions?

OK. Open your books to page 262. You will read all of page 262 and then we will

review. Make sure you are using your strategies while you are reading the text as

well as the charts, graphs, and picture captions!

I will leave the group directions on the projector for you to look at if you get

stuck.

Walk around among the groups and listen to the students’ interactions. Allow the

students to figure out their own problems as a group. Only intervene if the students are

way off the mark and no one in the group is able to clarify correctly, create a good

question, or details have been ignored.

Write notes as to how the students are using the strategies in each group using the

Group Performance Checklist.

After the students have finished reading the text, review what they just read. Don’t go

paragraph by paragraph- this will take too long. Call on students that you noted as

using the strategies correctly.

Alright. Now we are going to review what we just read. Remember, good readers

read to understand. We are going to see how well you all understood the text by

reviewing what you did in your groups. I am going to call on individuals to

demonstrate how they completed specific tasks in their groups.

118

Go through the section quickly. Ask one Leader to begin. Then ask one Predictor, one

Clarifier, one Questioner, and one Summarizer the following questions:

Larry/Lydia, did your group work well together? Did everyone think aloud as

they played their part (used their strategy)?

Allow response.

Excellent! Is there anything your group needs to work on?

Allow response. Reword response (if necessary) so all students to understand.

Peggy/Peter, tell us one of your predictions.

Predictor responds. Listen for key phrases such as: I think, I’ll bet, I wonder if, or I

predict.

How did you come up with that prediction?

Predictor’s answer may include: by looking at pictures, graphs, tables, and headings.

Was your prediction correct?

Predictor responds.

How do you know?

Predictor responds.

The group may not have completed the section that the answer is in before time was

called. Predictor should e encourages to acknowledge that fact and state that he or she

is unsure of the prediction.

Clara/Clarence, did anyone need clarifying?

Clarifier responds.

What did you do?

Clarifier responds.

Did it help?

Clarifier responds

Quinn/Quincy, tell us one of your questions.

119

Questioner responds.

If the question needs reworking, guide the student by saying...

Maybe you could word the question like this...

If the question to be a higher order question, say...

That’s a great question. You could make that even better by asking it like this...

If you reworded the question or if the question was acceptable in its original form

say...

Great job! Was anyone able to answer your question?


Was he or she correct?


Finally, I would like to hear from Sammy/Sue. Tell us what details you thought

were very important.

Summarizer responds.

Why do you think these details are important?


Can you give a simple, concise summary of the section?


Teacher may need to add/delete information from the summary. Remember to explain

why the changes were made. This is a summary, not a retelling.

Great job. You included the all of the most important details in your summary.

I agree that ____ and _____ are important details, however, I might have left out

____ because _____

Yes! Your summary included details about _____ but I think you should have

included _____ too because _____.

Great job using your strategies today.

120

DAILY LESSON PAGE

GRADE 5

Date:

Day 5

Strand: D: Processes that Shape the Earth Standard/Benchmark: SC.D.1.2.1 Objectives: The student knows that larger rocks can be broken down into smaller rocks,

which in turn can be broken down to combine with organic material to form soil.

Materials:

15. Bellringer- January 11 16. Student text pages 226-229 17. Reciprocal Teaching script (Day 5; Teacher Modeling of All Four Strategies) 18. Fantastic Four poster

19. Question word poster 20. Fix-up Strategies poster

Activities:

5. Bell-ringer- a. Teacher displays daily bell-ringer on projector and allows students two minutes to

answer in their science journals

b. Teacher reviews answer 6. Reciprocal Teaching- see script Assessment:

4. Response to bell-ringer 5. Reciprocal Teaching- Teacher will observe student attempts using targeted strategies Teacher Comments/Concerns:

121

SCRIPT FOR MOEDLING HOW ALL FOUR STRATEGIES ARE USED

TOGETHER (5th

Grade):

Over the past four days we have learned about the Fantastic Four: the

Superheroes of Reading Comprehension. Who can tell me the name of tone of the

four strategies?

Go through all four strategies the same way:

Yes, _____ is one of the Fantastic Four. What makes it fantastic?

Yes, it helps you _____

Can anyone give me an example of when or how you would use this strategy?

PREDICTING: A prediction can help you prepare for what you are about to learn. It

may also help you set a purpose for reading.

QUESTIONING: Questions can be asked before, during, and after you read. They can

help you understand what is read and deepen your understanding of a topic by making

connections to other topics.

CLARIFYING: Clarifying helps good readers recognize when he or she does not

understand a word or a paragraph and should use fix-up strategies to help decode or

understand the meaning.

SUMMARIZING: Summarizing helps you figure out the most important information

(details) in the text and put it in a logical order.

Does anyone have questions about the Fantastic Four?

After all strategies have been reviewed and questions have been answered, the teacher

will model how to use all four strategies together.

Now we are going to learn how to use the Fantastic Four together while reading about

_____ in our science book. The Fantastic Four are great by themselves, but they are

FANTASTIC when they are used together. Let’s see if we can figure out why.

I am going to show you how I use all Fantastic Four strategies while I read page

_____ in your science text. Please open your books to page _____ and follow

along.

First, I will pretend to be Peggy/Peter Predictor and think aloud as I make

predictions about the text.

122

I will go through the pages and look at the pictures and the graphs as well as the

headings and words that are highlighted in yellow. I will do this so I can form a

PREDICTION about what I will learn.

Go through the pages and make predictions.

Examples of predictions are:

I predict that this section will be about _____ because I see pictures of _____ on

this page.

I’ll bet I will learn about _____ because I see _____ (picture caption).

I think I will learn more about _____ because it’s the title of this section.

I think I will learn about _____ because the word is highlighted in yellow in the

text.

Walk around as you go through the process of analyzing the pages and point out what

you are talking about. This will also help keep students engaged in the lesson.

I am going to read now to see if my predictions are correct.

Begin reading.

The teacher reads the entire first section of the lesson, working slowly through each

paragraph. Don’t forget to read picture captions and information from tables and/or

graphs. The teacher will stop and demonstrate fix-up strategies that the students may

use as they read.

Examples of clarifying:

Wow! What does _____ mean? What am I supposed to do now? Oh yeah, I can

pretend to be Clara/Clarence Clarifier and look at my fix-up strategies. Hmmm.

Look at the picture. Maybe the picture will help. Oh! Now I get it (explain

connection).

Jeez! Look at this big word! How am I supposed to read this word- it’s huge!

Maybe a fix-up strategy can help. I’ll just look at the list of fix-up strategies...I

think I am going to try to look at the first part of the word. That didn’t help. Is

there a part of the word that I know? What if I try chunking the word? I think

the word is _____. Does that make sense? Let me reread the sentence to see if it

does (reread). Cool. It does make sense.

123

What???? That doesn’t make any sense. I am going to see if there is a fix-up

strategy to help me figure this out. Maybe rereading the sentence (reread). Nope.

That didn’t help. Maybe one of my group members can help me with this.

Whew!! Now what am I supposed to do? Check that I understood the meaning of

the paragraph. I can do this by asking questions.

The teacher will model questions that address all six levels within Bloom’s Taxonomy

(knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) at the

appropriate times in the text.

Now I need to figure out what the most important information is in the paragraph.

I kind of already did this because I asked questions about things that I thought

were important.

This paragraph is mostly about...hmmm.... Maybe I should use the summarizing

strategy here. It appears that when I summarize, I focus on the most important

details. Sometimes the heading of a section can give me a clue about an important

detail. Let me look at the heading. Words that are highlighted in yellow are

important vocabulary words for the section. The definition of the word is usually

right around the highlighted word. I bet this is important.

Continue to model using the strategies for the subsection of text. Make sure you stop

and confirm/correct predictions as you come to them.

When you have finished the section, ask the students what they thought about how

you worked through the section.

That’s it for the first section. Does anyone have any questions?

Allow students to ask. Respond to all questions. Remind students of purpose of using

these strategies (to understand the text).

Repeat the same procedure of thinking aloud using the text for the next section.

Review the same way.

Students will practice using the strategies together in their groups.

Alright, now it’s your turn. You will work with one (or two for groups of five)

person in your group to read the last section of the text. I will be walking around,

listening to hear you using your strategies while you read.

This is what I want you to do. Turn to page _____. One of you will read the

paragraph, the other will listen.

The reader will think aloud as he or she used the Fantastic Four strategies.

124

After the paragraph has been read, the reader will provide a summary about the

paragraph. While the reader reads and uses the strategies aloud, the listener will

help out when needed.

You may help by suggesting a fix-up strategy.

You might help reword a question.

You could point out the answer to a prediction.

You might need to help the reader create a summary.

It all depends on what happens as the reader reads.

Pause.

Then you will switch roles. The reader becomes the listener. The listener becomes

the reader.

For groups of three, students will be instructed to rotate reader role. The other

two in the group will both serve as listeners.

The reader will think aloud as he or she reads the entire paragraph. The listener

will help when he or she is needed.

Pause.

You are going to trade roles for the section. There are _____ paragraphs in this

section so each person will read _____ times and be the listener _____ times.

Any questions?

OK. I want you to read page(s) _____ now. After everyone has finished, I will call

on partners to guide me through the paragraphs that you read by demonstrating

how you used the Fantastic Four as you read.

The teacher will circulate among the groups and provide scaffolded support as needed.

After the lesson is completed the teacher will review.

Wow! You guys did a great job today.

You showed how you can confirm/correct predictions by _____.

You formed questions like _____.

You showed how you can monitor your understanding of the text by using fix-up

strategies to _____.

You were also able to find the most important details and provide summaries like

_____.

125

I am very proud of you and you should be proud of yourselves. You used the

Superheroes of Reading Comprehension to help you understand what you read.

Appendix E

Classroom Posters

127

Who? What? Where? When?

What comes next? Why? How?

What do you think you will learn? Ask questions BEFORE,

DURING,

Use these phrases... and AFTER you read

I think...

I’ll bet...

I wonder if...

I predict...

Look carefully at the

Text and use FIX-UP Put together the

STRATEGIES to help most important

understand a word or parts to form one

an idea. MAIN IDEA for the

section

128

won-der-ful

th-ink

str-ing

ring

start

fish

Fix-up Strategies:

cat

she

tree

129

QUESTION

WORD

WHAT IT ASKS

WHAT

Asks about people or things

WHERE

Asks about a place

WHO

Asks about a person or a

character

WHEN

Asks about time

WHY

Asks about a reason

or a cause

HOW

Asks about a procedure

or condition

Appendix F

Forming Teams

131

FORMING TEAMS (Kagan & Kagan, 2006)

First the teacher wrote each student’s name on the upper left corner of a 3 x 5 index card. Scores from

the FY’09 FCAT Reading, predicted levels from the Fall Diagnostic Reading Assessment, and the Fall

SRI (Scholastic Reading Inventory) score were written in the lower left corner of the index card.

Indicators for students at-risk for academic failure such as: a) eligibility for free or reduced price meals,

b) minority status, c) being a non-native English speaker, and d) being a male student was written on

the lower right hand corner of the card. Each student was given a colored dot on the upper right corner

of the card indicating reading level.

Finally, the cards were randomly placed in rows to create heterogeneous groups. In classes with more

than 20 students, a student will be added to a group making up to three groups with five students, if

necessary.

Adapted from: Kagan , L. & Kagan, S. (2006). Structures for cooperative learning and active engagement workbook. San

Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing

Name

Scores Risk

Indicators

Reading Level Codes:

Above grade level (AGL) (blue)

Grade level (GL) (green)

Minimally below grade level (MBGL) (yellow)

Below grade level (BGL) (red)

1 2 3 4 5

AGL

GL

MBGL

BGL

Appendix G

Summary of Daily Instructional Procedures

133

Summary of Daily Instructional Procedures

Day Teacher Procedures/ Role Student Procedures/ Role Materials

1 Assign students to groups

Use Day 1 script to:

Define strategies used in RT

Define use of predicting

strategy using Peggy/Peter

Predictor overhead

Model using predicting

strategy use with science text

Provide guided practice

using predicting

Use scaffolding to shape

student responses

Review predicting strategy

Provide information

regarding the next day’s

lesson

Listen to instructions and

descriptions

Respond to teacher

questions

Practice using predicting

strategy as part of whole

group

Collaboratively practice

using predicting strategy

in small groups

Day 1 script

Fantastic Four poster

Peggy/Peter

Predictor

overhead

Curriculum

materials

2 Use Day 2 script to:

Review predicting strategy

Discuss question words and

forming good questions

Define use of questioning

strategy using Quinn and

Quincy overhead

Instruct students to use

predicting strategy

Model using questioning

strategy with science text


using questioning


student responses

Review questioning and

predicting strategies

Provide information


lesson


descriptions

Respond to teacher

questions


strategy as part of whole

group


using questioning strategy

in small groups

Day 2 script

Fantastic Four

poster

Question word poster

Quinn and

Quincy overhead

Curriculum

materials

Bloom’s

Taxonomy Flip

Chart


Review predicting and questioning strategies

Define use of clarifying

strategy using Clara and

Clarence overhead


predicting and questioning

strategy

Model using fix-up strategies

with science text


using questioning


student responses


descriptions

Respond to teacher

questions


and questioning strategies

as part of whole group


using clarifying strategy in

small groups

Day 3 script

Fantastic Four poster

Question word

poster

Fix-up strategies

poster

Clara and

Clarence

overhead

Curriculum

materials

Overhead of

poem:

Independent

134

Review clarifying,

predicting, and questioning

strategies

Provide information


lesson

Strategies by Jill

Marie Warner


Review predicting,

questioning, and clarifying

strategies

Differentiate between

summarizing and retelling

using Retelling vs.

Summarizing overhead and examples in script

Define use of summarizing

clarifying strategy using

Sammy and Sue overhead


predicting strategy

Model summarizing two

paragraphs of text; one at a

time

Review summarizing

strategy by asking students to

describe what they saw their

teacher do

Provide teacher lead

interactive practice using

summarizing as a group

Use scaffolding to shape student responses


using summarizing


student responses

Review summarizing,

clarifying, predicting, and

questioning strategies

Provide information


lesson


descriptions

Respond to teacher

questions

Practice using the

predicting strategy as part

of whole group

Identify elements of retelling vs. summarizing


using summarizing

strategy in small groups

Day 4 script

Fantastic Four

poster

Question word

poster

Fix-up strategies

poster

Retelling vs. Summarizing

overhead

Sammy and Sue

overhead

Curriculum

materials


Review summarizing,


questioning strategies

Model using all four

strategies with science text

Provide guided practice using all four strategies in

small groups


student responses

Review clarifying,


descriptions

Respond to teacher

questions


using all four strategies in

small groups

Day 5 script

Fantastic Four

poster

Question word

poster

Fix-up strategies

poster

Curriculum

materials

135

predicting, and questioning

strategies by providing

examples of students who

used the strategies correctly

in their groups

Provide information


lesson


Review summarizing,


questioning strategies and

associated characters

Introduce Larry and Lydia Leader using overhead and

Larry and Lydia Leader

bookmark overhead

Review four strategies and

their characters using

overheads that include

summaries of each

character’s role, posters, and

bookmark overheads

Assign roles to students in

each group. Only groups

with five students will have

someone play the role of

Larry or Lydia. Document

assignments on Teacher

Tracking of Student Roles in

Cooperative Groups page

Display Group Directions

page and describe procedure

Select one group to model

using strategies as they read

one paragraph of the text.

Teacher will provide

scaffolded support and

specific feedback regarding

individual strategy use using

Coaching Prompts

Select another group and

repeat procedure above.

Continue until all pages of

text for the day’s lesson have

been read

Review strategy use by citing

specific student examples of correct use of the strategies

Provide information


lesson


descriptions

Respond to teacher

questions


using all four strategies as characters in small groups

Day 6 script

Larry and Lydia

Leader overhead

Larry and Lydia

Leader

Bookmarks overhead

Peter and Peggy

Predictor

overhead

Peter and Peggy

Predictor

Bookmarks

overhead

Quinn and

Quincy

Questioner

overhead

Quinn and

Quincy

Questioner

Bookmarks

overhead

Clara and

Clarence

Clarifier

overhead

Clara and

Clarence

Clarifier

Bookmarks

overhead

Sammy and Sue

Summarizier

overhead

Sammy and Sue

Summarizier

Bookmarks

overhead

Double-sided individual

bookmarks for

each student

Teacher Tracking

of Student Roles

in Cooperative

136

Groups

Group Directions

Coaching

Prompts

Fantastic Four

poster

Question word

poster

Fix-up strategies

poster

Curriculum

materials


Review RT characters and

their purpose/roles using

overhead of each characters’

bookmark










page and review procedure



one paragraph of the text. Teacher will provide

scaffolded support and

specific feedback regarding

individual strategy use using

Coaching Prompts

Select another group and

repeat procedure above.

Continue until all pages of

text for the day’s lesson have

been read


specific student examples of

correct use of the strategies

Provide information


lesson

Listen to instructions and descriptions

Respond to teacher

questions


using all four strategies as

characters in small groups

Day 7 script

Larry and Lydia

Leader

Bookmarks

overhead

Peter and Peggy

Predictor

Bookmarks

overhead

Quinn and

Quincy

Questioner

Bookmarks

overhead

Clara and

Clarence

Clarifier

Bookmarks overhead

Sammy and Sue

Summarizier

Bookmarks

overhead

Double-sided

individual

bookmarks for

each student

Teacher Tracking

of Student Roles

in Cooperative

Groups

Group Directions

Coaching

Prompts

Fantastic Four

poster

Question word

poster

Fix-up strategies

poster

Curriculum

137

materials




for the day. Students will be

modeling use of strategies as

they read text while peers

provide specific feedback


their purpose/roles using

overhead of each characters’

bookmark


each group. Only groups with five students will have








one paragraph of the text.

Teacher will call on peers to

provide specific feedback

regarding the groups use of

strategies while reading the

text. Teacher will use

Coaching Prompts to assist

peers in giving specific

feedback

Select another group to

demonstrate strategy use

while reading then repeat

procedure above. Continue

until all pages of text for the

day’s lesson have been read


specific student examples of

correct use of the strategies

Provide information


lesson


descriptions

Respond to teacher

questions




When called on, provide

specific feedback

regarding peers’ strategy

use

Day 8 script

Larry and Lydia

Leader

Bookmarks

overhead

Peter and Peggy

Predictor

Bookmarks

overhead

Quinn and

Quincy

Questioner

Bookmarks overhead

Clara and

Clarence

Clarifier

Bookmarks

overhead

Sammy and Sue

Summarizier

Bookmarks

overhead

Double-sided

individual

bookmarks for

each student

Teacher Tracking

of Student Roles

in Cooperative Groups

Group Directions

Coaching

Prompts

Fantastic Four

poster

Question word

poster

Fix-up strategies

poster

Curriculum

materials

9 &

10

Use Days 9 & 10 scripts to:



for the day. In cooperative

groups, students will

implement use of the strategies and provide

specific feedback to peers as

the teacher circulates and

monitors providing specific

feedback using Coaching


descriptions

Respond to teacher

questions


using all four strategies as characters in small groups

Provide specific feedback

to peers in collaborative

group

Demonstrate correct

Days 9 & 10

scripts

Double-sided

individual

bookmarks for

each student

Teacher Tracking

of Student Roles

in Cooperative

Groups

Group Directions

138

Prompts


their purpose/roles orally (no

visual prompts)









Assign pages to read

Teacher will monitor

strategy use using Group

Performance Checklist

Review strategy use by

calling on students who were

observed using strategies

correctly to demonstrate

what they did

Further probe students who

were called on to

demonstrate correct strategy

use by asking students a

series of leading questions

Provide information


lesson

strategy use and describe

personal success with

strategy by responding to

teacher questions

Coaching

Prompts

Group

Performance

Checklist

Fantastic Four

poster

Question word

poster

Fix-up strategies

poster

Curriculum

materials

11-

20

Use scripts for days 11-20 to:

Display Group Directions page and describe procedure

for the day. In cooperative

groups, students will

implement use of the

strategies and specific

feedback as the teacher

circulates and monitors

providing specific feedback

using Coaching Prompts

only when needed

Ask students if they have any

questions about the strategies

or group directions




someone play the role of Larry or Lydia. Document




Assign pages to read

Teacher will monitor


descriptions

Respond to teacher

questions




Provide specific feedback

to peers in collaborative

group

Demonstrate correct

strategy use and describe

personal success with

strategy by responding to

teacher questions

Demonstrate correct use of

specific praise when called

on

Days 9 & 10

scripts

Double-sided

individual

bookmarks for

each student

Teacher Tracking

of Student Roles

in Cooperative

Groups

Group Directions

Coaching

Prompts

Group

Performance

Checklist

Fantastic Four

poster

Question word poster

Fix-up strategies

poster

Curriculum

materials

139

strategy use while circulating

among the groups using

Group Performance

Checklist

Review strategy use by

calling on students who were

observed using strategies

correctly to demonstrate

what they did

Further probe students who

were called on to

demonstrate correct strategy

use by asking students a series of leading questions

Point out good use of

specific feedback by retelling

how students were noted

providing feedback to their

peers

Provide information


lesson

Note. Curriculum materials refers to science content materials needed to complete the day’s lesson.

Examples, included but were not limited to science textbook, items for experiments, video clips,

and workbook pages.

Appendix H

Overhead Transparencies

141

Clara and Clarence Clarifier

Their job is to assist group members

with confusing words of ideas by

using FIX-UP STRATEGIES.

Refer to the glossary or a dictionary

when needed to answer questions

about spelling

142

Peggy and Peter Predictor:

Their job is to lead the group through

the assigned pages and make

predications based on the pictures,

graphs, tables, and headings

They use phrases such as: I think, I’ll

bet, I wonder if, and I predict as they

make their predictions.

The predictor reminds the group of

the predictions while they are reading

and determines if the predications

were correct or incorrect

143

Quincy and Quinn Questioner

Their job is to ask Who? What? Where? When? Why? About the text.

They ask questions before, during, and after reading.

They think, “Would this be a good teacher question about this part?”

144

Sammy and Sue Summarizer:

Their job is to find the main

idea of each section that is read

by rewording details into a simple summary.

145

Larry and Lydia Leader:

Their job is to lead the group as they use the

Fantastic Four while reading their assignment.

1. Before Reading: ask the Predictor to make predictions

2. During Reading:

Ask if anyone if they need something clarified

Ask the Questioner to form questions

Remind the Predictor to confirm/correct predictions

3. After Reading: Ask summarizer to create a concise summary

146

RETELL

What did you notice?

Include:

- Details

- Dialogue

- Events in order

- Detailed

descriptions

SUMMARIZE

What did you notice?

Include:

- Words such as

first, next, then,

finally

- Most important

details: definitions,

concepts, ideas in

the correct order

147

GROUP DIRECTIONS:

1. Larry/Lydia asks Peggy/Peter to make predictions 2. Peggy/Peter makes predictions

3. Begin Reading: a. Peggy/Peter reads first b. Quinn/Quincy reads second c. Clara/Clarence reads third d. Sammy/Sue reads fourth/last e. Larry/Lydia reads (last) 4. Clara/Clarence recommends fix-up strategies

5. Peggy/Peter confirms or corrects predictions 6. Larry/Lydia reminds everyone to use their strategies 7. Stop after each paragraph! a. Quinn/Quincy asks questions b. Sammy/Sue points out key words, definitions, details 8. Stop at the end of each section!

a. Sammy/Sue states simple summary (main idea)

Appendix I

Student Bookmarks

149

Assist group members with confusing

words or ideas by using

FIX-UP STRATEGIES:

cat

she

tree

won-der-ful

th-ink

str-ing

ring

start

fish

Assist group members with

confusing words or ideas by using

FIX-UP STRATEGIES:

cat

she

tree

won-der-ful

th-ink

str-ing ring

start

fish

150

Lead the group through the assigned

pages and make predictions.

Look at:

Headings

Pictures

Tables

Graphs

Use the phrases:

I think...

I’ll bet...

I wonder if...

I predict...

After reading:

Remind the group of the

predictions

Were they right or wrong?

Lead the group through the assigned

pages and make predictions.

Look at:

Headings

Pictures

Tables

Graphs

Use the phrases:

I think...

I’ll bet...

I wonder if...

I predict...

After reading:

Remind the group of the

predictions

Were they right or wrong?

151

Ask...

Who was it that...?

What would happen if...?

Where could you find...?

When would you...?

Why would you...?

How are ___ and ___ similar or

different?

...about the text.

Ask questions

BEFORE,

DURING, and

AFTER reading.

What would be a good teacher

question about this part?

Ask...

Who was it that...?

What would happen if...?

Where could you find...?

When would you...?

Why would you...?

How are ___ and ___ similar or

different?

...about the text.

Ask questions

BEFORE,

DURING, and

AFTER reading.

What would be a good teacher question

about this part?

152

Find the MAIN IDEA:

Detail 1

+

Detail 2

+

Detail 3

=

Put is all together:

SUMMARY

Find the MAIN IDEA:

Detail 1

+

Detail 2

+

Detail 3

=

Put is all together:

SUMMARY

153

1. Before reading:

Ask predictor to make a prediction

about what the group will learn

about.

2. During reading:

Make sure all members have a chance

to read using Group Directions

Ask if anyone needs a word or a

section clarified; call on Clarifier to

go through checklist to assist in

clarifying.

Remind the Questioner to create

questions from the text.

3. After reading:

Ask the summarizer to provide a

summary of the paragraph/section.

1. Before reading:

Ask predictor to make a prediction

about what the group will learn

about.

2. During reading:

Make sure all members have a chance

to read using Group Directions

Ask if anyone needs a word or a

section clarified; call on Clarifier to

go through checklist to assist in

clarifying.

Remind the Questioner to create

questions from the text.

3. After reading:

Ask the summarizer to provide a

summary of the paragraph/section.

Appendix J

Teacher Materials

155

TEACHER TRACKING OF STUDENT ROLES IN COOPERATIVE GROUPS

KEY: P- Predictor; Q- Questioner; C- Clarifier; L-Leader; R-Recorder GROUP 1

DAY 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

NAME

GROUP 2

DAY 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

NAME

156



DAY 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

NAME

GROUP 4

DAY 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

NAME

157



DAY 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

NAME

GROUP 6

DAY 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

NAME

158

DIFFICULTY SUMMARIZING:

Demonstrate reading around a highlighted word to find the

definition

Model referring to the heading to remind yourself of the topic

Model eliminating irrelevant information

Remind the student to use a logical sequence

Demonstrate forming concise summaries starting with, “This part is mostly about...”

DIFFICULTY PREDICTING:

Remind student to use phrase prompts on bookmark

Model how to look at the pictures and graphs

Model how to look at pictures and graphs

Remind student of prior knowledge that could help

Have the student provide a reason for the prediction, “I

think...because...

DIFFICULTY FORMING QUESTIONS:

Provide a copy of the question chart

Model rewording sentences to form questions

Have the student reread the text and decide what is most

important

DIFFICULTY CLARIFYING:

Review the fix-up strategies on the bookmark

Model using one of the fix-up strategies by choosing a different

section and think aloud as you work to find the solution

Remind the student to listen for phrases like, “This doesn’t

make sense”; “I’m confused about”, “I can’t figure out” as

times when they or their teammates may need to try a fix-up

strategy

159

DATE: _____________________________

DATE: _____________________________

Names: ____________________________________________________

Referring to the bookmarks YES NO

Referring to the posters YES NO

Predictions are supported by cues from the text YES NO

Rewording/providing a concise summary YES NO

Level of questions Basic (knowledge/ comprehension)

Higher Level (application/ analysis/ synthesis/ evaluation)

Do the students recognize/ use fix-up strategies YES NO

Comments:

Names: ____________________________________________________

Referring to the bookmarks YES NO

Referring to the posters YES NO

Predictions are supported by cues from the text YES NO

Rewording/providing a concise summary YES NO

Level of questions Basic (knowledge/ comprehension)

Higher Level (application/ analysis/ synthesis/ evaluation)

Do the students recognize/ use fix-up strategies YES NO

Comments:

Appendix K

Fidelity Protocol

162

References

Alfassi, M. (1998). Reading for meaning: The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in

fostering reading comprehension in high school students in remedial reading

classes. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 309-332. doi:

10.3102/00028312035002309

Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2003). Put reading first: The research

building blocks for teaching children to read (2nd

ed.). National Institute for

Literacy (Award Number R305R70004).

Austin, T. L. (n.d.). GOALS 2000: The Clinton administration education program.

Retrieved from University of Notre Dame website: http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger

/www7 /goals200.html

Barton, M. L., & Jordan, D. L. (2001). Teaching reading in science: A supplement to

teaching reading in the content areas teacher’s manual (2nd

ed.). Aurora, CO:

Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

Barton, M. L., Heidema, C., & Jordan, D. (2002). Teaching reading in mathematics and

science. Educational Leadership, 60, p. 24-28.

Bashir, A. S., & Hook, P. E. (2009). Fluency: A link between word identification and

comprehension. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 196-

200. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2008/08-0074)

http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7%20/goals200.html

http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7%20/goals200.html

163

Beken, J., Williams, J., Combs, J.P., & Slate, J. R. (2009, Winter). At-risk students at

traditional and academic alternative school settings: Differences in math and

English performance indicators. Florida Journal of Educational Administration

& Policy, 3, 49-61. Retrieved from College of Education, University of Florida

website: http://www.coe .ufl.edu/Leadership/FJEAP/index.html

Bell, M. J., DiSpezio, M. A., Frank, M., Krockover, G. H., McLeod, J. C., Brick, B.,

Valenta, C. J., & Van Deman, B. A. (2007a). Science grade 4: Florida edition.

Orlando, FL: Harcourt.

Bell, M. J., DiSpezio, M. A., Frank, M., Krockover, G. H., McLeod, J. C., Brick, B.,

Valenta, C. J., & Van Deman, B. A. (2007b). Science grade 5: Florida edition.

Orlando, FL: Harcourt.

Best, R. M., Rowe, M., & Ozuru, Y., McNamara, D. S. (2005). Deep-level

comprehension of science texts: The role of the reader and the text. Topics in

Language Disorders, 25, 65-83

Biancarosa, G. (2005). After third grade. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 16-22.

Bottomley, D., & Osborn, J. (1993). Implementing reciprocal teaching with fourth- and

fifth grade students in content area reading (Technical Report No. 586).

Retrieved from CSA Illumina search engine: http://www.csa.com.ezproxy

.fau.edu/

Bowers, P. (2000). Reading and writing in the science classroom. Retrieved from

Education Place website: http://www.eduplace.com/science/profdev/articles

/bowers.html

http://www.csa.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/

http://www.csa.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/

http://www.eduplace.com/science/profdev/articles/bowers.html

http://www.eduplace.com/science/profdev/articles/bowers.html

164

Brady, T. E. (2008). Science education: Cassandra‟s prophecy. Phi Delta Kappan, 89,

605-607.

Bridge, C. A. (1987). Strategies for promoting reader-text interactions. In R. J. Tierney,

P. L. Anders, & J. N. Mitchell (Eds.), Understanding readers’ understanding:

Theory and Practice (pp. 283-302). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kameénui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2004). Direct instruction

in reading. NJ: Prentice Hall.

Casteel, C. P., & Isom, B. A. (1994). Reciprocal processes in science and literacy

learning. The Reading Teacher, 47, 538-545.

Caswell, L. J., & Duke, N. D. (1998). Non-narrative as a catalyst for literacy

development. Language Arts, 75, 108-117.

Catts, H. W. (2009). The narrow view of reading promotes a broad view of

comprehension. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 178-

183. doi: 10.1044//0161-1461(2008/08-0035).

Cavanagh, S. (2007, October). Federal rule yields hope for science: Testing mandate is

expected to increase time for subject. Education Week, 27(7), 1, 13. Retrieved

from http://www .edweek.org

Cavanagh, S. (2008, February). Frustrations give rise to new push for science literacy.

Education Week, 27(26), 12. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org

Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). The classis study on poor children‟s fourth grade

slump. American Educator, 27(1), 14-15. Retrieved from American Federation

http://www.edweek.org/


165

of Teachers website: http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/spring2003

/index.cfm

Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V., & Baldwin, L. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children

fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Christy, J. W. (n.d.a). Making adequate yearly progress in student achievement.

Retrieved from Teaching Today website: http://www.glencoe.com/sec

/teachingtoday/nclb.phtml

Christy, J. W. (n.d.b). Understanding the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from

Teaching Today website: http://www.glencoe.com/sec/teachingtoday/nclb.phtml

De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Van De Ven, A. (2001). Improving text comprehension

strategies in upper elementary school children: A design experiment. British

Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 531-559. doi: 10.1348

/000709901158668

Dickson, S.V., Collins, V. L., Simmons, D. C., & Kameénui, E. J. (1998).

Metacognitive strategies: Research bases. In D. C. Simmons, & E. J. Kameénui

(Eds.). What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning

needs: Bases and basics (295-360). Mawhaw, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Publishers.

Diehl, H. L. (2005). Snapshots of our journey to thoughtful literacy. The Reading

Teacher, 59(1), 56-69. doi: 10.1598/RT.59.1.6

DiLorenzo, K. E., Rody, C. A., Bucholz, J. L., & Brady, M.P. (2011). Teaching letter–

sound connections with picture mnemonics: Itchy‟s alphabet and early decoding.

Preventing School Failure, 55, 28-34. doi: 10.1080/10459880903286763

http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/spring2003/index.cfm


http://www.glencoe.com/sec%20/teachingtoday/nclb.phtml

http://www.glencoe.com/sec%20/teachingtoday/nclb.phtml

http://www.glencoe.com/sec/teachingtoday/nclb.phtml

166

Donnelly, M. (1987). At-risk students. (ERIC Digest No. 21). Retrieved from:

http://www .ericdigests.org/pre-928/risk.htm

Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first

grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202-224. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.35.2.1

Duke, N. K. (2004). The case for informational text. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 40-

44.

Duke, N. K., & Kays, J. (1998). “Can I say „once upon a time‟?”: Kindergarten children

developing knowledge of information book language. Early Childhood

Research Quarterly, 13, 295-318. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(99)80041-6

Durkin, D. (1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension

instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481-533.

Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to

school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, D.C.:

National Academy Press.

Duschl, R. A., Shouse, A. W., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2008, April). What research

says about K-8 science learning and teaching. The Education Digest, 73(8), 46-

50. Retrieved from www.eddigest.com

Education Development Center. (n.d.). Science. Retrieved from:

http://www.literacymatters.org /content/science.htm

Ehren, B. (2009). Looking through an adolescent literacy lens at the narrow view of

reading. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 192-195. doi:

10.1044//0161-1461(2009/08-0036).

http://www.eddigest.com/

167

Englert, C. S., & Thomas, C. C. (1987). Sensitivity to text structure in reading and

writing: A comparison between learning disabled and non-learning disabled

students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 295-318. doi: 10.2307/1510216

Finty, N. S., & Strout, M. T. (2005). Determining importance: Using informational texts

to teach comprehension in the primary grades. The Florida Reading Quarterly,

42(2), 35-39. Retrieved from The Florida Reading Association website:

http://www.flreads.org /Publications/quarterl.htm

Florida Department of Education. (2007). Assessment and accountability briefing book.

Retrieved from Florida Department of Education website: http://fcat.fldoe.org

/pdf/BriefingBook07web.pdf

Florida Department of Education. (2009a). 2009 guide to calculating adequate yearly

progress (AYP): Technical assistance paper 2008-2009. Retrieved from Florida

Department of Education website: http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/pdf/0809

/2009AYPTAP.pdf

Florida Department of Education. (2009b). 2009 guide to calculating school grades:

Technical Assistance Paper. Retrieved from Florida Department of Education

website: http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/pdf/0809/2009SchoolGradesTAP.pdf

Florida Department of Education. (2009c). Florida comprehensive assessment test

(FCAT), Sunshine state standards, State report of district results, Grade 05,

Science. Retrieved from Florida Department of Education website:

http://fcat.fldoe.org /xls/2009/F09_Gr05_SDis.xls

http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/pdf/0809%20/2009AYPTAP.pdf

http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/pdf/0809%20/2009AYPTAP.pdf

http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/pdf/0809/2009SchoolGradesTAP.pdf

http://fcat.fldoe.org/xls/2009/F09_Gr05_SDis.xls

168

Florida Department of Education. (2009d). School level report: Palm beach. Retrieved

from Florida Department of Education website: http://fcat.fldoe.org/results

/default.asp

Florida Department of Education. (2009e) Understanding FCAT reports 2009.

Retrieved from Florida Department of Education website: http://fcat.fldoe.org

/pdf/ufr_2009.pdf

Florida‟s A+ plan for education. (n.d.). Retrieved from Florida Governor Charlie Christ

website: http://www.flgov.com/a_plus_plan

Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of

expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 40, 210-225. doi: 10.1177/00222194070400030301

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading

comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of

research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279-320. doi: 10.3102

/00346543071002279

Glencoe/McGraw-Hill. (n.d.). Improving reading skills in the science classroom.

Retrieved from Teaching Today website: http://www.glencoe.com/sec

/teachingtoday/subject/reading_skills.phtml

Hapgood, S., & Palincsar, A. S. (2007). Where literacy and science intersect.

Educational Leadership, 64(4), p. 56-60.

Hardman, M. L., & Dawson, S. (2008). The impact of federal public policy on

curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities in the general

classroom. Preventing School Failure, 52, 5-11. doi: 10.3200/PSFL.52.2.5-11

http://fcat.fldoe.org/results/default.asp

http://fcat.fldoe.org/results/default.asp

http://www.flgov.com/a_plus_plan

http://www.glencoe.com/sec%20/teachingtoday/subject/reading_skills.phtml

http://www.glencoe.com/sec%20/teachingtoday/subject/reading_skills.phtml

169

Hart, E. R., & Speece, D. L. (1998). Reciprocal teaching goes to college: Effects for

postsecondary students at risk for academic failure. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 90, 670-681. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.90.4.670

Hazen, R. M. (2002). Why should you be scientifically literate? Retrieved from Action

Bioscience website: http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/hazen

.html#primer

Hess, P. M. (2004). A study of teachers’ selection and implementation of cognitive

reading strategies for fourth/fifth grade reading comprehension from a success

for all reading program perspective: Moving beyond the fundamentals (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest (3140930).

Hirsch, E. D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge of words and the

world. American Educator, 27(1), 10, 12-13, 16-22, 28-29, 44. Retrieved from

American Federation of Teachers website: http://www.aft.org/newspubs

/periodicals/ae /spring2003/index.cfm

Johannessen, L. R. (2003). Achieving success for the “resistant” student. The Clearing

House, 77, 6-13. doi: 10.1080/00098650309601221

Johnson, C. E. (2005). The A+ plan and student achievement in Florida (Policy Brief

3). Retrieved from Florida Institute of Education at the University of North

Florida website:

http://www.unf.edu/dept/fie/PDF%20Folder/Policy%20Brief%203-

The%20A+%20Plan%20and%20Student%20Achievement%20in%20FL.pdf

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/hazen.html#primer

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/hazen.html#primer

http://www.aft.org/newspubs%20/periodicals/ae%20/spring2003/index.cfm

http://www.aft.org/newspubs%20/periodicals/ae%20/spring2003/index.cfm

http://www.unf.edu/dept/fie/PDF%20Folder/Policy%20Brief%203-The%20A+%20Plan%20and%20Student%20Achievement%20in%20FL.pdf

http://www.unf.edu/dept/fie/PDF%20Folder/Policy%20Brief%203-The%20A+%20Plan%20and%20Student%20Achievement%20in%20FL.pdf

170

Johnston, P. H. (1985). Teaching students to apply strategies that improve reading

comprehension. The Elementary School Journal, 85, 635-645. doi:

10.1086/461426

Kagan, L., & Kagan, S. (2006). Structures for cooperative learning and active

engagement. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing.

Kamhi, A. G. (2009). The case for the narrow view of reading. Language, Speech, and

Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 174-177. doi: 10.1044//0161-1461(2009/08-

0068).

Karoly, L. A., Kilburn, R., & Cannon, J. S. (2005). Children at Risk: Consequences for

school readiness and beyond. Retrieved from RAND Corporation website:

http://www.rand.org /pubs /research_briefs/RB9144/index1.html

Kelly, M., Moore, D. W., & Tuck, B. F. (1994). Reciprocal teaching in a regular

primary school classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 53-61.

King, C. M., & Johnson, L. M. P. (1999). Constructing meaning via reciprocal teaching.

Reading Research and Instruction, 38, 169-186.

Kinniburgh, L. H., & Shaw, E. L. (2009). Using question-answer relationships to build

reading comprehension in science. Science Activities 45(4), 19-26.

Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension

strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second

language. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 275-293. doi: 10.1086/461828

Knuth, R. A., & Jones, B. F. (1991). What does research say about reading? Retrieved

from North Central Regional Education Laboratory website: http://www.ncrel

.org/sdrs/areas /li0cont.htm

http://www.rand.org/pubs%20/research_briefs/RB9144/index1.html

171

Kroeger, S. D., Burton, C., & Preston, C. (2009). Integrating evidence-based practices

in middle school science reading. [Special issue]. Teaching Exceptional

Children, 41(3), 6-15.

Lederer, J. M. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive elementary

classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 91-106. doi: 10.1177

/002221940003300112

Lubliner, S. (2004). Help for struggling upper-grade elementary readers. The Reading

Teacher, 57, 430-438.

Lysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves

standardized reading-comprehension performance in poor comprehenders. The

Elementary School Journal, 90, 469-484. doi: 10.1086/461627

Manzo, K. K. (2008, February). Analysis finds time stolen form other subjects for math

and reading. Education Week, 27(5), p. 6. Retrieved from http://www.edweek

.org

Marks, M., Pressley, M., Coley, J. D., Craig, S. Gardner, R. DePinto, T., & Rose, W.

(1993). Three teachers‟ adaptations of reciprocal teaching in comparison to

traditional reciprocal teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 267-283.

doi: 10.1086/461766

Marx, R.W., & Harris, C.J. (2006). No child left behind and science education:

Opportunities, challenges, and risks. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 467-

477. doi: 10.1086/505441

Mason, L. H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus reciprocal

questioning effects on expository reading comprehension among struggling



172

readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 283-296. doi: 10.1037/0022-

0663.96.2.283

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2004). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for

effective instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Graetz, J. E. (2003). Reading comprehension

instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and

teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 103-166. doi: 10.2307/1593593

McMurrer, J. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes

for specific subject. Retrieved from Center on Education Policy website:

http://www.cep-dc.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/InstructionalTimeFeb2008

.pdf

Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology:

Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Meyerson, M. J., & Kulesza, D. L. (n.d.). Assessing interest, attitude, and motivation.

Retrieved from Education.com: Bringing Learning to Life website:

http://www.education.com /reference/article/assessing-interest-attitude-

motivation/

Michalsky, T., Mevarech, Z. R., & Haibi, L. (2009). Elementary school children reading

scientific texts: Effects of metacognitive instruction. The Journal of Educational

Research, 102, 363-374.

Miller, R. G. (2006, September). Unlocking reading comprehension with key science

inquiry skills. Science Scope, 30(1), 30-33.

http://www.cep-dc.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/InstructionalTimeFeb2008%20.pdf

http://www.cep-dc.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/InstructionalTimeFeb2008%20.pdf

http://www.education.com/reference/article/assessing-interest-attitude-motivation/

http://www.education.com/reference/article/assessing-interest-attitude-motivation/

173

Murphy, K. R., & Myors, B. (2004). Statistical power analysis: A simple and general

model for traditional and modern hypothesis tests (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Myers, P. A. (2005). The Princess Storyteller, Clara Clarifier, Quincy Questioner, and

the Wizard: Reciprocal teaching adapted for kindergarten students. The Reading

Teacher, 59, 314-324. doi: 10.1598/RT.59.4.2

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2005). The Nation’s Report Card: Science

2005. Retrieved from Institute of Educational Sciences website:

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard /pdf/main2005/2006466.pdf

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2010). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading

2009 (NCES 2010-458). Retrieved from Institute of Educational Sciences

website: http://nces.ed.gov /nationsreportcard/pdf/main2009/2010458.pdf

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The

imperative for educational reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Education. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education website:

http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: Reports of the subgroups

(NIH Pub. No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health

and Human Development.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). Literacy skills for

the world of tomorrow - further results from PISA 2000. Retrieved from OECD

website: http://www .oecd.org/dataoecd/43/9/33690591.pdf

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2005/2006466.pdf

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2009/2010458.pdf

http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/9/33690591.pdf

174

Oczkus, L. D. (2003a). Reciprocal teaching at work: Strategies for improving reading

comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association

Oczkus, L. D. (2003b). Reciprocal teaching strategies at work: Improving reading

comprehension grades 2-6. Available from: http://www.reading.org/General

/Publications /Videos /v500.aspx?mode=redirect

Pagés, J. M. (2002). Expository text: The choice for some, a challenge for others.

Retrieved from The Big 6 website: http://www.big6.com/2002/09/17/expository-

text-the-choice-for-some-a-challenge-for-others/

Paige, R. (2002). Stronger accountability: Key policy letters signed by the education

secretary or deputy secretary. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education

website: http://www2.ed.gov/policy /elsec/guid/secletter/020724.html

Palincsar, A.S. (n.d.). Reading in science: Why, what, and how. Retrieved from

National Science Resources Center website:

http://www.nsrconline.org/curriculum_resources /science_readers.html

Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction.

Educational Psychologist, 21(1/2), 73-98. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2101&2_5

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown. A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-

fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2,

117-175.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, D. A. (1987). Enhancing instructional time through attention

to metacognition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 66-75. doi: 10.1177

/002221948702000201

http://www.reading.org/General/Publications/Videos%20/v500.aspx?mode=redirect

http://www.reading.org/General/Publications/Videos%20/v500.aspx?mode=redirect

http://www.big6.com/2002/09/17/expository-text-the-choice-for-some-a-challenge-for-others/

http://www.big6.com/2002/09/17/expository-text-the-choice-for-some-a-challenge-for-others/

http://www2.ed.gov/policy%20/elsec/guid/secletter/020724.html

http://www.nsrconline.org/curriculum_resources/science_readers.html

175

Palincsar, A. S., David, Y., & Brown, A. L. (1989). Reciprocal teaching: A manual

prepared to assist with staff development for teachers interested in reciprocal

teaching. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Education, University of

Michigan, Ann Arbor. MI.

Palincsar, A. S., & Duke, N. K. (2004). The role of text and text-reader interactions in

young children's reading development and achievement. The Elementary School

Journal, 105, 183-197. doi: 10.1086/428864

Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering literacy learning in supportive contexts.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 211-225, 229. doi:

10.1177/002221949202500402

Patz, R. J. (2006). Building NCLB science assessments: Psychometric and practical

considerations. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspective, 4,

199-239. Retrieved from: http://bearcenter.berkeley.edu/measurement/

Pratt, H. (2007, October). Science education‟s „overlooked ingredient‟: Why the path to

global competitiveness begins in elementary school. Education Week, 27(7), 26,

32. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org

Puchner, L. D. (2003, April). Children teaching for learning: What happens when

children teach others to learn? (ED 478 759). Paper prepared for the 2003

Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago,

Illinois.

Raphael, T. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1985). Increasing students' awareness of sources of

information for answering questions. American Educational Research Journal,

22, 217-235. doi: 10.3102 /00028312022002217

http://bearcenter.berkeley.edu/measurement/


176

Reid, R., & Lienemann, T. O. (2006). Strategy instruction for students with learning

disabilities. New York: The Guilford Press.

Riley, K. W. (2006). Resilient children in an imperfect world. Leadership, 35(4), 20-23;

37-38

Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2001). Implementing an in-depth expanded science

model in elementary schools: Multi-year findings, research issues, and policy

implications. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 373-404. doi:

10.1080/09500690116738

Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of research.

Review of Educational Research, 64, 479-530. doi: 10.2307/1170585

School District of Palm Beach County. (n.d.). Title I and families. Retrieved from:

http://www .palmbeachschools.org/federalprograms/documents

/SINICombinedParentAnnualMeetingandAYPEnglish2011.ppt#32

School District of Palm Beach County. (2009). Title I handbook. Retrieved from The

School District of Palm Beach County website:

http://www.palmbeachschools.org/federalprograms /documents

/FY10TitleIHandbook.pdf

School District of Palm Beach County. (2010, September). The gold report: Forest Hill

Elementary. Retrieved from The School District of Palm Beach County website:

http://www .palmbeachschools.org/dre/Goldrpt/gold.asp

Schugurensky, D. (2002). Selected moments of the 2oth century. Unpublished

manuscript, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto,

Toronto, Canada. Retrieved from university website:

http://www.palmbeachschools.org/federalprograms/documents/SINICombinedParentAnnualMeetingandAYPEnglish2011.ppt#32

http://www.palmbeachschools.org/federalprograms/documents/SINICombinedParentAnnualMeetingandAYPEnglish2011.ppt#32

http://www.palmbeachschools.org/federalprograms%20/documents%20/FY10TitleIHandbook.pdf

http://www.palmbeachschools.org/federalprograms%20/documents%20/FY10TitleIHandbook.pdf

http://www.palmbeachschools.org/dre/Goldrpt/gold.asp

177

http://legacy.oise.utoronto.ca/research /edu20/moments/?cms_page=edu20

/moments/index.html

Seymour, J. R., & Osana, H. P. (2003). Reciprocal Teaching procedures and principles:

Two teachers' developing understanding. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19,

325-344. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00018-0

Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (Eds.). (1998). What reading research tells us

about children with diverse learning needs: Bases and Basics. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading failure in young

children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Starnes, B.A. (2006). On nerds, science education, and horror films. Phi Delta Kappan,

87, 634-635.

Stone, E. (n.d.) Science and literacy. Retrieved from Utah State Office of Education

website : http://www.schools.utah.gov/curr/Science/ReadScience

/NEF%20Sci%20and%20Lit.html

Swanson, P. N., & De La Paz, S. (1998). Teaching effective comprehension strategies

to students with learning disabilities and reading disabilities. Intervention in

School and Clinic, 33, 209-218. doi: 10.1177/105345129803300403

Sweet, A. P., & Snow, C. E. (Eds.). (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension. New

York: The Guilford Press.

Taylor, B. M., & Frye, B. J. (1992). Comprehension strategy instruction in the

intermediate grades. Reading Research and Instruction, 32, 39-48.

http://legacy.oise.utoronto.ca/research%20/edu20/moments/?cms_page=edu20%20/moments/index.html

http://legacy.oise.utoronto.ca/research%20/edu20/moments/?cms_page=edu20%20/moments/index.html

http://www.schools.utah.gov/curr/Science/ReadScience/NEF%20Sci%20and%20Lit.html

http://www.schools.utah.gov/curr/Science/ReadScience/NEF%20Sci%20and%20Lit.html

178

Taylor, R. L., Smiley, L. R., & Richards, S.B. (2009). Exceptional students: Preparing

teachers for the 21st century. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. (1998). A nation still at risk: An education manifesto.

Document resulting from the proceedings of Nation Still At Risk Summit,

Washington, D.C. Retrieved from The Center for Education Reform website:

http://www.edreform.com/published_pdf

/Education_Manifesto_A_Nation_Still_At_Risk.pdf

Turner, S., & Peck, D. (2009, Spring). Can we do science better? Facing the problem of

student engagement. Education Canada, 49(2), 54-57.

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). The facts about science achievement. Retrieved

from U.S. Department of Education website: http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/methods

/science/science.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No child left behind: Executive summary.

Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education website: http://www2.ed.gov

/nclb/overview/intro /execsumm.html

U. S. Department of Education. (2004). Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of

2004. Public Law 108-446, 108th Congress. Retrieved from U.S. Department of

Education website: http://idea.ed.gov

Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. L. (2002). Content area reading: Literacy and learning

across the curriculum (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Valencia, S. W., & Buly, M. R. (2004). Behind test scores: What struggling readers

really need. The Reading Teacher, 57, 520-531.

http://www.edreform.com/published_pdf%20/Education_Manifesto_A_Nation_Still_At_Risk.pdf

http://www.edreform.com/published_pdf%20/Education_Manifesto_A_Nation_Still_At_Risk.pdf

http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/methods%20/science/science.html

http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/methods%20/science/science.html

http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro%20/execsumm.html

http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro%20/execsumm.html

http://idea.ed.gov/

179

Vellutino, F.R. (2003). Individual differences and sources of variability in reading

comprehension in elementary school children. In A. P. Sweet, & C. E. Snow

(Eds.) Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 51-81). New York: The Guilford

Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Wallach, G. P., Charlton, S., & Christie, J. (2009) Making a broader case for the narrow

view: Where to begin? Language, Speech, and Hearing in Schools, 40, 201-211.

doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0043)

Walker, B. L., & Huber, R. A. (n.d.). Helping students read science textbooks.

Retrieved from the University of North Carolina Wilmington website:

http://people.uncw.edu/huberr/Revised_Reading_Textbooks.doc

Walsh, K. (2003). The lost opportunity to build the knowledge that propels

comprehension. American Educator, 27(1), 24-27. Retrieved from American

Federation of Teachers website: http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals

/ae/spring2003/index.cfm

Westby, C., & Torres-Velásquez, D. (2000). Developing scientific literacy: A

sociocultural approach. Remedial and Special Education, 21(2), 101-110. doi:

10.1177/074193250002100205

Westera, J., & Moore, D. W. (1995). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension in a

New Zealand high school. Psychology in the Schools, 32, 225-32. doi:

10.1002/1520-6807(199507)32:3<225::AID-PITS2310320310>3.0.CO;2-F

http://people.uncw.edu/huberr/Revised_Reading_Textbooks.doc



180

Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., & Lauer, K. D. (2004). Teaching expository text structure

to young at-risk learners: Building the basics of comprehension instruction.

Exceptionality, 12(3), 129-144. doi: 10.1207/s15327035ex1203_2

Williams, J. P., Stafford, K. B., Lauer, K. D., Hall, K. M., & Pollini, S. (2009).

Embedding reading comprehension training in content-area instruction. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 101(1), p. 1-20. doi: 10.1037/a0013152

Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of

science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International

Journal of Science Education, 25, 689-725. doi: 10.1080/09500690305018

Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities:

Language and science literacy-empowering research and informing instruction.

[Special issue]. International Journal of Science Education, 28, (2/3), 291-314.

doi: 10.1080 /09500690500336973

Documents

The Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on the Science Literacy of Intermediate3572... · · 2014-03-21The Effects of Reciprocal Teaching on the Science Literacy of Intermediate